Where were the priests? the trappings? crucifixes? There were virtually no religious references in this film at all.
I'm not going to get into the fact that a) Tiberius was not the last Julio-Claudian; or b) Julius Caesar had no descendants.
I did enjoy the movie, and it was refreshing to have minimal gore and (gasp) no nudity or foul language.
No, not entirely.....
Although Christianism had been declared as the official religion of Empire,there were actually big part of it where people were allowed to worship the previous Gods ( Romans, Greeks or Egyptian gods ).The transmition from polytheism to Christianism just didn't happen overnight....
If you take a look at the crown at the beginning of the movie (When they place it on the kids head) It displays a cross.
shareYes, that small cross on the crown is exactly the detail that I was going to mention. Instead, I'll just back up your observation. :)
shareDon't get confused with the crown, as it is historically inaccurate.It is Byzantine of the late centuries-as well as the armor of the Eastern Guards, which is of Arabic cavalry-probably elite units-in origin...You can see similar armor in "Kingdom Of Heaven".
shareAre you a historian?
I am just curious since your comment seems very well researched and I study history and write historical novels.
What movie do you consider the most acurate in sense of living conditions, costumes etc.
Antiquity to Medieval times...
===========
http://Lorcagonzalez.blogspot.com
http://lorca-movies-reviews.blogspot.com
[deleted]
What they said...
and I will mention that while Julius may not have had any heirs (that we know of) they did mention how the wife carried his blood...which could easily have been lost in the histories...especially since that is exactly the kind of thing a conquering ruler would want to cover up.
This was a what if piece...as far as we know, the Tiberius died in that prison...there is certainly no evidence to suggest he found Excalibur and went to Britain!
Christianity, not Christianism...
shareI didnt watch the movie but as far as I understand from the tagline it is set in the 400 AD. IN 400 the Roman empire was not totaly Christianized actually emporer Constantinus had declared the practice of Christianity-as well as Judaism and all the other religions- lawful in 313 with the Milano declaration. However even this did not mean that the state religion of Roman empire had been changed to Christianity. In the beginning of the 5th century I can say that most of the Roman army were pagans and so were the aristocracy. Actually Constantinus were so desperate to scratch paganism from the Roman life he decided to build a new city which would be center of Christianity and the latin culture; it will be the new rome-nova roma-.This new city was named after him: Constantinopolis(which in Greek means the city of Constantinus)Ironic enough Constantinopolis, the modern day Istanbul,lived to become the center of the Ortodox Christianity thus splitting the religion and also the center of Hellenism.
However to claim that Christianity were immediately protected by the Roman state by the full extent after Constantinus passed away would be far from truth. For example the niece of Constantinus: Iulianus(L`apostat) whom was the next emperor after his uncle Constaninus, really hated the Christians and wanted paganism to be the dominant religion in Rome again. However he died young while in a campaign against the Persians and could not finalize his will. Anyways I now realized that I had given too much information so let me come straight to the topic. The pagans in Roman empire were not wiped out before the 6th century. In 400 there must be a lot of Christians in Rome but also a substantial amount of pagans living amongst them. Near the end of the 5th century it is safe to say that the majority of the population was Christian but not before the 6th century all the Romans were converted.
Umm Christianity became the official religion in Rome in 380 A.D. by Emperor Theodosius. All of the Roman empire was Christian by then, and paganism was outlawed.
shareThat';s what I thought. Under the Pagans there was religious eclecticism as long as you paid some minimal respect to the state religion on official occasions, but after Christianity became official everything else was banned.
shareAlso remember that the western part of the empire was far less christianized than the eastern one, expecially outside towns.
shareBoth the potato head and largo-9 (although grammatically challenged) are correct: Christianity was made legal in 313 by the Emperor Constantine, but was not declared the official state religion until 380 by Theodesius I, who was the last emperor of both the western and eastern empires.
Of course, this movie was just a lot of fun (IMHO) and has absolutely NOTHING to do with actual history except to lift a couple of famous names (such as Romulus Augustus, who actually was the last emperor of the western empire, his father Orestes, and Odoacer, the Germanic chieftain who deposed Romulus).
No they are incorrect and making a common mistake. The establishment of Christianity as the official religion did not outlaw other religions, that came after.
shareIf you look at the Wikipedia article on Theodosius I, who made Christianity the official state religion in 380, you see that he very soon afterwards enacted various repressive measures against Paganism, so I am not sure what you mean when you say outlawing Paganism came after - a few years maybe, but nothing all that significant it would seem. However certainly the establishment of Christianity as "a" officially recognised religion, by Constantine, several decades before, did not outlaw other religions.
share"Umm Christianity became the official religion in Rome in 380 A.D. by Emperor Theodosius. All of the Roman empire was Christian by then, and paganism was outlawed. "
um, wrong. paganism was not outlawed, there were at the time dozens of different types of Christianity as well. Judiasm was freely practiced as was Zoroastrianism in the Roman Emprie at that point.
You are confusing establishing Christianity as an official religion with outlawing of other religions
largo-9
You are confusing the father with the son. Constantinus was the father of the emperor you are talking about I believe, Constantine, who did not make Christianity the official religion of Rome but stopped the persecutions and tried to legislate tolerance within the empire. He was the first Christian emperor of Rome. Constantinus II, likewise, was the son of Constantine not the nephew(or even the niece) as you are saying.
As far as Constantinople goes, there was already a city there called Byzantium before Constantine had Constantinople built. It did become the center of EASTERN Orthodox Christianity but certainly was not in and of itself responsible for splitting Christendom. That was done over time through various councils starting with the first council of Nicea where attempts were made to hammer out many "controversies" within Christianity(the nature of the trinity and the two wills of Christ to name a couple of the tougher ones).
nofacefiend; I think you are right I may confuse the father and son; I need to do some more research.. Also I didnot mean that the foundation of the city Constantinopolis was the sole responsible for spilitting the religion but still I strongly think that Cosntantinopolis became a kind of rival to Rome in a lot of ways. or let me reprahse my suggestion as: If the city Constantinopolis was not founded at all -at least in this period when there were so much controversies surrounding some aspects of Christianity- the consequences of the councils wouldnt be embodied in such a way so concretely..
shareHowever Constantinople had been there for at least a millenium and a half. Romulus Augustus came about in 474 AD or thereabouts, and was the last of the Roman Emperors; succeeded by Theodoric I think. Anyway Rome was in ruins after 410 and the population fled. It was more a village and a ghost town by 460. The Eastern Empire had its ups and downs but lasted until the days of cannon, 1453 saw its conquest by the Turks. The trappings, institutional memory, legal system, alphabet etc. migrated to Russia.
sharei don't understand why people call cannons by "cannon". "reinforcements, and they have cannon". like its the name of a person or something. "ups and downs but lasted until the days of cannon". i don't understand, did i miss something in english class? wouldn't it be "until the days of the cannon" or "until the days of cannons"?
shareMy Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says of cannon, "plural usually the same". So "days of cannon", with the meaning of "days of cannonS", would be perfectly correct.
I'm a Sidekick and proud of it.
"No, not entirely.....
Although Christianism had been declared as the official religion of Empire,there were actually big part of it where people were allowed to worship the previous Gods ( Romans, Greeks or Egyptian gods ).The transmition from polytheism to Christianism just didn't happen overnight...."
Your right, 500 yrs is considered overnight.
So maybe I'm missing something, but where in the movie did any of the characters pray to Zues or Athena to help them? I just watched the movie a few nights ago and don't recall any religious elements one way or the other. So because a character doesn't talk about the christian god every few minutes, it means they aren't christians? As pointed out, the cross was on the crown and there was nothing to contradict the fact that they were christians.
Romulus Augustus was indeed the last Roman Emperor, though him being a direct descendant of the Caesers is a big question mark. Ofcourse it's possible, but there is no evidence to prove it, and its not very likely.
And seeing as how we are watching what is basically a prequel to Excalibur, then we are not dealing with the real world, we are talking about a fantasy world. So any inconsistencies with real history are immaterial. Beleive it or not, there was no real King Arthur who pulled a magical sword from a stone and was then made king.
Acknowledging that my point steps into the realm of semantics, I would suggest that rather than a fantasy world, the one portrayed here is a mythic or legendary world. Some of the characters portrayed here did in fact live or have a point of reference in actual history. Whether there was or was not an actual Arthur as such does not reduce the greatness and power of the Story.
Personally, I'm not bothered if some aspects aren't absolutely "historically accurate," though keeping true to what historians know of the period in general is important. From what I've read elsewhere on the forums, weapons and stirrups are among some inaccuracies in The Last Legion, among others I'm sure.
As you said, quinten-2, the cross was on the crown and there was nothing to contradict the fact that they were Christians. (And I'll hang on to the Arthur myth in spite of evidence to the contrary!) ^_^
[deleted]
They don't need to mention Catholicism as the movie takes place prior to 1053 and the Great Schism and therefore the Church was just the Church. And all worship under the title of Christianity.
""No, not entirely.....
Although Christianism had been declared as the official religion of Empire,there were actually big part of it where people were allowed to worship the previous Gods ( Romans, Greeks or Egyptian gods ).The transmition from polytheism to Christianism just didn't happen overnight...."
Your right, 500 yrs is considered overnight."
500 years? And this movie takes place when (circa 400 AD/CE?) So apparently according to you Christianity began circa 100 BC/BCE? Wow before Christ was actually born.
And anyway I think for about the first 300 years AD/CE Christians were persecuted, gaoled and killed. And even after Constantine declared Christianity the official religion people can't convert overnight. You'd have a rebellion on your hands. Constantine may have been emperor but he didn't have the power to make people change their beliefs.
One of the sacraments of Christianity (no matter the denomination but again at this point this is an ancient version of the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Church so you'd definitely have one of these sacraments) is baptism. It's not something you can force a person into (unless they're a baby in which choice parents make the decision for them).
And finally:
"Beleive it or not, there was no real King Arthur who pulled a magical sword from a stone and was then made king." Omg! My whole world, shattered! Lol ^_^! Fair enough, but the stories must come from somewhere. And they're still awesome, whether or not he was real.
Exactly. Seeing the past through the filter or as an extension of the present. Classic freshman error. And such would be expected from Hollywood. In fact, Catholic symbolism was found everywhere in the Arthurian legends, as well, even if some of the 'lessons' of those were played up in opposition to Church teaching around the time of the Renaissance and going forward (people forget that there was a great falling away from religion in the Renaissance that Rome at points couldn't count on various cathedrals to even be Catholic, much like the situation after Henry VIII, or in France after the Revolution, or just recently after Vatican II where they ALL went bad).
But, again, in other ways it's a Hollywood sword and sorcery film, with not much attention paid to the sorcery bit. Perhaps they were trying to make a 'serious' movie, I don't know. The Indian 'warrior princess' seems more a nod to Xena than to Arthur or a 'last legion'.
For a medieval matchup - and this idea of right being right - I think they carried it off well in First Knight, even if Gere seems slightly uncomfortable on screen or in that role. It would have been nice if a similar cast and writing and production had been used with this film. Had a lot of promise.
Constantine didn't split the christian religion. He simply converted to it as his religion. There was already a large population of Christians throughout the Roman Empire, but there were a ton of religions being practiced. He didn't outlaw the other religions, he just made Christianity the one preferred by the state.
The Roman Empire wasn't really split into two separate empires until Theodosus, in 395. After that, there were two separate empires, East and West. But for 100 years or so before that, Rome was still the capital of the overall empire, but with an administrative separation below the emperor and senate. Think of Constantinople as the Eastern Administrative Center of the old, original Roman Empire.
After the official split in 395, the Western Empire went downhill in a relative hurry, and by 476 there was no more empire in the west, just a huge number of pre-feudal divisions, some ruled by barbarians, some by romans, some by whoever.
The Eastern Empire did last into the 15th century, almost another 1,000 years. It changed a lot, switching officially from Latin to Greek (although Greek was always widely spoken, it just wasn't official). I don't think the Church split until the 11th century, until then it was just one Church.
Keep in mind, right up until Constantinople fell in 1453, it was regarded by the people of the empire as well as it's enemies as simply the Roman Empire. Western Europe didn't call it that, but it was never referred to as Byzantine. If you were born in Constantinople in 900 AD, you would have considered yourself Roman, even though you spoke Greek and would never consider venturing to the city of Rome.
> by 476 there was no more empire in the west <
It wasn't the Empire at it's peak, in the time of Our Lord. That much is true. But to say that Italy suffered such a dark age particularly as England is a real stretch. Or even Gaul. In fact, the marauders of England and Gaul eventually intermarried in the latter to form armies capable of defending Christendom from similar and other invaders, particularly when Islam captured the east, Turkey, etc.
In the east, the Empire was more in name only. But it was not a separate thing but loyal to the Pope in Rome, ecclesiastically, which I think was your point. It was wrong, in other words. Now, yes, there was a schism, but it was healed. It was the second schism, the Great Schism, which sort of began the unsettling of Christendom, along with many other things.
In fact, the eastern Fathers spent much of their time pointing to Rome, defending Rome, ruling literally before the fact that any schism cut the schismatic from the vine of The Church. You can literally read the eastern fathers online, from various sites, and in some Greek version of the original Greek at that.
< born in Constantinople in 900 AD, you would have considered yourself Roman <
Whatever the majority in terms of some nationality - at least you're right about their religious affliation.
It takes place in 476, with the fall of the last Roman Emperor, even though for some reason it says it's 460. By that point all Rome was Christian. And so were many of the barbarians, including Odoacer and his Goths.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNK
[deleted]
True 'nuff. Hard times always make people turn to God and times didn't get much harder than that. I was never exactly sure what Ambrosius's religious beliefs were though. They never dealt with that. Something to do with a pentangle. Beyond that... And the Britons were Catholic too, btw.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNK
When Orestes discharged Ambrosius, there would have been slaves around to see him out. Roman nobility never went anywhere without slaves.
````````````
Imagine that.
Um, OK. Not sure what your point is but OK. If that was the worst inconsistency that you noticed I would be very surprised.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNK
No actually Juadism was allowed long before 313 this is why the rims s cooperated with the Jews who they disliked intensely, to administer Pslestine. And Christianity WAS made the sole permitted religion before the end of the 4 th century. Constantinople was built to recognize the fact that most of the population and wealth were in the east, not to shore up religion. That move did not split Christianity. East and west ( Greek and Latin ) were always different and grew apart splitting n the 11 th century.
shareYou’ll never convince modern Christians that the Christianity they know evolved over centuries any many of the modern beliefs of modern Christians would have been strange and unknown to the early Christians. Those who say, well paganism was outlawed so you wouldn’t see it. There is a reason the Catholic Church was so laden with ritual, saints, and holidays. Paganism was simply absorbed.
shareSome of us modern Christians don't need convincing: we're very well aware of that, thank you. ;)
"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."
You conflate beliefs with practices. The beliefs are the same. They were locked in with the end of the Apostolic Age. But additions to the form of Sacraments, variations in liturgy, in understanding certain theological problems, and so on, that's changed within kingdoms and over the centuries. Some forms won out, others might still be preserved in some small region.
Paganism wasn't absorbed. It was replaced, supplanted, much as it has now been used in part to supplant and replace Catholicism. Pagan symbols and days were 'turned', they were made Catholic. And as I said, in this post-Christian time, the pagans are trying to take back 'the days'. Look at what passes for Catholicism in Mexico and among many transplants to the US. There's a great deal of superstition there, as in the African churches. But all are weak what with having abandoned the true Catholic Faith, which started with the Vatican promoting and actively failing to respond to abuses following Vatican II - all these changes, it was always said, were done in the "name of Vatican II". And no Vatican II 'Pope' ever challenged that. Silence was consent. And then they began to promote such novelty.
That apostate church. Stuff of prophecy. And the irony, they adopted the forms of 'mainstream' Protestantism. These so-called 'catholics' that still obey the 'pope' must also obey edicts that proclaim the orthodox Jews free to await the Great Promised Messiah. Such documents and assurances by the Vatican are an outright apostacy from Christ, Himself, Who was and Is that Messiah and Saviour to Jews and everyone else. So they've adopted the forms of Protestantism, and in some cases paganism. But they aren't technically Protestant if they don't even confess Jesus Christ to be the Messiah, contrary to Protestants.
Thank you for proving my point. You said:
You conflate beliefs with practices. The beliefs are the same.
But additions to the form of Sacraments, variations in liturgy, in understanding certain theological problems ...
Paganism wasn't absorbed. It was replaced,
> The beliefs are not the same if the understandings have changed <
The beliefs, talking about Catholicism, ARE the same because the 'understanding' DOESN'T change. Those dogmas cannot be 'reformed', or 'brought up to date'. Those who do and adhere to such a new faith have essentially joined another sect. It's what you see around the world under the name of Roman Catholicism, with rare exception (such one being at Oyster Bay, NY). It's become in places an irreverent form of Episcopaleanism/Lutheranism, in others just a front for masonry, skeptical secularism, or to be blunt, even outright paganism in some places.
> here are pagan beliefs in Christianity <
No, there aren't. Not in Roman Catholicism. But who is Roman Catholic anymore, except for a remnant spread out around the world lacking any publicity (probably good in these times). In these times, particularly, there are pagan accretions, even outright pagan substitution as suggested above, and in places as you say - like the Caribbean, like Central America.
You're right. And that's seeing the past through the filter of the present. It's a post-Christian world, today. It wasn't then. Classic freshman error. And expect it from Hollywood. This film, in other ways, too, has Hollywood plastered all over it. But the idea of emperors being killed in battle or by assassination in short order came after Theodocius, under whom Catholicism no longer had anything to fear and going forward. And shortly after the conversion of what had become a corrupt and apathetic empire, you had the northern legions set upon Rome, itself, e.g. Alaric and others. And Augustine was asked, how can this be if protected by God? And he wrote his classic, The City of God.
Caesar had no descendants. But his name was taken. So in that sense, they proceeded from Caesar. Technically, and I'm not of that 'school', Caesar wasn't even really Caesar. That was the next guy. But I say Julius Caesar was Caesar #1.
??? Caesar was a job title, not a proper name.
shareCaesar became a job title, it was originally a proper name. That of Julius Caesar. It is fairly commonly understood, today, when one says just "Caesar" without any other precision, that the person is referring to Julius.
"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."
Soldiers were mostly not Christian. Christianity had little to offer a fighting man.
Mithra was the most popular deity of the military. " Baptized in the blood of the bull", and all that stuff.
This movie is about as historically accurate as watching Narnia as if it is a documentary of World War II.
Yes, the Romans were Christian at this point. Very Christian. So were the Goths and the Eastern Roman Empire. All parties in the movie should have been Christian.
The Goths who attacked the city were a legion of Rome, and were very Romanized. They were not fur-clad barbarians, and they did very little killing when they captured the city; indeed, they wanted the city and its people intact. They were just there because they wanted to live like Romans, but Rome would not let them because of prejudice against Germanic 'barbarian' peoples. They were in many ways the victims of the real story.
Also, the Eastern Roman Empire (Constantinople) was just as Roman and Christian as the Western half, possibly more so. Even though the royalty enjoyed a lot of luxurious jewelry, they were not the stereotypical Hollywood Persians seen in this movie with dark makeup around their eyes and glittering ridiculous armor. In fact the type of sword Mira uses hadn't even been invented yet.
And I haven't even touched on the actual story of Romulus himself and the King Arthur crap. The movie should be watched only as pure fantasy. Then it's kind of fun in a campy and ridiculous way. I just wish they would sell it as that instead of trying to pass it of as based on truth.
Did someone involved in the making and marketing of this film actually try to "pass it of as based on truth"??? It's based on a novel based on medieval legends! what more "Caution! do not believe!" signs do people need on their dvd boxes and movie posters?
"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."
I just assumed they were trying to pass it off as truth because the final scene of the film (in which Merlin explains how the legend of Arthur arose from the preceding events) seems to tell the audience that "hey this was the REAL story of King Arthur!" But hey, I certainly hope that you are right and that everyone who saw this movie left the theater with absolutely no impressions of "the Goths were hairy idiot barbarians" or "the Byzantines were a bunch of exotic Persians" or "England was the last stronghold of the Roman Empire" lingering in their minds.
If they had simply pitched it as a King Arthur story without trying to mix in a bunch of pseudo-history and boil entire cultures down to simplistic clichés, I would have just laughed at the film for all its campy silliness. Well, actually I did that anyway. The only reason I went into critique of the film's mangling of history was for a school assignment, if that helps.
the Ceaser is used as a term of designating the emperor
Can we fix it.
Nope its *beep*