The Most Accurate King Arthur Movie may Make you Laugh.

Welcome back to Myths & Mischief! This is your Lovable Lord of Lore, today’s mischievous myth is about the depictions of the fabled King Arthur in cinema.

There have been 114 King Arthur movies, but which one is the most accurate? Prepare to be surprised… While I have a bias in that I believe that Monty Python’s Holy Grail is the best comedy ever, based on its balance of intelligence, stupidity, and absurdity, it is also the most accurate depiction of the wielder of Excalibur.

So why is this depiction better than the other 113 movies?

To start with there is the way Arthur is described. He is known to be a king because “He hasn’t got shit all over him.” While there are overexaggerated claims about how dirty people were during the Middle Ages, consider that a royal bathing once a month was seen as excessive. There is a counterclaim that this makes out peasants to be slopping in filth like pigs, where they would have had some sense of hygiene. That is a fair claim, but perhaps everyone had their share of filth. Even Graham Chapman’s character had splatters of mud from his romping about. Tell the cast that they weren’t filthy after a day of shooting as they raced back to their hotel in the attempt to shower before the hot water ran out. The 2004 King Arthur film had dirty characters, but fails by comparison.

There were no horses in England at the time of King Arthur, so while coconuts may not have been present, Arthur would have been traveling by foot. Most of the depictions of Arthur have him on horseback, above the common people, where Python had them on the same footing while poking fun at the other depictions of Arthur.

A common theme in the Holy Grail was playing off the lack of popular knowledge. People would rely on elders, the church, or “learned people” to guide them. Knowing a little about the migratory patterns of swallows goes a long way when dealing with people that have little knowledge about how things work. The same can be said for witches and llamas and moose bites.

Python’s knights (pronounced kin-nig-gits) were unlike other depictions of the knights that joined Arthur at the round table. Most depictions had them wearing polished armor and were the epitome of chivalry and conduct. Python took a different approach. The knights consisted of people. They had character defects to say the least. Bedevere relied on intellect, but surely did not have much accurate information to go on. Lancelot was excessively violent. Robin was a coward, and poor Galahad had lust in his heart. The reality was and is that the knights of the round table were made up of imperfect people that had defects, just like the rest of us.

The Black Knight challenged Arthur to combat when Arthur attempted to pass by. Although later in the middle ages, this was a real practice for aspiring people who wished to gain prestige. The violence that ensued not only played off the brutality of battle, but the sheer determination of these aspiring people in their ventures. While Python exaggerated the conflict for comedic purposes, that was a reality in the later part of medieval history including in the brutal history of Sir Yvain, who some believed inspired the character Lancelot who had his head split in two by the King of the Saxons, Mordred. It was more than a scratch, flesh wound, and the encounter was far from a draw.

One of the issues with the history of that time period was that no two places were alike. A world of small kingdoms, often warring was demonstrated by the French in England and the Anarcho-syndicalist peasants which fragmented England and its political landscape after the loss of Roman influence.

While Chapman’s Arthur gave himself attributes such as “Son of Uther Pendragon” as well as his defeat the Saxons was common in the sense that people of high status were forced to make grandiose claims of their deeds and heritage so people would cede to their rule. This is commonly found in medieval literature. It also calls into play the first mentioning of a King who defeated the Saxons, which was later named as Arthur.

The Plague devastated Europe on multiple occasions. Perhaps Monty Python took the most direct representation as they made death seem very common as people brought carts around to collect the dead. If death was ever normalized outside of times of war, it would be when large percentages of populations died from disease. How is the average person supposed to cope, “Bring out your dead!”

The witch trial was common place when religious zealots were terrified of people who were different. Often times these were the people that lived on the outskirts of town and had access to travelers and their stories, making them unique and different from the townsfolk. The lack of science played a fateful part which was emphasized by the Pythons when they determined that since this woman weighed the same as a duck, that she was a witch. Besides the lack of deductive reasoning that was attempted, the mis-measured scales emphasize the lack of accurate measurements that wouldn’t come until later in Europe. At least the guy who was turned into a newt got better.

While Monty Python’s Arthur ran away from the French bombardment of catapulted cows and chickens, the reality is that animals were fired over the walls at people trying to breach the castle. The difference between the Python version and reality could easily be explained through what is funny, considering the animals really fired over the walls would have been dead and diseased and the defense of the castle may have also included people in the same condition. It is understandable why a change was made for the sake of frivolity in the scene.

As Arthur and his Knights followed their pursuits, they came across an enchanter named… “Tim.” There were two historical Merlins, but neither were contemporaries of Arthur. Merlin was added into the Arthur lore much later. However, there were enchanters around, though those mentioned the the Arthur stories were not famous and Tim is as good a name as any for those who can create fire without flint or tinder.

In the Holy Grail, the coat of arms worn by each Knight were distinct and represented their personal character. This would have been the case for knights that fought beside Arthur because in battle they needed to be easily recognizable over the din battle and the clashing of groups that used similar armor.

So, even if there were never coconuts or killer rabbits, and the movie mixes elements from different eras for comedic effect. Since the release of the first Arthur movie titled Parsifal in 1904, Monty Python’s rendition of Arthur is the most accurate, which is high praise for such a successful comedy that was partially funded by rock stars (bands on the road were stuck watching the same movies over and over and since Python is funny no matter how many times you see it, bands gave them money to continue making movies). And yes, moose bites hurt.

That’s it for this week’s installment, this is your Lord of the Lore signing off.

If you liked this tale, make sure to subscribe for more so you don’t miss the next installment of mischievous myths!

Pictures from:

Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Directed by Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones, performances by Graham Chapman, John Cleese, and Eric Idle, Python (Monty) Pictures, 1975.