[#157189]
Written by: Darkonan [12/04/2011, 23:36]
also got an email from my isp, comcast.
really the show is kinda horrible, the only thing that had me watch past the first ep was the nudity.
[#158321]
Written by: jaysen0011 [28/04/2011, 01:21]
anyone know where a hd version might be found pls?
[#159090]
Written by: DanaC [07/05/2011, 07:55]
Quote by cmotd
Quote by username666
the guy who plays arthur seems a pussy!
in the old days kings had to be men- this guy seems a wuss that no one would follow!
i sure as hell wouldn't.
maybe you're confusing history with fairytales? most kings were given the job because they were
daddy's first born son, and a lot of them were weak willed, innefectual twats
actually, primogeniture didn't come into britain until the norman conquest. the anglo-saxon system
(and i suspect but cannot be sure that this held true for the pre-saxon british), had a preference for
the king's/chief's son, brother or nearest male relative, but the king nominated his proposed successor
during his lifetime and his nobles either confirmed or refused his choice. in essence anlgo-saxon kings
were 'elected' there was no assumption of the eldest son as heir apparent. the reality of kingship
during the early medieval period (6th-9th centuries which is where the arthurian legends tend to be
placed) was that in order to be accepted as king and then to keep that acceptance and loyalty, that king
had to be able to impose his will and maintain the support of his nobles. (tribal leaders and early kings
are often described as 'ring givers' because they were able to provide for, and lead to glory in battle,
their kinsmen and nobles).
even with the later adoption of primogeniture, succession was often contested with competing claims
deriving from various different competing lineages all merged together at various points through
intermarriage. at one point in england, during the mid 12th century there were two competing
monarchs, deriving their right to rule from two distinct lines, each with a support base, each crowned by
a supporting prelate. it is known as the anarchy, or the nineteen years winter.
again, even with an heir apparent, keeping the crown and being able to act effectively
as a king was heavily dependent upon an ability to maintain the loyalty and support of the nobility. the
earls and dukes could bolster or cripple a king, and the relationship betwen king and noble was far
from simple.
tl/dr: medieval kings absolutely had to be able to keep the support of their followers. weak kings
rarely had long reigns.
i'm looking forward to this programme. i love merlin, it's a great show and does some really interesting
things with the legend. but this sounds like an entirely different beast. i see no reason why both can't
co-exist quite comfortably. they aren't really competing with each other, as they're doing very different
things.
[#160971]
Written by: 0anonymouseva0 [31/05/2011, 19:51]
does the fact that this is fantasy escape everyone? also, are we aware that the arthurian legends
are just that--legends? there's no arthurian period in british history, no need to cite historical
examples of inherited thrones, no need to worry about what "happened in the old times". this is not
a historical fiction. try to control your disappointment.
[#162648]
Written by: radar [30/06/2011, 00:25]
be very careful, downloaded this series yesterday and have infringement warning today.
[#165660]
Written by: idigdeep [31/08/2011, 10:43]
