...the new millennium's pig-pile of demi-historical and/or magick-stuffed battle sagas, King Arthur is, on the surface, a familiar parade of McEpic flourishes: calamitous (but decidedly bloodless) combat scenes, anachronistic Asian sword antics, hilltop posturing, helicopter shots, and thundering one-liners. But there are differences, namely in the provenance of David Franzoni's screenplay. Apparently having swallowed popular historian Howard Reid's 2001 book Arthur the Dragon King: The Barbaric Roots of Britain's Greatest Legend whole, Franzoni has attempted to rehistoricize the legend. We're back to the fifth century, and Arthur and his knights are Sarmatian warriors (Indo-Iranian, by way of the Caucasus) conscripted by Rome to guard interests in the wilds of Britain. Merlin is now merely the shaggy rebel leader of the Highland Picts (derisively called "woads," after the plant that supplied them with blue body paint), and Guinevere his forest-savage daughter. (The absence of wizardry is an outright blessing.) No romantic-tragedy triangulating with Lancelot, no Holy Grail, no Mordred, no Camelot. Excalibur is merely the Arturius family sword, pulled from the dead father's grave. The villains are the Orc-like Saxons, and, of course, the corpulent Roman Empire itself, which betrays Arthur's noble individualists—seat belts, people—one . . . last . . . time.
actually, just being delusional about Cycle #10 — nothing wrong with it actually (just confusing LALAGE with POCAHONTAS); rebuilt with new keywords. also added more keywords, tidied up previous bits & rebuilt Cycle #06. rebuild 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 & 9 later once i ponder my existence & why i forgot to include asteroids PEST & MARCHARE.