Downfall of Camelot

In my English seminar, I have read about the fall of Camelot and the death of Arthur. And I am writing this post to give my opinion on the downfall of Camelot.

In my opinion, I have to say that Lancelot bedding with Queen Guinevere, King Arthur's wife, was the start of the cracks that Camelot eventually crumbled from. However, even in the tales, with the squeamish writing of the medieval writers, when they talked about their "bedding", they say that love was referred to differently in those days. Yes...

However, in my understanding of the stories, it seems that everyone was in on Lancelot's nightly (knightly?) escapades. The whole Round Table was in on the the supposed "secret!" It's like some sort of bad episode of Desperate Housewives.

In my opinion, it is the knights who reveal the affair to Arthur who cause Camelot to fall. Everyone else was quite happy to continue on pretending there was nothing going on between Lancelot and Guinevere. Arthur apparently didn't have a clue what was going on in his wife's bed chamber. The downfall of Camelot could simply be put down to jealousy among the knights. Lancelot was Arthur's right-hand man and confidant, and some of the other knights were envious of his position.

Arthur's tyrannical reign in later years, and especially after he found about about Guinevere's affair, certainly added to his downfall, along with Camelot. He orders Guinevere, his WIFE, to be burned at the stake for her affair. This causes him a lot of bad publicity and the defection of some knights. Lancelot rides in on a horse and saves Guinevere, which earns him some extra points with the other knights.

Arthur's reign had ended by that point. He further compounded his situation by refusing the Pope and by fighting his own son to the death. Arthur's story ended like a Shakespearean tragedy, and Camelot is forever lost.

Monty Python VS The Holy Grail

Having recently seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail for the first time because of my English seminar, I thought I'd compare the two items; the comedic movie and the actual epic tale of Sir Galahad in his quest to find the cup Jesus Christ held at the Last Supper with his twelve apostles.

For a low-budget film, I have to say Monty Python is a good movie. My favourite scene, and I'm sure many people will agree, is when Arthur confronts the Black Knight. They fight, and the opposing knight loses an arm. 'Tis but a scratch, he says, and continues the fight. He eventually ends up with neither his arms nor his legs. Hilarious.

In fairness, the quest doesn't really go anywhere in the movie. They trot around on their make-believe horses ( the budget was too skimpy for real ones) and generally just face off against various challenges that they mainly run away from. In the end, the quest is left unfulfilled, but I won't say how it ends. I've probably said too much already...oh dear.

The tale of Sir Galahad and the quest for the Holy Grail is very lyrical and full of religious scenes. It constantly refers to Sir Galahad as pure and pious, as he is a virgin and therefore pure and worthy to find the Holy Grail. On his journey with his less-than-worthy-but-still-on-the-quest-knights, he travels around the country, meeting old men who have been waiting for the virgin knight so that they can expire. By simply meeting and touching Galahad, they die. What a wonderful, fulfilling quest God sent Galahad on!

The tale of the Holy Grail is full of visions and communion scenes that really give the intense religious significance of the story. Visitations by angels and possibly Christ Himself feature in the tale. It really is THIS IS RELIGIOUS AND HOLY AND JUST AND WE ARE DOING IT!!! The knights get distracted by ruling a kingdom for a few years, and it is prophesied that not all the knights will see the Grail found. It ends with just Sir Bors, one of the knights on the quest and Lancelot's cousin, returning to Camelot alone and retelling the story for all to hear.

Both forms of textual transmission are good, and make the best use of what they had at the time. The tale is well-written, even if it does wander off like most epic tales. The movie is good for its small budget, and I'd recommend both to anyone.

Review of The 13th Warrior

For part of my English seminar, I recently saw the 1999 movie The 13th Warrior, starring Antonio Banderas. It's set similarly to the saga, Beowulf. I'm going to review it in this post. The story is basically about a lone Muslim, Ahmad ibn Fadlan (played by Banderas,) who is unexpectedly thrown into the warrior culture of the North-men to defeat a vicious, mysterious race of men called the Wendil. He adapts to and learns from their culture, as they do to his.


The movie is set in the early days of civilisation, where the men of the North are trading using the waterways and seas. I think their society is portrayed very well in this film. Their community is centred around the hall, the place of warriors and feasting. Ahmad and twelve others travel to a community ravaged by enemies, and they are welcomed with honours for helping them. Community is a massive part of the culture.

The superstitions and the customs of the North-men are explored in this film. Near the beginning of the film, a child stays at the front of a visiting ship for a time to show that he is not a spirit come from the mists. The enemies of the North-men use mist as a cover and a tool of fear as mist was mysterious and obscuring.



Women are portrayed as silently strong in this film. They care for the wounded and give drink to the workers. At the Feast, they bring food around the table. As Banderas' character observes a funeral, women are sometimes killed to go with their masters into the next life. Old women are consulted as oracles or wise-women in times of strife and conflict. Through fortune-telling, like throwing the bones, a woman sees the path to victory for her people. In the case of the vicious Wendil, they are led by a matriarch-type figure symbolised by the statue of an earth-goddess. When the Wendil people are attacking a village, the women arm themselves with knives while protecting the children to kill them rather than let an enemy take them.


Ahmad is portrayed as physically smaller than the North-men, to accentuate their physical prowess and a society dominated by physicality and masculinity. A culture of war celebrates strength, virility and power, and doesn't much appreciate outsiders. He is called "Little Brother" by one of them to accentuate this statement. However, he proves himself just as capable as any other man during the course of the film.


In my opinion, the movie shows the earliest versions of basic human deception. The Wendil, the monstrous warrior people, clothe themselves in bear skin and paint to mask themselves and create a terrible image; to instill fear in their enemies. Eating human flesh is another scare tactic. The Fireworm is another trick, to create fear and hopelessness in the Wendil's enemies. It was believed to be a dragon by the Wendil's adversaries. To command something unexplained and indescribable is perfect for scaring and unnerving your enemies.


Ahmad slowly becomes paganised in this warrior society. He adapts to the society in his own way, forging his own sword from a regular North-man one. The Muslim integrates into the godless society. The leader, Buliwyf, also learns about God, or Allah in the Muslim faith, through writings on the ground by Ahmad. "There is only one God; Allah is his name, and Muhammed is his prophet."



I have to say that I found this film very enjoyable. I liked the fight scenes and the accurate references to warrior life and culture with the North-men. I would recommend it to anyone who is reading Beowulf at the moment, or any time you would like to see Antonio Banderas stab someone.