Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-110.33.239.213-20121226023324/@comment-5102537-20131002143943

Thanks for your detailed response, Ongard. Most of your ideas and thoughts about a possible ending/continuation sound great. Alas, it's not what the show presented to us. As I've said several times, I think that most fans would have delivered better stories and/or ideas than those we have seen especially in the last seasons.

Anyway, your comments in bold :-)

Also, Arthur might have chosen not to call in his allies as it would have taken to long and possibly put his allies as well as himself at risk, let's not forget Arthur's habit of putting others before himself. That's quite unlikely because Arthur wasn't only protecting himself and a few of his friends but had to protect an entire kingdom. Calling his allies would have been the first thing to do in order to ensure that Morgana and her army won't break through and grab Camelot. It would not only have endangered Camelot's inhabitant's but also the other kingdoms once a powerful High Priestess is the ruler of the supposedly strongest kingdom. Arthur would have been a fool to spare the soldiers of his allies but risk his own and his entire kingdom. The bigger the army, the quicker the victory.

'''And as for why invest in a weak kingdom, I shall refer to an example from real life history. In Russia between 1892 and 1903, Sergei Witte, the economic minister at the time began to raise money to help improve the economic situation by taking on foreign loans, in this way he was showing rival superpowers such as Britain and Germany that Russia was in a state of weakness. Now, any of these nations could have attacked and taken Russia, but by investing in the nation they began to prosper off importing and exporting goods, by improving Russia, so did they improve their trade.'''

This was at a modern time, not in the dark ages. Export, import, trade, this was all economically important whereas this was only slowly starting in the dark ages during the time of constantly conquering others and wars for territory and ressources. Plus, it became even harder to conquer a country with the progress and technology, advanced weapons, bigger armies. As we could see in WW2, Hitler failed (fortunately), no matter how strong and determined the army was. Times have changed and we can hardly compare the modern times (even 1900) to the dark ages. What you wrote about investing in Camelot and taking advantage of a prosperous Albion would be the ideal and much wiser than getting the hands on a kingdom out of greed and power. Alas, we are viewing it from our today's point of view with our knowledge in a (so-called) civilised world.

And even if it happened on the show, if this was the intention of the showrunners, it would have not only been unbelievable but most of all they should have given a hint about it in order to let the audience know that there was a solution. We're only speculating about a story that was simply not told.

'''As for the closer allies questioning Camelot, they did not suffer that greatly during the Battle, they lost their king and many soldiers, but many soldiers also survived and now they would have the support of the magical community also. The allies of Camelot would see that Camelot still prospers and would maintain their alliegances, in the hopes of maintaining the unity Arthur has fought for.'''

As for losing their king, remember when in "The tears of Uther Pendragon" and in other episodes it was constantly said that Camelot was weakened because the king (Uther) was either unable to rule or on the brink of death, and that that would endanger the kingdom greatly? And this was when there weren't alls those wars and when Camelot was still strong (aside from the loss of soldiers during the search for Morgana). A king that was functioning was most important to morale of the knights and citizens. Even Uther's short-term madness caused by the mandrake root was regarded as a great danger to the kingdom's strength despite the fact that everyone else was still lucid and that Arthur was there.

So now we're supposed to believe that the loss of the supposedly greatest king ever, Arthur, would have no impact on Camelot at all? That doesn't make sense. If Uther must not have died under no circumstances because it weakened Camelot and gave Morgana, Morgause and Cenred the necessary kick to attack Camelot (for whatever reason), then Arthur's death must have affected the kingdom even more so.

That's the thing with "Merlin" and what bothers me so much - things that were most important in the previous seasons were suddenly washed away and ignored in the last two seasons.

'''You're argument seems to be built up on the assumption that Merlin never returned to Camelot, this is not nescessarily the case. He was not at the coronation, but that could simply be because he could not face the idea of someone else taking Arthur's throne.'''

'''If he did not return, Gaius could still explain exactly what Merlin did for her and Camelot, she knows Gaius well and would know if he was lying, she trusts and respects him as she trusts and respects Merlin, she has seen his bravery, selflessness and goodness first hand. Also the thing that makes Merlin different from Morgana is that she could see the change in Morgana and knew the reasons she had to despise Uther and Arthur. Merlin had no such problems and was a good friend to her and Camelot long before the battle. []'''

But that's again only speculation. What we saw was that everything was alright in the end as if nothing weird had ever happened. Throw some lightning down on the enemy and suddenly Merlin is the hero and the "evilness" of magic is no subject anymore. He didn't return to Camelot (according to what we were shown) and he was allowed to give Arthur the funeral alone and without permission of the queen, and they happily lived ever after. That's just not believable without a good reason and an explanation.

We're almost trying to write our own end for the show in order to add sense and a believable conclusion. As good as your ideas sound, it's not what the show presented to us. An open end that leaves room for speculation and interpretation is one thing, but an open end that simply doesn't want to deal with all the most likely problems and complications in order to ignore them and to pretend that there is a happy ending when there was not, is another.

There is no debating that "Dragoon" is the reason Camelot were able to force back the Saxons, but calling it Merlin's victory seems very unfair to me, without Arthur's plan to meet the forces of Morgana rather than wait for them, hundreds if not thousands of lives were spared, he made a brave decision, also if he had waited in Camelot Merlin would not have the advantage of higher ground, without that he would not have been able to wipe out nearly as many Saxons and would have had to face Morgana on equal ground.

'''Moving on, Guinevere was not unpopular as a Queen, she was a symbol to the commoners, and perhaps the nobility might have misgivings about her, but the peasantry would love her. Many nobles would have also come to know and respect her whilst she has been Queen, they would also trust Arthur's judgement, I know the nobles would not all love her, but I expect a fair few would support her, and as i've mentioned earlier her allies would stand by her.'''

I'm not saying that Arthur didn't do anything of importance in regard to the battle at Camlann. However, it was indeed Merlin's victory alone because without him, they would have lost the battle and Camelot would have fallen. Reports about a sorcerer having ended the battle because Camelot's soldiers were almost defeated will surely have reached other kingdoms and Camelot's inhabitants. Naturally, because those who have survived won't keep it all a secret. So this would have only contributed to regarding Arthur as the one who actually lost. He fought magic (Morgana) and only magic could defeat her (Merlin) while Arthur was powerless in the end - and was killed by magic.

This is another reason why those kingdoms and all those inhabitants of Camelot who feared and hated magic would not be convinced that magic should be allowed again since the normal people were powerless against it. This would only have strengthened their opinion about the danger of sorcery because not even Uther and Arthur were able to keep the evil away (those evil ones of the Old Religion who brought only destruction).

Which most likely was a reason why Gwen couldn't simply lift the ban of magic, even if she herself wanted to (which I doubt). Why should those who feared and hated magic suddenly accept it when magic killed their beloved king, their strong ally? Without another powerful sorcerer/magic-user, normal people are more or less defenceless in the end, as Morgana proved by attacking Camelot several times, by driving Uther insane, by killing Uther, by killing Arthur. They could withstand for a while but lost in the end. Magic would always win out in the long term as long as it existed.

Moreover, since there isn't magic in the modern times, Gwen or whoever obviously failed in bringing it back. The reason might be that she either didn't lift the ban of magic, or if she did, others fought it even more so which reduced it to a point that it wasn't practised anymore and powerless for a while (the time gap between the finale and the modern times) until it rises again, maybe alongside with Arthur. And then it would win again, one way or another. But a peaceful coexistence would only be possible if the Old Religion would abstain from its dogmas and if the normal people would be allowed to evolve and to not follow the Old Ways if they chose not to. Impossible. And now imagine that magic would be practiced the way today like it was on the show. I can't even imagine all the misuse and catastrophies it would cause.

'''Well look at each war seperately, starting with the search for Morgana, I can't imagine thousands of soldiers were lost in the search for her, a couple of hundreds at the very most. After all during this search the only threat they had to deal with was bandits and raiders (along with Morgause's servants)'''

'''Onto the Great Battle of Camelot, they were warned a day in advance, the battle ended by the end of the night. They had 12,000 men garrisoned in the castle and despite the combined assaults of an army twice their size with the assistance of an undead garrison within their walls, they endured. This is because the Knights of Camelot are a force to be reckoned with. They lost plenty of men that day, but they had enough to keep control over the city, and even then, the only soldiers at risk were those already within the city.''' [---]

'''Also, Camelot does not survive off numbers, Camelot endures because it has effective troops (hailed as the greatest knights in the Five Kingdoms), skilled tacticians, sturdy fortresses and are even in small numbers, formidable. Let's not forget Cenred, who even when Camelot had an insane leader, feared to risk his own men (who doubled Camelot's in number) as he saw the keep as being impregnible, and was afraid of the Knights. Finally, Guinevere is a commoner queen and is therefore likely to like the idea of equality between commoners and nobles. For that reason she may have a few peasants serving to aide the army.'''

If memory serves well, it was said that Morgana's first attack reduced Camelot almost to half and that the search for her in the missing year cost the lifes of too many soldiers. A few hundred in a whole year would have been unlikely and it wouldn't have caused Gaius to tell Uther that this was madness (referring to the many men who died). On the search for Morgana, the troops were most likely also sent to other kingdoms.

No matter what the show wanted to tell us and no matter what we try to find to justify Camelot's strength after all these events, it's simply impossible to replace all the lost soldiers, even those that were lost in the first attack of Morgana only.

Aside from the fact that those numbers on the show were unrealistic anyway because the lands weren't as crowded back then and England only had a few thousands at most, and aside from the incredible loss of knights and soldiers in several wars and other attacks plus the search for Morgana which we can't all blandish, Camelot was not only strong because of its skilled knights but also because of number, stategy and location. There were only a few knights in comparison to the ordinary soldiers and the few knights could have never decided a battle on their own.

Unfortunately, it was never clarified what exactly made Camelot so strong but it not only had a lot to do with Uther (as was evident when Morgause talked to Cenred) but it would also make sense in regard to its wealth. With the necessary material to raise a huge army, a kingdom is more powerful than another that can't afford such a huge army. So in the end it's most of all about number since Camelot obviously was the richest of all kingdoms due to its own economy an therfore could provide the soldiers with the necessary armour, weapons, shelter and food. And even the best knights and the best location can't hold position forever when most of the army is dead.

Ad as I wrote before, it would have been absolutley and completely impossible to replace the soldiers within such a short time. It would have taken decades.

'''Arthur did not just unite the lands of Albion though, that is his most famous deed of course, but what we must remember is that Arthur was one of the first kings to fight for equality. He also showed courage and taught others how a truly great king should act, never showing fear against his enemies and helping all regardless of who they are. He believed in fairness and goodness above all else, this along with creating a state of peace in the Five Kingdoms, is why Arthur should be remembered.'''

True, but that wasn't the Arthur on the show. The state of peace in the Five Kingdoms was Uther's doing alone, not Arthur. Arthur still persecuted sorcerers and denied all magic-users a proper burial. There was no equality. He married Gwen, a servant, because he loved her, so actually he pleased himself. Merlin stayed being a servant, no matter how much he liked him and no matter what Merlin did. There is no doubt that Arthur was much fairer and kinder than Uther towards commoners and he was also a bit more relaxed on the magic-issue. Nevertheless, he discriminated and hunted down magic-users. What he achieved on the show was knighting commoners, marrying a serving girl and promising the druids freedom. That was it.

'''I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this point, but I don't think Merlin purely followed Arthur because it was his destiny, I think he followed Arthur because he believed in him, if the Great Dragon told him that he had fufilled his destiny, he would still likely have continued to serve him. And things did change slightly when Arthur became king, there were common knights at the heart of Camelot for example! However he only had to watch and see all of the the changes Arthur made, for good and bad.'''

What I mean is that the prophecy was changed for plot convenience during seasons four and five. It was Merlin's destiny to protect Arthur until he is king. Once Arthur is king, according to Kilgharrah, magic will be allowed again. Merlin was also destined to kill Mordred in order to fulfill his destiny with Arthur. Kilgharrah also said that Merlin and Arthur will unite the lands of Albion, not Gwen or person X.

Here are the quotes from several episodes:

''KILGHARRAH Your destiny is to protect the young Pendragon until he claims his crown, and when he does, magic can be returned to the realm. Only then will I be free.''

''KILGHARRAH Only if Uther dies can magic return to the land. Only if Uther dies will you be free, Merlin. Uther's reign is at an end. Let Arthur's reign begin. Fulfil your destiny!''

KILGHARRAH: Arthur is the Once and Future King who will unite the land of Albion.

MERLIN: Right.

KILGHARRAH: But he faces many threats from friend and foe alike.

MERLIN: I don't see what this has to do with me.

''KILGHARRAH: Everything. Without you, Arthur will never succeed. Without you, there will be no Albion.''

''KILGHARRAH The spell is woven with magic of such power that even you are not immune. You must act now before it's too late. If you do not, then Camelot will fall and Arthur will die, and the future you were destined to share will die with you.''

''KILGHARRAH If the boy lives, you cannot fulfil your destiny.''

''MERLIN What's he got to do with my destiny? You said it's my destiny to protect Arthur.''

''KILGHARRAH Then you have the answer you seek.''

''MERLIN You're telling me that little boy is going to kill Arthur?''

''KILGHARRAH It seems that is up to you.''

''MERLIN No. You can't know that for certain.''

''KILGHARRAH You have it in your power to prevent a great evil.''

''MERLIN There must be another way! The future isn't set in stone!''

''KILGHARRAH You must let the boy die.''

What we got instead was that Arthur became king but didn't lift the ban of magic. Uther died but sorcerers weren't free. Merlin continued protecting Arthur and things didn't change even though he was king (aside from marrying Gwen and knighting commoners which wasn't what Kilgharrah was talking about). Merlin didn't stop Mordred but Mordred indeed killed Arthur. Arthur didn't unite the lands of Albion and Merlin didn't share this succession that he was supposed to share with Arthur. Magic obviously didn't return but was kind of shelved or even eradicated. So all in all, with Mordred having killed Arthur, Merlin had failed. The destiny was not fulfilled which was the only right thing about the prophecy. So Kilgahrrah's words in the end that Merlin had not failed were rubbish and contradicted themselves. Mordred killed Arthur and Kilgharrah had told Merlin "If the boy lives, you cannot fulfill your destiny...... You must let the boy die."

He lived, he killed Arthur, Merlin failed. That's it. And it was Arthur who killed Mordred in the end, not Merlin.

The moment that Arthur was king but still continued his father's work in regard to magic, Merlin should have wondered about the prophecy that Kilgharrah had hammered into Merlin's head for years. He should have asked the dragon why he had always claimed that once Uther is dead and Arthur is king, magic will be allowed again. He should have wondered why he had to protect Arthur beyond his coronation when Kilgharrah said that his reign will change it all. If I was Merlin and had seen that nothing has changed, I would have gone to the dragon and asked him "Arthur has been king now for several months (or years) but still everything is the same. Why?"

If Kilgharrah had said "When Arthur is king, things will change over the years in case you make the right decisions", it would have been different. But what he said was actually that Uther's death will suddenly change it all. This wasn't the case.

'''That's what the time gaps were for (I don't like the idea of time gaps, but meh) during these spaces between series, the kingdom would repair itself and rebuild, the biggest amount of damage to the kingdom as a whole was done at the finales of seasons 3 and 4, when the Immortal Army take Camelot, Morgana is in power for barely a week, she could not do much damage to the kingdom in that time. Now the Southron attacks would have been a major blow on top of the Immortal armies, but a seven year gap was done between Seasons 4 and 5, plenty of time to rebuild the kingdom and become the prosperous nation it once was.'''

It was a four years time gap, not seven years. The damage was done by the several attacks and continued when Morgana burnt the crops and killed citizens in order to gain the knight's obedience. But yes, the attacks caused the biggest damage.

'''First of all, Uther had alot of enemies, you can say what you like about uniting the Five Kingdoms but he could not have done it without Merlin and Arthur. Take them out of the picture and he would have been defeated by Bayard, or Nimueh (probably Nimueh) or Morgause, or one of his countless other enemies, he made too many enemies for himself, and although he did unite the Five Kingdoms (a very unstable unity I might add) he would not have got anywhere near close enough to do so without Arthur and Merlin.'''

Why do you think that unification of the Five Kingdoms was a very unstable one? It lasted even after his death and then Arthur had to prove himself to continue it and to unite even more kingdoms (though the Five Kingdoms were quite different ones all of a sudden?! Plot convenience again).

Yes, sure, without Merlin and Arthur's help, Uther would have been dead long time. But you can say this of almost every other character too. Without Merlin, Arthur would have died in episode one of season one already. He would have died on several other occasions without Merlin's help (for example "Le Morte d'Arthur" and several other episodes). Merlin would have died without Arthur's help, for example  in "The Posioned Chalice". Gwen would have died without Arthur and Merlin. Leon would have died without the druid's help. Morgana would have died without Merlin and Uther's help. Arthur would have died without Uther's help in "Excalibur and without Merlin and Gaius in the very same episode. Almost everyone would have died without Merlin when Kilgharrah and Cornelius Sigan attacked. Gaius would have died without Merlin, Arthur and Gwen's help. And so on.

That's what family and friends and knights (here) are for, saving each other and taking care of each other. Even without the ban of magic, Uther and everyone else would have had a lot of enemies. This was the natural way and it still is today when you're a powerful person. And Uther's power protected the people of Camelot as well as his own son and daughter. Everyone did something for another on the show.

'''And there was a great change when Arthur became king and major change as he worked towards becoming king, Odin's Kingdom, Nemeth and Caerleon were three major opponents of Uther (Rodor not so much but they were in dispute), yet in Arthur's time he made peace with all three of them. He also eliminated a number of key opponents of Camelot such as Helios, Cenred and Hengist.'''

Carerleon trespassed Camelot only because Uther was dead. While he was alive, there weren't any problems with Caerleon, and Uther and Careleon's father had a peace contract. Cenred only attacked because of Morgana and Morgause. Uther was at peace with others and/or kept any war from Camelot while he was alive until Morgana turned into the traitor in their midst and managed to help Cenred attack by using magic. Until then, there wasn't war with or in Camelot for decades, plus there was the unification of the Five Kingdoms.

If Uther had been a king of war or had been as hungry for power as other described him, he not only would have conquered other kingdoms since Camelot was the strongest one but he also wouldn't have outlawed magic but used it for himself. With the help of powerful magic he would have succeeded in taking over more land and other kingdoms even more so. Instead he wanted peace and let everyone else be (except sorcerers), moreover he taught Arthur how very important peace was.

Arthur only made peace with Annis because he killed her husband which caused Annis to go to war. Uther had nothing to do with it at all. He was dead already and he even had a peace contract with the kingdom. It was Arthur who jeopardized the peace by killing another king who was defenceless already. Not Uther's fault.

Hengist was a barbarian and only wanted gold, whether he got it from Uther or from Jon Doe next corner in the woods. Had he been a bigger threat, Uther would have adopted measures, but since he wasn't a threat to Camelot but only a criminal who was no match for the kingdom, he left him alone. Would you prefer a king who rides out to kill each and every person that is annoying? Arthur/Merlin/Lancelot only defeated him in the process because they rescued Gwen.

Odin became an enemy because Arthur killed his son. Not Uther's fault either. It was Arthur's responsibility alone and the truce they made was politically and strategically clever but I found it ridiculous that Arthur said they were even. "Hey, I killed your son, you killed my father, all is fine. Let's have a cookie and shake hands".

Also, for the peasants this could be seen as a Golden Age as it was a time when, there was peace in all of Camelot, a time when the people lived safe and happy and it was a time when the people of Camelot were becoming less like peasants and nobles and more like equals.

Also, Arthur was much more sympathetic to sorcerers, he did maintain the ban on magic but he became much more lenient with the druid people, who made up a major part of the magical community, particularly of those who could not choose who they were.

The people were save and happy under Uther's reign too until Morgana attacked Camelot (aside from sorcerers, of course). Sure, a bit more equality was a progress, yet it wouldn't make a Golden Age. There was still no real equality (as I've written above) but only a a slight relaxation. Servants were still servants. Yes, Arthur promised the druids freedom, yet he denied magic-users a proper burial and still persecuted them (which surprised me, actually). So again, the only change was that Morgana was imprisoned and then weakened for a while, Gwen became queen and a few commoners were knights. Everything else stayed the same, and it was what Uther had built, not Arthur.

The main problem is that the fans had expected Arthur to survive and to really make a change (though I wasn't surprised at all that they killed Arthur and half of the characters off), to build what the prophecy was talking about. Instead they showed the failure in all its misery and naturally, fans are disappointed and think that the entire show was actually made a mockery.