King Arthur

Sarmatian Cataphract/Cavalry

Historical Setting: 452 CE and 467 CE

Important Note: Much like Troy, this won't be about dissecting the finer points of the legend of Arthur, or debating whether or not he existed. I've seen enough documentaries to believe there existed a man who filled the void left in Britain after the Romans abandoned it, on whom the legend could have been based. This is about looking at what the movie presented to us as history and whether it was true or not.

Second Note: For the first time ever, I have an actual compliment for a movie. Despite the many, many problems I have with this movie, I will say that they deserve full credit for actually setting the movie in the right damn time period. No more of this suits-of-armor Middle Ages crap. The legendary Arthur filled the leader void left in Britain after the Romans pulled out their armies, trying to keep the Romano-Celtic people free from the Saxons. So hey, one plus to them. Now for the fun part: everything else that was just so wrong with the movie.

• In the movie Arthur's knights are Sarmatians. Historically, the Sarmatians were a fire-worshipping people of Iranian descent who settled themselves in Eastern Russia. They did menace Rome, conquering Lower Moesia (modern Bulgaria) and entering Dacia (modern Romania). But it wasn't the Romans who defeated them in one final battle, like the opening minutes suggest. The Sarmatians lost their independence because of continual raiding by Gothic tribes and the Huns. 

• The movie takes place in a Roman controlled Britain in 467 CE (AD). This would be impossible seeing as the Romans had abandoned Britain by 410 CE. The last garrisons had been pulled out by Constantine III, who became Emperor in 407 CE. And when the Romanized citizens of Britain begged for help (troops) from Emperor Honorius he told them they were on their own, formally relinquishing all Roman interests in Britain in 410 AD.

• The big problem I had with the movie was how the Saxons were portrayed. First off, they were not a new problem, as they had been pirates and raiders since the 3rd century CE. Secondly, when the Romans began pulling out of Britain it was the Saxons who were taking their place, already forming settlements, with their women and children. In fact, the Saxons settled in England at the request of the people who feared invasion by the Picts. There were wars fought with the Saxons, the most famous their legendary battle with Arthur at Mount Badon, but they were not simply how they were portrayed in the movie. Much like the Vikings, their "reputations" have been greatly exaggerated. They did, eventually, become the dominant people of England. A Saxon named Ceawlin did most of the conquering, the Romanized-Celtic people of Britain eventually fighting alongside him against his enemies (other Romanized-Celtic people). 

• The catapults used by Merlin's tribe were trebuchets, a medieval siege weapon. And if someone can tell me what the Woads (probably a Pictish tribe) were doing with weapons like this I'd be grateful, because I just don't think that catapults were in their arsenal.

• Rome always controlled Britain through a Governor, who was weirdly absent in the Roman Britain showed in the movie. And I somehow doubt it was Bishop's who did the traveling to relay orders to frontier commanders.

• Hadrian's wall was the Roman frontier in Britain. Sure, there was the Antonine wall a bit further out, but the Romans never really kept control of that one. They couldn't even keep control of Hadrian's (it was breeched in 180 AD). Though there were forts beyond the wall, I can't see a Roman living in a manor all by himself out there, especially since the Picts had gained control of all that territory, right up to the wall, some time around 400 AD.

• The Roman knights, their cavalry units, were usually made up of senatorial families, I believe. People whose families had power, money and influence back in Rome. Everything I've ever read about the Roman army shows they were very organized, so I really can't see a unit like Arthur's running around without proper Roman uniforms. None of them even looked like a Roman soldier. Though someone's going to have to tell me if I'm wrong, I also don't think that foreigners from areas not allied to Rome were just allowed into the army like that. And definitely not as one unit.

Sources

Encyclopedia Britannica.

   Macropaedia. Volume 3, pg 197.

   Micropaedia. Volume VIII, pg 904.

Burke, John. Roman England. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1983.

Cunliffe, Barry. The Celtic World. London: Lanchesters, 1990.

Graham, Frank. Hadrian's Wall in the Days of the Romans. Newcastle: Howe Brothers, 1984.

Goldsworth, Adrian. Roman Warfare. London: Cassel & Co, 2000.  pg 51, 197.

Salway, Peter. The Oxford Illustrated History of Roman Britain. Oxford: Oxford University, 1993.

Saxons: http://www.answers.com/Saxons

Sarmatians: http://www.answers.com/Sarmatians