King Arthur (2004)
Made the mistake of taking Ben, Jr. to see that. It stunk on ice.
I saw that movie. One of the problems is that the original story/script set the story in the Thames valley, which was compatible with historical records that show a Bishop Germanicus visiting Roman Britain in the early 400’s. There was also, supposedly, a Sarmatian Numerous (or Squadron, nominally about 300 men) of “knights” (equitati, or horsemen; cavalry) on the Roman Army List, whose commander (or perhaps the original commander who recruited/formed the unit) had the Roman name Arturius. This unit may/or may not have still been active after the last Roman Legion was pulled out of Britain in 405 AD. We find accounts of some Roman troops still holding parts of Hadrian’s Wall and the Saxon Shore Forts even after their units had been called back to Gaul. Retired troopers with local ties, who settled down near their former posts, perhaps. In any case, Arturius’s Sarmatian Cavalry would have been stationed in the Midlands, not near the Wall, to give them maneuvering room to intercept any raid which got past the Wall.
So they messed up the original story by changing the setting. They confused the “Woadies” ( a modern play on the Picts, Romano-British for ‘the painted ones’) with the Romano-British, who were Christians and thought of themselves as Roman citizens. They moved the stories of Arthur from the Late 5th - Early 6th Century back to the early 5th Century. In so doing, the producers and director ruined a good, if fanciful, piece of historical fiction.
What was the point of this?
That was a funny column.