Iran?
So, historically Chivalric poetry and the crusades overlap. In this version they seem to say that the the Round Table Knights immigrated from Iran. Any idea of why they did that?
shareThe Roman's liked to use Auxiliaries, that is troops from other nations that fight differently than the legions themselves. There was some record that there were Auxiliaries from that part of the world in Britian in the 4th century. The film makers are positing that these foreign cavalrymen who fought for the Roman legions may well have been the inspiration for Arthur's knights.
It's all a lot of Nonsense, of course. For a start, the legions had been out of Britain for as long as a century before the Battle of Badon Hill (the climactic fight of the movie), at which the elusive figure Artorius defeated a Saxon army, which may or may not have been commanded by Cerdic of Wessex. Anyone with the wealth and power to command an army was probably of Roman descent, but the idea that he was in command of Roman legions, or Iranian Auxiliaries, is ludicrous.
Do you mean Cerdic or Artorius? Thanks for the information.
shareI mean Artorius. Britain had been abandoned by the empire for decades by the time of badon is said to have happened. The commander of the British forces was a romano-celtic warlord, usually in the chronicles attributed as Aurelius Ambrosius.
shareWell the idea behind that is pretty complicated.
The Romaan Empire recruited a lot of Foederati forces into their military, such as warriors from Germanic or Celtic tribes. During the migration period, there were also Alan tribes moving through Europe. Quite numerous in size. They were pretty formidable cavalrymen and many Roman cavalry forces consisted of Alan soldiers. The Alans were an Iranian tribe originally from Central Asia and part of the Sarmatian culture.
One could say that without this military influence the medieval knight would not exist.
It is true that Rome also had a group of Alans stationed in Britain as well as in Brittany.
The film connects this cultural heritage of Alan heavy cavalry as a possible historicl source for the Arthurian legends. Interesting is, that the sword in the ground appaarently is an Alan religious symbol as well, so the connection overall is plausible in my opinion.
My point is that when the Romans left Britain, they took the legions with them. The legions left several decades before the battle of badon.
shareWhich is mentioned in the movie. There are few Roman troops left and Bishop Germanus states that Rome abandons Britain. The "knights" choose to stay regardless. Which is plausible if they were serving on the island for such aa long time that they basically assimilated into the local culture to a certain degree.
shareThe legion is still there in the beginning of the movie, Badon happened 50-100 years after they left. If Arthur and the Knights were in the legion when the empire abandoned britain, they would have been long-dead when Cerdic rolled up in his boats.
shareYes, the movie condenses the process of abandoning the province and the invasion by the saxon forces, which is unhistorical. Rome doesn't leave over night and take everything they have with them and the Germanic invaders don't conquer the island within a few days.
But you also can't say that after Roman legions left, everything Roman on the island is gone in an instant. Roman cultural influence might remain and in case of the Sarmatian allies, there may be soldiers settling down, having children and maintain a fraction of their cultural heritage. I suppose the concept of good heavy cavalry will not be abandoned as well.
Yes you don't become a good cavalryman by heritage, it is open to anyone. But stories like this movie or the Arthurian legends tend to simplify things. And mix things up, that don't belong together at the same time. I think the connection of famous heavy cavalry, Sarmatian auxiliaries and the sword in the stone is intriguing and plausible at the same time.
Was Artorius of Sarmatian descent? Probably not and certainly not completely. Are there Sarmatian traditions still alive 50 years after the regular troops move off? We won't know. Maybe it was an empty tradition already.
Did regular Sarmatian auxiliaries fight at Badon? No, certainly not. Maybe cavalrymen following some traditions of Sarmatian auxiiaries though. Why not?
But well, Pictish troops weren't all naked (some, yes, but not as per standard) and the Roman legionaries wouldn't look like wannabe imperial troops as well.
My point is that when the Romans left Britain, they took the legions with them. The legions left several decades before the battle of badon
And yes, I believe you. But I wonder if you can find any epic movie like this, where there is no historical error whatsoever. Or where no licence at all has been taken with the facts to tell the story. "King Arthur" is a work of entertainment/fiction, and not a documentary. Everybody is free to check the details and find out more later, if they are interested. But if you want some history lesson based only on the facts, you have to look somewhere else and not count on a movie to provide it for you. share
But this movie presents itself as "the true story behind the legend," or some such rubbish.
shareYou have to remember that even when a movie is supposedly based on a "true story", there will be some licence taken with the truth. Always.
And as for this movie, it is hardly meant to be historical anyway. We're not sure if King Arthur has even existed. Rather, it is an attempt to tell his story as it could have happened with all of the supernatural elements removed. Just like "Troy" did the same thing with "The Illiad".
Good points.
share