Should Historical Films be Accurately Portrayed?

Page 3 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,159
Location: Australia

25 Feb 2026, 2:09 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Actually, I found something about Sarmatians permanently settled in Britain by Rome. While Britain was culturally primitive in the eyes of Romans, so were the Sarmatians.
https://x.com/nxt888/status/1695811036572795067


Oh that's interesting. But in the King Arthur film the Sarmatians were portrayed as straight from Sarmatia whereas the article speaks of them being assimilated into Celtic society (2nd or even 3rd generation). Although they spoke an Iranian language, (like the Scythians) the western Iranian speakers physically resembled northern Europeans depicted with blonde and reddish hair. Likely physically indistinguishable from the celts they assimilated with. But having said that the male heirs likely did pick up horsemanship from their fathers so could well have been skilled knights.



cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,159
Location: Australia

25 Feb 2026, 2:21 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
The shield wall, or phalanx, was a military formation used by many if not most ancient infantry. I suspect it went back further among the Germanic tribes than their contact with Rome would account for.

My only pushback is that if Celtic, Gothic and Saxon tribes used military formation and advanced weaponry and armour (like Rome) then given superior numbers and deep knowledge of terrain, they should have easily defended against Roman incursions.

Alaric was the first goth to succeed against Rome because (like Hengist and Horsa) he served as a commander in the Roman army and basically used Roman techniques against Rome. By the time of the Huns they overwhelmed an already weak Rome using Blitzkrieg tactics on warhorses.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Feb 2026, 5:14 am

cyberdora wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The shield wall, or phalanx, was a military formation used by many if not most ancient infantry. I suspect it went back further among the Germanic tribes than their contact with Rome would account for.

My only pushback is that if Celtic, Gothic and Saxon tribes used military formation and advanced weaponry and armour (like Rome) then given superior numbers and deep knowledge of terrain, they should have easily defended against Roman incursions.

Alaric was the first goth to succeed against Rome because (like Hengist and Horsa) he served as a commander in the Roman army and basically used Roman techniques against Rome. By the time of the Huns they overwhelmed an already weak Rome using Blitzkrieg tactics on warhorses.


It's absolutely true that some Barbarian leaders who had served with the Romans later turned that training against the legions. Case in point, Arminius the liberator of Germany, had commanded a cavalry auxiliary force made up of his fellow "Romanized " Germans. Then in 9 AD, he had led a successful uprising against the Roman occupiers, destroying three legions and a number of auxiliaries. But Arminius was wise enough not to confront the legions in open battle, but to lure them into a premade trap, funneling them between a camouflaged earthwork and a marsh, after attacking them deep in the woods where Roman formations were hindered. Later, when the Romans returned under Germanicus, Tiberius' adopted son, Arminius was able to carry on long term guerilla warfare. Though often beaten by the Romans in later battles, Arminius didn't need to destroy them as he had a few years prior, he simply needed to hold out till Germanicus' forces were tired out and retreated. Which they did.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer