King, Knight, Warrior, Roman, Christian, Briton...Who knows?

Historical accuracy aside, I did enjoy this movie. The battle scenes were so much fun to watch, and I loved how the knights were ruffians rather than squeaky clean nobility.

Now all that being said, let's dive into the potential errors, shall we? For me, the conflict between the Romans and the Sarmatians seems pretty sound. Especially when we get into the (movie) fact of Romans taking Sarmatian kids to be soldiers for the Roman empire. That seems like something the Romans would do, accurate or not. Ugh..as if conquering a nation isn't enough.

The Saxon invasion makes sense to me, too, though I'm horrible with dates. It might be possible this invasion took place a hundred years before or after the Romans fighting over Briton. But nations fighting over land that doesn't even belong to them in the first place is not an unusual thing, nor is it new, which makes this feel accurate.

On to the weird stuff: what on earth is going on with the blue food coloring the Woads wear? Is running around looking like a bunch of Smurfs supposed to be terrifying? Also, the battle on the ice. I have a lot of trouble believing eight people, skilled though they are, could stand a chance against hundreds of soldiers. It makes for great cinema, but it seems a little too good to be true.