this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2026
30 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
816 readers
420 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the OP/imdb might be a little misleading, wikipedia claims the show is mostly post-roman. but specialists have been using the terminology "sub-roman" for a long time due to longstanding disagreements about what "Roman" even means or meant in that historical context. Elements of Arthurian myth have been frequently identified with "roman" figures and since the central figure is made up, it's feasible to place your 'Arthur' as a 'last roman' sort of character.
I don't want to give the Daily Wire any credit, but the nature of the grains that make up the heap of Arthurian myth don't fall on a neat roman-not-roman axis.
Yhea, I think I'm some versions he is even a cavalry commander from Romania, hence the knights.
the 'sarmatian theory' grain is completely untenable but it was the basis of the 2004 film so it has outsized cache. the sarmatian commander guy was over a century too old! it still gets used a lot because it's hard for audiences to wrap their heads around "knights" being direct descendents of roman cavalry. it's a whole heap of communication issues & narrative decisions