Historical (In)Accuracies

This year, Hollywood is releasing yet another adaptation of the Aurthurian legend - this time imaginatively named King Arthur. Now this is a movie which I'm looking forward to. Not only does it feature Clive Owen (who should be the next James Bond) and Ioan Gruffudd (from the great Hornblower telemovies), it also has the fetching young Keira Knightley in a prominent role which, according to the trailers released seems to have her spend alot of time wearing leather straps and blue body paint and swinging quite a few swords. Such as this.

Now this adaptation does a few things differently than the usual Arthurian legend. For a start it appears that Arthur actually has a sword named Excalibur, unlike one of Hollywood's last efforts - the Richard Gere wank-fest. Now it is a movie produced by Jerry Bruckheimer (I'm waiting to see how they fit a car chase in it), so it should prove pretty spectacular. By far the biggest difference between this version and previous Arthurian adaptations is the choice of setting Arthur and his knights as Roman soldiers stationed in Britain. As the official site says

"Clive Owen, is 'Artorius' or Arthur, the hero of Roman and British parentage eulogized in the ancient Celtic poem. Like his loyal Knights, he sees only chaos and devastation will follow Rome's final pullout of Britain. Although, as a dedicated Christian he is desperate to return to Rome to influence the budding religion, his first loyalty is to his pagan Knights. Arthur sees his duty is to free them from their servitude to Rome so they may return to their ancestral homeland in Sarmatia."

Sounds like it could be an interesting take on the story. As the site continues,

"Thrilling adventure, edge-of-your-seat action and historical grandeur come together in this unique look at the origins of one of the greatest legends ever told."

And here's some of your historical grandeur.

Now here's where I point out a problem with the movie. Despite what you think, this isn't just a chance to post a nice picture of good-looking gal. Look again. Notice anything... out of place.... not quite right... not really fitting in with the historical grandeur?

Here's another picture to clarify the problem.

Now call me silly (and plenty of people have). Call me pedantic (and you undoubtedly will after this). But I'm going to bet you good money that during the times when Rome was pulling out of Britain, the chances of young ladies sporting surgical steel piercings would be rather slim....

Now some would say I'm blowing things out of proportion here. Some might say that I'm attempting to justify the posting of gratuitous pictures. But I strongly believe that Hollywood is letting us down by allowing such historical inaccuracies to exist. For shame Hollywood...