Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems like the past Robin Hood movies have focused more on myth and less on ties to historical events. The newest one does have alot of evidence of the reasons for the Magna Carta...and definitely offers the origins of Robin Hood.
One minor mistake is a reference to "corn" which did not exist in the 1200s in Europe.
Go see it, Russel Crowe is great and the story line is fairly easy to follow...
While I think that it is probably much more historically factual than past efforts, the trailer features an armored Maid Marian fighting alongside the Merry Men, which I find difficult to believe as historically factual.
The History Channel has been running a new program about the real Robin Hood that delves into the question of whether he is myth or has some historical basis. Several clips from the new film, and Crowe and the director make several comments. History buffs that intend to see the film may want to catch this program when it is rerun, which it surely will in the near future. From what I know so far, may have spotted a few historical errors, but will withold comments until after viewing the film.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film but like most Hollywood films,historical accuracy was never truly going to the the point...
At the end of the day Robin Hood is a story with little to no basis in historical fact, King John was actually a much better King than Richard , Magna Carta was not forced upon him by a lowly archer , A medieval professional archer would have probably been covered in scars and half of his body would have been deformed and he would have been unlikely to have been trained into horse riding, and hand to hand combat to the degree exhibited by Crowe - Most medieval archers were given a dagger or a short stabbing sword to defend themselves with as their role on the battlefield was not to engage into hand in hand combat .....
The English longbow as used in the film was not really used by English Archers until the mid 13th century ( and it was an adaptation of a Welsh bow ) and it is pretty unlikely a woman especially one untrained as Marianne would have been been able to even draw it because of its sheer resistance.
Robin Hood is just a good yarn spun to the tune of the underdog versus tyranny. An eternal refrain which appeals to most of us.
I don't think Marianne riding into battle alongside her army of rural urchins was meant to be an historically accurate description of the average medieval woman's role in a warrior society but simply poetic license to shows us a fiercely independent and brave woman trying to avenge her much loved Father in Law and stand shoulder to shoulder with the man she loves. A rousing cinematic moment . Nothing more.
Women in the Middle Ages were not warriors but many in times of war had to hold out against the enemy and many fared bravely and cunningly in siege situations whilst the men were away .
Robin Hood , in Ridley's version shows Marianne lasting barely a few seconds opposite a medieval knight which is accurate.
I don't even think a modern marine or SAS trained guy would last too long opposite a man trained for war since he was seven , having endured famine, pestilence and hardships you and I can barely even imagine....
I found this Robin Hood far more realistic in terms of its sets and costumes and general feel but surely nobody goes to see "Robin Hood" and truly expects an academic discourse on medieval warfare ?
As an Archaeologist and someone fascinated with weapons and their uses and fight choreography ( at the end of the day battle fights are finely tuned and learnt balletic moves - there is a lot of grace in its savagery) I found quite a few innacuracies in the film but it did not take away from the enjoyment.
Historical accuracy often gets in the way of cinematic enjoyment because history is often a lot more prosaic and a lot less romantic than movie-viewers wish it to be. We have many misconceptions handed down to us from previous movie and book experiences as well as the historical innacuracies perpetrated by historians ( contemporary or not) with a certain agenda.
Last edited by Mooseketeer; 05-17-2010 at 05:12 AM..
I thoroughly enjoyed the film but like most Hollywood films,historical accuracy was never truly going to the the point...
At the end of the day Robin Hood is a story with little to no basis in historical fact, King John was actually a much better King than Richard , Magna Carta was not forced upon him by a lowly archer , A medieval professional archer would have probably been covered in scars and half of his body would have been deformed and he would have been unlikely to have been trained into horse riding, and hand to hand combat to the degree exhibited by Crowe - Most medieval archers were given a dagger or a short stabbing sword to defend themselves with as their role on the battlefield was not to engage into hand in hand combat .....
The English longbow as used in the film was not really used by English Archers until the mid 13th century ( and it was an adaptation of a Welsh bow ) and it is pretty unlikely a woman especially one untrained as Marianne would have been been able to even draw it because of its sheer resistance.
Robin Hood is just a good yarn spun to the tune of the underdog versus tyranny. An eternal refrain which appeals to most of us.
I don't think Marianne riding into battle alongside her army of rural urchins was meant to be an historically accurate description of the average medieval woman's role in a warrior society but simply poetic license to shows us a fiercely independent and brave woman trying to avenge her much loved Father in Law and stand shoulder to shoulder with the man she loves. A rousing cinematic moment . Nothing more.
Women in the Middle Ages were not warriors but many in times of war had to hold out against the enemy and many fared bravely and cunningly in siege situations whilst the men were away .
Robin Hood , in Ridley's version shows Marianne lasting barely a few seconds opposite a medieval knight which is accurate.
I don't even think a modern marine or SAS trained guy would last too long opposite a man trained for war since he was seven , having endured famine, pestilence and hardships you and I can barely even imagine....
I found this Robin Hood far more realistic in terms of its sets and costumes and general feel but surely nobody goes to see "Robin Hood" and truly expects an academic discourse on medieval warfare ?
As an Archaeologist and someone fascinated with weapons and their uses and fight choreography ( at the end of the day battle fights are finely tuned and learnt balletic moves - there is a lot of grace in its savagery) I found quite a few innacuracies in the film but it did not take away from the enjoyment.
Historical accuracy often gets in the way of cinematic enjoyment because history is often a lot more prosaic and a lot less romantic than movie-viewers wish it to be. We have many misconceptions handed down to us from previous movie and book experiences as well as the historical innacuracies perpetrated by historians ( contemporary or not) with a certain agenda.
Whether it was meant to be accurate or not really wasn't my point. My point was that it was not at all historically accurate, which was in response to the OP's assertion that the film was more historically accurate than preceding depictions.
And while I don't doubt that medieval women were strong and independent, to depict a medieval woman in battle is a modern concept and something that would never have been seen in the Middle Ages.
Moreover, I think that there are ways to represent medieval women as strong and independent without having them don armor and, essentially, act like a man. Furthermore, it would have been more interesting to see the historically accurate ways (as you have mentioned above: the cunning et al.) in which such women asserted their strength and independence.
Whether it was meant to be accurate or not really wasn't my point. My point was that it was not at all historically accurate, which was in response to the OP's assertion that the film was more historically accurate than preceding depictions.
And while I don't doubt that medieval women were strong and independent, to depict a medieval woman in battle is a modern concept and something that would never have been seen in the Middle Ages.
Moreover, I think that there are ways to represent medieval women as strong and independent without having them don armor and, essentially, act like a man. Furthermore, it would have been more interesting to see the historically accurate ways (as you have mentioned above: the cunning et al.) in which such women asserted their strength and independence.
There are a few examples of women riding into battle in full armour such as Sichelgaita de Guiscard, Richilde Countess de Mons , Isabel de Conches etc.. and a few women leading men into battles. Extremely rare but not unheard of. Athealflead led the Mercian army into battle for example.
And yes they were an anomaly . Full body armour and chain of harness would have been a huge drawback for the average woman to begin with . Upper body strength restrictions another. And sexism and a patriarchal attitude another.
There are also historical accounts of warrior women in India, China and Japan for example as well as other countries.
And while I don't doubt that medieval women were strong and independent, to depict a medieval woman in battle is a modern concept and something that would never have been seen in the Middle Ages.
Boudica (likely she was lightly armed).
Joan of Arc.
Catalina de Erauso--but she was more of the Renaissance period.
Quote:
Moreover, I think that there are ways to represent medieval women as strong and independent without having them don armor and, essentially, act like a man. Furthermore, it would have been more interesting to see the historically accurate ways (as you have mentioned above: the cunning et al.) in which such women asserted their strength and independence.
Agree, but as Moose says, Scott's depiction lends itself to cinema.
Still, I remember a moment in the Erroll Flynn version of Robin Hood when Maid Marian cleverly used that *second* messenger pigeon (the first one, a decoy, was shot) to fool those who imprisoned her.
I think the much more recent BBC Robin Hood series used this ruse as well.
I'd like to see the movie but might wait for the DVD.
Not all women have diminished upper body strength, especially if their muscles have been given workouts in toting water and hand washing clothes and feeding animals and digging in gardens on a constant basis. The shape and strength of the average western woman fed on bird food has little relation to that of working women. Today's average western male is probably more on a par with the strength of the medieval woman who had borne a couple of kids and not died in the process.
Not all women have diminished upper body strength, especially if their muscles have been given workouts in toting water and hand washing clothes and feeding animals and digging in gardens on a constant basis. The shape and strength of the average western woman fed on bird food has little relation to that of working women. Today's average western male is probably more on a par with the strength of the medieval woman who had borne a couple of kids and not died in the process.
Absolutely but still drawing any half decent longbow is going to take a lot of serious strength. Why is why Medieval archers were so deformed. The continuous favouring of one side and unbelievable pressure it put on muscles and soft tissues.
Some women can be as strong as many men but on the whole an average woman even one who is used to extreme hard physical work does not have the brute force a man has and a full chain of harness would have been crippling to the average female. Body armour was hard enough for knights who had done nothing but fight and learn warfare since they were 7 . Many battlefields ended up with knights simply drowning in mud in their own armour simply because of the sheer weight.
And I do agree that an average Medieval woman would have probably been used to extreme physical labour and pain but also because of poor nutrition ( men being fed first in times of famine) and childbirth it is quite likely that she would also have had fairly brittle bones and a weakened skeleton too.
At my peak fitness when I was about 20 , I had just completed a triathlon and spent 3 months in the Jungle. I was super-fit and super strong for a woman but in terms of brute strength I could never match up to males of similar lifestyles. Where I excelled at was resilience and the ability to recuperate quicker than my male friends. I could survive on less sleep and was much faster than them. We simply had different physical attributes.
I put on a full medieval suit of armour once and including the various under tunics and protective surcoats I swear to you I could barely move. I used to play ice Hockey at the time so fairly used to quite a bit of rough handling but this was excruciating. How anyone could move in that never mind fight hand to hand is a mystery to me. The greaves alone were enough to cripple you.
I am a huge fan of armours and weaponry, but had I ever been a warrior I would myself have chosen far more flexible like a Mongol boiled leather with super-light harness ( chain mail) . I'm slightly claustrophobic as well so the idea of being stuck in a metal "box" would really panic me. I loathed the helmet visors I tried on because it also restricted your field of vision so much.
Restricted vision and restricted movement, my idea of hell.
One minor mistake is a reference to "corn" which did not exist in the 1200s in Europe.
Did you see actual corn fields in the movie? My understanding is that maize became known as corn because corn was a word used to refer to any grain at one time; i.e. "corned" beef refers to the grains of salt used in the meat preparation.
I plan to see this movie, I am even a fan of the Kevin Costner version despite the ridiculous non-attempt at an accent. This made the recent controversy over someone saying Crowe did Robin Hood as Irish really funny to me. I mean, no matter how off he may be in dialect to an expert, the bar is not set very high in this regard!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
