Captures from Robin Hood (2010)
- Thread starter Cèsar de Quart
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Frisicus
Squire
For what I read and the swords/machetes I have held in my hand, they are almost all in the range of 1-2 kg. Only those 'to hang on the wall and nice to look but not functional' swords I have held are heavier.Al_Mansur said:Cèsar de Quart said:FrisianDude said:10 kg?Isn't that a bit on the heavy side for a (one-handed) sword?
It might be false, I read it in a history magazine, its fiability is compromised!
I have a one handed norman sword, and it must be 1,5 - 2 kg. 10kg is absolutely weird, even for a two handed sword.
I have never held a twohander or a bastard sword in my hands but according to myArmoury.com they seem mostly in the range of 1.5-2.5 kg.
Daedelus_McGee
Sergeant at Arms
Granting that the amphibious warfare sequence shouldn't have been in the film at all, the bad decisions about amphibious warfare are historically accurate.
Until Gallipoli, there wasn't serious study about amphibious warfare and the first really significant work that changed the way military forces crossed water under fire were S.L.A. Marshall's "The Soldier's Load" and "Mobility of a Nation". Until those books come out, providing serious historical looks at the ways men fail when crossing a beach, failure in amphibious operation was the norm.
Certainly the movie is stupid, but the bad decision about where to land was accurately stupid.
Until Gallipoli, there wasn't serious study about amphibious warfare and the first really significant work that changed the way military forces crossed water under fire were S.L.A. Marshall's "The Soldier's Load" and "Mobility of a Nation". Until those books come out, providing serious historical looks at the ways men fail when crossing a beach, failure in amphibious operation was the norm.
Certainly the movie is stupid, but the bad decision about where to land was accurately stupid.
Daedelus_McGee said:
But there was an amphibious assault on England led by Louis the Lion, son of the King of France, which did succeed on bringing Louis to England.
The point is not if an amphibious assault could succeed or not, the point is that it was hard to coordinate, but also, it was almost impossible to stop. Medieval warfare had no trenches and turrets along the shores, neither had garrisons detached every few miles in the beaches, nor had any kind of coast guard.
That's why disembarkments went on without troubles, and then a battle took place a day or two after that, several miles from the beaches. There's Hastings.
rhibran
Sergeant
Oh yeah the d-day style landing was a very bad chose, when I saw those Hig.. oh sorry french landing craft the movie took a down hill slide, I could have forgiven that but then right after that Maid Marion comes riding up leading a band of half naked children riding ponies, then I just about threw up. I mean seriously I would have given them maybe two second before a crossbowman took em down. But my biggest let down came when the shreiff is shown putting up a wanted poster and then Robin nails it to the tree with an arrow (which was very cool and robin hoodish) then you get to thinking "alright the movie is starting to get good, this must just be real long, I bet now Robin's going to get the merry men together and rob tha.." movie ends.
Yeah the movie sucked however if you do want to get it the directors cut is the only version worth watching.
Yeah the movie sucked however if you do want to get it the directors cut is the only version worth watching.
Cèsar de Quart said:
There actually is a good reason to think that many warriors of history would have tried to gain subcutaneous fat. Fat actually provides excellent defense of the nerves, organs and blood vessels from both blunt trauma and cutting wounds. The primary reason why many warriors of old would have been lean would have been because of the lack of a sufficient calorie surplus in their diet rather than some benefit of being lean. Consuming excess calories (while consistently engaging in rigorous exercise) would also allow you to pack on much more muscle than you would be able to with a calorie-neutral (or deficient) diet, which would both help to shield nerves and vital organs and to make you more formidable in combat. The slight speed advantage one may be able to gain by being trim would have largely been negated by the weight of the weapons and armor they wore, where the stronger person would be able to more easily bear the weight of their arms. The (very) significant increase in strength that results from eating a calorie surplus while exercising would also be enough to more easily damage armored foes.
The transition to the point where speed and cardiovascular endurance became more important virtues for warfare than strength would not likely have been until armor was gradually made (mostly) obsolete as the 17th century progressed and firearms became more common.
Evidence in favor of this was recently discovered when researching roman-era gladiators:
http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/gladiator.html
Actually, AFAIK, Richard was indeed 'fat' by the time of his death. So yeah, his physical portrayal in the movie may not be innacurate at all. Please remember that 'fat' doesn't neccesarily mean 'obese'... a person can be overweight while still having a pretty decent amount of trained and hardened muscles in his body.
Korinov said:
Was he? I find it hard to belive, for a man who was not even old, and valued his body shape so much, who trained so much. I mean, you can have Russell Crowe's complexion, and you're not fat, you're just strong and wide.
But I would be surprised to know that Richard got fat.
Knight0815
Sergeant at Arms
the beginning of the movie was so great! after 30 minutes the whole movie became a mess, until the children came with their ponys to batlle...
the whole movie was a nightmare.
like u said only the architekteure and clothings were great.
biggest dissapointing movie ever!
the whole movie was a nightmare.
like u said only the architekteure and clothings were great.
biggest dissapointing movie ever!
Yeah he was. Most nobles were what we would consider "fat", as they had the wealth to afford delicacies that none other could, and in vast amounts. Large men can still be very strong, fat does not replace muscle, it only goes over it. Also, his sword is not anywhere near 10 kg. The largest swords were around 4 kg, 5 tops. Richard's was not that large, and I'd be very surprised if it weighed in at more over 4 kg.
As for the movie?
I thought that, all things aside, it was a fun movie to watch. I can watch the film several times over, and I really don't mind the sporadic historical inaccuracies in it. It's an action/adventure movie, not a documentary. It was meant to entertain, not to be historically accurate, and it succeeded at that.
PS: Although I did reel a bit at the part with the children fighting at the end. It was a little silly, but at least it was a small part.
As for the movie?
I thought that, all things aside, it was a fun movie to watch. I can watch the film several times over, and I really don't mind the sporadic historical inaccuracies in it. It's an action/adventure movie, not a documentary. It was meant to entertain, not to be historically accurate, and it succeeded at that.
PS: Although I did reel a bit at the part with the children fighting at the end. It was a little silly, but at least it was a small part.
guilemaster said:
No, they were not. For men who were raised and lived almost only for the pleasure of hunting, fighting and making war, either seriously or "not so seriously" (in tournaments and other para-war issues), being in shape was really important.
Muscle doesnt replace fat, but fat is kept away with extense exercise, which is what most of these nobles did until they got crippled somehow, and then they got really fat. Henry VIII is one of the last examples of a "true knight". There is little difference between Henry VIII's life and Henry the Young, the eldest son of Henry II, in a matter of lifestyle.
Anyway, most noblemen died in their 55-60's because of bad health (bad foot habits, as you have pointed out), so many didn't live to see themselves crippled and fat.
It's not that it was historically incorrect. It's just that it had a silly plot and absurd situations, and very bad combination of the pleasant adventure plot with the "grand political plot", which besides being silly, was totally anticlimatic.
My point stands: using real history would have been way better, because it is much better than the movie plot.
Just imagine:
Richard goes to England and there is one Robin who's a mercenary under his rule, Richard is hurt and dies after two weeks, in which we get to know Eleanor of Aquitaine and to learn that Richard doesn't know much about England or its language. Some noblemen conspire to achieve that Richard designs, as he said sometimes, his nephew Arthur as king, but Eleanor makes him change his mind and Richard dies after passing the crown unto John, because England needs a clever king, nor a child king who can be played by the nobility.
In the meantime, Richard, who was prisoner, escapes with his adventure friends and tries to get to the Channel.
Then, John falls in love with Isabelle of Angoulême, who is to marry Hugues de Lusignan. John repudiates his wife Ingeborg of Denmark and kidnaps Isabelle just before her wedding. Hugues, vassal of England but inside French territory, complains to his "natural lord", Philippe II of France, and Philippe gets a casus belli on England. Before that, we saw a scene shared by Philippe and the English knight Godfrey speaking about peace and French possessions, and the Angevin threat to France.
While John is suffering loss after loss in France, he's raising taxes in England to solve his budget problems (besides, Richard ruined the kingdom's income). He introduces extraordinary taxation for the nobility, who is outraged. Arthur of Brittany becomes a good choice for King of England in their eyes. We get to see Arthur as a kind-hearted boy, with intentions of being brave and just. William Marshall is contacted by Godfrey, and both of them go to Arthur to propose him an offer: he is to become vassal of France in exchange of help in his quest for the English crown.
Where is Robin? Like in the film, in a similar way, he gets to Nottingham and suplants the lord's son, just like in the film. The difference is that the Sheriff has more protagonism, because he represents the threat of the king raising taxes and trying to screw up the nobility. Walter of Nottingham is approached by William Marshal, and Robin meets William, old friend of Walter. William tries to talk Walter into supporting Arthur, because he is a prestigious lord and if he does go with Arthur, many will follow. Walter says he's too old and poor now. Life is good, somehow, in Nottingham.
Until the tax farmers come to Nottingham and sack the castle, led by the Sheriff's intentions of avenging his pride and trying to get Marian for himself. Driven by hatred and greed, the Sheriff fights and kills Walter. Robin, Marian and his merry men were away, trying to get the food from the bishop's convoy, and when they come back and they see that there is nothing left for them in the ruined Nottingham, Marian convices Robin to embrace his new identity as a nobleman and travel to Brittany, to swear loyalty to Arthur.
Robin, by the way, would be more interesting if he had some kind of internal debate between acting like a nobleman and acting like a low-born idealistic mercenary.
I could go on, centering the story in two points: John's capture and murder of Arthur, which lead the barons to revolt, and the suqsequent Revolt of the Barons.
Robin's adventure would be inside this plot, and easily done, especially when it comes to the teenager Arthur's murder. Robin would be close to Arthur's ideas, while Godfrey, or John's friend Braose, try to kill Arthur.
In the meantime, Richard, who was prisoner, escapes with his adventure friends and tries to get to the Channel.
Then, John falls in love with Isabelle of Angoulême, who is to marry Hugues de Lusignan. John repudiates his wife Ingeborg of Denmark and kidnaps Isabelle just before her wedding. Hugues, vassal of England but inside French territory, complains to his "natural lord", Philippe II of France, and Philippe gets a casus belli on England. Before that, we saw a scene shared by Philippe and the English knight Godfrey speaking about peace and French possessions, and the Angevin threat to France.
While John is suffering loss after loss in France, he's raising taxes in England to solve his budget problems (besides, Richard ruined the kingdom's income). He introduces extraordinary taxation for the nobility, who is outraged. Arthur of Brittany becomes a good choice for King of England in their eyes. We get to see Arthur as a kind-hearted boy, with intentions of being brave and just. William Marshall is contacted by Godfrey, and both of them go to Arthur to propose him an offer: he is to become vassal of France in exchange of help in his quest for the English crown.
Where is Robin? Like in the film, in a similar way, he gets to Nottingham and suplants the lord's son, just like in the film. The difference is that the Sheriff has more protagonism, because he represents the threat of the king raising taxes and trying to screw up the nobility. Walter of Nottingham is approached by William Marshal, and Robin meets William, old friend of Walter. William tries to talk Walter into supporting Arthur, because he is a prestigious lord and if he does go with Arthur, many will follow. Walter says he's too old and poor now. Life is good, somehow, in Nottingham.
Until the tax farmers come to Nottingham and sack the castle, led by the Sheriff's intentions of avenging his pride and trying to get Marian for himself. Driven by hatred and greed, the Sheriff fights and kills Walter. Robin, Marian and his merry men were away, trying to get the food from the bishop's convoy, and when they come back and they see that there is nothing left for them in the ruined Nottingham, Marian convices Robin to embrace his new identity as a nobleman and travel to Brittany, to swear loyalty to Arthur.
Robin, by the way, would be more interesting if he had some kind of internal debate between acting like a nobleman and acting like a low-born idealistic mercenary.
I could go on, centering the story in two points: John's capture and murder of Arthur, which lead the barons to revolt, and the suqsequent Revolt of the Barons.
Robin's adventure would be inside this plot, and easily done, especially when it comes to the teenager Arthur's murder. Robin would be close to Arthur's ideas, while Godfrey, or John's friend Braose, try to kill Arthur.
There were a hundred ways to make a decent film, they cose to use none. Screw them.
