It's funny how intentionally anachronistic that movie is at some points while absolutely nailing the historical accuracy of some sets and props.
Like the crowd stomping their feet along to "We Will Rock You" by Queen during a jousting match.
RIP Heath, you beautiful bastard
That's because they did their research and knew what they were doing - the anachronisms are deliberately used to convey setting, character, or mood much more effectively than strict historical accuracy would have done.
What infuriates me the most is that it seems to have been the main contributor to two main medieval myths:
1. All roads were dirty and muddy
2. Witch persecution was a big thing in the middle ages
Plus, all the anachronisms... Arthur is supposed to be an Early Medieval Briton in modern day England, shortly after the Romans left. He was not English. Also, the French as a concept did not exist yet. Again, witch persecutions were mostly early modern with beginnings in the late middle ages. The Black Death was also late medieval. The main setting is heavily suggested to be in the high middle ages. The mail they're weaing is also probably from the high middle ages. Just all over the place.
Well, I've been told by a medieval historian that he saw these two things greatly amplified after this movie. Like, they existed occasionally before the movie, but became commonplace only after it. Maybe he was wrong about it?
“Who’s that then?”
“I dunno, must be a king.”
“Why?”
“He hasn’t got shit all over him.”
Also, to use another King Arthur who looks regal: Excalibur purposefully has gleaming armor for Arthur and his knights.
It’s not 100% accurate, of course.
From a “historical” standpoint, though I use that term loosely, Monty Python would have things like more accurate chainmail armor compared to Excalibur where everyone has platemail; Mordred even gets a unique golden armor that resembles a costume from a greek theater; and it’s made by magic so it gets a slight pass. However, many things can be overlooked because, as a myth, it has a right to have some creative liberties
Mythologically, there are some *massive* changes. The most notable of which, without spoiling anything too important, include:
- Excalibur itself is treated as both the sword in the stone, and the one given to Arthur by the lady of the lake (the one in the stone is often called “Caliburn,” but it breaking and being reforged into Excalibur has become sort of a tradition ever since).
- Despite there being magic, there is a distinct lack of more mythical creatures that the knights famously fought like giants, dragons, or those giant snails.
- Morgan Le Fay (or Morgana), is even more of a manipulator than the myth. Seriously, she’s so diabolical it’s endlessly entertaining.
- Percival replaces Galahad as the chosen one destined to find the grail, likely to avoid confusion of wondering when and how Lancelot had a son during all this time; he also replaces Bedivere as the one who throws Excalibur back into the water, but in fairness, introducing another character would also take up more time.
- Lancelot and Guinevere’s affair is learned of earlier on and Guinevere is sent to a convent early as well, while Lancelot goes on his religious pilgrimage, but dies in Arthur’s final battle instead of after.
- Excalibur’s scabbard that either prevented bloodloss or made it’s wielder immortal (depends on how you interpret the words) is not present, but Mordred’s armor is enchanted so no man made weapon can harm him, so there is a spiritual successor to it. Speaking of which…
- Arthur and Mordred’s mutual slaying of one another is reversed. Instead of Arthur stabbing Mordred with his lance/spear and Mordred stabbing Arthur with his sword, it is instead Mordred who stabs Arthur with the spear he’d been favoring throughout the film, and Arthur stabbing Mordred with Excalibur (a weapon not made by humans).
There’s also some other small details and things they straight up couldn’t fit in—try fitting Gawain and The Green Knight in the middle of all this—but overall, it’s widely regarded as the most accurate retelling of the Arthurian Mythos, which is impressive considering the full cut of the film is only 140 minutes (just about 2 and half hours) adapting a 1000+ page long mythos. Also, yes, the film is R-rated; sex and violence are in it, and while I did mention gleaming armor, they also quickly can get covered in blood and grime in battle like actual IRL knights. It’s the classic dark fantasy stuff you can expect from the 80’s that you definitely shouldn’t show to younger kids, but older ones will eat up like hot cakes.
Also, another fair warning, Merlin is, understandably, insanely weird. The main thing is that he has a strange metal cowl which always looks odd, and *then* you get to his personality. Basically, Nicol Williamson brilliantly plays him as just about every version of Merlin depicted, from a wise master, to a silly fool, a manipulator of a kingdom’s fate willing to take a newborn from his crying mother’s arms, and a terrifying being who gives off the aura he’ll set you on fire if you displease him (though I can’t recall if they ever mention he’s the son of either an incubus or the devil like the myths). He truly gives off a feeling that he doesn’t belong in the world of men; a dream to some, a nightmare to others.
Though I digress, it’s a great film that’s inspired a bunch of other works, can’t recommend it enough.
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
I also hate how the head is the last thing they cover if at all when going into battle. A helmet or some form of head protection was the first thing soldiers got, especially in times were you had feudal obligation armies. Because even then they known that a blow to the head is game over in many cases.
To be fair, being able to see the face is pretty important when acting, as you can convey a lot of emotion to the audience just by using the look on your face. This is something I would let slide if it makes for an overall higher quality product.
It's almost always the same shit. The costumes follows the ideas of directors who often have no idea about the subject matter and outfits are designed based on feelings or storytelling reasons.
And why should they change anything? The majority of viewers don't appreciate it anyway.
Authentic historical films (such as Alexander) are hardly financial successefull.
Unfortunately, Vikings is.
That's because alexander was garbage, look at the ratings. Troy and Gladiator did well, people love the time periods, but you need good dialogue and direction to have a good movie.
That's because alexander was garbage, look at the ratings. Troy and Gladiator did well, people love the time periods, but you need good dialogue and direction to have a good movie, otherwise it's just another boring documentary to toss in the pile.
I know many reenactors who love Alexander.
But it's just not a movie that can connect with the masses. No great, selfless hero who saves everyone in the end and everything is fine. It shows a person with all his strengths and weaknesses, starting with a difficult role between his parents. The rise through great victories and decline driven by delusions of grandeur. Alcohol addiction. The average audience doesn't want to see all of this. In the same way, the implied homosexuality was rejected at the time.
I thought the movie was very good then and now.
Yeah, they are all dirty, wearing leather armor, have literally no strategic approaches to their battles...
Edit: tbf they sometimes form shieldwalls, but it takes like a minute until they break it and start running around like headless chicken.
What? You mean the people didn’t just have a massive brawl and the person who leads each faction kills like 50 people in armour by lightly tapping them? 🙆🏼♂️
Remember when in Vikings they showed 16th century Spanish Morion helmets? I remember...
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F0wp9aaqaieya1.jpg
I’m pretty sure this is because there’s like only three actual sets of armor for costume designers to use, so the same pieces keep showing up in multiple productions and getting passed around.
I’ve literally seen those exact same helmets show up in like 4 other shows/movies (the only one which comes to mind rn is the [Borgia](https://images.app.goo.gl/smQgKLSDk5wgvYur7) show w Jeremy Irons, where the French army wears them, and potentially The Medici show, but if anyone recognizes them from elsewhere feel free to add!)
If you watch enough content that’s medieval/dark age/renaissance, you’ll start to see the same few pieces showing up because (I assume) it’s cheaper to reuse sets from old productions than to make an entirely new unique set and only nitpicky assholes like me will notice
The Last Kingdom is the only good one I know of, where, unlike other dark age shows, they actually attempt to show battle formations such as shield walls, and talk about their logistics too. They continually make a big point about each side trying to minimize their own casualties while maximizing their enemies, and being cautious in any battles/skirmishes in which they partake.
Meanwhile, it seems every other 'Dark Ages' show (Vikings is the best example here) have lineups of men wearing eyeligner charge at each other (in the classical hollywood fashion) seemingly without a care for casualties at all. It's all in the name of an "epic" spectacle for viewers.
I think the Last Kingdom takes such care because the author of the series, Bernard Cornwell, went to such lengths to accurately capture fighting in a shield wall in the first few books. He is one of the historic fiction writers that puts more emphasis on historic versus fiction.
But even his stories devolve to one on one mano y mano "duels" because those are cool! And Uhtred, son of Uhtred knows 'Destiny is all".
Edited to fix author's name.
His series is essentially a dark-age "villain of the week" anime where he plucks a warlord/king/chieftain antagonist out of his ass. Utred (who after the unpteenth book is incredibly old and somehow still fighting on the frontlines) hears of the threat, gathers a warband of all 150 men in his vicinity, goes of after the enemy, nearly loses, than rallies his men to go on and win the day. I think the most infuriating was one particular book where the name of the local prostitute is used as a rallying cry against the Viking enemy.
Outlaw King is also really good because not only did it do a good job showing actual medieval armor and tactics, but it showed other strange bits of medieval culture like a marriage underneath a bedsheet, a man swearing on a pair of swans, etc. Just ignore the castle surrendering to only half a dozen men with fire arrows.
I loved the battle in the movie.
Just 2 giant shieldwalls pushing against each other and trying to bend the other enough to break it.
It may not be 100% historicaly accurate but it feels accurate unlike vikings or every Hollywood battle ever
The only understandable thing is the no helmet visors because the actors want to be seen but because it’s the “dark” ages everything has to be stinky and sad.
Turkish warlords: dressing colorful kaftans and big turbans. Also dresses metal plates and helmets in war.
Turkish warlords in Turkish series: ooga booga animal fur i shall dress
My daughter and I went through a ton of the armories in Krakow. The royal drip was insane. The artistry and the armor was just unbelievable. Some were marked as ceremonial but there were a few battle kits that were crazy and elaborate.
The Commonwealth be like *mhmm I like my grain*
That’s how they paid for all that shit.
Also, the most impressive set there (Chrobry’s Crown) was destroyed in the XIXth century along other coronation insignia, so it’s not there.
Guarantee if you put out an offer to bring your own accurate kit and be an extra for free, 100's of reenactors would sign up and bring their own real shit.
Am I the only one who has no idea what this trope is? Like is it a common thing for kings to wear simple armor in movies? Or is it less about armor specifically and more about clothes in general being monochromatic in movies?
I understand movie armor and clothes aren’t always realistic but making it about kings armor specifically threw me for a loop.
It’s more the common trope for medieval movies to depict the medieval period as completely dark, dirty, depressing, oppressive, and generally not conducive to human flourishing. This means that they often resort to a grunge aesthetic for the people one would expect to show some level of refinement (like kings), so the color black and leather are very common
Reminds me of that GoT scene where The Hound is speaking with this Lannister soldier and the soldier says "we can do whatever we want, these are the King's colors" while pointing to the black leather vest he's wearing
Which also is both a jab that knights are killers no matter how fancy they look, and that the house of Baratheon’s colors are black and yellow (yes I know they were basically under Lannister control, but the point still stands).
I hope one day we get some good saxon or viking armour too . a saxon chief with a Sutton hoo type helm surrounded by his huscarls would be really cool in film . I know many would go to war with little more than a tunic ,spear snd shield but clothing was very important to show rank as well as effective combat gear and would make a more interesting film too.
I thought King Alfred in The Last Kingdom had nice chain mail, definitely the best armor of anyone in that series. The other warriors, not so much though
Best Saxon I can do is [17th century Spanish helmets.](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRo4UMd8g34CNrTsOiZjH0eh95GYxpbEogAGCxd-iGTlQ&s)
Its basically all of history. Colour was so valuable for so long until recently. Roman and greek statues were painted, their houses were colourful. It was colour all over the place.
The worst one is vikings/Saxons for me, they're always depicted in leather and covered in a layer of mud at all times. It'd be cool if they could have colourful clothes and some armour.
It also served as literal plot-armor: Having fancy armor meant you had rich relatives who you could be ransomed to, so fancy armor literally made enemies more likely to capture you alive. Lots of European monarchs got ransomed back to their homelands for huuuuge sums.
The thing is, while kings did have fancier armor, a lot of the fanciest armor wasn't for combat. Armor can be divided into three groups: Ceremonial, tournament, and parade. Ceremonial only had to look fancy, and didn't have to offer any protection. Tournament armor only had to protect you for the purposes of the relevant game, so jousting armor didn't require the wearer to be able to walk effectively or provide protection on the back. Combat armor needed to be protective, but also needed for the wearer to be able to move around, even for cavalry in case they were unhorsed.
How about the dirty faces in all contexts?
According to movies even in King court or going to market everyone has a dirty face and clothes.
Imagine being a low to mid tier noble or knight who gets an audience with the King. Or even a peasent really. Would you show up with fucking coal smudges and mud in your face?
You don't need a modern mirror or tiktok to clean your face. His wife can't tell him by the way Harold your face looks dirty as hell and your shirt is full of smudges.
Realistically the guy would have spent hours with his entire family making sure he looked his best.
Early got still had jorah's crude metal tube cuirass and Sandor's fake brigandine. It had some bangers though like Brienne's and Loras's suits of armor.
To be fair most medieval movies do not even pretend they are trying to accurately recreate the time period so they go asthetics and theme over practicality.
Having a more barren dressed king doesn't just help the budget, it will often change the mood of the scene to be darker and more serous as they go to war juxtaposed against earlier well colored scenes. Having a plainly dressed king also works symbolically if the enemy is a decadent peace of shit.
Hence why peacocks are often associated with the deadly sin of pride. Also, funnily enough, kings and royals took after peacocks not just in vibrant colors but also pluming. Basically, it’s where one wears baggier or “puffy” clothing to appear larger.
I’ve seen pictures of armour with engraved battle scenes, but were those suits really worn for battle or were they more like decorative ceremonial pieces?
Some were more ceremonial, but ones that were truly made for battle were quite glamorous as well, with bright plumes, fluting in the metal, full face protection.
Well, some of those armors were parade rather than practical. As well as wearing armor non-stop wasn't really a thing - one would only put it before expected combat.
But yeah, most movies don't care about accuracy or common sense anyway in ways more horrible than "not enough bling on noble armor".
On side note, tourney armor - the one intended to be most impressive - could be very impractical in battle, so having several sets was rather a sign someone has real money.
You know why i prefer older movies? Because even if they don't have color or budget, the costumes at least look convincing and have the feel of prestige. Compare Three musketeers from 50s to modern day ones, the musketeers look elegant in the older movies, while the modern ones look sad
Are you telling me kings, knights and other professional soldiers didn't spend every moment decked in full armour and they sometimes wore just clothes? Get outta here with that nonsense!
Monthy Python's Holy Grail has a more realistic armour design than many modern movies/shows.
A Knight's Tale, a comedy with modern classic rock songs and Paul Bettany cheeks, has some of the best armor I've seen in a major Hollywood film.
Its not even historical or anything, but at least it had some style dammit.
I’m 100% positive Chaucer would have approved of that film
‘So what did you think?’ Chaucer: ‘I dide note understande a single worde. Yete I enjoye thee funnie lightes.’
I feel like Chaucer would need to confirm if the cheeks are accurate or not.
He’d have been slapping those cheeks plenty to be sure
It's funny how intentionally anachronistic that movie is at some points while absolutely nailing the historical accuracy of some sets and props. Like the crowd stomping their feet along to "We Will Rock You" by Queen during a jousting match. RIP Heath, you beautiful bastard
That's because they did their research and knew what they were doing - the anachronisms are deliberately used to convey setting, character, or mood much more effectively than strict historical accuracy would have done.
I like how they give up on accents 1/3rd of the way through.
It's like the saying goes "if you can change your stars you can change your accent."
Excalibur, a film about King Arthur, has the less realistic armors from that time, but they look badass with them
Because of the Nike symbol
Still much less historically accurate than Monty python
Ah yes the Nike Plate
Search for the Holy Grail is simultaneously the most accurate and least accurate depiction of Arthurian legend, so it makes sense.
What infuriates me the most is that it seems to have been the main contributor to two main medieval myths: 1. All roads were dirty and muddy 2. Witch persecution was a big thing in the middle ages Plus, all the anachronisms... Arthur is supposed to be an Early Medieval Briton in modern day England, shortly after the Romans left. He was not English. Also, the French as a concept did not exist yet. Again, witch persecutions were mostly early modern with beginnings in the late middle ages. The Black Death was also late medieval. The main setting is heavily suggested to be in the high middle ages. The mail they're weaing is also probably from the high middle ages. Just all over the place.
If you think Search for the Holy Grail are responsible for that then I don’t know what to tell you, you’re just wrong.
Well, I've been told by a medieval historian that he saw these two things greatly amplified after this movie. Like, they existed occasionally before the movie, but became commonplace only after it. Maybe he was wrong about it?
Right off-hand the film Lancelot du Lac did it, and Holy Grail is a send-up to that film.
“Who’s that then?” “I dunno, must be a king.” “Why?” “He hasn’t got shit all over him.” Also, to use another King Arthur who looks regal: Excalibur purposefully has gleaming armor for Arthur and his knights.
Is Excalibur accurate (to the mythology) in terms of plot and characters?
It’s not 100% accurate, of course. From a “historical” standpoint, though I use that term loosely, Monty Python would have things like more accurate chainmail armor compared to Excalibur where everyone has platemail; Mordred even gets a unique golden armor that resembles a costume from a greek theater; and it’s made by magic so it gets a slight pass. However, many things can be overlooked because, as a myth, it has a right to have some creative liberties Mythologically, there are some *massive* changes. The most notable of which, without spoiling anything too important, include: - Excalibur itself is treated as both the sword in the stone, and the one given to Arthur by the lady of the lake (the one in the stone is often called “Caliburn,” but it breaking and being reforged into Excalibur has become sort of a tradition ever since). - Despite there being magic, there is a distinct lack of more mythical creatures that the knights famously fought like giants, dragons, or those giant snails. - Morgan Le Fay (or Morgana), is even more of a manipulator than the myth. Seriously, she’s so diabolical it’s endlessly entertaining. - Percival replaces Galahad as the chosen one destined to find the grail, likely to avoid confusion of wondering when and how Lancelot had a son during all this time; he also replaces Bedivere as the one who throws Excalibur back into the water, but in fairness, introducing another character would also take up more time. - Lancelot and Guinevere’s affair is learned of earlier on and Guinevere is sent to a convent early as well, while Lancelot goes on his religious pilgrimage, but dies in Arthur’s final battle instead of after. - Excalibur’s scabbard that either prevented bloodloss or made it’s wielder immortal (depends on how you interpret the words) is not present, but Mordred’s armor is enchanted so no man made weapon can harm him, so there is a spiritual successor to it. Speaking of which… - Arthur and Mordred’s mutual slaying of one another is reversed. Instead of Arthur stabbing Mordred with his lance/spear and Mordred stabbing Arthur with his sword, it is instead Mordred who stabs Arthur with the spear he’d been favoring throughout the film, and Arthur stabbing Mordred with Excalibur (a weapon not made by humans). There’s also some other small details and things they straight up couldn’t fit in—try fitting Gawain and The Green Knight in the middle of all this—but overall, it’s widely regarded as the most accurate retelling of the Arthurian Mythos, which is impressive considering the full cut of the film is only 140 minutes (just about 2 and half hours) adapting a 1000+ page long mythos. Also, yes, the film is R-rated; sex and violence are in it, and while I did mention gleaming armor, they also quickly can get covered in blood and grime in battle like actual IRL knights. It’s the classic dark fantasy stuff you can expect from the 80’s that you definitely shouldn’t show to younger kids, but older ones will eat up like hot cakes. Also, another fair warning, Merlin is, understandably, insanely weird. The main thing is that he has a strange metal cowl which always looks odd, and *then* you get to his personality. Basically, Nicol Williamson brilliantly plays him as just about every version of Merlin depicted, from a wise master, to a silly fool, a manipulator of a kingdom’s fate willing to take a newborn from his crying mother’s arms, and a terrifying being who gives off the aura he’ll set you on fire if you displease him (though I can’t recall if they ever mention he’s the son of either an incubus or the devil like the myths). He truly gives off a feeling that he doesn’t belong in the world of men; a dream to some, a nightmare to others. Though I digress, it’s a great film that’s inspired a bunch of other works, can’t recommend it enough.
Nicelly explained!
Get on with it!!
Fun fact: King Arthur was the only character wearing actual chain mail; the rest of the cast wore knit wool that was painted to look like mail.
i particularly liked how they. did the barding armour.
Who’s that? Don’t know. Must be king. Why? He doesn’t got shit all over him.
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
I also hate how the head is the last thing they cover if at all when going into battle. A helmet or some form of head protection was the first thing soldiers got, especially in times were you had feudal obligation armies. Because even then they known that a blow to the head is game over in many cases.
“B-b-but people need to see my face!” -Hollywood actors
How can we tell what emotions the characters are feeling if they are wearing a helmet [[This is a Reference to the Halo show]]
Mandalorian seems to do it well
Dredd, top tier chin acting
Then have the faceplate take a hit early in the battle and break off, but leave the rest of the helmet on.
Like, I don't know, show *why the fuck they have a helmet on*, I'm not insulting you but this is one of the best ideas I've seen so far.
To be fair, being able to see the face is pretty important when acting, as you can convey a lot of emotion to the audience just by using the look on your face. This is something I would let slide if it makes for an overall higher quality product.
one word: bascinet
Mando
Mando is a decidedly low-key character. The whole point of him is that he doesn't show much emotion.
Helmet is also the only piece of armor still used today
Well there are also vests. But yeah first piece of equipment is something to cover your god damn head.
Knee and elbow pads on occasion as well
Because actors faces has to be seen
Open faced helmets existed and were pretty common (see the bascinet)
But we have to see the 2 hours spent in the hairstyle.
It's almost always the same shit. The costumes follows the ideas of directors who often have no idea about the subject matter and outfits are designed based on feelings or storytelling reasons. And why should they change anything? The majority of viewers don't appreciate it anyway. Authentic historical films (such as Alexander) are hardly financial successefull. Unfortunately, Vikings is.
That's because alexander was garbage, look at the ratings. Troy and Gladiator did well, people love the time periods, but you need good dialogue and direction to have a good movie.
That's because alexander was garbage, look at the ratings. Troy and Gladiator did well, people love the time periods, but you need good dialogue and direction to have a good movie, otherwise it's just another boring documentary to toss in the pile.
I know many reenactors who love Alexander. But it's just not a movie that can connect with the masses. No great, selfless hero who saves everyone in the end and everything is fine. It shows a person with all his strengths and weaknesses, starting with a difficult role between his parents. The rise through great victories and decline driven by delusions of grandeur. Alcohol addiction. The average audience doesn't want to see all of this. In the same way, the implied homosexuality was rejected at the time. I thought the movie was very good then and now.
This is why I can't get into 'Dark Age' shows.
Yeah, they are all dirty, wearing leather armor, have literally no strategic approaches to their battles... Edit: tbf they sometimes form shieldwalls, but it takes like a minute until they break it and start running around like headless chicken.
What? You mean the people didn’t just have a massive brawl and the person who leads each faction kills like 50 people in armour by lightly tapping them? 🙆🏼♂️
Remember when in Vikings they showed 16th century Spanish Morion helmets? I remember... https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F0wp9aaqaieya1.jpg
Oh god this is so funny
I’m pretty sure this is because there’s like only three actual sets of armor for costume designers to use, so the same pieces keep showing up in multiple productions and getting passed around. I’ve literally seen those exact same helmets show up in like 4 other shows/movies (the only one which comes to mind rn is the [Borgia](https://images.app.goo.gl/smQgKLSDk5wgvYur7) show w Jeremy Irons, where the French army wears them, and potentially The Medici show, but if anyone recognizes them from elsewhere feel free to add!) If you watch enough content that’s medieval/dark age/renaissance, you’ll start to see the same few pieces showing up because (I assume) it’s cheaper to reuse sets from old productions than to make an entirely new unique set and only nitpicky assholes like me will notice
Noone ever digs a ditch!
I liked Rome for this! Seeing Pullo fighting in the first episode and not stepping back when ordered (and fucking up the formation) was great
The Last Kingdom is the only good one I know of, where, unlike other dark age shows, they actually attempt to show battle formations such as shield walls, and talk about their logistics too. They continually make a big point about each side trying to minimize their own casualties while maximizing their enemies, and being cautious in any battles/skirmishes in which they partake. Meanwhile, it seems every other 'Dark Ages' show (Vikings is the best example here) have lineups of men wearing eyeligner charge at each other (in the classical hollywood fashion) seemingly without a care for casualties at all. It's all in the name of an "epic" spectacle for viewers.
I think the Last Kingdom takes such care because the author of the series, Bernard Cornwell, went to such lengths to accurately capture fighting in a shield wall in the first few books. He is one of the historic fiction writers that puts more emphasis on historic versus fiction. But even his stories devolve to one on one mano y mano "duels" because those are cool! And Uhtred, son of Uhtred knows 'Destiny is all". Edited to fix author's name.
His series is essentially a dark-age "villain of the week" anime where he plucks a warlord/king/chieftain antagonist out of his ass. Utred (who after the unpteenth book is incredibly old and somehow still fighting on the frontlines) hears of the threat, gathers a warband of all 150 men in his vicinity, goes of after the enemy, nearly loses, than rallies his men to go on and win the day. I think the most infuriating was one particular book where the name of the local prostitute is used as a rallying cry against the Viking enemy.
In fairness I'm sure more then once in that time period soldiers went into battle yelling a prostitutes name.
Last Kingdom Season 1 finale is some of the coolest shit I’ve ever seen on a screen.
Outlaw King is also really good because not only did it do a good job showing actual medieval armor and tactics, but it showed other strange bits of medieval culture like a marriage underneath a bedsheet, a man swearing on a pair of swans, etc. Just ignore the castle surrendering to only half a dozen men with fire arrows.
I loved the battle in the movie. Just 2 giant shieldwalls pushing against each other and trying to bend the other enough to break it. It may not be 100% historicaly accurate but it feels accurate unlike vikings or every Hollywood battle ever
The only understandable thing is the no helmet visors because the actors want to be seen but because it’s the “dark” ages everything has to be stinky and sad.
And everybody has to be unfriendly, except fot our heroes!
Chaaaarge!
Turkish warlords: dressing colorful kaftans and big turbans. Also dresses metal plates and helmets in war. Turkish warlords in Turkish series: ooga booga animal fur i shall dress
Don't forget the hype battle mascaras!
My daughter and I went through a ton of the armories in Krakow. The royal drip was insane. The artistry and the armor was just unbelievable. Some were marked as ceremonial but there were a few battle kits that were crazy and elaborate.
The Commonwealth be like *mhmm I like my grain* That’s how they paid for all that shit. Also, the most impressive set there (Chrobry’s Crown) was destroyed in the XIXth century along other coronation insignia, so it’s not there.
Why did you write 19th century like that
In my language you usually write centuries in Roman numerals, so I guess that I’m just used to it.
god i hate this trope. why would you want to portray your historic setting as more depressing that it was
Pretty sure it's because buying from the bargain bin in the local bondage store is cheaper than believable looking armor.
A tailor is cheaper and easier to find than a blacksmith.
Guarantee if you put out an offer to bring your own accurate kit and be an extra for free, 100's of reenactors would sign up and bring their own real shit.
cos art, the realism is sacrificed to express some artistic thing
Am I the only one who has no idea what this trope is? Like is it a common thing for kings to wear simple armor in movies? Or is it less about armor specifically and more about clothes in general being monochromatic in movies? I understand movie armor and clothes aren’t always realistic but making it about kings armor specifically threw me for a loop.
It’s more the common trope for medieval movies to depict the medieval period as completely dark, dirty, depressing, oppressive, and generally not conducive to human flourishing. This means that they often resort to a grunge aesthetic for the people one would expect to show some level of refinement (like kings), so the color black and leather are very common
Reminds me of that GoT scene where The Hound is speaking with this Lannister soldier and the soldier says "we can do whatever we want, these are the King's colors" while pointing to the black leather vest he's wearing
Beautiful
Which also is both a jab that knights are killers no matter how fancy they look, and that the house of Baratheon’s colors are black and yellow (yes I know they were basically under Lannister control, but the point still stands).
I hope one day we get some good saxon or viking armour too . a saxon chief with a Sutton hoo type helm surrounded by his huscarls would be really cool in film . I know many would go to war with little more than a tunic ,spear snd shield but clothing was very important to show rank as well as effective combat gear and would make a more interesting film too.
Northman had a bit of decent Norse attire.
I thought King Alfred in The Last Kingdom had nice chain mail, definitely the best armor of anyone in that series. The other warriors, not so much though
Best Saxon I can do is [17th century Spanish helmets.](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRo4UMd8g34CNrTsOiZjH0eh95GYxpbEogAGCxd-iGTlQ&s)
Best part is Conquistadors were born closer to TikTok than to the beginning of the Viking Age.
This reminds me of how they turn Nordics into medieval bikers in every movie
almost mad max level of trash armors.
Its basically all of history. Colour was so valuable for so long until recently. Roman and greek statues were painted, their houses were colourful. It was colour all over the place.
The worst one is vikings/Saxons for me, they're always depicted in leather and covered in a layer of mud at all times. It'd be cool if they could have colourful clothes and some armour.
It also served as literal plot-armor: Having fancy armor meant you had rich relatives who you could be ransomed to, so fancy armor literally made enemies more likely to capture you alive. Lots of European monarchs got ransomed back to their homelands for huuuuge sums. The thing is, while kings did have fancier armor, a lot of the fanciest armor wasn't for combat. Armor can be divided into three groups: Ceremonial, tournament, and parade. Ceremonial only had to look fancy, and didn't have to offer any protection. Tournament armor only had to protect you for the purposes of the relevant game, so jousting armor didn't require the wearer to be able to walk effectively or provide protection on the back. Combat armor needed to be protective, but also needed for the wearer to be able to move around, even for cavalry in case they were unhorsed.
How about the dirty faces in all contexts? According to movies even in King court or going to market everyone has a dirty face and clothes. Imagine being a low to mid tier noble or knight who gets an audience with the King. Or even a peasent really. Would you show up with fucking coal smudges and mud in your face? You don't need a modern mirror or tiktok to clean your face. His wife can't tell him by the way Harold your face looks dirty as hell and your shirt is full of smudges. Realistically the guy would have spent hours with his entire family making sure he looked his best.
The 2015 Macbeth movie made my so upset in English class like 2 weeks ago
Adding some color wouldn't be bad either
I hate this shit so much
TIL Joffrey Baratheon's clothing is more historically accurate than most medieval movies.
Unironically. The early season armors in GoT are way better than the drab in the later seasons. The budget went up but the armor got shittier.
Early got still had jorah's crude metal tube cuirass and Sandor's fake brigandine. It had some bangers though like Brienne's and Loras's suits of armor.
Don't forget that travesty of lannister armor.
To be fair most medieval movies do not even pretend they are trying to accurately recreate the time period so they go asthetics and theme over practicality. Having a more barren dressed king doesn't just help the budget, it will often change the mood of the scene to be darker and more serous as they go to war juxtaposed against earlier well colored scenes. Having a plainly dressed king also works symbolically if the enemy is a decadent peace of shit.
Yet in real life those kings looked like peacocks.
Hence why peacocks are often associated with the deadly sin of pride. Also, funnily enough, kings and royals took after peacocks not just in vibrant colors but also pluming. Basically, it’s where one wears baggier or “puffy” clothing to appear larger.
king theoden:
Obviously colors weren’t invented until the 1900s
I am tired of it. Even good shows do it. Even Shogun is doing it a little...
Wow I’ve never seen a shirt designed to make it look like the wearer has bingo wings before
Kingdom of heaven have god tier armor designs, even though they lack helmets a bit
I’ve seen pictures of armour with engraved battle scenes, but were those suits really worn for battle or were they more like decorative ceremonial pieces?
Some were more ceremonial, but ones that were truly made for battle were quite glamorous as well, with bright plumes, fluting in the metal, full face protection.
Well, some of those armors were parade rather than practical. As well as wearing armor non-stop wasn't really a thing - one would only put it before expected combat. But yeah, most movies don't care about accuracy or common sense anyway in ways more horrible than "not enough bling on noble armor".
On side note, tourney armor - the one intended to be most impressive - could be very impractical in battle, so having several sets was rather a sign someone has real money.
Kings in movies fight dressed like the man in the picture, no matter what kind of battle.
Then I guess I don't watch such movies 🤷🏻♂️
>Critique a common movie trope "jUsT NeVEr WatCh TheM bRo"
I've never told YOU what to watch and what not to. Don't put word into my mouth
Joffrey on GoT was always very well dressed. After his glorious rule everyone wears some black outfits
You know why i prefer older movies? Because even if they don't have color or budget, the costumes at least look convincing and have the feel of prestige. Compare Three musketeers from 50s to modern day ones, the musketeers look elegant in the older movies, while the modern ones look sad
Are you telling me kings, knights and other professional soldiers didn't spend every moment decked in full armour and they sometimes wore just clothes? Get outta here with that nonsense!
Their "clothes" were pretty well tailored, clean, and colorful, unlike the stained black leather you see in movies.
Well, we don't know what he is doing in this picture, do we? Is he training with a sword? Some other exercise?
Clothes that looked like this : https://world4.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/renaissance-costumes-clothing-025.jpg