Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

**SillySirius** · 08-13-2010, 14:42

I finally got around to watching Valhalla Rising and i still have no clue what the point of the movie was.

They are apparently vikings but speak with Scottish accents,and at one point someone queries the protaginist if he is from one of the clans.Did vikings group in clans?

Did vikings drag their slaves around to pit in fights to the death for money?

Almost everyone had alot of tatoos..how common were they?At first i thought all the tattoing was to mark the slaves but the freemen had them too including one with a tatoo on his forehead.

I didn't think the Scots or the Norse really crusaded but the middle part of the movie kicks off with the main character joining a small group headed to the Holy land to retake Jeruselam.

No one wore any armor except for the head guy of the crusading party,i'm not even sure it was armor,at first i thought he was wearing studded leather but upon closer inspection it looked like something thrown over his shirt that was made of solid rings but only covered a small area like a vest.Any help on this?

**Taedius** · 08-14-2010, 04:05

Originally Posted by SillySirius

I finally got around to watching Valhalla Rising and i still have no clue what the point of the movie was.

They are apparently vikings but speak with Scottish accents,and at one point someone queries the protaginist if he is from one of the clans.Did vikings group in clans?

Did vikings drag their slaves around to pit in fights to the death for money?

Almost everyone had alot of tatoos..how common were they?At first i thought all the tattoing was to mark the slaves but the freemen had them too including one with a tatoo on his forehead.

I didn't think the Scots or the Norse really crusaded but the middle part of the movie kicks off with the main character joining a small group headed to the Holy land to retake Jeruselam.

No one wore any armor except for the head guy of the crusading party,i'm not even sure it was armor,at first i thought he was wearing studded leather but upon closer inspection it looked like something thrown over his shirt that was made of solid rings but only covered a small area like a vest.Any help on this?

Tattoos? News to me.

Clans? Well, they placed alot of importance in their family connections. As I understand it, clans work in much the same ways. Though he should have been asked who his father was.

Slaves fighting? News to me.

Crusading? They did. A Norwegian King even got the nickname Jorsalfar, meaning Jerusalem-farer.

Armour? Well, it was expensive. And I'm assuming (not having seen the movie) the characters were just free men doing their thing, not employed officials. I'm not sure how common armour was among people in those days.

**bobbin** · 08-14-2010, 18:38

Originally Posted by SillySirius

I finally got around to watching Valhalla Rising and i still have no clue what the point of the movie was.

They are apparently vikings but speak with Scottish accents,and at one point someone queries the protaginist if he is from one of the clans.Did vikings group in clans?

They are supposed to be naturalised Norsemen, ie they have been settled in scotland for so long that they are hardly distiguishable from the natives. The Norsemen were a integral part of the formation of the Clans, many very large ones such as my own (MacDonald) have their roots in Norse settlers.

Did vikings drag their slaves around to pit in fights to the death for money?

Most likely not, I know the clansmen duels were fairly common so you could veiw it as a very early form of that.

Almost everyone had alot of tatoos..how common were they?At first i thought all the tattoing was to mark the slaves but the freemen had them too including one with a tatoo on his forehead.

While tattoos undoubtably existed I imagine thats just a bit of artists licence there.

I didn't think the Scots or the Norse really crusaded but the middle part of the movie kicks off with the main character joining a small group headed to the Holy land to retake Jeruselam.

Not AFAIK in large organised groups, but individually they would have, the guy in charge in the film is a essentailly a feudal christian lord so he would see it as his religious duty to do so. (Edit: Talking about the Scots here)

No one wore any armor except for the head guy of the crusading party,i'm not even sure it was armor,at first i thought he was wearing studded leather but upon closer inspection it looked like something thrown over his shirt that was made of solid rings but only covered a small area like a vest.Any help on this?

Again probably poetic licence, although I have to say it was rather refreshing for the film's characters to lack armour, it is a change from the unrealistic armoured to the hilt soldiers most films portray.

**Cadwalader** · 08-14-2010, 21:45

I agree, and it only makes it worse that the armour doesn't seem to protect them from even the most half-assed and awkward stabs and throws.
That's okay, though. The hero will just jerk the missile out and forget about it soon enough.

**SillySirius** · 08-17-2010, 04:45

Thanks for the answers.

The part about the armor didn't bother me.It looked like his son was wearing some type of heavy leather though.

**stratigos vasilios** · 08-20-2010, 09:14

Hey all,

Has anyone seen or heard of the 1997 series I Caesar? I tried to search the thread for any mentions of it but unfortunately I had no luck finding that exact phrase. It's surprising how often the letter "I" comes up in coversation...

Apologies if it was mentioned earlier, if anyone could link me or tell me the page number that'd be great. Otherwise if it hasn't been mentioned, has anyone heard of it before? I saw it at my local library and I am keen to borrow it if it is accurate.

Thanks

**TancredTheNorman** · 08-21-2010, 05:07

Centurion was a dissapointment from the point of view of historical accuracy, but I found something that makes Centurion seem perfect. I rank The Davinci Code series as equal to Spartacus Blood and Sand, which is very low.

Another low ranker in my opinion is Tristan and Isolde, not so much for historical accuracy (it is based on mythology, plate mail lorica segmentata and the pope being able to call on arcane magic would have been acceptable). I just think the version passed down from the dark ages is superior in every single conceivable way, it is the single best Arthurian Romance and it was butchered to the point where it really should have brought up new names, new settings and not pretended to be based on something Arthurian.

Robin Hood is a low ranker for the same reason, why do people feel the best of our myths need to desperately have their heads chopped off and get rewritten from scratch as nationalist thrillers with a lot of blood and guts?

Rant over, it just had to be said that all the great cherished myths and legends deserve attention with the historicals, change is ok and sometimes good it's only when the change is the Tristan/Robin Hood level that it really deserves mention here.