New Robin Hood Movie

My wife and I went to see "Robin Hood" over the weekend, and we both thoroughly enjoyed it - as a fun, summertime popcorn movie.  And actually the overall depictions of life in medieval England weren't bad.  But those "ships" and "landing craft" were downright hilarious. 

The only such thing I've seen recently that was worse was the computer-generated "ship" in the first season of the Showtime series "The Tudors" - the one in which Henry VIII's sister traveled across the English Channel to marry the King of Portugal.  Whoever was responsible for that monstrosity apparently had no idea what a ship looked like.  If one beakhead is good, two beakheads on top of each other must be better....

Other than the viking dragon(long)boats, there wasn't anything that could be used to land troops except for ship's boats. In this period of European warfare, the control of ports were very important and is were armies were massed. The viking dragonboats were shallow drafted and could be beached then relaunched for quick raiding. I think Dr. Tilley would agree with me.

Hollywood comes up with some strange contraptions at times. Even movies like Indiana Jones which are fun movies which I enjoy very much, have many items out of their timelines. The parts dealing with Egypt show German troops and equipment  there when it was a British protectorate! Yes, its the proper German equipment, but in an improbable situation and not available at the time period of the movie. The Africa Korps wasn't formed until 1941 as was their insigna. The small arms were closer to what would have been available in 1941, not 1936. Also, until after WWII, Nepal had very restrictive entry requirements for visitors, allowing only about one dozen entry per year. The Ghurkas were not recruited in country by the British, but had to travel on foot to camps in India to join up. You have of the allowed visitors for a year in a bar owned by an American woman in a very religious country, not likely, but good story telling.

Mike T.

The Normans apparently had the capability to land troops - and horses - on a beach in 1066.  The Bayeux Tapestry is the only real source of information about the ships in question - and it doesn't tell us much.  I asked one of our medieval historians about this once.  According to him, it's generally agreed that (contrary to what Heller would have us believe) the Norman vessels of the Conquest didn't actually look much like the Viking longships of a hundred years or so earlier.  William the Conqueror's ships probably were bulkier, beamier, and deeper - such that they could remain reasonably stable while carrying a load of horses.

Somewhere or other, sometime or other, I saw a medieval illustration of a ship with a door in one side and a horse being led through the door and down a ramp.  (The author of the book had, with tongue in cheek, labeled it an LSH - landing ship, horse.)  Whether such a thing actually existed I don't know.  But I think it's pretty safe to ignore those ramp-equipped floating boxes in the movie.  The other night I watched a show called "The Real Robin Hood" on the History Channel.  It featured shots from the movie, and commentary (generally pretty intelligent) from Russell Crowe, Kate Blanchett, and Ridley Scott - along with several professional historians.  It was actually a pretty good show.  But, significantly, it didn't mention the ships.

While I am far from an expert, I am an avid historian. Landing craft as described above certainly wouldn't have existed at Hastings. Most horses were either winched on and off ships, or led down a ramp from the side of the ships. The Bayeux Tapestry shows a ship that looks much like a Norse ship, at least in profile, but would have been much wider across the beam. The shallow draft would have allowed the ship to be beached on the wide beaches of Hastings so a ramp would be most believable method.

I wonder if the Norman vessels would then beach at low tide and unload their cargo then let the high tide carry them back to sea. Unlike the first Roman invasion of England when the ships beached at high tide. The Roman sailors were not used to the tide differences in the Channel. In the Med the differences is only inches while its several feet in the Channel. The Celts waited for the tide to go out then attacked with their chariots burning as monay of  the Roman vessels as they could.

Mike T.

I saw Robin Hood this weekend and liked the overall color and accuracy of the film except for the French Invasion fleet.  Too much of a remake of the open scene of Saving Pvt. Ryan.  No such craft existed until the twentieth century.  There are no accurate representations of N. European ships from the Late Twelfth Century.   From the Gotland Picture Stones of 700-900AD to the Bayeux Tapestry we see the classical long ship with dragon head. Duke Williams' Mora was such a ship with perhaps 50 oars, leading his fleet of 700 ships.  The horses were transported on open decks and unloaded on to the beach.  Landing on the beach, William stumbled and fell, the story goes. Clutching the soil, he cried, "I have taken England with both my hands."  There are almost no depictions of ships after Viking times until the Thirteenth Century.  They show no oars, still open decked with very small castles.  Still round ended and clinker-build.

I asked a friend of mine who's a Phd candidate in Celtic history about Norman ships. She got back to me that there's little to nothing to find that's definitive. I like this little image...

Just for fun.

I've seen the tapestry. It's quite an experience.

What kills me though it that the Landing Craft are SO worng, why put them in the movie at all, Why not add some hot air ballons, while there at it.

Also, I caught a blooper, in an early scene Crowe lifts a clear glass or bottle to drink from and you can see the factory name and other writting on the bottom..

Even movies like Indiana Jones which are fun movies which I enjoy very much, have many items out of their timelines. The parts dealing with Egypt show German troops and equipment  there when it was a British protectorate! Yes, its the proper German equipment, but in an improbable situation and not available at the time period of the movie. The Africa Korps wasn't formed until 1941 as was their insigna. The small arms were closer to what would have been available in 1941, not 1936. Also, until after WWII, Nepal had very restrictive entry requirements for visitors, allowing only about one dozen entry per year. The Ghurkas were not recruited in country by the British, but had to travel on foot to camps in India to join up. You have of the allowed visitors for a year in a bar owned by an American woman in a very religious country, not likely, but good story telling.

As for Robin Hood, I thought it was a very well done movie with an unusual and unexpected twist on the typical Robin Hood story, but those boats were obvious non-sense!  I kept expecting GI's to come out of those landing craft!

I just saw it yesterday.    Maybe I was just grumpy, but I thought it was tedious until it became just stupid.   The first thing that annoyed me was in the first 30 seconds.   1199 is NOT "the dawn of the 12th Century", is it?

Another thing....there hasn't been a decent fight scene filmed in about ten years or more.  Starting with the other Russell Crowe disaster (imo), "Gladiator", they seem to like that choppy stop action shaky camera thing.   Fights used to be realistic and carefully choreographed.    Also, if you are going to show somebody getting an arrow or crossbow bolt through the throat, we need more blood.

Like I said, grumpy!  

PS, for better edged-weapon fight scenes, see 'Excaliber' or 'The Last of the Mohicans.'

It was a fun movie.