MovieChat Forums > Pathfinder (2007) Discussion > Worst Anachronism of All

Worst Anachronism of All


I loved how the vikings had horses. If you have ever read a history book you should realize that they didn't have horses.

reply

The vikings had horses. They were sometimes brought aboard for faster travel once the destination had been reached, and even used in battle on occasion (as recorded at the raids of Montfaucon (888) and Sulcoit (968), for instance). Some vikings were even buried with their horses.
Soon after the viking age, swedish horses were a valuable export commodity, mainly sold to germany, but it was illegal to sell the larger animals. They needed to be kept for warfare.

reply

why not mention the dogs the Vikings had with them, which were German Shepards? I stopped watching this movely with full attention after like 15 minutes, so correct me if im wrong, but I havent seen one Danish Dog in this flick :)

reply

The dogs looked more like mastiffs to me than German Shepherds. Still, I don't know that Vikings had mastiffs either. I enjoyed the movie despite any inaccuracies. Since when does Hollywood not distort historical fact?

reply

Still, I don't know that Vikings had mastiffs either


Since the Great Dane is also called German Mastiff, and is probably a crossbreed between English Mastiff and Irish Wolfshound, I'd say they had some "Mastinoid dogs" in Denmark... and since Denmark is part of the "Viking lands", it's quite likely the Vikings brought some of them along when they set out west...

reply

The Vikings had both horses and dogs, surprise, surprise. Can you believe it? Imagine that. Horses and dogs... wow.

Before the introduction of Arabian horses into Europe, Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, like the Vikings, rode heavy draft horses called "Destriers" in Medieval times (like the Holsteiner, or the Friesian). They were massive, like English Clydesdales or Shire horses. They did not have the agility of an Arabian horse, but they could carry a Viking or a knight in full armor without a problem.

Similarly, the Vikings would've used dogs called "bandogs". They weren't an actual breed, but most were a cross between mastiffs and pit bulls. Google the term "bandog" and you'll see what I mean.

reply

What about the viking Kittins?

reply

They didn't even both showing the ninja zombie attack squirrels either....I was disappointed.

reply

the vikings did have horses. IN THE HOMELAND! no horses were brought to N.A. on longships consisting of one single deck 120 ft long on a voyage of at least two weeks if coming from greenland.(btw, did anyone find it odd that our hero of the movie jumped on the horse and rode it like an olympic equestrian. he was a squirt when the indians found him and there were NO HORSES IN NORTH AMERICA for him to keep his skill level up) and vikings, if you check real facts, HAD NO HORNED HELMETS! oh and the bobsled ride down the mountain? PRICELESS! thats when i had enough and changed the channel. i can not remember seeing a bigger P.O.S. movie. and i have thought about it. WAY TOO PHONEY!

reply

The horned helmets were added intentionally by the film makers as most people perceive Vikings as the old stereotype. OH, AND ITS A *beep* ACTION MOVIE! THEY LOOKED *beep* MENACING!!!!

Secrets aren't my concern. . . Keeping them is.

reply

"Menacing stereotype"? Hey, why they didn't make them wear Germanic swastika runes, too?

And make the (Native) Americans fight under the sign of an American bald eagle?

reply

If only they made the movie for entertainment. They made a big mistake in marketing this as a documentary. Oh wait, it was made for entertainment and it was *not* made to be informative like a doco. Phew.

reply

[deleted]

ninja zombie attack squirrels

Brilliant!!

I never get these complaints about accuracy regarding films such as this. I certainly didn't watch it for historical facts. I watched it for the action, the battles, etc.
As long as they didn't ride Harleys, carry light sabres and use those ninja zombie attack squirrels, it was an OK way to pass an evening.

~LjM
Step on it! And don't spare the atoms!

reply

"I never get these complaints about accuracy regarding films such as this. I certainly didn't watch it for historical facts. I watched it for the action, the battles, etc. As long as they didn't ride Harleys, carry light sabres and use those ninja zombie attack squirrels, it was an OK way to pass an evening."

Vikings Vs. Redskins - I'm surprised that a football didn't make an appearence!

reply

Why make a film about Vikings and not at least get a few things right?

I don't know. Taking a shot in the dark here....but maybe, just maybe because it's a movie based on a comic book **fantasy** not a historical novel. Ooops. Graphic novel **fantasy**. You know, the books with all those pictures and not so many words.

And the com...uh, graphic novel wasn't historically accurate in its portrayals either.

Vic Mackey: "God creates all men equal. Out of the womb, he starts playing favorites."

reply

I agree with you crappola515! We HAVE to know the difference between historical things and fiction!
Anyway I think some things could be more acurated, but we cannot forget it is fiction! (it is funny that you reminded us that it is based in a com..ups!, graphic novel, because when the film started I actually thought: "The colors look like in '300'").
Talking about the film, I did not dislike it (I actually think it is entertaining), but I think everything is too fast and perhaps some scenes are a bit cut, I mean the story jumps from one scene into another a bit abruptly for me. Perhaps I am a bit slow...

reply

what graphic novel are you blabbering about???
this flick is a remake of OFELAS, a norwegian flick from 1987.
get your facts straight before trying so hard to sound clever.

reply

..."Ofelas" was about Laplanders or Samis to use the correct term, fighting a group of barbarians called Tjuders (no, there's nothing about them on Google about them) around one thousand AD. Unlike the later version the main charter was not one of the barbarians, but rather saw his family murdered by them. The story was based on an old Samis legend and since Northern Scandinavia was invaded many times by Vikings and others the events in the movie could have happened...It's hard to say what possessed the jokers who remade this movie to change the Sanis into Native Americans and the Tjuders into Vikings. Maybe it was because the studio determined most people knew what Viking and Native Americans were. Whatever the reason they did a bad job of it...The Vikings look like something out of a fantasy illustrated novel or the artwork that was painted on the sides of vans during the seventies. The armor looks like nothing that existed at anytime in history and there are those expletive deleted horns. The stereotype image of Vikings wearing horned helmets is deeply ingrained in the public conciseness. Comicly the statue of Leif Erikson in Erikson Park in Duluth has the explorer waring a helmet with wings on either side like the Greek god Mercury; a weird attempt at realism. That's somewhat unlikely in fact he probably didn't ware a helmet...Also while there is evidence the Scandinavian colonists who really settled in what is now NewFoundland may have had dairy cattle there is no evidence they brought horses to North America. Had they done so history would have been changed. Five hundred years later,when the Spaniards brought horses to the new world it didn't take the Native Americans long to figure out what to do with them. The European conquest of North America would have been a whole lot harder...The colonists really did have problems with resistance from the Native Americans in NewFoundland. Out numbered with no compelling reason to remain they finally left the region. Ultimately the Little ice age made Greenland uninhabitable and ended any further exploration of North America. Still if the Vikings or Scandinavians used the military force depicted in this movie in real life we probably would all be speaking Norwegian now.
People are just getting dumber, but more opinionated-Ernestine (Silks) in "The Human Stain"

reply

The graphic novel they reference is the one Dark Horse released based on the movie's screenplay. There was misinformation prior to the release of the movie that it was based on a graphic novel (like 300 and Sin City).

You are correct that the movie was a "remake" of the 1987 film, but it was by no means meant to be a direct remake. It was more of a loose adaptation.

You might try to be more civil.

reply


They might try to be more civil, but I doubt it.

I liked the movie, the inaccuracies were somewhat offputting, but the action was good.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.--Albert Einstein

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

However it was too cold for them...imagine that?


Where'd they suggest the Vikings couldn't handle the cold? Ghost even says at one point that they knew the cold (or maybe it was snow or maybe winter, but you get the idea) like no other men, or something like that, but that "they know nothing of our spring", again, or something like that.

reply

[deleted]

If you have ever read a history book you should realize that they didn't have horses.


If you ever read the Grönlandinga Saga (the old norse poem which tells us of the "Viking Discovery of America") you'd notice that they definitely DID transport horses on their ship.

E.g. we are told the reason why Eirik Rauda did not lead the expedition was because he was hurt falling from his horse on the way to the ship. That happend in Greenland. Since there are no native horses in Greenland, they must have come there by long ship.

It's true that in the saga horses are not mentioned ever to have reached Vinland, however it is quite clearly stated that they had cattle with them: Thorfinn Karlsefni trades fresh diary products with the Skraelingars, who are later scared away by a bull.

If you can bring a bull to Vinland, and horses to greanland, it's not all to unrealistic to also assume that some norsemen also brought horses to Vinland.

reply

Worst anachronism it's your post...you know nothing about viking history goaliegi, so shut up and hit the bed.

reply

You misunderstand the word anachronism. It means "something that is portrayed outside of its own time period".
Like someone drinking a coke in the old west. Horses would not be an anachronism because they certainly EXISTED in this time period.

reply