Anyone else think that this fight made etain look really average as a fighter. I mean the general is starved wounded beaten exhausted and given a shorter reach weapon but still managed to disarm her and had her on the ropes a couple of times just seemed to make her look kinda average to me as a fighter
sharewell, the general was big, strong, muscular dude...it wouldn't be fair if he kicked her tiny ass on equal terms, or would it be?
shareahhh well you know equal treatment and all that :D
share
it's well known the pict women at the time were ferocious fighters and very capable, often more dangerous than the men. however, she was facing a roman general, who you could see earlier in the movie was a great fighter.
No woman could have killed a general. Not in this life or the next or any life oO
This was a very stupid scene and kind of destroyed the movie for me. Yes the general was hurt and starved... so what. After the headbutt the hoe should have kissed the dirt.
That was like every movie where a woman beat up a man. The strenght difference and capability of taking a punch makes up for everything. Speed, skill, technique, whatever
i think you're forgetting how tough the women were back then. remember it was queen boudicca of the iceni who led the revolt against the romans - i think etain is subtly based on boudicca as she had a similar background with raped family, etc. make no mistake though, the women back then were warriors just as much as the men. i get what you're saying because the roman general would have to be very tough and experienced but it's not impossible that a pict warrior woman known for her fighting skills could beat a starved, beaten roman general who had had his stomach and chest slashed open with a knife only the previous day. that alone would have hugely weakened (if not killed) him through bloodloss overnight.
sharehow tough the women were back then
[deleted]
[deleted]
Are you for or against strong women? Because your post was a little confusing and had no arguments that made any sense. I guess it was your use of the term "sexist feminist" that seemed contradictory.
shareI love it when people accuse others of fanaticism by being fanatical.
shareYou're either an idiot, or have been watching too much of Joss Whedon's misogynistic *beep*
shareNo woman could have killed a general. Not in this life or the next or any lifeWhat, generals are superhuman? Roman generals didn't fight from the front lines unless everything was lost. Even the Greeks whose kings fought in the front-line of battles only survived because they were better armoured and protected by many bodyguards. Sure, this guy was tough, but all we really see him do is win a bar fight. Hardly enough to judge his skill as a soldier.
Yeah, generals are known more for their tactical skills, not for their fighting prowess on the field.
shareHe would never have gotten promoted to general (or hell, even survived long enough to get promoted) if he wasn't an incredibly capable fighter.
Also, what army would follow a man who can't fight?
[deleted]
ah................
Where........EXACTLY..........is it "well known" that the pict female fighters were great ferocious fighters......"better than man".
I want to read where you got this.......LITTLE is known about the picts....and only from the Roman point of view.
So, a little info please.
@AMyIsrael : Chill-Pill...?
:)
Well, she was really good, but he was great. If he had been in good health he would have killed her rather quickly, but that doesn't make her bad or average.
shareSome historical context is needed.
A Roman Field General was the Navy Seal of his era, he was trained to fight by any means and endure any hardship.
When the Romans conquered Britain one of the legionary commanders was the future Emperor Vespasian. Twenty years after the conquest a revolt against Rome broke out, lead by Queen Budocca. If Vespasian had still been in Britain at the time, if he had been captured,starved and tortured then left to fight Budocca unarmed - it would have taken less than a minute for her to blow her last breath in his face.
If the general had had a hand severed, allowed to bleed out, beated for a good while AND STILL CHAINED to the pillar, than YES, a woman, especially a CITIZEN SOLDIER female would have been able to finish him off.
Where the F does it state that called a BS scene BS and simply stating the fact that the movie OVER glorified womans ability in physical combat make a man a "hater" (damn I hate that overused word)?
What, is the end all to be able to preform well in physical battle? While i LOVED the movie, I hated that scene.......the general moved well enough to finish her off in seconds....I was MUCH more into the HATE this woman felt for the ROMANS, and how I totally understood that hate, while LIKING the character of the general.
The only "chilling" needed here are those who thought that scene was realistic in ANY way.
Etain vs. Titus Flavius Virilus didn't work for me, because they should have stabbed, not slashed. Titus Flavius Virilus was trained that way, and had his preferred weapon, and Etain also had her weapon of choice, a stabbing weapon.
share[deleted]
Spear>>>>sword unless the space is too confined to move the spear efficiently.
Train a woman to use a knife properly and she can kill just about any unarmed man.
It's a simple matter of tactical superiority.
Priests adore prophets, prophets resent priests
"Spear >>>> sword" is maybe true at long distances, but he had closed the distance.
share