MovieChat Forums > Ironclad (2011) Discussion > Why not kill the King earlier?

Why not kill the King earlier?

posted 11 years ago by standrkm
5 replies | jump to latest

I just found it very strange how when your castle is surrounded by a King that is a horrible person with troops that greatly outnumber yours that you would allow him to stroll up to your castle and tell you "ok guys we're gonna kill you all, eat my shorts" and you just let him walk away so you can fight him later once he gives the order to his troops to kill you. It just seems about as strange as my sentence is long. Why not just kill that fool then and there?

Loved the battle scenes, the gore was actually understandable in this film. Seemed very similar to what the people at the alamo went through...still didn't like how Vladimir Kulich was underused again like in all these other movies and shows (vikings). I mean wtf he was great in 13th warrior and didn't really even get to speak in this? They should have created a rivalry with him and the templar or something, would have given the film something extra.

"the day I tried to live, I learned that I was alive"

[–] GrumpyEuryale 11 years ago

The historical constraint that he had a few more years left to live, and didn't die in battle or while laying siege to a castle?

[–] Argyle302 10 years ago

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. He's standing right there at the front gate in broad daylight, why not just take your best shot with a bow and arrow and take the douche out?! Even though your best marksman was killed earlier, I woulda had as many of my men aiming at him all at once, hoping one would land the kill shot. Either that or just send an assassine over to their camp a nightime to try and kill him. Great movie though!

[–] agracier-574-436194 9 years ago

There were different codes of honor in those times. Giving challenge and giving an opponent a chance to surrender or come to terms was all part of warfare.

What to our eyes would look like too good a chance to pass up - namely shooting a king during a parley - would be considered vile and unknightly behavior then.

Different times, different customs and manners.

[–] standrkm 9 years ago

it's so strange that there are rules in war and certain behaviors that we expect from our enemies, it almost makes those james bond escapes seem realistic

"how's a fella go about gettin' a holt of the police?" -Karl

[–] agracier-574-436194 9 years ago

You do realize that Christianity, just like Islam, does not condone the waging of war on co-religionists or on others without following certain protocols and usages. Of course they were honored as much in the breach as in the observance, but to forgo these accepted niceties could brand someone as being an outlaw and therefore without legal protection against the designs of others.

You could very well argue that the modern way of war with black-ops and special forces and whatnot all secret stuff is uncivilized and barbaric and unworthy of honorable men. Whatever, times change, and someday this age will be thought the epitome of barbarity.