MovieChat Forums > 1066 (2009) Discussion > Battles in forests???

Battles in forests???

posted 15 years ago by jh66
19 replies | jump to latest

Battle for Middle Earth?

What on earth? more like?

The first two battles of 1066 (Fulford and Stamford Bridge) were not fought in forests, but open plains- the second was fought on 'Battle Flats', and the Norsemen were almost ambushed by Harold's huscarls a mile away ("weapons glistening like ice") -ring any bells?

And although the focus was on the 'ordinary man', a novice to this era could easily have become confursed by the erratic narrative and partial omissions?

Maybe budget constraints led to the battles feeling 'small'- which, curiously, were led by Ordgar, little mention of Harold and the huscarls.

[–] Theo Robertson 15 years ago

Laughable wasn't it ? An army of thousands with apparently a couple of dozen blokes on etither side LOL . Yeah the budget wasn't good

What I found most laughable were the constant warnings by the continuity announcer of " Graphic and bloody battle scenes "

[–] journalist1 15 years ago

I would like to see 1066 get the full Hollywood wax I mean treatment.
Ridley Scott would be my choice as director, not that it'll ever happen, look at Kingdom Of Heaven.

tb

“Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all others.”

[–] Theo Robertson 15 years ago

Well KINGDOM OF HEAVEN had great battle scenes so I think we should blame either the screenwriter or the studio for that movie's failings

I've got a nasty feeling Hollywood would make a serious FUBAR history movie ala BRAVEHEART so maybe we should just read history books

[–] ingres77 15 years ago

You should always "just read history books" if you want history.

If you want entertainment, go to the movies.

Braveheart's a great movie. Crap history, but a great movie.

Why did the moron beat his head against the wall?...because it felt so good when he stopped.

[–] koris-guy 15 years ago

If Hollywood made it, it would be about how the Americans saved the cowardly English from French terrorists!

[–] jh66 15 years ago

I commend it for it's attempt to display the old languages and explanations of words, customs and people etc, but for the love of God- budget the battles?? And the camp 'warnings' of battle-violence? Lol.

We got the night attack on the Normans, which didn't actually happen as the scouts espied the English en route- and it would have been led by harold anyway, not townsfolk.

At Santlache we got the single combat, which would be Norman legend only in reality (Taillefer).

And women in the English battle-lines at Santlache? I don't think so, no sources mention this (Poitiers, Malmesbury, Vitalis, The Carmen, etc) and it's generally accepted that this was in Celtic and Viking armies only.

[–] chrismahon2005 15 years ago

How do you know these things never occured though ?, not knocking you here mate, but battles in those days were hardly well documentated sadly, history is written by the winners etc, will agree about the pretty poor battle scenes, butt obviously its a budget thing, pity the bbc never made this, as hannibal the one they made a few years back had battle scenes that looked pretty epic for tv

[–] Pharaoh-in-de-Nile 15 years ago

"And women in the English battle-lines at Santlache? I don't think so, no sources mention this (Poitiers, Malmesbury, Vitalis, The Carmen, etc) and it's generally accepted that this was in Celtic and Viking armies only."

Actually it seems to have been a Germanic custom in general not just a Norse/Viking one (the Vikings actually didn't regularly use female fighters abroad as they had banned them from taking part in Longship raids, and thus were mostly confined to Scandinavia and Russia). We do have some evidence of female warriors in Early English history (and no Boudicca wasn't one of them as she was Welsh and was alive long before the English went to the British Islands) though they seem to have, for the most part, been earlier than the 1000s.

A site:

http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/womenvik.html

"Nothings gonna change my world!"

[–] huzzie 15 years ago

Pharaoh_Impotent said...

(and no Boudicca wasn't one of them as she was Welsh and was alive long before the English went to the British Islands)

There is nothing to suggest that Boudicca was Welsh, there is only suggestion that she fought in Wales and maybe spent time in Anglesey.

Anyway, she was part of the Iceni tribe from the North of East Anglia, the tribe, as Celts, fought in similar fashions to all tribes on the British Isles.

Many women were warriors in Celtic Britain.

It seems that you are confusing today's so called Celtic areas of Devon, Wales, Scotland and Ireland when all regions of Britain, except for Pictish areas were Celtic pre-Roman invasion.

Anyway, "Celtic" is an extremely loose term and very hard to pin down in areas, or define.

[–] ContinentalOp 15 years ago

"There is nothing to suggest that Boudicca was Welsh, there is only suggestion that she fought in Wales and maybe spent time in Anglesey."

Actually ''Welsh'', as the Pharoah being an old English linguist knows, is a term that applies to all Brythonic ''foreigners to the English. The correct term for a person from what we call Wales is ''Cymry''.

Boudicca is from a Brythonic tribe and the modern day ''Welsh'' are descendants of Brythonic tribes.

"An eye for an eye only ends up leaving the whole world blind" - Gandhiji

[–] Pharaoh-in-de-Nile 15 years ago

Indeed KingAngantyr. A good explanation!

"Nothings gonna change my world!"

[–] jh66 15 years ago

Wealhas - later corrupted to "Welsh"- is the Anglo-Saxon's word for 'foreigner'.

The Anglo-Saxons are not recorded in any reliable contemporary sources (Bede, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, any Norman sources which would have stated it) as using women warriors, as able as they were in other, viking/'celtic' armies.

[–] ContinentalOp 15 years ago

Vikings usually didn't have women warriors in their ranks for most of there history because women (despite having more rights than in most nations) were banned from longships. There is a lot of evidence that the early English had female warriors.

"An eye for an eye only ends up leaving the whole world blind" - Gandhiji

[–] Pharaoh-in-de-Nile 15 years ago

She was culturally Welsh/Brythonic just as the Anglo-Saxons are the early English in culture.

"Welsh" is a term derived from the Old English "Wælisc" itself from "Wealh"("Non-Germanic outsiders", "Non-Germanic foreigners", "Celtic or Romance speakers") and thus is usable in modern English and in fact in many books both "Welsh" and "British" have been used for the Brythons, of course most do not call the "Anglo-Saxons" "English" anymore but "Saxons", "Anglo-Saxons" or "Germans", which stinks of the flag-waving Britannic junk you hear all over the place at the moment.

Also the Picts spoke a Brythonic language (though later they borrowed much from Gaelic) and were culturally similar to the Southern Brythons but less Romanised. I suggest you research the subject you may find it interesting and learn something in the process.

"Nothings gonna change my world!"

[–] ContinentalOp 8 years ago

Anyway, "Celtic" is an extremely loose term and very hard to pin down in areas, or define.

It is simply a nonsense term used to group together diverse cultures that MAY have a shared linguistic origin but almost nothing else (the Irish for instance did not have the ''Celtic'' material culture, and neither did the Brythons who had a different material culture from the Irish also).

Formerly KingAngantyr

[–] chrismahon2005 15 years ago

Laugable mate, how the hell do you know what they had in the battle ?, were you there ?, and harold for all his 36 yrs experience still rushed to the battle when many told him to wait and draw the normans into the country, rest up and gain more reinforcements, and how do you think he was killed when by all accounts ive read say he and his bodyguards were overwhelmed by normans then either hacked to death or shot with an arrow, in what way do you think he would have been killed when faced by large numbers of angry and fired up normans ?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chrismahon2005 15 years ago

I watched it again yesterday, and its a very well made program, which a i liked and its pointless arguing over such points no one can prove. Also dont you mean harald here ?, it was harald hardrada not harold, so dont be calling people idiots when that was not his name.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]