I remember arguing with a friend of mine about “The Scorpion King” with The Rock and its departure from factual realities (actually, she reminded me of it when I posted a rant on GetGlue about “The 13th Warrior”). My friend loves ancient Egypt, is fairly knowledgable on the subject, and has written at least one unpublished novel with that period as the backdrop. and she hated how Scorpion King took so many liberties with, and made so many errors about, that historical period. (In fact, we just had another discussion about it in the comment section of my previous blog post.)
Me, I just thought it was a fun movie, a great action vehicle for The Rock (with the hope that he’d maybe star in a Conan vehicle that would automatically be superior to Ahnold’s), plis it had a semi-nude Kelly Hu, so I didn’t understand her anger against it.
So she was quick to point out that I was being somewhat hypocritical when, as a fan of Vikings and their culture (not the purple kind from Minnesota. For one thing, those horned helmets did not exist!), I myself was ranting about “The 13th Warrior” and all its errors and inconsistencies with real Viking culture.
So I had to admit, begrudgingly, that I can see where she was coming from. (And enough time has passed that the bloom has gone off The Scorpion King and it doesn’t hold up to repeated viewings.)
So I fully admit that if you are critical of Historical inaccuracies in one instance, then you should care about it in all instances, even if it isn’t a period you’re knowledgable in. Because, essentially, Hollywood is lying to you and laughing about it as they count their money.
So we should hold their feet to the fire over accuracy in every instance. Let’s be mad as hell and not want to take it any more. (I’m not exactly sure where alternative histories fit in here, nor do I have an argument ready for that discussion. So lets just move on, shall we?)
I’ve been interested in Vikings for a while, having done quite a bit of research for a trunk novel and several unpublished stories about that era. And to be honest, I’ve loved Norse mythology since childhood, resenting how school taught Greco-Roman mythology, but snubbed every other pantheon. And lately, I’ve been immersing myself in researching swords. So that gives you an idea of my mindset and interests.
So, I thought it would be fun to watch “The 13th Warrior,” having become somewhat disappointed with the current “Vikings” program on the History Channel.
Well, it wasn’t fun. I couldn’t shut down Critical Me. And instead of enjoyment, I found myself getting angry. And anger, of course, inspires blogposts. Lucky you.
“The 13th Warrior,” if you didnt know, is based on the Michael Crichton novel, “Eaters of the Dead.” A novel that has been on my To Be Read pile for years, but keeps getting bumped by other things. It’s a historical piece that is a departure for Crichton, who is best know for his science fiction thrillers. “The 13th Warrior” was released in 1999 and current has a critic’s rating of 33% on Rotten Tomatoes.
The movie begins with some Middle Eastern Mulims, possibly near Bagdad, circa 922 AD. Antonio Banderas is a court poet who, through various misadventures, becomes involved with a band of Vikings and a lot of random violence as the Vikings return home to defend their homes from a bloodthirsty (and flesh-eating) band of invaders.
I began to notice flaws and inconsistencies almost from the very beginning. The first is Banderas is discovered with a “romantic interest” with a noble’s wife. Now why they didn’t just cut off his head or hands or penis, I have no idea. Oh, yes I do. Because then there wouldn’t have been a movie! So instead of death or dismemberment, he is exiled to be an “ambassador” to the northern barbarians.
Something else, when the Middle Eastern folk see the Viking ship they ride away in fear. Why? I thought the Vikings were trading with the Middle East. I think it was a source for some of the high quality steel that was used in the Ulthbert swords, for example, so why would they also be raping, pillaging, and plundering there? That would put off anyone they’d want to do business with, wouldn’t it? On this point I don’t know the history, so I’ll have to do some research on what the Vikings were doing in the Middle East in 900ad.
There are several flaws in this movie that I noticed before I finally gave up and watched something else.
Viking swords are one-handers. They held the sword in one hand and a buckler (shield) or an ax in the other. Now, if the sword was so blamed heavy that Antonio Banderas couldn’t use it, it would have been too heavy for a Viking to use. Generally, their swords weighed around 3 pounds, give or take several ounces.
One of the Vikings carries his sword on his back, so long it is. There is no evidence such swords ever existed among the Vikings. In fact, there is no evidence of a back scabbard ever used in Europe, the near East, or India. They are a modern invention and are inaccurate to use in this movie as well as “Braveheart.” Besides, you’d need gorilla arms to withdraw a sword from a back scabbard that had a blade longer than 20 inches.
Then Antonio found a grinding wheel and ground the hell out of the sword to make it weigh less so he could use it. Forget for a moment that grinding the hell out of steel causes it to heat, which changes the temper of the blade, making it more fragile and brittle. Not to mention the whole geometry and balance would be way off. I mean, Banderas’ character was a poet for Crom’s sake, not a smithy. But in the meantime, he has invented a curved blade. Something that didn’t exist in the Middle East at the time. Curved scimitars came centuries later.
And one of the Vikings was wearing Spanish Conquistador-like armor which also didn’t exist then and wouldn’t for another couple hundred years. Vikings used chain mail around 900 AD, when this was supposed to take place.
And I’ll forget for a moment that quality swords were expensive and thus rare among the Vikings. For instance, unread that of 100 Viking burials they found in Iceland that included a weapon, only 16 were swords.
So I’ll have to rewatch “The 13th Warrior” and pay closer attention to see if all 12 Vikings are chieftains or at least very prominent warriors. Otherwise, its very coincidental that the majority would have swords.
And speaking of valuable, Vikings held their swords in very high regard because a quality sword could mean life or death. They often valued them above their family. So for one of them to just give Banderas one goes against everything I’ve read of their culture.
So I flipped the movie off and watched something on The Military Channel about the Battle of Marathon and immediately noticed that some of the swords the Greeks were using were VIKING-era swords! Several had 5-lobed pommels. Made me wonder if they were leftover from some previous historical program about Vikings or if some sword manufacturer donated them just so they’d get some free advertising.
And I’m not even going to start a rant on the current movie sword fighting technique (made popular in Highlander) where they block blows using the EDGE of the sword! Gah. Edge to edge blows! Stop it!
Maybe I should just stick with reading. It’s less stressful.
And speaking of swords, mine should be arriving today. My first real, battle-ready sword. I’m so excited! Pictures, of course, will be posted along with a mini-review (more of a list of impressions from a novice than an actual review).
-30-