History of the World According to the Movies: Part 20 – Tudor England

Posted by historymaniacmegan on April 2, 2014

I can never think of a better movie featuring Tudor England than A Man for All Seasons which is about the the story of Saint Sir Thomas More who refused to go along with his friend Henry VIII and lost his head for it. Of course, you may think that Robert Shaw’s Henry VIII is too buff but he would’ve actually looked very much like this at the time. He only got fat later in life. Still, let’s just say More wasn’t as saintly as he’s portrayed in here by Paul Scofield.

When Henry Tudor killed Richard III during the Battle of Bosworth Field, he ascended the English throne and started a new dynasty that was to last a little over a century as well as ended the Wars of the Roses. Sort of. Henry Tudor became Henry VII, married Elizabeth of York which not only was a perfectly arranged marriage producing four children but was also a good policy move securing his place on the throne, had successfully handled two pretenders to the throne, and made England in better shape than before. Unfortunately, Hollywood thinks doing a movie about his life would be very boring subject since everyone best knows him for being the father of one of more famous despots in history, Henry VIII. Now we all know that this guy was that he broke away from the Roman Catholic Church after Pope Clement VII refused to give him an annulment from his wife who failed to give him a son. Of course, many don’t know that Pope Clement was in no place to give him one anyway since Henry VIII was married to Catherine of Aragon, whose nephew Holy Roman Emperor Charles V was holding the pontiff hostage. Henry’s also best known for marrying six times (with their fates being divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived) as well as beheading two of them (one of them being Queen Elizabeth’s mother whose beheading was a setup). Also, he’s dissolved monasteries to pay for his foreign wars and self-enrichment as well as executing a whole bunch of people including many of his friends who wouldn’t go along with him on some things (I’m talking to you Thomas More). Oh, and he’s known for being fat. Still, Henry VIII is a very interesting historical subject for filmmakers and there are plenty of movies taking place in his reign. However, there are things about movies set in Tudor England that contain inaccuracies, which I shall list.

Tudor England:

Everyone spelled their name and everything else the same way all the time. (There were no standard spelling system at this time.)

The Tudor Rose was an actual rose. (It was a heraldic emblem of the unification of the houses of Lancaster and York.)

English Protestants were good guys while Spanish and British Catholics were absolutely bad. (Neither side was no better than anyone else.)

Henry VIII:

Henry VIII was a fat and villainous king. (He was once a relatively kind and generous ruler as well as fairly buff and handsome until right before the end of his marriage with Anne Boleyn. Of course, his Tudor diet, leg ulcers, and jousting accident took a toll on him both physically and mentally. In fact, his jousting accident might’ve been the start of his decline into the fat bearded despot we know since Anne Boleyn miscarried and was executed after that incident on trumped charges.)

Henry VIII was an intellectual cypher, possessed with low cunning. (He was something of an intellectual with a real appreciation for high culture.)

Henry VIII’s Church of England was Protestant. (He’d execute you if you’d say that because he absolutely loathed Protestantism. Also, his church was just a separation of England from Rome and dissolved monasteries just to get cash to finance a war in France as well as land and goods.)

Henry VIII sought an annulment from the Pope just so he could divorce his wife. (He wanted to disinherit his daughter, Mary and assure that there was no way she would ever become Queen. It didn’t work.)

Saint Sir Thomas More:

Saint Sir Thomas More was witty and used clean language. (Yes, he was witty but his writings on Martin Luther have him call the guy a “pimp” or an “arse” and claimed his mouth was “a shit-pool of all shit.” He also said Luther celebrated Mass in a lavatory, and listed four type of ordure he was filled with consisting of {merda, stercus, lutum and coenum [all Latin for shit and dirt]}. In some ways, he sometimes talked as if he was a character in a 16th century version of The Wire. Still, too bad, they couldn’t include that in A Man for All Seasons since it was made in the 1960s{it would’ve been so much more entertaining}.)

Saint Sir Thomas More was a good Catholic of purity and principle who refused to recognize Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and refused to break with the Catholic Church and paid it with his life. (Yes, he refused to recognize Henry’s church, divorce, and remarriage, and that’s what got him killed. Actually, as a good Catholic in his day, well, that’s difficult to determine. Loyal and faithful, yes, but he wasn’t the kind of guy who’d let his daughter marry a Protestant, for he was a vigorous opponent of Protestantism {and thought heretics should be burned at the stake}. Though he remained Catholic, he also believed that a council of bishops should be superior to the pope in authority or do without a pope altogether and was buddies with Thomas Cromwell and Erasmus of Rotterdam.)

Saint Sir Thomas More owned a yellow Labrador retriever. (The ones with the features we see today weren’t even bred yet.)

King Henry VIII needed Saint Sir Thomas More’s endorsement. (He just wanted it for the prestige since he liked people agreeing with him on these things. Cramner and Cromwell had already assured he had ample ground for annulling his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.)

Saint Sir Thomas More railed against Cardinal Wolsey. (He wasn’t anything but a docile servant to him on both public and private matters since he counted on the guy for advancement. He never did anything to offend Wolsey until after the cardinal failed to gain acceptance of the king’s annulment {in which More responded with a cruel and vindictive tirade of him during his maiden speech as Lord Chancellor in front of Parliament} and thus, fell from grace.)

Saint Sir Thomas More only had a daughter and was married once. (He had four kids as well as a stepdaughter and was married twice {and Dame Alice wasn’t the mother of his kids and her daughter wasn’t his}. Also, he had various foster kids, too. However, he did believe in giving his daughters a full formal education.)

The Duke of Norfolk conspired against Saint Sir Thomas More because he wanted his job. (Maybe, but he was also Anne Boleyn’s uncle at the time as well.)

Thomas Cromwell played an active role in Saint Sir Thomas More’s execution. (His role in executing More is unclear. Still, despite that Cromwell was a Protestant and was no fan of religious toleration either, the strongly Catholic Sir Thomas More and his family didn’t have much against him personally. William Roper was on friendly terms with Cromwell before More’s trial and remained with him afterward. Not to mention, a year after More’s death, Cromwell is said stand as godfather to William and Margaret Roper’s child and they remained Catholics for the rest of their lives. They may have been rivals and might’ve been in different religious camps, but they weren’t exactly enemies.)

Richard Rich committed vicious perjury against Saint Sir Thomas More. (It’s highly unlikely he did this maliciously since he was guy willing to bend by every wind. Also, what he said against More was much less malicious.)

William Roper:

William Roper was Protestant when he married Margaret More. (His flirtation with Lutheranism happened after he and Margaret were married. Also, Thomas More would’ve been absolutely furious if any of his kids married a guy he knew was a Protestant.)

William Roper was a model son-in-law for Thomas More, despite his religious views. (Sure he wrote a glowing biography of the man, but he also fell out with Dame Alice after More’s execution and repeatedly sued her for his lands as a quarrelsome and litigious man.)

William and Margaret Roper weren’t married prior to Sir Thomas More’s appointment as Lord Chancellor and had no kids prior to his death. (William and Margaret married in 1521, More was appointed Lord Chancellor 8 years later. Also, they had at least 3 kids by the time More died in 1535.)

Catherine of Aragon:

Catherine of Aragon and Princess Mary were able to see each other while Anne Boleyn was queen. (They were forbidden from seeing each other, thanks to Henry VIII.)

Catherine of Aragon didn’t have a sexual relationship with Prince Arthur. (Well, she claimed this, but there’s debate about this. Yet, her previous marriage to Henry VIII’s brother was one of the reasons why Henry VIII wanted to divorce her since he believed marrying his brother’s widow was the reason he wasn’t getting an heir.)

Catherine of Aragon was Spanish who had dark eyes and hair. (Yes, but she didn’t have the Mediterranean features associated with most Spanish people. Rather she was a redhead with blue eyes and alabaster skin and so were the old Spanish families. Thus, she probably looked more like Conan O’Brien than Irene Papas.)

Henry VIII was devoted to Catherine of Aragon before the Boleyn sisters. (Henry had at least one out of wedlock son to one of Catherine’s maid before Mary or Anne showed up. Also, he was known to be unfaithful to his mistresses as well as his wives.)

Mary Boleyn:

Henry VIII had a child with Anne Boleyn’s sister Mary before they got together. (Mary Boleyn probably was Henry VIII’s mistress but it’s highly unlikely that she had a child by him for Henry VIII didn’t acknowledge either of her two children. She was also married to another guy so Henry VIII may not have even known whether either of her kids were his or not. Her husband was more likely the father anyway.)

Mary Boleyn was blushing virgin who loved Henry VIII and only wanted a quiet life in the country while her sister Anne was evil and ambitious. (Actually, Mary Boleyn had a reputation as “The Great Prostitute,” and was married by the time of her alleged affair with Henry VIII. She was even allegedly a mistress to the King of France for three years. Also, she was recalled from the French court because her behavior there was scandalous to them that she was sent home in disgrace. Oh, and there’s no indication that Mary was unwilling to sleep with Henry VIII either. Anne Boleyn, on the other hand, only slept with one guy in her entire life. Still, she supported charities, sheltered Protestants, promoting artistic endeavors, and showed an unusually keen interest in Elizabeth’s upbringing. She also secured a respectable pension for her sister and sent her nephew to a Cistercian monastery for his education.)

Mary Boleyn lived happily ever after and married Sir William Stafford for love. (She died barely nine years into her marriage with him with her younger children being seven and eight. Oh, and she was banished by the English court to Rochford Hall for marrying Stafford since a common soldier was below her social station as well as got disowned by her family for good. Of course, exile was probably a blessing for her despite that she was never allowed to travel to London or France {though she wanted to return there}. )

Henry VIII trusted Mary Boleyn over her sister. (When Mary’s husband died, Henry VIII gave guardianship of her two-year-old son to Anne because he was worried about her “easy virtue.”)

Mary Boleyn was heartbroken when Henry VIII dumped her for her sister. (She and Henry VIII had been on the outs for years so she wasn’t too upset he was seeing her sister.)

Mary Boleyn pleaded for her siblings’ lives. (By this point, Mary absolutely had no influence on the king even though she tried to seek his favor for her second husband through highly placed people of court. She didn’t visit her siblings in prison nor wrote or communicated with them in any way since she had been kicked out of court for marrying a common soldier.)

Mary Boleyn was banished from her family for being a threat to Henry VIII’s affection. (Her family disowned her because she married a guy below her station.)

Mary Boleyn seized Princess Elizabeth from the palace and carried her off to raise in the countryside. (For one, Elizabeth was 2 or 3 at the time. Second, the Boleyns practically disowned her over her marrying William Stafford years ago. Third, I’m sure kidnapping the king’s daughter would’ve led to execution and she died in 1544. Fourth, we all know that Elizabeth lived in her father’s palace until his death when she was 14. After that, she went to live with Thomas Seymour and Catherine Parr, which wasn’t a happy time in her life.)

Anne Boleyn:

Anne Boleyn was obsessed with wanting Elizabeth to become queen. (She was more worried about her daughter being exiled or killed or perhaps being executed herself.)

Anne Boleyn initially rejected Henry VIII before she gave in. (Anne Boleyn would’ve done no such thing nor would any of Henry VIII’s other wives since it was a great way to improve their families’ status and gain considerable influence. Also, she wouldn’t refuse him with accusations nor criticize the king in front of his face since that could get any noble thrown out of court as well as in a lot of trouble {look at all the buddies Henry VIII beheaded like Saint Sir Thomas More}. Of course, for such behavior, Henry VIII probably would’ve punished her by having her marry some lord in Ireland as well as forcing her to move away from all the sophistication and attention she craved. Not to mention, at least two of Henry VIII’s six wives were in love with other men and still accepted his marriage proposal. A royal marriage was a goal for many noble women in the sixteenth century.)

Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn married in a public ceremony. (They married in secret because according to some people and the Catholic Church, he was still technically married to Catherine of Aragon.)

Henry VIII raped Anne Boleyn in which Elizabeth I was conceived. (Their pre-marital sexual encounter was most likely consensual though Anne was pregnant at the time of their wedding. Henry VIII may not have been a nice guy, but he’d never force himself on anyone sexually like that.)

Anne Boleyn wasn’t a virgin when she met Henry VIII. (If she wasn’t, she’d have kept that fact to herself. However, if she wasn’t, she certainly didn’t sleep with as many guys as her sister did {since she was the one who had a reputation for sluttiness}.)

Anne Boleyn forced Henry VIII to leave Catherine of Aragon. (She refused to sleep with him until he was free to marry again {though the no-sex rule may have been Henry’s decision since he was trying to make nice with the pope and didn’t want any girlfriends popping out bastards} but the idea of an annulment had been on his mind for quite some time since he was already obsessed with having a male heir.)

Anne Boleyn chose death so Elizabeth could become queen. (Elizabeth was removed from succession right after her mother’s execution. Few people in 1536 could’ve imagined she ended up queen.)

Anne Boleyn secretly married Henry Percy and was exiled to France when her parents found out. (She was secretly engaged to him since her father opposed the match yet it’s very unlikely that their relationship was ever consummated. Their relationship was broken up by Cardinal Wolsey, not Henry VIII. As for being in France, she and her sister were sent there for an education.)

Anne Boleyn didn’t love Henry VIII. (She probably did to some extent, though sometimes he didn’t seem like a loveable guy. Still, she pretty much remained faithful to him as his queen who did her best to please him despite getting screwed in the process. If that’s not love, I don’t know what is.)

Anne Boleyn was cold, vindictive, vain, ruthlessly ambitious, and given to physical violence. (Ambitious, arrogant, and short-tempered, yes, but she was highly intelligent, politically astute, bilingual, artistically gifted, loyal to her family, and generous to her friends as well as known for her charm and elegance.)

Anne Boleyn was older than her sister Mary. (Anne was younger.)

Henry VIII lost interest in Anne Boleyn at the time of their wedding. (No, he had a long seven year courtship with her, a short affair, and a three year marriage. They didn’t have sex until shortly before their wedding. He lost interest in her after her second miscarriage thinking it was Catherine of Aragon all over again. Also, shortly before her second miscarriage, he had been involved in a jousting incident that might’ve sent him on a physical and mental decline so he wasn’t in the best of health either.)

Anne Boleyn was accused of incest with her brother. (She was also accused with adultery with several men including her brother and with high treason in plotting with one of her lovers to kill the king. All were trumped up of course, for Henry VIII needed an excuse to get rid of her so he could wed Jane Seymour.)

Anne Boleyn was in 18 years old when she met Henry VIII in 1527. (She was at least in her early twenties, maybe as old as 26.)

Henry VIII visited Anne Boleyn after her arrest and offered to a deal which would’ve given her freedom. (He didn’t and her marriage was annulled anyway with Elizabeth being declared a bastard like Mary. Not to mention, she was disallowed the right to question witnesses against her. Also, she had last seen Henry a joust a day before her arrest but the king never interfered with the proceedings at Anne’s trial. Still, Henry VIII offered no alternatives for Anne since she would’ve saved her own neck when given the chance.)

Anne Boleyn pressured Henry VIII to have Saint Sir Thomas More executed. (There’s no evidence from that period that suggests this.)

The debate between Catholicism vs. Protestantism killed Anne Boleyn. (It was actually two miscarriages and being arrested and executed under trumped charges that did her in.)

Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII were publicly disappointed when Elizabeth was born. (Well, they were disappointed but they didn’t show it in public. Of course, he rationalized that if Anne could give birth to a healthy girl, then she’d have a healthy boy. Well, Anne ended up having two miscarriages.)

Sir William Carey:

Sir William Carey was a merchant. (He was a notable courtier as well as one of king’s favorite Gentlemen of the Bedchamber {I’m not kidding on this, seriously} who she married around her affair with Henry VIII. Oh, and he attended the wedding and arranged the whole marriage himself.)

Sir William Carey originally wanted to marry Anne Boleyn but settled for Mary. (Anne was never considered as a marriage candidate for him. Also, it was Henry VIII who helped arrange the match between Mary and William in the first place.)

Anne of Cleves:

Anne of Cleves was ugly. (Most of Henry VIII’s contemporaries thought she was rather pleasant looking. Also, one courtier said she was Henry’s prettiest queen. Of course, she didn’t suit Henry’s preferences at the time.)

Anne of Cleves made herself unattractive in front of Henry VIII so she could be free to marry her sweetheart as well as won her freedom at a card game on her wedding night. (She was actually rather attractive and one of Henry’s prettiest queens. Yet, she was probably repulsed by the obese Henry from the start and there’s no evidence whether she had a boyfriend. Oh, and she didn’t win her freedom through a card game but consented to the divorce, giving her respectable settlement in return.)

Jane Seymour:

Jane Seymour died shortly after giving birth to Prince Edward. (Childbirth was the main cause of her death but she would survive Edward’s birth for a couple of weeks and she there for his christening.)

Henry VIII was devastated by Jane Seymour’s death. (Well, he did consider her the love of his life after she gave him what he had to wait 27 years for. However, contemporary reports say he was mildly upset that Jane’s death had disrupted his hunting plans. Besides, their relationship wasn’t the most ideal, especially by then.)

Others:

Cardinal Wolsey died as Lord Chancellor. (He died a year after he was stripped of this office.)

Princess Elizabeth had to talk Henry VIII out of arresting Catherine Parr by spotting a French naval ship. (Yes, Henry VIII did think about arresting Catherine Parr for her religious views on the advice of Bishop Gardiner. However, Catherine managed to talk her husband out of it, saving her own life.)

Anne and Mary Boleyn spoke in English accents. (They were raised in French and would’ve spoken in French accents.)

George Boleyn was gay as well as in love with Francis Weston but had designs on his sister Anne. (There’s no evidence of him having any kind of sexual orientation, yet he certainly didn’t commit incest with his sister.)

Thomas and Elizabeth Boleyn were devoid of their affection for their daughters and willing to use them as sexual pawns. (Well, it depended on the situation.)

Sir Thomas More’s father was dead prior to his Lord Chancellor appointment. (Sir John More was very much alive and died in 1531).

Katherine Howard fell in love with Thomas Culpeper after she married Henry VIII. (She was in love with Culpeper before marrying the king. She also had an affair with Francis Dereham before she ever met Henry.)

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 19 – The Catholic Counter-Reformation

Posted by historymaniacmegan on April 1, 2014

Here is Queen Isabella of Spain played by Rachel Weisz in The Fountain. I chose this picture since Queen Isabella of Spain is one of the few figures in the Catholic Counter-Reformation to be depicted in a positive light since she’s mostly seen being a patron of Christopher Columbus (and that most movies on the Inquisition are usually played for horror). However, unlike most depictions of her including this, she’s also known for starting the Spanish Inquisition we all know as the one of the fiercest villainous organizations depicted on film. Also, there’s no way in hell the Grand Inquisitor Torquemada would’ve ever wanted to assassinate her for since he knew what the penalty would be (while a Grand Inquisitor making an attempt on her life would actually seem more like karma). Also, she was not in love with a Conquistador (and was faithful to her husband King Ferdinand as well as the fact the Conquistadors weren’t around until after she was dead) and certainly didn’t look like that around middle age and seems to retain her figure all too well after ten pregnancies.

Of course, there’s also the Catholic Counter-Reformation which sought to correct certain abuses of the Catholic Church as well as bring the faith back to the people. Of course, the Counter-Reformation was a time of the Inquisitions where many of the leading clerics would round up heretics for torture and trial. The most famous was the Spanish Inquisition which tended to turn out of nowhere from time to time at a random mention uttering “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!” then proceeded to torture people with dish racks, fluffy cushions, and comfy chairs (actually this isn’t the one from Monty Python, sorry). Actually the real Spanish Inquisition was a quasi – state and religious organization started by Ferdinand and Isabella that was set to unite Spain under the “new” Catholicism once and for all, which more or less pertained to expelling or persecuting the Jews and Muslims in the area, especially those who converted. Oh, and there were plenty of other Inquisitions to root out heresy as well. You also have the Jesuits under Saint Ignatius Loyola who found a new order of priests devoted to education, spiritual exercises, and total obedience to the Pope. Of course, while this movement exists today, it didn’t always get good press. Then there’s the Catholic mysticism of Saint Theresa of Avila and her order captured most famously in a statue by Bernini. And last but not least, let’s not forget the Council of Trent which helped shaped Catholicism within much of its history before Vatican II. Of course, some reforms would be unmet, but this managed to put some areas of Europe back in the Catholic Church’s hands as well as helped make the Church a more efficient and accountable religious institution. Still, Hollywood rarely touches upon this and sees the Catholic Church during the Reformation as a static and backward institution which doesn’t say the whole truth (I mean you get movies about Martin Luther but you barely have any on Ignatius Loyola or Theresa of Avila). And depictions of the Inquisitions are much worse than they were in real life by 16th century standards (this doesn’t dismiss them as bad guys but they weren’t nearly the monsters you see in the movies). So here are some cinematic inaccuracies relating to the Catholic Reformation.

Catholic Reaction:

Catholic leaders refused to debate or engage Martin Luther. (Some Catholic theologians actually did and in public like Johann Eck.)

Catejan was a cardinal during the conclave that elected Pope Leo X in 1513. (He was made a cardinal four years later.)

Girolamo Aleander was a cardinal during the Diet of Worms. (He wouldn’t become cardinal until 15 years later.)

Catholic Europe was rife with witch burning hysteria. (The real witch-burning hysteria was in Protestant northern Europe where more witches were killed. The Inquisition did their share to prevent such hysteria in Catholic areas.)

Catholic clergymen and leaders were misogynistic. (Maybe, but many Protestant sects were no better since they wanted all women to stay in the kitchen more or less. Oh, and they did raided convents as well as forced nuns to convert and marry in some situations. At least Catholic women had some choice to become nuns if they wanted to. The 16th century wasn’t a good time for women, let’s just leave it at that.)

Catholic priests were all trained assassins in the 16th century. (Yeah, I can believe it. Not really.)

Popes:

Pope Julius II wore golden armor. (He was a warrior pope who did wear armor, but it wouldn’t have been made out of gold {which is too soft for the battlefield}.)

Pope Julius II was clean shaven. (He had a beard. He also had an illegitimate daughter and was rumored to be gay, strangely.)

Pope Leo X was around in 1525. (He died well before then.)

Pope Julius II was present in Rome when Martin Luther was there. (He wasn’t.)

Pope Leo X put a bounty on Martin Luther’s head. (He actually sent orders that Luther’s safe passage was to be respected.)

The Catholic Church refused to grant King Henry VIII a divorce from Catherine of Aragon out of moral principles. (The real reason had nothing to do with moral principle as we learn from Lucrezia Borgia’s married life for but then again, her dad was the pope. Also, Henry VIII was in good graces with the Church prior to that time and was given the title “Defender of the Faith,” from Leo X long before he was petitioning for a divorce and knew the pope owed him a favor. However, the reason why the Pope Clement VII didn’t grant Henry VIII a divorce had nothing to do with the fact that he was married but who he was married to and in a loving relationship of over 20 years in fact. Not to mention, annulments were fairly common back then and if Henry VIII was married to anyone else, he probably would’ve obtained it easily. Yet, Clement VII was being held prisoner by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, Catherine of Aragon’s nephew. Also, Henry VIII wasn’t asking for a divorce from the Pope but an annulment so he wouldn’t have his daughter Mary inherit the throne after he died. He didn’t just want to be single again, he wanted Catherine declared a whore and his daughter Mary a bastard. It’s pretty obvious why Charles V didn’t want that done to his aunt. It didn’t really work. Besides, other heirless kings have divorced their wives before. And Pope Clement VII didn’t really refused, but delayed making any decision hoping that either Henry or Charles would die in the process or just wanted Henry to take care of the matter himself, but not in the way he wanted it.)

Henry VIII’s annulment request to the Pope was unusual for its time. (Contrary to what you see in movies, trying to divorce your spouse on grounds of consanguinity was actually very common on among the royals and nobles who could afford it and the fact they married among their own kinds, leaving the marriage pool quite small to begin with. Eleanor of Acquitaine did this by saying that King Louis VII of France on grounds that they were 3rd cousins even though she basically dumped him for a man who was just as closely related to her as he was. And this was a successful case. The only thing that was unusual about Henry’s request is that Catherine of Aragon was his sister-in-law before she was his wife and that he asked for a special dispensation to marry her. And now he was using their former connection to annul their marriage which didn’t go well with her nephew Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who was keeping Pope Clement VII in prison.)

The Borgias:

Pope Alexander VI had five kids. (He’s said to have more than that. Yet, some say that he may not have fathered any kids at all. Still, he’s said to have a descendant named Francis who became a Jesuit and a saint. Also, he’s an ancestor of Brooke Shields.)

Cesare Borgia killed Lucrezia’s second husband Alfonso of Aragon. (He was primarily accused of his brother-in-law’s murder but he had a lot of other enemies, too, so we’re not sure. Also, though the Borgias had a notorious reputation for ruthlessness and murder, they were no more murderous than any other prominent Italian family at the time. They just got a bad rep for being social climbers and Spanish. Oh, and Niccolo Machiavelli’s shout-out to Cesare in The Prince certainly doesn’t help either.)

Lucrezia Borgia had sex with her male relatives. (This most likely never happened and the child born in the Borgia household in 1498 wasn’t Lucrezia’s son.)

Jesuits:

The Jesuits were assassins. (They were a priestly order set up by Saint Ignatius Loyola, which helped reinvigorate Catholicism through education and spiritual exercises. Nevertheless, the first Jesuits were ex-soldiers, by the way and called themselves “Soldiers of Christ.”)

The Inqusitions:

The Inquisition was one of the big muscles of oppression during the Counter-Reformation. (Actually the Inquisition began before that and even though it ended in the 1800s, it was off and on. It began in the 1300s, peaked in the 1500s with the Reformation and Spanish Inquisition, and died down way after that. Also, the real muscle for the Counter-Reformation were the Jesuits who helped reclaim areas of Catholicism with education and zeal. Not only that, the Protestants had their ways of oppressing others, too whether they be Catholic, Jewish, or different kind of Protestant.)

The Inquisition consisted of a bunch of witch-hunters who accused people of witchcraft. (Actually the Spanish Inquisition was more interested in condemning heretics {or whatever else the Spanish Crown wanted for sometimes the Spanish Inquisition targeted certain individuals for solely political reasons}. Even at the height of witch craziness, the official Catholic Church position on witchcraft accusations was superstitious nonsense and actually tried to suppress witch-hunts and often investigated the cases of the accused so they can acquit them and calm down the public panic. And the Church had forbidden the belief in witchcraft since the 7th century even though it became more open to it late in the Middle Ages. Not to mention, the Spanish Inquisition was more likely to go after the accusers than the accused unless they were also suspected of heresy. Also, the Spanish Inquisition only executed 12 people for witchcraft {and the inquisitors involved in those were punished}. Not only that, some of the first people to speak out against accusations of witchcraft and torture were priests based on their experiences and did so by pointing out the obvious. However, there were witch burnings in Protestant areas during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and witchcraft was considered a crime according to secular law.)

Veronica Franco was accused of witchcraft and was tried by the Roman Catholic Inquisition. It was only by the intervention of the Marco Venier and Venetian senate that she was dismissed of all charges. (Sure, yet even though the Inquisition tried her, they were on her side and would eventually dismiss her of all charges anyway, no matter what the people of Venice did because this was how the Inquisition normally handled witchcraft charges. Thus, she was never in any danger from them. They only arrested and tried her in order to calm down the public hysteria and prove that the notion of witchcraft was just superstitious nonsense.)

The Catholic Church largely supported the Spanish Inquisition, which tortured, persecuted, and slaughtered tens of thousands. (The Spanish Inquisition was mostly operated by the Spanish government and while the Catholic Church hierarchy supported it to a certain extent, but it was the least religiously motivated inquisition though despite its reputation. If it was ever used as a political tool of repression, it was mainly for the Spanish Crown, not the Church. And this Inquisition often focused its surveillance on cities due to limited resources and wasn’t deployed much overseas. They were also highly regulated, didn’t always use torture to extract confessions, and served primarily to educate ordinary people about the faith and how to uphold it, sort of what the Jesuits did. The Spanish Inquisition only executed about 1500-5,000 of the people it tried in its entire existence {mostly because the convict usually fled and burned in effigy}, which was less than how many people were killed executed in Europe for witchcraft at the same time estimated at 60,000. Also, the Spanish Inquisition spent most of their time correcting peasant superstitions, lapses of morality and sexual misconduct, and confronting religious ignorance. Heresy only occupied 3% of their cases, which by Hollywood standards is boring. They also introduced the presumption of innocence, provided legal counsel for the accused, considered confession without factual corroboration unfit grounds for sentence, and were forbidden to accept accusations from ex-convicts or people who could benefit from the sentence. None of that was observed by most secular courts of the period as well as were methodical for gathering and basing their cases on evidence. They also didn’t burn books either despite having a banned books list, the books were widely available. As for torture, it was considered an exceptional method up to the 18th century, just as fines and imprisonment are used today but it wasn’t to a high degree since the Inquisition was forbidden to draw blood during torture. Of course, they didn’t believe in habeas corpus either and the accused could be in prison for two years without knowing his or her accusers were. Actually the notoriety of the Spanish Inquisition was more or less formulated by anti-Catholic propaganda and that Spain was at war with Protestant nations like England and the Netherlands where there was more freedom of speech for its time and the printing press was much more available. So while the Spanish Inquisition wasn’t in any way nice and did persecute people, they were far from the ideal frothing at the mouth villains from Hollywood movies {since they wouldn’t burn people at the stake who were accused of heresy by their neighbors who just didn’t like them}.)

The Spanish Inquisition and the Papal Inquisition were one and the same. (They were completely separate organizations and happened at completely different times.)

The Catholic Church executed heretics during the Counter Reformation and Inquisition under auto da fe (act of faith). (The Church never executed anyone even for heresy since priests were and still are forbidden to shed blood. When they did convict someone, the Church handed him or her to the secular authorities who executed them. Also auto da fe was not the execution itself but the public penance of convicted heretics that occurred before the sentence was to be carried out and many were spared at the last moment if they confessed and repented.)

The Spanish Inquisition was a religious organization that handled only religious cases. (The Spanish also used it as a tool for political repression ran by the state and all cases were reported to the El Escorial first, not the pope. Actually it was mainly used as a tool for political repression and one of the least religiously motivated inquisitions to date. In fact, the very existence of the Spanish Inquisition sort of violated the separation of church and state but then again, there wasn’t much separation in Spain to begin with.)

The Spanish Inquisition was Spain’s muscle to suppress heretical ideas and enforce the old Catholicism on the population. (Actually the Spanish Inquisition was not interested in enforcing the “old” Catholicism as it was promoting the “new” Catholicism, making the country resistant to the Counter-Reformation. And it was also used to Christianize Granada or expel those who didn’t want to convert {or were practicing their old religions in secret}.)

Veronica Franco was tried once by the Inquisition. (She was tried twice for witchcraft and in both she confessed to performing sorcerous rituals to entertain her clients and insisted she didn’t believe them. The Inquisition just said her actions were inappropriate and not do them anymore in each case. Her witchcraft case against the Inquisition was no less ordinary than anyone else’s in Catholic Europe. Oh, and she was denounced by her son’s tutor over revenge since she suspected him of theft of various precious items in her house, not because she bewitched legions of men.)

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 18 – The Reformation

Posted by historymaniacmegan on April 1, 2014

Luther: a movie starring Joseph Fiennes about one of the guys who got the Reformation started. Of course, a movie pertaining to the Protestant Reformation isn’t going to cast Catholics in a positive light (though it does more than it’s fair share to be as rabidly anti-Catholic as possible). Of course, they had to in order to make Martin Luther look good because he doesn’t seem like a likeable guy in this at all. Also, you wouldn’t have seen him in the role of a parish priest, c’mon. He was an Augustinian monk and theology professor at Wittenburg! Then again, perhaps he’s taking over for somebody. Oh, and is the congregation sitting in pews? Holy shit!

So we’re back in Europe which is now in a period of great social and cultural change called the Renaissance, a period of rebirth in the arts and sciences as well as philosophy. You have artists like Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Donatello who created great masterpieces before becoming the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (I’m just kidding on that one). You also have Giotto, Botticelli, Titian, and others even though the most famous were Italian. You have writers like Dante and Shakespeare writing works that would help shape their respective languages for generations. You have scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Vesalius, and others who’d shape our perception of the world for later generations and pave way to men like Newton and Kepler. Then you have philosophies like Humanism, secularism, and individualism celebrating the glory of humanity and all it’s wonders. Also, you have Johannes Gutenberg whose printing press would bring this period into a new information and revolutionize communication in such a way that A&E will make him Man of the last Millennium. Of course, I probably wouldn’t be able to write this post or anything at all if he wasn’t around because movable type made life so much easier for me.

However, this is also a time period saw the coming of what’s known as the Protestant Reformation when countries and peoples of Western Europe started breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church. There were a lot of things that led to the Protestant Reformation like indulgences, the Avignon Papacy, urbanization, proto-nationalism, popular piety, Christ-centered theology, Christian humanism, as well as fears and superstitions relating to death. Since Northern Europe was more religious than places like Spain or Italy, it was there where Protestantism took root. And because of the printing press and secular rulers wanting their own church to better control their people, you could see why Martin Luther became as successful creating his own denomination as he did. Still, even though everyone in Europe knew that the Catholic Church was corrupt as well as had their own ideas about reforming it, doesn’t mean that people were willing to break away from the Church or became Luther’s disciples, because Lutheranism only reached parts of Germany and Scandinavia. Erasmus and Thomas More might’ve had their own ideas at reforming the Catholic Church but both of them remained in the flock and greatly bashed Luther and his ideas. John Calvin would later come up with his more exportable brand with his Reformed movement in Geneva and others would follow like Zwingli, some more radical than others. However, Hollywood usually focuses on Luther since he started it all though they’re not always 100% accurate on facts and tend to have a very anti-Catholic slant on it. Of course, who could blame them since Martin Luther wasn’t the kind of guy you would’ve wanted to have a beer with. Nevertheless, here are the inaccuracies I shall list.

Martin Luther:

Martin Luther was a prudish man. (This was a guy who’d write to his friends about his bowel movements.)

Martin Luther was a timid man. (No, but he was a man forged with passion and rage nonetheless.)

Protestantism began with Martin Luther. (There were heretical movements before Martin Luther going on in Europe since the Middle Ages. Luther’s brand of Protestantism was one of the first to have any kind of staying power.)

Luther referred to Biblical passages by book, chapter, and verse while starting his reformation. (Biblical passages weren’t listed like this until 1551 and even then, the divisions weren’t ubiquitous until the Geneva Bible.)

All the nobles stood up to Charles V during the Augsburg Confession. (Only the Duke of Saxony and Louis V of Palatine did.)

Martin Luther and Spalatin went to law school together. (They didn’t meet until later in life.)

Frederick of Saxony was given a golden rose as a bribe to deliver Luther to Rome. (It was to bribe him to run for Holy Roman Emperor against Charles V.)

Martin Luther was a saintly iconoclastic hero. (He may have caused a stir with his religious views but he was basically a social conservative. Also, he hated the Jews.)

Andreas Karlstadt radically distorted Luther’s views while he was in seclusion in Wartburg and insisting on being addressed “Brother Andreas.” (Though Karlstadt actually orchestrated the reforms, they were more peaceful. Yet, they were too radical for Luther {like Mass vernacularization} and he tried to either undo them or slow them. Also, Karlstadt didn’t renounce his professor title until Luther’s return.)

Martin Luther returned to Wittenburg with modest growth of a beard and was under the name “Knight George.” (He had returned with a beard “sufficient to deceive his mother” and under the name “Junker George” {which means “Knight George.”})

Johann Tetzel was at the Augsburg Confession. (He was never at the meeting.)

Johann von Staupitz was alive in 1526. (He died in 1524.)

Martin Luther’s 1520 treatises were in print by that June when Exsurge Domine was issued. (They were not.)

Martin Luther told Karlstadt to leave Wittenburg in 1522. (He pleaded with him in Orlamunde to return after Karlstadt had voluntarily left.)

Martin Luther was in Wittenburg during the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. (He was staying in Coburg.)

Ein’ feste Burg existed in Luther’s time. (It didn’t. According to Wikipedia, “it was a product of the later Pietistic movement which found faultwith early rhythmic chorale melodies because their dance-like rhythms were too secular in nature.”)

Martin Luther spent his years in exile translating the New Testament into German, having visions of the devil, and ranting rhetorically in thin air. (Yes, but it gets weirder with Martin Luther according to the Guardian, “Luther believed poltergeists were attacking his ceiling with walnuts, and once threw a dog out of a window because he thought it was Satan. He also suffered physically. “The Lord has struck me in the rear end with terrible pain,” he complained to a friend. To another, more prosaically: “My arse has gone bad.” This does at least explain why he was so grumpy.” Oh, and he got fat.)

Martin Luther was the primary reformer of the Reformation. (Yes, but he wasn’t the only one. You had John Calvin in France who founded Calvinism and ran Geneva on it. Also, you have the radical reformers behind the peasant revolts in Germany as well as others.)

Tetzel made it to Wittenburg and Saxony. (He never made it there thanks to Frederick the Wise banning him. However, he did go to nearby border towns drawing Saxony coin to the ire of both Frederick and Luther.)

Luther succeeded by theology and faith. (His success also had more to do with politics and economics as well as the fact that some German princes were tired of their gold going to Rome. And Luther knew this.)

Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the Cathedral door of Wittenburg. (He actually sent them in a letter to his superiors. He never mentioned actually nailing his 95 Theses on a cathedral door.)

Martin Luther insisted on burying someone who committed suicide in his parish cemetery. (There’s no record of this. Also, he probably would’ve never preached outside the pulpit. Also, he didn’t come to Wittenburg as a parish priest.)

Martin Luther was intense, uncertain, humorless, and generally liberal cleric with passion with fits of melancholy and depression. (He actually did have a sense of humor and also possessed a gregarious personality. He loved beer, lively conversation, and hearty laughter. And he was no neurotic introvert by any standards as well as a social conservative.)

Martin Luther was mostly disturbed by the use of indulgences on his trip to Rome. (True, but he was also disturbed by the moral laxity he observed among the clergy as well as developed an aversion toward relics, purgatory, and prayers to the saints.)

During the Diet of Worms Martin Luther said, “Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.” (He never said this.)

Martin Luther showed genuine remorse over the massacres during the Peasants’ Rebellion caused by their misunderstanding of him. (He may have actually been calling for the princes to show no mercy upon the uprising.)

Martin Luther’s stand on the Bible was accountable for the Peasants’ War of 1525. (It wasn’t. It was how the peasants misunderstood him and distorted his teaching.)

Martin Luther met Frederick the Wise personally. (They never did.)

Frederick the Wise lamented over the Peasants Rebellion of 1525. (He was dead and buried in Wittenburg castle by that time.)

Martin Luther never associated the Pope as the Anti-Christ. (Uh, he actually did before he published his 95 theses in 1517.)

Luther’s heart was really with the peasants. (No, it was in his own theology. He certainly didn’t like it when they revolted.)

Karlstadt advocated political egalitarianism. (He never did.)

Frederick the Wise paid Martin Luther’s salary. (He didn’t.)

Martin Luther returned to Wittenburg on Elector Frederick’s behest. (He returned very much against the ruler’s will.)

Protestants:

Northern Europeans in Protestant countries willingly broke away from the Catholic Church. (If Europeans, you mean resident nobles, then yes, but if you mean everyone else, then not really except in France. And parts of the English population remained Catholic and are to this day.)

Protestants were open to scientific thought during the Reformation. (Actually, even though it was the Catholic Church who put Galileo on house arrest, but he probably wouldn’t be safe with the Protestants either at least in the 1500s. Sometimes they were more willing to interpret scripture more literally than the Catholic Church would. Also, the pope didn’t put Galileo on house arrest, cardinals did and the Catholic Church’s motive didn’t have much to do with Galileo’s ideas than his attitude to the pope. Galileo also published another scientific book without incident after that. Not to mention, it was the secular scientists who were more critical of Galileo’s ideas. And wasn’t the Catholic Church behind the Gregorian calendar that was more scientifically accurate than the Julian calendar most of Europe had been using? And weren’t the British one of the last European nations to adopt that?)

Heretics were peaceful and/or eccentric evangelists who were just persecuted by the Catholic Church for speaking their mind. (Many heretical movements from the Middle Ages to the Reformation were anything but and also strove not only to reform religion but also secular life and some actually tried to do so quite forcefully by physical elimination of the nobility and clergy, attracting simple criminals. To compare them to fascists, Bolsheviks, or Middle East terrorists isn’t much of a stretch.)

Protestants were more tolerant of new ideas than the Catholic Church and didn’t believe in superstition. (It was the Protestants who were burning the witches.)

Protestants celebrated Christmas. (The Calvinists and the Puritans didn’t for they thought it was too Papist and pagan.)

Protestants were anti-establishment types. (Just because they were religious radicals doesn’t mean that they were social radicals either for many certainly weren’t such as the reformers who found favor with resident nobles. And those who were as much social as well as religious radicals didn’t find much favor in Europe, even in Protestant entities.)

Early Protestants were champions of conscience, freedom, and toleration. (Uh, when it came to their own ideas perhaps, but no. Protestants during the Reformation were also hostile to Catholics and other Protestants outside their denomination. Leaders in Protestant domains set up their own state churches which people had to attend and adhere to. Lutheran princes suppressed Catholic monasteries in their territories and Luther supported the expulsion of Catholics who were banned from Saxony in 1527. Also, John Calvin and his followers ran Geneva as a Protestant theocracy. Still, just because you had a group willing to break away from the Catholic Church doesn’t mean they believed in religious toleration, because they certainly didn’t.)

People unhappy with the Church joined the Protestant faith. (Many did not and actually bashed these Protestant movements like Erasmus {who also bashed the Catholic Church a lot to but remained faithful}.)

Miscellaneous:

Congregants were seated in pews during this time. (They weren’t a common fixture of churches until after the Reformation.)

Confession wasn’t necessary for those who bought indulgences. (If the buyer didn’t purchase them for oneself. Otherwise, indulgences specified that the buyer had to go to confession.)

The sale of indulgences brought upon the Reformation. (Yes, but it wasn’t the only factor.)

Pre-reformation priests lived wealthy lifestyles. (Not by our standards. Also, one of the calls for the Reformation was the abundance of uneducated priests from the ranks of the poor and peasants. The Catholic Church knew this and tried to correct this in the Counter-Reformation.)

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 10- Life in Medieval Europe

Posted by historymaniacmegan on March 22, 2014

I couldn’t post anything about medieval France without posting a picture of Maria Falconetti in The Passion of Joan of Arc of 1928 by Danish director Theodore Dreyer. This is a very historically accurate film yet also a very emotionally intense one as well. Definitely one of the last masterpieces in silent film.

Finally, the Middle Ages, I’d like to devote this post to medieval life as well as to history in other medieval countries. Whenever medieval movies, don’t take place in England, they’re usually set in France, since England has history with it. However, unlike medieval Scotland, which is presented fairly inaccurately on the screen, movies on medieval France don’t have as many historical errors on screen. Of course, Joan of Arc is a popular subject who existed in the later Middle Ages (where the medieval outfits and weaponry are depicted more accurately) and that much of the script for Joan’s trial is usually taken from the actual transcripts. Still, there’s also a movie called The Advocate which recalls the story of pig being accused of murder during the 15th century, which actually happened. In Medieval Spain (which you wouldn’t call it yet), you have the subject of El Cid, one of the great Spanish heroes played by Charlton Heston. Also, in this post, I’ll talk about the historical errors in movies on medieval life, which have been shaped by popular perceptions in the media.

Medieval France:

King Philip II Augustus was hot. (Sorry, Lion in Winter fans, but he in no way resembled Timothy Dalton. He was hunchbacked and ugly. However, unlike his handsome but ineffectual dad, he was an admirable warrior and wily politician who annexed to France most of Henry II and Eleanor of Acquitaine’s lands. In Lion in Winter, it’s correct to assume that Philip II is spending Christmas with the Plantagenet because he knows that once Henry II dies, his sons won’t measure up to him, making it the perfect time to take over their lands, which he did. Also shared a bed with Richard the Lionheart, but this doesn’t prove anything about their sexual orientation since bed sharing was a common historical occurrence.)

Giles de Rais was one of Joan of Arc’s companions, an all-around man’s man, and a successful soldier. (Yes, but he was also known as a serial rapist and killer of children which did him in at the end and was an inspiration for Bluebeard. However, some historians claim he was framed though.)

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake as a witch. (Officially she was burned at the stake for relapsed heresy like cross-dressing and even though she agreed to wear a dress, her captors stole her skirt and replaced it with pants as part of a set up. In reality, she was burned by the English {the English side, she was actually burned by the Burgundians} because she led the French to victory during the Hundred Years’ War, so the English were just looking for any excuse.)

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by the English. (She was burned at the stake by the Burgundians. However, the heresy charges were very much trumped up.)

French King Philip Augustus tried to invade England. (Actually his goal was to retake French soil from the English. Thus, unless you count the French lands England occupied at the time, he didn’t. However, his son did when King John broke the terms of the Magna Carta.)

Notre Dame had a full flight of stairs from the square to the front entrance. (It has always been level with the square.)

Joan of Arc’s gender was her downfall. (Her downfall was political and would’ve happened whether she was male or female. Being a woman just made it easier for her enemies.)

Horseshoes were used in France in the 12^th century. (They were first used in France a century later and shoeing horses didn’t become practice until the 17^th century.)

Charles VII was a foppish prince who fought at Agincourt. (He actually didn’t fight in Agincourt and wasn’t really a fop or mocked by a constable of France behind his back. Also, he’s the one who enlisted Joan of Arc so he was probably doing something right.)

Joan of Arc actually fought in battle. (Yes, she served on the front lines to rally her troops to victory but she never killed anyone as well as functioned more like a mascot than anything else. Still, she did help reform the army by expelling prostitutes and mandating confession {probably the closest thing her troops will ever have to therapy} and Mass attendance, banning swearing, looting, and harassing. She also played a major role in her army’s tactical decisions as well.)

When Joan of Arc was 8, she saw English soldiers burn her village as well as raped and kill her sister. (This is in The Messenger but this incident has no basis in reality. However, Joan’s village was raided in 1425 and 1428. The raid in 1425 was carried primarily by Burgundian soldiers in which they burned a church and stole some cattle. The 1428 raid forced the d’Arc family to flee to another village. Yet, as far as we know, Joan’s family went unmolested in both incidents.)

Joan of Arc was a borderline psychotic. (Joan may have been a saint but she wasn’t known for being polite since she was known to be rude to clergy, royalty, and military commanders alike. She was a teenage peasant girl after all. Yet, unlike her depiction in The Messenger, Joan was also brave, quick-witted, and charismatic. Milla Jovovich’s portrayal doesn’t show these qualities. Still, no one in the 15th century thought she was nuts.)

Joan of Arc was a true saint. (Well, as lovely as she was Joan wasn’t above threatening her enemies with massacres and actually carried it out on one occasion with hundreds of civilians killed in the process. Also, she told at least one woman to stay in the kitchen. And one of her confidantes would later become a famous medieval serial killer. No Mr. Rogers, but Joan certainly would qualify as a living saint by 15th century standards.)

Joan of Arc was pretty. (I think the Maria Falconetti portrayal is probably the closest to what you’d expect a 15th century teenage peasant girl to look like. However, she certainly looked nothing like Ingrid Bergman for she was said to be quite short with dark hair.)

Medieval Spain:

Alfonso and Urraca were an incestuous couple. (Historians still debate that. However, their father King Ferdinand did manage to have five kids who fought each other, made Muslim allies, shagged Muslim princess, hatched world domination conspiracies, and assassinated each other. So their family life was like Game of Thrones.)

El Cid was selfless and hostile to Muslims. (The historical El Cid was said to be more self-seeking and less hostile to Muslims than his legend. Actually he was willing to work for Muslims if they paid them he enough and actually fought both sides equally. Still, he was a mercenary who was more interested in establishing his own fiefdom in Valencia as well as cared more about being paid than in anything relating to Christendom and war.)

Navarre was a poor kingdom. (It gave Richard the Lionheart an impressive dowry when he married Berengaria, which wouldn’t have happened if it was poor. Also, Richard could always use the money.)

Castile and Leon were a united kingdom in the 1180s. (They were united in the 1230s.)

El Cid called victory for Spain. (Spain didn’t exist until the 1400s, and El Cid lived in the 11^th century.)

Emir Yusuf al-Mutamin of Zaragoza wanted to conquer Castile and Leon. (He didn’t attempt to because he was at war with his own half-brother. Also, he didn’t give Rodrigo Diaz the nickname of El Cid and they didn’t become close until Diaz joined Yusuf’s army as a mercenary.)

Dona Jimena hated Rodrigo Diaz for killing her father but she married him anyway. (This may not have happened but it’s in the poem about El Cid, so I’ll forgive the filmmakers for it.)

El Cid took Valencia by giving bread to its people. (Aw, that’s sweet but it’s bullshit. He actually ransacked the surrounding villages, starved the city, took it by assault, and seized all its riches. Still, he didn’t offer the crown to Alfonso but ruled the area himself.)

El Cid died in agony on the battlefield. (He died in 1099 during peacetime of some unknown cause.)

Yusuf ibn Tashufin was defeated at Valencia. (He managed to lead the Almoravids to victory at Valencia in 1102. Not bad for a 96 year old man.)

Medieval Scandinavia:

Flagellantism was prominent in Sweden during the Black Death. (It never made it there.)

Medieval Russia:

Gavrila Alexich participated in the Battle of Ice. (He was killed in 1241 while storming the fortress of Koporye.)

Alexander Nevsky refused to ally himself with Batu Khan of the Golden Horde. (He actually did enter into a controversial alliance with him, but only 10 years after the Battle of Ice. Of course, Sergei Eisenstein knew this and wanted to put it in, but the Soviet government wanted none of that.)

Alexander Nevsky clashed with the boyars over proletarian revolution and redistribution of wealth. (Yes, he did clash with the boyars but not over concepts that would be as authentic to them in the 13th century as electronics. Obviously, Soviet propaganda here.)

Holy Roman Empire:

Alberto da Giussano killed a boar just before it gored Frederick Barbarossa. (Alberto da Giussano was said to have been a great warrior of the Guelph faction leading the Lombard League to victory at the Battle of Legnano in 1176. That is, if he ever existed, which there’s no firm evidence for that.)

Frederick Barbarossa was an old man when he married his 13-year old wife. (Yes, he married a 13 year old girl but he was 34 at the time. However, in his biopic he’s played by a 65 year old man which makes the relationship much creepier than it really was.)

The Battle of Legano was a decisive battle. (It wasn’t. Frederick Barbarossa was considering a truce during it.)

During the siege of Milan Frederick Barbarossa strapped prisoners on the siege towers so the Milanese couldn’t attack him without killing their fellow citizens. (He actually did this but not at Milan. Rather it was at the siege of Crema in 1159. And he only did this because the Cremese were hacking imperial prisoners in front of his army.)

Medieval Life:

Medieval Europeans were dirty, smelly, and rarely bathed. (This is only true in towards the end of the Middle Ages when it was rumored that bathing mad e a person more susceptible to disease. Yet, for most of the Middle Ages, people usually washed their hands before and after dinner and took communal baths so they probably didn’t lead the most sanitary lifestyles but they didn’t smell like shit either.)

Life in the Middle Ages was nasty, brutish, and short and peasants worked nonstop for lords who cared nothing about them. (This only partly true considering the high child mortality, wars, and lack of medicine but if a person managed survive childhood and if other things didn’t kill him or her first, he or she could managed to live to his or her seventies. Also, peasants worked eight hour days and were off the third of the year including Sundays.)

Everyone except nobles and clergy wore rough brown clothing. (Actually, even ordinary people were skilled and knowledgeable in making clothes that some authorities had to ban certain dyes were only reserved for royalty and nobility. They were also well made, had buttons, and pockets.)

In the Middle Ages there were only two classes that consisted of nobles and royals and peasants. (The Middle Ages also saw the formation of a middle class which consisted of traders, skilled tradesmen, performers, artists, and investors.)

Women were treated as second-class citizens whose place was in the home caring for household and children as well as making babies on demand. (Though women weren’t allowed fight in battle, run for office, or become a priest, this didn’t mean that women were just baby making machines since most women did almost the same thing their husbands and fathers did and even ran estates and businesses. There was even a woman who ran England’s entire beer industry. They also became nuns which allowed them access to education that even kings didn’t have. Not to mention, they didn’t wear chastity belts either. Also, read the Wife of Bath’s Tale. Yes, people in the Middle Ages were sexist but not to the degree that is depicted in movies. Still, there was much more discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, and social class than on sex.)

People in the Middle Ages were prudes. (Actually, these were the days when a whole family would sleep naked together in one room and even little children knew where babies came from for there wasn’t much privacy at the time. Not to mention, most people would assume any couple living together was married whether that was true or not. Also, even though priests were expected to be celibate, most people wouldn’t be shocked if their priest fathered an illegitimate child with his housekeeper which was not uncommon either. Then we have Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales which isn’t the most family friendly literature out there. Oh, and fart jokes are some of the oldest ones in the book.)

Real Men Don’t Wear Dresses. Costume designers often fear that actual male medieval clothing looks like a dress and will confound the gender expectations of their audience. Medieval tunics and robes can end up morphed into short jackets, smoking jackets (Knight’s Tale) and dusters (Timeline). Hosen tends to turn into pants (Knight’s Tale) and trousers (Branagh Henry V) [From A Common Place Book]

Bad Hair. The modern filmmaker is really reluctant to put their characters, and particularly protagonists, in hairstyles they think their audience will find unflattering. (Thus the unmedieval bangs in Timeline and the ’30s mustaches in the Errol Flynn Robin Hood. Olivier’s Henry V and The Warlord show rare courage in putting their heroes in appropriate haircuts that look unflattering to many modern eyes.) [From A Commonplace Book]

The antagonists are Yucky. Cardboard Villains can be unattractive in other ways, to make them even less sympathetic. The Edward II in Braveheart is a weak and mincing effeminate. (The historical Edward II was physically strong, well-formed and vigorous, whatever his moral faults.)The Commodus in Gladiator was a dark, puffy faced dissolute. (His historical model was an athletic blond.) Alternatively, the Cardboard Villains can have bad teeth or other deformities. (The Messenger) [From A Commonplace Book]

Droit de Seigneur, the legal right to deflower unwilling virgins would have been a great way to be a Cardboard Villain if the institution had actually existed in the Middle Ages. [From A Commonplace Book] (Well, if it did, it was called feudalism in which nobles and royals could do anything they wanted to the commoners. And no Lords wouldn’t claim any right to “rape” another man’s wife {saying this could mean excommunication and a peasant revolt}, they would just simply pressure the woman to have sex with them or he’d have her loved ones killed {which he could actually do}.)

The king had the right prima nocta which was the right to sleep with any man’s bride on her wedding night. (Actually, this may be true if it referred to his own right but he also had the right to screw any woman he wanted, regardless of the woman’s marital status. And women had no right to say no to him. Also, lords can do the same thing to their subjects.)

If you are a princess, you always have a favorite lady in waiting, and you always send her to warn the hero of the evil king’s intention just in time. [Movie Cliches List]

Corollary: the lady in waiting is never quite as beautiful as the princess; however, she still always catches the eye of the hero’s sidekick. [Movie Cliches List]

Horses never get winded, throw a shoe, etc., until the pursuing sheriff is right behind the hero. [Movie Cliches List]

Corollary: the wagon that breaks an axle or gets stuck in the creek is always the one carrying the king’s entire treasury, which he totes around with him every time he goes gallivanting through bandit-infested countryside. (Kings would never carry their entire treasury with them.) [Movie Cliches List]

Everyone in the Middle Ages lived in a lovely half-timbered house with two bedrooms and a stone fireplace.

Noblewomen were passive and were never taught how to fight. (Just because noblewomen were taught to stay at home didn’t mean that they were passive damsels in distress either. Noblewomen actually did learn the basics of combat and siege defense. You wouldn’t want the lady of the manor be unprepared in case the enemy attacked when the lord wasn’t around. So this means Merida and Fiona were more like real medieval princesses than Snow White and Sleeping Beauty and Eowyn only deviates from the norm because she wants to fight with the boys in battle.)

Trial by ordeal was a common judicial practice in the late Middle Ages. (Since Pope Innocent III and the Fourth Council of the Lateran had banned clergy from participating in the practice, it had been in decline since 1215 as well as been used rarer and rare in the official capacity. Compurgation or “wager of law” was more often used in which an accused would swear an oath and get at least 12 people to swear that they believed them was more or less the standard practice in the Late Middle Ages.)

The Black Death first came to Europe in the 1300s. (Actually there were plague was behind many major epidemics in ancient times. So, there probably was a plague around the time of King Arthur.)

Almost every medieval state was a monarchy. (Venice was a republic while a good chunk of Italy was ruled by the Pope.)

Everyone in the Middle Ages was an uneducated moron. (Actually the reason for the lack of education was because most people in that time were peasants and books were expensive for they were copied by hand {making universal education almost impossible}. They didn’t have extensive trade and travel infrastructure either. Also, most people during the Middle Ages were just as smart as anyone else in any other time period of history.)

The Iron Maiden was a medieval torture device. (It was invented after the Middle Ages, and there’s no record on whether it was used even though Uday Hussein had one.)

No one ever had sex outside of marriage or before marriage. Also, that all marriage ceremonies — even of peasants in small outland communities– were performed by priests in a church. (Cohabitation was common in the Middle Ages that some couples got married in a church before middle age. Also, most women didn’t have any right to refuse sex from their resident lord if he wanted it regardless of the moral standards of the time.)

The drapery not only kept the draft out of the castle but was often used for people to hide behind while eavesdropping on a conversation which was usually about them.

Medieval outlaws were generous Robin Hoods who stole from the rich and gave to the poor. (They were more or less self-serving rogues who caused a lot of trouble in their local towns and skipped trial. Still, many outlaws in England did manage to become knights. Yet, they usually came from all walks of life.)

Medieval people had no table manners. (From Medievalist: “While food was eaten with hands, spoons, and knives (forks weren’t popular in most of Europe until the seventeenth century – they were considered “too Italian” and effete), then, as now, eating was a communal activity, and (since people most often shared plates and cups) was not enjoyable if your companion had no manners. Entire treatises were written on correct etiquette, and encouraged things such as offering the best of the food on your plate to the lady, wiping your fingers on cloth, and wiping your mouth before taking a sip from your shared cup, so that you did not leave a slick of oil on top of the wine.”)

Men tried to control their women with chastity belts. (There’s no evidence chastity belts were ever made or used in the Middle Ages. Rather there’s no evidence of chastity belts until the 18th century.)

People used spices to cover up the taste of rotten food. (From Medievalist: “I suppose this might have been useful when there was very little food to be had (although, in that case, why would you have expensive spices hanging around?), but it was by no means the norm. Most people at this time were involved in agriculture – they knew when food was good and when it wasn’t. There was little point in eating food that had gone bad, since it was risking making yourself dangerously sick, or worse. It is much more likely that spices, if used for camouflage, were used to make staple foods more interesting (much like ketchup).”)

Druidism still existed in Western Europe during the 11^th century. (Paganism had largely been eradicated by the 8^th century there while druidism died out in Pre-Christian Imperial Rome.)

Paper was a standard medieval correspondence material in the 12^th century. (It was invented in China in the 2^nd century and didn’t make it to Europe until the 13^th century.)

Syphillis existed during the Middle Ages. (Didn’t make its first appearance in Europe until 1494 and wasn’t coined until 1530.)

People in the Ages could accurately tell time. (Mechanical clocks weren’t around until much later.)

Condemned criminals had tomatoes thrown at them. (They didn’t exist in Europe until after Columbus.)

Some people in the Middle Ages wore glasses. (They were invented in the 16^th century.)

Torches were used a lot in the Dark Ages. (From Policy Mic.com: “Torches were certainly used now and then, no doubt about that, but they were not used anywhere near as liberally as Hollywood would have you believe. First of all, most torches would not be able to be lit for more than an hour, ruling out having them lining the walls of castles to provide light. Secondly, having torches inside would be a terrible idea given the small issue of smoke.

“Most importantly, torches do not really provide much light. Movies are full of mobs carrying torches as they run through the darkness looking for someone, or people using torches to light their way. While a torch can certainly help you see the area immediately around you and cast light on large objects, it is not all that great for seeing more than a few feet ahead. If you were looking for someone outside in the dark, you would be better off ditching the torch, using the moonlight, and letting your eyes adjust to the darkness. If trying to get around your castle at night, a simple candle would suffice.”)

Medicine was mostly best on superstition. (Yes and no. Sure it was bunk, dangerous, as well as depended on humoral theory and astrology. But you also had some effective treatments and some of the first medical colleges.)

Executions were used for almost every offense imaginable. (From Policy Mic.com: “In reality, the Middle Ages typically saw the death penalty reserved for only serious offenders who committed the crimes of murder, treason, or arson. Torture was not really widespread. The most common forms of punishment included public humiliation and fines. Repeat offenders were usually exiled. The Middle Ages also maintained trials for those accused of crimes; verdicts were not strictly the decisions of kings and noblemen.”)

The most frequent form of execution was beheading. (From Policy Mic.com: “Beheadings were usually reserved for the noble classes and done in the privacy of courtyards rather than in the town square. Also, it was very rarely one swing and done; the typical beheading took 4 or 5 swings to decapitate the head. If the executioner was unable to kill the convicted by that point, the person usually just ended up bleeding to death.

“The most common form of execution in the Middle Ages was hanging. It was easy, it did not cost much, and you could let the bodies hang out for a bit as a warning to others. If a criminal was particularly hated, he would be hanged, drawn, and quartered, a very unpleasant form of punishment that popped up in 14th-century England as a penalty for high treason.”)

Turkey legs were a favored medieval dish. (People in the Middle Ages would know nothing about turkeys since they lived in North America. Diets usually consisted of eggs, bread, fish, cheese, oats, vegetables like cabbage and turnips, and ale.)

People in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat. (No one in Medieval Europe ever believed this.)

People ate off of pewter plates and threw bones to the floor. (Peasants ate from wooden plates while nobles usually ate from silver and locked since it was a good way to carry if one needed to make a hasty departure. Also, no they didn’t throw bones to the floor for the dogs to eat.)

Blacksmiths made horseshoes and swords. (Most of the time, they’d be making farming implements.)

Most people didn’t eat rats in the Middle Ages. (This was a common meat among poor people.)

Noblewomen were sent as diplomats in the 14^th century. (Royal women had little privacy even under the best circumstances and would certainly not be left alone with an enemy {unless they were her relatives, but still}. Of course, they were sent as diplomats {well, as marriage partners in political alliances} usually in circumstances where they’d be related to the family. As for noblewomen, they were more or less needed to take care of the home like protecting it from invaders.)

Nobles raised their own children during their school years. (The kids would normally be sent to somewhere else for their education like another noble’s home, convent, or monastery. Fostering was very common back then.)

Courtly love was a popular theme in the Middle Ages. (Yes, but so were stories of war, religious stories, and ones that may not be suitable for children. Also, medieval women also loved their filth, too.)

Feudalism was a hierarchical and harmonious way of living. (It was anything but because royal power was rather decentralized and the nobles usually fought amongst themselves. Also, it’s not unusual to put feudalism as another reason for the Crusades.)

Skilled craftsmen can end up impoverished if unemployed. (Skilled craftsmen had guilds to help them out and usually didn’t face much poverty. And if a master craftsman died, his wife may run his business for him or one of his journeymen might marry her.)

Primogeniture was the rule in medieval society. (Only in the later Middle Ages.)

Kidnapped women were often damsels in distress. (Sometimes women would arrange their own kidnappings to get out of an arranged marriage. Sometimes they may even do the kidnapping, which is how Robert Bruce’s parents ended up together.)

All servants were peasants. (High ranking nobles had high ranking servants, especially when primogeniture was the main inheritance rule. Many of these were younger sons of nobles. Also, they were overwhelmingly male.)

People ate with forks since the 12th century. (Only for a few Italy and in the Byzantine Empire, they were teased mercilessly for it. They didn’t become more in style until the 16th century.)

Medieval men wore practical and functional clothing. (Aristocratic men’s fashion of the era could get pretty ridiculous in the later years).

Cremation was a common practice in medieval Europe. (It wasn’t and in some place it wasn’t even legal.)

Inns were public houses with big common rooms below and rooms above. (It’s more complicated than that. Some inns had bars. Some didn’t. Some had only a single room with several beds that could fit 3 people each. Only upscale places had rooms with one or two beds. You also had alehouses where you can have some drink as well but no rooms. Yet, they can function less like the fantasy inns you see and more like the Mos Eisley Cantina. But a tavern can also be someone else’s home. People can even stay at other people’s houses or at a hospital.)

Medieval castles had bare stone walls inside. (A lot of castles had murals inside since nobles wanted to impress visitors with their wealth.)

Most people stayed home during the Middle Ages. (This is true for a lot of Medieval people. However, some did go on pilgrimages and participated in war. So that counts.)

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 9- Medieval England

Posted by historymaniacmegan on March 22, 2014

Of course, no post about medieval England is complete without a picture of Laurence Olivier who’s very much identified with such films of this time and place. This is him playing Richard III in his adaptation of the eponymous and highly historically inaccurate play by William Shakespeare. Sure he may look evil but he doesn’t seem to a good job being grotesque since he still looks pretty hot. Nevertheless, he may actually look closer to the real Richard III than in other portrayals though he was much older than the late king could’ve been.

If you ever see a movie set in the Middle Ages, chances are it will take place in England mostly because it will focus on Robin Hood, King Arthur, or something by William Shakespeare. Then sometimes there are movies based in the Middle Ages produced in Great Britain and most of the time, they’d like to do their own history. Yet, since Hollywood is situated in a place where there was no medieval history, then England usually has to do. Of course, there’s a lot history covered in medieval England, especially when it pertains to the royal family. There’s Henry II with his mom Empress Matilda who tried to take the throne from her cousin. Then he has a wife named Eleanor of Acquitaine who’s very much a formidable woman like himself who incited a rebellion among her sons and ended up in prison (only to be released when she outlived him but she also outlived most of her kids, too). Then you have Henry II’s sons Richard and John who were as different as night and day as well as at each other’s throats. Oh, what great family soap opera that would be. Then you got Henry II’s relationship with Thomas Becket which would later lead to his murder in Canterbury Cathedral and Philip Augustus who’s bitter about Henry stealing lands under his dad (and Eleanor’s ex-husband). After that is the post-Magna Carta era usually consisting of kings Henry III, Richard II, and the first three Edwards (many movies errors from this category will also be from Braveheart). After that, is the Wars of the Roses when England becomes engaged in civil war between the Houses of Lancaster and York after Richard II is deposed. You get kings like Henry IV, Henry V (“We happy few, we band of brothers.”), Henry VI, and Richard III (who wasn’t as evil as Shakespeare depicted him, “Now is the winter of our discontent.”). Nevertheless, historical errors will still abound in these movies, which I shall list here.

English was spoken in the same way as it is today despite the fact that you had to get version of Canterbury Tales with a translation for you didn’t understand what the hell Chaucer was saying in its original form.

English commoners were still resisting their Norman overlords at least a century or two after the Norman Conquest. (This was started by Henry V during the Hundred Years’ War as Anti-French propaganda and it was also picked up during the Reformation. Also, William the Conqueror and his fellow Normans didn’t really invade England since he had been promised the throne by the previous King Edward the Confessor who was his cousin but was passed on in favor of the late king’s brother-in-law.)

English nobles and royalty spoke English. (Between 1066 to 1453, English was considered a language for peasants. Most English nobles during that time spoke French.)

Lady Godiva rode naked through Coventry in order to get her husband Leofric to lower taxes. (Godiva was a real noblewoman but she never did this.)

Sons and daughters could inherit at the same time. (Daughters were forbidden to inherit anything unless they didn’t have legitimate brothers living.)

English marriage ceremonies were set to the Book of Common Prayer. (It would’ve been conducted in Latin.)

English kings were addressed as “Your Majesty.” (That title wouldn’t be used until the 1390s. So this is part right.)

There was an actual King Arthur of England. (Well, if you count Geoffrey of Brittany’s son Arthur as Richard’s successor maybe {who King John later had killed}, but that’s as close to an actual English King Arthur as you’re going to get. As for the Arthur of Camelot, very much a mythological figure.)

The English had no reason to start the Hundred Years’ War. (Read your history books. Many of the early English kings since 1066 were French of some sort of another. Also, The Lion in Winter would’ve been more historically accurate if you have the English royal family speaking in French. Heck, you could’ve easily called Henry II as the real king of France during his kingship because he ruled almost all of it. Not to mention, it even takes place in France.)

English civilians could freely hunt in the forests. (Hunting game in the English forests later in the Middle Ages might carry a harsh punishment.)

Henry II and Co:

Richard the Lionheart was a good king and John was a bad king. (Actually Richard was anything but a good king at least in peacetime, hated England, and saw it was only good for financing his coffers so he can go on Crusade and fight the French. John, by contrast, probably wasn’t the best king England ever had and wasn’t a nice guy but at least his interests were in running England even though he managed to piss off everyone that he ended up putting his seal on the Magna Carta. He also did good things as write many books on law and was considered a legal expert before his kingship. Oh, and he treated the Jews better than his brother. But since Richard the Lionheart was often away, the nobles had free rein, which put up resistance when King John tried to take control. Not to mention, Richard the Lionheart had a better personality and he wasn’t stupid either. Nevertheless, their dad Henry II was a far better king than either of them put together who’s remembered as England’s greatest Medieval King {as well as his portrayal by Peter O’Toole.})

Thomas Becket and Henry II had a platonic homosexual relationship prior to Becket’s appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury. (There’s no historical data that they were more than just friends. Besides, Henry II married Eleanor of Aquitaine out of love {and her lands that consisted of half of France} as well as had a succession of mistresses {though Eleanor was probably the love of his life}. Also, Becket was said to be celibate.)

Henry II slept with Richard the Lionheart’s fiancee. (There’s no definitive evidence of this though Richard later resisted marrying his fiancee on the basis of the claim.)

Thomas Becket was a Saxon and Henry II was Norman. (Becket was a Norman and Henry II was Angevin on his father’s side. However, his mother was Norman.)

As Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket didn’t desire special legal privileges for the clergy. (Many people said he did, especially if clergy members committed secular crimes, which was one of the things he and Henry II disagreed on. And Henry II was quite justified and has been known for replacing trials by combat with jury trials.)

Empress Matilda was an annoyance to Henry II. (Actually she was instrumental for shaping her son, Henry II into the fierce warrior and skilled administrator he was and was the sole parent for much of his childhood. Also, Henry II adored his mother and relied heavily on her guidance and advice until her death in 1167. Not to mention, she was the reason why Henry II was able to get the throne and is best known for her war against King Stephen after she was passed over when her father Henry I died.)

Eleanor of Aquitaine’s father was alive when she was married to Henry II. (Her dad died when she was 15 years old, which made her Duchess of Aquitaine as well as the most eligible bride of the 12th century.)

Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine had four children all boys. (They had eight children that included five sons and three daughters. Also, Eleanor had two daughters while married to King Louis VII and Henry II had at least eight illegitimate children to several long term mistresses.)

Richard the Lionheart died immediately from a crossbow wound from a cook. (He lived for more than a week and died from gangrene. Also, the guy responsible for shooting him was a boy with a crossbow and a frying pan whom he ordered to be set free, forgiven, and rewarded 100 shillings for a lucky shot. However, the pardon was retracted when he died by a mercenary captain and the boy was flayed alive. Jesus Christ!)

Richard the Lionheart was very fond of England. (He had no attachment to the place and only spent six months of his reign there. Most of his ten year reign was spent in either on Crusade or in France fighting Philip Augustus. Also, he forgave John for running England for him.)

Richard the Lionheart was a wise old king. (He was only 41 when he died.)

King John signed the Magna Carta early in his reign. (It was actually near the end.)

Isabella of Angoulmene was a young woman when she married King John. (She was twelve. Don’t worry; it’s very likely that he waited until she was sixteen to have sex with her which was normal in such marriages.)

King John had a title called Defender of the Holy Sepulcher. (He was offered the title but his dad turned it down for him and sent the boy to Ireland.Also, it was the title of Godfrey de Boullion, a Christian ruler of Jerusalem who had nothing to do with England at all.)

Henry II referred to himself as Plantagenet. (The name didn’t come to use until close to the end of the dynasty and was first used by the father of Edward IV and Richard III.)

King John had brown hair. (He was a flaming redhead like his dad and brothers.)

King Henry was ten years older than the pope in 1183. (The actual pope at the time was 36 years older than him.)

Richard the Lionheart married Berengaria of Navarre for love. (He more likely married her for money and lands. It was more of a political marriage. Though they went on Crusade together and she tried to raise money for his ransom, we’re not sure whether the marriage was ever consummated. Also, Richard spent so much time away from her that the Pope had to tell him spend time with her, which he did by taking her to church. Not to mention, she was very much overlooked as Queen of England and Cyprus during Richard’s reign.)

Richard the Lionheart had an affair with Philip Augustus. (There’s little evidence supporting this though Richard might’ve went both ways. Also, he had at least one illegitimate son as well as had a reputation as a womanizer while Philip had two. Either way, he was certainly not faithful to his wife. Historians are divided over his sexuality and the gay allegations began in the 1960s. As for Philip Augustus, well, he was much closer to Geoffrey than Richard {he was bawling in Geoffrey’s funeral after he got trampled by a horse}. Not to mention, he was absolutely furious with Richard when he broke his engagement with his sister.)

King John was middle aged during Richard the Lionheart’s reign. (These two kings have been played by middle aged men in the Robin Hood films but both died in their forties {Richard died at 41 while John died at 49} and John ascended the throne at 33. At least The Lion in Winter gets their ages mostly right.)

King John and the Knights Templar were bitter rivals. (They were buddies. He exempted the Templars from all taxation and gave them extraordinary protection of property. In return, the Templars let John use their New Temple in London headquarters as a treasury.)

King Henry II married Eleanor of Aquitaine when she was young. (She was 30 at the time.)

Post-Magna Carta:

King Edward I was a brutal conquer who oppressed his subjects and was a pagan. (King Edward I was a Christian {who had been on a Crusade} and didn’t oppress his English subjects nor did he kill his son’s lover by throwing him out the window {he was said to be a great husband and father as well as a charitable man}. Edward I also set up Parliament as a permanent institution, set up a working tax system, and ushered in a more progressive system seemed radical in most European circles. Even today he’s seen as one of England’s best kings and even well thought of by Dante. Still, he was a brutal conqueror {which is why the Scots and Welsh don’t like him}, ruthless with his enemies{killed his noble prisoners at the Battle of Evesham which was taboo at the time}, and hated the Jews.)

Edward II was sickly looking and gay. (He probably went both ways {had at least one illegitimate child as well as four kids with Isabella} but he was said to be rather athletic and handsome {not a walking stereotype}. Also, during the time of William Wallace {at least at his death}, he was most likely a teenager.)

Edward I planned to cause the racial death of Scotland. (He didn’t. He just wanted to control Scotland. Also, his getting control of Scotland was partly the Scottish people’s fault since they agreed to relinquish their independence until a new king could be appointed after their designated child queen died on the way there from Norway. Yet, the divisive Scottish noble families made it difficult to select a satisfactory candidate as every option seemed to lead to civil war. And when an appropriate candidate was selected by the name of John Balliol who proved to be a weak king {as well as wouldn’t cooperate with Edward I}. He was later captured during a war with the English in 1296 as well as forced to abdicate. The Scots just didn’t bet on Edward Longshanks backstabbing them since he probably felt sick over the business end and thought the only competent candidate Scotland had available was himself though he never claimed the crown.)

Edward I was the first king to name his son Prince of Wales. (First record of this comes from the 16^th century.)

Isabella of France was the first Princess of Wales. (She married Edward II when he was already king and she never met her father-in-law.)

Edward I treacherously hanged Scottish noblemen. (Never happened.)

Edward I wanted to sleep with Princess Isabella. (This would never have happened. Also, he opposed the marriage between her and the future Edward II, explaining why they tied the knot after he was dead {granted the marriage was a disaster}. Still, her conspiring to kill her husband did help bring Scottish independence.)

Edward II was unable to impregnate his wife. (Apparently he was at least able to impregnate somebody and she was able to have kids so you may figure it out {though she had a lover named John Mortimer}.)

Queen Isabella of England was ashamed of the English cruelty toward the Scots. (She had her husband King Edward II imprisoned and murdered for refusing to advocate in favor of their son and launched her own invasion of Scotland.)

Queen Isabella of England was a sweet and kindly princess. (She was called the She Wolf of France and plotted to kill her husband as well as considered invading Scotland as a nice mother and son activity.)

Edward I reinstated prima noctis in Scotland. (He never did this.)

Edmund Mortimer was Richard II’s true heir. (It’s very likely Henry IV was but he and and Richard had a massive falling out resulting in Richard being deposed and imprisoned.)

Edward the Black Prince was married to Lady Joan Holland who was kidnapped by the French. (Actually his wife’s name was Lady Joan Holland but she was also the Countess of Kent and a widow. However, she was never kidnapped by the French, and no, Edward never had to rescue her. Interestingly, he was known as Edward of Woodstock. However, he and Lady Joan did love each other for his parents opposed the match since she was once their ward.)

William Wallace killed the Duke of York. (It wasn’t a title for a younger son at the time of King Edward I.)

Edward II abdicated the throne. (He was more likely imprisoned and killed.)

Edward II was disemboweled with a red hot poker. (He more likely died from being smothered in his bed.)

The Wars of the Roses:

King Richard III was a terrible king who imprisoned and killed his nephews in the Tower of London, had his brother drowned in a vat of wine, poisoned his wife and bumped off her father and first husband, bumped off two cousins and planned to marry a third, had a crippled arm and a hunchback. And his last words were, “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!” (He actually wasn’t grotesque looking and didn’t do anything that I just mentioned {with the possible exception of imprisoning his nephews in the tower}, which was cooked up by the Tudors. The only physical deformity he had was real bad scoliosis which isn’t as recognizable. Though Prince George did drown in a vat of wine {allegedly, but it’s more likely he starved}, it was on King Edward IV’s insistence not Richard’s. And as how Richard III became king, he simply said that his nephews were illegitimate because Edward IV married his wife while engaged to another woman which was very much like being married {and since King Edward IV was such a horndog and everybody hated the Woodvilles, he could get away with it easily and Parliament would just give the crown to him}. The English were also no fans of child kings at this point as well and the prospect of having another one terrified the country. And he was already running the country anyway so he might as well take the throne while at it. Any king would’ve done the same thing. He also had George’s kids declared illegitimate as well. Also, he was said to be a rather reasonable and competent king with a reputation of bravery justified by his death in battle in which he went down fighting at thirty-two. He was probably not much cruel or ruthless than most kings of his day and was well thought of by his contemporaries. Rather, he was said to be loved by the lower orders and improved conditions in Northern England {especially York} though he didn’t make many friends among the nobility. Oh, and he liked to use an ax. Shakespeare may be one of the best writers who ever lived but he’s about as good of a historian as Mel Gibson.)

King Richard III was an unpopular king. (Not only did he have one of the best attended coronations in years, he had quite a following in York where the people mourned his death. Still, what did him in is that he was king during a civil war, reigned 2 years, and died with no surviving legitimate children).

King Henry V was a wild vagabond when he was heir to the English throne. (He was always the same, duty bound, serious man his whole life. Also, had a nasty scar on his face which explains why his portrait is usually in profile.)

King Henry V was a badass warrior king and a great hero. (He also captured enemy knights {but had some good excuse since it was Agincourt, he was heavily outnumbered, and could’ve opened the battle on two fronts resulting in a massacre of his own men}, burned proto-Protestant heretics alive {including the inspiration for Falstaff but this was done to unite Catholicism under one pope after a series of antipopes as was the case in Europe}, doomed both sides into fighting a pointless war {which was an age old war he could’ve won if he hadn’t died so early}, and had a nasty scar across his face. Still, like any medieval king, he was ruthless when he needed to be and didn’t tax his subjects to the highest bitter to pay for his conflicts. Actually he doesn’t come worse off than most kings of the time.)

Henry VII effectively ended the Wars of the Roses. (Yes, but there were still major revolts against him which he tyrannically suppressed. This made him very unpopular and many nobles were glad to see him go. Yet, he did marry Elizabeth of York which helped secure his throne as was a rather intelligent woman in her own right. Perhaps this is why Shakespeare didn’t write a play about Henry VII. Then again, any king would do the same and Henry VII was a rather competent king that England needed at the time and did whatever needed to be done. Still, despite the fact he has a small role in Richard III doesn’t mean that he was a boring guy.)

Richard III killed the Duke of Somerset. (The guy died when Richard was three.)

Hotspur was a childhood friend of King Henry V. (Actually he was three years older than his dad.)

Henry V was the kind of guy you’d want to have a beer with. (It’s said he had little charm, no sense of humor, and was truly terrifyingly convinced he was an instrument of God. Still, he really did care about his soldiers yet Shakespeare’s portrayal of him is a reasonable break from reality. It’s unlikely Princess Catherine of Valois would’ve found him entertaining. Interestingly her second husband was Owen Tudor, the keeper of the Queen’s wardrobe from Wales. Of course, we know what that family amounted to.)

The Duke of Buckingham rebelled to have Edward V on the throne. (He wanted to put himself on the throne but ultimately decided to join Henry Tudor instead. Besides, he’s suspected of having the Princes in the Tower killed to begin with and probably knew the kids were dead).

Duke George of Clarence was a doddering fool. (He was an opportunistic bastard who switched sides. There’s a reason why Edward IV had him killed).

Richard III tried to marry himself to Elizabeth of York after Lady Anne Neville died. (While marrying your niece wasn’t unusual in some royal families at the time {as in the Hapsburgs}, Richard was actually trying to arrange marriages for both himself and his niece with the Portuguese royal family. Also, he was suffering a succession crisis since Lady Anne and his son had both died during his reign).

Richard III had Lady Anne Neville’s first husband and father killed. (Her father died in battle. As for the first husband, he was either slaughtered with his army or executed on Edward IV’s orders. They were Lanscastrians and Richard marrying Lady Anne wasn’t an advantageous match since she was known as a daughter and widow of traitors. Still, he wouldn’t be trying to woo her over her dad’s corpse.)

Duke George of Clarence was drowned in a vat of wine on Richard’s orders. (He was more likely smothered on Edward IV’s orders because of his backstabbing behavior, armed rebellion, lunacy, and murdering a servant girl. In fact, despite previous feuds, Richard argued against George’s execution and left court during the verdict but Edward was simply sick of him that he wanted him dead. So you can probably say that George was the bad brother from the trio, not Richard).

Edward IV was a frail old man when he died. (He was in his early 40s and his death was unexpected).

Richard III’s wife Anne Neville reviled him. (Contrary to Shakespeare, it’s said that their marriage was a love match and they were childhood sweethearts {and he obviously didn’t kill her her dad or first husband who were most likely not executed at all}. Besides, though he had 2 illegitimate kids, he waited to marry her. Not only that, but he was said to be a man of unimpeachable moral character who shared none of Edward IV’s vices. They also had a 10 year old son by the time he was crowned. However, Richard’s sister-in-law Elizabeth Woodville despised him. Oh, and contrary to Olivier’s portrayal, he was only 5’8.”)

Richard III drove his oldest brother Edward IV to an early grave. (He was out of town when Edward IV died).

Richard III died on the field. (He had his head sliced off from the back while surrounded by soldiers in a swamp. Still, he killed a lot of Henry Tudor’s best men and almost killed the guy himself.)

Henry V spent a lot of his early life in a tavern with his drinking buddies. (It’s not very likely.)

Hotspur was killed by a single combat with Henry V at the Battle of Shrewsbury. (He was killed by a single arrow. Still, Hotspur was a traitor since he was on the side of Owen Glydwr of Wales.)

Henry IV killed Richard II. (Richard II died in prison and more likely starved, yet he may have been murdered by his cousin.)

The Earl of Richmond was the battlefield commander at Bosworth Field. (He confined himself to politicking and left the fighting to the Earl of Oxford.)

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 8- Medieval Scotland

Posted by historymaniacmegan on March 21, 2014

Braveheart: How Mel Gibson killed history for the sake of entertainment. Sure it has inspirational tidbits like “You can take our lands but you’ll never take our FREEEEEDDDDDOOOOMMMMMM!” Yet, it’s notoriously one of the most historically inaccurate movies ever made, which is sad considering that there aren’t a lot of movies about medieval Scotland. Yet, use any image of Mel Gibson in a kilt and blue paint, and medieval historians will scream in absolute horror. A historic travesty of 1995.

While most medieval movies usually take place in either England or France, movies on medieval Scotland deserve special mention since the most historically accurate movie on anything related to Scotland in the Middle Ages is a Disney Pixar film. Yes, you hear me. Scotland during the Middle Ages may not get much attention in movies, but when it does, they usually tend to be very historically inaccurate. Of course, most historians don’t mind when it comes to filming Macbeth because it’s a notable Shakespearean play with great literary value (though it makes Richard III look historically accurate in comparison). Besides, most people don’t know that Macbeth was a real guy. However, Macbeth was a real Scottish king who did come to power through killing his predecessor Duncan as well as ended up dead when Duncan’s son Malcolm challenged his rule. However, the historical Macbeth was never the guy depicted by Shakespeare nor were some of the characters either. Also, who knows what Lady Macbeth was like for there’s little information about her. Still, though a more historically accurate Macbeth would merit a very different story, most people don’t watch the play on its lack of historic merits anyway. Besides, Shakespeare probably had some excuse to depict such events as inaccurately as he did like James I, for instance. And then you got Braveheart which managed to win Oscars despite being one of the most historically inaccurate movies of all time that most of the errors I will list come from this very movie. And no other movie has ever made medieval historians cry in sheer anger and disgust over what Hollywood would ever consider such historical disasterpiece as something worthy of critical acclaim, let alone film awards. Many historians would think that Monty Python and the Holy Grail has more historical merits than this. And when you’re historical epic has more inaccuracies than a movie with killer rabbits, you have a problem. Sure, Gibson probably wasn’t aiming for historical accuracy and used the screenplay from a guy who claimed descent from William Wallace. However, now that this historical piece of shit may now be on its way on becoming a classic, most people unfamiliar with William Wallace and the Scottish Wars of Independence may now actually take Gibson’s vision of Scottish history seriously. Yes, unfortunately, people tend to believe things presented in historical movies regardless of the weight of inaccuracy. At least the guys making Spartacus had some concern for accuracy which is why the 1960 film is actually more historically reliable than the Howard Fast novel it’s based on. But you don’t see the concern for authenticity in Braveheart. And this it will be forever by trashed by medieval and Scottish historians as well as anyone who actually cares about history in general. I mean, I don’t expect historical movies to be 100% accurate, but not with an inaccuracy level like Braveheart. Nevertheless, here’s what Hollywood gets wrong about Scottish history.

Scottish men like William Wallace wore kilts during the Middle Ages. They also painted their faces and all armies wore uniforms in battle. (William Wallace’s men actually wore saffron shirts, not kilts for they didn’t come around until much later and so did army uniforms. Not to mention, they haven’t painted their faces since the Dark Ages.)

Prior to the 13th century, Scotland had always been subject to English rule. (Actually it had enjoyed a century of peace before Edward I tried to take it for himself when Scotland was in a messy political crisis regarding succession. The English were backstabbing encroachers, not overlords.)

Banquo and Fleance are the ancestors of the Stuart monarchs. (Shakespeare made up these guys to satisfy James I who was descended from Duncan.)

Bagpipes were outlawed in 13^th century Scotland. (They weren’t and were very popular in England.)

There was no Stirling Bridge in the Battle that bears its name. (There too was a bridge, but Gibson wanted to save money. Also, Andrew Moray, the man instrumental in that battle is absent from the film.)

There were Irish conscripts at the Battle of Falkirk. (There’s no record of this.)

Most noblemen in Scotland were Gaels. (They were culturally similar to English nobles and would’ve dressed more like their English counterparts. Also, many of them were related to English royalty, spoke a Scottish dialect of English and/or Anglo-Norman French.)

The sons of Scottish knights dressed in rags. (Even poor Scots would know how to sew or at least was related to someone who did. Even poor people couldn’t afford to have their clothes disintegrate for being unhemmed.)

13th Century Scottish men had long hair they braided as well as tied bits of fur and feathers even though it was messy most of the time. (There’s no reason to think this.)

Pikes were used against the English at the Battle of Stirling Bridge. (They were at Falkirk though.)

Macbeth:

Macbeth was only King of Scotland for two years after he killed Duncan in his bed just to get his throne. (For one, Macbeth ruled Scotland for 17 years {which proves he wasn’t a weak ruler} and even spent a several month trip to receive a blessing from the Pope. He was also known as a good king known for his charity, not a bad king who slaughtered his friends {he was actually good to his friends}. As to Duncan’s death, Macbeth killed Duncan in battle because Duncan was encroaching on his territory so the motive was self-defense after a failed invasion in England. And it was Duncan who was the young, violent tyrant but Shakespeare couldn’t say that because King James I was descended by him. As for Lady Macbeth, she is almost a complete fabrication in which nothing is known about her than her name {Gruoch}, the fact she was married before, and that she had at least a son from that marriage. And that son would later succeed Macbeth before Duncan’s son Malcolm gained power and killed him mostly because he didn’t think the guy was a legitimate king.)

King Duncan was a wise old king. (Duncan was younger than Macbeth and was a worthless wastrel who the latter killed in a fair fight in battle on his land. So in reality, Duncan got what he deserved.)

King Malcolm III:

Everyone in Scotland seemed to accept Malcolm’s kingship. (He was able to seize the throne of Scotland because England was able to support him. Scotland actually resisted his rule because their standards differed considerably from England on what consists of royal legitimacy. Also, Macbeth’s stepson and friends also campaigned against Malcolm.)

King Alexander III:

King Alexander III died in 1280 without a son. (He died without a son in 1286 after falling off his horse {since the Scottish throne went to his young granddaughter Margaret of Norway [so the country was ruled by regents] until she died in 1290 on the way there} but he and his two sons were still alive by 1280. It was only after Margaret’s death in 1290 when his brother-in-law King Edward I got involved because the Scottish noblemen couldn’t trust each other and Scotland was in a political crisis as well as headed for civil war.)

William Wallace:

William Wallace grew up as a poor man who became a great liberator and had an affair with English Queen Isabella, which resulted in Edward III. He ended up captured by the English because of Robert Bruce’s betrayal and was hanged drawn and quartered. (Actually, William Wallace was a well-educated minor aristocrat whose dad actually fought for the English and owned land {though we don’t know who he was} and might have been a scholar or been on his way for a career in the Church. He may have used a longbow as a weapon of choice {unlike the sword he’s usually depicted with in Braveheart}. He briefly served as a Guardian of the Kingdom of Scotland {it’s kind of like being a Steward of Gondor except that they didn’t rule by themselves} until his military reputation tanked at the Battle of Falkirk. He engaged in diplomatic correspondence with Lubeck and Hamburg as well as went on a diplomatic mission to France and Rome before returning to his home after the Scottish surrender in 1302. Not to mention, he was said to be Welsh since his name either means “Welsh” or “foreigner” so the notion of growing up a Scottish highlander is out of the question. Also, he certainly didn’t have an affair with Queen Isabella of England for she was ten and wasn’t even living in England yet {and younger than that during the Battle of Falkirk}, didn’t father Edward III who was born seven years after he died, Edward II was only thirteen, and he wasn’t directly betrayed by Robert Bruce either. And as for his method of execution, Wallace was hanged, cut open, castrated, chopped to pieces, and finally beheaded. And before that, he was stripped naked and dragged by a horse carriage by a rope around his ankles and afterwards dipped in tar and put on public display.)

William Wallace had easy access to large quantities of gasoline. At the battle of Falkirk, he apparently has a tanker truck parked behind the lines, so that he can wet down a broad stretch of the front-line as a death trap for the enemy. It was then set alight by flaming arrows, to set the enemy stuntmen on fire so that they can run around screaming while the flammable stunt clothing blazes merrily over their Nomex jumpsuits. William Wallace can also generally get his hands on fire starter whenever he wants to burn English soldiers to death in a cottage. [From A Common Place Book](You should know this isn’t true at all.)

William Wallace was called Braveheart. (Actually that was a nickname of his contemporary, Robert Bruce who would become Scotland’s eventual king and he only acquired the nickname after his death when his heart was carried by a general around his neck into battle. It was Robert Bruce’s heart that led the Scots into battle not Wallace’s.)

William Wallace was the architect of Scottish independence and was an all-around nice guy. Robert Bruce is overrated. (Wallace also raped women and burnt down schools with kids and monks still inside. Not only that, but he used conscription and was willing to hang those refusing to serve. As with Robert Bruce, he’s still one of Scotland’s national heroes and was far more successful than Wallace ever could be {though he still could be brutal to his enemies and manipulative if need be as well as got excommunicated for murdering his rival in a church}. Not to mention, Bruce never personally betrayed Wallace, ever because they never met in the first place. Also, Wallace didn’t initially support Bruce’s claim to the throne and backed the exiled Scottish King John Balliol who was held prisoner in the Tower of London {and later sent to France} who Bruce and his family considered an usurper. Not to mention, Bruce was originally playing on both sides for a while {for personal reasons} until the Battle of Stirling Bridge and didn’t establish full claim to the Scottish throne until after his Carlisle governor father died in 1304.)

Malcolm Wallace had two sons named John and William in 1280 in a town of Paisley. (He had three including his eldest also named Malcolm and he wasn’t a commoner either, assuming that Sir Malcolm of Elderslie was William’s father. Then again William Wallace’s dad could be named Alan of Ayershire {yet no contemporary evidence links him to either location}. Still, William Wallace only appears on the historic record from 1297 when he killed an English sheriff in Lanark {said in order to avenge his wife’s murder} to his death in 1305. So how many kids William’s father had was anyone’s guess.)

William Wallace’s father and brother John were executed by the English when William was a boy. (William lost his father as an adult while his brother John was executed a year after him.)

William Wallace returned to Scotland in 1296 after spending his adolescence abroad. (He never stepped foot out of Scotland until his 1297 invasion of Northern England.)

William Wallace carried out large-scale raids in the north of England and killed Edward I’s nephew in York. (While he did stage long scale raids in Northern England, he didn’t make it as south as York.)

William Wallace’s wife Murron died shortly after their wedding. After this, he killed the English Sheriff by slitting his throat. (It’s said they had two sons, if he had a wife which is very likely. Yet, legend says her name was Marion Braidfrute, though there is no solid evidence if he was married. As for the Sheriff, Wallace cut him to pieces with a sword while his men proceeded to burn two houses with English guards inside of them.)

William Wallace’s best friends were Hamish and his dad Campbell as well as Stephen of Ireland. (The first two are fictional characters while the latter’s existence is questioned. Also, Andrew Moray may be a better candidate though he’s absent in Braveheart though they did join forces before the Battle of Stirling Bridge.)

William Wallace was executed around the same time Edward I died. (Edward I would live for a couple more years and would die on campaign {not in bed as depicted in Braveheart}.)

The Irish fought with William Wallace. (Most Irish fought against him and certainly didn’t switch sides at Falkirk {though the Welsh archers threatened to but only out of fear}.)

Scottish nobles deserted William Wallace. (There’s no report of this happening, well, maybe with John Comyn and his supporters who did abandon him there but there’s no solid evidence. Oh, and he was opposed to fighting at Falkirk because it didn’t offer the advantages at Stirling Bridge.)

William Wallace was captured by the English at Edinburgh after being betrayed by Noble Craig and Robert Bruce’s old man. (The old man Robert Bruce was dead by Wallace’s capture while Craig never existed. Also, he was captured near Glasgow after being betrayed by Scotsman John Menteith.)

William Wallace had no intention to fight the English to free his country until his wife was killed by them. (He was already an outlaw against the English since he refused to sign the Ragman Roll from the very beginning. The English killing his wife would’ve angered him even more. Oh, and William Wallace would’ve never whipped out a concealed nunchaku, which is from China for God’s sake!)

William Wallace was clean shaven. (He had a beard and was at least 6 feet tall. But he’s played by Mel Gibson so I’ll let this slide.)

William Wallace was knighted after Stirling Bridge. (He was knighted a few years later.)

Robert Bruce:

Robert Bruce disowned his leprosy afflicted but dominating father. (There is no evidence Bruce’s old man had ever contracted it though it’s thought that Bruce himself might’ve suffered from it. Also, there’s no evidence whether Bruce disowned his father or whether he was dominated by his dad. Still, he was quite capable of making his own decisions and choices.)

The Scots won their independence when Robert Bruce changed his mind about a peace parley. (It was at the battle of Bannockburn after an English army arrived to lift the siege at Stirling Castle, nine years after Wallace’s death while engaging in guerrilla warfare for years, though Bruce would be crowned king a year after Wallace’s execution {though he was dead by the time actual independence would be won}. Also, Scottish independence didn’t last and Edward III managed to conquer more of Scotland than his grandfather ever had.)

Robert Bruce was the 17^th person with the name in his family. (He was the 7^th with the name and the 7^th Lord of Annandale.)

Robert Bruce was present with King Edward I at Falkirk. (It’s likely he wasn’t there or at least did nothing significant. He was more likely at home in Carrick.)

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 7 – The Medieval Church

Posted by historymaniacmegan on March 21, 2014

From Kingdom of Heaven, which is probably a movie about the Crusades we’re all familiar with as well as one that says that these wars of religion weren’t as holy as many say they were. However, this picture does encapsulate the idea of the religiosity of the time period. Still, though Orlando Bloom’s character actually did exist, he wasn’t the widowed French blacksmith as depicted in the beginning at all. However, he did end up with a Queen consort of Jerusalem, just not Queen Sybilla.

While fighting is one of the many aspects of the medieval landscape, the Middle Ages would never be what it s without the Church. Sure it was a dominant force in medieval life and a very misunderstood one as Hollywood is concerned. Still, though Christianity began in ancient times, it really came into its own in the Middle Ages as an institution (as long as the Catholic Church is concerned but there were Orthodox churches in the east as well). Medieval monasteries and convents were places of great cottage industries and learning with monks being among the intellectuals of their day and churches became not only centers of devotion but also places for community. Not only that, but we also see the rise of the Gothic cathedrals which are still used for worship today (even if it’s on the decline in Europe these days). And without the Church, we wouldn’t have universities, the institution of medicine, theology, and all those ancient writings that would’ve been lost if monks didn’t spend all day copying them. Of course, because of the medieval Church, we also have antisemitism, heresy, and the Crusades which is a series of religious wars in the Middle East geared to capturing the Holy Land from the Muslims. Still, Hollywood always tends to screw up a few things about the medieval Church which I shall list here.

Medieval Christianity:

The Catholic Church was a backward institution that discouraged education and scientific research. (The Catholic Church actually saved science and is the main reason why we know anything about the Middle Ages at all even though they did lock their books but there weren’t many books in Europe anyway and were very expensive since they were all written by hand or printed from wood carvings which were tedious to make {but many monasteries and nunneries had large libraries of them full of the works of Rome and Greeks and monks spent a lot of time copying them}. Furthermore, they even set up universities all over Continental Europe, started formalized higher education with advanced degrees, and saw no problem with dissection {the Knights Hospitaller did this and the Church was fine with it}, at least in the basement anyway, which helped set the foundation of modern medicine. They started the first medical and law schools as well. They even educated children in monastic and convent schools when education became a higher demand and that was before the printing press. Not to mention, the Crusades also allowed Europeans to come into contact with Muslim ideas and Arabic numerals. And their massive cathedrals were marvels of medieval craftsmanship and engineering. Furthermore, monks were usually the most educated people in Europe of their day. Actually it would be more accurate to say that the Catholic Church was a great medieval engine of scientific progress. Not to mention, most medieval scientists were monks and/or priests as well. Still, doesn’t stop filmmakers from making movies set in the Middle Ages in which the Catholic Church is hostile to scientific inquiry which really wasn’t the case {especially with the Galileo Affair which isn’t as much a science vs. religion case as most people think}.)

Monks locked their Bibles to keep people from hearing the true word. (No way in hell. Monks locked their Bibles so churches could guarantee that people could hear the Bible on a daily basis as well as prevent it from getting stolen. A stolen Bible would’ve taken many months to replace since books at the time were copied by hand.)

Europeans were highly religious during the Middle Ages. (Despite the Crusades and the powerful presence of the Catholic Church, most people in the Middle Ages were probably just as religious as I am, observant yes, but with a more laid back approach like many Catholics today. Sure religion was important but it wasn’t the only thing in life and it wasn’t altogether incompatible to the modern notions of the day either. In other words, medieval Europeans may have went to church on Sundays but they weren’t religious fanatics, at least in general. Of course, religiosity would increase later in the Middle Ages as well as in the early Renaissance in Northern Europe since they were people who cared enough about religion to break off from the Catholic Church.)

The Catholic Church discouraged scientific research and progress. (Actually, quite the contrary. For one, most medieval scientists in Europe had a religious vocation. Second, while the Middle Ages wasn’t the best time for science {which wasn’t a big subject at the time}, it was nevertheless studied for practical reasons. The Church understood that scientific study can benefit them and help monks and nuns do their jobs better. Needing to care of the sick led to the study of medicine. The fact monks and nuns needed to schedule prayer times as well as find out when Easter is led to the study of rudimentary mathematics and the motions of the Sun and the Moon. Third, contrary to popular belief, the High Middle Ages was a really good time for science with the rise of Scholasticism and Aristotlelianism.)

Medieval cathedrals were often dark places. (Actually, they were places with large glass windows that let tons of light in. Churches were painted in bright colors. Still, today tourists tend to complain every time these places are washed because it’s too bright. Not to mention, it was inspired by Indian and Arab/Muslim building styles also from the Crusades.)

All nuns were virgins admitted into a convent as lovely, nubile waifs. (They could also be an ugly daughter of a lord or women who didn’t want to get married or have kids.)

Monks were benevolent men who devoted their lives to God. (Well, not quite for many monasteries enjoyed great wealth in the Middle Ages and many monks didn’t live too badly either {especially in the later Middle Ages}. In many ways, they were not just clergymen, but also businessmen, scribes, scientists, intellectuals, as well as some of the smartest guys around {same goes for nuns, too, for the most part}. Oh, and many monasteries had their own armies.)

Monks could hear confessions. (If they have taken holy orders since a lot of monks are priests. If not, then no.)

Monks were dissolute hypocrites who used religion to make money. (This isn’t 100% accurate either for though monks weren’t perfect human beings and the Church did have some degree of corruption, they were just as flawed like everyone else. We just tend to put them on a higher pedestal since they tend to be religious figures. Besides, every religion has their share of hypocrites and jerks as any institution and I’m sure medieval Christianity was no exception. Sure you may have a few bad and corrupt monks, but you also had a lot of cool ones as well. However, it was true enough for Henry VIII to convince the masses on why he had to dissolve the monasteries {which was to finance a war in France}, even though the actual debauchery and corruption of monks wasn’t nearly as bad as Henry made it out to be.)

Medieval Russia had no religious insignia in the 13^th century. (Russia had been Orthodox Christian for quite some time and would continue to be the dominant church in the country until the Russian Revolution {though it’s still around}. Russian churches would usually have crosses on top and their banners would contain an icon of Christ {ditto priests in the army}. Of course, Eisenstein knew that the Soviet government wouldn’t accept this while filming Alexander Nevsky. Also, Nevsky is a saint in the Russian Orthodox Church.)

Clergymen were forbidden to shed blood so they didn’t fight. (Sure but there were militant churchmen as well as military religious orders like the Knights Templar, the Teutonic Knights, and the Knights Hospitallers.)

“Dies Irae” was a Christian standard hymn in the 1100s. (It was written by a Thomas of Celano who lived around 1200-1260 so, no.)

Saint Francis of Assisi was known as “Jester of the Lord.” (It was his disciple Brother Juniper.)

Saint Francis of Assisi was originally referred to as Francis. (His real name was Giovanni di Pietro Bernardone. Francis was a nickname derived from Francesco {“Frenchy”} which he obtained when he was a little kid. Actually, Francis wouldn’t be used as a legal name until after he became a saint.)

Pope Innocent III had a full beard. (He was clean shaven.)

Everyone in Europe was Catholic during the Middle Ages. (Everyone west of Poland, that is. In Russia, the main church was Russian Orthodox Christianity while the Greeks in the Eastern Roman Empire were Greek Orthodox. Not to mention, before the Mongols you also had quite a few Christian sects in the Middle East and Central Asia like the Coptics, Armenian Apostolics, the Nestorians, the Maronites, Ethiopian Orthodox Rite, and others. When you really get down to it, medieval Christianity was quite diverse.)

The Catholic Church pretty much ran everything. (Yes, it was a powerful institution, but it also got into clashes with secular rulers who wanted to make their own decisions in religious affairs. Not to mention, secular monarchs can and did appoint bishops {Henry II appointed Thomas Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury}. Sure medieval society didn’t exactly have a lot of separation between church and state. And yes, the Catholic Church did mettle in politics as well, but it wasn’t always without a secular ruler’s consent either. They also crowned kings as well as married and annulled their unions {back when marriages were a form of diplomacy}. So while there wasn’t a lot of separation between church and state but it wasn’t exactly a theocracy either. Also, there was less church and state separation in the Russian government and the Russian Orthodox Church, than in any European Catholic country.)

There was an actual Pope Joan. (She never existed.)

The Catholic Church participated in witch hunts and witch burnings. (Maybe in the 1400s but they mostly considered belief in witches as highly heretical. Still, witch hunts did happen under secular governments though and only much later {and they only took witchcraft seriously in cases of murder and treason}. However, there were actually few witch trials during the Middle Ages and many were usually nothing but simple lynches.)

Inquisition guards wore nearly full plated armor in the 1300s. (Only a century later.)

Medieval monks could enter each other’s cells freely. (For a monk entering another’s cell without permission was normally forbidden as well as grounds for excommunication.)

Monks addressed each other as “Your Grace.” (This wouldn’t be appropriate address for a monk under any circumstances but rather for nobles and high members of the Catholic Church.)

Inquisitor Bernard Gui was killed in an Italian monastery in 1327. (Yes, he was a real person and was said to have sentenced 900 people as well as executing 42 of them during his 15 years in office. However, he died in the castle of Laroux in 1331. He also doesn’t die in Eco’s original novel In the Name of the Rose.)

Medieval clergy men and religious orders were highly superstitious. (Yes, but not as much as the laypeople in their domains. Of course, they probably did believe in demon possession and that writing with the left hand was a sin. For instance, most medieval clergymen believed in a round earth from its earliest days. So did most people at the time with an education. We should also account for the fact that most medieval scientists were monks and priests.)

Pagan philosophy was considered difficult to reconcile with Christianity as well as considered borderline heretical. (There is no way that William of Baskerville would need to worry about saving a book by Aristotle because Saint Thomas Aquinas had already embraced embraced several ideas put forward by the Greek philosopher as well as said it was perfectly all right for Christians to read works by non-Christian authors {and had been influenced by the Jewish philosopher Maimonides as well as Muslim philosophers Averroes and Avicenna}. This was in the 13th century. Not only that, but most of the European mythology we know about now was recorded by clergyman themselves, which were only referred just as stories.)

Some European monasteries had African monks. (This would be highly unlikely considering the circumstances.)

The Holy Grail was of great significance in Christianity at this time. (There’s no mention of it in any canonical Christian text and wasn’t spawned until the 12th century. Also, it’s more of a product of Arthurian legend than anything.)

Pagan practices were considered anti-Christian. (Except with the worship of other deities, many pagan practices weren’t considered anti-Christian, but were commonly carried out by Christians as well as became Christianized practices. Kind of like how some people celebrate the holidays with their own personal traditions just to make themselves feel comfortable with the faith. However, this doesn’t stop some people from believing that Christianity was based on earlier religions other than Judaism, of which there is no historic proof as well as nothing in what we know of the original pagan beliefs that we can draw a respective parallel with. In other words, to say that the story of Jesus was based on the myth of Horus would be like saying it’s based on Harry Potter. Not to mention, those who believe that Christianity was based on pagan religions don’t tend to consider that a certain culture’s mythology doesn’t have a lot of consistency and that mythological stories sometimes tend to vary with location or change over time. And it doesn’t help that the prolific people who tend to believe this are high profile atheist intellectuals, who may be smart and experts in their respective field but that doesn’t mean they’re experts in religion, religious history, or even mythology.)

The Crusades:

There was no reason at all to recommend the Crusades. (Well, there kind of sort of was, at least in some of those people’s minds but I wouldn’t call it the best solution. Still, remember medieval society was a feudal and warlike culture so if these knights weren’t killing Muslims in the Holy Land, they were probably killing each other and then some {though the first Crusade’s primary enemy was the hostile Seljuk Turks who’ve just captured Jerusalem from the Fatimids who didn’t care as long as the Christians spent their money}. Not to mention, the Crusades were called to also help out the dwindling Byzantine Empire, the last remaining Christian stronghold of the Middle East at the time {though they were Greek Orthodox, not Catholic}. Also, Pope Urban II’s predecessor was kidnapped by Normans and were wreaking havoc all over Europe by the first Crusade. Besides, “bring the Cross to Jerusalem” was a much better slogan than “Save the Greek Empire” which nobody in Europe cared about.)

Crusaders taught desert dwelling Muslims how to irrigate their land. (Actually this was the other way around. They also taught them medicine, windmills, round towers, and others even though knights did participate in civil projects during the Crusades.)

Members of the Knights Templar could marry, own land, and be crowned king. (They were forbidden from marrying or owning land. Also, no Templar would ever be crowned king.)

Renaud Chatillon and Guy Lusignan were Templars. (No, they weren’t or never have been. Lusignan was actually king of Jerusalem at the time Chatillon launched his attack. Also, King Baldwin had been dead for several years.)

Sybilla’s marriage to Guy Lusignan was an arranged one. (Her family opposed the match and it was her second marriage.)

Balian was a heroic everyman knight who embodied the best of the chivalric ethos. He was also a blacksmith and an illegitimate son of a knight. (He was raised noble and wasn’t a blacksmith so he probably wasn’t illegitimate. Not to mention, he was part of the most important families in the Kingdom of Jerusalem but of a moderate faction known as the Ibelins {and he wasn’t born illegitimate, but as a younger son}. And he wasn’t born in France but in Jerusalem as a second generation crusader nobleman and would’ve definitely know who his father was. Not to mention, his dad was Italian, not French. Also, though he is known for making the courageous decision to negotiate with Saladin, he also betrayed his oath not to fight him on more than one occasion, sold many peasants in the siege into slavery, and refused to release his Muslim prisoners if Saladin wouldn’t accept surrender. He also threatened the destruction of Muslim holy places under the threat of a repeat of the 1st Crusade capture of Jerusalem. He was ruthless but Saladin would forgive his oath breaking due to prior excellent relations and even helped mediate a peace between him and Richard the Lionheart. Still, Balian wasn’t all that bad for he did pay ransoms for thousands of poor out of his own pocket and offered himself as a hostage for all the rest. Still, he was prone to taking power whenever he could find it, sided with Chatillon, and his dynasty fathered most of the royal families of Europe.)

Guy Lusignan was a foppish, racist douchebag and ax crazy Reynald Chatillon was his dragon. (Chatillon wasn’t ax crazy but he was the worse of the two, much worse. Also, though Lusignan may have been racist, so were many of the European Christians who participated and him and Reynald hated each other {leading to the disaster at Hattin} even though he tried to get him to apologize to Saladin which didn’t work. As what TV Tropes and Idioms says about Chatillon, “Raynald once had a man tortured by smearing him in honey and putting him on top of a tower in the hot sun, simply because the man refused to fund a military expedition Raynald was plotting. Oh, and the best part — the man was the Latin Patriarch of Antioch, a religious leader of the Crusaders — and the expedition was against Cyprus, an island held by the Byzantine Empire, inhabited by Christians. Of course, Raynald had what he thought was a perfectly good reason for this—he felt they owed him money. Or pretended he felt they owed him money. It’s tough to be sure. So — a “bit of a mustache twirling supervillain” is something of an understatement.” Also, Chatillon led a pirate fleet that threatened to burn down Mecca and flayed the Patriarch of Antioch alive.)

The Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem was a cowardly, self-absorbed jerk, blinded by his faith, and mostly spent his time spreading his prejudice against Muslims. (Actually it was he and Balian who negotiated the surrender of Jerusalem and rounded up the money to ransom the citizens who couldn’t afford to ransom themselves. They also offered themselves as ransom for those who they couldn’t afford to ransom which Saladin declined. He even stripped the silver and gold from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to pay the city’s defenders knowing it would’ve gotten him in big trouble.)

Sybilla was a member of the moderate faction in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. (As TTI puts it, “The historical Sybilla was actually part of the extremist camp within the Haute Cour, while the film places her squarely on the moderate side. The moderates, such as the Ibelins, attempted to blunt the ambitions of Lusignan and his supporters by refusing to allow her to take the throne after the death of her son (Baldwin V) unless she first divorced him. As a concession they allowed her to marry any man of her choosing afterwards, but unfortunately neglected to add “Except Lusignan,” who she then turned around and picked as her consort. Not because she was in desperate need of his military support as the film depicts, but entirely because of her devotion to him, and because she sided with him and the other extremists politically.” So a romance between Balian and Sybilla most likely didn’t happen.)

Guy Lusignan was an utter bastard who would do anything for power and was willing to wage a war for profit. He was also a terrible King of Jerusalem. (As TTI explains, “Historically, while he may have been ambitious, he was no more so than the next noble, and his decision to go to war was less a matter of Ax Craziness and more a matter of “Saladin’s already attacking, we need to do something about it.” While he was a bad king, it was not because he was nuts and evil, but because he was incompetent: He could listen to reason, and he even did so when Tiberius cautioned him to stay near a source of water and let Saladin come to him, but he allowed himself to be swayed by the over-zealous elements among the nobles and made the decision to march across the desert, exhausting his army and causing its downfall. He was also much better to his wife than in the film: historically, he treated her well enough that when she was given the chance to keep the throne and choose any husband for herself and make him King, she went right back to Guy.”)

Teutonic knight crosses were the same on shield and coat of arms. (They were different in shape and color.)

Returning Crusaders had to face the Black Plague. (Maybe they had to face plague, but the Crusades were long over before the Plague began.)

Russians participated in the Crusades. (There were no Russians in the Crusades.)

King William of Sicily fought in the Crusades. (He sent ships but never went personally.)

Frederick Barbarossa and his son the Duke of Swabia participated in the Crusades at the same time as Richard the Lionheart. (They were both dead by Richard’s arrival. Barbossa died en route in Turkey and his son of dysentery some months before.)

The Count of Montferrat spent more considerable time plotting in the French and English courts. (He was fighting in Tyre. Also, he’s from Piedmont, not Venice.)

Queen Berengaria spent some time in Saladin’s harem. (Really? No way in hell. Besides, there’s no record of Queen Berengaria ever stepping foot anywhere further than Cyprus where she married Richard the Lionheart.)

The Crusades were mostly against the Muslims in an effort to reconquer the Holy Land. (Yes, but there were also Crusades against the Moors in Spain, the Baltic pagans, and even the Albigensian heretics {though that can be considered an Inquisition, too.})

Crusaders eagerly went to the Holy Land on behalf of their God. (They also did it out of self-interests as well such as glory, self-enrichment, and adventure.)

Both sides seemed to get along with each other during the Crusades. (Just because Muslims fought with Muslims and Christians fought with Christians doesn’t mean they liked each other.)

The Crusades consisted of Christians vs. Muslims. (It didn’t become a Christian vs. Muslim conflict until French King Louis VII took a detour in the Second Crusade where he sacked Damascus, betraying his Muslim allies out of greed. Prior to this, it wasn’t unusual for Christians to have Muslim allies or Muslims to have Christian Allies. Not to mention the “Crusaders” in the later stages were mostly just adventurers and mercenaries more interested in glory and loot than defending Christian kingdoms or recapturing holy places.)

Christian Europeans weren’t okay with Muslims controlling Jerusalem. (Actually quite the contrary since prior to the Crusades, it had been controlled by the Muslims for nearly 500 years. It’s just that until the Crusades, Jerusalem was controlled by the easygoing Fatimid Muslims who were perfectly fine with Christian visitors on pilgrimages as long as they paid. And as long as Muslims were fine with Christian visitors in Jerusalem, Christian Europe didn’t care whether the Holy Land was under Christian control or not. However, the Christians weren’t all right with the Seljuk Turks invading the city since they were more prickly and devout than their Fatimid predecessors and had been treating Christian pilgrims poorly {since they didn’t particularly care for religious minorities anyway}. Not to mention, the Seljuk Turks have been trying to take advantage of the weakening Byzantine Empire in a land grab. So the Crusades were initially less of a religious conflict with Christians against the general Muslim population and more of a conflict against more fanatical Muslims who had already proven themselves as Christendom’s enemies and showed it. However, such characteristics only apply to the general Fatimid and Seljuk populations since not all Seljuks were bad and not all Fatimids were good.)

The Crusades were no help to Muslims at all. (Having Christians kill Muslims in the name of God actually gave something that could unite the Muslim world after being locked in a period of infighting which resulted in stronger and larger Muslim states and the end of Shiism as a political force for the next 300 years {until the Safavids converted Iran}. Still, the worst thing the Crusades did for the Muslims was being a major distraction for 2 bloody centuries that neither side even paid attention to what was happening in the east during the 1200s where a little known guy Mongolian named Temujin was making a name for himself. He was also known as Genghis Khan. For the Christians though, they led to a weakening of the Byzantine Empire and a permanent division of Christianity along east and west, while the already shaky alliances of European monarchies crumbled. By 1250, the west was no longer a significant threat to the Muslim world since Europe had suffered a massive drain of manpower and resources. )

The Crusades teach the notion that “religion is bad because people kill each other over it.” (There’s a lot more to the Crusades than religion. Also, remember this is the Middle Ages so if Christians weren’t killing Muslims in the name of God, they’d probably be killing each other over something else. Not to mention, being Christian didn’t stop the Normans from sacking Rome in 1060, which gave Urban II a good reason to fear them. Besides, it’s said Pope Urban II called the First Crusade to keep Christian invaders out of his own town, which would put their aggressive impulses to more constructive use at the time. Also, the Byzantine Emperor had petitioned for help. In some way, knowing that you and your potential enemies have the same religion can help. Not to mention, the Crusades didn’t stop Christians from attacking each other in the Middle East either out of greed or when it pleased them, being the knights they were {since they also sacked Byzantine cities, too even when they weren’t allowed to}. In the Fourth Crusade, Western European Christians actually sacked Constantinople in 1204 that made the schism between Eastern and Western Christianity all but absolute. Not only that, but it massively pissed off Pope Innocent III that he excommunicated all who participated in it {well, he threatened to before to deter the Crusaders from attacking fellow Christians, but it didn’t work}.)

The Catholic Church had no qualms with Christian crusaders killing Muslims in the name of God. (Actually the Church was perfectly fine with Christians killing Muslims in the name of God as long as they were seen as enemies of Christendom {while killing fellow Christians and allies was a sin}. But despite what you might’ve heard, this didn’t mean that the Catholic Church allowed Christians to kill Muslims indiscriminately, since the Christians initially had Muslim allies like the Arab Fatimids. Thus, this only applied at least to the Seljuk Turks who weren’t nice to Christians to begin with, at least in the First Crusade {though it might apply to Fatimids, too, at least later}. But being the raping and pillaging knights they were, even the stipulations against killing allies didn’t stop them from killing Arab and Byzantine Christians eventually. As for the Muslims, the Crusades didn’t stop them from attacking each other either, at least initially.)

The Knights Templar had a relationship with the Freemasons. (There are claims of this but it’s unlikely they existed at the same time.)

The Knights Templar existed in 1539. (They were dissolved in 1312 by King Philip IV of France and Pope Clement V mostly due to the Templars’ wealth.)

The Knights Templar were a fanatical and ruthless militant fighters. (Yes, but so were a lot of people in the Middle Ages and they were initially like this in the early days. However, they were also skilled, pious, and occasionally highly educated fighters, cavalry, and bankers. When they became wealthier, they became less involved with fighting.They were also notoriously tolerant organization that cultivated diplomatic contacts with the Muslim world, worked with Muslim architects {influencing Gothic architecture}, merchants, and even theologians as well as disapproved slaughtering enemies if they agreed to surrender. These guys also invented dual accounting, credit cards, holding companies, corporations {they might’ve been the world’s first}, insurance, travel agencies, and modern banking. Oh, and many of these points were used against them by French king Philip IV who just wanted their gold and there were persistent rumors {that still go on to this day} that the Templars were corrupt despite most evidence to the contrary. They’re actually not as bad as most Hollywood portrayals depict.)

The Templars knew that Jesus had a relationship with Mary Magdalene resulting in the Merovingian line. (This is utter Dan Brown nonsense.)

Christian crusaders only massacred Muslims during the Crusades. (They massacred every Muslim and Christian in Jerusalem in 1098. Oh, and they even sacked Byzantine cities.)

The Knights Templar used a Roman cross in the 12th century. (They used a Maltese Cross until a century later when they were forced to change to a Roman Cross.)

The Knights Templar wore a white surcoat and black cross in the 12th century. (This is the outfit of the Teutonic Knights: the arms of Saint Mary of the Germans which was founded in 1190.)

There were a lot of casualties among the defenders of Jerusalem during the siege in the Third Crusade. (There were relatively few until the final fight.)

Balian had just lost a wife and child during the Siege of Jerusalem. (He was married with two children who were with him at the time. During the siege, he was trying to get them out of the city.)

Balian and Sybilla had an affair. (There’s no way this happened. For one, Sybillia and Guy Lusignan were definitely devoted to one even though people didn’t like them being together. Second, Balian’s wife was very much alive though she was a widow to a previous king of Jerusalem. Actually they were more likely enemies since Balian supported his stepdaughter’s {who also happened to be Sybilla’s younger half-sister} claim to the throne of Jerusalem as well as got her to annul her first marriage and marry a more suitable king.)

Balian’s wife committed suicide after delivering a stillborn baby. (She was alive and with her husband in Jerusalem. Also, she managed to give birth to two kids to Balian and would later have two more {who all survived}. Oh, and she had a daughter from a previous marriage with a previous king Jerusalem no doubt. Balian’s wife Maria Kommene was actually a daughter of a Byzantine nobleman and a great-niece of Emperor who bestowed a rich dowry in her first marriage {though the Komenes were known to experience a lot of family activities such as assassinating one another}. Oh, and they were enemies of King Richard the Lionheart.)

Teutonic Knights had swastika logos on them. (They didn’t use swastikas on anything. Still, they’re used in Alexander Nevsky as stand-ins for the Nazis.)

The Knights Templar helped pass down wisdom of ancient geometry derived the Ancient Egyptians during the Crusades. (They wouldn’t have done this.)

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 6- Vikings and Fighters

Posted by historymaniacmegan on March 21, 2014

This is from a 1928 silent technicolor movie called The Viking which focuses on Leif Ericson. The accurate details about his life featured here are that he was the son of Eric the Red and discovered North America that we know of. Still, this picture shows a popular image of Vikings wearing horned helmets, which is not only historically inaccurate but also a stupid idea. Still, this doesn’t stop teams from having such images on their sports logos.

The Middle Ages isn’t one of the most accurately depicted times in movies. Much of how we view the medieval era isn’t shaped by actual history but by how it was viewed by later generations like in the Renaissance or the Victorian era. The Middle Ages lasted for about a thousand years or show as well as experienced lots of changes, but many medieval movies may take place in one era. Yet, they may have the people wear clothes and use weapons from a later period as well as large scale battles conducted in ways that would make most medieval military minds scratch their heads. Not to mention, some aspects of the Middle Ages are more likely to be filmed than others. Movies set in the Early Middle Ages tend to be about Vikings even though they were among many of the Germanic tribes wreaking havoc all over Dark Age Europe {mostly because few surviving writings from this era exist}. Well, that or King Arthur {who may just be a mythological figure}. Also, many of them tend to focus on fighting {like large scale epic battles} and most of them would be set in England {mostly because of Shakespeare, Robin Hood, and King Arthur} though there was plenty happening throughout Europe as well. This post will devote itself to the Vikings and the Medieval warfare inaccuracies portrayed in movies since these revolve around fighting which was common place in the Middle Ages.

No group gets more movie depictions in the Early Middle Ages than the Vikings, the fearsome Scandinavian raiders that bring any settled early medieval village to its knees. Many of these guys were pagans who worshiped the Norse Gods, wore awesome gear and carried gnarly weapons, sailed on ships with gruesome figureheads, and had long light hair and beards. Of course, this is the Hollywood depiction. Yet, the Middle Ages was a time where warfare was common place, of knighthood and chivalry, castles, battles, and tournaments. However, when it comes to Hollywood, there of plenty of things that movies get wrong which I shall list accordingly.

The Vikings:

The Vikings wore horned helmets and treated their women as objects. (The Vikings didn’t wear horned helmets, it was made up by Wagner when he did his operas on Norse and German mythology. Besides, a horned helmet wouldn’t be of any practical use whatsoever. Still, the Teutonic Knights and the samurai did though. And the women didn’t wear cone bras either. Also, Viking women held more rights than most other women did at the time.)

The Vikings were a savage people who raided and pillaged in areas all over Europe. They were also filthy as well as large and muscled. (Raiders, yes, but the Vikings weren’t uncivilized savages. They also were traders, explorers, artists, sailors, craftsmen, settlers, as well as a lot of other things. They also discovered Iceland, Greenland, and North America. And as for hygiene, evidence shows they were keen on personal hygiene unlike some European peoples. And they weren’t always hated and feared either.)

Vikings were tall, big, and blond. (Actually, though they came from Scandinavia and blond was seen as ideal, they took slaves from a great many ethnic groups who later joined them. So maybe there were Vikings who looked like Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine after all. Also, the average Viking man’s height was 5’ 7” which is not tall but fairly average.)

Viking was an ethnicity. (It was more of a job description derived from their method of raiding. Also, they did carry their weapons in normal life which they used for other purposes. They referred to themselves as Norsemen. All Vikings were Norsemen but not all Norsemen were Vikings. Also, most Norsemen would stay in villages all their lives.)

Vikings were clean shaven. (Male Vikings had beards.)

All Germanic tribesmen looked and dressed alike.

Viking women usually stayed home. (Many actually did accompany their husbands on invasions and sometimes fought according to recent evidence.)

Viking funerals consisted of a warrior being burned on the boat with all his possessions. (There was also a slave girl thrown in, too, but no one wants to film that.)

The Vikings were feared from all those they invaded. (Sometimes, but they weren’t bad rulers as well as accepted as traders. Also, they and the Slavs got along much nicely in what is now Russia and the former Soviet Union. It’s said Kievan Rus was founded by a man named Rurik and his Viking band {who was a Finn raised in Swedish society} though it was already an urbanizing culture when those guys came.)

Leif Ericson fell for an English princess.( No, he didn’t. Nor did he land in Rhode Island {he landed in Canada, specifically, New Foundland or Nova Scotia}. Also, he didn’t speak Algonquin either.)

Hrothgar was a king of Denmark who met Ahmed ibn Fadlan. (Both these men existed in different eras. The Danish king mentioned lived during the 500s and wouldn’t have any contact with Muslims in the first place since Islam was founded in 622. The latter existed in 922. Of course, Vikings could’ve met Muslims though.)

The Vikings only used axes. (Vikings were all legally required to own weapons and the vast majority of Viking men and women used swords.)

The Vikings were unusually bloodthirsty and barbaric. (Well, they were living in a violent age and non-Viking armies were just as bad. However, they usually get special mention because of their willingness to destroy objects of religious value and kill churchmen, earning them a lot of hatred in a highly religious time. Also, they kind of enjoyed the reputation they had.)

Vikings were hated everywhere. (Some respected them like French king Charles the Simple who gave a Viking chief named Rollo Normandy and his daughter. In return these Vikings protected France against their wilder counterparts. Also, the Byzantine Emperors if the 11th century were protected by Swedish bodyguards in Constantinople.)

The Vikings lived only in Scandinavia and later settled in Iceland, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands. (They started settlements reaching as far as North Africa, Russia, and Constantinople.)

The Vikings used crude and unsophisticated weaponry. (They were actually very skilled weapons smiths. They could make extremely sharp and flexible swords.)

Viking funerals were solemn occasions. (Yes, but after the deceased was sent in a blazing glory, it was basically a party with feasting and fighting afterwards.)

A Viking weapon of choice was the doubled axe. (No double axe has ever been found in early medieval Europe. Also, Viking axes were light and single handed and spears are the most common weapons found on their sites.)

Viking drank from skull cups. (They drank from horns.)

Vikings were a nation. (They were a groups of warriors, explorers, and merchants headed by a chieftain.)

Viking men had tresses. (They shaved the backs of their heads like a reverse mullet.)

Barbarians:

The Huns were Asian looking. (They were from Eastern Europe or Central Asia not Mongolia. Yet, we’re not sure what the Huns looked like.)

Attila the Hun visited Rome and fell in love with Valentinian III’s sister Honoria. (He never visited Rome nor even met the Roman princess. However, he did consent to marrying her before invading the Roman Empire after she was caught in bed with her brother’s chamberlain. Yet, this had less to do with love than wanting her brother Valentinian III dead. Oh, and instead of being exiled to a convent in Constantinople, she was forced to marry a senator.)

Attila the Hun never had a bath. (He did bathe.)

Knights and Warfare:

Knights were honorable, chivalrous, warriors who wooed damsels, were faithful to their wives, and treated their subjects with respect. (Actually, many knights usually entered into arranged marriages and many of them would hump pretty much anything that moves. Also, many of these knights raped peasant women and took their aggression on the local population which was one of the reasons why the Catholic Church called for a Crusade. Oh, and prostitution was legal because it was believed to deter rape among the general population and even the Vatican had brothels. In the Middle Ages, knights in shining armor were more the exception than the norm.)

Knights followed a specific code of chivalry which depicted unwavering pillars of justice. (Knights basically followed chivalry whenever they wanted to and only respected those above them. Most of them did whatever they wanted such as rape, looting, pillaging, and killing peasants. In fact, they looting was their right since they thought the booty was owed for their services. Hell, they’d hang out at bridges and rivers in large groups where they’d pick fights with passing knights, kill peasants, and harass women.)

Good knights treated peasants and serfs like human beings. (Knights treated serfs incredibly terrible since they were at the lowest rung of society. Serfs were usually key targets of knights since they were responsible for the upkeep of an estate. And though they might not be killed by a rival knight, they’ll likely be severely wounded or dismembered so they’d be a drain on estate. If a knight killed another lord’s serf, he’d have to pay or receive a beating.)

Armor was surprisingly useless against most forms of attacks. Whenever the plot requires, arrows and sword thrusts will punch through armor with ease. This is related to:

Braveheart Brigandine: This consists of metal plates riveted beneath a leather covering with a gap between the plates. This as flexible and easy to make, and virtually useless as protection, because any thrust will slide along the plate until it reaches the gap, slides into it, and kills the wearer. Its most perverse variant is the Braveheart Pajama Bottom of War: trousers with metal plates riveted to them with *large* gaps between them so the wearer can move. These gaps allow William Wallace to chop the wearer’s legs off with ease. [From A Commonplace Book] (It’s unlikely that actual medieval fighters wore this.)

Studded Armor. Leather armor with decorative studs. This is designed to look like brigantine or similar armor to someone who doesn’t have a very good idea what brigantine looks like. The studs offer approximately the same protective value as loose change in the wearer’s pocket. However, the combination of metal studs and leather is very popular in bad historical movies, as well as the kind of bar where the patrons like that sort of thing. [From A Commonplace Book] (Armor wasn’t really useless in forms of attacks since many medieval soldiers used it in the form of chainmail, which was very heavy.)

For a medieval hero, a helmet is an encumbrance to be discarded as soon as possible, so that the hero’s face can be more easily seen and recognized. Unless it is desirable to wait until later to suddenly reveal that the armored figure is female, evil or somebody who we have already met. (Soldiers usually wore helmets in battle for good reason.) [From A Commonplace Book]

The Antagonists are Eeeeevil. Particularly if the protagonists are killing large number of the antagonists, having completely evil bad guys helps avoid any nasty moral ambiguity to the body count. Cardboard Cliche Villains don’t hesitate to promiscuously slaughter random civilians (Timeline), rape and kill women (Braveheart), not necessarily in that order (The Messenger) or toss babies into the fire (Alexander Nevsky) [From A Commonplace Book] (You see that many medieval movies operate on protagonist morality though both sides usually engaged in this.)

Protagonists can do no wrong. If a historical protagonist has actually made a belt from the skin of an opponent, or carried out a campaign of burning and pillage aimed at civilians, this will not appear in the movie (Braveheart)[From A Commonplace Book] (This was relatively common in the Middle Ages but this is right.)

Amazing Portable Siege Weapons. Enormous munitions siege weapons can always be deployed from somewhere else over medieval roads to where they are needed in whatever time is required by the plot (Timeline) [From A Commonplace Book] (These would take a lot of time and resources to assemble.)

Random Melee. Some modern fight choreographers like to show the chaos of battle by scattering fighters of both sides randomly about the field in a series of mostly single combats. (Braveheart, Branagh Henry V, etc, etc, etc.). (If you have gotten yourself into this kind of situation on a medieval battlefield, you, your companions, and/or commander are incompetent and will probably be dead in a few minutes. If you’re doing it right, you are standing in good formation with an ally on your left and your right, and you won’t break formation until your enemy is fleeing in rout, if then. Alexander Nevsky is one of the few movies that comes close to getting this right.) [From A Commonplace Book]

Only nobles fought battles. (Actually nobles were officers but medieval soldiers came from all backgrounds and most were drafted peasant foot soldiers.)

In a swordfight, you can always parry behind your back, and you must always find a set of stairs to fight on so that the loser can roll down them and die at the bottom. [From A Commonplace Book]

Knights could easily get up by themselves after falling off a horse. (Of course, wearing armor didn’t make this job easy.)

Knights fought in tournaments to win a lady’s favor. (It was battle practice and they weren’t fighting for girls as prizes. Sometimes there were prizes you wouldn’t expect.)

Knights never cheated in tournaments unless they were evil. (Cheating in tournaments was very common.)

Storming the castle through the front door was the best way to defeat an enemy. (In medieval warfare, this is the absolute worst thing you can do since it basically made the castle forces’ job a whole lot easier. Most medieval armies would usually surround the castle and hold it under siege until the resident lord or lady surrendered {though some did try to sneak in through the toilets which is also a dumb thing to do, which goes without saying}. This could take months or years. This is why so many nobles built castles back then because they were very effective defenses.)

Swords were a preferred weapon of choice for most of the Middle Ages. (Those living in the Early Middle Ages would rather use a spear or a battle axe {since they were easier to make and lighter than wood axes}. Besides, steel blades were rather expensive and difficult to make on swords. The Dark Age Europe weapon of choice was blade on stick, which they’d use for everything. Many Dark Age weapons were even passed down generations.)

Castles existed during the Dark Ages. (They didn’t in Britain at least until William the Conqueror. So if King Arthur existed, he wouldn’t have one.)

Early medieval knights were clad in full armor. (Knighthood as we know it didn’t exist yet in the early Middle Ages. Also, most knight armor we see came from the 13^th century or later.)

Open fighting was a daily occurrence consisting of two armies on a big field. (From Medievalist: “Warfare was very common in the Middle Ages (as in pretty much every other age), but medieval strategists were too sensible to frequently attempt the type of battle we often see in the movies. Having two big armies charge each other in the field was a little too risky – the outcome could go either way. Because of this, the most common type of warfare was siege warfare: an army would attack a stronghold, and their opponents would try to withstand the attack. For some entertaining views of siege tactics, check out The Lord of the Rings trilogy (you’ll find sieges in The Two Towers and The Return of the King). While there weren’t a lot of orcs and goblins running around medieval Europe, J.R.R. Tolkien was a medievalist, so some of the tactics are borrowed from history.”)

Squires assisted the knight as a sidekick. (They also had to clean the knight’s armor as well as assist him in other ways.)

Medieval armor made knights slow. (From Writing Is Cake: “Somehow, somewhere, somebody started the idea that a fully armored knight was about as nimble as lead statue. A lead statue high on quaaludes. The cliche is an unhorsed knight was ‘as helpless as a turtle on its back’. It’s not even close to true. It is true that in the late middle ages, when tourneys were big money, specialized jousting armor was made. These suits were designed for only one thing, riding a horse in a straight line with a lance. They were never designed for any kind of real war (most had helmets that you couldn’t see out of) Every other kind of armor was designed to keep a warrior alive on a field of battle and survival meant protection, mobility and vision. Even the full plate was fully articulated and knights were expected to perform all sorts of acrobatics in them; leaping into a saddle, climbing up siege ladders with only their arms (think monkey-bars), and doing somersaults.”)

Medieval swords weighed 15 pounds. (From Writing Is Cake: “Your average sword was under four feet long and under three pounds. A professional warriors sword would typically be more like three feet and about a pound and a half to two pounds. The mechanics and physics of what a sword does is based on velocity. Swords are light and balanced so the six to ten inches near the tip go as fast as possible with the least amount of effort from the end you’re holding. Even the big two-handers like a Scot’s claymore or landsknecht’s pike breaker are much lighter than you might think.”)

There was one type of battle axes. (There were two consisting of a fighting axe for close combat and a throwing axe for distance.)

Soldiers never used guns in the Middle Ages. (They did in the later years.)

Flaming Arrows were often used in battle, particularly by those at castles. (They weren’t as often used as medieval movies claim it to be. I mean before you can set the arrows on fire, you had to wrap them in a flaming material first which may make them heavier, reduce their range, and inhibit its ability to penetrate the enemy’s skin. Also, may pose as a fire hazard. So flaming arrows wouldn’t be a handy way to kill someone and medieval soldiers didn’t use them to do so. Yet, whenever they did use flaming arrows, it was usually to frighten the enemy, letting archers know how to adjust their shots, and setting targets on fire.)

Castles were easy pickings when the adult males were away. (If you think you could easily take castles in which the resident nobles occupying it are women and children, think again. Women of noble or royal birth in the Middle Ages had sufficient knowledge of warfare and combat training for defending their turf while their men were away. Also, many tradesmen of the era had their wives helping them in their craft so women armorer is possible. So the medieval notion of damsel in distress was probably a myth unless she’s trapped in a castle and being besieged by a force significantly outnumbering her. In that case, you might want to bring reinforcements.)

Swords made a clinking sound. (From Medieval Sourcebook: “From Cathy Hanley [Here is a myth, or rather] an inaccuracy which appears in every medieval film I’ve ever seen. Why is it that whenever anyone picks up or draws a sword the filmmakers feel obliged to add that annoying “ching” sound, even when the sword is drawn from a leather scabbard or picked up off a table? Anyone who has ever tried to draw a sword (I have several) will know that it’s almost impossible to produce this sound. The only way I’ve found is to deliberately pull the sword across the back of a mail glove, but this isn’t very authentic!I know it’s probably more dramatic, but it sounds so false and is highly annoying.”)

Armor was too heavy. (A knight in full harness weighed up to 60 to 120 pounds. All he couldn’t do in it was swim.)

Sword fights lasted a long time. (Most usually lasted a few minutes even if it didn’t result in killing or seriously injuring one’s opponent.)

Only knights used swords. (All soldiers used them in battles and these guys weren’t all knights either.)

All European swords were straight blades. (Most were but some did use scimitars from the Middle East, especially after the Crusades.)

Swords were easy to make. (It took many years for a skilled master craftsman to forge a high quality blade.)

Swordfights were always honorable affairs. (Sometimes they were just about trying to win and survive and a lot of knights wouldn’t hesitate to use dirty tactics.)

Knights were helpless without their swords. (Each knight had significant training in self-defense and martial arts from the time he was seven. Of course, he may not be as proficient or as encompassing against an Asian kung-fu master, but if he lost his sword, he’d still be formidable foe. Also, historic records and manuals of such do exist.)

Stronger swords were better swords. (They also needed to be durable and flexible.)

Swords always stayed sharp. (All blades need to be sharpened.)

Knights were highly likely to be killed in battle. (Conscripted foot soldiers could be killed if they killed a knight even he fought on the other side. Capturing one was better since they could fetch a handsome ransom. Captured foot soldiers were instantly slaughtered).

Swords cut through armor. (Chainmail was quite impervious to swords.)

Medieval armies amassed thousands of people. (Depends on the setting. Maybe in national wars but in situations between two lords, it’s more likely a few thousand at most.)

Trebuchets were very effective weapons that caused a lot of widespread damage. (They weren’t effective at long distances or at low arc {they threw projectiles at a high arc}. Also, the biggest damage they’d do to a large castle wall is creating a huge dent and a thump upon impact.)

Medieval soldiers had no problem fighting at night. (Fighting at night is what most medieval soldiers tried to avoid for obvious reasons, except in stealthy sneak attacks if possible.)

The Longbow killed the knight. (The cost of putting him on the field did. From Lonnie Colson.com: “It cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in today’s currency to field one knight along with the necessary supplies and retainers he would need. Even more importantly, he had to be extensively trained from the age of 5 to deftly wield sword and lance while wearing armour. That is in stark contrast to the small sum that it cost to put an arbequs–early firearm–in the hands of a common soldier with very little training. Thus it was that with the dawn of the age of gunpowder we saw the sun set on the age of chivalry.”)

Any man can become a knight. (The vast majority of knights were born into wealth. Unless a foot soldier did something exceptionally badass in battle like saving a lord’s life perhaps. But they were just as likely to be killed by embarrassing someone born with money.)

Battle axes and wood axes looked about the same. (Battle axes were lighter than wood axes since it took much less force to cut people’s heads off than cut down trees. Simple physics, really.)

	John A. Fenner on Signs of a Sociopath (with Don…
	judy thompson on The Magnificent Judgment at…
	The Very Naughtiest… on NSFW Elf on the Shelf (a. k. a…
	మానిఫెస్ట్ డెస్టినీ:… on The Indigenous Peoples of Nort…
	The Wonderful World… on The Wonderful World of Flower…

The Lone Girl in a Crowd

The thoughts and perceptions of an aspiring writer on life and the world around her

Tag Archives: Europe

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 20 – Tudor England

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 19 – The Catholic Counter-Reformation

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 18 – The Reformation

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 10- Life in Medieval Europe

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 9- Medieval England

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 8- Medieval Scotland

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 7 – The Medieval Church

History of the World According to the Movies: Part 6- Vikings and Fighters