Swords In Movies

J

JDBLADE

Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
1,373
I am a "sword novice" - I have a couple of books on the subject and I have read different articles here and there. 2 of my favourite movies are Gladiator and Braveheart (which I watched again last night) - it seems to me that they pay a lot more attention to the detail of swords in movies today compared to say the swashbuckling fourties and fifties. Is my perception correct and how historically correct were the swords in the aforementioned movies?
 
Calling either of those movies historically correct is laughable. Can't comment on the swords though.
 
some of them seem to be correct like in braveheart the people weren't that rich so they had crappier weapons and in gladiator most of those weapons are correct
 
some of the swords in brave heart were correct for the times, but the claymore wasnt, and the claymore thats supposed to be the real one owned by William Wallace was rehilted by the English ruining what it was (looks like a sissies 17th century POS now). The poorer people weapons on Braveheart with the langseax like swords were quite historic, the use of deer antler as a weapon goes back to the early norse, and the wooden hammer were used. Gladiator was actually quite good weapon wise, except some were pure fantasy to look cool (in the making of it they mention what ones were), and the armor for the most part was shocking, like in one scene they had norse nasal helms, then the one Maximus wore, when they could have used more accurate pieces.

fun movies none the less. :)
 
JDBLADE said:
I am a "sword novice" - I have a couple of books on the subject and I have read different articles here and there. 2 of my favourite movies are Gladiator and Braveheart (which I watched again last night) - it seems to me that they pay a lot more attention to the detail of swords in movies today compared to say the swashbuckling fourties and fifties. Is my perception correct and how historically correct were the swords in the aforementioned movies?
Click to expand...

JD,

The weaponry in both films seemed basically OK--especially the legionary equipment in Gladiator.

However, both films took plenty of artistic license, and are far from historically accurate on many levels.

Braveheart, entertaining story though it may have been, is a travesty in the accuracy department, and it comes across as little more than an Anglo-Phobic rant--the fantasy of a modern-day Kelt-O-Phile. I'm proudly half Scot-Irish, but few things were as singularly irritating as going to local Renaissance festivals after Braveheart came out--every Tom, Dick, and Harry Scot wannabe came out of the woodwork, with anachronistic blue paint on their faces, great kilts, and bad wallhanger claymores strapped to their backs. Uggh! The Blue paint was a Roman-ear Pictish practice. Great kilts were not worn in Wallace's time. The earliest references we have to such garments come from the 16th century. And I don't know what was up with those scale armor chaps the English knights wore--I've never seen anything like that in reference to the Middle Ages. There was also no Scottish-Irish solidarity at that time--when Edward the Bruce went over to Ireland, he was killed (the Irish actually got along better with the Anglo-Irish warlords they had been living with for years, as opposed to the Scots).

The main problem with Gladiator was that so much of the actual gladiatorial equipment was fantasy-inspired--like the retarius with the skull mask/helmet, etc.

I can't really comment on the choreography, aside from saying that both films had a gritty look to them. Gladiator's battle scenes were admittedly inferior, due to what I feel was simply bad cinemetography--stuff deliberately out of focus, etc.--it just didn't work.

Peace,

David
 
Robert.B said:
some of the swords in brave heart were correct for the times, but the claymore wasnt, and the claymore thats supposed to be the real one owned by William Wallace was rehilted by the English ruining what it was (looks like a sissies 17th century POS now).
Click to expand...

Robert,

Could you explain what was wrong with Gibson's claymore? Are you referring to the fact that two-handers of that size and blade form (ie., with a ricasso) didn't come into use until much later? During Wallace's time, two-handed "great swords" certainly did exist, but they were very plain, being simply oversized knightly swords with a grip long enough for both hands.

These swords are first mentioned in reference to the Germans, when they wielded swords of this type at the Battle of Benevento in 1266. Their French opponents described their opponents' weapons as Grans espees d' Allemagne--"great swords of Germany".

Also, what you mean by the actual sword attributed to Wallace looking like "a sissies 17th century POS"?

Thanks,

David
 
Spada e Pugnale said:
Robert,

Could you explain what was wrong with Gibson's claymore? Are you referring to the fact that two-handers of that size and blade form (ie., with a ricasso) didn't come into use until much later? During Wallace's time, two-handed "great swords" certainly did exist, but they were very plain, being simply oversized knightly swords with a grip long enough for both hands.

These swords are first mentioned in reference to the Germans, when they wielded swords of this type at the Battle of Benevento in 1266. Their French opponents described their opponents' weapons as Grans espees d' Allemagne--"great swords of Germany".

Also, what you mean by the actual sword attributed to Wallace looking like "a sissies 17th century POS"?

Thanks,

David
Click to expand...

The hilt setup was what I was most referring too in regards to the movie one...I have read scottish did have longer swords at the time but they wernt common.

http://jscherr.100megsfree5.com/Scotland/WallaceSword.htm

and I just think that they should have left the sword alone, the wallace sword as pictured on this site looks, well lets just say I hate the hilt, it looks far too thin and girlish (but I'm one partial for the thicker cross guard without the elaborate rings like some rapier, or german zweihander etc. just as i'm not fond of rapier nor anything else from about the end of the 16th century. Just personal taste :)
 
Robert.B said:
The hilt setup was what I was most referring too in regards to the movie one...I have read scottish did have longer swords at the time but they wernt common.
Click to expand...

What is it about the "hilt setup" that's wrong?

http://jscherr.100megsfree5.com/Scotland/WallaceSword.htm

and I just think that they should have left the sword alone, the wallace sword as pictured on this site looks, well lets just say I hate the hilt, it looks far too thin and girlish (but I'm one partial for the thicker cross guard without the elaborate rings like some rapier, or german zweihander etc. just as i'm not fond of rapier nor anything else from about the end of the 16th century. Just personal taste :)
Click to expand...

Hmm, this doesn't even appear to be the sword I'm thinking of.

I'm thinking of the sword "attributed to Wallace" that is shown in Castles' Schools and Masters of Fence, which shows a conventional Highland claymore with a 16th century-style hilt with downturned quillons that terminate in the characteristic quatrefoil shape. I had always figured that either they had the wrong sword, or that perhaps it was re-hilted during it's lifetime, since that quatrefoil style doesn't date back to Wallace's time, AFAIK.

Anyway, I'd still like to know what "a sissies 17th century POS" means--what does "POS" stand for? Also, I understand the concept of "personal taste", but I don't see what's so "girlish" about side rings and the like--it actually makes sense, from a combative standpoint.

FWIW.

Peace,

David
 
As far as I have read, the Wallace Sword in the link shown is an old blade traditionally owned by William Wallace and rehilted by either James IV or V. The hilt used would have been, and seems to me, appropriate for their dates in the latter 15th and 16th Centuries. The Braveheart Sword is a form of an earlier Scots longsword than the claymore. Del Tin makes a version of it that is quite nice if you wish to pay the price. His was, I understand, the one used in the movie. The only real problem with its use in the film is that it didn't appear until some time later that Wallace's exploits in the late 13th Century. The other historical problem is that that I have read that such swords were never slung over the back as the movie shows, but carried in the hand over the shoulder. Also, Wallace was dead before Isabella came over from France to marry Edward, Prince of Wales, thereby making that lovely plot twist of Wallace being the father of Edward III, England's great warrior king of the 14th Century, utterly impossible. Further, Edward I was not dying at or about the time of Wallce's execution. Finally, why did they not show the Battle of Stirling Bridge being fought on a bridge, for crying out loud? It is like showing the Battle of Concord Bridge in 1775 taking place in an open field!

"Gladiator" is an OK fable, using only the historical names of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Ceionius Commodus as factual. The weaponry, other than the silly repeater crossbow, is acceptable, but the constant portrayal of the Roman troops as having blackened armor is not. Romans are known, from their records and from archaeology, as loving bright and showy things. The military was especially given to this, as it was useful in over-awing the barbarians. The Praetorian Guard is especially silly in their black armor and black cloaks, looking for all the world like a cross between Darth Vader and Hiler's SS. BTW, Marcus Aurelius never had any intention of ever leaving the imperial throne to anyone but Commodus and certainly never intended to recreate the Republic.

As has been said, the gladiatorial equippage is terrible. Please remember that the gladiaqtorial fights began as religious observances honoring a dead person at that person's funeral. They evolved into the great games of the Colosseum, but they were extremely tradition-bound, at least the duels were. The extraordinarily showy parts were the executions of criminals and the beast fights, frequently combined.
 
Sword are in braveheart were mostly Del Tins, like the 2121. Solid swords. The "Wallace" Claymore, while fuctional wasn't even close to the real wallace sword. I would have liked to have seen that sword in action. They still have it....do a search on the real wallace sword. 1 swordsmith makes repos of it. A little too big for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top