Something a lot of people may not kno, but the film version of Ronia the Robber's daughter is actually set in 14th century Sweden.
It isn't terribly inaccurate regarding clothes, and of course it's crammed full of fantastical things. But I still want to add it to the list, because of all things set in history that aren't quite correct, it blows even Kingdom of Heaven out of the water.
| Rim Andries wrote: |
| Niels,
You make excellent points. I will keep it a lot shorter, since I am out of the door with one foot already. The director can choose to emphasize either side of legendary tales. To either completely ignore the magical or the historical would do the story a great injustice I think. Myths and legends are, for many people at least, so appealing exactly because they contain wizards, gods, demigods, enchanted weapons and the like. But as we both established, they do belong to a certain era (whether that era is the one of the characters or the original writer is up for discussion) and IMO acknowledging that -in the case of a director or art department- will only add to the overall substance of he film. It will give it the backbone it needs. Otherwise everything is up for grabs, which is cool, but it is not my cup of tea. When I wrote about LOTR and Narnia, I think it is important to add that they share a lot of elements with ancient myths and legends on face value. I mean, again Gods, wizards, portals or doors to other realms, worlds or underworlds, it is all there. The main difference is that the ancients have cemented themselves in history in way that has yet to be achieved by the "newcomers". Sure enough Tolkien and such are hugely popular, but does anyone really believe Sauron exists? Do we believe in hobbits, orcs, snow queens and elfs? I think you know the answer ;) When it comes to Arthur, Hercules and many more from history, we often see that people DID believe, to a certain extend, in gods and magic. They burned witches. They went to war in name of the same Gods that featured heavily in the myths and legends. The made art in their name, arms and armor too! So having been birthed in a fashion that seems to try and unite two worlds, the tangible and intangible. Having grown up over several centuries. Being told and retold, going through puberty and adulthood and back again. And most of all: having been, and continue to be a part of the collective human consciousness and heritage for many many generations... I simply have no choice but to look at them in a different light compared to pure fantasy or history. Needed to be fast on this one, hope it makes sense. Ps it is clear you know much more about than I do. I didn't read LOTR ( barbaric I know). I did read Homerus. But I am still in over my head here. My great love is film. Literature comes second (again barbaric I know). So forgive me if I lack the means to explore this dilemma in depth. Cheers! |
Glad your other foot stayed for a sec. :p - and it is hard to be a barbarian if you read Homer (well half barbarian unless you read it in Ancient Greek :lol: )
You are right, that no majority in the west believes in this fairy-stuff anymore; but then it's very hard to know what most people really believed in the past, since it is most often “theologians“ that do the writing. They believe in their religion/ideology and accuse those of not believing as them as believing in devilry or other bad things.
When you read the sagas (1200 AD) you actually see the mention of three kinds of people. Those who are “superstitious“ (pagan ways), those who are good Christians and then those who believe exclusively in their own power!
The percentages have probably changed today (but there are many indications that at least half of western people still believe in superstitious things or Scripture), but even in former times you likely had some people (and they were not exactly rare) that simply didn't believe in all this magical stuff and just trusted themselves.
People have through times also read myths as pure allegories or as metaphors. Myth as a way of giving examples and teach people how to behave with the right conduct in society. Did Kings, Earls and warriors in the Iron- and Viking Age REALLY believe that Beowulf fought Grendel his mother and a dragon OR did they enjoy the story and the moral lesson learned from it ? I highly doubt that, but they probably thought it very entertaining.
When Harald Bluetooth wrote in his Runestone at Jelling, that he had made the Danes Christian what exactly does that really mean? Well as King all those who followed him had to change to his religion; but privately they could have kept their beliefs.
The Catholic Church did almost nothing to convert commoners in Denmark - it was pressed down on people from the rulers - and even after the Reformation most people just kept doing what people had always done - performing the rituals as their ancestors had done having their own private beliefs as to why (as Nordic religion have no dogma and nothing you have to believe in - it is all about performing correct ritual).
Some places in Denmark farmers are still doing the rituals in secret and it could be argued that besides the upper classes Denmark was never a “real Christian country“ until modern schooling (1814) where Christianity became a subject taught by priests.
How many did REALLY believe in Communism and Nazism or were just opportunists and used it to settle scores with people they didn't like. Did popes of the Borgia and Medici families REALLY believe in Christianity or in power and money?
Crassus went to war with the Parthians despite being given a bad omen (so obviously he didn't believe in omens), but the problem was that even if only 25% of soldiers were dead sure they would loss, it would spread at a critical moment, as he had managed to kill the moral of his army. He was surrounded and was annihilated at Carrhae in 53 BC by combination of Parthian horse archers and cataphracts.
I think you will always have some that is willing to believe in fuzzy magical stuff, some attracted to organized religion with everything in neat boxes and some that doesn't believe in anything and it has probably been a constant for a very long time. Some periods have just been more dangerous to say so than others.......
So you can make films about fantastic things true to the intent of the story; some viewers would take it literal and some allegorical and some just a good story. But that is the beholders view - the story is still the same. In the Iliad the story is that gods play with the humans - what Homer's audience REALLY thought we will probably never know.
Off course the hardest things to explain to an audience is the different cultures and social norms that would be very alien to people today. So it is the directors job to explain that and for instance make sure that a Roman NEVER has arms or legs crossed in any scene (“tying knots“ was a magical way of making unfortunate victims being mute, blind, frozen, barren or stopping their hearts in both roman and viking magic) and why children coming out the wrong way with the legs first are named Agrippa and why some days are fasti and some nefasti? Why huge penises would be sticking out from many houses, as they avert evil. The list can go on and if you make historical movies it is the directors job to do it correct, otherwise they can make science fiction and fantasy.
So it is just more than arms and armour, but correct conduct and behavior if you want to make a historical movie.
So especially how people talk to each other, so you don't have “Yo, Alexander Dude“ etc - this is what often is most wrong in historical movies that people communicate to each other in modern ways.
Do you look each other in the eyes when talking? or are you casting the “Evil eye“. Do you even look at your neighbors cow?
It is likely very modern to look people in the eye. Person of lower status would have eyes cast down as the powerful eyes of the superior looked through your soul and you trembled inside of fear. Viking kings were known for their power gaze, that no one could withstand and berserkers trained their horrible berserk gaze, which turned their face into a twisted mask of rage with one eye bulging out of the socket and one retreating into the head (Old Norse: grimr = mask, today in English for instance Grim Reaper, while Danish “Grim“ means ugly - as the berserkers went for terrible and not beautiful). Probably a way to look like Odin, the master berserker (Odin means rage).
Close friends and spouses could look at each other in private, but public was public and some even took it all the way to the private sphere as well.
Even 100 years ago in Scandinavia bourgeois people would address their father in third person, even in private. So it's not dad, father, you, name, but “Mister the Doctor“.
A friend might even daringly ask a close childhood friend after they had known each other for 25 years if he could call him “you“ and would fear the response of being turned down - which sadly happened to H.C. Andersen as his friend became extremely upset and it broke their long friendship. How dared he to propose such a thing as second person pronouns between us - the friend probably thought it “homosexual“ to go so extreme lengths and there is some indication that H.C. Andersen was homosexual.
Hello again Niels,
I knew you would pay special attention to my statements concerning superstition and or religious belief in the now and in the yesterday. ;) They were rather sweeping so I expected nothing less than you picking them apart with an array of examples and arguments. Sometimes I really need to adjust to the academic level on this forum. On moments like these a part of me wishes I stayed in school and finished my college education in cultural science. Then again, maybe not, as I try to see myself as an artist rather than a scientist. A very lazy, unproductive and insecure artist but hey, that is part of the image (or so I keeping telling myself).
Having said that, I think our visions on the matter are roughly the same. Good of you to bring up culture, moral and ethical codes, social behaviour/conduct and more specific language. I feel the same way about them in terms of how important they are if one tries to depict a certain time and age. If I had more time during my previous post I would have elaborated on them too. Now I won't have to :)
I just wonder how sure we can be about them as well. Whether we know what people believed in is one thing (we cannot look inside their heads, though I believe there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest the majority was pretty gullible when it comes to "believing", at least more so than now - not counting voodoopriests in africa and wicca folk or scientology members or what not ;)) But how sure can we be when it comes to the way they spoke for example? Literature must offer a lot of references, as you pointed out, but let's be honest: writing and speaking, or even writing about speaking are completely different things. And it is not like we have audio tapes of Alexander addressing his people, just to name something. However I trust you to have a clever answer for this. Already eager to see it.
And finally: boy oh boy, you have given me a new pet project; learning all I can about that Viking stare. Not so much for educational benefits or to broaden the horizon of my knowledge, but simply for the sole purpose of mastering this technique for myself and use it in my next meeting with my employer. I feel a big raise coming up! By Odin I feel it!
I knew you would pay special attention to my statements concerning superstition and or religious belief in the now and in the yesterday. ;) They were rather sweeping so I expected nothing less than you picking them apart with an array of examples and arguments. Sometimes I really need to adjust to the academic level on this forum. On moments like these a part of me wishes I stayed in school and finished my college education in cultural science. Then again, maybe not, as I try to see myself as an artist rather than a scientist. A very lazy, unproductive and insecure artist but hey, that is part of the image (or so I keeping telling myself).
Having said that, I think our visions on the matter are roughly the same. Good of you to bring up culture, moral and ethical codes, social behaviour/conduct and more specific language. I feel the same way about them in terms of how important they are if one tries to depict a certain time and age. If I had more time during my previous post I would have elaborated on them too. Now I won't have to :)
I just wonder how sure we can be about them as well. Whether we know what people believed in is one thing (we cannot look inside their heads, though I believe there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest the majority was pretty gullible when it comes to "believing", at least more so than now - not counting voodoopriests in africa and wicca folk or scientology members or what not ;)) But how sure can we be when it comes to the way they spoke for example? Literature must offer a lot of references, as you pointed out, but let's be honest: writing and speaking, or even writing about speaking are completely different things. And it is not like we have audio tapes of Alexander addressing his people, just to name something. However I trust you to have a clever answer for this. Already eager to see it.
And finally: boy oh boy, you have given me a new pet project; learning all I can about that Viking stare. Not so much for educational benefits or to broaden the horizon of my knowledge, but simply for the sole purpose of mastering this technique for myself and use it in my next meeting with my employer. I feel a big raise coming up! By Odin I feel it!
| Rim Andries wrote: | ||||
I only partially agree ;) The scenery is still Earth right? Not Middle Earth. The story, fitting since it is an allegory, contains many mystical and magical elements but unlike Narnia or LOTR it still takes place in our world. I know Narnia has connections to the life and story of christ as well, but it takes it much much further. Arthur lives, breathes and exists on planet earth, be it in a somewhat twilight like zone where reality meets fantasy. I consider it to be neither historical nor completely fictional (though Excalibur is clearly less than historical). It really depends on the director if he wants to take the story down either path. In any case mythologies and legends are a part of history. That makes it hard to pigeon hole these kind of stories. Maybe they are deserving of genre of their own. In my opinion it would share that box with tales like Ilias and Odyssee. Though even that comparison poses more than a few problems. I know many would perhaps disagree with that assessment, but for now I will stick with it ;) |
Middle Earth was meant to be a pre historical Earth. The action taking place in LOTR and The Hobbit in what was essentially Europe.
Well Paul,
In that case I look really dumb now, don't I...? I'd better start reading the books. Never made it past Weathertop.
If it is true what you say, I apologize. I am sure some dedicated Tolkien fans might be reading this topic and the last thing I want to do is insult the man's legacy by saying something ignorant.
This shall not pass! ;)
Forgive me.
In that case I look really dumb now, don't I...? I'd better start reading the books. Never made it past Weathertop.
If it is true what you say, I apologize. I am sure some dedicated Tolkien fans might be reading this topic and the last thing I want to do is insult the man's legacy by saying something ignorant.
This shall not pass! ;)
Forgive me.
Well Paul,
In that case I look really dumb now, don't I...? I'd better start reading the books. Never made it past Weathertop.
If it is true what you say, I apologize. I am sure some dedicated Tolkien fans might be reading this topic and the last thing I want to do is insult the man's legacy by saying something ignorant.
This shall not pass! ;)
Forgive me.
In that case I look really dumb now, don't I...? I'd better start reading the books. Never made it past Weathertop.
If it is true what you say, I apologize. I am sure some dedicated Tolkien fans might be reading this topic and the last thing I want to do is insult the man's legacy by saying something ignorant.
This shall not pass! ;)
Forgive me.
| Rim Andries wrote: |
| Hello again Niels,
I knew you would pay special attention to my statements concerning superstition and or religious belief in the now and in the yesterday. ;) They were rather sweeping so I expected nothing less than you picking them apart with an array of examples and arguments. Sometimes I really need to adjust to the academic level on this forum. On moments like these a part of me wishes I stayed in school and finished my college education in cultural science. Then again, maybe not, as I try to see myself as an artist rather than a scientist. A very lazy, unproductive and insecure artist but hey, that is part of the image (or so I keeping telling myself). Having said that, I think our visions on the matter are roughly the same. Good of you to bring up culture, moral and ethical codes, social behaviour/conduct and more specific language. I feel the same way about them in terms of how important they are if one tries to depict a certain time and age. If I had more time during my previous post I would have elaborated on them too. Now I won't have to :) I just wonder how sure we can be about them as well. Whether we know what people believed in is one thing (we cannot look inside their heads, though I believe there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest the majority was pretty gullible when it comes to "believing", at least more so than now - not counting voodoopriests in africa and wicca folk or scientology members or what not ;)) But how sure can we be when it comes to the way they spoke for example? Literature must offer a lot of references, as you pointed out, but let's be honest: writing and speaking, or even writing about speaking are completely different things. And it is not like we have audio tapes of Alexander addressing his people, just to name something. However I trust you to have a clever answer for this. Already eager to see it. And finally: boy oh boy, you have given me a new pet project; learning all I can about that Viking stare. Not so much for educational benefits or to broaden the horizon of my knowledge, but simply for the sole purpose of mastering this technique for myself and use it in my next meeting with my employer. I feel a big raise coming up! By Odin I feel it! |
Well the advantage is that one can always begin to read history (science or linguistics are much more tricky just to start from scratch without help from schooling). Advice is to start with one period and the learn as much as you can about it. So you are familiar with the people, nations, major actors, religious and cultural beliefs and noms etc. and then expand from there back and forth in time.
When you can read a text from that period and understand it what is implied, then you are getting there. If you still find “weirdness“, then find out what it can mean one item at the time.
About texts from former times of behavior and speech patterns, they are often ideals. This is examples of perfection, something for people to strive after OR the opposite as examples as the worst thing you can do.
It still means that there is a cultural pressure to come as close as perfection as possible. So poetry was a very valued art form at pagan “courts“ and warrior excellence something to strive after, so you could win eternal fame (off course only a few did, but it is the cultural goal). They would do their best to copy these ideals from the myths. Whether they believed them less important, but as guidelines for conduct all important.
The gods are archetypes of certain perfections, which normal people can emulate. It is possible for a human to become a god or at least a demigod; if he can come close to this perfection and fame level.
So recorded speeches in texts - are they correct or are they worked on by the later author.
Damned good question, but it is important to remember that most cultures in former times were oral cultures, where people had insane memory training. Pretty standard feat to recite the Iliad by heart. So if trained people heard a speech, they would remember it in almost perfect detail.
But people might have political agendas for changing it after the person they wrote about was dead........
But when you make a film you have no choice to take the textual evidence as “reality“ (trying to rework it would just make it “modern“ unless you have a very skilled specialist to do so),
But as I said pagan people followed the charisma of the leader and speech was all important in roman (rhetoric nr. 1 skill), greek and nordic society, as was physical shape and bold demeanor.
Only with Christianity can you be in Europe an ugly, malformed, stuttering & cowardly King and remain King (even sometimes when insane), as people were now loyal to the divine office given by God.
The power/authority stare is something you can train; the berserker stare might only be possible if your dad pops your eyes for training when you are young or whatever it took to achieve it??
Hitler actually did a lot of training with his gaze, until he was able to make people believe he had looked specifically at them and looking through their souls at mass meetings or just driving by in car. You could have thousands of people all claiming that he had looked especially at them.
Hitler's stare and rhetorical skills was an important part of him being a charismatic leader (apparently he just doesn't work at all in film and maybe because time have changed and we are immune to that kind of rhetorics today).
Mussolini was also so popular in Italy, that must Italians actually didn't come to hear him (the exact words), but was just enthralled by his body language and the music of his voice.
For us today it is so great fun to see speeches of Mussolini; it's opera and when you combine that with bread, Romans are happy :lol:
See this speech starting after .50 min -> that body language is probably to theatrical to ever work on a Northern European audience :lol
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOv-Ncs7vQk
It's no coincidence that actors have an advantage in politics. Already a known face, they have developed the skills for public speaking as well.
But I would love to see a historical film that had as it's goal to tell the story from the viewpoint of it's age and not a modern viewpoint.
So having a film for instance about Cú Chulainn (a Celtic “rager“ as the Nordic Berserkers - another old Indo-European feature) as a hero acting like this. Guy's like this were hot stuff for women, and he makes the mistake of refusing the Goddess Morrígan when she comes offering him her love.
“The first warp-spasm seized Cúchulainn, and made him into a monstrous thing, hideous and shapeless, unheard of. His shanks and his joints, every knuckle and angle and organ from head to foot, shook like a tree in the flood or a reed in the stream. His body made a furious twist inside his skin, so that his feet and shins switched to the rear and his heels and calves switched to the front... On his head the temple-sinews stretched to the nape of his neck, each mighty, immense, measureless knob as big as the head of a month-old child... he sucked one eye so deep into his head that a wild crane couldn't probe it onto his cheek out of the depths of his skull; the other eye fell out along his cheek. His mouth weirdly distorted: his cheek peeled back from his jaws until the gullet appeared, his lungs and his liver flapped in his mouth and throat, his lower jaw struck the upper a lion-killing blow, and fiery flakes large as a ram's fleece reached his mouth from his throat... The hair of his head twisted like the tange of a red thornbush stuck in a gap; if a royal apple tree with all its kingly fruit were shaken above him, scarce an apple would reach the ground but each would be spiked on a bristle of his hair as it stood up on his scalp with rage.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%BA_Chulainn
Christian heroes - whether Arthurian or modern American heroes - are not like this kind of old school pagan heroism.
So that's why even Romans feared Celtic and Germanic warriors, and later Christians fearing Vikings. But even the Romans and Greeks had a berserker past, which they partly forgot (more like chose to forget), when they became “civilized“.
Off course the Cú Chulainn feat here is demi-god level.
Cú Chulainn means Culann's (a smith) Dog.
Cú is cognate with Danish: Hund, English: Hound (Germanic sound-shift K->H), Latin: Canis, Greek: Kyon, Lithuanian: šuo (k- > š) etc. Another old Indo-European word.
Young Indo-European warriors went together in bands on the outskirts of the tribes territory dressed in animal skins and having wolf- and dog names. After some years they returned as men and civilized members of society (married) after this animalistic youth, bandit, robber & murder phase. The evidence is even greater for wolf names, than dog-names though both are attested in many Indo-European languages.
According to Plutarch the author of the Laws of Sparta was called Lycurgos (Wolf-Worker) and he gave the rules for the military upbringing of young men from when they were 7 to 30 years of age.
Often no food was given, but severe punishment for being caught stealing. Not allowed to visit your wife, but social orders to make her pregnant, so you had to visit and impregnate her without being caught, otherwise severe punishment for desertion.
The military training was training as a wolf/dog in grand old Indo-European style; then after 30 they were men and had voting rights.
In Arcadia you had on Zeus-alter on “Mount Lykaion“ (the wolf mountain). Probably an original initiation spot for a group of kids to enter the lives as wolves and dogs and to live for years as a flock.
Romulus and Remus lead a war-band of young men, that managed to get the wives from the Sabines (the original “Romans“ were an all male group). Essentially a young wolf-pack founded Rome. Who raised them by the way........was it a wolf?!
You have tons of Germanic and Viking warriors with wolf names and myths of men turning into wolves.
Berserkers are men dressed in bear-skin, Úlfhéðnar are men dressed in wolf-skin.
They are both rage fighters and shape-changers, but berserkers are solo-fighter and Úlfhéðnar are pack-fighters.
You have Attila the Hun.....though we don't know the exact ethnicity of the Huns, they were joined by many goths.
Attila's names is in fact Gothic. Atta = Father, -ila = Diminutive ending. So “little father“.
The name of the Huns could just be Gothic for “Hunds“ (Dog), where the romans missed the -d- in translation, so a “little father“ leading his pack of loyal dogs?
Niels,
I will just say this: you rock my world...
I will just say this: you rock my world...
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | ||
Well the advantage is that one can always begin to read history (science or linguistics are much more tricky just to start from scratch without help from schooling). Advice is to start with one period and the learn as much as you can about it. So you are familiar with the people, nations, major actors, religious and cultural beliefs and noms etc. and then expand from there back and forth in time. When you can read a text from that period and understand it what is implied, then you are getting there. If you still find “weirdness“, then find out what it can mean one item at the time. About texts from former times of behavior and speech patterns, they are often ideals. This is examples of perfection, something for people to strive after OR the opposite as examples as the worst thing you can do. It still means that there is a cultural pressure to come as close as perfection as possible. So poetry was a very valued art form at pagan “courts“ and warrior excellence something to strive after, so you could win eternal fame (off course only a few did, but it is the cultural goal). They would do their best to copy these ideals from the myths. Whether they believed them less important, but as guidelines for conduct all important. The gods are archetypes of certain perfections, which normal people can emulate. It is possible for a human to become a god or at least a demigod; if he can come close to this perfection and fame level. So recorded speeches in texts - are they correct or are they worked on by the later author. Damned good question, but it is important to remember that most cultures in former times were oral cultures, where people had insane memory training. Pretty standard feat to recite the Iliad by heart. So if trained people heard a speech, they would remember it in almost perfect detail. But people might have political agendas for changing it after the person they wrote about was dead........ But when you make a film you have no choice to take the textual evidence as “reality“ (trying to rework it would just make it “modern“ unless you have a very skilled specialist to do so), But as I said pagan people followed the charisma of the leader and speech was all important in roman (rhetoric nr. 1 skill), greek and nordic society, as was physical shape and bold demeanor. Only with Christianity can you be in Europe an ugly, malformed, stuttering & cowardly King and remain King (even sometimes when insane), as people were now loyal to the divine office given by God. The power/authority stare is something you can train; the berserker stare might only be possible if your dad pops your eyes for training when you are young or whatever it took to achieve it?? Hitler actually did a lot of training with his gaze, until he was able to make people believe he had looked specifically at them and looking through their souls at mass meetings or just driving by in car. You could have thousands of people all claiming that he had looked especially at them. Hitler's stare and rhetorical skills was an important part of him being a charismatic leader (apparently he just doesn't work at all in film and maybe because time have changed and we are immune to that kind of rhetorics today). Mussolini was also so popular in Italy, that must Italians actually didn't come to hear him (the exact words), but was just enthralled by his body language and the music of his voice. For us today it is so great fun to see speeches of Mussolini; it's opera and when you combine that with bread, Romans are happy :lol: See this speech starting after .50 min -> that body language is probably to theatrical to ever work on a Northern European audience :lol Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOv-Ncs7vQk It's no coincidence that actors have an advantage in politics. Already a known face, they have developed the skills for public speaking as well. But I would love to see a historical film that had as it's goal to tell the story from the viewpoint of it's age and not a modern viewpoint. So having a film for instance about Cú Chulainn (a Celtic “rager“ as the Nordic Berserkers - another old Indo-European feature) as a hero acting like this. Guy's like this were hot stuff for women, and he makes the mistake of refusing the Goddess Morrígan when she comes offering him her love. “The first warp-spasm seized Cúchulainn, and made him into a monstrous thing, hideous and shapeless, unheard of. His shanks and his joints, every knuckle and angle and organ from head to foot, shook like a tree in the flood or a reed in the stream. His body made a furious twist inside his skin, so that his feet and shins switched to the rear and his heels and calves switched to the front... On his head the temple-sinews stretched to the nape of his neck, each mighty, immense, measureless knob as big as the head of a month-old child... he sucked one eye so deep into his head that a wild crane couldn't probe it onto his cheek out of the depths of his skull; the other eye fell out along his cheek. His mouth weirdly distorted: his cheek peeled back from his jaws until the gullet appeared, his lungs and his liver flapped in his mouth and throat, his lower jaw struck the upper a lion-killing blow, and fiery flakes large as a ram's fleece reached his mouth from his throat... The hair of his head twisted like the tange of a red thornbush stuck in a gap; if a royal apple tree with all its kingly fruit were shaken above him, scarce an apple would reach the ground but each would be spiked on a bristle of his hair as it stood up on his scalp with rage. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%BA_Chulainn Christian heroes - whether Arthurian or modern American heroes - are not like this kind of old school pagan heroism. So that's why even Romans feared Celtic and Germanic warriors, and later Christians fearing Vikings. But even the Romans and Greeks had a berserker past, which they partly forgot (more like chose to forget), when they became “civilized“. Off course the Cú Chulainn feat here is demi-god level. Cú Chulainn means Culann's (a smith) Dog. Cú is cognate with Danish: Hund, English: Hound (Germanic sound-shift K->H), Latin: Canis, Greek: Kyon, Lithuanian: šuo (k- > š) etc. Another old Indo-European word. Young Indo-European warriors went together in bands on the outskirts of the tribes territory dressed in animal skins and having wolf- and dog names. After some years they returned as men and civilized members of society (married) after this animalistic youth, bandit, robber & murder phase. The evidence is even greater for wolf names, than dog-names though both are attested in many Indo-European languages. According to Plutarch the author of the Laws of Sparta was called Lycurgos (Wolf-Worker) and he gave the rules for the military upbringing of young men from when they were 7 to 30 years of age. Often no food was given, but severe punishment for being caught stealing. Not allowed to visit your wife, but social orders to make her pregnant, so you had to visit and impregnate her without being caught, otherwise severe punishment for desertion. The military training was training as a wolf/dog in grand old Indo-European style; then after 30 they were men and had voting rights. In Arcadia you had on Zeus-alter on “Mount Lykaion“ (the wolf mountain). Probably an original initiation spot for a group of kids to enter the lives as wolves and dogs and to live for years as a flock. Romulus and Remus lead a war-band of young men, that managed to get the wives from the Sabines (the original “Romans“ were an all male group). Essentially a young wolf-pack founded Rome. Who raised them by the way........was it a wolf?! You have tons of Germanic and Viking warriors with wolf names and myths of men turning into wolves. Berserkers are men dressed in bear-skin, Úlfhéðnar are men dressed in wolf-skin. They are both rage fighters and shape-changers, but berserkers are solo-fighter and Úlfhéðnar are pack-fighters. You have Attila the Hun.....though we don't know the exact ethnicity of the Huns, they were joined by many goths. Attila's names is in fact Gothic. Atta = Father, -ila = Diminutive ending. So “little father“. The name of the Huns could just be Gothic for “Hunds“ (Dog), where the romans missed the -d- in translation, so a “little father“ leading his pack of loyal dogs? |
Sorry to burst your bubble but Clauduis and Tiberius studdered, kept little children as sexual playthings, and weren't known for being particularly brave and both were Emperors of Rome before Christinaty set in here. Paganism isn't a preventer of ignoble royalty. Nero acted like a utter lunatic andhead the office before Rome was Catholic.
| Rim Andries wrote: |
| Niels,
I will just say this: you rock my world... |
OK so here is more boat-rocking :lol:
A guide to understand what is meant to be Nordic King, Earl or Warrior before Christianity. So this is how films about vikings can be evaluated for how “historical“ they are
So a way to enter this world of pagan thinking it to remember that for them “Religion“ didn't exists as a Christian would understand it. For the Vikings it was “Forn Siðr“ - the old ways. It was ancient customs.
So if anyone makes a film about Aristocratic vikings, here is the mindset.
So what made you a real man worthy of respect:
Right actions. Preserving honour and take vengeance.
Right performance of ritual. [You could believe what you wanted, but it was mandatory to attend the great communal feasts].
Knowledge of poetry and mythology. Poetry was essentially a guessing game with use of “kennings“ - word combination that means something else or “heiti,“ that is synonyms. If you are brought up the right way, you have the knowledge to guess these things. If not you are an impostor and lowly person.
Battle-prowess and fearlessness.
Here is apparently the longest kenning in skaldic poetry - guessing games for the kingly halls:
Old Norse: “nausta blakks hlé-mána gífrs drífu gim-slöngvir“
English translation: “fire-brandisher of blizzard of ogress of protection-moon of steed of boat-shed”
Meaning = Warrior.
So it is all about correct conduct; correct speech; knowledge of myth, ritual & battle strategy; battle readiness, bold personality and being fearless of death.
This has basically nothing to do with faith and beliefs. You can believe what you want - no Odin police out there checking that - but he will absolutely check if you uphold “Guest-friendship“, “Gift-reciprocity“ & “Sacrifices at important rituals“. Odin checks actions, not beliefs.
A good Lord is seemingly poor because he is constantly giving away gifts (from the spoils of his campaigns and what his craftsmen creates) to his loyal Hird (professional warriors).
Otherwise he will be accused of being greedy and everyone will leave him. If your lord gives you gift, you pay him back with your life in combat.
Any stranger must be received as a guest and have a meal and a nights lodgings, then the must be off in the morning.
If you have been a guest somewhere, then you should also receive guest from that person or his descendants. You are bound by sacred guest friendship.
Odin goes (incognito) around checking and kills those, who don't receive him well.
Sacrifice is a communal mean between the Gods and humans. Gods get the smoke, skin and bones and men get's the rest (so Thialfi makes a great taboo in conduct, when he breaks the legs of Thor's goats to extract the marrow),
At Yule also dead relatives comes to take part in the winter-solstice feast held at the Kings hall of the local Earl - it is mandatory to attend. If he wants to show great generosity he pays for food and drink for everyone, meaning the whole shire (Herred) for 3 days.
If you are a family with friendship of Odin, then he is likely founder of your family line and will give weapons (magic swords) to promising members of your family. So Odin is the paragon you must strive after.
The god friendship is inherited in lordly families and you follow loyally this god as he is often the progenitor. It's not polyteistic in that you pick and choose between gods from moment to moment.
Odin is so cool he only speaks on perfect alliterative poetry and so if you are an Odin-friend, so shall you.
Odin knows (almost) everything. So you must strive to know as much as you can.
Odin is the master shape changer, so you must be a shape-changing ecstatic warrior as Odin's name is rage.
Odin is the master of battle strategy and he will teach you the secret wedge formation.
Odin sacrificers everyone on the battlefield to himself. So you must also sacrifice the losers to Odin.
Odin is the master of trickery - you don't lose honour if you fool people that are of a lower class than yourself. Lower class people have no honour and thus can't take offense. [well everyone is lower class compared to Odin friends, so you can trick everyone].
Odin is Allfather, so you as Lord and follower of Odin must take offense by trifles. Any offense must be met by vengeance.
Odin have many names when he travels incognito, so you must know them (at least 50), so you can recognize him if he arrives.
If Odin really likes you he will betray you (!) after he has build you up and either kill you yourself or support an enemy at a critical battle so you lose will being on top.....Why this unfairness?
Because Odin collects the best to Valhalla to fight at Ragnarökr. Odin knows he will lose. No problem, it's just makes it even more heroic. You are ready to fight with the Gods (what honour) against the giants and you will die again.
The manner of your death marks you. That is will make or break you fame. Are you on your knees begging OR die smilingly, reciting poetry in the face of certain death maybe having famous last words ready to be heard OR bite your shield and go berserk biting and clawing the enemy to death before the valkyries come to take you?
Anyways you are ready to die again at Ragnarökr as you are ready to die now.
Everything is Fame, the one thing that cannot die, so long man are true to the old ways.
If you have friendship with another god (Thor, Frey, Tyr) then the ideals will vary somewhat (they are all warriors gods though).
NB: Vikings are all about appearances.
You can only rule if you are being beautiful in body. Otherwise the land will suffer in prosperity.
Vikings are well groomed (all have combs), Nordic people wash. Fancy beards and hair fashion are followed.
You dress in colours if you are rich and show sparkly pattern welded swords, axes or spears.
Riches are hung on your wife for all to see, that you are important. Norse women doesn't wear sleeves, but show arms, but otherwise follow international fashion along the viking age trade routes.
If you are not awesome in speech, then you will never be a leader; because a lot of people are awesome and will attract the good warriors because of their charisma.
Remember you have no “self“ (Christian idea) - you are what people say you are. The Husbond is the public face of the family, and the wife the private. She takes care of the household, money and carries the key to the house - the home is her domain.
What people say you are depend on how you look and behave and on your personal fame and family line. That is why an insult must lead to vengeance. It's a duty, even if it means killing your best friend. The higher your status, the greater your honour and the easier you got insulted. Thralls have no honour and thus can't be insulted (as they have no family officially killing a thrall can't being a feud, but you have to pay their owner blood-money).
Vengeance is not “personal“: If one from family A insults family B -> then Family B must kill a person from Family A (best one of the more prominent) to really show you mean business.
It is the women's job to make sure viking men are not lazy in their vengeance or to overbearing. Your wife nag and complain until you pull yourself together and go out wrecking havoc. Norse aristocratic women are live walking valkyries and the often have “hild“ (=battle) in their names (Brynhildr = Battle-mail).
So when you understand this and no longer think it weird, but natural then you are beginning to understand the time period and why people react the way they do.
So when people makes a Viking movie this is as essential as correct weapons if it is to remotely assume to be historical.
Ragner lodbrok and his sons were Danish Odin-friends, believing they were descended from Odin. Sigurd worm-in-eye was even visited by Odin in person. These eyes of his - showing his Odin-lineage - must have made for an awesome power-gaze.
Ragner went out reciting poetry with humour in the snake-pit and what vengeance the sons took on King Ella of Northhumbria - carving the "the blood eagle" in Odins honour.
Ragner and his sons had a very different mindset and psychology, than most people recognize.
Vengeance is not about emotion, but duty -> Ella's recognizes instantly, that the son that shows NO emotion (Ivar boneless), when he hears of Ragner's death, is the most dangerous. Feelings can flare up and down. Ice cold duty never weakens.
It is people that are convinced they are more handsome, strong, intelligent, crafty and resourceful than others, because they descend from the Allfather. They are not a motorcycle gang, they are elite. As the greek would say “Aristos“ = the best.
They are aristocratic vikings.....they are born to be the best as Achilles and Alexander.
| Philip Dyer wrote: |
|
Sorry to burst your bubble but Clauduis and Tiberius studdered, kept little children as sexual playthings, and weren't known for being particularly brave and both were Emperors of Rome before Christinaty set in here. Paganism isn't a preventer of ignoble royalty. Nero acted like a utter lunatic andhead the office before Rome was Catholic. |
You are partly right, but it doesn't burst my bubble.
You are right that Christianity didn't bring that change in Rome or Greece (though it did in Northern Europe), as they choose to turn away from so called Barbarism, that still was the lifestyle of surrounding Thracians, Celts and Germans. The Persian and Aryans in India also turned away from this lifestyle without Christian influence.
I should have elaborated between two very different forms of paganism.
1) Indo-european old-school paganism, that was a lifestyle based on ancient customs (you were born into it) AND the 2) new civilized “shopping“ paganism in Rome and Greece, that was essentially “New Age“ in the old age, where you could pick and choose in your city, but they were also faith-based around certain mysteries and thinking about “salvation in the afterlife“ instead of Eternal Fame of the Indo-European paganism.
“Mystery Cults“ - whether it is Orpheus, Serapis, Isis, Mithras OR “Philosophical School“ like the ones founded by Pythagoras, Diogenes (Cynicism), Epikur. They were all choices for the INDIVIDUAL in the religious shopping mall.
You have examples of proud Romans writing that they were prominent members of several mystery cults at the same time. Early Christianity was essentially a Mystery Cult, but with the unique emphasize on exclusiveness - you cannot have others Gods.
BUT:
At this point in time the Romans had turned away from their “Barbaric“ Indo-European past and had become "Civilized".
The Christianity that evolved in Western Europe was after all Roman Christianity emerging from this civilized society.
Nordic Christianity became very martial with “White Christ“ in the transition period as the tough King, that overcomes death after being sacrificed on a cross, while singing psalms from the Old Testament.
Hey that is Odin, isn't it? - hanging on the tree sacrificing himself to himself (and Jesus is God) and overcoming death picking up the runes and always reciting poetry. This Jesus guy is probably just one of Odin's many incognito travel forms, OR more likely similar enough to find acceptance among this group of people - they would easily pick up the general idea of self-sacrifice for getting secret knowledge (rune means secret) and a salvation for only a few chosen - just as Valhalla was for a small elite].
If you don't buy the part about Jesus singing on the cross, it is from his last words in the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 15 & Gospel of Matthew, chapter 27:
“Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani“ (My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me) is from the Old Testament Book of Psalms, Psalm 22 given here: [Psalms are sung].
1) My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?
2) O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent.
So like Ragnar reciting poetry when condemned to death it's very fitting, that Jesus sings as well some famous last words.
Åby Crucifix from 1050 shows a Jesus dressed as a royal with huge crown, fancy beard and not any focus on suffering.
Source: http://culturenordic.com/wordpress/wp-content...cifix-.jpg
So the Odin followers could perhaps be accused of doing trickery as Odin can take any form and their followers decided to become Christians. A top down conversion of the people which gives you “carte blanche“ to kill of Thor OR Frey followers (Swedes mostly). They didn't care to convert the people's beliefs, as they were all select elite. You even have early Danish bishops with the name Odinkar (= “easily raging“, and rage = Odin).
The leadership after Augustus was inherited (until Nero), no more voting by the people as it was done in Viking Societies.
Rome was no longer a Republic and had mostly forgotten their past aside from a few myths. Thats why bodily malfunctioned (in the older worldview) could become leaders.
Sparta and Arcadia kept some of this Indo-European lifestyle much longer than Athens, that had become democratic, where as the old Indo-European society was class based.
Had the Romans become Christian in 500 BC Roman Christianity would have been very very different!
How about Marco Polo. The Musketeers. Black Sails and Crossbones.
I can't seem to get past the first few episodes with any of them.
Are they any good?
I can't seem to get past the first few episodes with any of them.
Are they any good?
| Rim Andries wrote: |
| How about Marco Polo. The Musketeers. Black Sails and Crossbones.
I can't seem to get past the first few episodes with any of them. Are they any good? |
The historical accuracy is dubious at best, but I enjoyed Marco Polo quite a lot regardless.
A delightful but apparently little known movie is "The Warriors" (U.S. title: known as "The Dark Avenger" in the UK)-1955. Starring Errol Flynn as a some-what over-aged "young Prince Edward" post Poiters who must rescue Joan "the fair maid of Kent" Holland (Joanna Dru) from the evil clutches of Comte Robert DeVille (Peter Finch). The dastardly Comte is attempting to overturn the "cowardly treaty made by our cringing king who is a prisoner of King Edward" in the Aquitaine. With surprisingly good armour (mostly), although the helmet of Edward's 'borrowed' black armour looks like a droopy beaked raven, lots of some fun fight sequences and richly photographed countryside and castles (the latter left over from Robert Taylor's "Ivanhoe" and "Knights of the Round Table") "The Warriors/The Dark Avenger" is well worth consideration as a really good "bad" historical movie.
| Rim Andries wrote: |
| How about Marco Polo. The Musketeers. Black Sails and Crossbones.
I can't seem to get past the first few episodes with any of them. Are they any good? |
Of the shows listed, I've only seen "Musketeers" and "Crossbones". Musketeers is fun, I enjoy it. I found Crossbones to be a terrible bore. Neither can be considered "historically accurate", but one tells a ripping story and the other... not so much.
I've found the Musketeers to be entertaining, I'm not up enough on the 17th century to state if it's historically accurate. Maybe that is a good thing! LOL
Many choices, but my favourite inaccurate history movies include The Patriot, Braveheart, Gladiator, The 13th Warrior and Pathfinder. The last one, however, is perhaps my firm favourite.
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: |
| Same goes with the Iliad: Do you make armour, weaponry and fight tactics Bronze Age (Mycenaean) or Dark Age Greece when Homer (or several people) composed it.
Homer knew very little of the Bronze Age (other than chariots had to be there and duals between heroes) so he wrote it from the viewpoint of his time. |
Only if we follow the conventional chronology that places the end of the Bronze Age at around 1200 BC. Scholarly opinion is gradually drifting towards an acceptance of some sort of "low chronology" even though there's no widespread consensus yet about how many years to lop off (depending on one's views about how to correct the chronology in the Egyptian king lists). The most extreme suggestion would chop 250-300 years off the "Dark Age" and place Homer within living memory of the fall of Troy!
| Quote: |
| (other than chariots had to be there and duals between heroes) so he wrote it from the viewpoint of his time. |
I've read that Homer had his usage of chariots in the Iliad wrong. The use of chariots should have been in similar fashion to other contemporaries use of chariots as opposed to using them as battlefield transportation as per the Iliad.
| Gary T wrote: | ||
I've read that Homer had his usage of chariots in the Iliad wrong. The use of chariots should have been in similar fashion to other contemporaries use of chariots as opposed to using them as battlefield transportation as per the Iliad. |
But we don't really know how chariots were used in the Bronze Age! It's pretty silly to pronounce Homer wrong on this account when we probably know even less than he did.
Page 4 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum