pothos.org

I would like to raise a point about movies as a starting point to learn. As I have said I have watched Spartacus. El Cid and Even Braveheart. I can conclude the films to be fantastic. However as a starting point and read up about these guys maybe to conclude the movies made far more of them thatn they Really desreved.

El Cid Died of Natural Causes in 1099 as a feudal king in Valencia. Spartacus was killed on the battle Field and William Wallace never faced a full scale English army on oepem battlefiel. The Siege of Sterling he simply Ambushed English Soldiers as they crossed a bridge. I would guess that many a such movie is the same. Yet with Alexander and maybe a reason a good Alexander movie cant be made is that Alexander the Greats story is greater than anything portrayed in his movies if that makes sense. Upon starting with watching Any of the movies and you start reading books histories we find a character that out did any legend or folk law that could be added to a movie for effect.

We can make up stories about winning battles against odds. Recovering from fatal wounds. Beseiging the impossible. Even Alexander taming Bucephalus is pure Horse Whisperer crossed with Walt Disney. Alexanders life is fantsical without been fantasy.

Kenny

jasonxx wrote:... and William Wallace never faced a full scale English army on oepem battlefiel. The Siege of Sterling he simply Ambushed English Soldiers as they crossed a bridge.

Hi Kenny,

Well, not entirely true. At the battle of Falkirk Wallace did face an English army in open battle - and his own force was cut to pieces, largely because of Edward I's use of archers and the defection of Wallace's cavalry, which was what he relied on to get rid of the archers. His infantry were formed into schiltroms, against which the English cavalry were useless; but as the schiltroms were equally useless when being shot at by archers, they disintegrated and the English cavalry charged into the squares and massacred the Scots.

The battles of Stirling and Falkirk in Braveheart bear little resemblance to either the terrain or the tactics (apart from the cavalry defecting at Falkirk), but the outcomes were the same.

ATB

For what ive learned about Braveheart is its mostly made up. The Bruces were made to look villainous. Yet what ive read is Robert The Bruce was the inventive and military leader.

Kenny

jasonxx wrote:For what ive learned about Braveheart is its mostly made up. The Bruces were made to look villainous. Yet what ive read is Robert The Bruce was the inventive and military leader.

Interestingly enough, the way the Bruces were portrayed in the film was pretty accurate. Robert Bruce the younger (the one who became king) was one of Edward I's chums, and did indeed join the rebels two or three times, each time coming "back to the fold" when it was politically expedient. It was only in 1306 (or 07 - can't remember exactly) that he finally planted his standard in the soil (so to speak) after murdering the Red Comyn.

What they did do wrong in the film was to make Bruce's father a leper - it was the Bruce himself who (supposedly) suffered from leprosy towards the end of his life.

But the Bruce was a pretty good military leader. Ironically enough, he was better than Wallace at guerrilla warfare, while the Wallace was actually a rather better commander in a pitched battle. But in the end Wallace was defeated in pitched battle and the Bruce won in one.

ATB

Marcus hail

Do you recall a Channel 4 programe presented by Tony Robinson. Apparently following Wallaces trouncing. didnt he scarper to France. If the tactic of long spears was used against the English cavalry.Indeed that was tactically good thinking. In any period of war throughout the ages it would have been the best way to stop Cavalry in its tracks. I guess if Darius had sharpened a few long sticks he would have halted Alexander.

Kenny