Swords were obviously just big pieces of wood about 1/2" thick spray painted silver. This, plus most of the armor shown is about 700 years ahead of it's time.
I noticed that too, they did have real swords, but often they were fake. I was impressed by the armor of course, but disappointed. That one guy that never takes his breastplate off looked like a Spanish Conquistador, and the Chief dude was wearing full plate, which was far too advanced for the time.
Indeed the plate armor was a bit out of time. One of the Vikings was wearing at Gladiators helmet. I would love to know how he got a hold of what would have been quite an antique even in the thirteenth century. As for the size of the swords, they are not inconsistent given the lack of steel in this period.
The armor was reasonable based on several facts.... First, the Northlanders were travellors and pillagers, scavengers and traders. They made their own armor of wood and leather whe in there own lands. They traded for, stole and scavanged armour and weaponry in their travels as well as taking from fallen invaders (Romans, Spanish Conquistadors, Moors and Karzacks). It was also not unusual for a warrier to carry fire hardened Wooden "Swords" until they found, purchased or scavanged metal swords.
I like some of the comments here, but what I want to know is where all of the bears come from that these guys get to wrap themselves up with. I mean, there appear to be hordes of people all wearing bear skins... ?!?!?!?
Leveler is right about the armor, and it really doesn't matter if the swords were made of wood and then painted, do you want the actors to get hurt or something?
C'mon now dudes. This movie was supposed to take place around the same period as the Roman Empire. If not after. Vikings didnt show up until after the roman empire I do believe
I recently saw a brief television biography about the Italian film director who made the famous "spaghetti western" trilogy with Clint Eastwood's character 'The Man With No Name'. He prided himself on having painstakingly researched Civil War History to the point that he kept reproduction photos from famed historical photographer Matthew Brady in his lap to assure authenticity! As much as I admire that dedication to detail, unless I am also versed in the subject, I sadly don't know spit about it and therefore am forced to be entertained rather than looking for the glitches! I believe that accuracy is a valuable tool for modern young movie fans whose only brush with "truth" may be for that golden two hours. Movie-making is such a complex business that it is a miracle to me whenever anything exciting, thought provoking, or emotionally moving actually becomes a living entity in the editors/directors passionate hands. But it's still fun to find the "slip ups" and look for them I will!!
I have no idea where Pwitty got the idea that the movie was supposed to take place during the Roman empire. "Vikings" (in the significance of the term" did not exist as a "group" until after the fall of the Roman Empire. And for that matter, neither did Islam - which, if you recall, is what Ibn's religion is. Ibn in the movie was based (very loosely based) on a real Arab explorer (Ibn Fadlan) that really did meet up with Vikings at one point. Anyway - I don't believe the movie ever stated anything or gave any kind of impression that it was supposed to take place during the Roman Empire. Also, the earlier comment about how the Vikings could have gotten some of their armor from Spanish Conquistadors is also "interesting" in that the Spanish Conquistador is a 16th or 17th century thing, NOT a Viking era thing (though I may be mistaken).
"Eaters of the Dead" takes place in 10th century (900s ad).
Vikings flourish about 790ad - 1100ad (extends to 1450ad but later times mostly trading).
Romans => 27bc - 476ad.
Medieval times => 5th century ad - 1350ad (sometimes listed at 1100ad - 1500ad).
Conquistadors => 16th century (1500s ad).
Pax is right, how did Halga get the gladiator helmet? :) I was wondering that myself.
Viking ships are wonderful, and do great things, but unless it has a flux capacitor, NO way in hell can Vikings get Conquistador armor. The only thing I can say about this is that Conquistador armor could be influenced from the old gladiator days (so maybe Helfdane's armor is a interpretation of gladiator armor picked up), but otherwise I agree that the full-plate armor is off for its time. They should've kept everyone to leather, chain, ring, and scale armor. I'd rather see the Vikings wear no armor (after all, they're tough as heck, no?) than wearing distinctly Conquistador armor. I don't like Buliwyf's full-plate armor either, but I did like that he had a real Viking helmet. All the swords are Viking swords with that particular grip and pommel... Except I don't know if a Viking would fight with a short axe and daggers like Edgtho did... Also, there is no way you can convert a straight sword into an accurate saber like "Ibn" did (all the properties would be messed up)... that's stretching reality way too much. How hard would it have been to say the Arab brought his own sword?
OK about the timing of the movie:
I thought the bad guys were referred to as the Tartars at some point. This is what Marco Polo called the Mongols (IE Ghengis Khan, Kubilai Khan etc.) when he went on his expedition around Europe / Asia in the late 13th century (1200s).
By this measure the movie must surely be in 13th century Eastern Europe / Western Asia
First, the weapons were well made and realistic. Second, not all the skins were bears skins. They were fashioned together by other furs, etc. And they may have been handed down or saved for other generations. And the armour was perfect for the time. And they didn't make it, they also traded it with of civilizations. Or barded for them, w/e. And it's way after the Roman 'or whatever' age..
Vikings (poeple of the wik, or creeks on the coast) were the barbarians (I use the term very loosely) appeared long before the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, and were excellent warriors, taders and opportunists. Regular envoys were sent from the Northland to the Romans and elswhere. The so called 'classical' dress of the Norseman (horned helmets and giant axes) were common about 400 years previous to this time period. The swords of the Norsemen did indeed look 'ratty and woody' due to designs that they thought beautiful (the blades looked very unrefined and coursely wavy). Mostly, the movie men got the details correct.
all right... where to begin. First thing. The vikings and saxons, (same religion, pretty much same people) have been around since the early AD years, but it couldn't be during roman times because of Islam, since that didn't some around till about 800 AD. The vikings were known to steal armor from theyre enemies, so small amounts of plate like in the movie is explainable. What many are calling a "gladiator helmet" is acutally a Scottish Burgonet, and the vikings had colonies in Ireland and Scotland so that is also possible. What looks like wooden swords is actually just steel aged a little bit. I have many swords, and if you spar a lot and dont oil them regularly, they will look a lot like wood. And that "conquistador armor" looks as if it were not quite of the 1500's period. One thing i cannot accept is the part where Banderas grinds that proper broadsword into a scimitar. That would ruin the temper of the steel and make the sword useless in combat. It would bend upon the first hit. Another thing. The way the bad guys look is plausible if the area they are in happened to be in Brittania. Remember the Celtic Druids? And on the fact of them wearing bear skins, the vikings earned bearskin vests as a sign of manhood. The word berserker came from Bear Jerkin, or a corruption, Bear zerk.
![[Slipups.com Logo]](/images/slipupslogo_small.gif)
