"Movie "The Eagle"-- questions for you experts" Topic

I saw this movie this past weekend. It was entertaining.

There are really only a few battle scenes that would be interesting to wargamers, and those are in the beginning.

In one scene the Romans sally out of their fort to try to rescue a patrol that's been captured by the Britons and who the Britons are slaughtering within plain view to demoralize the garrison.

The Romans adopt a Testudo formation and move out to try the rescue.

This scene is very interesting as it shows the Britons charging the Testudo and literally jumping up on top of it in an effort to break it.

It gave me a sense of what a fight might have looked like, but I wonder whether a Testudo was used in that fashion? I thought it was used at a siege to allow troops to approach a wall to storm and survive a hail of missiles.

The film is also interesting in giving a sense of what life looked like in a Briton village north of the Wall.

The main protagonists are a tribe called the Seal People. Their territory is at the top of Scotland I think. They have the Eagle that the main character, a Roman, is trying to recover.

The Seal People are, you guessed it, dressed in what appear to be seal skin clothing. They really had the look of Eskimos or Native Americans. Not at all what I pictured Ancient Britons to look like. How accurate is that depiction?

Thanks.

Movie, not documentary. There's a vital difference.

Not much of one. The doccos usually wheel out the same Early Imperial reenactors no matter what period of Roman history they are discussing.

Far point. Especially if the 'documentary' is on the Hitler Channel

Evidence of how barbarians dressed in this neck of the Empire is pretty scant for the time depicted. But they wouldn't be scantily dressed: it's pretty cold on the Wall, let alone north of it. Seal skin should be warm and waterproof. So, why not?

Guess the Caledonians might have used a fair bit of seal skin… the sheep they were using at the time don't give huge amount of wool

The missus enjoyed it, so I'm not going to say a thing more about the film.

Go and get yourself a copy of Rosemary Sutcliff's "Eagle of the Ninth" and read it through. You'll feel much better afterwards.

Allen

Go and get yourself a copy of Rosemary Sutcliff's "Eagle of the Ninth" and read it through.

And don't stop there – read the other two books in the trilogy: "The Silver Branch" and "The Lantern Bearers"

Allen,

Never expected that the misses enjoys slaughter!

Mike

I saw the movie also. Did the legions actually wear leather semented armor?

It's an auxiliary cohort; at least it's supposed to be: identified in the film as "Sixth Cohort of Gauls, Second Legion". I think the book is the same. That designation is clearly for an auxiliary cohort, "assigned" to a legion as per common practice.

"Lorica segmentata" has been found at sites associated with auxiliaries rather than legionaries; same with the pila depicted in the film; same for the rectangular scutum. Three exceptions to the stereotype may be interpreted as simple ignorance or bold re-interpretation of history. It's up to you.

Leather: not going there today. There are already sufficient threads on that issue, if you want to hurt your brain and get the Italians riled up.

Allen

I won't get riled up! Well not too much.

A movie on a similar subject was given to me for Christmas. It was called 'the Centurian'. He felt he had a similar obligtion/mission.

The Centurion is available on Netflix watch it now.

"watch it now"

I hope that's a Netflix service, not an instruction or exhortation. For all I can say about that film is, to paraphrase Saint Martha of Bethany: "Lord, it stinketh."

Allen

Saint Martha having been far too saintly to have used more pungent (and accurate) language.

Allen: I loved "Centurion". I am sure I will love "The Eagle".

I have worked in film, TV and stage and I long ago leaned to just take a film at entertainment level, and stop complaining about the rest of the shortcomings.

After all, this is a film made for entertainment, based upon a fictional novel about something that may, but probably didn't, happen to a Roman Legion at some time in the 2nd Century. Or not.

I just can't get all that riled up about the historical accuracies (or not) of films, UNLESS it is being billed as a documentary. That's a horse of a different color.

By the same token, last night I watched "Valhalla Rising" and REALLY enjoyed that one.

V/R

If you want some REALLY good Roman stuff watch SPARTACUS GODS OF THE ARENA. HAH!

At least there's Lucy Lawless nekkid in it.

Ah, but it's so easy to get it right: either following the novel, which stands on its own; or getting the history right.

I'm not talking about this in general; but when it comes to Romans, we're not dealing with a far, unknown country. It's easy. F alling off a log easy. You have to go out of your way to manage to copy both that horrible blue alien thing *and* "Last of The Mohicans" at the same time. Just like if you're (I said I wouldn't…) going to cast pre-Celtic peoples, don't take an Amazigh actor and teach him some garbled pseudo-Celtic. Just like in that other nonsense, where you don't take a Russian and expect to pass her off as a Pict. Or that *other* movie, the one with "Woads"…

It's not that hard, kids. Really.

Allen

WOW – 'Valhalla Rising.' Thought about posting on that but it would have meant thinking about the movie and it has only been two days – I needed more time.

Sorry to hear about the armor and equipment problems in 'The Eagle.' Will probably wait to catch it on rental or Netflix. Per previous threads, didn't expect anything as good as the book, but one hopes.

I knew a girl from Inverness once.

I recon she would fit right in with those seal people, so maybe its not such a fantasy as we further south would like to think.

meh, the movie is full of suck

Not to defend any of these movies, as they are all slap it out entertainment (though I enjoyed Centurion enough to sit through it on Netflix and not fall asleep), I have to say I disagree with Allen that its as easy as he says to be true to the history.

You can't find two historians in the world to agree on anything of the complexity of a movie. If you hired the best historian you could think of, and slavishly did everything they said, there'd be some other historian somewhere getting his undies all bunched up over some point of disagreement. It is demonstrable fact that Historians a) disagree on nearly everything, and b) love disagreeing on nearly everything.

I would think these forums are clearly point in fact of this truth.

It's the with economists. Put 3 of them in the same room, give them each the same question, and you will get at least 5 answers back.

meh, the movie is full of suck

Why? Were you not entertained? Was this not why you went?

YouTube link

I've never understood the reason that a decent fictional script dealing with history cannot stay true to history and be entertaining at the same time.

As Allen stated, what is difficult with sticking as close to historical accuracy as possible, instead of inventing details and such that are known not to be true?

An invented story of a Roman force, lost north of the wall would be great if it stuck to known historical costumes, cultural details, terrain, etc. No need to 'jazz' it up for the low brow types as they'd accept it just as well as the faked version.

There is enough known about the Picts to have depicted them fairly accurately. Why make them like faux native Americans?

Dan

I feel the same way about the LOTR.

It's not enough to depict the mental suffering and terrible end of Denethor from the book, the film makers have him run the full width of the citadel and dive off the end to score 9.6 9.4 9.6 in the mad kings diving event.

Trite is the word I'm looking for. :-)

Denethor had another full point deducted from his score due to illegal flame oil.

Who wants an accurate film? I dont want to see Pict-chicks who are anorexic,toothless,diseased and covered in filth while they build their dung mounds('cause you know thats how it was).I want to see busty Pict-babes,in skimpy firs.Oh,and flaming arrows.With lots of explosions.

like I said, I knew a girl from Inverness, and she would fit right in…

Plenty of Goths in Glasgow as well. NICE looking Goth girls, too.

TKindred No I was not entertained. I was nearly put to sleep. Not to mention put off by the whole lameness of the thing oh and the lack of accuracy.

Soldat:

V/R

Skinkmaster, that's called FANTASY.

In a historical film, while I don't expect everything to be 100 % accurate (it is Hollywood after all) I do like the filmmakers to have made some effort. I rather like my "historical" films to be at least a little historical, and not just a sorry excuse to give us an adult fantasy. Putting women in bikinis in a film where they don't belong is the quickest way to have me turning OFF. Even the over use of so called warrior women (yeah right, not a broken nail or blemish among them) has me rolling my eyes and itching for the remote.

There are, after all, already films to cater to THAT market. If I wanted to watch that kind of material, I'd…well, watch that kind of material, and not bother with the historical in the first place. Oddly enough, strange as it may seem to some here, I don't watch "historical" movies for the women!

I thought it was used at a siege to allow troops to approach a wall to storm and survive a hail of missiles.

You mean they weren't approaching a wall (of people) and surviving a hail of (human) missiles?

Murphy's 3rd rule of armed combat: If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

An interesting article about the film: link

A LOT OF GAUL…Interesting point of view, and I agree. Especially as I thought the inclusion of Cottias character would have made for a better film.
Of special interest is the advert for Kylie Minogues concert on the site Yum! Yum!

"I knew a girl from Inverness once."

Surely there is a song.

well, there is quite a good song about a girl from Maryhill with legs like a spider…

I'm intrigued though I do see the next line…

This may be a bit late, but I posted a brief personal review of the film on my blog back when I saw it on release. Here's a link:

link

Not terrible, but I was certainly disappointed.

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
link

To answer a part of the original question which in best TMP fashion has vanished from the 'discussion'……

I wonder whether a Testudo was used in that fashion? I thought it was used at a siege to allow troops to approach a wall to storm and survive a hail of missiles

No to the first part and yes to the second.

Why you would want to sacrifice fighting power, flexibility and pilum volley (assuming they had them) I can't imagine!

First thing that made my heart sink when I saw the preview. That apart I'm told the film is OK. Hope so I'm spending money on it tomorrow night!

"Pict-chicks who are anorexic"

I think you may be confusing the medical/psychological condition anorexia nervosa with the poverty/famine condition malnutrition

No Cottia? My daughter will be disappointed, I was dragging her on the promise it contained at least a vestige of romance to appeal to her addled 12-yr old brain…

Saw the film. Quite liked it, particularity the device that all the Romans were American actors(OK, so Donald Sutherland is a Canadian).

Still not sure about the Testudo but at least I can see how it fitted into the plot now.

Didn't mind the Seal People as much as I thought I would. In fact the only really naff bit was the last two minutes!

If they disliked EAGLE OF THE VIIII so much why did they bother adapting it?

My daughter stomached all the charred flesh & severed heads quite cheerfully

Interesting review c/o Ancient Warfare mag & blogs:
link
(There are a couple more relevant links on the home page)

"I knew a girl from Inverness once."

Only once?

Interesting review c/o Ancient Warfare mag & blogs

Yes very fair review in, terms of what I saw. Can't comment on how far the film is away from the book though, as I've never read it.

"Can't comment on how far the film is away from the book"

Imagine if Miss Marple solved murders by holding knives to people's throats to make them confess, & you get a picture of how a great story got crudely violated.

There is no violence in the book after Esca's gladiator fight.