love

Author Topic: Life in England: 100 AD to the 19th Century, with as few Kings as possible!  (Read 19596 times)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100


Who's that then?
I dunno, must be a king.
Why?
He hasn't got shit all over him.



Such was my process of elimination when pulling this marathon together. I wanted a people's history, a history of the common man... a history of the people with shit all over them. Those are the stories I want to hear more about.

The trick was finding a film set in every century from the fall of the Roman empire to just before World War I. A relatively easy task if you're looking for a story about a royal and a film that hardly ever leaves the castle, but much harder if that's precisely the sort of thing you're looking to avoid. And indeed in a few cases it was unavoidable. Nevertheless I shall endeavour to draw out as much everyday culture as I can, where I can.





Noblesse oblige.
What the bloody hell does that mean?
It means: my nobility obliges me to recognize the virtue of an exceptional commoner.



That's the spirit!
Now here's the list:

Film   Year   Time Period   
Boudica   2003   1st   notes
Centurion   2010   2nd   notes
The Last Legion   2007   5th   notes
King Arthur   2004   5th   notes
Tristan & Isolde   2006   5th   -
The Vikings   1958   9th   -
Alfred the Great   1969   9th   -
1066: The Battle For Middle Earth   2009   11th   -
Becket   1964   12th   -
Ironclad   2011   13th   -
John Wycliffe: The Morning Star   1984   14th   -
A Knight's Tale   2001   14th   -
The Reckoning   2002   14th   -
Anazapta   2002   14th   -
Luther   2003   16th   -
God's Outlaw   1986   16th   -
The Draughtsman's Contract   1982   17th   -
Restoration   1995   17th   -
Stage Beauty   2004   17th   -
Plunkett and Maclaine   1999   18th   -
Sense and Sensibility   1995   18th   -
Woodlanders   1997   19th   -
Far From The Maddening Crowd   2014   19th   -
Great Expectations   2012   19th   -
Persuasion   2007   19th   -
The French Lieutenant's Woman   1981   19th   -
Oliver!   1968   19th   -
The Importance of Being Earnest   2002   19th   -
Pride & Prejudice   2005   19th   -
The Sailor's Return   1978   19th   -
Tess   1979   19th   -
Under the Greenwood Tree   2005   19th   -
The Golden Bowl   2000   20th   -
Howards End   1992   20th   -
A Room with A View   1985   20th   -



A few things to address about this list. It's clearly weighted towards the 18th & 19th centuries (I'll learn the proper names for these time periods when I get there), and it seems the reason is there's just more history available. The further back you go the less there is to adapt stories from. Fewer people recording it, or the records simple getting lost. A lot of reasons I guess. Supposedly there were Druids in Britain who might've kept an oral history, but Caesar and the Romans killed them all. That sort of thing.

The list is by no means comprehensive. It's simply a gathering of films that I haven't seen that I think look good and believe will motivate me to dig deeper, get some historical context, and hopefully learn something. I've obviously favoured more recent productions wherever possible. Part of that is personal preference, but it's also because this is a marathon about English history, not film history. ;)

Anyone is welcome to follow along. It will not be a particularly fast pace. My hope is to have it finished by the end of the year.





For England, James.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2014, 09:46:23 AM by smirnoff »

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
5 in my Top 100!

You're speaking my language smirnoff. :)

I am most definitely following along!

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Love it, 'noff!

verbALs

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • Snort Life-DOR
Once you remove the royalty, this becomes very difficult. So you did well finding so many films pre-Tudor period. They weren't called the Dark Ages without reason.
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Indeed, I'm learning this first hand! :)

One further justification for favouring newer productions... thanks to the hard work of archaeologists like Clovis we have more information now than we did in previous decades. I hold out some little hope that this new data has been taken into account when the stories were adapted. Probably not, but we'll see. Not that I'm looking for historical accuracy really, just good stories told well, and that shed light on everyday life. History wise dramatizations end up doing whatever they want. I'm okay with that.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Boudica



Disclaimer

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to English history. I'll be learning as I go, using wikipedia to get the broad strokes and more detailed sources where I can find them. I'll try not to take the official version at face value, or any version for that matter. I'll use whatever good judgement I can muster to read between the lines and make my own interpretations. That seems to be how the good historians do it anyways, so why not give it a try.



Historical Context!

First we need to fast forward history and get to 100 AD and Boudica. I'll start after the ice age. I mean you can go back and back forever until you get to the big bang but...

If we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws.


So to hell with that, I'll assume everyone knows how fish became wooly mammoths eventually, or however that timeline goes. Lemme just summarize and say: there's an ice age lasting from about 110,000 to 12,000 years ago, and by the end of it the sea level has risen 400 something feet and created an island which no one had a name for yet.

It might've looked this awesome.

Eventually people from another area with no name (but which we can call the northern part of the Iberian Peninsula) came and repopulated the island, which was habitable again thanks to warmer weather. Hunter-gatherers as I understand it. They had clay pots, they built stonehenge and eventually figured out that tin and copper make bronze. Tada, we're already at the Bronze Age!

Looks like a man trying to shave, circa 2500 BC.

Iron age is just around the corner. Mutton chops, still a few millennia away.

The culture was tribal (collectively history calls the people Celtic), they spoke Brythonic, and eventually learned agriculture. By the first century AD the tribes had somewhat consolidated into about 20 groups, from who knows how many. Presumably that was a result of a lot of fighting amongst themselves.

Now we come to pre-Roman Britain, first century AD, and Boudica's time. Britain was right at the edge of the empires boundaries at that time.


Actually I should back up a bit if I'm going to mention Gaul. Gaul was not so dissimilar to Britain before Rome came along. Tribal Celts. But around the beginning of the first century BC (we're talking BC again), Rome started taking it over, and by 51 BC Julius Caesar had finished them off (meaning killed or taken most of them as slaves). And during that time he'd made a move on Britain. Twice! The second time he managed to install a king friendly to Rome (Mandubracius) as leader of the most powerful tribe in Britain, Trinovantes. You can find their territory on the map above.

The idea was to set up a Roman "client kingdom", which was what some native tribes opted to do instead of fight the uber-powerful roman army. Self-preservation being the idea and protection from other tribes.

I got you're back, bro.

It wasn't the worst thing in the world I guess, but it must've come at a helluva cost. You had to provide tribute in the form of slaves (you're own citizens), or grain. Things like that. And sometimes Rome preferred this structure to trying to rule the people outright. And for the tribes what was the alternative? It's easy to say fight for independence or die trying, but I think it's more complicated than that. I'll come back to that question later.



Boudica time! Mid-first century AD

So in spite of limiting Caesar to establishing a mere Client Kingdom in Trinovantes, over the years Rome would continue to impose itself upon Britain, and slowly they established a greater presence there. During that time, and under Roman influence, Britain would reach the Iron age, and advance their agriculture and architecture. Not everywhere, just where the Roman's held sway. The same soldiers who were pushing back the tribes would eventually retire and create veteran colonies in the areas they conquered. So you kind of had two Britains: areas with Roman Ex-pats and areas with Celtic tribes who were slowly being swallowed up by force or by surrender.

Now we come to Boudica, finally, and it's a fascinating story. Here's where things stand roughly.

Everywhere else is just other unconquered tribes.



First question, how the does the film stand on it's own? I watched it ignoring all of this historical context. Is it a good story, and is it a good movie? I found it to be very unsurprising. It quickly sets up Boudica as the heroine, and the Roman's as evil. She's been betrayed and horribly abused by the Roman's, who are trying to enslave her people and steal her land. From there it's a series of predictable events. Eventually she leads her tribe in battle against the Romans.


It is not a nuanced portrayal. One side is unquestionably in the right, and the other side is totally in the wrong. In that way it is not unlike a film I do enjoy... Braveheart. So where does Boudica go wrong if it is following the same formula?

It really is a vexing question for me. As I sit here thinking about it no one obvious explanation comes to mind. The easy answer is to say the acting is better, the production values are better, the music is better, the writing is better... and I believe all of that is true, but it's not satisfying to just say it. It feels like I have the answer without being able to explain where it came from. And if I can't explain it, then how much do I really know?

For starters I think Braveheart does a better job setting up William Wallace and his countrymen as relatable people. Peaceful honourable folk, if left to their own devices. They work their land, they have children, they get together as a community and sing and dance. Everyone does their share, and there is a respect amongst them. It seems like any other harmonious community, with many different personalities co-existing. And it's fun to watch them interact.


Boudica begins with her narrating about how her people had just won a great victory and defeated all of their enemies. She goes on to say this is the story about how she became the "warrior queen of Britain". Meanwhile decapitated heads are presented to the King of the tribe, Boudica's husband Prasutagus, and there's a lot of sword waving, yelling and drinking. She concludes the opening monologue with the line "then the Roman's came to our land". The movie gives that line an ominous beat.


Hardly the endearing "get to know you" opening one might need if they're going to root for you down the road. Severed heads and debauchery? Does it make me an intolerant prude for not not relating to that? And who were these "enemies" you defeated, whose heads you made trophies of? Probably a fairly similar people to yourselves, who didn't happen to win the battle.

The difference is obvious. And because of the type of movie Boudica is, presenting her as a righteous hero whose courage deserves to be honoured throughout history, it's a bit of a sticking point for me. If even a film worshiping this character cannot present her community as peaceful and good-natured, what must've the real Boudica and her tribe have been like? One can't help but wonder.

At it's core that is the problem with this film. There's a false note right off the bat and everything that follows is subsequently out of tune. Both the Romans AND the Iceni tribe seemed rather savage to me, and the Iceni even in this depiction were more bloodthirsty. But the fact is it's the Roman's who were invading the Iceni lands. The Iceni, no matter how brutish, must have some right to self-determination, provided they keep to themselves, no? I don't really have an answer to this question, and the film certainly doesn't either, but it's interesting to consider nonetheless.

After the death of her husband and some horrible, horrible abuses by the Roman's she leads her people in a rebellion against the invading Romans. She defeats them not just in her own territory but goes on to drive them out of other Roman communities that have been established on the island, killing women and children along the way. The film doesn't ignore this fact but it glances over it. And if you think I'm exaggerating the film's hero worship, I'm not. At the end we cut to modern day and an image of Boudica's statue in London, and the music swells as if we just canonized a saint.


It's quite offputting and feels undeserved. Of course I'm aware that many such false heroes exist. Every culture has them. Even William Wallace has a statue, and I'm sure he was no saint either. But Braveheart never goes to such lengths to suggest it is "the true story", as Boudica does. Within the film I am convinced William Wallace is a hero, and so the movie works. It's an inspiring story, even if it is just a story (and it is). I'm hesitant to admire Boudica on any level though, within the story or without. It's a story fraught with complications, that the film itself ignores, to it's peril. It ought to have done one of two things: embraced the complications which existed and presented the history in all it's messiness; OR changed the history so there were no complications which would allow this sort of hero story to work, as Braveheart and others do.



So what really happened?

The history around Boudica is absolutely fascinating. The more I read about it the more interesting it is. It may seem like the Roman's invaded the Iceni and that's the bottom line, but it's hardly so clear cut.

Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (aka Claudius, aka Jean Claudius Van Damme) had his troops troops invade Britain south of the Iceni tribe in 43 AD. Unlike Caesar he established a permanent Roman presence with direct control over the territory, not just control through puppet Kings. Britain was attractive because of it's natural resources, and as a source for new slaves. It was also a stronghold for rebels which continually raided the mainland and retreated to the island. So on the one hand I can kind of understand the invasion and on the other it seems like a military superpower continuing a brutal expansion. It's not hard to imagine the sentiment of the time, on both sides. The more I consider it the less sure I am about what was right and what was wrong. And all the while I'm thinking, how do we eventually go from this to where we are today? Hah, I'm jumping ahead.

Before Claudius's troops ever crossed swords with Boudica and the Iceni they faced other tribes, such as the Catuvellauni lead by Caratacus. Scroll back up if you want to find Catuvellauni on the map. His circumstances were not unlike what Boudica's would become. Surrender or try to fight. Caratacus opted to fight. One estimate puts his troop strength at 40,000 men!

That's like this entire stadium worth of people:

Just to put it in perspective.

Caratacus would ultimately be defeated after a long fight, flee north, get himself captured and handed back over to the Romans, and be sent back to Rome as a war prize to be killed. Now here is where it gets crazy. Before he's killed Claudius allows him to speak at the Roman senate. Now before I even get to what he says and what happens, just let that sink in. He is allowed to speak at the senate! An enemy of the state, who has warred against Rome for years and taken many Roman lives with his guerrilla tactics, is eventually captured, returned to Rome and allowed to address the Senate.

My god, did this really happen?! This is already an incredible story. Just that alone. I can't help but think about what a modern day equivalent to this might be. The obvious example would be Osama Bin Laden, or Sadam Hussein. What if after either one was captured they were returned to America, and before being executed they were allowed to speak freely in the Senate, for all the country to hear? It's unbelievable isn't it? In the world we live in today I literally cannot imagine that being allowed to happen.

This is what Caratucus is purported to have said:

 
Quote
If the degree of my nobility and fortune had been matched by moderation in success, I would have come to this City as a friend rather than a captive, nor would you have disdained to receive with a treaty of peace one sprung from brilliant ancestors and commanding a great many nations. But my present lot, disfiguring as it is for me, is magnificent for you. I had horses, men, arms, and wealth: what wonder if I was unwilling to lose them? If you wish to command everyone, does it really follow that everyone should accept your slavery? If I were now being handed over as one who had surrendered immediately, neither my fortune nor your glory would have achieved brilliance. It is also true that in my case any reprisal will be followed by oblivion. On the other hand, if you preserve me safe and sound, I shall be an eternal example of your clemency.

It's kind of a wow moment isn't it. And sure enough Claudius pardoned him (PARDONED!) and allowed him to live in peace in Rome. That's how the story goes anyways. Maybe they really did pardon him. Was it clemency bourne of guilt, or just a politically smart move? Did it even happen at all. It's hard to be sure. It's even harder to imagine any part of this story happening today, and that makes me wonder about a lot of things.

To tie back into the Iceni and Boudica: As it happens, after Claudius's invasion they voluntarily allied themselves with Rome. Was it perhaps because of Claudius show of clemency for Caratucus? I haven't read so anywhere, nor do I have any idea if that information would ever have found it's way back to Britain. Perhaps they voluntarily allied themselves after seeing the overwhelming strength of Claudius's army, including elephants!

We're screwed...

Either way they became pro-Roman Allies, but preserved their independence (for now). Something sparked a revolt though, and it's said it was a reaction to the Governor of the time making plans to disarm the tribe. Again, I can imagine the thinking on both sides. It certainly must've seemed like suicide, or a guaranteed road to enslavement for the Iceni. From the Roman point of view I wonder about the intent. It would certainly lead to abuses, having a defenseless population and the mercy of an armed government who didn't exactly think the citizens were civilized. But who knows, maybe the they really didn't mean ill. Lots of countries today have disarmed the citizenry. In some cases it does lead to abuses, and in some cases perhaps it's contributed to the peace. Bondo? You've studied the effectiveness of these sorts of policies, right? If you're reading you should chime in. Actually, if anyone is still reading, bless you. :))

Now some sources suggest it was this dis-arming policy that sparked the revolt, but others say it was what happened when Boudica's husband (Prasutagus) died. You see there's this Roman law that said allied kingdoms could remain in the hands of the tribe leader for the remainder of their life, and afterward the kingdom would be inherited by Rome. Unless, that is, the allied King had a son whom could inherit it instead. But Prasutagus and Boudica had no sons, just two daughters.

Upon his death Prasutagus tried to find a legal loophole. He wrote a will that said Boudica would be co-heir to Rome. It didn't fly though.

"...it looks like a bunch of fancy lawyer tricks."

Prasutagus' will was ignored and his kingdom was annexed.

However the revolt first started, according to Tacitus (a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire, and the source for much of this history) Boudica and her daughter saw themselves beaten and raped. The movie depicts this happening after they present themselves at the Roman camp and declare that the alliance is ended, and that Boudica will rule the Iceni lands. Instead of killing Boudica and her daughters after their abuse, they are allowed (or made) to walk back to their village. Perhaps as an example, or because of some other reason.

Additionally, after hearing Prasutagus had died Roman financiers decided call in their debts. Presumably they figured if there was any hope of getting paid back it was now, before things dissolved. Talk about getting kicked when you're down!

It's been suggested Prasutagus lived-large on borrowed funds though, and those debts didn't just disappear because he died. As much as the Roman's may have demanded in tribute, it's also possible Tribal leaders held some of the wealth back for themselves, and borrowed on it. It's hard to imagine a system of credit existing back then. It seems like a crazy time... I can't imagine someone lending money in that environment, which makes me think perhaps my image of what it was like is rather more uncivilized than it actually was.

The Roman's and the Roman occupied area that Boudica targeted for attack was poorly defended and quickly overrun. The first was Camulodunum (refer to map) which had devolved into a more Roman city, with more modern structures, including a temple dedicated to Claudius. It's been speculated that Camelot's name may have been derived from this city. Either way, it was really poorly defended but highly populated when Boudica attacked it. Some say 200 troops protecting 30,000 people. Needless to say it was a massacre. The Iceni didn't take prisoners and left no one alive, and systematically burned every building to the ground, despite the building's being very resistant to burning.  Archaeologists have found the widespread layer of ash left from that destruction. One historian says that the noblest women were impaled on spikes and had their breasts cut off and sewn to their mouths. So, pretty ugly treatment on both sides if any of it is to be believed.

Next her army went to Londinium (London), which wasn't much of a city at that point, but a significant center of commerce nonetheless. Boudica destroyed it too. Easily, because the small Roman force abandoned the city before Boudica arrived, leaving the citizens to fend for themselves. They were all killed, it would seem.

Though almost certainly exaggerated, the size of her army has been estimated up to 230,000 strong.

After that is where the real battle began. The Roman's, having abandoned a few cities to save the province, finally consolidated and confronted Boudica's army. To hear it described this battle is a really good example of why the Roman army was so effective. Hugely outnumbered, but their equipment and tactics saw them destroy Boudica's army. You probably can't believe any of the numbers you read, regarding casualties and troop size, but you've got to start somewhere I suppose. One report says 80,000 Britons fell, while only 400 Roman's were killed.

The film really fails at portraying the size of these armies. It feels more like a small skirmish compared to what history describes. Reading through the details of these battles really helps bring it to life.

I find it a pretty interesting story all told. Boudica resolved to preserve the Iceni tribe's independence or die trying. And die she did. The film portrays it as a sort of accomplishment, but the truth is the Roman presence on the island hadn't even reached the peak of it's power yet. London would be rebuilt and replace Camulodunum as the commercial center for the Romans, and their territory would expand well west and northward, through Iceni lands and far beyond.



Closing thoughts

This has been a enlightening start for me. While I don't have much sense of the day to day lives of the Iceni, or the Roman ex-pats who lived in Britain at this time I have some idea of the territorial powers that existed, and how they interacted. So it's been pretty good at setting the stage, if not providing me with intimate knowledge. My god there's a lot of good stories contained in this one century, on this one island! But I've got to move on. Next film is The Last Legion, so I'm kind of skipping right over the peak of Rome British presence. It can't be helped. There's just a lack of films covering that period. That's alright though, it'll just give me more to read for historical context. :)

ps. I'm sure I'm some kind of hypocrite for liking Braveheart. :))

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
That was a fun read. I don't know if you're still taking suggestions or anything, but I think the Michael Fassbender movie, Centurion, might provide some additional insight into the Roman rule time. Here's the IMDb synopsis: Britain, A.D. 117. Quintus Dias, the sole survivor of a Pictish raid on a Roman frontier fort, marches north with General Virilus' legendary Ninth Legion, under orders to wipe the Picts from the face of the Earth and destroy their leader, Gorlacon.

It is, if I remember correctly, from the other side of the fence or whatever, but I do remember there being some pretty good stuff in there.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
That seems like the perfect follow up film to compliment this one, or act as a counterpoint.. Strange it didnt come up in my extensive searching process! Thanks for chiming in and mentioning it.

Thanks for reading through any of this too! It's terribly long with some dreary bits. I was kind of researching as I went. :)
 

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Want you to read what I wrote before reading the posts after your review.

Quote
I just realized, did you consider Centurion? It's set in A.D. 117, directed by Neil Marshall (The Descent, Game of Thrones "Blackwater") and stars Michael Fassbender.

Minds thinking alike.

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
What an amazing idea!  I am following along and I am greatly appreciating your first post!
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

 

love