Top 10 Realistic Medieval Films

[Rowan]

There's no such thing as an unimpeachable degree of historical accuracy because none of us were there! But we can search for something that comes closest based on our knowledge of the period. If you're looking for 100% absolute accuracy you might as well never watch any historical films.

[donroc]

Even the worst historical films have some value beyond well-made entertainment. They can spur us to research the history and perhaps lead us to areas that inspire us to write our HF.

[chuck]

[quote=""donroc""]Even the worst historical films have some value beyond well-made entertainment. They can spur us to research the history and perhaps lead us to areas that inspire us to write our HF.[/quote]

Donroc....My sentiments also....As bad as film "The Fall of the Roman Empire" was....the scenes from the city of Rome were spectacular....not sure how historically accurate it was, but I got a real sense of it's beauty and architecturally greatness.....and scenes from "Quo Vadis" especially the burning of Rome....Definitely motivated me to do research and look for HF novels....IE Ralph Graves "The Lost Eagles"......BTW a hard to find read...... but a great novel of a nephew of the Varus family trying to recover the lost Eagles of his uncle's massacred Legions......

[chuck]

The 10 most accurate films listed are interesting, but I think there are so many more that need mentioning.....I'm a lover of films especially Historical films....IE...Intesting film but the shining armour in "Excalibur" and those shoulder shields? in Sean Connery's "The First Knight".......Quite bothersome......

[Margaret]

I don't think Excalibur was intended to portray a particular historical period, but rather a land of the mythical imagination of the Arthurian legends. I love the novels, from Rosemary Sutcliff on, that attempt to reconstruct what a historical fifth century "Arthur" might have been like, but it's very difficult to work with some of the Arthurian material in an authentic fifth century setting, because portions of it are so thoroughly enmeshed in their twelfth century setting. For example, Sutcliff didn't attempt to include Lancelot in Sword at Sunset; his role in the classic love triangle is played by Bedwyr, a thoroughly Celtic character who is unlike Lancelot in many ways.

I have a hard time deciding whether novels based on legends can be considered historical novels. There's a case to be made that they are not, if they rely completely on legendary material and have no basis in any written historical record or archaeological discoveries. On the other hand, there's also a case to be made that they are, because the legends they're based on reflect the customs, imaginations and thought patterns of the people in a past time and place who created the legends.

[chuck]

Margaret.....I'm a big fan of Ms. Sutcliff, Gillian Bradshaw, Bernard Cornwell, Jack White and Stephen Lawhead...I prefer the the Romano/British legends, without the French introduction of the Lancelot and Guinevere triangle.....I agree the 5th century British hill fort is not as appealing as the much Fabled Camelot......Myself I prefer the Hill fort spin........for me legends motivate me to read and research the subject of the legend....."I want to believe"...... Fox Maulder, X Files

[nona]

I watched the First Knight and didn't really care for it, but then again I'm not a Richard Gere fan so the whole movie I was ewwing that they would pick him for Lancelot so I might have liked it better under other circumstances.