SO! I am hijacking the blog already.

So I saw Robin Hood tonight and despite it being a really awesome period piece starring the one and only Russell Crowe, I was astonished at the historical liberties they took with this movie. I love that they namechecked characters whose relationships and lives completely differed from what actually happened.

Now, I'm not gonna get into the mythology of Robin Hood, because it's more myth than truth at this point. I'm not even gonna take umbrage with the communist utopia ending (whooops spoilers). [There shouldn't be any more spoilers from this point forward, however; though I do promise that your historical brain will be broken].

So let's start with the facts. The movie presents us with Richard the Lion Heart sacking a castle in France. Well, to be fair he was kind of an asshole toward the non-Aquitaine French. To be even fairer, they were kind of assholes back. See, the French and English hate each other to this day. I mean sure, not nearly as much as they did back when they liked to fight over continental territories and how the Kings and Queens of England kept calling themselves Kings and Queens of France, but that's a discussion for another time, if I ever manage to sit through Braveheart again.

Wow, that was longwinded. Anyway.

So Richard is in France with his army and he's all dismayed that no one will tell him the truth about how much his Crusade to the Holy Land kinda sucked balls. Which uh, it kinda did. It also ended with him getting captured on his way home by the asshole French. And his mommy had to put the Crown Jewels of England up for ransom. So the asshole reputation is well deserved, France. Anyway. They're storming this one castle somewhere and Russell Crowe is an archer who gets in a fight with Keamy and accidentally kicks the king in the face. Whoops. So the King, speaking proper English, asks him to be brutally honest. And Russell Crowe throws him a telephone. And tells him that God hates him.

Slight problem: Richard was raised by his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, to run her duchy and the counties of Poitou and Gascony. Richard grew up speaking Norman French and langue d'oc. English was something he did not understand at all. But you know, I can let that slide. Minor point.

John's wife is waiting outside his door while he sleeps with another woman, the niece of the King of France. And Eleanor of Aquitaine comes along and rips her DIL a new one. ANd then her son and the niece of the king. First of all, John's first wife died before they were actually married. second of all, his second wife he stole from another man, allowing the King of France to confiscate his lands. Isabelle de Angouleme was actually Isabelle of Gloucester and uh, very English. Well, probably Norman French, but French French she was not.

Also, what king in his RIGHT mind would allow his niece to travel, apparently unchaperoned, to the kingdom of his mortal enemy, especially when his mortal enemy is sacking castles in his own damned country? Way to make a hostage situation out of a marriage pawn. Wrong.

And another major quibble/ SPOILER PAY ATTENTION: Philip of France did not send an invasion fleet to England. In fact, John was the one who rounded out the troops and shipbuilders to invade after his marriage to Isabelle of Angouleme led him to getting on Philip's shitlist. Yes, it makes for good cinema to see the French flag at the bottom of the ocean and the French once again turning tail and running, but it's totally wrong.

Other than that, I highly enjoyed the movie. As long as I ignored the part of my brain screaming WRONG NO NO NO WRONG, I totally enjoyed it. It doesn't hurt that I'm one of the biggest Russell Crowe in period pieces fans (Gladiator, Master & Commander), I also enjoyed seeing Alan Doyle as a troubadour and archer.

Hey kids, they don't make history like they used to.

Welcome to our blog. This is our space to tear our teeth into all the horribly incorrect things that you learn from the "History"* Channel or National Geographic or Discovery Channel. Welll, less the other two than the former. Cause they often get it wrong.

Your experts are two bachelor degree-wielding historians separated by a border but united by a common enemy: disinformation. Phil's an ancient civ expert, and I'm an expert on Latin America and American Revolution. And uh, Canadian history, but that's never on TV.** So sit back, help us critique, and point out where we got stuff wrong, but submit your work, cause otherwise we'll just laugh. And tell you you're wrong.+

*With shows like Pawn Stars, Ax Men, and all those other reality shows, they're not really doing much History anymore. SO I will refer to that channel with air quotes.

**Yes, it's a small niche, and you'll say there's nothing there but it truly is interesting, I swear. If you don't stop laughing I'll start talking about Quebec separatism movements.

+The Canadians DID NOT burn down the White House during the War of 1812. Maybe one or two were in the crack British regiment, but they only did so as part of the British Empire. Suck it, Canada ;)