Tags
Alan Rickman, Caesarian Sections, Kevin Costner, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Medieval England, Medieval Europe, Needlepointing the Bayeux Tapestry, Robin Hood, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
I saw Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991, dir. Kevin Reynolds) when it first came out. I was a budding young medievalist in grad school, and I hated the movie. Over the years it’s acquired a fairly negative reputation for its many egregious anachronisms (like Robin Hood’s mullet). So I sat down to watch it was some trepidation. But about half way through the film, I realized that I just couldn’t hate it. It’s not that it’s a good movie; it wasn’t when it came out, and it hasn’t aged especially well. It’s just that the movie so obviously doesn’t take itself even remotely seriously. It’s not a comedy, but the movie just gleefully doesn’t give a damn about anything other than the story it wants to tell, even if that story isn’t especially good. Alan Rickman completely dominates the film with his manically villainous Sheriff of Nottingham, who is basically Snidely Whiplash made flesh. This movie is interested in history about the same way that Here Comes Honey Boo Boo was interested in talent.
The film is mostly a paint-by-numbers version of the Robin Hood story with a few new touches thrown in. Robin Hood (Kevin Costner) is trying to thwart the evil Sheriff, who is planning to depose the absent King Richard by marrying Richard’s cousin Marion (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio), which will somehow allow Nottingham to ignore the fact that there are several closer claimants to Richard’s throne, such as his brother John and his nephew Arthur (at the end of the film, Nottingham is so monomaniacally-focused on this goal that even as Robin is literally battering down the chapel door to kill him, Nottingham just wants to finish forcing Marion to wed him so he can have sex with her. That’s real commitment to villainy). Robin Hood is a former crusader who rescues and brings back to England a black Muslim named Azeem (Morgan Freeman), who repeatedly demonstrates that Islam is more scientifically advanced than late 12th century England by inventing things that won’t actually be invented for centuries. And Nottingham is working with a witch, Mortianna (Geraldine McEwan), as part of some sort of Satanic cult. Oh, and Will Scarlett (Christian Slater) is actually Robin’s long-lost half-brother.

Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham
The Top Ten Biggest Anachronisms in the Film
- Azeem gives Little John’s wife Fanny (Soo Druet) an emergency caesarian section. He knows how to do this because he’s watched horses delivered this way. That in itself is possible, since the earliest-known c-section was performed in 320 BC in India. But what’s more problematic is that Fanny not only survives but is up and running around literally the next day. Prior to the 16th century, c-sections were generally performed only when it was already accepted that the mother was not going to survive the birth or had actually died; the procedure was a last-ditch effort to rescue the child. Prior to the 19th century, they were performed without anesthesia or blood transfusions, making them insanely risky for the mother; most women probably died of shock or bloodloss before the process was finished. And even if the mother did somehow survive the procedure itself, in the absence of modern hygiene, there was a very good chance of severe infections setting in. (See Update below)
- Azeem owns a primitive telescope, two glass lenses than he fits into a leather tube. It’s not clear where he got this; since he’s first met in a prison and literally escapes with nothing, the most obvious explanation is that he made it after Robin and he escape. Given that the first known telescope was invented by the Dutchman Hans Lippershey in 1608, and the film is set in 1194, Azeem’s telescope is roughly 400 years too early.
Azeem and his telescope
- Mortianna and the Satanist coven. But that deserves its own post.
- Robin’s father has a framed portrait of Robin hanging on his wall, which is pretty much about 200 years too early for framed portraits.
- Robin and his men all use the so-called Welsh Longbow, like pretty much all other Robin Hoods. Longbows themselves date back to the Neolithic period, the Welsh only began to use them in the late 12th century (within a decade or so of 1194), and the English only generally acquired them in the late 13th century, after Edward I’s conquest of Wales. The bow came to play a very important role in English warfare in the 14th and 15th centuries, and given that the original tales of Robin Hood seem to originate in exactly that period, it was as natural for Robin to use a longbow as it was for Dirty Harry to use a Smith & Wesson .44 magnum. But in 1194, it’s about a century out of place unless Robin Hood is actually just a Welsh bandit wandering around England.
Robin and his longbow
- Azeem manufactures gunpowder so they can blow stuff up in the climactic confrontation at Nottingham Castle. Black powder certainly existed; it may have been invented in China around 492 AD. The Islamic world acquired knowledge of gunpowder some time between 1240 and 1280, and the earliest European recipe for it dates to around 1300. So Azeem basically has to invent black powder. Apparently he’s a 12th century Thomas Edison. (See the previous picture for a nice example of a Stuff Blows Up scene.)
- Nottingham decides to hire some “Celtic” mercenaries, and what we get is a bunch of Time-Traveling Killer Picts. They are dressed in ragged furs and kilts and paint their faces, and several of them actually wield Stone Age axes. These guys are even more out of place than the Viking mercanaries King John hires in Ironclad.
- Nottingham’s men pretty much all wear Norman helmets, a simple bullet-shaped metal helmet that left the face and cheeks exposed, but provided a nasal strip to give a little protection to the nose and eyes. This style of helmet was widely used in the 10th and 11th century, but in the 12th century it gave way to the closed helmet (for those who were better equipped) and a helmet that left the face exposed but provided coverage for the cheeks (for those less well-equipped). So I suppose we could say that Nottingham is just a cheapskate who gave his men very old, crappy helmets, but it’s sort of like making a movie about the 21st century American military and giving all the soldiers doughboy helmets. (See the above photo for a guard in a Norman helmet.)
Christian Slater’s largely useless Will Scarlett
- After Robin Hood begins the whole ‘stealing from the rich to give to the poor’ routine, Nottingham’s men post wanted posters (an anachronism in itself) that are written in modern English and look pretty clearly printed rather than hand-written.
- Friar Tuck is a friar wandering around England in 1194. St Francis didn’t invent the concept of the friar (a wandering monk, basically) until 1209. The Franciscans didn’t come to England until 1224. Tuck seems to be a priest, since he presides over Robin and Marion’s wedding at the end of the film, but the early Franciscans were generally not priests. So everything about Tuck is wrong.
- Bonus Anachronism 1: Marion’s female servants are named Rebecca and Sarah, which means they’re Jewish, since in medieval Europe, most Old Testament names were associated with Jewishness (the major exceptions being David and Adam). Because English Jews were a despised minority, Christian women would not have used Jewish names, and Marion would have been very unlikely to hire Jewish servants.
Gotta love that totally non-medieval neckline on Marion’s dress!
- Bonus Anachronism 2: In one scene, Marion is needlepointing a panel from the Bayeux Tapestry, a now-famous but then fairly obscure embroidery from the late 11th century. Marion is Richard’s cousin, meaning she must be French, so I suppose we could hypothesize that she paid a visit to the bishop of Bayeux at some point and fell in love with his wall-hanging and did a quick sketch of it, but why bother actually trying to explain the little details? The film sure doesn’t.
Update: A couple of readers have asserted that Azeem doesn’t perform a caesarian section, merely turn the baby. At the start of the scene, he declares that the baby has not turned and so cannot be born. Then he tells Marion to get a needle, thread, and water. Then he says that he has seen some technique used on horses. He never says exactly what he’s going to do, but it’s presented as some exotic Middle Eastern knowledge. So I suppose there’s some room for debate about exactly what the film wants us to think is going on. However, if he’s only planning to turn the baby, asking for a needle and thread makes no sense. That request only makes any sense at all if he’s planning on cutting Fanny open and then sewing her up after the baby is out.
The whole scene is quite silly. There is approximately 0% chance that a Muslim man without specialized medical training would know anything about gynecology and midwifery. Even most trained physicians in the Islamic world knew nothing beyond some vague theories about childbirth, because gender segregation and the practice of women veiling meant that even physicians almost never had physical contact with unrelated women. Honestly, Robin Hood had more chance of knowing something about delivering a baby than a Muslim man did, because Western men had somewhat greater familiarity with women’s bodies (since veiling and segregation were not as rigidly enforced in the West as they were in the Middle East). Childbirth was women’s work and not something men would get involved in.
Furthermore, breeched babies are, if not common, still a recognized phenomenon across the medieval world. Being able to recognize it and address it was not something that required exotic Middle Eastern knowledge. Marion probably would have at least known the concept, even if she hadn’t encountered it before.
Want to Know More?
I’m not sure why you’d want to know more about this film, but Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves [Double Sided]is available on Amazon.
To be fair to the movie a line got clipped out where Azeem states that he learned how to make the Black Powder from the Chinese. It made it into the movie’s novelization. Not saying that excuses things but at least they did think about it a little.
LikeLike
And where would he have meet a Chinese gunpowder-maker?
I suspect that line got added to the novelization, not cut it from the film.
LikeLike
He wouldn’t have had to necessarily, just met someone who had. As stretches go it’s not a completely absurd one. The desperate rationalization I use if I need one is to remember that things may have happened a bit before a recorded event, simply not recorded or lost. There’s no way they weren’t going to blow something up in that blockbuster production, at least they tried.
LikeLike
Azeem’s use of gunpowder is, for me, the most ludicrously anachronistic element of the whole film. He might as well have invented the machine gun while he was at it.
LikeLike
Putting aside John and Arthur here, how is marrying Marion going to put the Sheriff any closer to the throne? All we know about Marion’s family is that she’s Robin’s cousin and the sister of Peter Dubois (the guy Robin is in the dungeon with at the beginning of the movie). I guess she’s the king’s cousin too? So lets see if we can figure out who Marion really is.
If we start with the assumption that she’s the king’s first cousin (which, to be fair, we can’t really do), and also assume that she’s legitimate and that her parents are legitimate, then we can rule out that her father is a sibling of Henry II, Richard’s father. Henry only had two brothers, and they both died unmarried.
So, Marian must be the king’s cousin through his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine. Now, Eleanor only had one surviving (legitimate) sibling, Alix/Petronella of Aquitaine.
So here’s where things get a little complicated, because Petronella had two daughters; Elizabeth and Eleanor. Lets look at Elizabeth for a minute.
Elizabeth married Phillip I of Flanders, who was an accomplished administrator and crusader Their married life wasn’t particularly happy, though. They never had any children, and Phillip found out that Elizabeth was having an affair with a knight named Walter de Fontaines and beat him to death (which caused Walter’s sons to rise up in rebellion against him.)
Oh, additionally, Phillip of Flanders was the son of Sybila of Anjou, the sister of Geoffrey of Anjou, Henry II’s father, which made him Elizabeth’s cousin.
So, now that we know all this, we can solve the mystery. Kevin Cosner’s Robin Hood is clearly Phillip of Flanders. He’s Marion’s cousin, he’s a crusader, he’s allied to King Richard, and he kills a member of the gentry who’s attempting to sleep with Marion.
Obviously, there are some weaknesses in this theory. Phillip’s father Thierry of Flanders wasn’t executed after being accused of being a Druid (that we know of), and Elizabeth’s brother wasn’t killed in Muslim captivity (He died of leprosy). Still, it’s clear that, far from being ahistorical escapist entertainment, Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves, is clearly a clever satire; using the Robin Hood legend to explore an often forgotten piece of medieval history. (Azeem is actually the Kurdish leader of the Assassins ‘Ali ibn Wafa, who was actually killed at the battle of Inab in 1149. So, his presence in the film is anachronistic, but actually much less anachronistic than the entire rest of the film.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marion is explicitly referred to as Richard’s cousin. She could be the illegitimate child of one of Henry II’s brothers, either Geoffrey of Nantes or William Fitzempress, probably William, since any daughter of his would have been in her mid-20s, whereas any daughter of Geoffrey would have been in her mid 30s. The Angevins had not yet entirely embraced the notion that legitimacy was necessary for inheritance, so Nottingham might be hoping that an illegitimate cousin of Richard would have enough clout to get him to the throne.
But a better claim is that Marion is actually Maud FirzRoy, Henry II’s illegitimate daughter, who is known to have become an abbess by 1198. Marion is discretely called Richard’s ‘cousin’ when she’s actually his half-sister. Having royal blood would have given her a much better claim to the throne, which explains why she was kept in obscurity and raised thinking her mother’s son Peter was actually her full brother instead of her half-brother.
LikeLike
It is stated in the film that Nottingham is planning to join with seven Barons and raise an army to take the country. A deleted scene that ended up back in the film for it’s extended cut on both DVD and Blu ray shows the Sheriff him laying out his plans to the seven, who also happen to be devil worshipers like him. Them supporting his claim to the throne is said to hinge on taking a bride of royal blood. There is still no mention of John or Arthur but the scene does show that the Sheriff knew he had to do more than just take Marion to get the throne.
Here’s the scene in question:
LikeLike
One of the downsides to Netflix is that they don’t carry any of the deleted scenes. Not that I would have watched them for this film. But still…
LikeLike
Very thought-provoking post, but the movie is hugely entertaining, and most “mistakes” you pointed out are actually minor.
LikeLike
Yes, most of these are cosmetic, but they still influence how people picture the past. And Azeem’s gunpowder and c-section are plot points, so in that sense they’re major.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Robin Hood: Princes of Thieves: Black Muslims in Medieval England? | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves: Witches in Medieval England? | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: A Little Chaos: Historical Landscaping in the Ancien Regime | An Historian Goes to the Movies
It’s been a while since I’ve seen it but I’m pretty sure Azim performed an external cephalic version (turning the breech baby around in the womb), not a c-section
LikeLike
He says the baby has not turned, but then he tells Marion to get a needle and thread, which means he’s planning on cutting the baby out and sewing the mother back up. There’s no need for a needle and thread if all he’s going to do is turn the baby manually.
LikeLike
It is highly likely that there would be tearing or cutting of the perineum, in order to shove two hands in to turn a breech baby. That would need to be sewn up after.
LikeLike
It wasn’t a c-section – he reached in and turned the baby around because it was breech. Duh.
LikeLike
Umm no. Azzem specially tells Marion “get me a needle and thread, water.” If he’s just planning on sticking his hand inside Little John’s wife to turn the baby, he wouldn’t need a needle and thread. He would only need that if he’s planning to cut her open and sew her up. Also, turning a breeched baby was a common practice that English women would have known about. Of course the film’s cheerful ignoring of historical fact would probably allow English people to be totally unaware of a fairly common technique used in midwifery. But that still wouldn’t explain why he wants a needle and thread.
LikeLike
It is a c-section, not a breech. In the novelization Azeem also asks for a knife which he sterilizes with ashes and a torch flame as I recall. He uses the knife for the c-section and the needle and thread to sew Fanny up afterwards.
LikeLike
It is definitely a breech–Azzem explicitly says that the baby has not turned.
LikeLike
I see quite a few inaccuracies here. Even though what we would now call the “the modesty code” meant women rather than men were indeed the practitioners, medieval Islamic obstetrics was far ahead of the west, as an article in The Lancet and a Cambridge publication have highlighted.For example, al-Zahrāwī (c 1000) introduced many new techniques to aid women in delivery.
Also, why do you undermine the role of medieval Islamic science in developing optics? The telescope didn’t come out of nowhere! Medieval people achieved cultural innovation through contact with other cultures…such as in the spread of gunpowder.
I also got the impression this film is set in the 15th century, as much as the 12th!. At the end of the day, it’s only a film but, while being more reflective of 1991 than any other year, it does draw in widely recognised facts from history.
LikeLike
Indeed, it’s possible that some well-educated Muslim men understood gynecological practice, but the film makes 0 effort to establish that Azeem is highly educated–there’s no reference to his education. Education was quite rare in the Muslim world, even if it was more advanced than in the 12th century West. He’s just a random Muslim that Robin befriends. So basically, I think there’s about as much reason to think that a random Muslim man would understand Caesarian sections as there is to assume that some random character in a 90s buddy-cop film would understand neurosurgery.
Yes, there were medieval Muslim intellectuals who were interested in optics, just as there were Western intellectuals in the same period who were interested in optics. But so far as I know, there is no evidence that a Muslim scholar actually created anything like a lens. Al-Hazen theorizes about what a lens would look like, which strongly suggests he never actually saw or made one, and he’s the major Arab optician in the Medieval period. So Azeem’s telescope is still 400 years too early.
So I firmly disagree that it’s drawing on ‘facts’–it has a vague knowledge that the Muslim world was more advanced than the West, but it’s not getting that from books. It’s drawing on earlier Robin Hood shows that introduced a Muslim character.
And the film is DEFINITELY set in the late 12th century–Richard the Lionhearted appears at the end of it.
LikeLike
I’ve just remembered: the sheriff also says at one point “You. My room. 10.30. You. 10.45. Bring a friend.” Which would imply digital watches, or at the very least a very, I don’t know, “industrial” understanding of time. I’m not sure at which point the modern (rather than Biblical or liturgical/monastery) hours took hold. Which is to say, at what point is noon “12.00” rather than “the sixth hour” or something like that.
LikeLike
Clocks were a late medieval invention (essentially), and by the end of the 16th century “o’clock” was widespread enough for Shakespeare to use it. It’s anachronistic for the 12th century, like so much else in this film.
LikeLike
Re: the c-section, there’s me evidence that people in Uganda had been performing successful (as in both mother and child surviving most of the time) c-sections for some hundred years before contact with Europeans.
But, as you say, the patient getting up and moving around the day after? Nah 🙂
And probably not known in any part of the Islamic world at the time of Robin Hood.
https://fn.bmj.com/content/80/3/F250
LikeLike
The first evidence of C-section as a native Ugandan technique (that I know of) dates from 1879. The description (by a British doctor) of the procedure strongly suggests it was an established technique (not just being improvised at the spur of the moment), so clearly it existed for some time before 1879.
The problem is that we have no evidence for long before 1879 the procedure had been developed. A generation? A century? A millennium? There’s literally no way to assess the age of the procedure. It’s popular to imagine that if something is ‘traditional’ it’s been handed down unchanged for centuries, but that’s a fallacy. Practices can become ‘traditional’ in only a generation or so.
So while it’s possible that Ugandans developed the techniques by the 12th century, it’s equally possible they invented it only in 1850.
LikeLike
Azeem was totes performing an episiotomy. Also the telescope was written about by Francis Bacon in the 13th century and the idea that another culture stumbled on peering through lenses to enlarge images isn’t that far fetched.
LikeLike
You’re confusing Francis Bacon, the 17th century aristocrat, with Roger Bacon, the 13th century friar. Bacon had an idea for something similar to a telescope, but he didn’t invent one. And he’s a century after the period of this film anyway. Whether a Muslim -could- have come up with a telescope is irrelevant–none of them did.
LikeLike
I’m wondering where Azeem just happened to get precise glass-cutting tools while on the run with Robin.
LikeLike
Pingback: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is Still Delightfully Silly at 30 Years