the presence of Friar Tuck. The first order of friars was the Franciscan Order, which was founded in 1209--ten years after Richard's reign. Therefore, Friar Tuck does not belong in an story set in the last years of the 12th century.
shareAlso, the earliest tales come from the 14th Century and refer to King Edward.
Josh
the way the story was done in the movie was the best-and the friar could have been a monk. Had it been set later on it would not have been as good. The late 12th century (1101-1200) or a bit after was the perfect time period, with a large majority concentrating on the Crusades leaving the homelands vulnerable to corruption to ones like Prince John, only to be thwarted by someone like Robin Hood.
shareQuite a bit of historical research has been done, trying to identify the "true" Robin Hood, as one specific person, born and living in a particular place and time. The upshot of all that searching? No one can say definitively who or if, any of the traditional charcters in the stories were real.
What is known is that the first known written ballads about Robin Hood appeared some two hundred years later than the more likely candidates would have lived. Many scholars think that Robin may be an amalgam of legends and actual persons, as opposed to one individual.
There have been so many additions to the legends over the centuries that it's very hard to sort out the fact from the fiction. Some people assume that the Flynn film has it right, and any other version of the tales is false. Yet, this film has no particular authority other than having been a well made and popular entertainment. It's not good history. It's merely a romanticized fiction based on an old legend, and much was borrowed from other fictional works of relatively modern times.
But do we need to identify the real Robin? Can't we just enjoy the stories, characters and incidents as we enjoy any ripping good tale that resonates in the imagination?
Just as the story of King Arthur. Excalibur, The Knights of the Round table et al make a good story. Historians may debate who King Arthur was based on but it shouldn't detract from enjoying the myth.
shareArthurian stories of Excalibur and the Knights of the Round Table are not myths or even Legends. They are based on medieval stories passed down through oral tradition and then written into works of historical (more ore less) fiction beginning in the 1100s.
A lot of the medieval romances about Arthur and his knights may have been based on stories which had been told for hundreds or even thousands of years before being written down and even for hundreds and thousands of years before Arthur would have lived.
But despite the opinions of most modern historians, a historical Arthur seems to be pretty firmly established. The mentions of Arthur in the Historia Brittonum and the Annales Cambriae don't seem any more fantastic or legendary than most other persons mentioned, and a lot less so than the stories about Vortigern. Vortigern is considered to be very likely a real historic person -- there is a medival manuscript which spells his name the way it would have been spelled in his own lifetime, meaning that his name and possibly other information has been copied from lost document to lost document unchanged for centuries since the time he lived. Vortigern was real despite the fact that more fantastic stories are told about Vortigern than Arthur in the Annales Cambriiae and the Historia britonnum.
And if you want information that is contemporary with someone's lifetime to consider him real, a verse in the poem Y Goddodin which some scholars date to within a few decades after Arthur's time compares a warrior to Arthur.
"Arthurian stories of Excalibur and the Knights of the Round Table are not myths or even Legends. They are based on medieval stories passed down through oral tradition and then written into works of historical (more ore less) fiction beginning in the 1100s."
They are mostly works of literature based on Monmouth's writings (over half of which was probably out of his own imagination).
"A lot of the medieval romances about Arthur and his knights may have been based on stories which had been told for hundreds or even thousands of years before being written down and even for hundreds and thousands of years before Arthur would have lived."
They *may* have been but there is no evidence that they were based on stories of that great antiquity. I assure you most of the stories are from after the time Arthur supposedly existest (and in which at least one real character called Arthur did live).
"But despite the opinions of most modern historians"
What an ignorant statement.
"a historical Arthur seems to be pretty firmly established."
Then why do 99% of historians think otherwise?
"The mentions of Arthur in the Historia Brittonum and the Annales Cambriae don't seem any more fantastic or legendary than most other persons mentioned"
Yes *an* Arthur did exist (and was at Badon), he may have been the origin of the later character but we do not know for sure. Personally I think there were many Arthurs.
"and a lot less so than the stories about Vortigern."
Though Vortigern is mantioned in more Early Medieval histories (such as the writings of Bede et cetera). Arthur only really starts to appear everywhere after his stories are popularised (at least in the Brythonic speaking areas of Britain) with the exception of an Arthur mentioned above.
This doesn't have much to do with Robin Hood however other than them being legendary, mythical, literary or folkloric heroes from the British Isles.
"Nothings gonna change my world!"
Well said, turtlemom. While it might be interesting to identify the real, historical counterparts to Robin and Arthur and such, it's not necessary. People are always looking for heroes, and if they can't find them, they invent them. The stories of Robin Hood as we know them are cautionary tales (treat your subjects well, or they'll take matters into their own hands), just as 'The Frog King' is a cautionary tale about keeping one's promises. One thing I like about the 1938 version is that it allows characters to grow. Marian is all pro-Norman at the beginning, until she sees what her fellow Normans have done to the Saxons. She even remarks that least one person Robin has helped was a Norman.
Speaking of Marian, she was never in the original tales. A troubadour named Adam de la Halle accompanied his master on Crusade, and wrote a little musical play about a shepherd and shepherdess called Robin and Marian. Later storytellers who never read the play assumed that it referred to Robin Hood, and added Marian to their cast of characters as a love interest for Robin.
Not only do we not need legendary heroes to be firmly rooted in history, I might even venture that history is actually hurtful to their fame. Take Charlemagne for example: literature about Charlemagne in the Middle Ages used to rival that of Arthur, alongside Alexander the Great. Where are Charlemagne and Alexander today in popular imagination and fiction? Thousands of miles behind Robin Hood and Arthur.
"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."
Yes but Friar Tuck was not in the oldest stories anyway...but you are correct he should be Brother Tuck if we are to believe he is around at King Richard's time as Friars are later.
Also, Robin Hood was not set during this era, that's more from Walter Scott's 'Ivanhoe' than traditional folklore. Also, he did not seem to be as "goody goody" in the earlier stories and he was certianly not loyal to any king.
I am with the band of Historians that think he is based on characters from the early Norman era, however.
"Nothings gonna change my world!"
Friar is a variant of the French frere, which means brother. No problem there.
The earliest surviving ballads of Robin Hood refer to a Yorkshireman who was Robert, son of Adam Hood, who was a real outlaw who hung out in Barnsdale Forest, occasionally Sherwood. He was married to Matilda, (Maid Marian did not appear until the 16th century.) although she was living in a house, not in the forest. He may have fought for the rebellious Earl of Lancaster at the Battle of Boroughbridge in 1322, although there is evidence of him dodging a previous call-up. There is no concrete evidence that he was ever an archer. He was pardoned and employed for a while by Edward II. Barnsdale Forest was in the catchment area of Sir William de Faucumberg, the Sheriff of Nottingham. He had a sidekick named John Naylor(?), who may be Little John.
This is not new research. A book about this guy appeared in the 19th century.
But it is not that simple. Variants of robinhood are older than this guy, and diverse landmarks all over the country are named after Robin Hood. There are also people who have surnames that are variants of robahod.
A lot of the Robin Hood legends were originally attached to an earlier outlaw named Fulk Fitzwarin or Fitzwarren. He gave King John the occasional headache. But he hung out in Shropshire, which is nowhere near Sherwood or Barnsdale.
Arthur was the Celtic god Lugh, and Shakespeare gives the deity Puck, the alternative name of Robin Goodfellow.
[deleted]