MovieChat Forums > Outlaw King (2018) Discussion > The final fight (Spoilers)

The final fight (Spoilers)

posted 6 years ago by r5d4d2 (701)
11 replies | jump to latest

So somehow King Robert and King Edward II are going at it, man to man.
The entire rest of the English army has run away.
Edward is literally surrounded by Scottish soldiers.
WHY NOT TAKE HIM CAPTIVE????????????????????
A) Why allow him to fight and possibly kill Robert?
B) Why not take him for ransom. The English would be forced to pay tons of gold for him.
C) Most importantly ... why not use him as leverage to ensure Scottish independence? The battle was won, but there was no indication that the war was over.
I know this scene is fiction, but it was really stupidly written.

[–] DarthRoger (867) 6 years ago

Edward II was totally defeated. That was also a different time and place. Chivalry was still in vogue and normally a capture king wasn't killed. It was the Battle of Loudon Hill that was reenacted in this movie. They did a good job of following the battle. 500 Scots beat an English force of about 3000.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

The point is he should have been ransomed in those circumstances. That's what made the scene unbelievable. At minimum get his wife back and get some guarantees to leverage independence. Yes eventually he was able to swap some English POWs for his wife, but that would have happened a whole lot quicker if it was the king himself.

But of course they couldn't go there because that's not what actually happened. If they wanted to set up this final swordplay they shouldn't have made it when the English forces had retreated with Valence and Edward II alone was surrounded by Scottish forces. Allowing him to just stumble off instead of ransoming him was just absurd.

[–] DarthRoger (867) 6 years ago

I see your point.

[–] jriley555 (8363) 6 years ago

amazing. was the layout of the traps much the same as in the film, in terms of the spikes and bogs, or do we know?

[–] DarthRoger (867) 6 years ago

Actually the way they laid out the battle was pretty accurate to the way the battle is described, if you check sources online.
The English army was mostly cavalry, so the trench and spikes pretty much stopped them cold.

Also I'll add that when the English tore apart William Wallace's body and sent pieces to the towns of Scotland, it had the opposite affect than what Edward 1 hoped. It enraged the Scottish people and made them even more determined to oust the English. Strange to think how history might have turned out, had they initially been more generous to the Scots in defeat.

[–] jriley555 (8363) 6 years ago

excellent. thanks.

the english didnt become an empire by being nice. ask the irish/chinese/indians/boers/africans/arabs, etc. as i'm sure you already know.

but they were usually smarter than this. much smarter. once the reformation got underway, they had a lot more to work with.

[–] DarthRoger (867) 6 years ago

True that about the English but a big part of warfare, as it evolved, became the use of ground. Robert Bruce learned the hard way after his army was almost wiped out (as referenced in the movie) that the best way to take down the English was on favorable ground that limited the enemy's maneuverability. William Wallace won at Stirling Bridge using similar tactics.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

I completely agree. This really stood out to me as the most frustratingly unbelievable part of this fictionalized portion of the Battle of Bannockburn. I assume it was because for cinematic purposes they wanted to have the final sword fight between the two foes while sticking to the historical accuracy of the king having escaped the battlefield.

But then they should have had them fighting prior to English forces having completely retreated. Robert could have gotten the best of him in swordplay before English soldiers drag a wounded Edward off the battlefield. That would have at least been believable and closer to the historical account.

[–] JakeSWITCH (504) 6 years ago

Having Robert the Bruce and King Edward II fight one-on-one, surrounded by Robert's soldiers, was supposed to complete the circle of the film, since "Outlaw King" opens with them having a friendly physical / ideological duel, surrounded by their men.

Unfortunately, there is difference between two leaders having a sparring session in a camp and being allowed to fight to the death in the middle of a battlefield.

It's a really silly Hollywood trope. It somewhat reminded me of people being totally cool with the Emperor of Rome fighting a gladiator at the end of Ridley Scott's "Gladiator".

--------------------------------------------
You can read all of my latest film reviews here: https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about/Jake

[–] diagoro (490) 6 years ago

I thought it was more humorous, in that here is the king from each side battling it out.....and no one noticed for the longest time. Edward should have been immediately recognized.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6448) 3 months ago

Because historically Edward II wasn't even there.