Tolkien -- Enemy of Rome

[Narukami]

Dan's post are often provocative, never dull, and in this case rather amusing.

He does raise an interesting question: He asserts that the popularity of LOTR and other fantasy films does harm to the study and understanding of Ancient History.

I wonder though...

Which does more harm --

A popular fantasy film like LOTR?

or...

A popular "history" film like Scott's Gladiator?

Or Stone's Alexander The Great?

I enjoyed the LOTR (the first film more than the other two) and yes indeed, Tolkien's story is certainly of a time and place. Imaginative as they are the stories are still very narrow in their concept of peoples and places.

All of these points have been discussed above so I will not repeat them, however, I do find it interesting that a horse culture like the Riders of Rohan never developed curved swords. (I had always thought that a curved sword was better suited for fighting from horse back, though I may be mistaken.)

Likewise Gladiator and Alexander have been picked over countless times on these pages by friend and foe alike so no need to repeat these arguments either.

And yet the question remains: Which film type does more harm?

And for that matter, do either?

As someone else in this topic string already said, "I can tell the difference between a fantasy film and history."

Indeed.

My fear is that an entire generation of kids now think the Praetorian Guard wore black armor--just like the SS. :wink:

Narukami