Main > The Library

Buliwyf Hygiliaksen and Herger the Joyous were Knightly.

(1/2) > >>

Thorsteinn:
It is my theory that Buliwyf Hygiliaksen and Herger the Joyous, from the '13th Warrior' acted in Knightly ways.

From Buliwyf's leadership and "never say die' attitude and Herger's careful eye on Ibn whilst never losing his humor showed their true quality.

Am I right? Were they the only ones?

What think you?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp1mzx5O4ao[/youtube]

Do you have other folks from film who were not Knights but did act knightly?

Sir William:
Beowulf & Grendel...the Sturla Gunnarson directed one.  Throughout most of the film you can see he questions the validity of the Danes' claim that Grendel's a monster of evil; his view of the world ,like it or not, is that Grendel must die...but he'd rather live in a world where someone like Grendel would be left alone.

As for Buliwyf and Herger the Joyous, they displayed knightly characteristics all film long for the most part, but I would not consider that particular segment as an example.  Setting up the redhead to fall just so they could put the squeeze on the local heavy was a shrewd, if costly move- it shows that they were well versed in politics and knew how to make the situation turn in their favor but I balk at calling that knightly behavior.  It was the quickest route to the desired outcome, but was it the best?  Would Angus' sword have meant the difference between life and death for Buliwyf at the end? 

That they were willing to die defending people not of their own particular village is an example of chivalric behavior- fighting for something greater and other than one's self.  On that we can agree.

Thorsteinn:
Doing what needs be done, no matter how distasteful, so that all might live and in the doing you risk your life. That is not Knightly?

Think thus the consequences of a divided camp fighting with itself when the Wendol attack is better than the death of one man?

Not accusing, merely asking. Perhaps, for me, it is better to ask "Given the situation the found themselves in, what would you have done in their place that would have removed the Princes influence and demonstrated their power yet kept the Camp whole and Angus alive and still obeyed the dictates of the Code?"

What about their behavior in that scene isn't Knightly to you? What dictates does it violate and or not follow?

-Ivan

Sir William:
They killed an innocent man in order to advance their position in the King's eyes and to give the Prince pause; I realize that the influence the Prince wielded needed to be circumvented somehow, but as they said, it was done at a very high cost, and was a foolish enterprise at best.

As I stated previously, fighting for other than self is a higher calling, and I give them recognition for that, but killing the large redhead was not the way I would have done it; seeing as his sword was of greater worth than the Prince's, I would've taken the Prince in the dead of night, bound and gagged him and left him as a sacrifice for the Wendols- to me, that would've been just as the Prince wasn't necessarily concerned about the people, only in being king.  For the greater good, of course.

Sir Brian:
I must disagree with you Sir William and the premise that Angus was an innocent man. Did you not catch the moment when he believed he had vanquished Herger the Joyous and looked to the prince for confirmation to kill him? – He was hired muscle simple as that. He may have been a noble and loyal subject but he like all of us at one time or another are sometimes subjects to lesser men. Herger’s tossing of the money towards the prince I took as a wergild payment for any family Angus had and certainly not as compensation to the Prince for the loss of his man.  ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page