Talk:The 13th Warrior

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Tatars#History|Tatar]] The anchor (#History) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

preman or berserkers?

it has been repeatedly stated that the band of 13 is fighting a group of long hidden neanderthals. but i might make mention of the fact that they do bare(no pun intended) a striking similarity to the viking berserker gangs that, commonly wore the skins of animals, primarily those of bears and wolves, and no armor. i seems likely to me that these men could be a very deranged sect of an already mysterious and crazed warriors, rather than an aborant group of preman beings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manwithbrisk (talk • contribs) 10:16, 30 March 2006

Where do you get references to Berserker "gangs"? I've never seen mentioned other than as individuals, or at most pairs or trios, and in that case, always in the service of a noble chief. Also, maybe the berserkers wore animal pelts (no certitude there) but the wendols are far too well disciplined or organized to have any likeness to berserkers, not to mention that they show neither the battle frenzy, invulnerability, or other traits specific to the Odinic fighters. Their portrayal in the movie as neanderthals is beyond doubt. --Svartalf 12:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except of course for their possession of domesticated [spoiler]s :).

From Berserker: "Going berserk — berserksgangr or berserkergang — could also happen in the middle of daily work. ..."

—wwoods 16:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic/Persian?

In a few places, the main character Ibn Fadlan is described, in a historical context and in a movie context, as speaking or writing Arabic, i.e. "The frame story is adapted from the tenth-century Arabic writings of Ibn Fadlan" and "The language barrier is awkward, as Ahmed only speaks Arabic"--but coming from Baghdad, wouldn't Ibn Fadlan be Persian? I'm afraid I don't know anything about the languages to tell them apart, and the Wikipedia entry for Ibn Fadlan as a historical figure does not shed any light on the topic. And it's very late, so I don't really have the time to research it. :P

I just had figured Ibn Fadlan to be a Persian, not an Arab. Antonio Banderas certainly fits the part physically better. And as I recall, he fights with one of the Norse swords ground down into a shamshir...

--Kuronekoyama 07:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold a minute, Baghdad is in Iraq not Iran. Mesopotomia is a Semestic people and civilization, Persia is Indo-European One. Persia took over mesopotomia after the decline of the neo-babylon empire, and kept invading it whenever they were pushed back, until about the 7th century when they were finished. -daniel

This section makes little sense. The historical Ibn Fadlan was an Arab, Baghdad (in modern Iraq) was the capital of the Arab Abbasid Caliphate. How exactly Banderas "fits the part" of a Persian rather than an Arab, I have no idea, and is completely pointless. A Czech man plays a Viking in this film as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mattcolville 01:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the odd "Anne Bancroft" reference, as the role of "Oracle - Old Woman" is credited to "Turid Balke" in the IMDB.

Fantasy?

Why is this film in the fantasy genre? It's about an Arabic fellow and a buncha Norsemen beating off more Norsemen in a disappointingly prosaic manner. Jachra 02:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a re-imagining of Beowulf. The Wendol aren't a literal "fire-dragon", but they aren't "Norsemen" either.

—wwoods 03:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...it's a reimaginaing of Beowulf? I've seen some pretty sad reimaginings in my time, but this... ;D Wh well. Irregardless, name for me why it should be in Fantasy instead of Historical Fiction. Jachra 00:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The movie has almost nothing to do with history. What little shreds of historical fact there were in Michael Creighton's work are obliterated, from the moment they are set upon by "Tatars" - who didn't appear on the scene until 3 centuries after ibn Fadlan. This is purely a fantasy work. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just watched this movie for the first time and there are no fantasy elements in it at all. THe 13th Warrior fits into the genre of historical fiction. Yes, there may be some historical inaccuracies in a movie set 1000 years ago. But there was no magic and no monsters. There wasn't anything in this movie that didn't exist in real life. There's nothing to suggest the Wendol were anything other than human. In the novel they were Neanderthals. In the movie there's nothing to suggest that. They looked pretty human to me. I'll remove this movie from the list of fantasy films. 218.215.128.54 12:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Neanderthals riding horses around, caves full of dwarves, and a totally ahistorical setting that is never alleged to correspond to any particular real place qualifies as fantasy. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned there's nothing in the movie to suggest that the Wendols are Neanderthals. They don't have the large brow ridges that Neanderthals are supposed to have and they seem to be nothing more than Stone Age savages. Near the beginning of the movie we are shown a map that clearly shows that the movie takes place in our world, not a fantasy world. It was even established that Ahmad lived in Baghdad. The Arabs, Norse and Tatars were all real people too. Yes, there's no historical evidence that the Vikings ever fought a tribe of cavemen but that's the 'fiction' part of 'historical fiction'. The fact that a specific date is not given for when the movie takes place does not make it fantasy. 218.215.130.214 01:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Oh, and there were no dwarves in the movie. The reason I'm taking this seriously is that I'm a big fan of fantasy/sci-fi films and I watched The 13th Warrior because Wikipedia listed it as a fantasy film even though it's not. I don't want other people to make the same mistake. Have I convinced you or should I declare a RfC? 218.215.130.214 03:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dwarf cave appeared in the movie with dwarves visible in the background. The scene also appeared in the book. You do not have consensus for removing the tag, and feeling like you were tricked into watching an execerable movie is not an excuse to remove information from a WP entry. Moreover, you don't "declare" and RfC, you make the request, and if you review the page that describes the procedures you will find that this situation does not call for it, as you have made no real efforts to reach consensus or seek dispute resolution. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I watched the movie, I specifically looked for anything fantasy-related. If there were any dwarves in the movie, I would've seen them. There may have been in the book, it doesn't matter.218.215.136.71 23:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC) To put it simply, to be fantasy a story has to have some kind of phenomenon (usually magic) or creature which is not known to exist in real life. Cavemen and short people are real. 218.215.136.71 00:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Okay, coming here from WP:3. After looking at the article, and the arguments, I think that the Wendol qualify it as fantasy, but thesstory is not really fantasy. So, I think this article should be classified as both historical fiction and fantasy. If you don't like that, please reply, but I think this compromise will work for everyone. ¿SFGi Д nts! ☺ ☻ 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The novel Eaters of the Dead is definitely fantasy because the Wendol were explicitly identified as Neanderthals and there were descriptions about how their features differed from humans. But in the 13th Warrior, the Wendol looked human. They could've made them look like Neanderthals by adding big brow ridges to the makeup but they didn't. In the movie the only suggestion that they are not men comes from their behavior of eating people and decorating their caves with skeletons. Either the movie is fantasy or it isn't, there can't really be a compromise in this argument. 218.215.136.71 01:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reread the last part of Eaters of the Dead and it actually says that the Wendol may have been Neanderthals or they may have been an ordinary Homo sapiens tribe. So even the novel is not conclusive. 218.215.136.71 03:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing, nothing historical about this movie. No attention was paid to any detail of history. It could have been set in Middle Earth with entirely fictional names and been exactly the same story. Borrowing names of historical societies and dropping them willy-nilly into a story does not a historical fiction work make. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly silly argument to make. The definition of fantasy generally includes an understanding that the story involves elements that cannot exist in the real world, i.e., that are "fantastical"--magic, unreal lands, etc. Even an absolute lack of accurate historicity doesn't make a story set in the real world fantasy. This is a slippery slope; to designate this as fantasy because it's entirely historically inaccurate is to open up every piece of historical film to a classification of fantasy. I am removing this tag. Grandpallama (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "language" scene

I'm surprised nobody has included anything about the pretty famous scene by the campifre when the main character begins to understand the conversation of the vikings. It is quite notable.--Energman 11:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCENES. It was clear, rain, clear again. It occured many nights, or what it was trying to show off.

-G

Fair use rationale for Image:13thwarrior.gif

Image:13thwarrior.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:13thwarrior.gif

Image:13thwarrior.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Viking langauge"

The "Viking language" in this movie is not Norse! Please correct this. It's an old version of modern swedish, but not Norse. Norse is much closer to Icelandic than the dialect spoken in this movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.228.56 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek or Latin?

Melchisedek and Herger both definitely converse in Latin, not Greek. When establishing first contact, Melchisedek asks to see the Vikings' king, "basileios" in Greek. Herger only understands him when he uses the Latin word "rex" and then the conversation continues in Latin, including Herger's joke: "Non loquaetur, quia mortuus est" which is translated as "the king will not speak to you because he is dead". --Aquinate (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I made the change to the text. It's unquestionably Latin. If it were Greek, I wouldn't understand it. 71.220.162.188 (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lo there do I see my father...

Is the prayer/litany/death chant/whatever that the Norse recite historic, or was it made up for the movie (or book)? Wardog (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock language

Some recent edits have been introducing WP:PEACOCK language into the article. We should try to summarise the facts as plainly as possible. Calling something a "box office disaster" is unnecessarily emotive when "financial failure" is more reasonable in tone and more enclyopedic. Betty Logan (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]