Grace O’Malley: Scourge of the Sea

The daughter of Owen “Dubhdarra” (black oak) O’Malley, famous Irish sea captain, is somebody whose life could easily be made into a film. Known as Gráinne Ní Mháille in her native tongue, I suspect the English version, Grace O’Malley, would be a little more manageable for cinemagoers, and so, that’s the form we’ll use here. She was born in 16th-century Ireland, which at the time was largely allowed to operate independently of England. However, during her lifetime, that gradually changed, and it’s this which was behind many of the turning points in her life.

Her family were great seafarers, and there are tales that say Grace went to sea with her father while still a child, and decided that a life of adventure was for her. In one story, she cut her hair – either to disguise herself as a boy, to sneak aboard, or because she was told it would get caught in the rigging – this led to her nickname “Grainne Mhaol”, or “Bald Grace”. In another tale, her father tells her to get below when their ship is attacked, but she disobeys him. Climbing the rigging to watch the fight, Grace noticed one of the attackers was about to stab her father in the back. Screaming in fury, she swung down from the rigging and attacked him from behind. While folklore-esque exaggeration is likely, there may be an element of truth involved – at the very least, it sounds like a pretty good movie scene to me.

It is known that Grace’s mother did not approve of such things. She employed a tutor to educate her daughter at home and teach her things a well-connected young lady should know, such as Latin. Owen O’Malley was the chieftain of the Barony of Murrisk and controlled a powerful clan and quite a lot of land. At a young age, as was the custom of her people, Grace was married to Donal O’Flaherty, the son of another clan leader. Although it was an arranged marriage it seemed to work well and her new family soon accepted Grace as she got involved in politics, fishing and trading.

Rockfleet Castle, Grace’s home

After a few years she began to overshadow her husband was in charge of the O’Flaherty fleet of ships, an important position and in an age when such jobs were not given to accountants, let alone women. The port city of Galway was refusing to trade with them, so Grace starting seizing ships that passed through her clan’s waters. This is where her reputation as a pirate comes from. It has been recorded that she used to fight with a sword in each hand and the thought of watching her boarding another ship in this manner has a lot of appeal for a scene. She used to let them go on their way once they had paid her off – it’s not like she made anyone walk the plank.

But all good things come to an end. During the 1560’s, there was a power shift in the clan: another leader who had been making trouble for the English, was bought off by being made clan chief. Soon after this, Grace’s husband died in battle and she was left with nothing. Taking her three children, and accompanied by 200 followers, Grace headed back to O’Malley country, determined to make a fresh start. She set up base on Clare Island and rebuilt her fortune by trading and piracy. She did well and soon owned five castles in the area and married the man that owned the sixth; Richard Burke.

Initially, the marriage was on a trial basis, for one year; legend has it, Grace ended the trial – and kept the castle! – but must have relented, as they remained married for many year thereafter. They had a son called Tibbot, who was born aboard a ship while Grace was on a peaceful trading expedition, and what happened a few days later would have to be in the movie. I have speculated a little on the beginning of the story, but left the rest intact.

I see Grace singing a beautiful Irish lullaby to her baby below deck. Suddenly the peace is shattered by the shouts of angry men – their ship is under attack from Moorish pirates. The baby starts to cry and Grace tries to calm him by saying that her crew will take care of the nasty men. She listens intently to the sounds of fighting from above and soon realises that her men are loosing. Muttering that she has to do everything herself, Grace loads her gun and sticks two swords into her belt. After a few soft soothing words to her son; “Don’t fret, darling – Mummy won’t be long. I just have to go and kill the nasty men myself.” Grace bursts on to the deck, in a very bad mood, blasts the first enemy with her gun and then takes to the rest with her swords. The tide of battle now turns and the attack is repulsed.

It is important to realise that this was a period when ships of rival nations frequently attacked each other on the high seas. On his first trading expedition to the Americas, Francis Drake was attacked by Spanish ships, and spent the rest of his life attacking them. The Spanish always regarded him as being a pirate, although to the English he was a privateer, a subtle but significant difference. A privateer is a privately financed ship, that has letters from the government giving permission to attack ships belonging to an enemy power. Their purpose is to capture, rather than sink, such vessels and make a profit for the shareholders who had financed the expedition.

Drake made several trips to the Caribbean, and on his most famous voyage sailed around the world 1577-80. When he returned, the Spanish wanted him executed as a pirate and their treasure returned to them. They had a point: at no time during his voyage were the two countries at war. Elizabeth had been warned by her advisors not to antagonize the Spanish, but as usual, took no notice. She knighted Drake, her favourite adventurer – then, as main financial backer of the expedition, gleefully collected her share of the loot. The Spanish were of course, furious, but their moral indignation is suspect: the gold and silver involved originally belonged to the Incas, a civilization destroyed by the Spanish in the process of ripping them off. Drake’s return to England, where he was greeted as a hero, would make an great scene and would establish Elizabeth as a character.

The English decided that the best way to gain control of Ireland was to buy off the Irish Lords with English titles. Grace was not interested, so the Governor, Richard Bingham, decided to put her out of business; Slowly but surely he started working on this, constricting her operations, and at one time even put her in prison; she escaped execution only when her son-in-law traded himself for her, with the condition Grace gave up her independent ways. The situation was becoming unbearable and all Grace’s appeals to the Governor came to nothing. In desperation she went over his head and sailed for England, determined to ask Elizabeth to intervene on her behalf. This was a courageous thing to do – but she would not have achieved what she had without being a shrewd judge of character. She gambled her life on this ability. Grace started off by writing Elizabeth a series of letters asking for an audience.

Finally the English Queen agreed and Grace came to court to make her pitch (left). She horrified them by addressing the Queen as an equal – Grace’s use of Latin, the language of nobles, would have impressed the Queen. She made a point of saying that they were much alike, both prepared to fight to keep their possessions. Grace referred to the way Elizabeth had joined her army at Tilbury, when the Spanish Armada threatened to invade in 1588. She made a difference too, as her rousing speech did wonders for the moral of her, up till then, pessimistic troops. [It is historical fact that Elizabeth was fond of hunting, and an excellent shot with a crossbow, so it is possible she may well have got involved if the Spanish had landed.] Around the same time, some Spaniards were shipwrecked in Ireland and slaughtered by Grace. A scene of each of these incidents would help illustrate that they did have a lot in common.

The English Queen took to Grace and the two were soon chatting in private, like old friends. They were about the same age and had both led eventful lives. Elizabeth’s father, Henry VIII, had her mother, Ann Boleyn, beheaded for treason, and her half sister, Mary, imprisoned her for a time in the tower of London. It was experiences like this that made Elizabeth a lot tougher and more pragmatic than many people give her credit for. She gave Grace everything she asked for, provided her piracy against Britain ended. Soon Bingham was forced out of Ireland in disgrace – for doing exactly what he was told, to the woman he called, “Nurse of all the rebellions in the province for 40 years”. Politics, it seems, doesn’t really change much in 400 years.

Another interesting tale is told about an incident on the way home to Ireland. She stopped at Howth Castle, where hospitality dictated she should have been offered a meal and a place to stay. But she was told the lord was dining, and wasn’t to be disturbed: an infuriated Grace was leaving, when she met the lord’s son, who was returning to the castle. She kidnapped him, and as the terms for his return, demanded that in future, anyone who asked at Howth Castle would get food and a bed. The tradition continues to this day; the family that lives there still has an extra seat for dinner, just in case…

Grace lived on into old age and died peacefully – in the same year as Elizabeth, 1603 – although it is said she never lost her sense of adventure. The meeting would involve several scenes in the film, and it would be a case of deciding what to leave out rather than having to make things up. I first heard about Grace from the Warrior Women series hosted by Lucy Lawless (right). The enthusiasm for her subject was quite infectious and I can’t think of anyone better to play her in a movie version.

[Jim chips in: I think Nicole Kidman might be an interesting alternative too. She seems to have the kind of quietly steely personality that would be right for the role. Sigourney Weaver is another possibility. The difficulty is the film needing to span several decades of time, so it might be best to have several actresses playing Grace at different times in her life. On the plus side, the total lack of any portraits or illustrations drawn from life does give us enormous flexibility in this area. Though it does pose problems when it comes to finding pictures for this article!]

Eleanor of Aquitaine: The Crusader Queen

If Eleanor of Aquitaine is perhaps best known through the Oscar-winning portrayal of Katherine Hepburn (right) in The Lion in Winter, she was one of the richest and most powerful women of the Middle Ages in her own right. She was married twice, to the Kings of France and England, and she survived to see two sons also became monarchs. But Eleanor’s own life was both long – she lived into her eighties, remarkable for the era – and colourful.

The first thirty years alone give ample material for a movie. After her father died when she was 15, she became heiress to the Duchy of Aquitaine, almost an independent nation in what is now Southwest France. This stretched from the Loire to the Pyrenees, so the phrase “independently wealthy” could have been coined specifically for her. She was educated, speaking Latin and knowing how to read, and enjoyed hunting and riding – ideal heiress material. To stave off any wars (or even abductions, a common inheritance-obtaining technique in those days), her father left a will saying she should marry Louis VII of France – this she did, and the crystal vase which she gave him as a wedding present (below, left), can still be seen to this day in the Louvre.

On Christmas Day, 1145, Louis announced his intention to go on a crusade to the Holy Land, and Eleanor decided to go with him. As part of the recruitment drive, it’s said that Eleanor turned up at Vézelay Cathedral, dressed like an Amazon, and galloped through the crowds on a white horse, urging them to join the crusade. It’s also recorded that on the trip she and her ladies in waiting wore armour and were armed for battle. Although it’s doubtful they did any actual fighting, there’s no need to get too worried about such a minor detail – after all, Hollywood rarely does!

I see this movie as a lighthearted action romp, a sort of Charlie’s Angels Go Medieval, rather than a serious historical piece. I imagine a scene where Louis prepares to go on Crusade, and gives Eleanor the parting gift she wants least; a chastity belt. She goes with the locksmith to a room to try it on, and the sounds of struggle emerge from the room. Louis starts to get worried and enters to find to his surprise the locksmith wearing the belt and Eleanor and two of her ladies-in-waiting standing over him. There is no alternative; they will have to go on the Crusade with him.

The crystal vase Eleanor gave to Louis as a wedding gift

While on crusade, I definitely think that Eleanor should get kidnapped and held for ransom. The King and his knights plan to rescue her but fear for her safety, so her two ladies go in first in disguise. The three of them now arm themselves and fight their way out to join their rescuers. I have no favourite for the role of Eleanor, as I am not as familiar with beautiful French actresses as I want to be, and there are no authenticated portraits from which to draw inspiration. But I rather like the idea of having Jessica Biel and Keira Knightley as the ladies-in-waiting.

Eleanor’s marriage to Louis would end when the pope annulled the marriage, in 1153. The reasons he gave were her inability to give Louis sons and their consanguinity, but there may well have been more to it than that. Gossip linked Eleanor with her uncle, Raymond of Poitiers, whom she met during the crusade, and also Geoffrey the Fair, Count of Anjou. It is historical fact she commented that being married to Louis was like being married to a monk, which makes it clear the Pope was right to call them incompatible.

Much to Louis’s horror, a mere six weeks after their divorce, she married Prince (soon to be King) Henry II of England [curiously, she was as close a relation to him as Louis. So much for consanguity.] She was thirty by this time and he was still a teenager, which I think would have shocked a lot of people – not least because as mentioned above, rumour also linked Eleanor to Henry’s father, Geoffrey! Regardless, she certainly had no trouble giving him sons: five, as well as three daughters.

Despite this, a major point of friction was Henry’s womanizing: in 1168, things had deteriorated to such an extent, Eleanor left, and set up her own court in Poitiers. Legend says at one point she also confronted one of Henry’s paramours, Rosalind Clifford, with a dagger in one hand and a cup of poison in the other, asking her to choose her death. Henry even took his son Richard’s fiancée as his mistress, which infuriated Eleanor; Richard is widely-believed to have been homosexual, so it is more difficult to judge his reaction. [Sometimes this does seem more like soap opera – or worse. Today on Ye Jerrye Springere Showe: “I’m King of England and I’m sleeping with my gay heir apparent’s girlfriend.”] However, it’s obvious Henry didn’t get on too well with any his offspring: when they came of age, his sons rebelled against him, with Eleanor’s support.

Anybody who wants to make a controversial historical drama might well consider doing the real Richard Coeur-de-lion story – he was French rather than English, so this is the version of his name that is preferred by many. His mother would also have a major supporting role, as there was plenty for her to do – though not immediately, for after her revolt failed, Eleanor was imprisoned for fifteen years. She was only freed when Henry died, soon after being defeated by the combined forces of Richard and King Philip II of France – this made Richard not only King of England but also ruler of a lot of France.

A touching scene in the movie would be Richard releasing Eleanor from her confinement. I can see Richard informing his mother on her release that he is in love. This is indeed a joyful day for her – right up to the time Richard introduces her to his lover; Philip of France. Oops. After this, the two Kings made joint preparations to go on the 3rd Crusade to free Jerusalem from the Moslems.

It was Eleanor who looked after things when he was gone; a contemporary writer, Ralph of Diceto, says: “He issued instructions to the princes of the realm, almost in the style of a general edict, that the queen’s word should be law in all matters.” This is significant, since of Richard’s ten year reign, only six months were actually spent in England. She did make one major overseas trip during this period, arranging for Richard to marry Berengaria of Navarre. But he wasn’t waiting around to get hitched to anyone – he was off to Palestine. It was up to Eleanor, now almost 70, to ride over the Pyrenees, collect the prospective bride from her home, and then travel with her through Spain, France and Italy to Sicily where Richard and his army were camped.

The dowry she brought was useful; her country bordered on his land in France, and by marrying her, Richard would make his Mum happy. I think the film can show that Eleanor can be deceitful at this point. She is desperate for her favourite son to produce an heir for the family empire, and she doesn’t care who gets hurt in the process. The scene of the young bride finding out that she has been conned, and that her new husband doesn’t want to sleep with her, could be quite moving.

Regardless, Berengaria still travelled with Richard and his army to Cyprus, where they married and she was crowned Queen of England – a country she was destined never to visit. Unsurprisingly, the marriage had no chance. Richard ignored his new bride and set about conquering Palestine: he took command of the Crusader army that had been besieging Acre for two years, and took it in a matter of weeks. He then leads the army towards Jerusalem, defeating the Arabs under their commander Saladin on the way at the battle of Arsuf.

Eleanor’s tomb in Fontevraud Abbey

This particular battle would make an interesting scene as it demonstrates well Richard’s tactical skill. Other scenes would have to include his split with Philip, who packed up and went home, and his humiliation of Duke Leopold of Austria; both these incidents foreshadow later events. The Crusaders were unable to advance all the way to Jerusalem so a truce was signed between the two sides.

About this time Richard got bad news from home. His brother John was trying to take over. Eleanor was looking after his interests as best she could, but Richard felt he had to get back, fast. It was on his return journey that he was shipwrecked, and while travelling overland across Europe was captured, imprisoned and put up for ransom. All this is worth being covered in the movie, as is the scene where Prince John hears of it.

This would be a classic “good news, bad news” story, in which the messenger doesn’t know which is which. On being told that Richard is still alive, John is furious; he had hoped his brother had been killed in the shipwreck. He soon cheers up however when he hears the “bad” news: Duke Leopold, no ally of Richard, has captured the king. John has no intention of paying up: he’s quite content if his brother stays there forever and keeps Richard’s location a secret so that nobody else – such as Eleanor – finds out. He also offered the kidnappers an “anti-ransom” to make sure Richard remained captive.

Eleanor did much to raise the 150,000 marks – twice the annual income of the English crown – demanded, but still had the problem of finding her son. Enter the minstrel Blondel, who puts his own life at risk by going round the castles of Austria singing a (love?) song that he wrote with Richard. They used to sing it together as a duet so when the minstrel hears the King singing his part, he knows he has the right castle. This would make a dramatic scene, as would giving the news to Eleanor. With proof that her son is still alive and his location she was able to pay the ransom and obtain Richard’s freedom. [He visited England briefly, dealt with John, put somebody competent in charge, and was soon off again to Normandy where he was killed laying siege to a castle a few years later.]

This film could also explore the whole morality of the Crusades. The relevance of a Christian/Moslem religious war to a 21st-century audience, familiar with the rhetoric of terror, should be obvious. The character of Saladin is also worthy of development. He united his people, was a brave and skilful general and even the Christians had a lot of respect for him: a simplistic portrayal as “the bad guy” would be totally wrong. When Richard and Philip get to the Holy Land, their falling out could be looked at – and whether Richard’s minstrel Blondel played a part. Phillip left the Crusade early complaining of “sickness” – yet back in France, was healthy enough to set about conquering Richard’s territory. There must be more to the story than this, but historians seem a little shy about telling it. I wonder why?

Eleanor, meanwhile, lived on: advising John, who gained the throne legimately on the death of Richard, and travelling around Europe, matchmaking for her many grandchildren. For example, she married her 13-year old granddaughter Blanche of Castile to Louis VIII of France – the grandson of her first husband, Louis VII! [That’s another Jerry Springer episode, right there…] She died in 1204 and is buried in Fontevraud Abbey, near both her husband Henry and her son Richard, with her position among the most fascinating and adventurous of medieval action heroines assured.

Aethelflaed: Daughter of Greatness

This particular lady is one who has come close to being written out of history, and it’s about time she was put back in. It is partly because she is so obscure that I think her movie should be done as a sequel to one on her father, Alfred the Great who, though better known, also deserves more recognition and is definitely worthy of a movie in his own right.

By the 9th Century AD the southern part of the island of Great Britain had been taken over by Germanic tribes known collectively as the Anglo-Saxons. Missionaries had converted them to Christianity and the original seven kingdoms had merged into three. To the north was Northumbria; to the east and centre was Mercia, which included the area settled by the Angles; Alfred’s kingdom was Wessex, land of the West Saxons, and covered the area to the west and south.

This period is often called the Dark Ages, and when the Great Viking Army arrived in must have seemed to many Christians that it was about to get even darker. The invaders still worshipped old gods such as Tiw (Tyr), Odin (Woden), Thor and Freya who had held sway over Germany and Scandinavia for centuries. [The spelling varied in the different areas, but evidence of their is still to be seen in the days that bear their names; Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.]

From this complex mythology, only the Valkyries survive. They were originally the “shield maidens” of Odin who rode into battles to bring the bravest of the fallen to Valhalla. In modern times they are seem in many forms, standard bearers of a near forgotten culture that have been absorbed into our own. Personally, I’m glad they are still with us, for I rather like them and would love to see a fantasy sequence involving them included in the movie.

The invaders quickly overran Northumbria, although the film would only mention this in passing. It would concentrate on the struggle for survival of the two southern kingdoms against the Danish Vikings, thought of by the monastic chronicles of the time, as the forces of darkness. The Danes also believed in magic, and their mythology was full of tales about rings of power or doom, such as Andvarinaut, a cursed ring that blighted many lives. If all this sounds familiar to Lord of the Rings fans, it is hardly surprising: J.R.R. Tolkien was professor of Anglo Saxon studies at Oxford University.

While he got his inspiration from many sources (and did not welcome speculation on such matters!), it is, however, hard to ignore certain similarities between Middle Earth and Anglo Saxon England. For example both had: just one woman to fight on horseback; one woman to lead men in battle; one woman to help rule her people when destiny called. Taking everything into consideration, it is quite likely that the legends of Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, inspired Tolkien to crate Eowyn, Lady of the Rohan (left). I do admit, that this similarity seems to relate more to their character, rather than to the lives they led in fact and fiction.

When Aethelflaed was born in 869 her uncle, Aethelred was King. These were troubled times and Alfred was soon helping his brother lead the army of Wessex against the invaders. The Vikings had been raiding Britain for many years but this army was a much more dangerous proposition – they had come to stay. In 871, Aethelred died of wounds received in battle and Alfred became King. He fought the Danes to a standstill and kept Wessex the only area free of them, but at a heavy price: part of the peace settlement involved paying off the Danes, which Alfred reluctantly did. His little kingdom was exhausted and he knew that if he was killed in battle, there was nobody to follow him. But this only bought him five years. The Danes started encroaching on Wessex and in January 878, launched a winter offensive which took the Saxons completely by surprise. The whole of Wessex was overrun and the royal family was forced to flee, fugitives in their own land.

A lesser man would have quit – the King of Mercia fled to Europe when his kingdom was overrun. Alfred was made of sterner stuff, and this became his finest hour. He went to the Somerset marshes and four months later had transformed a ragged band of followers into an army which defeated the Danes at the battle of Edington. A movie about Alfred would pay particular attention to this period, and I don’t think it unreasonable to assume that Aethelflaed would want to help her father in his time of need. He organised guerrilla warfare against the Danes, and I would include a scene in which eight-year old Aethelflaed spies on them. She is spotted and chased, but gets away. As they give up the chase our little heroine hears them remark; “These Saxon brats are just like their King, good at running and hiding.” We have a close up of a dirty but fiercely determined little face. “When I am grown up, it is you who will be running and hiding from me,” she says passionately.

When Aethelflaed gets back to camp she finds her mother Ealswyth frantic with worry. Everybody had been out looking for her and she was in big trouble – Alfred towers above her, and demands to know where she has been. When he finds out she has been spying on a group of Danes that were in the marshes he is furious, but when he stops yelling long enough to listen he realises that the information his daughter has brought him is extremely valuable. It’s difficult to stay angry with someone of whom you are very proud… After his decisive victory Alfred was able to dictate peace on his terms, which included the partition of Mercia. He achieved a lot, but I don’t anticipate his movie spending much time on them. There would still have been troubles with the Danes, who were a collection of independent bands rather than a true army, as we would understand it.

Aethelflaed’s gravecover in Gloucester

At the age of twenty, Aethelflaed married Ethelred, a powerful noble of Mercia and long-time friend of her father. They ruled together, but were never officially known as King and Queen, since many people were still waiting for the return of the King of Mercia from exile. A scene involving Ethelred finding out first hand that she knows how to fight would be a must. I like the idea of them being ambushed while travelling through a forest. Aethelflaed is travelling by wagon but when the Danes attack, her husband ignores her protests and gives her his horse. He tells her to ride on and sends half their bodyguard with her as protection. A short distance away she stops, and notices that the outnumbered Saxons are in trouble. She tries to send the men with her back, but they reluctantly refuse – their orders are to stick with her. Aethelflaed smiles, turns her horse and charges into the fight, picking up a sword from a fallen warrior on the way. The men have no alternative but to follow her; the Danes are taken completely by surprise and after a spirited scrap are beaten off.

Towards the end of the century the Danes attacked again but the combined efforts of Wessex and Mercia drove them back. Alfred was quite sick by this time and although he had organised the defence, such as the creation of a navy, the actual fighting was left to the younger generation. In 899 Alfred died and his son Edward became King of Wessex. The two countries continued to cooperate as before, and together increased the area of Mercia held by the Anglo-Saxons.

After her husband died in 911, Aethelflaed ruled alone until she died in 918 – he had been sick for some while before this, so in reality she already had the reins. In these last few years she is reported to have led her army in battle against the Vikings, recaptured the town of Derby without a siege, skilfully negotiated treaties with the Danes, Scots and Welsh, and built fortifications – her street plan can still be seen today in the town of Gloucester, where she also rebuilt the Roman walls. Though final victory went to others, without Aethelflaed’s tactical prowess to pave the way, the task of those who followed would have been much harder, if not impossible. [Picture at left is Skeggjold, one of a serious of Valkyrie dolls created by Tanya Van Der Ploeg – for more information visit her website.]

Her daughter briefly ruled after her death, but Edward took over when he found she was not up to the job, and ruled the two kingdoms as one until his death, when his son Aethelstan succeeded him. At a very young age Aethelstan was sent to Mercia where his Aunt Aethelflaed raised him, another potential plot thread. Mercia became his home and it is only natural that he would become their next king – the kingdoms were never separated again. Aethelstan continued the family tradition of gaining land from the Danes and finished up controlling the whole country, having taken over the Danish kingdom centred on York. A good indication of how close he was to his aunt is the statue of Aethelflaed that stands in the grounds of Tamworth Castle. Her right hand firmly grips a sword, but her left arm is protectively draped around the child Aethelstan.

In my view, Alfred, Aethelflaed, Edward and Aethelstan should be looked at collectively as the family that created England as a nation. I have no problem with Alfred becoming known as “The Great”, many years after his death, but think it only fair to point out that without his daughter, son and grandson, his efforts would not have had much lasting effect. Aethelflaed in particular has been relegated to a mere footnote, or worse still completely ignored, and the time is long overdue to do something about it.

A sequel to Alfred’s movie could feature Aethelflaed, though the basis for this would be neither the list of battles fought and fortifications built on the web, nor stuff that I make up. It should be based on the legends of Aethelflaed, which for some reason have been lost over the centuries. When William the Conqueror successfully invaded England in 1066 he cared little for his immediate predecessors, but found many stories still being told of Alfred and his warrior daughter. What better way to legitimise his rule than by marrying Matilda of Flanders, a direct descendant of Elfthryth, Aethelflaed’s sister? This connected William to the legends and enabled his descendants to trace their line right back to Alfred.

I saw one such descendant not long ago, hosting a documentary on the History channel. The credits referred to him as Edward Windsor, but we know him better as Prince Edward, Queen Elizabeth II’s youngest son. Further evidence of his interest in history is the title he took on marriage: Earl of Wessex. His brothers have secondary titles to give their wives rank too, but neither went back over a thousand years to find them. Sounds to me like the right person to go digging in the royal archives, and see if he can find anything about Aethelflaed’s legends…

Queen Artemisia of Halicarnassus: Wonder of the World

There were actually two queens of Halicarnassus called Artemisia. In the 4th century BC, one built a mausoleum to her husband, that was so beautiful that it became acknowledged as one of the Seven Wonders of the World, but she was the later, and at least for our purposes, the secondary holder of the name. Her predecessor’s time in the spotlight came during the Battle of Salamis, in the year 480 BC – the story of how she arrived there, leading a squadron of ships, would occupy the bulk of the movie, with the battle as the climax. Artemisia had married the King of Halicarnassus about twenty years earlier and when he died a few years later, took the throne for herself.

There is more speculation involved than historical fact, but since very little – not even the King’s name! – is known for sure, and nobody suggested making a documentary, we can be forgiven some dramatic license in the next couple of paragraphs. I think portraying him as an older man, who takes Artemisia as a young trophy wife, would be a credible assumption. I see him being sick for a time before death, so she runs the state in his name and makes a really good job of it. After he passes, Most of the nobles, all the people and even the Persian overloads are keen for her to continue, but nothing is ever that easy.

Every film needs a villain, so let’s have some evil characters in the background. Give the old King a son from a previous marriage; a real nasty type, with a beautiful (but even nastier!) wife. They expect to rule when the King dies, but make no attempt to help Artemisia in running the place – indeed, quite the opposite, they cause nothing but trouble. With little home support, the stepson gets some from a nearby enemy city. The two sides battle for control, Artemisia wins, and her rivals for power flee into exile. It is safe to assume that she didn’t get the throne without some kind of a fight, and if we include Persian assistance for our heroine, this would explain why she later supported their cause, in gratitude for their help.

Now back to historical fact. Halicarnassus was one of the Ionian Greek States on the West coast of what is now Turkey. It is known that Artemisia led her ships in action against other Greek city-states long before the main battle. There is nothing unusual in this as the Greek states often fought amongst themselves. She gained enough success to become a military advisor to King Xerxes of Persia, the world superpower of its day.

The Persian Empire was a huge collection of diverse races united only in the tributes they paid to Xerxes. A select group of these subservient allies plus some of his own officials made up his military council. Artemisia was a member of the council and she alone spoke against taking on the Athenians in a naval battle. She advised him that the fleet would be better employed in supporting the army. Athens had already been occupied, and the whole of Greece lay open, but if the Persian fleet were decisively defeated, most of the army would have to withdraw as it could no longer be supplied from the sea. She wasn’t predicting disaster – but she wasn’t ruling it out either and considered it not worth the risk.

This would make a very dramatic scene, and would also be historically accurate. Xerxes liked her and listened to what she had to say, but went ahead and tried to smash the Athenian fleet anyway. Over-confident to the point that he set up his golden throne to watch the battle, Xerxes was to be disappointed. Although heavily outnumbered, the Greeks out-thought, out-manoeuvred and then out-fought their foes, gaining in the process one of the most important and decisive naval victories of all time. The battle itself was of enormous importance and if the Greeks had lost, it is quite possible that their civilization as a separate entity would have been extinguished. In the past it has been impossible to do such battles justice, but in the era of CGI, it can be done.

Artemisia’s part in the battle is well documented, although there does seem to be some minor variations. I have tweaked my favourite version for the purposes of the movie version. She is in the thick of the battle and her ships have been holding their own. Elsewhere things are going badly for the Persians as the allied fleet, starts to disintegrates. Realising that the cause is lost and that it is now time to abandon her rearguard action and look to her own survival, Artemisia plans her escape. With a Greek trireme bearing down on her ship, and her escape route blocked by the confused melee of ships she increases speed and heads straight for them. If a collision was inevitable, it will be on her terms. She lines up the ship of her hated enemy, King Clamasithymus who, while nominally on the Persian side, was the one who aided her stepson and gave him refuge. At full speed she smashes into the King’s vessel, her trireme’s underwater ram punching a hole in it below the waterline. The trireme backs off and as its victim sinks, Artemisia notices with some satisfaction that her stepson is on board. Convinced that the Queen has changed sides, the Greeks let her withdraw her squadron from the battle.

It has been recorded that Xerxes watched from the beach and when Artemisia rammed her rival exclaimed, “The men behaved like women, and the women like heroes.” It has been suggested that Xerxes was unaware of who she rammed, but I don’t buy this. Calling it a Persian fleet is done as a convenience, because describing it as a combined Phoenician, Egyptian, Cypriot, Cilician and Ionian-Greek fleet, is so cumbersome. Persia was a land empire and called on its allies and vassal states to provide ships. These were peoples who were natural rivals most of the time and would need little incentive to start fighting each other, especially as they try and escape the Greek trap. Artemisia only did what everyone else was trying to do – she just did it with style. The recognised facts support this view: after the battle, she remained on good terms with Xerxes while most of the fleet, and Xerxes himself, returned to their home countries

Meanwhile, back at the movies, how should the character of Artemisia be played? I see a beautiful lady who exudes an air of quiet dignity when required for ceremonial purposes, but is firm and decisive when decisions need to be made. In council she would command respect with her delivery of articulate intelligent argument. In battle she would be tough and ruthless, but fair and willing to give credit where it is due. The sort of commander men will follow into the jaws of hell. There may well be others that could do justice to the role, but if it was up to me, I would give it to Catherine Zeta-Jones.

Although it has been suggested, I’d prefer not to include a full-blown relationship between Xerxes and Artemisia. Xerxes was a man who would not have been short of mistresses, but would never dream of bringing one to a war council. It is quite possible that he liked the idea of putting Artemisia to the sword (so to speak!), leading to some unresolved sexual tension, but I much prefer the idea that she was there entirely on her own merits. Someone like John Rhys-Davies, might make a good Xerxes.

Since Artemisia was fighting on what is historically regarded as “the wrong side,” some time will have to be spent on her motivation. I think it reasonable that she believes that the Greeks and Persians should be united – she was after all a Greek living under Persian rule. At the end of the film, a narrator could mention that it was 150 years later that this happened, but not in the way that Artemisia expected. Oliver Stone notwithstanding, it took the genius of Alexander the Great to conquer both Persia and Greece, bringing them together at last.

Further reading: Herodotus on Artemisia

Miss-ed Opportunities: Girls Who Should Have Had Guns…

I have lost count of the number of movies in which I’ve been disappointed by the female characters. Often they seemed to be added as an afterthought, a “love interest” for the hero, or just as eye candy. In particular, there is a shortage of them in action movies: it’s strange that, so often, an all powerful crime boss is expected to live the life of a monk. But even when all the elements are put in place, there are many that then proceed to mess up the climax. At the other end of the scale, are films where the characters are completely wrong for the situation in which they are placed.

To illustrate these points, I have taken a closer look at four films, and come up with alternative scenes, characters or sequences which might have been an improvement. Although as they were made, they were all a personal disappointment to me, I should say that I have seen worse, and selected them to make a point, rather than to put them down. At least they tried

Wild Wild West (1999)
Don’t just stand there, do something!

Before getting on to the actions – or rather, the lack – of the female lead in this movie, I feel it only fair to say, she was not the main problem. That dubious honour goes to a plot, which was so lame that if it had been a horse, it would have been shot. And while they were in the process of rewriting the script, particular attention could then have been paid to the part played by Selma Hayek. Because, to me it’s ridiculous to have a female lead in an action movie, whose only purpose seems to be standing around and looking decorative. She should be a participant in the action, not a spectator, but at no time in this endeavour did she fire a gun, ride a horse or fight anybody. She was there solely for the two male leads to argue over, and show off her underwear…OK, not totally a bad thing, but there were some bad girls too, equally underemployed. With only a little imagination, a revised version could have a scene something like this:

Our intrepid trio are riding along on horseback and get ambushed. They dive for cover as the bullets start flying. The men return fire and exchange words to the effect that since there are four attackers, they are outnumbered two to one. They are interrupted by the crash of a gun firing just behind them, and a cry of pain, as a bad guy bite the dust. They turn to see Selma holding a rifle, and she says calmly, “I don’t why you’re complaining about the odds. By my count, it’s three against three.”

Simple but effective. Instead, this movie demonstrates what happens when the producers concentrate more on special effects than they do on telling a story. This can only result in characters that are not used to their full potential.

Austin Powers: Goldmember (2002)
Where’s the bad girl?

The original was fine, but by the third, I was getting tired of the recycled jokes. The one thing I did like, however, was the inclusion of Beyonce as Austin’s partner, Foxxy Cleopatra, and I would like to have seen more of her and less of Mike Myers [I admire the man’s talent, but the novelty of playing both hero and villain does wear off eventually]. On a more specific note, I found Dr Evil was starting to get really irritating, and the inclusion of a bad girl might have helped, giving somebody else to bounce jokes off. And there was no shortage of suitable candidates: when the audience was first introduced to Goldmember, beautiful girls surrounded him, and I have never understood why he didn’t take one of them with him.

She should, of course, be an active participant in the action sequences. This would be more important than great acting talent, as the entire series involves overacting and hamming it up, rather than trying for an Oscar. It’d give scope for things such as her and Foxxy having a running-gag, in which they compete as to who can hide the biggest gun in the sexiest outfit. [See Undercover Brother for an example of what can be done] An increase in Beyonce’s part is certainly something that many would welcome: she has real potential as an action heroine and I hope, someday, gets a part that gives her a better chance to show her talents. I don’t really care if she plays the good girl or bad girl – just so long as there is one of each

Torque (2004)
If they’re going to fight, get it right.

I rather enjoyed this movie. It is a lighthearted, testosterone-fuelled, action flick that has no pretensions about being anything else, is full of stunts and, apart from the ending, delivered everything it promised. Early on in the film, there is a confrontation between Shane (Monet Mazur) and China (Jaime Pressly). It’s apparent that they are ordained enemies and their mutual hatred is personal, going far beyond them being the respective girlfriends of the hero and chief villain. It’s made clear to the audience that by the end of the movie, there will be a reckoning between them. This is definitely something to look forward to, as they are beautiful and physically well matched.

And so it comes to pass. At the end of the movie, the villains get busted; China makes a break for it, jumps on a motorcycle and rides off. Shane also mounts up and goes after her. So far, so good, but this is when it starts to get goofy. For some strange reason, they try to have a martial arts fight from the back of their bikes. Unfortunately this just doesn’t work on any level, and I would have liked it done a lot differently.

First of all, they both would have grabbed guns before riding off – this makes more sense. They would have started firing at each other while riding, perhaps ending when Shane shoots out the bad girl’s back tire. Abandoning her bike, China is now able to aim more effectively and nearly takes out her pursuer. Sliding to a stop, the good girl ducks for cover, and resumes what is now a running gun battle. Shane chases her rival down and traps her. With nowhere to run, China prepares to make her last stand, when something almost unheard of in action movies happens: her gun runs out of ammo.

Shane advances from behind cover, her own gun aimed at her rival, smiling happily as she says, “Give it up, bitch. It’s over now, and I don’t want to have to shoot you.” China sneers at her foe, drops to a fighting crouch and clenches her fists as she replies. “Well, in that case put the gun down and try and take me without it, if you have the guts.” This suits our good girl just fine. She has no desire to shoot an unarmed foe, but likes the idea of beating her up…

The two actresses concerned did some of the film fight themselves, and would likely have welcomed the chance to do more. They had some martial arts training for their roles so a reasonable skill level could be expected. Ideally it would not be a classic martial arts fight, but an all-out, back alley brawl. Mazur and Jamie should have been given the opportunity to put on a great fight, getting back to basics.

A quick side-note. Too often, film-makers forget that the human face is the most expressive part of us. A display of emotion can be used to draw the audience into the fight, and make a commitment into caring who wins. This is especially so when a girl is fighting as a hero: you feel her pain as her enemy lands a blow, will her on as she strains for dominance, and enjoy with her the fierce pleasure of victory. This is something difficult to do when using stuntwomen, for obvious reasons: I have a lot of admiration for them, but feel in many cases they should stay in the background, helping with the fight chorography.

Troy (2004)
Sorry, Homer – they lost the plot.

The inclusion of this particular movie will surprise many, but think along the lines of, “girls who should have been armed and dangerous”, and I will explain. The movie’s publicity proudly claims that it is “inspired by Homer’s Iliad” – rather than based on – and the differences are too numerous to list here. So I’ll concentrate on those affecting my own topic.

Three of the strongest characters in the Iliad are female. It is the goddesses Hera, Athena and Aphrodite who set the whole thing off, by arguing and then fighting over, a present addressed to “the most beautiful goddess” of them all. Zeus, all-powerful King of the Gods intervenes but is not prepared to pick a winner. The reason why is quite simple: he’s not stupid. He knows that the two he doesn’t pick, will resent it and even the most powerful being on the planet has no desire to face the fury of two such formidable females.

In a manoeuvre worthy of a politician, he delegates the decision to somebody else. Paris gets the job and all three try to bribe him. He chooses Aphrodite, who offers him any woman he wants, over the other two who only offer him power over men. He wants Helen, so she organises it – and from then on the mortals are part of a giant war game as the gods and goddesses interfere with what is happening on Earth.

[This is of course a very brief summary and will probably offend any scholar reading it! But it won’t matter to the filmmakers, since they eliminated the whole thing and started with the humans having free will. Hence, when things go wrong, it can no longer be blamed on “the will of the gods.” With all the powerful female characters eliminated, the ones left should step up to fill the void. The game is still on, but they are no longer pawns – they are queens, and should act accordingly. Not doing so, results in what I consider to be an absurd situation. Helen puts her own personal happiness over that of the fate of nations, but is not portrayed as being arrogant. You gotta be kidding – as Homer probably wouldn’t have said.

Then there is also Andromache, wife of Prince Hector to consider. She has a wonderful life until Helen arrives at Troy. Her husband will be the next King of Troy, she will be its Queen, and they have a baby they both love. But because of Helen, her husband is killed, Troy is destroyed and she and baby are forced to flee in fear of their lives. Despite this, not once in the whole movie does she get the least bit annoyed with the person responsible. I just don’t see how any woman destined to rule could be that much of a wimp. I think their first meeting should have been a moment of high dramatic tension – something which in the movie is sadly lacking.

At the welcome home reception, eyes meet across a crowded room, and it’s hate at first sight. Helen is being shunned by the women of Troy and knows she must deal with their leader. Unlike the others, Andromache does not turn from her gaze, but stares back defiantly. Slowly, menacingly. Helen moves towards the Trojan Princess. Hands on hips and eyes locked with those of her approaching nemesis, Andromache stands her ground – if the Spartan Queen is looking for a fight, she won’t need a map. It is Helen who speaks first. “How dare you treat me like this, Housewife of Hector. I demand the respect that I deserve.” “That is exactly what you are getting, Helen of Whores. You are not welcome here,” replies Andromache.

The Queen of Troy intervenes, reminding them that royalty does not brawl in public. They are both members of the same sisterhood and should take their dispute to the temple of their order. The girls agree and that night after suitable ritual and ceremony they duel with daggers, bare to the waist, until blood is spilt. After a spirited struggle between the two well-matched rivals, Helen overpowers her foe but chooses to deliver a small cut rather than a death thrust. The two fighters now have a mutual respect for each other and at the end of the movie, arm themselves with swords, and fight their way, back to back, out of the doomed city.

Okay, while this might be truer to the spirit of the original, I am prepared to concede that this version might be a little extreme for many, and that a compromise scenario would be needed for a mainstream audience. However, I’m sure that Diane Kruger and Saffron Burrows, the two actresses involved, would certainly have preferred some meaty dialogue. I found no indication from their body language that that they like each other, and may have welcomed the chance to get physical.

In addition, I also found their big scene together, after Hector is killed, most unrealistic. This is when Helen (Kruger) tries to comfort a sobbing Andromache (Burrows), although the logical person to comfort her is the Queen, who has just lost her son. I think most women in that situation would be more interested in clobbering the person responsible with a sword rather than getting a hug from them. There was a coldness about the embrace that suggested to me that they knew it was all wrong – and perhaps they would rather have fought.


On a more positive note I have seen many action movies in which a male/female partnership has worked well. This is especially true, if there is a chemistry between them, such as the combination of Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner back in the 1980’s. Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile have a special, timeless quality about them, that also applies to my favourite movie of this genre, True Lies. While action packed from start to finish, it has enough humour in it to lighten the mayhem, so that it isn’t taken too seriously. Although it starred Arnold Schwarzenegger, I put a lot of its success down to having Jamie Lee Curtis (good girl) and Tia Carrera (bad girl), as his two leading ladies – not that there was anything very ladylike about the way they fought over a gun in the back of the limo!

Nor am I trying to suggest that this sort of movie is a thing of the past. I enjoyed the recent Van Helsing, and thought that Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale worked well together. In the near future I intend to see National Treasure with Nicholas Cage and Diane Kruger in the starring roles. So far I have only seen the trailer, but I have already seen her involved in more action than the whole of Troy. And that, ladies and gentlemen, pretty much brings me full circle, right back to missed opportunities.