According to Trey, a pillager cannot be good (see the response on sharks). However, Robin Hood pillaged from the rich to give to the poor, which I think we'd all agree is very valiant and a good deed. He also seemed to follow a higher moral code, so was he a warrior or a rare good pillager?
13 comments:
I'm not sure about this. Robin Hood fought in defense of the poor, who were being robbed by the rich. And when looked at one way, this could be seen as fighting fire with fire, not conventional robbery.
He was also very tactical, a key component in the make-up of a Warrior. His attacks were planned out in detail, often involving costumes and precise timing.
But you have a point. Technically he did pillage the rich.
What we need to look at here are the motives. Did he steal out of greed and lust for wealth? Or was he fighting against the greater injustice of poverty?
I think an interesting place to move this dialogue would be the classification of Robin Hood not as a Warrior or Pillager, but as a specific type of one or the other. What was Robin Hood?
One more thing. I never said Pillagers couldn't be good. I simply stated that I have difficulty in finding examples that prove this.
But after some thought, I have re-evaluated this Robin Hood discussion and come up with this...
Looked at from the perspective of the wealthy, Robin Hood was a pillager. He attacked them and took their possessions. But from the view of an impoverished individual, Robin Hood was a Warrior against injustice.
This brings up a very difficult topic. We must ask ourselves when examining a figure, where would we place ourselves at that moment in history? For example, when considering Robin Hood do we imagine ourselves as wealthy landowners living in fear of being robbed, or are we the poor serfs whom he helps to survive?
Because of this, I think it is unfair to look at Robin Hood in terms as being "good" or "bad," and then applying this determination to the classification of either Warrior or Pillager. What we must do is pull him out of context into a new arena against other combatants.
Since this is the first time to use this method, I will stick to a bare bones scenario. Let's say a band of ninjas is about to face a mob of pirates. If Robin Hood were dropped into the battle, which side would he join?
Hopefully this will help in our classification
Forgive me, but I think we may need to look a little closer at the indivdual in this case instead of simply his generalized actions.
Both warriors and pillagers have very distinct styles of dress and stature.
Robin Hood, as presented in the two images, seems to have some serious issues.
I do not think that the pirates or the ninjas would allow Robin Hood to join their side--what he would choose I am not sure.
He would probably be killed before he had the chance to decide.
I apologize if I seem to be undertaking this discussion on a superficial level--but I would argue that it is not superficial at all.
Robin Hood has been completely misunderstood here in this context of "pillager vs. warrior". In my opinion he was neither. Robin Hood performed merely out of his desire to impress and win the heart of the lady that he loved...none other than the fair maiden, Maid Marion. I would add to this argument that he was neither "good or bad". He was "Macho" and despite his clothing selection, he was quite the "Hunk" (speaking from the perspective of a female).
Mom, I think calling Robin Hood "macho" is a bit of a stretch. I think "dashing," meaning "audacious and gallant; spirited," is more fitting.
But this is beside the point. What we are looking at here is not whether this man was a dandy, hunk, or whathaveyou, but what type of fighter he was.
We (mainly I) have delved slightly too far into this man's character, and ignored the reality of the situation. As Esteban reminded us, if Robin Hood were to enter into combat with any other fighter, chances are he would not stand much of a chance.
Consider this, Robin Hood attacked unsuspecting carriage drivers, nobles, and friars. But what if he were to attack a knight?
Simply put, he would be killed. He would swing down out of a tree while issuing a galliant laugh, at which point the knight would most likely spot him, place him in the sights of his crossbow, and kill him.
Yes, he may have been a man trying to win the heart of the woman he loved, and that is a noble cause justifying his actions, but he was neither a Warrior nor a Pillager. And this is because he would not be respected, accepted, or allowed to live in the presence of either group. And that is what we are examining here.
This is how I see it. Amongst other fighters, Robin Hood would be treated like a rogue seal or a rogue lion; outcast from the pack and not allowed to return. This could be the case for various reasons, but my guess would be that his appearance and style of fighting would have a large role in it.
After reading everyone's comments, and delibirating for a considerable length of time, I have decided that Robin Hood has aspects of both. Sure, he robs the rich and defends the poor, but there is a certain class that I beleive he belongs too.
A while back now, Trey and I were discussing our merry neighbor, Senior Skipper Jerry Jodice. This man is hard to describe fully, but he is a man of small stature who sails often. He is basically like an older Officer Dangle from Reno:911, just older and married to a woman. He has a mustache, carries a Walther PPK in a small blue man-purse, and posseses the presence of an early 20th century world traveler.
Anyway, Trey and I decided that he fit into a category of fighters known as "Swashbucklers". These men are nither Warriors or Pillagers, but rather a...well actually just google image swashbuckler and look at the 1st image.
They were depicted in several 1930's films starrring Errol Flynn, and were known for fighting rich Spanish Conquistadors for the better of... whatever people the gold was snatched from, whether that be
Catholic monks, Native Americas, or other European nationals. Anywho, Trey beleived that their best use would be as a distraction for enemy cannoneers, which would allow a more trained and less flamboyant group of commandos to sneak in behind them. They would swing in on sail lines to the sides of ships and chant merry/dandy tunes while being blown away with massive amounts of firepower. Swashbucklers are extremely flamboyant, daring, rather naive, and most importantly they posses mustaches and wear tights.
So in conclusion, I beleive Robin Hood is neither a warrior or pillager, because he is everything a swashbuckler is. He probably had a fashonable mustache, he definitely wore tights, he was courageous, he helped the poor, and he swung down from trees on ropes.
Good point Pete. I think though that maybe a swashbuckler could be a merry mix of warrior and pillager...go ahead and attack me (but I'll probably swing my sword and shoot my pistol).
Unfortunately, Robin Hood is lacking the very thing that makes a swashbuckler a swashbuckler: a side sword and a buckler (small shield), not to mention a rough personality.
This actually calls to attention an interesting point regarding the style issue that I previosuly mentioned.
I think it is implied in our discussion that the ultimate type of warrior is a ninja and the ultimate pillager a pirate.
My next statement is dependent on the time period we choose to focus on, but I think you will all agree with me.
Both the pirate and the ninja are swordsmen.
Now we may be able to categorize Robin Hood, but in the end we must ask ourselves:
Is Robin Hood worth our time?
At best Robin Hood has a knife or dagger the size of a letter opener, and he probably only uses it for blocking.
One little addition:
Sorry Eve and Mellen, swordsmen/swordswomen
This of course brings up a very interesting topic regarding the role of gender in being a warrior or pillager--which will demand a seperate post.
No need to comment on it now.
Esteban, I am writing in response to you're remark about how Robin Hood lacks a sword and buckler. The only one of these he is actually missing is the buckler. If you've ever seen the beautiful and poignant film "Robin Hood: Prince of Theives" starring the ever-so well-lit Kevin Costner, you would know that Robin Hood does in fact use a sword. In fact, he stabs it into Allen Rickman's black heart at the end of the movie, and we all know that anything with Kevin Costner has to be true (i.e. Waterworld, The Postman).
Also, when you say that Swashbucklers posses a buckler, or a small shield, you must be thinking of some sort of Swashbuckler-relative. I say this because a Swashbuckler can't afford to hold both his sword and the buckler, because he has to swing on ropes, and if he did he would ackwardly swing halfway towards the ship and stop inbetween the vessels, soon to be shot into the warm waters of the Western seas. Also, a true Swashbuckler posseses such good swordsmanship, that he has no need for this. You might be thinking of a "Buccaneer", or a conquistador-ish type fighter.
Second, Eve believes that Swashbucklers are some sort of mix between the two, and said she would go down firing her pistol and slashing her cutlass. Well the shot you fired hit me in the face and and killed me instantly because i cannot prove that swashbucklers are not a mix between warriors and pillagers.
I spent hours last night at the public library looking at old Robin Hood novels, searching for some clue that would lead me to the answer to the question 'is robin hood a warrior or a pillager?' In the theobvious answer hit me like a blow to the face from Michael Caine.
Did anyone ever think about whether or not Robin Hood could have been a fox wearing green tights, like in the 1990s animated Disney film "Robin Hood"? I mean think about it! Maybe Robin Hood didnt know whether he was stealing or not because he is in fact a fox, and has no idea what the hell is going on.
Foxes are warriors in heart, because at a young age a fox is shipped off to an old Calcuttan fortress to be taught calligrafy and study the ancient rules of Fox in Fox Hall. And do you recall in the Robin Hood animated Disney feature when Robin Hood breaks all the innocent animal prisoners from jail, including the poor family of mice that lived in the church? A pillager wouldn't do that! A pillager would abandon the helpess little mammals.
Brian Jacques helped prove my theory with his non-fiction Redwall novels. If walt disney was not frozen beneath the Disney animation department, he would tell us all that that Robin Hood is a warrior, as well as a fox.
I submit to the authority of Kevin Costner, though I admit I have never seen said Robin Hood movie.
I would posit though that the act of stabbing Alan Rickman is not substantial but merely theatrical, seeing that Alan Rickman has no authority. He has only one strength: the ability to go through life without ever clearing his throat (even though he surely feels the need to do so).
Swachbucklers do not always carry their buckler, but sometimes go out with it. The shield is often used as a weapon on its own for the first few victims (to add insult to injury) then it can be thrown at a person and picked up later.
I just want to say that Robin Hood was a terrific archer (did anyone see the heroic monument picture I posted?), and none of you has mentioned this. He didn't just carry a little dagger, he shot people with arrows from afar. I think he was a warrior in his own army of good-doers and a pillager of the bourgeoisie. I still say he has characteristics of both, and a crossbow. He's interesting because to one social group (or class) he's a hero (warrior) and to another group (or higher class) he's a pillager, that's why he's so interesting in this argument.
Post a Comment