Ironclad: Historically "Accurate"

The movie works like this: King James III signs the Magna Carta under duress from the Knights Templar. Wanting his power back, King James must lay siege to the rebels at Rochester Castle.

As an Action Movie...

The combat is actually fairly historically accurate. I was very happy when James Purefoy didn't use his sword one handed like some ninja. Those things were heavy. In fact, you could shatter your wrist if you didn't use it right. A lot of the maneuvers that were used were historically accurate for crusaders in the opening scenes.  Everything was well-paced and could easily be a date night movie.

As a Historically Accurate Retelling of the Siege of Rochester...

I don't want to ruin the ending for you, so I will just say this. It is UTTERLY WRONG. FDR: American Badass was more historically accurate than this movie.


First of all,  the Templars actually  housed and protected King James during the rebellion and had next to no pull over the Magna Carta. King James actually granted them land, privileges and tax exemption because of their help. Rochester was held with more than twenty people. The movie even flaunts this.

"And now there were thirteen survivors including one horse." Basically you could make this movie correct by doing to the opposite of everything but the combat and costuming.

The Verdict?

Not a bad movie to watch.  Just a little less correct than Braveheart but not a bad pop corn movie to see.  Just don't under any circumstances quote it as historical fact.