Something very odd I noticed about the Royal Guards of Arendelle, is that even though the film is set in a post-Napoleonic/Industrial Revolution era, they appear to not be armed with flintlock/percussion cap firearms. The only weapons they seem to bear, are WAAAAAY outdated cross-hilted broadswords. Is this a historical inaccuracy? Or should I just stop complaining and its Disney film for kids?
I read that its set in the 1840s, which would make sense if you look at the clothing and fashion being ascots and waistcoats instead of cravats and frock coats, which was how it would have been if the film was in the 1780s.
Plus the story its based on is set in 1845, and the castle guards are dressed like the British 95th Rifles. . .c'mon.
It's probably like that because the film is intended for children, and of course, parents would go crazy if ANY sort of firearms were in a childrens movie... Wait, the film WAS intended for children, right..?
That's a controversial topic all in itself. I guess you're right, however. It would be quite mal-influencial for kids to see that, but a crossbow bolt can more or less kill somebody as easily as a musketball (apart from the lead shattering inside your body).
Nonetheless, its painful to see guys dressed like the British 95th Rifles throwing javelins, and shooting crossbows.
The swords however, would have been much better if they were at least cup-hilted or shell-hilted smallswords or backswords instead of cross-hilted broadswords.
'Harder to handle' is disputable, and it also depends on the timeframe. During the time of Frozen, the Baker Rifle would have already been invented and in use, and is shorter and easier to use than muskets.
The thugs could have had several pistols on them, which would work. After you've shot one, you just take out the next. Common alternative to reloading (that and having four-barrel pistols).
It wouldn't have worked out for Elsa, though. The ice block she made to stop the crossbow bolt would not have hindered a musket-shot, and Frozen would have ended quite differently.
Still, the Royal Guards should still have had firearms.
Not necessarily IN the battle scene, firearms of the time (if not baker rifles) were hopelessly innacurate. She may have gotten hit somewhere slow-killing, and could have made a dramatic (and exceptionally sad) death. Or she might have healed up almost completely. . .and then bacterial infection kicks in. No matter what, it would have been bad for her.
It all depends on the target audience. Disney's done a lot of stuff that involves guns (along with my favorite saga of all: PotC!), and I myself would have voted for complete historical accuracy, therefore firearms.
Nonetheless, those that say its bad for children do have something of a point. As if they don't get enough merchendise filled with firearms! We don't want the next generation turning out to be blood-thirsty murderous sociopaths, do we? :-)
Disney has a movie selection for all ages...that's one of the resins they are so stinking rich, I think Pixar and Disney animation movies are directed towards the younger age group. their live action films seem to be getting more violent though.
Its the 1840s! Rifling's been invented. Not only muskets, but also Baker rifles were commonplace, so accuracy's made an improvement. Cold has never been a problem for gunpowder, but rather wet, which is probably a slight problem because of the snow, but if The Great Northern War could be fought a century before Frozen's time, then firearms work fine in the snow.
If they used bullet shooting crossbows, I would understand. Bullet shooting crossbows, like the one shown here, were used in some American military detachments; a Civil War Union Army regiment had one. If that doesn't suit well, they could have used a blunderbuss. Besides, by Weselton's quote, "Be prepared for anything," he probably included weilding a weapon that would be immune to snow. Flintlocks weren't immune, nor were percussion locks.
The Great Northern War is full on proof that snow isn't critical for gunpowder weapons. Stone-bows are SUPER weak. Unless you get the guy in the head, its not enough to kill. Meanwhile, blunderbusses ARE flintlock arms. That's kind of how they operate, and there's no real reason to have a mass anti-personel weapon used against a single person.
Yes, but old firearms can be slowed by snow, and the powder might get wet. Besides, I did research, the main reason why the Russians were able to beat the Swedish was because many had crossbows, too, while the Swedish relied solely on muskets. Besides, crossbows are much more accurate, and are quicker to reload. A musket, on the other hand, would take 30 seconds to reload (if you're that quick, even). You have to tamp the powder, ram the ball in, and put the powder in the pan. Then, you pull back the hammer, and close the pan. Finally, you shoot. Besides, not all European nations had percussion lock weapons. Only the British had the most reliable of the weapons. Still, I see your point.
Ash...that was in a desert! And it was a reliable revolver.
Okay, lets leave the thugs out for now. Why did the guards not have firearms? The only weapon you see them weilding is a...what?...javalin? In the 17th-18th centuries, having a spear-like weapon shorter than a pike signified rank (eg, spontoons, partisans), and this is even a century after. Opinions?
And even Hans' sword was out of place (or out of time, rather), right down to the cross-hilt.
They must have been on a peaceful mission. After all, Arendelle's soldiers were under order of Hans' "No harm is to come to the queen!" In the end, I did see some of the ships' cannon holes closed, meaning that they did have cannons, at least.
Docterminus wrote: They must have been on a peaceful mission. After all, Arendelle's soldiers were under order of Hans' "No harm is to come to the queen!" In the end, I did see some of the ships' cannon holes closed, meaning that they did have cannons, at least.
Peaceful mission ore not, its mandatory to bring your trusty firearms. A javelin can kill as well as a bullet. Even minus that, they should have had their muskets/rifles during other scenes. Like at the funeral. To fire a salute.
You know what...knowing Disney, the ships probably had ballistas on their gundecks. THAT would be funny!
Matchlocks are not seen because they would prove ineffective in protecting the kingdom in my opinion. Matchlocks in this era can only fire one shot at a time and take a few time to reload, therefore swords and crossbows are more effective. If the Duke of Weselton's Bodygaurds used Matchlocks they can only fire one shot and seek cover to reload which will make them vulnerable. Also Elsa can easily counter the bullets with her ice magic even when she is afraid as shown in the movie.
Let's say Arrendelle under siege firearms, such as cannons, will definitly be used to sink invading enemy ships.
Matchlocks? By 1840, we are nearly at the end of the flintlock and on to percussion caps. I see your point though, as any muzzle-loading firearm does require a fair amount of time to charge. Yes, I'll agree that perhaps taking muskets on the rescue mission would not have been completely practical. However, I do believe the thickness of ice that stopped the bolt would not block a .69 or .75 fired from a Charleville or Brown Bess, maybe not even a pistol shot. And the guards at Arendelle definitely should have had muskets on their shoulders, in my opinion.
I don't mean to hate, and I do like this film, but being honest, Disney's moral gun-free code for their kids' movies is what prevented a single firearm from making it onscreen.