If we learn world history via Hollywood, we
are in trouble, as the movie version of historical events is often a butchered slice of past
life that bears little resemblance to what actually happened. The movie Braveheart, which depicted William
Wallace as a near-faultless hero, has been called one of the “most historically inaccurate
movies” of our time. For one thing, in real life, Wallace was born
into Scottish gentry and he certainly didn’t wear a kilt. As for the movie Pearl Harbor, in real life,
Japanese Kamikaze pilots weren’t used until later in the war. It’s also highly doubtful that Pocahontas
actually fell in love with John Smith, and historians tell us it’s very unlikely she
saved his life. With all that in mind, welcome to this episode
of the Infographics Show, Why Robin Hood Was Actually A Bad Guy. A bit like the stories of King Arthur and
the knights of the round table, the story of Robin Hood has many iterations and falls
into the category of folklore. Arthur’s story goes back much further than
Robin’s, and still today, historians have different opinions regarding if Arthur ever
existed. The same goes for Robin Hood. But let’s have a look at who he could have
been. The story we all know well is that Robin Hood
was a kind of noble outlaw, a sword-wielding social-anarchist of sorts who robbed from
the rich and gave the proceeds back to the poor. He was a formidable archer, who with his band
of merry men went up against the evil Sheriff of Nottingham. His love interest was Maid Marian, although
she doesn’t come onto the scene until many years after the first Robin Hood tales were
told. The BBC tells us that the legend of Robin
Hood first appears in a poem written in 1377, or thereabouts. That poem is called “Piers Plowman”. It’s incredibly long and written in Old
English. Here’s a snippet from the last page:
“And lat hem ligge overlonge and looth is to chaunge hem;
Fro Lenten to Lenten he lat his plastres bite. We guess that you didn’t get much of that. Reading the entire thing is not easy, so we
won’t talk anymore about this piece of writing. More tales of Robin Hood would follow, such
as “Robin Hood and the Monk” circa 1450 and “The Lyttle Geste of Robyn Hode” also
written sometime in the 1400s. Where do these stories come from? That is the question, and it’s not easy
to answer. One historian tells us that in the King's
Remembrancer's Memoranda Roll of Easter 1262 there is mention of an outlaw called William
Robehod. But the names Robehods and Robynhods were
common back then. What that historian says is that it was likely
that some kind of outlaw existed in the north of England who was the basis of the Robin
Hood story. He may have been active in Sherwood Forest
in Nottinghamshire, but also in Yorkshire. The legend tells us that he actually died
in Kirklees, an area of West Yorkshire. You can go visit his grave there today at
a place called Kirklees Priory in Brighouse, near Huddersfield. According to the legend, when Robin was on
his deathbed he asked Little John to hand him his bow and arrow. Robin said he would fire the arrow and wherever
it landed that’s where he wanted to be buried. But that’s just one story. His fate is told differently in other stories. As one historian says, “It is possible to
construct a chronology: Robin active in the 1190s, an outlaw by 1225, dead by 1247 and
a legend by 1261.” He also adds that he wouldn’t put his reputation
on it. All in all, no one is quite sure regarding
the true origins of Robin Hood. There were many Robins in those days as the
name was a diminutive of the name Robert. Hood or Hod was also a common name as it is
derived from ‘maker of Hoods’. So, the fact the name pops up quite often
isn’t a surprise at all. It was very likely that there were quite a
few Robin Hoods who were both law-abiding citizens and also outlaws. As we said, it wasn’t until later that the
legend really got going. In the story “Robin Hood and the Monk”
he is placed in Nottingham and his acrimonious relationship with the local sheriff is talked
about, as is an assault on Little John after the latter beats him in an archery contest. According to legend this competition took
place at Whitby in Yorkshire and they fired their arrows from the roof of the Monastery
there. That same century in “Robyn Hod and the
Shryff off Notyngham” Friar Tuck, the portly monk, makes an appearance. Interestingly, in some of these stories, or
ballads, Robin doesn’t rob from the rich and give to the poor. But other experts do say the rebellious outlaw
may have been fashioned from poor people revolting against harsh conditions in medieval England. That Robin Hood may have been part of the
Peasants' Revolt of 1381. There could have been a real-life outlaw before
this time, and then during the days when the poor were sick and tired of their hard lives,
Robin Hood the myth could have been invented. Then there’s the ballad, “A Gest of Robyn
Hode”, which was printed between 1492 and 1534. In this story Robin and his merry men help
a knight who owes money due to his son killing two men. Robin gives him the cash and also some clothes. The knight at one point sees a man in a wrestling
match, Little John, and the two become acquainted. Little John was then in the service of the
knight. Later in the tale the sheriff holds an archery
competition and Robin wins it. The Sheriff isn’t too happy about this and
Robin ends up killing him. To cut a long story short, Robin stays with
the king for a while and kneels before him, only to get bored of court life and run off
to the forest. He lives there for another 22 years. In 1592’s “Annales of England” Robin
Hood’s campaign of kindness is discussed. Some of the last lines in that tale are, “He
was a good outlaw.” In some of these early ballads he’s not
depicted as a man that embodies absolute equality, making people in his band kneel when they
speak to him. In these early versions of the tale he is
just a commoner, or yeoman, who is not exactly anti-establishment, but a violent outlaw. In later versions, and there are many, he
might be a knight, or a nobleman fallen from grace, or a simple peasant. In many early stories he isn’t concerned
about high taxes; he doesn’t run around the forests of northern England wrestling
coins from the rich. He’s not a revolutionary by any means. He’s a robber and killer, but in some ways
he’s what you might call a likeable rogue. We have another ballad called “The True
Tale of Robin Hood” which was written around 1630. In this version of events Robin is the Earl
of Huntington. This rich man, though, becomes poor after
some frivolous spending and the loss of his cash to the abbot of St. Mary's. Robin then sets out to get his revenge. He starts robbing from the rich, especially
the rich clergy, and handing out the bounty to the poor. This is similar to the children’s tale we
all know, except for the fact that in this story Robin is fond of castrating those clergymen. Hmm, that could have caused some tears in
primary school. In this story, Robin is not exactly anti-establishment
as it seems he has a decent relationship with King Richard. In fact, Robin is usually good with the monarchy;
it’s the sheriff that is the problem. It ends when Robin gets sick and his friar
attempts to bleed him, a backwards way of making someone better back in the day. He dies, and the king laments the fact that
Robin trusted the friar. So, is that the “true” tale? You can bet your life that it isn’t. In other tales Robin Hood is more of a trickster,
and of course he doesn’t always dress in that green outfit we always see him in. As we said earlier, Maid Marian only comes
into the story much later. The earliest characters in his band of merry
men consist of Friar Tuck, Little John, Much the Miller’s son and Will Scarlet. Some other sources tell us Robin Hood was
also French. Sacre bleu! Yes, those sources say there was a French
character called “Robin des Bois” or Robin of the Woods. This character was celebrated during the French
May Day festival, but it’s more likely that the French just took the English story. We must also remember that French was still
widely used in England in the days of the Robin Hood early stories. So, we know many of these early ballads were
bloody and not exactly child-friendly. It wasn’t until the 19th century that Robin
Hood could be said to gain a PG-rating. “The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood of Great
Renown in Nottinghamshire” of 1883 was an illustrated novel that took bits from all
the old stories, minus the forest massacres, the castrations and the painful bindings of
the clergy, and made the tale suitable for kids. This is the story that has influenced many
other story-tellers and also filmmakers, but it’s hardly close to earlier depictions. The story is again monarchy-friendly, as Robin
Hood and his merry men are all given pardons by King Richard the Lionheart. Robin is not portrayed as an outlaw, or a
crook, as he was before, and he does not go around slaying his enemies. Then you have the 1938 movie, “The Adventures
of Robin Hood”, which shows Sir Robin of Locksley as fighting against the oppression
of the Norman Lord who are in cahoots with Prince John. The king is away fighting in the Holy Land
and the Normans and Prince John are hard on the poor in his absence. Robin swears to put Richard the Lionheart
back on the throne and gets his rebel guerrilla army together. Robin, Much, his buddy Will Scarlet, Little
John and Friar Tuck all go hide out in Sherwood forest. They make an oath not only to free England,
but also to rob from the rich and give to the poor. At one point they get hold of a group of Normans,
who include Lady Marian and the Sheriff of Nottingham. The lady of course is first outraged at being
held captive, but the smooth-talking Robin soon gets her on his side. In the end Richard gets back on the throne
and pardons the outlaws. He then says Robin should marry Marian and
makes Robin the Baron of Locksley and Earl of Sherwood and Nottingham. Robin gets down on his knees and further pledges
his allegiance to the king. Everyone lives happily ever after. Which of course is complete fiction, but we
don’t think anyone would argue that point. Still, the newer stories of the noble Robin
are very different from the older, bloodier tales, and are also an unabashed abuse of
historical reality. Outlaws didn’t usually end-up on the winning
side, they still don’t. In general, the more romanticized Robin Hood
tales are a kind of an offering to the poor who might watch or read them and begin a bout
of wishful thinking. In fact, the older stories of Robin Hood being
a brute who isn’t exactly democratic nor hands over his bounty to the poor, are no
doubt much closer to reality than the more recent tales. But Robin Hood as bloody historical realism,
and not a Hollywood happy ending account, might be a hard sell to some movie goers. In conclusion, there are so many different
Robin Hood stories, many we haven’t mentioned here, that there is no way to fathom what
really happened, or indeed if anything happened at all. But if we read English history and we try
to construct a tale from our knowledge, we might believe that if there was a Robin Hood
then his story would be one of excessive violence that would likely end with him being executed
in the most brutal way imaginable. The tale of Robin Hood exists because most
of us want to believe in the small man overcoming establishment oppression. The stories warm our hearts, but the reality
is that life didn’t play out like that. The outlaw Hods of the 13th century were likely
nothing more than common thieves who viciously killed, and certainly wouldn’t hand over
a couple of coins to the other poor folks eking out a living in the cruel climate of
northern England. So, do you disagree? If so, let us know why in the comments. Also, be sure to check out our other show
called YOU vs 100 People - How Could You Defeat Them. Thanks for watching, and as always, don’t
forget to like, share and subscribe. See you next time.
