I always thought Tristan was the best warrior out of all of the knights, he made swordplay an art form as seen is his other brief sword fights throughout the movie. His fight here though was more heavy handed, more like the traditional heavy sword fighting that we see from Arthur or lancelot, than the smooth dancing moves he displayed previously. Then i got to thinking about why they would have Tristan lose this fight, and I came up with two reasons, firstly echoing Lancelot earlier in the movie, "I will die in battle and hopefully a battle of my choosing", and secondly Tristan is a warrior, all throughout he was the knight that killed easily as opposed to Galahad who actively disliked killing unless absolutely necessary. Tristan was free from service to Rome, he no longer had a war to fight or enemies to slay, ever the warrior he had no place in peacetime, so he chose this battle to die a warriors death, not for Rome but for Arthur and the Knights of the Round table - his brothers. This is why he failed here, because he was a man who had accepted death and no longer had a reason to fight to be alive, only to fight until he was laid low.
It Tristan didn't engage the Saxon leader first & thus tire him out could Arthur have ultimately prevailed in his clash of true champions with said Saxon warlord?? Food for thought.
Had he not switched up the tactic, pretty sure Tristan would have gotten the win. He didn't use any heavy attacks for his kills, and his style would have eventually tired him out. I think Cedric both saw and feared his defeat, and used a style that he wasn't used to defending.
Two things I like about this duel: 1.) It was as honorable as you could expect to receive on a battlefield by two mortal enemies fighting to the death. 2.) The Knight who kills for pleasure was cut down by his own sword.
@@pietrpiepir6444 but he did pull one out against Tristan, right? Then that’s the proof you need to say that’s how he fights. If he never pulled out a knife in a fight in the entire movie, but I tried to argue that he would’ve, then that would be a baseless argument. But he actually has done it. Which means the argument that it’s how he fights not only has merit, it also has evidence to support it. Because he DID.
@@thewestfire9729 Uh...no my friend that's not how it works. If I play tennis with a one-handed backhand, and then play one match with a two handed backhand, that doesn't mean that's how I play tennis. Its the exception, not the rule, just like this fight was.
Look at the ironic part. Mads Mikkelsen is a dane. The danish people was Saxons, you know vikings. He's ancestors are saxons and then he plays a role were he fights the saxons. I think it's ironic. Tristan was my favorite character and Mads Mikkelsen is my favorite danish actor. Proud to be danish!
the cerdic was just better guys, its combat, there is absolutely no denying Tristan was the best though, thats why he killed him, he gave him a warriors death, it sucked but it was very honorable.
I think they were too evenly matched for Cerdic to be in any condition to fight Arthur were he to win, which is why he pulled the knife on him. Cerdic wanted Arthur and Tristan was in his way, so he had to kill him asap and didn't care how dirty it was.
I always thought Tristan was the best warrior out of all of the knights, he made swordplay an art form as seen is his other brief sword fights throughout the movie.
His fight here though was more heavy handed, more like the traditional heavy sword fighting that we see from Arthur or lancelot, than the smooth dancing moves he displayed previously.
Then i got to thinking about why they would have Tristan lose this fight, and I came up with two reasons, firstly echoing Lancelot earlier in the movie, "I will die in battle and hopefully a battle of my choosing", and secondly Tristan is a warrior, all throughout he was the knight that killed easily as opposed to Galahad who actively disliked killing unless absolutely necessary.
Tristan was free from service to Rome, he no longer had a war to fight or enemies to slay, ever the warrior he had no place in peacetime, so he chose this battle to die a warriors death, not for Rome but for Arthur and the Knights of the Round table - his brothers. This is why he failed here, because he was a man who had accepted death and no longer had a reason to fight to be alive, only to fight until he was laid low.
I love how he takes out Cerdic's right hand man in like 2 seconds lol
Poor Tristan. Poor crow.
He weakend the boss for Arthur. But got killed dirty.
It Tristan didn't engage the Saxon leader first & thus tire him out could Arthur have ultimately prevailed in his clash of true champions with said Saxon warlord?? Food for thought.
Very interesting because the picture is new.
a man as skilled as tristan would not have losed
Tristans bird flying around above him 😢😢
With 5 wounds in him,Tristram didnt stand a chance.It is right,that Cerdic had no honor,using that dagger as he did.Coward!!
Had he not switched up the tactic, pretty sure Tristan would have gotten the win. He didn't use any heavy attacks for his kills, and his style would have eventually tired him out. I think Cedric both saw and feared his defeat, and used a style that he wasn't used to defending.
Real life Madds Mikelsen ( actor playing Tristan) would make short work of Stellan Skarsgaard (The dane)
He killed Tristan by using his own sword.😥
Two things I like about this duel:
1.) It was as honorable as you could expect to receive on a battlefield by two mortal enemies fighting to the death.
2.) The Knight who kills for pleasure was cut down by his own sword.
Yeah, I mean it wasn't honorable at all for Cerdic to pull a knife but I assume that's what you mean.
@@pietrpiepir6444 depends on your point of view. There’s no such thing as a fair fight and pulling out knives is just how Cerdic fights
@@thewestfire9729 No it isn't lol, he didn't pull out a knife against Arthur, or anyone else.
@@pietrpiepir6444 but he did pull one out against Tristan, right? Then that’s the proof you need to say that’s how he fights. If he never pulled out a knife in a fight in the entire movie, but I tried to argue that he would’ve, then that would be a baseless argument. But he actually has done it. Which means the argument that it’s how he fights not only has merit, it also has evidence to support it. Because he DID.
@@thewestfire9729 Uh...no my friend that's not how it works. If I play tennis with a one-handed backhand, and then play one match with a two handed backhand, that doesn't mean that's how I play tennis. Its the exception, not the rule, just like this fight was.
Mads Mikkelsen should stop taking jobs where his character dies. I’m so tired of crying all the time!!
Look at the ironic part. Mads Mikkelsen is a dane. The danish people was Saxons, you know vikings. He's ancestors are saxons and then he plays a role were he fights the saxons. I think it's ironic.
Tristan was my favorite character and Mads Mikkelsen is my favorite danish actor. Proud to be danish!
Idaemiliehh I know this is old but, Saxons and Vikings are not the same.
He was later reincarnated as hannabil lecter.
I don’t think that’s irony.
Un rival digno !!
How was the Saxon able to beat one of Arthur's knights, they were the best warriors ever, no one could beat them, how was this guy able to?
I dug how the lieutenant wasn't content with fighting foot soldiers or other lieutenants. He wanted a shot at the king.
Tristan 👍
а чрезмерная волосня на лице им не мешает по жизни? ложкой похлебать, воды попить? обзор во время боя?
menos mal que era peli completa
Король Артур
the cerdic was just better guys, its combat, there is absolutely no denying Tristan was the best though, thats why he killed him, he gave him a warriors death, it sucked but it was very honorable.
I think they were too evenly matched for Cerdic to be in any condition to fight Arthur were he to win, which is why he pulled the knife on him. Cerdic wanted Arthur and Tristan was in his way, so he had to kill him asap and didn't care how dirty it was.
Lutar até o fim
😂😂😂