Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/Marco Polo

You are exploring the Discontinuity Index, a place where any details or rumours about unreleased stories are forbidden.
Please discuss only those whole stories which have already been released, and obey our spoiler policy.

This page is for discussing the ways in which Marco Polo doesn't fit well with other DWU narratives. You can also talk about the plot holes that render its own, internal narrative confusing.

Remember, this is a forum, so civil discussion is encouraged. However, please do not sign your posts. Also, keep all posts about the same continuity error under the same bullet point. You can add a new point by typing:

* This is point one.
::This is a counter-argument to point one.
:::This is a counter-argument to the counter-argument above
* This is point two.
::Explanation of point two.
::Further discussion and query of point two.

... and so on. 

• Marco Polo was not a lone European traveler. Specifically, his travels were almost always family ones, and certainly would have been in 1289. No explanation is provided for why Marco's father Niccolo Polo and uncle Maffeo Polo, who he mentions in the first episode, are not present during this journey.

• The name Peking is an anachronism and the city should properly have been referred to as Khan-balik. Furthermore, had the title of episode 7 been "Assassin at Cambuluc", it would have been an accurate nod to the way that Marco Polo was known to have spelled the name of the city.

Of course, use of the Mongol name, or its Polo variant, would have likely confused all but the tiniest fraction of the viewing audience. "Peking" was undoubtedly used simply for the audience's benefit. The TARDIS translates for the Doctor and companions, and very likely would have translated the city into an English variant that Barbara and Ian would have recognised (i.e., Peking).

• The distance from Shang-Tu to Peking is a not inconsiderable 250km. It is extremely unlikely the distance could have been covered in the time allowed in Episode 7.

• In episode 7, Kublai Khan refers to backgammon as a card game.

In itself, this isn't really an error. The word "backgammon" only dates to the 17th century. Khan's confusion over the term is understandable. It's more of an error that Marco Polo calls the game "backgammon" and seems totally familiar with it. In truth, the anachronism of backgammon in this episode would have been alleviated by calling the game "nard", a Persian variant which dates to the 6th century. It's probably the only thing resembling backgammon that could possibly have traveled to Khan-balik by the 13th century. As with the use of the name "Peking", though, "backgammon" is almost certainly used here for the benefit of the audience.

• William Hartnell has an odd hysterical fit in episode one, laughing his head off for a full minute at all the troubles that have befallen the travellers.