Buddha, I hope you don't mind me criticizing your list, because I found a lot of things I regard as nonesense in it.
I disagree, Agincourt was anything but a question of Chivalry, the French lost because thay had to charge up a muddy hill against showers of longbow bolts that could penetrate their armor. The King of England was so Chivalric before the battle that he left the town of Harfluer a burning ruin with all of its population deceased, and his battlefield chivalry was so impressive that when it seemed the French might win he had all of his prisoners killed. Removing the muddy hill and longbow is like removing the Bridge from William Wallace's great battle, which is a Mel Gibson thing. It is a good play, but don't go to it for accuracy, this is literally Rennaisance Spin Artistry at work, it of course will emphasize the knights. I love the Henry V play, but for accuracy it isn't reliable.My problem with historically inaccurate movies in general is that they are the only source of knowledge most people have about history (especially in the the US). Because no movie is without a couple of inaccuracies, usually made because the plot demands it, I divide them into more accurate and less accurate. Comedies, such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Black Adder, are not listed.
Henry The Vth: Both versions are excellent, but for that one scene in the first one where the knights are lowered onto their horses with cranes.
I don't really remember any of thoseDat Boot: But for the crew messing with the reporter, good.
Downfall: But for a couple minor nitpicks, good.
Gettysburg: I can't think of anything wrong.
Master And Commander: I can't think of anything wrong.
Platoon: I can't think of anything wrong.
The Warlord: The costumes are a little off, but Charlton Heston's attitude is spot on.
Tora! Tora! Tora!: I can't think anything wrong.
Waterloo: The lengths they went through to make it accurate are amazing. They dug pipe systems under the battlefield to simulate the wet conditions.
Zulu: This movie is about 50-50, but I like it, so I'm putting it up here.
Everyone here knows that 300 is ahistorical, but please leave politics to a different forum, you know the part of the forum reserved for it? Determining wether or not it is permitted to allow anyone to be villain who isn't english or french is not an issue for here, and I'm serious Mel Gibson has his englishmen burning women and children in church (a direct reference to Nazi World War Two atrocities), he has his English Leaders slaughter their own troops out of impatience, and he has never been accused of racism against England, so please leave the R word out of things related to anything Medieval or earlier. For an amusing take on Britain's bad guy status watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQHtQqbJqhE300: 300 is special because not only does it manage to be batshit over the top ridiculous in its inaccuracy (I mean, one can't even begin to list all the things wrong with that movie), it manages to be almost stupefyingly racist as well. Also, I wish they could have dropped Gorgo's name in there somewhere, like during the sex scene.
Leonidas: "Oh, Gorgo!"
Audience: "Wait, what?"
Be more specific? I found that it is the most historically accurate movie ever made, and most historical by far. Oliver Stone got details you probably never heard of right, i.e. the dress worn by Scythian Archers, Greek and Macedonian Sexual Ideals, emphasis of free warriors vs slave warriors. What exactly did Oliver Stone do wrong? The movie was about Alexander, not his battles, and it did cover his most important battles very well, so in my opinion grouping it with 300 is as tasteless as grouping Shakespear with modern American rap artists.Alexander: Same as 300, but not nearly as bad.
Never saw itGods And Generals: This is what happens when a Southerner writes a US Civil War movie. Contains both heavy inaccuracy and whitewashing.
Be more specific? There are innacuracies, but I thought it was a great depiction of the Crusader States. You don't seriously think Christians and Muslims hated each other all the time do you?Kingdom Of Heaven: Many nitpicks and a ridiculous amount of whitewashing. Almost everyone in the movie is an agnostic.
I agree on thoseKnights Tale: *Bangs head against the wall*
Pearl Harbor: It has Ben Affleck. That alone should be sufficient to keep you away. If that's insufficient, it contains so much chronological and technical inaccuracy that I couldn't list it all here.
Patton: this movie. Montgomery was a badass IRL.
Saving Private Ryan: Post D-Day the movie starts veering into fantasy. Good technical accuracy though.
The Last Samurai: So many inaccuracies, and things that just stretch credibility. A dude mastering Japanese and swordplay in a single Winter?
Troy: While it's based off of a myth, it's a myth based on a true event that we know or can extrapolate a good amount of information on, and since they left out all of the mythological elements, should be taken as a depiction of a historical event. I did enjoy watching Orlando Bloom get smacked around.