Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

[antisocialmunky]

Since all the old X is historically inaccurate topics where X is some movie/tv series are popping up again. Why not have a list of alternatives?

[Mulceber]

Inaccurate (and I don't necessarily mean this as a bad thing):
Ben Hur
300
Troy
Clash of the Titans (both of them)
Spartacus: Blood and Sand (or at least, so I've heard - haven't watched it)
Any of Shakespeare's three Roman plays

Accurate (or at least, as accurate as a movie is likely to get):
Rome (HBO)
Passion of the Christ (I haven't seen it, and don't want to, but from what I've heard, it's portrayal of those days is pretty accurate, even down to the torture)
King Arthur (the one from the early 2000's that flopped - it's based on a lot of research about Roman Britain. Granted, it does get some dates wrong)
I, Claudius (some bad costumes, but on the whole a rather accurate portrait of the Julio-Claudian dynasty)

Those are all that come to mind at the moment.

[Lvcretivs]

(...)at least, as accurate as a movie is likely to get - that's exactly the issue. Hollywood simply isn't likely to endorse historical accuracy and a realistic portrayal of ancient history - neither today nor in the near future. Why hire qualified advisors, spend years researching details and risk an embarrassing box office failure, when you can churn out lucrative run-of-the-mill sword-and-sandal movies, nicely garnished with blood and guts?

True - there were/are notably exceptions - 'I, Claudius' and HBO's 'Rome' - who at least tried to fullfill higher standards, but on the whole...

[B-Wing]

What about Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus? Whilst I don't know nearly enough about that era to make an informed judgment on the movie's accuracy, it certainly seemed convincingly realistic to me.

Also, a question/point: Mulceber includes Troy and Clash of the Titans in one of his lists. If we're going to consider movies based on myth and/or legend, are we primarily concerned with their adherence to the source material or with their realism? I mean, the term "historical accuracy" doesn't even seem applicable to movies/shows based upon documents which are widely considered to be products of imagination more than than fact. Perhaps Mulceber simply meant that anything based upon the myth of Perseus or of the Trojan War are going to be historically inaccurate. But I thought I would ask just for clarification.

[plutoboyz]

don't expect Hollywood to make accurate movie. they just making profit, not historically accurate

[Mulceber]

@ B_Ray - When I talked about Clash of the Titans and Troy, I meant accurate to the source material, and also accurate to Olympian Theology and Mythology. Sorry about the lack of clarity.

@ Lucretius - I totally agree - that's why I, broadly speaking, avoid watching these movies as history (although I'll admit that I, Claudius formed a good basis for my knowledge of the Julio-Claudian dynasty). To me, they're mainly just drama and entertainment couched in an era I love.

[Lvcretivs]

Probably you also meant an 'true to the spirit' approach combining 'historical realism' (eg. accurate Anatolian/Mycenaean Bronze Age equipment for Homers' heroes) and adherence to the 'source material'. But while (at least possibly) applicable to the Trojan War, this is bound to provoke endless controversies when more 'mythical' subjects are touched (Perseus, Titanomachy,...)

@Mulceber: You are perfectly right - but think of millions of people whose only contact whatsoever with classical history was watching 300...

[Mulceber]

agreed. It's a very difficult subject to broach, since if we wanted to be strict about it we would just have to throw all these shows out as inaccurate. But then, that wouldn't allow us to consider portrayals of ancient society in film on any deep level. -M

[plutoboyz]

...
300.
...

you must put this on top of your list. my eyes bleed when watch this. really opposite.

[TancredTheNorman]

Most accurate

I Claudius
HBO Rome

Those really are the great ones, HBO Rome not only towers over things in historical accuracy, it does it in quality to. The characters are genuine, you feel what they feel and you learn about them and get to like them as the series goes on.

Less accurate but still good, and still a must see
Gladiator (Ironically Cassius Dio agreed that Commodus killed his father because he was getting disinherited)
Kirk Douglass Spartacus (has some anachronisms, but still presents a believable and realistic plot, and who cares that the real Spartacus wasn't an abolitionist and was born free?)

Innacurate trash, ahistorical, below low quality
Spartacus Blood and Sand

Virtually ahistorical, do not see
300
Slight imrpovement at least when compared to Blood and Sand.

Edit- I apologize for the very poor grammer and pathetic spelling in this post, I am unfortunately in a rush.

[Mulceber]

Also, I'd like to add the History Channel to the "inaccurate" list. -M

[Hax]

How about "The Divine Weapon", which is a movie about the Korean hwacha. I don't know that much about Korean history, so I can't say anything about its historical accuracy, but how can you not admire this:

http://www.hwacha.net/img/hwacha/hwacha_firing_photo.jpg

[Macilrille]

I can come up with no new adds for the period, but for others, films and TV-shows to see are

Band of Brothers (HBO again)
Stalingrad, German, 1993
Das Boot, German ??
The Iron Cross, American or British, so-so in accuracy but the first film to not merely portray Germans as total villains but see things from their PoV and OK portrayal of life at the front
The Duellists, 1997, Ridley Scott's first film (you have to search the cover to find his name). Napoleonic Era.
All Kurosawa's films are good, whether or not they are accurate on all points they are in spirit.
Battle for Algiers, propagandistic but in some ways pretty faithful in its portrayal of at least Les Paras.


1612 is best avoided by historically interested, except for the total badass (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Badass) mercenary Spaniard Alvar. My friend Jan writes a summary here (http://jrc-1138.blogspot.com/) if you scroll down a bit.


Avoid
Ran (Korean)
Mongol (Mongolian or Russian)

[Brennus]

Vercingétorix: La légende du druide roi (2001) has legionaries wearing LS, tut tut.

[Lvcretivs]

@Macrille: 'Ran' is actually Kurosawa's last epic jidai-geki - certainly you must have confused it with one of these Korean 'historical romances'

[Apázlinemjó]

Saving Private Ryan - is quite accurate, but I was laughing at the Mustang "bombers" at the end of the movie.
The Pacific - is said to be good too, though I've not seen it yet, just read the critics about it.
Enemy at the gates - seemed ok too for me, anyone?
Alexander - isnt really accurate as they mix the battles and leave a lot of important events out of the movie.
All Quiet on the Western Front - I like this movie, but I don't really know if it is accurate or not, I don't really like to study the WWs, someone?

[Brennus]

Saving Private Ryan - is quite accurate, but I was laughing at the Mustang "bombers" at the end of the movie


That is true, it can't be that difficult to find airworthy P-47s. My main objection to Saving Private Ryan is the fact it makes no mention of the contribution by British Commonwealth, Canadian or Polish forces, even the landing craft drivers (who were actually British) are replaced by Americans.

[Macilrille]

SPR is in fact very inaccurate.
Lvcretivs that is true. Damn... there was one really- really bad Korean spin-off of the Chinese "historical" fighting films (which are bad enough in itself, edit THEMselves).

Nothing new... is both quite accurate and, AFAICR, faithful to the book by and large. I forgot that :-( Baaaad Palle.

[geala]

From all movies about antiquity I like "Alexander" the most. It is not accurate, but it has at least some accuracy in it.

May I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire...

"All Quiet on the Western Front" is fictitious but is quite accurate about the Trench War experience of individuals. The book after the movie is made ("Im Westen nichts Neues" by E.M. Remarque, 1928/29) is one of several well made novels about WWI. Because it was not so much patriotic it was forbidden and burned by the Nazis after 1933. Remarque had joined the war only for a short time, but he took much information from the reports of other soldiers.

[Mulceber]

May I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire

I also was distinctly turned off from the film when it mentioned the dates at the beginning. But apart from that, the fact that there were sarmatians serving in the Roman army, the fact that they worked in Bishop Pelagius, who in fact did get excommunicated for his beliefs about free will. Looking back, I suppose you're right that it should be moved to the inaccurate column, as most of the weaponry and armor is inaccurate to the peoples/time period, but I give KA props for making use of the Sarmatian connection and some of the historical events that really were occurring in late antiquity, especially since so few movies are produced about this era. -M

[Ludens]

I also was distinctly turned off from the film when it mentioned the dates at the beginning. But apart from that, the fact that there were sarmatians serving in the Roman army, the fact that they worked in Bishop Pelagius, who in fact did get excommunicated for his beliefs about free will. Looking back, I suppose you're right that it should be moved to the inaccurate column, as most of the weaponry and armor is inaccurate to the peoples/time period, but I give KA props for making use of the Sarmatian connection and some of the historical events that really were occurring in late antiquity, especially since so few movies are produced about this era.

I give them props for introducing the theory that the myth of Arthur and his knights has its basis in the Sarmatian auxiliaries, but my impression is that they were muddled about everything else. Lucius Artorius Castus fought off a Pictish rather than Germanic invasion: I can only assume that they made the Germans the enemy because that is what the public expects. That is presumably also the reason for placing the story a century or two after Castus lived, making him a Christian, giving him modern opinions on religion and society, etc. This wouldn't have bothered me very much if it was a typical Hollywood film, but they explicitly claimed to have found the historical Arthur. Especially since the story of Castus is, at best, only one element of the Arthur myth as we known it, and there's several lines of evidence that contradict Artorius playing a significant role in the historical events.


Edit:
As for accurate/inaccurate films: how accurate is "Tora! Tora! Tora!" ? When I first watched it, I thought it was one of those role-played documentaries, but apparently it's a real film.

"The Last Samurai" is definitely inaccurate. Although the imagery of medieval samurai making a last death-or-glory charge against modernity (musket-armed line infantry) is very powerful, the reality was that both sides in the Satsuma Rebellion used muskets.

[satalexton]

Hush you, BAD LUDENS :clown: katanas can block bullets!

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

Ah how nice of you all to talk about me while I'm gone. :clown:

[Macilrille]

:inquisitive:

Edit:
As for accurate/inaccurate films: how accurate is "Tora! Tora! Tora!" ? When I first watched it, I thought it was one of those role-played documentaries, but apparently it's a real film.

"The Last Samurai" is definitely inaccurate. Although the imagery of medieval samurai making a last death-or-glory charge against modernity (musket-armed line infantry) is very powerful, the reality was that both sides in the Satsuma Rebellion used muskets.

I do not know about Tora x 3 as it is one of those I have not seen. However, the fighting in The Last Samurai is actually quite well done in contrast to most Hollywood movies. The various Achilleus Duels in Troy as well, the one with Hector is brilliant IMO.

[Krusader]

I remember that Tora Tora Tora used real planes & ships, but so long since I watched the movie now.

HBO Rome. You can say it depicts ancient Rome very accurately, but Ptolemaic Egypt? Its been given the CA treatment there too. Cleopatra's bodyguards were Galatians for one. Second the court would have had a more Hellenistic look too. Plus Bithynia is depicted as Arabic, when at this time was Hellenized.

Alexander by Oliver Stone. Persians looking like and speaking Arab...Roxanne was also caucasian. At least Macedonian army seemed accurate enough.

[satalexton]

I still can't get it out of my head, the phalangitai and their drills.....the gayness is bad, but I liked the battles with the phalanx...


ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!

[athanaric]

May I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire...
Yes, and it got some scathing reviews, I hear. Probably because they confused the Saxons with the Chinese and had some "Warrior Chick" (Keira Knightley with a bow. Yeah right. I wonder how she managed to draw the thing) thrown in for fanservice.



"All Quiet on the Western Front" is fictitious but is quite accurate about the Trench War experience of individuals. The book after the movie is made ("Im Westen nichts Neues" by E.M. Remarque, 1928/29) is one of several well made novels about WWI. Because it was not so much patriotic it was forbidden and burned by the Nazis after 1933. Remarque had joined the war only for a short time, but he took much information from the reports of other soldiers.
I remember reading that one as a kid. The novel is quite good.



HBO Rome. You can say it depicts ancient Rome very accurately, but Ptolemaic Egypt? Its been given the CA treatment there too. Cleopatra's bodyguards were Galatians for one. Second the court would have had a more Hellenistic look too. Plus Bithynia is depicted as Arabic, when at this time was Hellenized.
Yeah something of a wasted chance with those Ptolemaioi. Though some audiences (read: executives) probably never heard about Galatians or even Diadochs, so they would have claimed it "unhistorical" if the show had actually shown it the way it was.



Roxanne was also caucasian.
By which you mean: was also Caucasian in Real Life? Because in the film, Rosario Dawson looked vaguely African (due to her mixed white/black ancestry). Well, at least she was pretty - and not as starved as most other Hollywood chicks.

[Cadwalader]

I wouldn't call The Passion of the Christ very historical. While it's true that the characters speak Latin and Aramaic (which is damned awesome), they speak Church Latin. Greek would have been more fitting anyway. And the legionaries all wear LS.

[Mulceber]

I wouldn't call The Passion of the Christ very historical. While it's true that the characters speak Latin and Aramaic (which is damned awesome), they speak Church Latin. Greek would have been more fitting anyway. And the legionaries all wear LS.

Good point about the church latin, although that basically just means that their pronunciation was inaccurate. As for the LS, not sure how accurate or inaccurate that would be for the period: LS was at its height by the Flavian dynasty, but it's possible that it was already rather common by ~30 AD. Not saying it's right to have ALL the legionaries wearing it, but if those are the only problems with the Passion, it stands pretty well, historically speaking. Even shows like Rome had similar problems - the little Latin that is spoken in Rome is pronounced like Italian, and there's LS in season 2.

[Tenebrous]

Kingdom of Heaven is actually quite accurate. The character Balien actually did exist, but was born in Holy Land, but this is likely due to Ridley Scott making a character so sympathetic, he wouldn't get in trouble for a "pro-crusader" movie, which is kind of a touchy subject these days. For the most part, the directors cut it otherwise pretty close to what happened, minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing. Reynald of Chatillion was very well portrayed and
His death is generally excepted to have happened exactly like that, due to the Muslim tradition that you cannot kill a captive you have offered hospitality

The only other glaring flaw is King Guy was more of a bumbling goof who wanted everyone to like him, then a villainous jerk. Also Saladin didn't just let the people of Jerusalem leave.

Oh and Although perhaps the cheesiest part of the film, the real Balien really did knight about 50 men at arms during the siege of Jerusalem, although I'm sure in a slightly less dramatic fashion, although likely for the same reasons


Ridley Scott seems to at least due his research, and I prefer a researched film maker making my movies to a scholar making movies, which would end up being 7 hours long getting in every little thing that happened, and go way over budget making everything perfectly authentic.

Did no one else find Gladiator accurate, minus the actual storyline? I mean Commedus really was nuts, and did fight in the arena. Once again you can pick apart things, but for the most part he seems to have done a decent job representing Rome at the time.

[antisocialmunky]

By which you mean: was also Caucasian in Real Life? Because in the film, Rosario Dawson looked vaguely African (due to her mixed white/black ancestry). Well, at least she was pretty - and not as starved as most other Hollywood chicks.

Well for all we know some Dravidians migrated to central asia and porked some Afghan royalty a few generations ago. After all, the genetic history of the Pashtun people is actually a rather controversial topic - I mean people are studying how cloesly related to Jews they are and they exhibit pretty much every single genetic trait from Eurasia...

[Mulceber]

Interesting - I haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven, although I suppose I probably should now - who knows, it might make me like Medieval II more. :clown:

I dunno, I can't put my finger on it, but something about the look of Gladiator has always struck me as wrong...it's a fun movie, no denying that, and one of the great modern sword-and-sandals flicks, but I guess it just didn't feel like a real society. There were aristocrats and then there were slaves. They didn't really delve into anyone in between, like Rome did. -M

[TancredTheNorman]

B]Kingdom of Heaven[/B] is actually quite accurate. The character Balien actually did exist, but was born in Holy Land, but this is likely due to Ridley Scott making a character so sympathetic, he wouldn't get in trouble for a "pro-crusader" movie, which is kind of a touchy subject these days. For the most part, the directors cut it otherwise pretty close to what happened, minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing. Reynald of Chatillion was very well portrayed and
His death is generally excepted to have happened exactly like that, due to the Muslim tradition that you cannot kill a captive you have offered hospitality

The only other glaring flaw is King Guy was more of a bumbling goof who wanted everyone to like him, then a villainous jerk. Also Saladin didn't just let the people of Jerusalem leave.

Oh and Although perhaps the cheesiest part of the film, the real Balien really did knight about 50 men at arms during the siege of Jerusalem, although I'm sure in a slightly less dramatic fashion, although likely for the same reasons

That is a bad reason though, the concern should be for quality, note that the HBO Rome series that everyone here universally liked never concerned itself with who would be offended, who wouldn't like this etc etc, although I agree that nudity and Crusades aren't the same thing.

Furthermore Guy de Lusignan was not a villainous jerk, I don't know what you have read but Ridley Scott butchered the love story, which actually was the Leper King allowed his daughter to pick a husband of her free will who she loved, and she chose Guy while the nobility and clergy was pressuring him, and her to pick Balien because his abilities were well known and respected. Muslims and Christians also did get along very well in the Crusader states, there are some very good books about it I could recommend. Saladin just letting everyone go was another change to avoid giving offense, I just don't understand things like that, the middle ages actually happened, and people who go to see movies set in it should be treated to it. It's one thing if it is one of the medieval idealist myths like King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, but there is no good reason to white wash the Crusades (except where popular perception sees it as worse then it was).



Ridley Scott seems to at least due his research, and I prefer a researched film maker making my movies to a scholar making movies, which would end up being 7 hours long getting in every little thing that happened, and go way over budget making everything perfectly authentic.

Did no one else find Gladiator accurate, minus the actual storyline? I mean Commedus really was nuts, and did fight in the arena. Once again you can pick apart things, but for the most part he seems to have done a decent job representing Rome at the time.

I agree, what he changed he did in order to make his movie more acceptable to the audience, it is clear that while he didn't depict it that he knew who Guy de Lusignan (very well portrayed, he really was a bumbling idiot who lost controll of a vassal)was, and he knew who Saladin was and he does a great job with these things.

It is ironic that Commodus couldn't be depicted as bad as he actually was, compared to Cassius Dio and other historians Ridley Scott gives Commodus a white wash. Respectable historians from the Roman Empire actually did suspect Marcus Aurelius was setting up someone else to rule, although they had no proof for it apart from comparing the reign of Commodus to Marcus Aurelius.

Ridley Scott deserves two thumbs up though, white washing and hesitation to depict slavery and massacres are minor compared to trash like Blood and Sand, 300, and other recently done idiocy :idea2:

[Madoushi]

A white wash? The Commodus described on Wikipedia sounds like a saint compared to the one in the film.
Gladiator may have gotten the details of the period right, but the plot felt like a parody to me. I didn't like it at all, though I can't deny it's quality.

Kingdom of Heaven seemed really interesting, and I set time aside to watch it both times it played on History Television, but both times I fell asleep during the first act and woke up to hear Saladin assure that guy he wouldn't send his soldiers into the city the way the Christians did. I thought that part was true, History on Film said it was, but I wouldn't know the Levant from a savant.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah, I didn't care for Orlando Bloom, but the supporting cast was really great. I loved Saladin.

[BigJohn]

How historically accurate would you say, is Terry Jones' Barbarians collection??

[TancredTheNorman]

A white wash? The Commodus described on Wikipedia sounds like a saint compared to the one in the film.
Gladiator may have gotten the details of the period right, but the plot felt like a parody to me. I didn't like it at all, though I can't deny it's quality.

Kingdom of Heaven seemed really interesting, and I set time aside to watch it both times it played on History Television, but both times I fell asleep during the first act and woke up to hear Saladin assure that guy he wouldn't send his soldiers into the city the way the Christians did. I thought that part was true, History on Film said it was, but I wouldn't know the Levant from a savant.


A White Wash compared to Cassius Dio, one of the prominent historians of the time, the idea that Commodus killed his father because he learned he wouldn't get the throne otherwise dates back to him.

Some modern historians tend to de-emphasize Italy's part in the Empire, and the Senate, and so Commodus comes across better, others to an example the book Marcus Aurelius a Life by Frank McLynn take a more traditional view of him. Frank Mclynn I think does a good job at arguing in favor of Cassius Dio's work and credibility, not about the death of Marcus Aurelius though which he thinks was a natural one.

[satalexton]

How historically accurate would you say, is Terry Jones' Barbarians collection??

I'm reading his books at the moment. That man is a natural Rhomaioktonoi.

[Apázlinemjó]

Memphis Belle - I've not seen it for a long time, but it seemed ok then, except the attacking messers.
The man from Earth - It's a good movie with an interesting story, though it's not a classic "historical" movie.
Indegious brigantyk - It's totally inaccurate story wise, but the accessories looked ok enough. I don't really like the movie.
Attila - Watched it a few years ago, yet I don't remember to it. Anyone?

[SwissBarbar]

I don't know what's your problem with "300". It's officially based on a comic, not any ancient historical scource. Has there ever been a claim to be historically accurate?
It is NOT accurate, but "don't see, beyond evil, your eyes will fall out, if you watch it"? Come on.

[Hax]

minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing.

One of the biggest misunderstandings about the crusading era is that Muslims and Christians hated eachother all the time. It's simply not true. The Copts were respected, as were the Armenian and Greek eastern churches. Before the Ayyubids took over control of Egypt, the Fatimids and Byzantine Empire were BFF. ;)


I don't know what's your problem with "300". It's officially based on a comic, not any ancient historical scource. Has there ever been a claim to be historically accurate?

Actually...


300's director Zack Snyder stated in an MTV interview that "the events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."

"world-class historians", yeah right.

[Tenebrous]

I wasn't saying they hated each other, but I would say it was closer to tolerance than brotherly love in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It also depended on the individual. Orlando Blooms speecha t the end would more likely have gotten him lynched than inspire the troops.

[Phalanx300]

On the Germanic peoples:

Battle of Arminius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQBvcHqwM2Q&feature=player_embedded

Pretty interesting as they are showing the weapons, especially the club which is cut in such an way to cause more damage. The black dyed guys as well, seem more accurate then how EBI is portraying them. Perhaps some inspiration for EB II.

The Germanic Tribes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55sR7_w0oDE&feature=player_embedded

Going past the warriors, taking several people from different Germanic times and showing how they could have lived and more information. Seems pretty accurate. Also nice is them showing the Germanics attacking the Romans in several wedges/boarsnouts.



Is also going to be an German series called Humanimal from BBC focussing on the Ulfhednar(Germanic/Viking Wolf Warriors) and showing their live.

For more information go to this site: http://www.ulfhednar.org/frame.htm then go to film/tv and then go to Run in with wolfs and see those nice pictures.

http://www.ulfhednar.org/Humanimal/7.jpg (Gaesatae are scary but seeing this...)

[NikosMaximilian]

Short review of this: (Spoilers, if anyone is willing to waste almost two hours of his life)
http://www.toxicshock.tv/news/wp-content/uploads/last_legion_ver3_poster.jpg

- Apparently, it seems that in 460 Rome (actually something vaguely resembling the Forum and not much else) was still the Capital of the Western Roman Empire and that the Emperor lived there.

- Something resembling a druid was still around during this time. Roman upper classes were keen on importing them to educate their sons.

- Looks like the Romans were a monarchy because all the Emperors are the descendents of Julius Caesar, even five centuries after his death. Nero, eat your heart out.

- When the Viking-Goths attack Rome, the depleted Roman Army wears lorica segmentata and fights with the gladius. Naturally, fighting with equipment abandoned for more than a century, they get pwned. The Legions are composed by Romans, Numidians, Celts, Jews... damn, they had plenty of manpower, why did they need the Goths fighting for them?

- Somehow a Roman commander saves the heir to the Roman throne. Then they are betrayed by the Sassanids Byzantines, except from an Indian-Keralite female ninja who chooses to fight for them and carries a sword from the future.

- They manage to rescue the kid from Tiberius' Villa Jovis, which was actually an impregnable fortress. The kid finds Caesar's medieval sword there, and they manage to flee all the way from the Bay of Naples to Great Britain. Wise choice, specially when no one in the group is aware that the last Roman troops left the island 48 years ago.

- Amazing! In Hadrian's Wall they find a legion that vanished from history 340 years ago. They were disguised as local farmers and kept their lorica segmentatas bright and shinny waiting for this day.

- Things get complicated when a Saxon warlord-magician allies with the Goths and they all march into Hadrian's Wall to retrieve the boy and his sword.

- Luckily our heroes win the battle heavily outnumbered. The kid throws Caesar's sword into a stone. Roman commander and Indian ninja lady fell in love and adopt the kid, who turns out to be Pendragon. So, Arthur is descended from Julius Caesar, and is informed of all of the previous facts by 700-years old Druid Merlin.

EDIT: Ohhh, and I forgot, it seems that the spread of Christianity never happened, that most of the people living in the WRE and its former lands are either pagans or atheists.

[Apázlinemjó]

Short review of this: (Spoilers, if anyone is willing to waste almost two hours of his life)
http://www.toxicshock.tv/news/wp-content/uploads/last_legion_ver3_poster.jpg

- Apparently, it seems that in 460 Rome (actually something vaguely resembling the Forum and not much else) was still the Capital of the Western Roman Empire and that the Emperor lived there.

- Something resembling a druid was still around during this time. Roman upper classes were keen on importing them to educate their sons.

- Looks like the Romans were a monarchy because all the Emperors are the descendents of Julius Caesar, even five centuries after his death. Nero, eat your heart out.

- When the Viking-Goths attack Rome, the depleted Roman Army wears lorica segmentata and fights with the gladius. Naturally, fighting with equipment abandoned for more than a century, they get pwned. The Legions are composed by Romans, Numidians, Celts, Jews... damn, they had plenty of manpower, why did they need the Goths fighting for them?

- Somehow a Roman commander saves the heir to the Roman throne. Then they are betrayed by the Sassanids Byzantines, except from an Indian-Keralite female ninja who chooses to fight for them and carries a sword from the future.

- They manage to rescue the kid from Tiberius' Villa Jovis, which was actually an impregnable fortress. The kid finds Caesar's medieval sword there, and they manage to flee all the way from the Bay of Naples to Great Britain. Wise choice, specially when no one in the group is aware that the last Roman troops left the island 48 years ago.

- Amazing! In Hadrian's Wall they find a legion that vanished from history 340 years ago. They were disguised as local farmers and kept their lorica segmentatas bright and shinny waiting for this day.

- Things get complicated when a Saxon warlord-magician allies with the Goths and they all march into Hadrian's Wall to retrieve the boy and his sword.

- Luckily our heroes win the battle heavily outnumbered. The kid throws Caesar's sword into a stone. Roman commander and Indian ninja lady fell in love and adopt the kid, who turns out to be Pendragon. So, Arthur is descended from Julius Caesar, and is informed of all of the previous facts by 700-years old Druid Merlin.

So that's the movie I won't watch on the Movie fanatics' night.

[Ludens]

How historically accurate would you say, is Terry Jones' Barbarians collection??

He's done his research, but it is very biased against the Romans. As it says on the cover: this is history from a different point of view. Presumably he wanted to write about the Romans in the same way as the Romans wrote about everybody else.

@ NikosMaximilian
~:thumb:

[Andronikos]

My opinion on Kingdom of Heaven:
There are many historical inaccuracies, the wikipedia page has them summarised quite well, e.g. Templars who were sent to kill Balian wear Teutonic uniforms, Balian probably never visited France, Guy wears a Templar uniform despite he shouldn't, Balduin was more of a warrior king than a peace loving visionary...
BUT I didn't care, I really liked that movie, it was probably the best of all that Hollywood blockbusters I have seen for many reasons. My favourite character was Balduin, he very well played.


Orlando Blooms speecha t the end would more likely have gotten him lynched than inspire the troops.
ROFL

[Hax]

I wasn't saying they hated each other, but I would say it was closer to tolerance than brotherly love in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

It also depends on where you are looking. Al Farabi was taught astronomy by a Nestorian Christian in the House of Wisdom. Of course, this was 200 years earlier and in Baghdad, but still.

[Madoushi]

Also, I think there's a wide gap between inconsistencies historians and history enthusiasts would notice, and those laypeople would notice.

I didn't know hardly anything about Alexander before I saw the movie, so I didn't know any better, whereas Gladiator 'felt' very wrong to me, despite that fact that while I'm enthused about the Roman era, I'm certainly no historian, and honestly, not even the most perceptive or intelligent of people. :smile:

[gamerdude873]

I wouldn't call The Passion of the Christ very historical. While it's true that the characters speak Latin and Aramaic (which is damned awesome), they speak Church Latin. Greek would have been more fitting anyway. And the legionaries all wear LS.

I agree quite a bit. The passion contains many errors that could have been easily corrected.

1)Pilate is (as in all the gospels) clearly whitewashed and upright, whereas Josephus condemns him as a clearly autocratic tyrant who deliberately provoked the Jews, then executed them, on several occasions. He is also shown to be weak and easily pushed around by Caiaphas. Historically, Caiaphas only had his job as long as Pilate let him have it. Caiaphas was not popular as a roman sympathizer and thus could hardly lead a rebellion against his employer, as Pilate was worried. Moreover, Pilate was a paranoid man who was clearly in league (though one has to read the gospels VERY closely to see it) with the authorities, seeing how he lent them troops to arrest Jesus (in John). The Jews had no right to order Roman soldiers around, so who do you think gave them to the arrestors? Pilate did. The same man who caused an uprising in the Temple court was in town, so Pilate could not have an inflamatory man like Yeshua out and about during a nationalistic holiday.

2) Yeshua himself is flayed alive, but if one actually counts the number of times he was flogged in the movie, it was well above the standard 39 lashes. The other criminals are not even chastised before execution, the common procedure. The Roman execution squad appears to be either drunk on duty or excessively cruel, and defied orders in the movie. I'm really sure that would have gone over well with their officers. They also dislocate Yeshua's shoulder, something that is not mentioned anywhere nor was particularly necessary.

3)Worst of all, Mel Gibson took it upon himself to portray the Jews in general as murderous, cruel, and traitorous, rather than the simply the Temple Authorities, who were the real source of the trouble and injustice that Jesus was attempting to confront, in order to establish his vision of a new world order (The Kingdom of Heaven vs. the Kingdoms of Earth).

4) Quite ironically and irrationally, the same people who were transfixed by Jesus' teaching, welcomed him as a king into the city, could be later found tormenting him and calling for his execution in the movie. In reality, Jesus would have had the people on his side the whole way through. They trusted him. WHy would they suddenly turn on him? Mel Gibson also used a notoriously anti-semitc nun from around the 1800's who claimed to have visions of the passion as a source for the movie.

5) the Lorica Segmentata doesn't look quite right. It's better than most i've seen in movies, but it leaves the a large part of the upper chest exposed. As I understand it, the LS covered from the base of the neck to the waist. And yes, the church Latin vs ancient latin and greek...

The list could go on. The Passion is a well-made movie, but I don't know about it being terribly accurate. It tended to come off as the Gospel according to Mel Gibson. :)

[Mulceber]

I agree quite a bit. The passion contains many errors that could have been easily corrected.

1)Pilate is (as in all the gospels) clearly whitewashed and upright, whereas Josephus condemns him as a clearly autocratic tyrant who deliberately provoked the Jews, then executed them, on several occasions. He is also shown to be weak and easily pushed around by Caiaphas. Historically, Caiaphas only had his job as long as Pilate let him have it. Caiaphas was not popular as a roman sympathizer and thus could hardly lead a rebellion against his employer, as Pilate was worried. Moreover, Pilate was a paranoid man who was clearly in league (though one has to read the gospels VERY closely to see it) with the authorities, seeing how he lent them troops to arrest Jesus (in John). The Jews had no right to order Roman soldiers around, so who do you think gave them to the arrestors? Pilate did. The same man who caused an uprising in the Temple court was in town, so Pilate could not have an inflamatory man like Yeshua out and about during a nationalistic holiday.

2) Yeshua himself is flayed alive, but if one actually counts the number of times he was flogged in the movie, it was well above the standard 39 lashes. The other criminals are not even chastised before execution, the common procedure. The Roman execution squad appears to be either drunk on duty or excessively cruel, and defied orders in the movie. I'm really sure that would have gone over well with their officers. They also dislocate Yeshua's shoulder, something that is not mentioned anywhere nor was particularly necessary.

3)Worst of all, Mel Gibson took it upon himself to portray the Jews in general as murderous, cruel, and traitorous, rather than the simply the Temple Authorities, who were the real source of the trouble and injustice that Jesus was attempting to confront, in order to establish his vision of a new world order (The Kingdom of Heaven vs. the Kingdoms of Earth).

4) Quite ironically and irrationally, the same people who were transfixed by Jesus' teaching, welcomed him as a king into the city, could be later found tormenting him and calling for his execution in the movie. In reality, Jesus would have had the people on his side the whole way through. They trusted him. WHy would they suddenly turn on him? Mel Gibson also used a notoriously anti-semitc nun from around the 1800's who claimed to have visions of the passion as a source for the movie.

5) the Lorica Segmentata doesn't look quite right. It's better than most i've seen in movies, but it leaves the a large part of the upper chest exposed. As I understand it, the LS covered from the base of the neck to the waist. And yes, the church Latin vs ancient latin and greek...

The list could go on. The Passion is a well-made movie, but I don't know about it being terribly accurate. It tended to come off as the Gospel according to Mel Gibson. :)

Thanks for the points, Gamerdude. Good to get someone who knows his stuff to review it. -M

[antisocialmunky]

You know we should have a historic review thread if this turns into one great, if not we need one with reliable reviews from people who know what they are talking about :)

[Mulceber]

Great idea, ASM - it could kind of serve as a guide for people going into the movie so that they should know how seriously they should take it. -M

[Cyclops]

I think Hollywood spin docvtors say "oh and we did heaps of research and its 100% accurate" for any historical film they make.

SPR is a case in point, it was an excellent looking WW2 drama, but they left out details like the British army, (although the criticism of Monty was realistic, the Yanks definitely thought he was overrated) and they cast a bunch of 40 and 50-year old actors like Sammy from Cheers and that lame comedian from Big when the average age in that army was around 25 (IIRC it was a largely green army mostly raised in the States and shipped direct to the fighting). From what I saw Band of Bros was closer, they looked pretty young, even the officers.

AFAIK there was some nice costume design in Gladiator but the storyline was hokum. Marcus Aurelius was a secret republican? Commodus was a nervous self-doubter with a harelip? This is fantasy. The opening batlle scene is a delight and if an historian assures me its a good re-enactment I'll believe them but don't tell me Gladiator was history. Commodus was an overconfident nutjob who bashed animals with a club in the arena (dressed as Hercules) and was strangled in his bath. Once again excellent research on the setting but the story fell into the hands of a writer, for whom hiistory has little value.

Alexander was AFAIK a better stab at it, left stuff out but didn't stray from the accepted storyline, even left a few controversial things deliberately vague. Eg was Al big gay Al? All you see is a bit of a kiss and Bagoas putting out the lights...maybe they were just good friends, its up to the viewer to decide. I especially like the bit where old narrating Ptolemy says something like "Alexander was poisoned we all knew it...no wauit change that, he died of fever" which sort of bundles together the main theories and once again, make up your own mind.

That recent King Arthur was rubbish, Nazi Saxons? Sarmatians using 2-handed axes and weird fist-knives? Roman forces in Britian amojunted to slightly more than half-a-dozen randy Sarmatians. Some vague guesswork about the end-game of Roman rule in Britain is not history, it was wildly speculative.

Kingdom of heavebn is another Galdiator, some nice costumes, a few real names and a real war but the narrative is a fantasty and major lies told for the purpose of the story. EG the last King of Jerusalem was dwarfed and seruiously deformed by his leprosy, it wasn't just a little hole in one cheek, nor did he wear a silver mask. Also he was only about 24 when he died, the actor was a much older man.

The siege was a very bloody affair, and did not end with a peaceful line of pilgrims trudging home. Salah-ud-Din was a very noble and gentle ruler by the standards of the times (and compared to the Christians), but he slaughtered all the templars and Hospitallars IIRC.

[antisocialmunky]

If you watched the extended edition, he had no face when his mask was taken off.

[Morte66]

Yeah, I didn't care for Orlando Bloom

I've seen planks act better. He dragged the film down a notch on his own.

[B-Wing]

Yeah, I don't really care for Orlando Bloom in any movie, but most especially in Kingdom of Heaven. Though to be fair, I'm not so sure it if it was him or the script. It didn't seem like there was much to his character in the first place. I'd say that out of all the characters in the movie, his was easily the least interesting and most closed. I kept wishing someone else was the protagonist.

[Ca Putt]

@Cyclops I agree with most of your points but in one aspect I have to take position for Kingdom of heavan: they did mention very often that the king is a young man.as they never show anything un changed of him a older man workes quite as wwell

[TancredTheNorman]

He's done his research, but it is very biased against the Romans. As it says on the cover: this is history from a different point of view. Presumably he wanted to write about the Romans in the same way as the Romans wrote about everybody else.

@ NikosMaximilian
~:thumb:

That defeats the point of a documentary which is to inform, not to persuade. His documentaries also have a very high tendency towards exaggeration, and he also does a lot of conclusions without evidence.

[Hax]

That defeats the point of a documentary which is to inform, not to persuade.

Not necessarily. Ever heard of the Frankfurter Schüle?

[athanaric]

Not necessarily. Ever heard of the Frankfurter Schüle?

That's Schule. We don't use umlauts on everything :laugh4:

They're not really my taste though, and you could hardly base a historical documentary on their methods.

[Hax]

That's Schule. We don't use umlauts on everything https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/../images/smilies/gc/gc-laugh4.gif

Bah, I shouldn't be writing posts right after I've woken up (being Dutch myself)

I don't really like the Frankfurter Schule either, but according to them, there is no such thing as objective research.

[Macilrille]

According to postmodern theory there is no such thing as objective research. The mere fact that you choose the subject of your research makes you and it subjective. That is not just the Frankfurter Schule who says that, it is all postmodern theory. If you are to do valid and viable research you still have to keep as close to objective as you can, and in any case, present the opposite view as well and if possible explore the possibilities of it as well.

[Ludens]

That defeats the point of a documentary which is to inform, not to persuade.

Jones' reply would be that most other documentaries about the Roman era are extremely biased towards the Romans (usually because they look no further than Roman sources). His documentary is an anti-dote. I agree with the sentiment, although I do think he could have done better. To someone who knows a bit more about the era, his agenda is very obvious.

[Mulceber]

Frankly, my reply would be that the best antidote is the TRUTH. Or at least, as close to the truth as it's possible to get. But I guess that's just my ethos. -M

[Hax]

Frankly, my reply would be that the best antidote is the TRUTH. Or at least, as close to the truth as it's possible to get. But I guess that's just my ethos. -M

Define "truth".

[athanaric]

Define "truth".
[/INDENT]
Sometimes I just want to shoot all postmodernists.

[Hax]

This is not necessarily post-modernist. The concept of relative truth is something that has been laid out for over 2,000 years, especially in the Indian subcontinent.

[Mulceber]

Define "truth".
[/INDENT]

Hence why I added "or at least as close to the truth as it's possible to get." I would argue that there is a concrete reality, but it is impossible for humans to know it because our senses and/or the faculties we use to process sensations are clouded by our ideology and our perception of the way we think things "should be." Thus, all opinions are going to be inherently inaccurrate. However, there's a difference between accidentally being biased while in pursuit of truth and willfully presenting something one knows to be false in the interest of "evening the score." -M

[Cyclops]

Jones' reply would be that most other documentaries about the Roman era are extremely biased towards the Romans (usually because they look no further than Roman sources). His documentary is an anti-dote. I agree with the sentiment, although I do think he could have done better. To someone who knows a bit more about the era, his agenda is very obvious.

Maybe he is responding to the "Littkle ladybird Book" version of history. As a kid we had these short illustrated books about how lovely Cromwell was, how bad King John was, how William rightfully conquered England, all the usual Whig tripe.

I recall a lovely bit of work Jones did on the crusades, very scenic and some actual research too. Made some nice points about shoes, carrying armour, getting food, weather, basic sensible practical points to make about medieval life.

Then to ram home the point about violent Franks (ie debunking the "chivalrous crusader" myth) he had a bit about how intrinsically peaceful the Islamic world was until the crusaders came along and turned it violent. Honestly, as if the cradles of our civilisations haven't been warred over for thousands of years by endless armies of every colour, class and creed.

The East Romans got a very short shrift (as I see it they are absolutely central to the story of the crusades). I see the crusades as a violent resurgance of the death match between East Rome and the Islamic "Diadochi", with the crusaders crashing in like some invited latter-day Galatians to ruin the party.

Jones seems to be trying to ammend distorted simplifications with mildly less simplified distortions. I think he over-corrects to sway his audience further.

[Cyclops]

Sometimes I just want to shoot all postmodernists.

Pontius Pilate was a post-modernist?

"What is truth?" he asks Jesus, before sending him to his death, but the Galillean does not answer.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

how William rightfully conquered England

Well you always have me to defame and slander that one! Wes thu hal, Saxnotas!

[Ludens]

Frankly, my reply would be that the best antidote is the TRUTH. Or at least, as close to the truth as it's possible to get. But I guess that's just my ethos. -M

In a perfect world, perhaps. But in this world, the general public is so used to seeing the Romans depicted as the bringers of civilization and the Celts and Germans as shirtless savages that did nothing but wage war (and didn't even know how to do that properly) that they consider it common knowledge. You need to be very persuasive to convince them that the barbarians may not have been barbarians.


Jones seems to be trying to ammend distorted simplifications with mildly less simplified distortions. I think he over-corrects to sway his audience further.

Fair enough. I thought this problem was just with his Barbarian series (I filled several notebooks with comments on the errors and biased reporting in the accompanying booklet), but I know more of this era than I do of the Middle Ages.

On final word in his defence, though. His documentaries do seem to work. The reappraisal of the Barbarians in popular history has been going on for about a decade, yet I get the impression that Jones' documentary has done a lot to make this movement more widely accepted. That does not in any way pardon him for his sensationalist presentation, but it seems we need this approach to make the public more receptive for the better documentaries. I would prefer to be proven wrong on this, though. :shrug:

[athanaric]

Maybe he is responding to the "Littkle ladybird Book" version of history. As a kid we had these short illustrated books about how lovely Cromwell was, how bad King John was, how William rightfully conquered England, all the usual Whig tripe.
lol I didin't know you were taught stuff this way. Then again, Australia was quite different some decades ago...



I recall a lovely bit of work Jones did on the crusades, very scenic and some actual research too. Made some nice points about shoes, carrying armour, getting food, weather, basic sensible practical points to make about medieval life.
Now that sounds interesting, I wish he would have continued in that direction, instead of taking sides in that conflict and making absurd moral claims.



Then to ram home the point about violent Franks (ie debunking the "chivalrous crusader" myth) he had a bit about how intrinsically peaceful the Islamic world was until the crusaders came along and turned it violent.
Which is the usual garbage told by non-scientists. Yet another hobby "historian" who confuses peaceful with pragmatic.



The East Romans got a very short shrift (as I see it they are absolutely central to the story of the crusades). I see the crusades as a violent resurgance of the death match between East Rome and the Islamic "Diadochi", with the crusaders crashing in like some invited latter-day Galatians to ruin the party.

Jones seems to be trying to ammend distorted simplifications with mildly less simplified distortions. I think he over-corrects to sway his audience further.
I agree with your observations.

[oudysseos]

Jones' ... agenda is very obvious.

Let's not forget that a significant part of his agenda is to make money and have enough clout to be given other projects to do, thus making more money.

This is not flippance (flippancy? The act of being flippant?) on my part: if Terry Jones (or anyone) did a documentary series on how everything you ever learned in school was exactly right, and that the state of the art on Roman-era history is Edward Gibbon, it wouldn't be as successful. This kind of thing happens in academic history and archaeology as well: every new PhD looking to make his bones (and get tenure, not to mention a lucrative book deal) has to come up with a new angle, or a total revision of the last generation. Otherwise, so dull, blah blah, we've heard that all before.

I exaggerate a little for effect. But to the extent that history is entertainment and thus business, people are strongly encouraged to stake out controversial and/or revisionist positions just to get noticed. It takes a lot to resist that kind of pressure.

[Apázlinemjó]

I exaggerate a little for effect. But to the extent that history is entertainment and thus business, people are strongly encouraged to stake out controversial and/or revisionist positions just to get noticed. It takes a lot to resist that kind of pressure.

And if you can't sell anything, you pretty much find yourself unemployed soon, sadly.

[Cyclops]

...I exaggerate a little for effect. But to the extent that history is entertainment and thus business, people are strongly encouraged to stake out controversial and/or revisionist positions just to get noticed. It takes a lot to resist that kind of pressure.

Yes and the pressure to give pride and recognition to people who have been written out or diminished is there too.

IIRC in a great film "Once Were Warriors" an admirable Maori mentor tells a troubled lad about that Maori club/lance/wooden thingy and says something like "the English thougt they had the ultimate infantry weapon in the bayonet until they met our warriors with their taiaha" .

I can think of at least two things wrong with that sentence (the English did not think much of stone-age weapons before or after meeting the Maoris, and the bayonet was a cheap mass-produced secondary killing tool for the rank and file, not any sort of "ultimate weapon"), but he was just trying to express some pride in a much derided tradition. It actually sounded quite cool when he said it too.

History is a messy bundle of conflicting points of view. Maybe a fractured narrartive style could reflect contested historical episodes, like they use in Oz where you follow different characters and see different PoV's?

That film Munich was a fictionalised version of events, but made some telling points about a real historical event: tragedy, clearsighted revenge, less clearsighted revenge, pointless murder and disillusion.

I guess the storyteller has to sell his story too, and that means telling lies.

[TancredTheNorman]

Jones' reply would be that most other documentaries about the Roman era are extremely biased towards the Romans (usually because they look no further than Roman sources). His documentary is an anti-dote. I agree with the sentiment, although I do think he could have done better. To someone who knows a bit more about the era, his agenda is very obvious.

That would just means Jones is horribly uninformed about the field, the 19th and 20th century German universities were filled with praise for the barbarians and extreme exaggerations very similar to the ones he does in his documentaries. The good or evil of Rome has been in constant shift in peoples minds since the rennaisance, Rome was a constant in Papal anecdotes as a warning that no matter how powerful you are being unjust (as the Pope saw it) would get you destroyed.




Maybe he is responding to the "Littkle ladybird Book" version of history. As a kid we had these short illustrated books about how lovely Cromwell was, how bad King John was, how William rightfully conquered England, all the usual Whig tripe.

I recall a lovely bit of work Jones did on the crusades, very scenic and some actual research too. Made some nice points about shoes, carrying armour, getting food, weather, basic sensible practical points to make about medieval life.

Then to ram home the point about violent Franks (ie debunking the "chivalrous crusader" myth) he had a bit about how intrinsically peaceful the Islamic world was until the crusaders came along and turned it violent. Honestly, as if the cradles of our civilisations haven't been warred over for thousands of years by endless armies of every colour, class and creed.

The East Romans got a very short shrift (as I see it they are absolutely central to the story of the crusades). I see the crusades as a violent resurgance of the death match between East Rome and the Islamic "Diadochi", with the crusaders crashing in like some invited latter-day Galatians to ruin the party.

Jones seems to be trying to ammend distorted simplifications with mildly less simplified distortions. I think he over-corrects to sway his audience further.

If that is his version of history he was very much ahistorical. The Islamic World peaceful before the Crusades? Perhaps that is how they conquered North Africa, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Rhodes, Crete and Spain and half of France, while also managing to burn down Ostia and Rome? Not only that nobody is taught about chivalric Crusaders today, today's education goes in the exact opposite direction. The comparison to the Galatians is true, just remember that every 20 or more years another Christian area was falling to Islamic forces, when Alexius Comnenus made a jesture of reconciliation towards the Papacy the Crusades happened. The Islamic World was intrinsicly violent in a violent world, the fact that people have an axe to grind with the Crusades doesn't negate basic history. It isn't without reason that the Crusades used to be called Christendom's counter attack. I'm not saying wether or not they were justified, but the Jones version of events really is just the fashionable rather then historical version.

In addition to that what is over correct? Pro-Barbarian sentiment over Rome is very old, in fact over a hundred years old, the problem is finding a source for it in ancient texts.

[Cyclops]

... The Islamic World was intrinsicly violent in a violent world...

I think its fair to observe that the core of the Caliphate was probably intrinsically less violent than contemporary western europe, in that it was anciently civilised, had an elaborate legal administration and intellectual distaste for violence (hence the adoption of slave soldiers who ultimately usurp the rule). The advent of Turkish rule led to a period of more intense warfare, but I'fd guess the Caliphate had previously been almost on a par with contemporary East Rome (if not China: IIRC even muslim merchants were astounded at people travelling around Tang and Sung China unarmed).

Certainly it was a violent world but Islam had given a relatively stable structure for many centuries, and was undoubtedly more civilised on many different scales.


...In addition to that what is over correct? Pro-Barbarian sentiment over Rome is very old, in fact over a hundred years old, the problem is finding a source for it in ancient texts.

There's still a major cult of Rome. Caesar is still better known than Alexander.

This may be n part the work of the Catholic church but I was raised in that tradition and in Australian Catholicism Rome stands for pagan cruelty and pride.

I think the cult of Rome in the English speaking world is in part attendent on the cult of the British Empire.

Is there something like that in the Francophone world? IIRC Napoleon explicitly evoked the Roman Empire, in keeping with the French First Republic's evocation of the Roman Republic.

[TancredTheNorman]

I think its fair to observe that the core of the Caliphate was probably intrinsically less violent than contemporary western europe, in that it was anciently civilised, had an elaborate legal administration and intellectual distaste for violence (hence the adoption of slave soldiers who ultimately usurp the rule). The advent of Turkish rule led to a period of more intense warfare, but I'fd guess the Caliphate had previously been almost on a par with contemporary East Rome (if not China: IIRC even muslim merchants were astounded at people travelling around Tang and Sung China unarmed).

Certainly it was a violent world but Islam had given a relatively stable structure for many centuries, and was undoubtedly more civilised on many different scales..

Which Caliphate do you mean the Fatamid or Baghdad one? I'm not uninformed about either, I don't pretend to be an expert but I will agree that the East was at the time more "civilized" then the West. That of course is a relative statement, the stage, and a lot of other cultural things that never entirely left Europe were neglected in the Islamic middle east during the middle ages. In addition to that it doesn't prove the Crusaders were bloodthirsty monsters depicted by Terry Jones, or that the Islamic world was peaceful, the emergence of Turkish rule changed the balance of power, hurt the Byzantine Empire greatly, and forced Alexius Comnenus to come to terms with the Papacy so he could get Papal support (in the form of the Crusade). Terry Jones largely skipped the battles in Asia Minor that restored Byzantine power. His Crusades is on par with the History Chanel, tv documentary series have largely been going down hill for awhile it isn't just him.




There's still a major cult of Rome. Caesar is still better known than Alexander.

This may be n part the work of the Catholic church but I was raised in that tradition and in Australian Catholicism Rome stands for pagan cruelty and pride.

I think the cult of Rome in the English speaking world is in part attendent on the cult of the British Empire.

Is there something like that in the Francophone world? IIRC Napoleon explicitly evoked the Roman Empire, in keeping with the French First Republic's evocation of the Roman Republic.

That depends entirely on what you mean by the cult of Rome, to many modern Europeans Rome is the bogeyman depicted by Terry Jones, I would probably guess that the cult of Rome had a resurgence when Gladiator came out and has since gone into a decline.

[Cyclops]

I am barely informed on Islamic history, but I am gratified to find we are in basic agreement.


...That depends entirely on what you mean by the cult of Rome...

While Rome is aknowledged as cruel (something of a bogeyman I guess), I think its ascendancy is assumed to have been inevitable, rather than an involved contested evolution. "Then the Romans came along and the others all bowed to the inevitable, except Hannibal who had the temerity to resist, and he was inevitably beaten but he inevitable legions wearing the inevitable LS..." etc etc.

[Hax]

Hey guys, I have to run to philosophy class, but I'll post a bit about Islamic warfare and the caliphates when I get back, okay?

[TancredTheNorman]

I am barely informed on Islamic history, but I am gratified to find we are in basic agreement.



While Rome is aknowledged as cruel (something of a bogeyman I guess), I think its ascendancy is assumed to have been inevitable, rather than an involved contested evolution. "Then the Romans came along and the others all bowed to the inevitable, except Hannibal who had the temerity to resist, and he was inevitably beaten but he inevitable legions wearing the inevitable LS..." etc etc.

It is also worth noting that Western Christendom had no problems with the status quo before the rise of the Turks, in a way you could blame the Byzantines for losing the Battle of Manzikert. I'm glad we agree on the cult of Rome to in that case, it is ironic that the Cult of Rome transformed depictions of Rome from Gladiator to a certain Starz show deserving Damnatio Memoriae


Hey guys, I have to run to philosophy class, but I'll post a bit about Islamic warfare and the caliphates when I get back, okay?

Thank you, I look forward to reading it.

[Hax]

Right. When Islam was founded, in around 650 AD, Arabic society could be very cruel. As I'm no expert at all on pre-Islamic history, I can tell you fairly little about it, but it is generally accepted that the rise of Islam certainly made life easier for some inhabitants of Arabia. Whereas one was completely dependent on the protection of the clan before the founding of Islam, the Arabian tribes were now also united under a single religion.

Meanwhile, in Persia and Anatolia, the Sassanids and Byzantines had fought eachother nearly to death, so when the Arabian warriors arrived, they pretty much rolled over the Sassanid and Byzantine empires. There was some struggle over Persia, but before long, the Sassanid empire was completely destroyed, while the Byzantines still controlled much of Anatolia.

In any case, whereas Christianity has very little to say about warfare and prisoners of war, etc, the Qur'an is a lot clearer about it:

1) It is illegal to pursue a war after your enemy has surrendered
2) It is illegal to kill prisoners of war
3) It is illegal to harm nature when doing battle

Especially the really orthodox Muslims, people like Salahuddin Ayyubi, who pretty much single-handedly overthrew the Shi'ite Fatimid government of Egypt, abided to these rules. While Islam is not inherently more forgiving than other religions, it has some very specific rules when it comes to fighting other people, especially Jews and Christians (who are defended in the Qur'an as being Ahl al-Kitab (whether the Muslims really abided to this all the time is debatable, especially with the massacre of the Banu Qurayza)). Apart from that, Muhammad also stated that one should "seek knowledge wherever you can, even if you have to travel to China".

This, as well as the fact that Islamic philosophy (as first proposed by Al-Farabi) states that knowledge and reason are not in conflict with religious authority, made the Muslims, when they conquered the Levant and Persia, where science had been practiced for many centuries, quite interested in the workings of the physical world. And thus started what we know as the Islamic Golden Age: through the collection of Sanskrit (which had been brought to Baghdad's House of Wisdom), Greek, Persian, Syriac and Chinese scientifical works and the way this was expanded by Muslim scientists like Omar Khayyam, Al-Khwarizmi, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), ibn Rushd (Averroës), ibn Sina (Avicenna) as well as many others, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Also, one should understand that mass conversion of non-Muslims didn't start until at least the 10th century; as non-Muslims had to pay the jizya, the Caliphs actually tried not to convert anyone, as that would mean a loss of tax revenue. In the early history of Islam, Islam was exclusively a religion for Arabs; the Ommayad Caliphate was also an Arabic caliphate, ruled by Arabs, for Arabs; which is also one of the biggest reasons for the fact that they were overthrown by the Abbasids, who found quite some support from their Persian subjects.

Also, I'd like to say two things.

1) I'm not Muslim
2) Don't involve modern-day politics in this debate. We are merely looking at Islamic history, not at Islamic theology or at the actions of radical fundamentalist groups in Palestine, Afghanistan or any other place.

[Chirurgeon]

https://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h301/troyboy1208/The-Patriot.jpg
Accurate?

[athanaric]

https://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h301/troyboy1208/The-Patriot.jpg
Accurate?
ROFL

good one.

For those who don't know: this film manages to turn the actual events upside down. IRL, the guy played by Mel Gibson was a murderer and rapist who committed atrocities against Native Americans and British forces.

[cmacq]

strange, he seemed like such a nice guy, kept to himself, liked the childern, and was always so quite.

[cmacq]

We are merely looking at Islamic history, not at Islamic theology or at the actions of radical fundamentalist groups in Palestine, Afghanistan or any other place.

Indeed if one looks to history, one will find in this case, a very subtle yet enormous void between the ideal, and the practice. And of course, like the constitution of the former CCCP, this has to do with inception, insinuation, expedience, ambiguity, interpretation, contradiction, and blatant misrepresentation. Some claim each native word was god-given to favor-folk; as we all know, each word, has more than one meaning, so together they may be used as one sees fit. Nonetheless, I suggest one may find the notes, or tone of Islam's rhyme and reason, hidden at Naqran or Al-Hirah, possibly placed beside St. Aretas, or swept away like the Tayi, Abd Alqais, Taghlib, and Lakhum of old. Herein, we might see written how a radical pose was dropped to achieve a radical end, and fundamentally change, to better dictate free will, the Medieval Near East? The simple fact is, some words have great weight, while others aren't worth the breath, it takes to say them.

Personally, I don’t judge…
that’s just me!

For a move, I'll say 'Black Robe.' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKt-RcFuSUM&feature=related)

Then again I just like the sound of 'this one.' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09nGEHTsqqI&feature=PlayList&p=0D943737DF61FD19&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=46)

[Ibrahim]

Sometimes I just want to shoot all postmodernists.

truth has always been viewed as subjective.

just ask Moussilini :clown:

[Badass Buddha]

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.

More Accurate:

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.

Dat 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.

Less Accurate:
Anything touched by Mel Gibson or Disney.

300: 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?"

Alexander: Same as 300, but not nearly as bad.

Gladiator: The inaccuracies are legion. Along with a large variety of nitpicks, the major ones that stand out are everything in the beginning battle from the languages spoken to the way it is fought, the way Commodus is an insane, insecure, puny, dark haired guy, the depictions of gladiator fights as a Thunderdome style free-for-all, and the "Rome was meant to be a republic" bullshit.

Gods And Generals: This is what happens when a Southerner writes a US Civil War movie. Contains both heavy inaccuracy and whitewashing.

Kingdom Of Heaven: Many nitpicks and a ridiculous amount of whitewashing. Almost everyone in the movie is an agnostic.

Knights 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: :daisy: 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.

[TancredTheNorman]

Buddha, I hope you don't mind me criticizing your list, because I found a lot of things I regard as nonesense in it.


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.

More Accurate:

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 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.


Dat 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.

I don't really remember any of those


300: 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?"

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQHtQqbJqhE


Alexander: Same as 300, but not nearly as bad.

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.


Gods And Generals: This is what happens when a Southerner writes a US Civil War movie. Contains both heavy inaccuracy and whitewashing.

Never saw it


Kingdom Of Heaven: Many nitpicks and a ridiculous amount of whitewashing. Almost everyone in the movie is an agnostic.

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?


Knights 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: :daisy: 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.

I agree on those

[Badass Buddha]

It's good.

Concerning Henry V you’re absolutely right. I really like the play and was blinded by that and their adherence to it (although technically speaking it is pretty good), but that is both wrong and hypocritical of me as I get all over 300 later on while it an almost perfect adaptation of its source material. This has caused me to reevaluate my position, so thank you for that. I could swear there were longbowmen in that movie though.

Also, in light of the above, Zulu belongs in less accurate. I like that movie, but there are just too many mistakes.

I really am not one to lightly use the R-word, but my issue with 300 and Alexander is the way the Persians are portrayed. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are bad guys, it has to do with the fact that they are portrayed as a disorganized rabble. I think the portrayals are racist because even though Persia and its satrapates had many people of varying skin/hair/eye colors and ethnicities, all the Persians without exception are heavily accented dark skinned people, even going so far as to have black Persians in 300, who never existed. Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but to me, it seems like this is done to make the Persians more alien, as opposed to the freedom loving Nordic looking Greeks. Alexander is a good movie, and is very accurate in the ways you listed and more, and is surely more accurate that Zulu, it’s just that that kind of thing pisses me off. In that one respect, the two are somewhat similar, although like I said before, Alexander is not nearly as bad.

My largest issue with Kingdom of Heaven is not the way the Christians and Muslims interacted, but their spiritual ambivalence, especially among the Christians, where the Templars are referred to as fanatics.

[Mulceber]

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.

Based on more recent evidence, those arrows COULDN'T penetrate armor - the arrows were made out of iron while the armor was made out of steel. In tests, the arrows just crumpled when they hit armor. Based on the research, the reason the English won was actually due to the weather - there had been heavy rain the night before, which meant there was deep mud on the battlefield. The suction created by the mud made it extremely difficult (if not impossible) for a person wearing armor to move about, so by the time the french reached the English lines they were exhausted, and fell quickly in melee. The mud created issues here too, since due to it, all the English Longbowmen had to do to incapacitate the french was knock them over and the mud would prevent them from getting back up.


The movie was about Alexander, not his battles, and it did cover his most important battles very well,

Well, the battle fought against Darius was actually an amalgamation of 3 historical battles, but I agree with you in principle that the movie did a good job of covering Alexander's life. -M

[risker]

I agree with Buddha, the persian portrayal infuriated me in both 300 and Alexander. It's not a question of politics, it's linked to the thread. To portray a race like that is simply out of the question and ruined (along with Colin Farrel's tame acting) Alexander for me. 300 was already shite, homophobic and surreal enough for me to turn it off when I saw Xerxes apparently being a hermaphrodite (another hint of homophobia from the makers as well as racist).



How is that historically accurate?

[plutoboyz]

I agree with Buddha, the persian portrayal infuriated me in both 300 and Alexander. It's not a question of politics, it's linked to the thread. To portray a race like that is simply out of the question and ruined (along with Colin Farrel's tame acting) Alexander for me. 300 was already shite, homophobic and surreal enough for me to turn it off when I saw Xerxes apparently being a hermaphrodite (another hint of homophobia from the makers as well as racist).



How is that historically accurate?
one thing that disturb me about 300 is when Leonidas said "... those Athenian boy-lover..." whoa... how about pederasty?
and also at the beginning when Leonidas said that the persians threathened them with slavery and death. There was almost no slavery in the Aechemenid persian empire while 80% of the spartan were slave

[jazstl]

http://www.1watchmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Genghis-khan.jpg

Genghis Khan he is heaving a film wroth of him.

[A Very Super Market]

I was thinking of a different Genghis Khan

https://img363.imageshack.us/img363/3470/conqueror.jpg

[Ibrahim]

I was thinking of a different Genghis Khan

https://img363.imageshack.us/img363/3470/conqueror.jpg

ah yes! the classical white guy portraying asian conqueror.

this movie is only slightly better than this (in the above regard) :clown: :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/Faceoffumanchu.jpg

[TancredTheNorman]

I really am not one to lightly use the R-word, but my issue with 300 and Alexander is the way the Persians are portrayed.

The Persians are portrayed much better then the British in any Holywood movie (unless the English are fighting France, Spain, or usually both of course). There was nothing portrayed in 300, I seriously challenge you to find anything in 300 that isn't involving sword and spear, seriously I will give a hundred pounds to anyone who can prove that 300 wasn't created by the mind of a 14 year old boy who wanted lots and lots of blood in an adult body. The Persians are not portrayed at all, you can't have a rascist portrayal when none exists. Not only that I would like to turn your attention to the fact that 99 out of 100 people you will find on the streets of London has no idea Persia means Iran today, as far as most people are concerned Persia went the way of the Romans, Gauls, Carthaginians and other ancient names that aren't on any modern maps. I'm not saying they should be that ignorant, I'm just stating the facts.


It has nothing to do with the fact that they are bad guys, it has to do with the fact that they are portrayed as a disorganized rabble.

In 300 yes, although Sparta's Greek allies are hardly any better, and in Oliver Stone's Alexander that simply isn't true.


I think the portrayals are racist because even though Persia and its satrapates had many people of varying skin/hair/eye colors and ethnicities, all the Persians without exception are heavily accented dark skinned people, even going so far as to have black Persians in 300, who never existed.

I didn't actually notice any of that, could you link a scene where there are black Persians?


Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but to me, it seems like this is done to make the Persians more alien, as opposed to the freedom loving Nordic looking Greeks.

I think you are reading too much into it, 300 is a blood splatter movie people go to for the purpose of seeing people getting slaughtered, it has no thought in it, and any negative portrayal is obviously accidental, along with any good acting, historical coincidences, good scenes, or competent graphics directing or realistic looking fighting.


Alexander is a good movie, and is very accurate in the ways you listed and more, and is surely more accurate that Zulu, it’s just that that kind of thing pisses me off. In that one respect, the two are somewhat similar, although like I said before, Alexander is not nearly as bad.

My largest issue with Kingdom of Heaven is not the way the Christians and Muslims interacted, but their spiritual ambivalence, especially among the Christians, where the Templars are referred to as fanatics.

I would agree but with Kingdom of Heaven I personally think it's heavy historical flaws are more then negated by it's merits, we could agree to disagree on that. On Alexander though I don't think your right to think it has the negative portrayal of Persians you say it does. The Persians are very disciplined before Gaugamela, and once ordered to envelop they start going after Alexander's men, at first with discipline and you see they break down later as the battle continues, but you also see them crush Parmenion's portion of the field so when Darius flees Alexander has a choice of capture the empire (and Darius) or save his army. You should also remember, if Persian Military Science seemed to be portrayed as inferior to Greek and Macedonian Military Science that is because it was. I also loved the way blood very realistically falls, nothing glorious about it like in 300 or Blood and Sand, and you even get to see the post battle fatalities. The Persians are definitely not pushovers. Also consider the later part of the movie, Alexander is trying to win over the Persians.


To portray a race like that is simply out of the question and ruined (along with Colin Farrel's tame acting) Alexander for me. 300 was already shite, homophobic and surreal enough for me to turn it off when I saw Xerxes apparently being a hermaphrodite (another hint of homophobia from the makers as well as racist).



How is that historically accurate?

See my above refutation.


There was almost no slavery in the Aechemenid persian empire while 80% of the spartan were slave

Unless you could provide me proof that serfs are significantly better off then slaves, that slavery was uncommon in Egypt, Asia Minor, and the Middle East that is clearly innacurate. Slavery was part of the ancient world without exceptions.

For the record I know Granicus, Issus, and Gaugamela were merged, the reason is Alexander was suppose to be about Alexander, too many battles would have changed the focus from the man to the march.

[bobbin]

Unless you could provide me proof that serfs are significantly better off then slaves, that slavery was uncommon in Egypt, Asia Minor, and the Middle East that is clearly innacurate. Slavery was part of the ancient world without exceptions.

The Helots of Sparta were treated much worse than the average slave of the day, they were routinely terrorised buy the Spatan citzens to keep them in line.

For example, an advanced part of the Spartan military training (the Krypteia) involved state sanctioned murder of them.

[Madoushi]

Knights Tale: *Bangs head against the wall*

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.

So were you expecting A Knight's Tale to be historical before or after the peasants started singing We Will Rock You? :grin:

As for Troy, I still feel I liked Helen of Troy better. I have no idea if it was any more accurate, but it felt a lot less like a mindless action movie.

[Badass Buddha]

I haven't seen Alexander since it came out, so maybe you're right, but what sticks out in my mind is an arial shot of the two armies where opposite the Macedonians phalanxes is a massive horde of Persians where no distinct units could be seen. They did look better close up though.

As for black people in 300, the first messenger is black, as is the messenger they send to the Ephors. While I doubt the racism was intentional, that it how it comes off to me. I am also not denying that many Hollywood portrayals of English people are racist as hell, an example being Montgomery's depiction in Patton.

[Andronikos]

So were you expecting A Knight's Tale to be historical before or after the peasants started singing We Will Rock You? :grin:

As for Troy, I still feel I liked Helen of Troy better. I have no idea if it was any more accurate, but it felt a lot less like a mindless action movie.

A Knight's Tale: LOL

Helen of Troy: you mean that one where Achilles was a bad guy and Helen was raped by Agamemnon in the end?
I didn't like any of them, actually I would like to see a good movie based on most accurate mythology as possible, either Greek or Arthurian legends or whatever. And after what I heard and read about the new Clash of the Titans I would avoid it.

[athanaric]

Unless you could provide me proof that serfs are significantly better off then slaves, that slavery was uncommon in Egypt, Asia Minor, and the Middle East that is clearly innacurate. Slavery was part of the ancient world without exceptions.
As indicated above, few slaves were worse off than those of the Spartans. Spartan society was extreme and, I imagine, thoroughly unpleasant for somebody with interests other than those in line with militarized proto-fascism.

That said, the condition of serfs in Persia, though probably not worse than elswhere, wasn't desirable either. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that their constant exploitation, along with the near-constant power struggles of their superiors, was a major factor in the toppling of the Sasanid Empire and the Islamic victory. Which is ironic from a modern perspective because the society of (early) Islam is much less free than that of Zoroastrianism, what with real slavery and all that. Still, it had to offer significant advantages which were propagated by its followers, notably a certain kind of equality among all believers. Not to forget a sense of purpose. Cue defection of numerous Persian soldiers, including elite ones.
Had the Parthian or Sasanid rulers managed to see through some groundbreaking reforms of society (and managed to secure a truly lasting peace with the ERE), history could have been much different. But I guess that belongs to the "SPQR who?" speculation thread.

[Phalanx300]

I haven't seen Alexander since it came out, so maybe you're right, but what sticks out in my mind is an arial shot of the two armies where opposite the Macedonians phalanxes is a massive horde of Persians where no distinct units could be seen. They did look better close up though.

As for black people in 300, the first messenger is black, as is the messenger they send to the Ephors. While I doubt the racism was intentional, that it how it comes off to me. I am also not denying that many Hollywood portrayals of English people are racist as hell, an example being Montgomery's depiction in Patton.

300 Racist? Just because there are black actors in it? That very thought is more racist then the movie...


The Helots of Sparta were treated much worse than the average slave of the day, they were routinely terrorised buy the Spatan citzens to keep them in line.

For example, an advanced part of the Spartan military training (the Krypteia) involved state sanctioned murder of them.

The Helots had it far better then most slaves. Being able to keep 50% of what you produce and to own. To form and live with familly. The Krypteia came there when the Messenian Helots revolted and almost destroyed Sparta, after that the Spartans started to redicule (Messenian?)Helots and to kill those thought to be a problem.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

300 Racist? Just because there are black actors in it? That very thought is more racist then the movie...


I think "racist" simply refers to 300's high amount of anti-Persian bias...

[Cyclops]

I think the "excuse" for the over-the-top anti-Persian sentiment in 300 is that the story is being told from the POV of a Spartan spin doctor motivating the Hellenes before the battle of Plataea. This is probably ahistorical in itself, as Persia was still widely feared and respected at thast time and for decades after (eg the Spartans and Athenians accepting the Great King's mediation), and the Hellenes took great pride in defeating the various Persian incursions.

It is very true that after the Peloponessian wars there was a massive "anti-Persian crusade" movement, an attempt at pan-Hellenic unity by painting the Persian Empire as corrupt, weak and ripe for plucking..."if we can just cooperate".

Xenephon is part of this but there were plenty of others, and the Spartans and I believe the Thessalian tyrant Jason of Pherae bought into this movement before the Makedonians father and son set the mission up and brought it to fuition (and then some).

So 300 reflects general levels of fear towards the Persians one might have seen in 480 but not generally held levels of contempt, which was a later development. Cyrus was in fact widely admired in Greece and numerous anecdotes attest to his wisdom and courage, despite his sticky end. Same goes for Cyrus the younger.

Great looking bit of comicbook fun, but dramatically ahistorical from the inbred priestly Medizing Ephors (lol) to the eight foot shaven Xerxes (double lol) and my favourite: combat rhinos (sadly allergic to javelins).

We need a realistic Life of Cyrus to balance out this fairytale stuff. Not starring Vin Deisel.

[cmacq]

good bloody luck with that.

[Hax]

It is very true that after the Peloponessian wars there was a massive "anti-Persian crusade" movement, an attempt at pan-Hellenic unity by painting the Persian Empire as corrupt, weak and ripe for plucking..."if we can just cooperate".

Ironically, some of the greatest Hellenic generals who fought in the first Persian war, would later fight for the Persians during Xerxes' invasion. The Greeks were actually thought of being corrupt people who'd do anything for money, in Persia.

[Genava]

A nice teaser:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcxm5o_teaser-destiny-of-rome_shortfilms

Extracts: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k4a3CgKJCOBVPh1tg7q
Profile:http://www.dailymotion.com/GATAKA_PARIS

[Ludens]

So 300 reflects general levels of fear towards the Persians one might have seen in 480 but not generally held levels of contempt, which was a later development. Cyrus was in fact widely admired in Greece and numerous anecdotes attest to his wisdom and courage, despite his sticky end. Same goes for Cyrus the younger.

Interesting. It does make sense from what I know. Incidentally, I cannot view the daily motion website. Can somebody tell me what the video's are about?

[antisocialmunky]

I don't really understand why people hate on Vinn Diesel besides the name... Its not like he's done anything too egregious other than Riddick.

Anyway, does anyone know of what happned to the Anabasis film? Sony was making one as of 2008 but I haven't heard anything about it.

[athanaric]

Interesting. It does make sense from what I know. Incidentally, I cannot view the daily motion website. Can somebody tell me what the video's are about?
Yes. Ominous Latin Chanting, Vanilla RTW Egyptians, and Latin with some strange (Medieval? French) accent. The rest looks interesting though.
Covers the power struggle between Marcus Antonius and Octavianus. With actors looking similar to those of "Rome".

edit 2: WTH? They used the soundtrack of Sunshine for the extract?

[gamegeek2]

Just saw Deadliest Warrior season 2 preview.

Spartan defeated Samurai for deadliest Ancient Warrior

[antisocialmunky]

Obviously they were using Stone Cold Steve Austin's time machine there. -_-' Why not just do Spartans vs Tyrannosaurs instead?

[Julianus]

No one mentioned Lawrence of Arabia yet?
How accurate is it? However I know that it is based on the autobiography of Lawrence himself, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and Lawrence was not a man devoid of passion for self-glorification...

[Cyclops]

I don't really understand why people hate on Vinn Diesel besides the name... Its not like he's done anything too egregious other than Riddick....

Actually Riddick was a bit of fun. I like him in mindless action, but he's started doing "Daddy Daycare" movies. Also its unlikely any film could retain historical shape with the gravitational distorition of Hollywood personalities involved.


...Anyway, does anyone know of what happned to the Anabasis film? ...

An Anabasis film? Yay!


...Sony was making one as of 2008 but I haven't heard anything about it.

Sony? Nooooo!

[machinor]

No one mentioned Lawrence of Arabia yet?
How accurate is it? However I know that it is based on the autobiography of Lawrence himself, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and Lawrence was not a man devoid of passion for self-glorification...
More or less... regarding both. The movie follows the basic dramaturgy of the autobiography while making it more to the point. The key events are correct more or less. The people are all based on real people except Sherif Ali who is basically two historical people in one. The movie makes the character of Lawrence larger than life in every aspect: his virtues, him being an outsider, him fitting in with the Arabs, his hybris and his fall.
The thing is, the movie is not about a historically accurate portrayal a certain person and his time (that's what modern biopics do most of the time, which makes them quite boring for the most part) but more like taking a historical person and use him as a backdrop or example for showing timeless human struggles, quests, desires and maybe failings. Basically the same approach Shakespeare had with his "Julius Caesar". "Lawrence of Arabia" basically is a movie about identity. Lawrence struggles through the whole film to find himself, his identity, a place to belong but ultimately fails. Throughout the film different people ask numerous times who Lawrence is/was and there is never given any answer.
You may have guessed that I consider "Lawrence of Arabia" one of the best movies ever made.
Lawrence himself was quite accurate in his autobiography. Maybe he stressed his contribution to the guerrilla strategy of the Arabian revolt a bit to much at times, but basically he is very accurate. He makes some factual mistakes in his rendering of the Arabian campaign but that is by error not intentionally as he had to rewrite the book basically from his memory since he lost his notes and manuscripts. It's a good read. Very compelling and a beautiful account of the rich culture of the Arabic world.

Regarding accuracy to mythological source material I would like to add the two part TV-movie about the Odyssey with Armand Assante as Odysseus. That one was very good.

[Phalanx300]

Just saw Deadliest Warrior season 2 preview.

Spartan defeated Samurai for deadliest Ancient Warrior

Ofcourse they did.

Next episode is oging to be Alexander vs Atilla. Should only watch DW for the weapon testing though, the rest is just not as Historical as it could be, seeing bad Historians and self made equipment or cheap bought one.

[Mulceber]

Regarding accuracy to mythological source material I would like to add the two part TV-movie about the Odyssey with Armand Assante as Odysseus. That one was very good.

ugh, I hated that one. Granted, I didn't finish it - I couldn't bring myself to continue after the way they butchered the portion dealing with the Trojan War - Achilles running into battle without armor like a gaesetae? No mention of Patroclus? [shudders]. -M

[gamegeek2]

Deadliest warrior is aparently going to show Alexandros using a gastraphetes. This doesn't make sense...

[Horatius Flaccus]

Talking about historical accuracy: I really think Mickey Rourke is perfect as Ghengis Khan. Click. (http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/04/25/mickey-rourke-to-play-ghengis-khan/)

[Antonivs Silvicola]

Talking about historical accuracy: I really think Mickey Rourke is perfect as Ghengis Khan. Click. (http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/04/25/mickey-rourke-to-play-ghengis-khan/)
I REALLY hope this a joke. Even John Wayne would say WTH?

[Badass Buddha]

A White Ghengis Khan... who loves dogs? Somebody needs to hit John Milius in the head with a rolled up copy of The Secret History of the Mongols.

If they're really going to do this though, then they should cast William Shatner as Jamuka.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

I can just imagine.... Genghis: Only one of us may rule! Jamuka: No, wait, let's...... make a deal!

[Badass Buddha]

I was thinking something along the lines of :

https://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y197/noob21/khaaan_2.jpg

"Ghengis KHAAAAAN!"

[TancredTheNorman]

I should also point out Beowulf up to the death of Grendel is pretty faithful to the myth.

Terry Jones has already come up so need not come up again now that I discovered another half truth "documentary" by him.

Deadliest warrior uses anachronism, unrealistic settings and ahistorical foundations as it's base so has to be given mention, it might as well pit those Spartans lead by Megas Alexandros against a herd of dinosaurs.

Time Commanders is surprisingly good, although you have to remember before you watch that the Rome Total War Engine determined 10/11 battles before they start, sometimes in favor of the winner, sometimes in favor of a loser who had a vastly superior force.

[Badass Buddha]

Spartans lead by Megas Alexandros against a herd of dinosaurs.

Such a movie would make hundreds of millions. *Facepalms*

[antisocialmunky]

Technically that would be some sort of sci-fi/fantasy so I don't think that has any historical basis. Could be cool.

[ziegenpeter]

one thing that disturb me about 300 is when Leonidas said "... those Athenian boy-lover..." whoa... how about pederasty?
and also at the beginning when Leonidas said that the persians threathened them with slavery and death. There was almost no slavery in the Aechemenid persian empire while 80% of the spartan were slave
Well maybe its because he is the king of sparta. What should he say in your opinion? "Well nay our health insurance system is better than yours, we rather stay independant" He was the leader of a fascist society and thus a bit biased. What a character says in a movie is not necessarily the opinion of the movie makers. The movie is a graphic novel adaptation, very close to it, but morally you can only blame the movie for one thing: It doesn't get the bad side of this fatalist behavior into focus. The makers of the comic and movie state nowhere that the spartians are right.


Based on more recent evidence, those arrows COULDN'T penetrate armor - the arrows were made out of iron while the armor was made out of steel. In tests, the arrows just crumpled when they hit armor. Based on the research, the reason the English won was actually due to the weather - there had been heavy rain the night before, which meant there was deep mud on the battlefield. The suction created by the mud made it extremely difficult (if not impossible) for a person wearing armor to move about, so by the time the french reached the English lines they were exhausted, and fell quickly in melee. The mud created issues here too, since due to it, all the English Longbowmen had to do to incapacitate the french was knock them over and the mud would prevent them from getting back up.
-M

According to "weapons that made britain" arrows could penetrate armor from the 14th century when within a range of ca. 20m (I found this quite convincing since in these kind of discussions the range is usually not mentioned - big mistake!). Later armors of the 15th century were able to deflect arrows.

@Black Persians: Maybe from egypt?

[Badass Buddha]

I would say that the makers of the comic and movie endorse the Spartans and their beliefs/actions through their glorification.

Concerning the effectiveness of archers at Agincourt, while the arrows could pierce armor at close range, where they really shined was in taking out the unarmored horses the French knights used.

While it is certainly possible that a North African could have become a messenger or general, I would say that it was highly unlikely, because he would have to get the advanced education required for such a position, and then be discovered, neither of which are easy when living in the Libyan or Nubian frontier.

[Hax]

I responded in here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?127924-RE-Most-Historically-Accurate-Films-Documentaries-Video-On-the-quot-film-quot-300&p=2481680#post2481680). If you don't have access to the Backroom, I can also PM my comments.

[Fluvius Camillus]

I responded in here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?127924-RE-Most-Historically-Accurate-Films-Documentaries-Video-On-the-quot-film-quot-300&p=2481680#post2481680). If you don't have access to the Backroom, I can also PM my comments.

The film wouldn't be a financial succes if it would depict historical soldiers fighting in formation al the time (40 minutes phalanx combat would bore me eventually). Therefore spectacular individual fighting and a good old evil enemy was added.

It differs what people see, I see an action movie, not a political message. Maybe a bit a OT, but people see what they want to see. (http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/652641/52b5b418/optische_illusie.html)

@Ludens, this does not break forum law right? Look closely! If it still does, remove it.

Edit: Also, why has nobody started about Battles BC yet!

~Fluvius

[ziegenpeter]

It differs what people see, I see an action movie, not a political message. Maybe a bit a OT, but people see what they want to see. (http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/652641/52b5b418/optische_illusie.html)

@Ludens, this does not break forum law right? Look closely! If it still does, remove it.



Relax, its just an armpit ;)

[antisocialmunky]

The film wouldn't be a financial succes if it would depict historical soldiers fighting in formation al the time (40 minutes phalanx combat would bore me eventually). Therefore spectacular individual fighting and a good old evil enemy was added.

It differs what people see, I see an action movie, not a political message. Maybe a bit a OT, but people see what they want to see. (http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/652641/52b5b418/optische_illusie.html)

@Ludens, this does not break forum law right? Look closely! If it still does, remove it.

Edit: Also, why has nobody started about Battles BC yet!

~Fluvius

Why is it that you had to depict the whole thing? Alexander showed like 20-30 minutes of phalangiteness and that was good enough for a 3 hour long movie and Spartacus showed the hypothetical deployment into a checkboard formation. I think it would be fun. Besides they did show a 'phalanx' for a few seconds in 300.

[ziegenpeter]

Why is it that you had to depict the whole thing? Alexander showed like 20-30 minutes of phalangiteness and that was good enough for a 3 hour long movie and Spartacus showed the hypothetical deployment into a checkboard formation. I think it would be fun. Besides they did show a 'phalanx' for a few seconds in 300.

Well the answer to this question is very simple: Because it's epic. Besides, that's the answer to all the questions you could have about 300. This film is just about beeing epic and visually appealing. Nothing more. And imho it's good in what it's trying. Nothing more, as I said.

[Badass Buddha]

people see what they want to see.
I'll freely admit that I could very well be, and probably am, looking for meaning where there is none to be found. I study English, so it's reflexive. I'm reminded of a recent episode of South park.


Besides they did show a 'phalanx' for a few seconds in 300.

I will say this in favor of 300: I felt the few seconds where they showed the phalanx combat captured extremely well the brutal, gritty, claustrophobic nature of that kind of warfare.

[antisocialmunky]

I dunno, I don't think it was as epic as a Graphic Novel representation. I didn't feel it was particularly epic when you were looking at only 300 dudes pwning face over and over again until the very end. Maybe it was epic but it was epic all the time so it never actually felt all that epic because there was not enough unepicness to make hte epic scenes especially epic. If that makes any sense.

[Apázlinemjó]

I dunno, I don't think it was as epic as a Graphic Novel representation. I didn't feel it was particularly epic when you were looking at only 300 dudes pwning face over and over again until the very end. Maybe it was epic but it was epic all the time so it never actually felt all that epic because there was not enough unepicness to make hte epic scenes especially epic. If that makes any sense.

*Taps the "Like" button.*

[ziegenpeter]

I dunno, I don't think it was as epic as a Graphic Novel representation. I didn't feel it was particularly epic when you were looking at only 300 dudes pwning face over and over again until the very end. Maybe it was epic but it was epic all the time so it never actually felt all that epic because there was not enough unepicness to make hte epic scenes especially epic. If that makes any sense.

Well thats why they invented the scenes with Leonids' wife. They are not in the graphic novel and not particularly good, imho.

[Badass Buddha]

I dunno, I don't think it was as epic as a Graphic Novel representation. I didn't feel it was particularly epic when you were looking at only 300 dudes pwning face over and over again until the very end. Maybe it was epic but it was epic all the time so it never actually felt all that epic because there was not enough unepicness to make hte epic scenes especially epic. If that makes any sense.

No, it makes sense. When they kill everything almost effortlessly without tiring, it removes all the drama. It gets boring just watching one ridiculously one-sided slaughter after another.

[Cyclops]

I'm going to see Robin Hood (its out here shortly) and given its Ridley Scott and his man-crush Rusty I'm expecting a beautiful looking action movie with excellent, well researched period-appropriate equipment and settings and a desecration of historical truth.

Of course Robin Hood is hardly an historical figure, more King Arthur myth than fact, so fair enough too.

300 is about as accurate as How to Train Your Dragon, but it was lot of naughty fun. If it gets some kids interested in Classical Greece then good. However the absurd calumnies against the Persians deserve top be redressed in a Persian POV action flick...oh wait there's one called Prince of Persia, that could be good...oh its by Disney...

[Phalanx300]

There is going to be an 300 prequal called Xerxes, including battle of Marathon. Seeing its called Xerxes maybe they will now portray the Greeks as evil. As 300 was a story about the war told by an Spartan, explaining the fictional looks of it. At least I've heard that was the intention of the writer. Would be a great twist to turn it all around for the prequal.

[Hax]

If that is the case, I will retract all my comments about 300.

[antisocialmunky]

If that is the case, I will retract all my comments about 300.

It's by Frank Miller so good luck with that.

[TancredTheNorman]

The problem with 300 was it did everything poorly, I don't agree there was any rascism I think Hollywood just always makes one side "good" and one side "bad" (with only a few very notable exceptions). However whatever is by Frank Miller will be a blood and gore thing that is for people to watch once at the movies to enjoy seeing "bad guys" dying. However the only way 300 could be considered ok is if you compare it with that brainless series Blood and Sand.

That said the Ancients did not exactly hold anything back, according to the various sources the Historical Commodus was even worst then the Commodus of Gladiator, but there are some things even a modern author won't want to depict, like rape of a sister.

[Mulceber]

There is going to be an 300 prequal called Xerxes, including battle of Marathon. Seeing its called Xerxes maybe they will now portray the Greeks as evil. As 300 was a story about the war told by an Spartan, explaining the fictional looks of it. At least I've heard that was the intention of the writer. Would be a great twist to turn it all around for the prequal.

If it's portraying the battle of Marathon, shouldn't it be called "Darius?" Just sayin'... -M

[Ibrahim]

There is going to be an 300 prequal called Xerxes, including battle of Marathon. Seeing its called Xerxes maybe they will now portray the Greeks as evil. As 300 was a story about the war told by an Spartan, explaining the fictional looks of it. At least I've heard that was the intention of the writer. Would be a great twist to turn it all around for the prequal.

what if that is a sham title? dawn of the dead had the name "dead" in it, but the dead in that movie weren't exactly Santachrist and the Easter bunny, if you know what I mean.

[Phalanx300]

If it's portraying the battle of Marathon, shouldn't it be called "Darius?" Just sayin'... -M

Yeah buts its still called Xerxes and has the battle of Marothon in it. How it will work out I have no idea.

Best would be to trow it all around, Greeks being evil and Persians being good. Oh well, we'll see.

[Horatius Flaccus]

This is going to be awesome: click (http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/05/17/300-producers-developing-caesar-trilogy/).

/sarcasm

[Fluvius Camillus]

This is going to be awesome: click (http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/05/17/300-producers-developing-caesar-trilogy/).

/sarcasm

I can already see the LS shining in the distance... Oh the horror!

~Fluvius

[Apázlinemjó]

I can already see the LS shining in the distnace... Oh the horror!

~Fluvius

Or more... orcs, gnomes, trolls fighting against Roman legions.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

And Celts becoming the new Persians.:no:

[Power2the1]

Say, how does Apocalypto rank?

[antisocialmunky]

And Celts becoming the new Persians.:no:

At least its white people fighting white people so you have less baggage.

[Apázlinemjó]

Say, how does Apocalypto rank?

Well it was made by Mel Gibson, so it goes down like the Braveheart probably. But maybe a historian specialized in Mayan history could tell more about the accuracy of the movie.

[G. Septimus]

And Celts becoming the new Persians.:no:
:no:
dude, that is so not cool
and,
Caesar saying: THIS IS ROME!!!!!!!!!!

Anthony: dude, your pissing on my house
Caesar: Oh sorry, now shut up
Anthony: NO
Caesar: yes
Anthony: : NO!
*Caesar sees the place around him....
Caesar: Urgghh...
THIS
IS ROME!!!!!!!!!
Anthony: what? hey dude, this isn't 300 okay, so no holes
Caesar: okay, wut about 400
Anthony: Shut up already

[ziegenpeter]

BTW: There was a link to a movie about Cullodáin (sp?), but I dont have it anymore. Do you guys know about its progress?

[TancredTheNorman]

My guess on Caesar is they will depict Caesar as a man of the people, and Pompey and the Senate as dictators and Caesar starts a civil war to free the people.

[Ibrahim]

BTW: There was a link to a movie about Cullodáin (sp?), but I dont have it anymore. Do you guys know about its progress?

the 1746 battle? or just shares a similar name?

[Lvcretivs]

He refers to Cú Chulainn/Cuchulainn - not Culloden ;) - and this (http://breakthrufilms.co.uk/uk/films/hound/).

[Badass Buddha]

Say, how does Apocalypto rank?

Apocalypto is bad even for Mel Gibson. It's just a sort of Mayincatec mishmash of anachronisms and stereotypes. I can go into more detail if you want, but for now I'm going to bed.

[G. Septimus]

My guess on Caesar is they will depict Caesar as a man of the people, and Pompey and the Senate as dictators and Caesar starts a civil war to free the people.
:thumbsup:
they want to potray Caesar as a Super, Badass-Hero-Politician.
Populares, actually, Marius did that

[Hroth]

I can read it the Caesar book My its good a good book

[J.R.M]

This is ROMA!!!

Julius Caesar knows that the corrupt senators must be erradicated and only he has the power and will to do it, because he is the greatest general in history. It will be a hard task however, apart from the corrupt senators, Roma is sorrounded by enemies.
The Gauls at France, savage creatures that seek to enslave the free peoples of Rome, it will be necesary a brave man to lead the Roman Legion (never defeated in battle) against those demons. However there are other peoples in the far north, Germans, even the Gauls fear them, for they are incredible powerful men, natural looters with no feelings, they seek a perfect race. They redefined the word "barbarian"

I already see something like this in that "awesome" movie.

[Meneldil]

Apocalypto is bad even for Mel Gibson. It's just a sort of Mayincatec mishmash of anachronisms and stereotypes. I can go into more detail if you want, but for now I'm going to bed.

More info would be nice yes. I intend to watch it someday but I'm not familiar with Meso American history :)

[Apázlinemjó]

This is ROMA!!!

That sounds like an epic Caesar kick.

[Ibrahim]

He refers to Cú Chulainn/Cuchulainn - not Culloden ;) - and this (http://breakthrufilms.co.uk/uk/films/hound/).

yeah, that was kick*** as a film.

but yeah, that was conusing :embarassed:

[DaciaJC]

Iggulden’s books are bestsellers, but it’s worth noting that they take substantial liberties with the historical source material.

Read more: 300 Producers Developing Caesar Trilogy | /Film http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/05/17/300-producers-developing-caesar-trilogy/#ixzz0oo7gxeIz


If even the inspiration for a movie can't be taken very seriously, then there's little hope for the film itself.

[Badass Buddha]

More info would be nice yes. I intend to watch it someday but I'm not familiar with Meso American history :)

OK, I’m not an expert, but I have a respectable knowledge of American history, and this is just what I noticed was wrong:

*WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS ABOUND*

First, the time period. While the arrival of the Spanish at the end shows that this would be in the early 16th century in the Late Post-Classical Mayan period, almost everything else in this movie, from the architecture to the costumes to the problems the Mayans are dealing with, indicates it would take place sometime in the 8th century in the Late Classical Mayan period. The only thing consistent with the Post-Classical setting is the fact that there was human sacrifice, which became was not nearly as prevalent in the Classical period. By the 16th century the Mayans had reorganized themselves into a less centralized and urban and more militaristic and mercantilist civilization, quite different from the urban, cosmopolitan Classical period.

That ridiculous Chekov’s tapir trap. That’s just retarded. I’ve never heard of anything like that being used anywhere. At least, not for hunting.

However, the accuracy of the hunting is moot, because the Mayans were without exception agriculturalists. There would have been no hunting and gathering.

The people’s total ignorance of the city. These people live a week’s march away from a major city and they’ve no idea it exists? The Maya were an urban civilization. You couldn’t get more than 10 miles away from a population center of decent size.

The slave/sacrificial victim raid. The Mayans didn’t carry out slave/sacrificial victim raids, they took them during war.

The sacrifices. The Mayans didn’t carry out group sacrifices, and they didn’t do it by bending a dude backwards over a pillar and cutting his heart out. Both were Aztec practices. The Mayans were more into nonfatal bloodletting, and when they did sacrifice people, they were usually prisoners of war or members of the enemy nobility.

The use of slaves. The Mayans did not use nearly as many slaves as are shown in the movie. Like the ancient Egyptians, the Mayans employed free professionals to build their temples and civic structures.

The architecture. While above I said that the architecture is consistent with the Classical period, that’s a 600 year time span, during which it evolved quite a lot, and all the different styles are thrown together without regard to their respective time periods. Some of the art isn’t even from the Classical period, but from the Post-Classical period. On top of that, you also have art from different regions being thrown together. What we ended up is about as realistic as the architecture in The Emperor’s New Groove.

Finally, the Mayans’ attitude toward violence. Mayan society is portrayed as one of crazy sadists, lining up and cheering to watch people get ripped apart. NOBODY IS LIKE THAT. The only societies I can think of that relish watching people butcher each other so much are our Western ones.

If I’ve gotten anything wrong please correct me. I probably missed or forgot something.

Finally, I think this movie’s racist. I know you’ll groan and roll your eyes, and I’ve already gotten in trouble over this and I don’t want to be “that guy” who yells racism about everything, but the message that the Maya were a savage, bloodthirsty, decadent civilization that needed to be saved by Western Christians seems racist to me. Again, that’s just the message I got, and I might be reading too much into it again.

[Phalanx300]

Its a movie, movies are for entertainment.

So yeah your reading too much into it.

[antisocialmunky]

Well this is a movie review thread and as such contains people's personal subjective opinions so I don't really see anything wrong with it.

Hollywood loves white-guy intervention flicks anyway so its not like its the first time. Its like how Last Samurai required a white guy to make things reasonable. OR Dances with Wolves used a white-guy to help the Natives. OR Star Trek is always a bunch of white guys, coming in and fixing problems.

Granted they use the white-guy as a character that is relatable to the audience but its still...

[Apázlinemjó]

Its a movie, movies are for entertainment.

So yeah your reading too much into it.

Games are for entertainment, so the EB team is reading too much into it?

Apocalpyto is a wannabe historical movie, and as I read Badass Buddha's comment, I guess it failed at this.

[Phalanx300]

Games are for entertainment, so the EB team is reading too much into it?

Apocalpyto is a wannabe historical movie, and as I read Badass Buddha's comment, I guess it failed at this.

Depends, Historical accuracy doesn't add to your entertainment?


Well this is a movie review thread and as such contains people's personal subjective opinions so I don't really see anything wrong with it.

Hollywood loves white-guy intervention flicks anyway so its not like its the first time. Its like how Last Samurai required a white guy to make things reasonable. OR Dances with Wolves used a white-guy to help the Natives. OR Star Trek is always a bunch of white guys, coming in and fixing problems.

Granted they use the white-guy as a character that is relatable to the audience but its still...

Well I watched Apocalypto lately and the white people are just seconds in a small boat coming to the beach. Hardly a big part of the movie. Hardly anything to call it racist. Unaccuracies doesn't equal racism...

[Badass Buddha]

Star Trek is always a bunch of white guys, coming in and fixing problems.

At least Star Trek tried to avoid it by having a multiracial cast, even if they did have relatively minor roles.


Well I watched Apocalypto lately and the white people are just seconds in a small boat coming to the beach. Hardly a big part of the movie. Hardly anything to call it racist. Unaccuracies doesn't equal racism...

Watch the end again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR8I1nicYWo

It's symbolic. The savage Mayans are about to kill the hero, when they are struck dumb by the arrival of the cross carrying Spanish and leave him alone. The screen even centers on the cross at the end. The message is that the savage, decadent heathens need to be saved from themselves.

[Apázlinemjó]

Depends, Historical accuracy doesn't add to your entertainment?

It does, while something which wants to be historical yet fails to be just ruins it.

[Cyclops]

So Apocalypto took an interesting Mayan scenario (the collapse of the classic mayan civilisation), sexed it up with some Aztec-style sacrifice (although it would've been cooler if they were sacrificed to bears that shot laser beams out of their eyes), and threw in the Spanish as a nasty twist at the end (an anachronistic mismatch for the classical Mayan city shown in the first part of the film).

Not sure where the racism is, its certainly as dumbed down as most supposedly historical epics about western europeans. Gladiator has Marcus Aurelius toying with Republicanism (personified by a character called Gracchus lol), Braveheart has lowlanders in kilts and frenchmen like Edouard, De Bruce and Bailliol speaking english.

My other quibble is the one about "why was Jaguar Paw ignorant of the city?". He was certainly amazed by the city but thats how any peasant/villager/tribesman might feel coming to any city: eg an Arcadian peasant coming to Athens. Why can't J-P just be a hunter from the sticks who lives on his little patch and never left the local area? His tribe may have been on the fringe of the Mayan cultural zone, and he may not be Mayan at all. its only a minor quibble, the film sinks under the weight of its own contempt for history.

I think the arrival of the Spaniards simply foreshadows suffering for everyone, the hunters and the hunted.

There is a school of thought that says "the Spanish were less cruel than the Aztecs" and I am a believer in that. They were awful harsh conquerors but the Aztecs were an horrifically cruel regime and the majorty of mesoAmericans could not wait to throw them down and trample them. They gladly joined forces with the Spanish to do it. Hatred of the Aztes was certainly not limited to western europeans.

[vartan]

There is a school of thought that says "the Spanish were less cruel than the Aztecs" and I am a believer in that. They were awful harsh conquerors but the Aztecs were an horrifically cruel regime and the majorty of mesoAmericans could not wait to throw them down and trample them. They gladly joined forces with the Spanish to do it. Hatred of the Aztes was certainly not limited to western europeans.
Lucky for the Aztecs they didn't control as much land as the Inca did. The Aztecs controlled by force, but could do so for such a long time because of such little area they had to do it in. Of course, the area was more densely populated than those that were under Cuzco control. But the Aztecs were constantly at war. Its end was inevitable. As for Apocalypto...meh.

[Badass Buddha]

I would not call it racism if the camera had not focused directly on the cross in the last shot. That, coupled with Mel Gibson's beliefs, suggest to me the "saving them from themselves" interpretation.

[Cyclops]

Was Seven Samurai accurate? I have the most passing smidgen of Japanese history and it seems a plausible taste of the fate of peasants and ronin in pre-Tokugawa Japan.


I would not call it racism if the camera had not focused directly on the cross in the last shot. That, coupled with Mel Gibson's beliefs, suggest to me the "saving them from themselves" interpretation.

Fair enough, if you see it you see it. I didn't, but I don't associate the cross borne by the conquistadores with saving people. I guess an extremist like Gibson might intend that, he's kooky enough, so I certainly recognise your position has merit.

I see the way J-P runs as his survival instinct, whereas the warriors seem to move toward the oncoming threat. Both the hunter and the hunted have come up against something deadlier than themselves: we know it but they don't, yet.

[bobbin]

Braveheart has lowlanders in kilts and frenchmen like Edouard, De Bruce and Bailliol speaking english.

They may have all had Norman ancestors but by that period they would have at least been able to speak english (or gaelic). Regarding the kilts, considering they didn't appear until around the 16th century, the main problem is that they were there at all.

[Phalanx300]

I would not call it racism if the camera had not focused directly on the cross in the last shot. That, coupled with Mel Gibson's beliefs, suggest to me the "saving them from themselves" interpretation.

So you now link religion to races? The fact that it are non Mayans bringing the cross is what makes it racism to you, that very thought is racist.

Racism is failed term anyways.

[Horatius Flaccus]

It's Mel Gibson, it has to be racist. :clown:

[Cadwalader]

Hollywood loves white-guy intervention flicks anyway so its not like its the first time. Its like how Last Samurai required a white guy to make things reasonable. OR Dances with Wolves used a white-guy to help the Natives. OR Star Trek is always a bunch of white guys, coming in and fixing problems.

Granted they use the white-guy as a character that is relatable to the audience but its still...

That trope is old as hell.

Just look at this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey).

The latest example is probably Avatar. They were aliens, I know, but obviously they were completely based on American Indians. The chief sounded like he should be in a western film.

[Cyclops]

I recently saw How to Tame Your Dragon. Boy did they get that wrong.

1. Vikings with Scottish accents? At least some of the kids sounded like they were from Minnesota.

2. Horns on the helmets. I mean duh.

3. Dragon saddles were clearly La Tene. Also breast-cup/helmets possibly Wagnerian.

[Badass Buddha]

So you now link religion to races? The fact that it are non Mayans bringing the cross is what makes it racism to you, that very thought is racist.

Racism is failed term anyways.

I'm not linking Christianity to a race. In US American English, racism is a catch-all term for both racial and ethnic prejudice. While racism is a failsome term, I can't think of another word for it.


That trope is old as hell.

Always good to meet another Troper. ~:cheers:

[TancredTheNorman]

OK, I’m not an expert, but I have a respectable knowledge of American history, and this is just what I noticed was wrong:

*WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS ABOUND*

First, the time period. While the arrival of the Spanish at the end shows that this would be in the early 16th century in the Late Post-Classical Mayan period, almost everything else in this movie, from the architecture to the costumes to the problems the Mayans are dealing with, indicates it would take place sometime in the 8th century in the Late Classical Mayan period. The only thing consistent with the Post-Classical setting is the fact that there was human sacrifice, which became was not nearly as prevalent in the Classical period. By the 16th century the Mayans had reorganized themselves into a less centralized and urban and more militaristic and mercantilist civilization, quite different from the urban, cosmopolitan Classical period.

That ridiculous Chekov’s tapir trap. That’s just retarded. I’ve never heard of anything like that being used anywhere. At least, not for hunting.

However, the accuracy of the hunting is moot, because the Mayans were without exception agriculturalists. There would have been no hunting and gathering.

The people’s total ignorance of the city. These people live a week’s march away from a major city and they’ve no idea it exists? The Maya were an urban civilization. You couldn’t get more than 10 miles away from a population center of decent size.

The slave/sacrificial victim raid. The Mayans didn’t carry out slave/sacrificial victim raids, they took them during war.

The sacrifices. The Mayans didn’t carry out group sacrifices, and they didn’t do it by bending a dude backwards over a pillar and cutting his heart out. Both were Aztec practices. The Mayans were more into nonfatal bloodletting, and when they did sacrifice people, they were usually prisoners of war or members of the enemy nobility.

The use of slaves. The Mayans did not use nearly as many slaves as are shown in the movie. Like the ancient Egyptians, the Mayans employed free professionals to build their temples and civic structures.

The architecture. While above I said that the architecture is consistent with the Classical period, that’s a 600 year time span, during which it evolved quite a lot, and all the different styles are thrown together without regard to their respective time periods. Some of the art isn’t even from the Classical period, but from the Post-Classical period. On top of that, you also have art from different regions being thrown together. What we ended up is about as realistic as the architecture in The Emperor’s New Groove.

Finally, the Mayans’ attitude toward violence. Mayan society is portrayed as one of crazy sadists, lining up and cheering to watch people get ripped apart. NOBODY IS LIKE THAT. The only societies I can think of that relish watching people butcher each other so much are our Western ones.

If I’ve gotten anything wrong please correct me. I probably missed or forgot something.

Finally, I think this movie’s racist. I know you’ll groan and roll your eyes, and I’ve already gotten in trouble over this and I don’t want to be “that guy” who yells racism about everything, but the message that the Maya were a savage, bloodthirsty, decadent civilization that needed to be saved by Western Christians seems racist to me. Again, that’s just the message I got, and I might be reading too much into it again.

You should realize that the only reason why Corezt was not slaughtered a few hours after his conflicts with the Aztecs started was the hatred every other civilization in the Region had for the Aztecs and their Human Sacrifices right? Even in the Cortez account it is clear that he was able to win only because of how hated the Aztecs were.


Hollywood loves white-guy intervention flicks anyway so its not like its the first time. Its like how Last Samurai required a white guy to make things reasonable. OR Dances with Wolves used a white-guy to help the Natives. OR Star Trek is always a bunch of white guys, coming in and fixing problems.

Granted they use the white-guy as a character that is relatable to the audience but its still...

The "natives" are all white to, if you could show Captain Kirk reffering to white supremacy, or Spok discussing how superior some Human Races are to others you would have a much stronger case. Except for the original there are important non white characters, and even in the original it really takes a witch hunter to see rascism where there is none. The episodes range from encountering Gods, to a planet where the Roman Empire never fell.

You are on much firmer ground with the Last Samurai, and I would like to take your word for it on Dances with Wolves, but common you consider Captain Kirk a rascist figure?

[Badass Buddha]

You should realize that the only reason why Corezt was not slaughtered a few hours after his conflicts with the Aztecs started was the hatred every other civilization in the Region had for the Aztecs and their Human Sacrifices right? Even in the Cortez account it is clear that he was able to win only because of how hated the Aztecs were.

We're not talking about the Aztecs. If Gibson wants to present the Aztecs as a violent, bloodthirsty society, I'd have nothing to say, because they were, sacrificing people in the tens of thousands, but the Maya only practiced human sacrifice on a scale similar to the Celts and Carthaginians.

[Hax]

and Carthaginians.

To be fair, this is very doubtful. Modern historians think it might've been Roman propaganda.

[Apázlinemjó]

I recently saw How to Tame Your Dragon. Boy did they get that wrong.

1. Vikings with Scottish accents? At least some of the kids sounded like they were from Minnesota.

2. Horns on the helmets. I mean duh.

3. Dragon saddles were clearly La Tene. Also breast-cup/helmets possibly Wagnerian.

I don't think it wanted to be historical at all, since.. dragons, come on. But Macilrille is the pro in the viking stuffs, we should wait his observations, if he has time.

[antisocialmunky]

You should realize that the only
The "natives" are all white to, if you could show Captain Kirk reffering to white supremacy, or Spok discussing how superior some Human Races are to others you would have a much stronger case. Except for the original there are important non white characters, and even in the original it really takes a witch hunter to see rascism where there is none. The episodes range from encountering Gods, to a planet where the Roman Empire never fell.

You are on much firmer ground with the Last Samurai, and I would like to take your word for it on Dances with Wolves, but common you consider Captain Kirk a rascist figure?

That's true, I kinda lumped Star Trek in there for being similar in genre where its more of a ethnocentric view. In fact I think its more about ethnocentrism than anything like explicit racism now that I think about it. Its more about how Western Style culture and values is always the answer to problems. Sometimes it embodies itself into some sort of afformentioned 'White Savior' thing while other times like in Star Trek, a idealized Western Society cruises around space fixing everyone's problems. Granted that its not necessarily negative or offensive, its just somewhat arrogant. :-p

In fact most films like these just come off appearing a little arrogant in depicting the presence of westerners. If they were in fact explicitly racist well people would be up in arms.

I do likes the Star Trek though. Not really a TOS fan, just a TNG era minus Voyager fan.

[Apázlinemjó]

I do likes the Star Trek though. Not really a TOS fan, just a TNG era minus Voyager fan.

And where is the DS9?

[Badass Buddha]

To be fair, this is very doubtful. Modern historians think it might've been Roman propaganda.

I'd say there is at least as much evidence for as there is against. EB makes reference to the child sacrifice.

[antisocialmunky]

And where is the DS9?

TNG Era.

[TancredTheNorman]

Hax very few modern historians dismiss the Carthaginian Child Sacrifices, they are actually confirmed by archaeology with the ancient literary sources. The few modern historians who do tend to either have a moralist agenda against what they percieve as pro-Roman bias (Terry Jones), or a nationalist agenda, but most accept the findings of archaeology and historical text. That doesn't paint nearly as bleak a picture as you think, Human Sacrifice doesn't automatically mean the massive large scale hate producing sacrifices of the Aztecs.


We're not talking about the Aztecs. If Gibson wants to present the Aztecs as a violent, bloodthirsty society, I'd have nothing to say, because they were, sacrificing people in the tens of thousands, but the Maya only practiced human sacrifice on a scale similar to the Celts and Carthaginians.

Agreed. Unfortunately I never managed to sit through Apoc, I know people who have, but I will take your word for it, especially since it is Mel Gibson.



That's true, I kinda lumped Star Trek in there for being similar in genre where its more of a ethnocentric view. In fact I think its more about ethnocentrism than anything like explicit racism now that I think about it. Its more about how Western Style culture and values is always the answer to problems. Sometimes it embodies itself into some sort of afformentioned 'White Savior' thing while other times like in Star Trek, a idealized Western Society cruises around space fixing everyone's problems. Granted that its not necessarily negative or offensive, its just somewhat arrogant. :-p

In fact most films like these just come off appearing a little arrogant in depicting the presence of westerners. If they were in fact explicitly racist well people would be up in arms.

I do likes the Star Trek though. Not really a TOS fan, just a TNG era minus Voyager fan.

I would say Start Trek's (original anyway) references are blatant enough to just be amusing (i.e. making Clingons (sp) the Soviet Union, and the Federation the West).

I also agree with you on more then I originally thought, I just initially noticed you putting Start Trek together with the Last Samurai.

Interestingly enough, while Westerners going into/joining other cultures is celebrated Hollywood ironically seems to have turned on Western Societies. Rome is usually depicted as extremely cruel, sadistic, misogynistic, evil, greedy and all other imperial vices without any real virtues. This could also just be a continuation of the Roman Vices tradition.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

H
Interestingly enough, while Westerners going into/joining other cultures is celebrated Hollywood ironically seems to have turned on Western Societies. Rome is usually depicted as extremely cruel, sadistic, misogynistic, evil, greedy and all other imperial vices without any real virtues. This could also just be a continuation of the Roman Vices tradition.

Of course, no credit is given to the Germanic peoples, the other (equal) half of Western civilization....

[Cyclops]

To be fair, this is very doubtful. Modern historians think it might've been Roman propaganda.

Polybius mentions Romans making human sacrifices IIRC, at the start of the first Punic war they bury some tourists (is it 2 Greeks and 2 Celts?) in the forum.

I thought the Greeks mentioned Carthaginian human sacrifice too?

[Apázlinemjó]

TNG Era.

Ahh, missed the era word, sorry.

[Mediolanicus]

To be fair, this is very doubtful. Modern historians think it might've been Roman propaganda.

IMHO, The Romans were not all shocked by the sacraficing of children, at least not at that point in their own history. It was more shocking that they were sacraficing their own children, and their firstborns on top of that!

[Badass Buddha]

Unfortunately I never managed to sit through Apoc

Nothing unfortunate about that.:laugh4:


I would say Start Trek's (original anyway) references are blatant enough to just be amusing (i.e. making Clingons (sp) the Soviet Union, and the Federation the West).

The crowning example is The Omega Glory episode with the Khoms and Yangs.


Polybius mentions Romans making human sacrifices IIRC, at the start of the first Punic war they bury some tourists (is it 2 Greeks and 2 Celts?) in the forum.

It was Livy and Plutarch that wrote during three occassions in the second and third centuries BC a Greek man and woman and a Celtic man and woman would be buried alive in the forum. I don't remember why.


I thought the Greeks mentioned Carthaginian human sacrifice too?

Diodorus Siculus mentioned Carthaginian human sacrifice in the third book of his Bibliotheca historica, as did the aformentioned Plutarch.


IMHO, The Romans were not all shocked by the sacraficing of children, at least not at that point in their own history. It was more shocking that they were sacraficing their own children, and their firstborns on top of that!

If I remember correctly, the Romans were not bothered so much by the infanticide as they were that it was being done for religious reasons, rather than practical economic reasons.

[Ludens]

The few modern historians who do tend to either have a moralist agenda against what they percieve as pro-Roman bias (Terry Jones), or a nationalist agenda, but most accept the findings of archaeology and historical text.

Did Jones mention Carthaginian child sacrifice in his documentary? He did not in the accompanying booklet. AFAIK the facts of the matter are this: no one disputes that the earlier Phoenician city states practised live child sacrifice. However, the only evidence for this practice during Roman times is a mention in a much later source and the presence of apparently healthy children in a special section of a Carthaginian graveyard. So the conclusion is that the Carthaginians probably did sacrifice children, but the evidence is not watertight.

And, as others have mentioned, live human sacrifice in one form or another was still a feature of most if not all Iron Age cultures. The Romans themselves sacrificed two couples after the disastrous defeats at Cannae and Aurausio. Gladiatorial fights also had a religious origin, although they ended up being entertainment (then again, from a modern perspective killing people for entertainment is as revolting, if not more, as killing them to appease the gods). I also suppose that the ritual strangulation of Vercingetorix after Caesar's triumph was a religious sacrifice. Was this a common feature of the triumphal processions?

[Apázlinemjó]

And, as others have mentioned, live human sacrifice in one form or another was still a feature of most if not all Iron Age cultures. The Romans themselves sacrificed two couples after the disastrous defeats at Cannae and Aurausio. Gladiatorial fights also had a religious origin, although they ended up being entertainment (then again, from a modern perspective killing people for entertainment is as revolting, if not more, as killing them to appease the gods). I also suppose that the ritual strangulation of Vercingetorix after Caesar's triumph was a religious sacrifice. Was this a common feature of the triumphal processions?

I read about this quite a lont time ago, but if I remember right, all triumphal processions ended with the execution of the enemy general/leader or if he wasn't alive already then they killed a doll shaping him.

Edit: Well not all, but a lot.

[Cyclops]

It was Livy and Plutarch that wrote during three occassions in the second and third centuries BC a Greek man and woman and a Celtic man and woman would be buried alive in the forum. I don't remember why.

Diodorus Siculus mentioned Carthaginian human sacrifice in the third book of his Bibliotheca historica, as did the aformentioned Plutarch.


Thank you BB for your sharper recollection. Wiki mentions the couples being killed after Cannae (my dim memory recalls some reference to the Sibylline books) , and the sacrifice was repeated in 113 BC before an invasion of Gaul.

So many wonderful (possibly fictional) episodes in Classical history. Hannibal has to be made, and it has to be made right.

[antisocialmunky]

Interestingly enough, while Westerners going into/joining other cultures is celebrated Hollywood ironically seems to have turned on Western Societies. Rome is usually depicted as extremely cruel, sadistic, misogynistic, evil, greedy and all other imperial vices without any real virtues. This could also just be a continuation of the Roman Vices tradition.

Because Hollywood thinks that the best villians are white people that have turned evil and use some random minority as their pawns against the hero white person and their minority side kick :-p. I jest of course, I think the racism discussion has pretty much run its course.

[TancredTheNorman]

I agree, and about Rome's relationship to Human Sacrifice what appaled them wasn't that the Carthaginians were sacrificing first borns (Roman Law gives no priority to first born males), it was that it was done on a regular basis, and with the state being responsible instead of a last minute and last chance panick attack by what Rome saw as unwashed masses type, so for it to be ordered by a magistrate on a regular basis was what horrified Romans, and Greeks, not first born males being the victims.

The Romans made an absolute ban on Human Sacrifice surprisingly late in Republican History, and when it surprisingly gave amnesty. The Gladiator games could be considered the real Roman Human Sacrifices, but Gladiators didn't always die, and as Gladiator games became more and more common they lost their religious function and just became a disgusting display of brutality done on a massive scale. I know the ideology behind Gladiator games was taking the scum of society, making them face each other in virtuous combat in order to inspire virtue in others and giving them a chance of proving themselves/winning their freedom once they prove themself, but something tells me that was just an elaborate way to justify brutality, Romans did afterall have theatres and plenty of plays (still read and played out today).

[Apázlinemjó]

The Romans made an absolute ban on Human Sacrifice surprisingly late in Republican History, and when it surprisingly gave amnesty. The Gladiator games could be considered the real Roman Human Sacrifices, but Gladiators didn't always die, and as Gladiator games became more and more common they lost their religious function and just became a disgusting display of brutality done on a massive scale. I know the ideology behind Gladiator games was taking the scum of society, making them face each other in virtuous combat in order to inspire virtue in others and giving them a chance of proving themselves/winning their freedom once they prove themself, but something tells me that was just an elaborate way to justify brutality, Romans did afterall have theatres and plenty of plays (still read and played out today).

I don't know, I would gladly watch mass murderers and pedophiles fight to death against eachother.

[antisocialmunky]

I agree, and about Rome's relationship to Human Sacrifice what appaled them wasn't that the Carthaginians were sacrificing first borns (Roman Law gives no priority to first born males), it was that it was done on a regular basis, and with the state being responsible instead of a last minute and last chance panick attack by what Rome saw as unwashed masses type, so for it to be ordered by a magistrate on a regular basis was what horrified Romans, and Greeks, not first born males being the victims.

The Romans made an absolute ban on Human Sacrifice surprisingly late in Republican History, and when it surprisingly gave amnesty. The Gladiator games could be considered the real Roman Human Sacrifices, but Gladiators didn't always die, and as Gladiator games became more and more common they lost their religious function and just became a disgusting display of brutality done on a massive scale. I know the ideology behind Gladiator games was taking the scum of society, making them face each other in virtuous combat in order to inspire virtue in others and giving them a chance of proving themselves/winning their freedom once they prove themself, but something tells me that was just an elaborate way to justify brutality, Romans did afterall have theatres and plenty of plays (still read and played out today).

That's really interesting. Thanks!

[ziegenpeter]

Finally, the Mayans’ attitude toward violence. Mayan society is portrayed as one of crazy sadists, lining up and cheering to watch people get ripped apart. NOBODY IS LIKE THAT. The only societies I can think of that relish watching people butcher each other so much are our Western ones.

Well decide, man! If "western people" (what ever that might be in a historical context) do that, the sentence "NOBODY IS LIKE THAT" is wrong. I think this cruelty can be found in every civilisation,more or less institutionalised. Otherwise this sounds like a very romantic view of "non-western" societies.

@Carties infanticide: Can't find a source but I read that some of the childrens skeletons finds might be from already dead children...? Anyone knows about that?

[athanaric]

However, the accuracy of the hunting is moot, because the Mayans were without exception agriculturalists. There would have been no hunting and gathering.
I find that "no" hard to believe. Even societies where hunting was a privilege of the noble class (such as early modern Germany) had their share of illegal hunting going on. Not to mention gathering.



The people’s total ignorance of the city. These people live a week’s march away from a major city and they’ve no idea it exists? The Maya were an urban civilization. You couldn’t get more than 10 miles away from a population center of decent size.
Agreed. Probably also part of what caused their downfall.



The only societies I can think of that relish watching people butcher each other so much are our Western ones.
Typical Western self-centered attitude. You should perhaps visit some places in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East - they're no different in that respect.



but the message that the Maya were a savage, bloodthirsty, decadent civilization that needed to be saved by Western Christians seems racist to me.[emphasis mine]
Would you still consider it racist if the "ignorant Mayans" were saved by Western Muslims? Or Eastern Christians?
That's always a good way of testing your own attitude.

[Meneldil]

I also suppose that the ritual strangulation of Vercingetorix after Caesar's triumph was a religious sacrifice. Was this a common feature of the triumphal processions?

Vercingetorix was murdered in his jail, not strangulated at the end of Caesar's triumph, as HBO Rome seems to imply.

[Mulceber]

Would you still consider it racist if the "ignorant Mayans" were saved by Western Muslims? Or Eastern Christians?
That's always a good way of testing your own attitude.

If the film was being made by Western Muslims or Eastern Christians, then yes. If not, then perhaps not quite racist, but certainly offensive. -M

[TancredTheNorman]

I don't know, I would gladly watch mass murderers and pedophiles fight to death against eachother.

That was an excuse Romans used, and an excuse for public executions in more recent times, it just doesn't work, and the theoretical justification wasn't always acceptable, and even in Roman times there were critics (i.e. Marcus Aurelius). Even so do you really think people attended public executions for the sake of justice? The Games really are the worst aspect of the Romans, although they did build some magnificent things because of them.


That's really interesting. Thanks!

Your welcome, and technically speaking the official date of that law was 97 BC, although Human Sacrifice was extremely rare before that, and limited to mob responses to disasters like Arusio and Cannae. The Romans could understand the presence of Human Sacrifice, they could not understand it being done by the state with the force of law behind it and without an unwashed masses element.


Did Jones mention Carthaginian child sacrifice in his documentary? He did not in the accompanying booklet. AFAIK the facts of the matter are this: no one disputes that the earlier Phoenician city states practised live child sacrifice. However, the only evidence for this practice during Roman times is a mention in a much later source and the presence of apparently healthy children in a special section of a Carthaginian graveyard. So the conclusion is that the Carthaginians probably did sacrifice children, but the evidence is not watertight.

And, as others have mentioned, live human sacrifice in one form or another was still a feature of most if not all Iron Age cultures. The Romans themselves sacrificed two couples after the disastrous defeats at Cannae and Aurausio. Gladiatorial fights also had a religious origin, although they ended up being entertainment (then again, from a modern perspective killing people for entertainment is as revolting, if not more, as killing them to appease the gods). I also suppose that the ritual strangulation of Vercingetorix after Caesar's triumph was a religious sacrifice. Was this a common feature of the triumphal processions?

The evidence seems pretty solid to me, there is more then one later source testifying about it, and those later sources are almost completely trusted on things they are farther away from, and there is archaeological evidence. Terry Jones doesn't explicitly say the Human Sacrifices was a lie, but he very highly implies it by stating that education is biased in favor of Rome, and warning the audience not to confuse Rome's propaganda and lies for history, and he does use that moralizing line on every enemy of Rome he goes over. The Roman Triumph didn't always involve killing the enemy leader, but it did involve showing that he was dead, Mithradates was beheaded despite his death and his body being far away from Rome. It didn't actually matter if an enemy leader was around at the Triumph unless he was a capable and dangerous man who the Romans wanted dead anyway. Tha Gladiator Games are simply revolting though, and the worst thing about the Romans.

[Apázlinemjó]

That was an excuse Romans used, and an excuse for public executions in more recent times, it just doesn't work, and the theoretical justification wasn't always acceptable, and even in Roman times there were critics (i.e. Marcus Aurelius). Even so do you really think people attended public executions for the sake of justice? The Games really are the worst aspect of the Romans, although they did build some magnificent things because of them.

You missunderstood me, I was talking about the 21. century.

Edit: By the way, saying that that was their worst/bad aspect is a very modernist statement. The problem is that we can't imagine how they were thinking about the world and it's easier to say that they were brutal, because they let people to hurt eachother and fight to death. If we were living in that time, I'm sure most of us would watch the games, because it was probably the same as watching football nowadays. Also the moral code was different and the gladiators, prostitutes, slaves were properties, "not" humans.

[Mulceber]

You missunderstood me, I was talking about the 21. century.

Edit: By the way, saying that that was their worst/bad aspect is a very modernist statement. The problem is that we can't imagine how they were thinking about the world and it's easier to say that they were brutal, because they let people to hurt eachother and fight to death. If we were living in that time, I'm sure most of us would watch the games, because it was probably the same as watching football nowadays. Also the moral code was different and the gladiators, prostitutes, slaves were properties, "not" humans.

I agree completely. You run into a problem when you start applying modern moral standards to the ancients. Many civilizations committed acts that today would be considered horrible attrocities. You have to remove yourself from the modern mindset and try to see things the way they did. It helps that it's more interesting that way too. -M

[Badass Buddha]

Well decide, man! If "western people" (what ever that might be in a historical context) do that, the sentence "NOBODY IS LIKE THAT" is wrong. I think this cruelty can be found in every civilisation,more or less institutionalised. Otherwise this sounds like a very romantic view of "non-western" societies.

OK, when I said "nobody" I was being hyperbolic. You'll always (I must stop with the blanket statements) USUALLY be able to find people who love watching others get ripped apart, but they're unhealthy. Also, I failed to distinguish between the Mayans depicted in the movie watching helpless captives get cut open for the lulz, and Romans watching people fight in a sporting event. So, sorry. What I meant was that while nobody few people in real life enjoy watching captives cut up, the only people I can think of who enjoyed watching people brutally fight each other to the death for sport were the Romans. I apologize for my lack of clarity.


I find that "no" hard to believe. Even societies where hunting was a privilege of the noble class (such as early modern Germany) had their share of illegal hunting going on. Not to mention gathering.

While I'm sure there was some hunting and gathering, it was not on a significant source of food. Again, I was being hyperbolic. Sorry. I'll stop doing that.


Typical Western self-centered attitude. You should perhaps visit some places in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East - they're no different in that respect.

I hold no illusions about other cultural groups, it's just that the Romans are the only civilization I know of that practiced gladiatorial combat to the death in the numbers they did. Also, don't hate on my civilization. The West is no different than any other society that has yet to have another kick down its door and force the realization that there are other of equal or greater power out there (not that that attitude is OK).


Would you still consider it racist if the "ignorant Mayans" were saved by Western Muslims? Or Eastern Christians?
That's always a good way of testing your own attitude.

I would consider any equivalent portrayal as racist. For example, if there was a movie made about the Turkish conquest of Constantinople, I would consider it racist if the Romans/Byzantines were depicted as barbaric savages with the violence ceasing as the Turks arrived bearing the star and crescent.

Something I failed to mention that I think is pretty important is that at the beginning of Apocalypto, Will Durant's quote "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within" is shown. I think this is crucial to message of the movie, and I was dumb to forget about it. Sorry.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah, that is a fair theme of the movie... but like everyone else I was surprised that it was about the Mayans and not hte Aztecs. Afterall the Yucatan civilizations suffered a major collapse after famine while the Aztecs suffered defeat at the hands of their vassals for kinda being big jerks.

[athanaric]

OK, when I said "nobody" I was being hyperbolic. You'll always (I must stop with the blanket statements) USUALLY be able to find people who love watching others get ripped apart, but they're unhealthy. Also, I failed to distinguish between the Mayans depicted in the movie watching helpless captives get cut open for the lulz, and Romans watching people fight in a sporting event. So, sorry. What I meant was that while nobody few people in real life enjoy watching captives cut up, the only people I can think of who enjoyed watching people brutally fight each other to the death for sport were the Romans. I apologize for my lack of clarity.



While I'm sure there was some hunting and gathering, it was not on a significant source of food. Again, I was being hyperbolic. Sorry. I'll stop doing that.



I hold no illusions about other cultural groups, it's just that the Romans are the only civilization I know of that practiced gladiatorial combat to the death in the numbers they did. Also, don't hate on my civilization. The West is no different than any other society that has yet to have another kick down its door and force the realization that there are other of equal or greater power out there (not that that attitude is OK).



I would consider any equivalent portrayal as racist. For example, if there was a movie made about the Turkish conquest of Constantinople, I would consider it racist if the Romans/Byzantines were depicted as barbaric savages with the violence ceasing as the Turks arrived bearing the star and crescent.

Something I failed to mention that I think is pretty important is that at the beginning of Apocalypto, Will Durant's quote "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within" is shown. I think this is crucial to message of the movie, and I was dumb to forget about it. Sorry.
Fair enough.

I think what Gibson tried to do was to portray a civilization that had become (not started off as) decadent and fallen to vices like human sacrifice etc.. Which is actually an interesting project, and could hae become a thinly veiled "mirror" to our own society, with its current stages of decadence. Of course, being Mel Gibson, he didn't let historical accuracy any actual history get in the way of his storytelling, so he just re-labeled the Aztecs as Mayans etc..
With that in mind, the moie becomes somewhat easier to watch.

That said, there's a lot of bull about Native Americans of all kinds out there. Usually bad and cliché-laden storytelling (your average early Western) or just ass-pull "research" combined with stupid esoteric attitudes (like oh so many productions, even Star Trek). This situation though could be made less miserable if these (American Indian) people took the initiative themselves, instead of having other people portray them either as "magical minority" or as savages.

[TancredTheNorman]

I agree that we can't judge ancient civilizations by modern standards, but in the case of the Romans the stated ideals of their Gladiator Games really do sound suspiciously like an excuse, especially since there are plenty of cases where that excuse couldn't possibly apply, and even if it was their genuine feeling it is still the least appealing aspect of a civilization with the cultural, political, and military accomplishments of Rome. That said I'm not a moralist, and I know the gladiator death toll was much lower than what Hollywood thinks, a Gladiator was way too expensive to train to have one gone per game.

Athanaric you forgot to say which category Avatar falls under didn't you?

[athanaric]

I agree that we can't judge ancient civilizations by modern standards, but in the case of the Romans the stated ideals of their Gladiator Games really do sound suspiciously like an excuse, especially since there are plenty of cases where that excuse couldn't possibly apply, and even if it was their genuine feeling it is still the least appealing aspect of a civilization with the cultural, political, and military accomplishments of Rome. That said I'm not a moralist, and I know the gladiator death toll was much lower than what Hollywood thinks, a Gladiator was way too expensive to train to have one gone per game.
This whole gladiatorial business looks like an excuse for debauched fun, not unlike the chariot races (or in our times, Formula 1 and all that crap). Apparently every society in history needs its dark side.
The real problem arises when these things become excessive, like the cult that surrounds certain sports or popular "arts".



Athanaric you forgot to say which category Avatar falls under didn't you?
Well I've never seen "Avatar". Though I heard everyone say it was Disney's "Pocahontas" IN SPACE!!, so I can imagine how it is. I've always detested Disney, as well as simple morality stories. Not a great incentive to watch that film...

[antisocialmunky]

Dances in wolves in space.

[bobbin]

"Dances With Wolves with Smurfs" I believe.

[Cyclops]

If we're talking future histories, here's one:

1984.

Boy that film was just soooo wrong.

I mean, as if we live in a world dominated by a handful of powerblocs (run by souless aparatchiks) enslaved to insane hypocritical ideologies that crush individuality as a matter of course.

Wut? Oh wait...

[Apázlinemjó]

If we're talking future histories, here's one:

1984.

Boy that film was just soooo wrong.

I mean, as if we live in a world dominated by a handful of powerblocs (run by souless aparatchiks) enslaved to insane hypocritical ideologies that crush individuality as a matter of course.

Wut? Oh wait...

Yeah but the book is cool.

[Klearchos]

I heard a movie based on Pressfield's "Gates of Fire" was planned. I even heared some whispers that George Clooney was to play King Leonidas...Well he looks greek enough I guess, but , damn, I can almost see him wearing a tuxedo and holding a martini, while yelling "Molon Labe!" to the Persians...:clown:

[vartan]

I even heared some whispers that George Clooney was to play King Leonidas...Well he looks greek enough I guess, but , damn, I can almost see him wearing a tuxedo and holding a martini, while yelling "Molon Labe!" to the Persians...:clown:
Heared. I heared that if I had space I would so sig that.

[Mulceber]

I heard a movie based on Pressfield's "Gates of Fire" was planned. I even heared some whispers that George Clooney was to play King Leonidas...Well he looks greek enough I guess, but , damn, I can almost see him wearing a tuxedo and holding a martini, while yelling "Molon Labe!" to the Persians...:clown:

As much as I'd be a fan of seeing a historical depiction of Thermopylae, I think 300 has already so eblazoned itself on people's minds that most people would view another version of it as a ripoff of 300. -M

[antisocialmunky]

So you want 300 to be the defacto view of Thermopylae? :-p

[Horatius Flaccus]

This looks really cool: click (http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/06/04/votd-monsters-director-gareth-edwards-attila-the-hun/).

[antisocialmunky]

It was kinda meh as a drama and I have no idea how accurate it is TBH.:-\

[vartan]

Anything that cost a few thousand and eventually makes millions is worth it, no matter how inaccurate. Cash = success.

[Cadwalader]

There doesn't appear to be a simple horse or arrow in the trailer that isn't being used by the Romans.
A scene with actual steppe tactics would be so impressive that it would have to be featured in the trailer.

[antisocialmunky]

Anything that cost a few thousand and eventually makes millions is worth it, no matter how inaccurate. Cash = success.

Not the point of this thread.

[Horatius Flaccus]

Actually I thought it was cool that he made the film basically by himself.

[Mulceber]

So you want 300 to be the defacto view of Thermopylae? :-p

Obviously. :-p - don't you remember that passage from Herodotus about how Xerxes was an 8-foot tall bald hermaphrodite?

[Intranetusa]

How about "The Divine Weapon", which is a movie about the Korean hwacha. I don't know that much about Korean history, so I can't say anything about its historical accuracy, but how can you not admire this:
http://www.hwacha.net/img/hwacha/hwacha_firing_photo.jpg

From what I saw in the preview and read from reviews, the Divine Weapon is extremely inaccurate. The movie talks about a war between Ming-China and Korea. I'm pretty sure that is bogus since Korea and the Ming were on very good terms (Korea was a tributary of the Ming), and the Ming sent troops to Korea to help
them fight off two Japanese invasions.

And ironically, I think the movie also has Koreans wearing the Ming-Chinese clothing (Ming era hanfu), and the Ming-Chinese themselves wearing Manchurian Qing era clothing.

Fire arrow rocket launchers and their cart-launching systems were invented during the Song Dynasty and also used during the Ming. The Koreans didn't invent them and used them against the Ming in any battles because they were allies. The Koreans did independently create gunpowder (due to a ban on exporting gunpowder) and created the hwacha, which is basically a larger version of Chinese fire arrows/launcher.

[Intranetusa]

Unusually Accurate (for movies):
Tora Tora Tora, Rome miniseries, Alexander (I loved the phalangites)

Somewhat Accurate:
Kingdom of Heaven, Lawerence of Arabia, The 300 Spartans (I'm disappointed they still left out the other 7000+ Greek hoplites)


Not Accurate:
Troy, Gladiator, Pearl Harbor, Dances With Wolves, Red Cliff, Hero, Curse of the Golden Flower, The Last Samurai, Elizabeth, Braveheart, Apocalypto, The Patriot (The last 3 are Mel Gibson's, cuz he fails)

Batshit insanely not accurate:
300, 10,000 B.C.

[antisocialmunky]

Saying Curse of the Golden Flower is inaccurate is like saying that RAN or Hamlet is inaccurate. It is but that's not the point since the film is supposed to just be loosely based on actual events. :-\

[Cadwalader]

I find 10,000 BC can be quite enjoyable if I watch it through the same eyes as I would read a Robert E. Howard story with. I would of course prefer it were an attempt to portray life in the paleolithic, but I don' think the world will ever be that nerdy.

[Ca Putt]

I'd even put 300 a small bit above 10.000 bc(yes I write that way) still both below anythign that can be called accurate. apart from this silly panoply and some ideals you could claim it's the way he tells it with all due exagerations.(I cought a fish that was THIS big...) whereas 10.000 is absolutely absurd in quite about every way, I would not have been supprised if those stargate egyptians woulde used lasers. the ending somewhat supprised me, as it was even more cheesy than I would've imagined. it's one thing if soldiers use a perverted mix peleponesian and classical equipment and old men exxagerate the number of foes. putting egyptian pyramids, horse archers, mammoth hunters, Terror birds, funny ships, spice craving blue eyes in one movie and calling it 10.000 bc is something different. true it was fun to complain about it with my pals(don't get me wrong, it did not work with 300, that only ispired questions like:" did they really fight bare chested?" or "arrent elephans smaller?"). in general iwould'e preffered having it called " the first hero" or "the mammoth hunter" not because these names sound better(they don't) but because they don't include the claim to be at least semi historical. i mean "300" that sounds like brainless buchering already "10.000 bc" sounds like: hear the story that HAS HAPPEND 12000 years ago.

[Intranetusa]

Saying Curse of the Golden Flower is inaccurate is like saying that RAN or Hamlet is inaccurate. It is but that's not the point since the film is supposed to just be loosely based on actual events. :-\
I loved Hero, but CotGF made me absolutely hate Zhang Yimo. That movie was ridiculously cheesy to an extreme.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah I think its jsut a stylistic thing with him. But historically speaking a large amount of plays from antiquity had that level of silly melodrama.

[Ludens]

Somewhat Accurate:
Tora Tora Tora

Could you tell me why? Like I said, it always seemed more a documentary than a film to me.


I find 10,000 BC can be quite enjoyable if I watch it through the same eyes as I would read a Robert E. Howard story with. I would of course prefer it were an attempt to portray life in the paleolithic, but I don' think the world will ever be that nerdy.

And then it wouldn't be an (attempted) blockbuster, but a documentary ~;) .

[Intranetusa]

Could you tell me why? Like I said, it always seemed more a documentary than a film to me.

Corrected

[Badass Buddha]

Could you tell me why? Like I said, it always seemed more a documentary than a film to me.

Wikipedia to the rescue!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tora!_Tora!_Tora!#Historical_errors

Overall, I would still say it's pretty good.

[Ludens]

Wikipedia to the rescue!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tora!_Tora!_Tora!#Historical_errors

Overall, I would still say it's pretty good.

:oops: Obviously, Wikipedia. To me, all those errors sound like things that are bound to go wrong, or be cut from the film due to time and budget constraints. It's impossible to expect the researcher to get all details correct, or for the director to remember them all.

[Klearchos]

"Persian Immortal vs Celt" next week (I think) on Deadliest Warrior. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Apázlinemjó]

What do you think about the coming Black Death and Centurion movies?

[Ibrahim]

"Persian Immortal vs Celt" next week (I think) on Deadliest Warrior. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

"the persian immortal: the Ninja style elite forces of the persian empire, specializing in the arts of asian stealth, and wearing scary Asian style masks. the Celt: naked warriors on LSD, with undone hari, charging like a madman into the enemy, armed only with a stone age club" :clown:

[J.R.M]

WHO IS DEADLIEST?!

Please ooh god please at least give the celt a sword at least that!!

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

The Persian will probably just kill the Celt with a headshot from his bow. Unless we're talking about Gaesatae.