What are some good Roman war films?

[Hippolyte]

As the title says, what are your favourites? Personally, I don't know of many good ones, that specifically make a conscious effort to adhere to the realities, materials, formations and tactics, etc, of Roman warfare, but I've enjoyed:

Anthony and Cleopatra--a very young and buxom Elizabeth Taylor http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

Massada--you have to love that Roman determination and those excellent rams http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

[DthB4Dishonor]

Well here are some obvious ones,

1)Gladiator: Great opening battle sequence after that small skirmhes but good movie all together.

2)Sparticus: Has some very big battles as slaves/gladiators fight Roman legions (Also loosely based on real roman events)

3)Not Roman but very good is Spartans battle of thermopolye and old movie forget the actual name. This is a good movie too.

[Basileus]

Fall of the roman empire

ben hur

DthB4Dishonor, your talking about the 300 spartans rigth?

[DthB4Dishonor]

It might be that Basileus I'm not sure what its name is. Also Ben Hur I think has 1 or 2 battle scenes but not positive about that either.

I also think there is a made for TV movie or mini-series call Massada or Masada about the Roman put down of the last Jewish Zealot revolt. Shows the great Roman war machine.

The Roman Army was a fighting force but also engineers, architecs. Also the Roman Army was to be feared if it was sieging your city. They say roman engineering and Roman patience were great.

Roman army once sieging a city when the inhabitants bragged that they had enough food and a fresh water source to last for 10 years. The Roman General frankly and calmly stated....."so then we shall take it in the 11th". The city gave up within the month. LOL, I mean you have to be a pretty bad ass and confident army to make such statements.

RTKPaul

Gah sorry went off topic a bit.

[Hippolyte]

I must admit to viewing most of these flicks. Of course, it was Masada that left an indelible impression upon me as a child. I could never quite shake the image of the seige engines battering the Jews' (Essenes I believe) hilltop fortress walls. In spite of the excellent resistance, the Romans set to work in a methodical and determined manner. I remember very little else from the movie. Though it is a fact that the Essenes really did murder their wives and children and commit suicide rather than face the Romans after their unsuccessful defense.

The Essenes had good reason to fear. By this time--the early/mid Empire--the Romans had learned a lot about siegecraft from the Greeks and other eastern foes. And as DthB4Dishonor has suggested, at this time each legion contained engineers, medical practitioners, architects, etc. They were capable of independent and long term campaigns. But a professional army also had its drawbacks. The Republican premise of the citizen/farmer/soldier had for the most part evaporated. Loyalty in the ranks was not to Rome, per se, but to the legion/unit and/or the general/leader. We all know how this contributed to Roman devisiveness and, eventually, civil wars. It would also feature prominently in the reliance upon foreigners and slaves to man the legions; thus, providing ample opportunities for that internal corruption noted by so many commentators.

However, during Republican Rome seiges were anything but a foregone conclusion. They were, if the target town/city was large enough usually rather costly. It is typically acknowledged that it was only after the end of the Third Punic War that Roman engineering began to achieve something near to being reliable in the field. And it was because of the enormous sacrifice entailed in laying a successful seige that those besieged were so fearful. It is not exaggeration to say that Romans often stripped bare entire buildings as they poured through breaches. Indeed, in the storming of Carthage some legionaries were excluded from their 'fair share' of spoils because they had begun to loot prematurely. In other instances, the Romans made it a point to be as brutal and barbaric as possible towards the defenders, including noncombatants. Severe injury, humiliation, rape, torture and, especially, slavery was the fate for most, but things could very easily have been much more ghastly. Tales of mutilation and dismemberment of civilians are common enough, even of (cover your eyes canine lovers) dogs (poor "Spot" ilus) Total war indeed. This, however, was not simply a purely "Roman" approach; it was also employed less frequently by other besiegers in Antiquity, IF (very big if)they succeeded. And it was often enough the final besieging response of a bloody, battered and frustrated army.

As far as realism (inasmuch as we can tell) in the movies, I suppose that "Gladiator"'s opening scenes are probably the most representative (based on my limited opinion) of Roman warfare. It is a shame that more of the film was not occupied by the tactics of Roman warfare, even with its weaknesses. And most films from the 50s seem way too cheesy. Clanging swords, rearing horses, and shouting men with no semblance of what man-to-man fighting must have been like. There is additonally scant attention to manipular formations and movement--hugely important aspects of successful Roman warmaking. These films are simply platforms for their "stars" and have little reliable or instructuional value. I think that the definitive Roman warfare film eludes us and is yet to be made.

[Nowake]

Gladiator opening scenes realistic? What about cavalry charging through the woods? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[Hippolyte]

"Gladiator opening scenes realistic?"

Realistic? Inasmuch as Hollywood is presently capable of such a thing, yes. I suppose I was ambiguously lauding the ambient qualities of the film rather than any specific details. Perhaps, pr Fire, you are able to suggest a more representative film? Of course, it's not like I didn't REPEATEDLY qualify this comment with:

1-"realism (as far as we can tell)"
2-the reluctant, "I suppose..."
3-"probably the most representative"
4-"(in my limited opinion)"
5-"(even with its weaknesses)"-referring to "Gladiator"
6-"I think that the definitive Roman warfare film eludes us is yet to be made."

All things considering, I suppose you can see how I naturally assumed that this post would be virtually flameproof.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

I wish someone'd have called me on a much more obvious error. It was not the Essenes in AD73 that defended the Masada fortress, but the Sicarii. And the Roman legion that prosecuted the siege was Legion X, the "Fretensis." They (the 10th) eventually resolved the siege by methodically constructing a colossal earthen ramp against the slope of the hill. Thought you were safe, huh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[A Nerd]

Astarex and Obalesk? Excuse spelling please.

[DthB4Dishonor]

Wow, nice research Hippolyte. I would just like to add 1 more thing. The Romans were BRUTAL. Yeah, they show refined soldiers with British accents in the movies but they Roman Army was as cruel if not crueler than any army in its day. They would burn down entire cities as they did Carthage. Pillage burn rape kill and enslave all that they saw. This coupled with there ability to adapt and theyre taking of strategies, weapons and formations from other cultures is what made them great.

In Masada they built a huge ramp and when at top they battered down the outer wall. They then faced a 2nd wall made of wood and reinforced with earth. This made it virtually batter proof. No sweat grab your zippos gentlemen we gonna have a fire.

P.S. I know it is considered as propaganda by some but read Caesars campaign in Gaul. This was truly a thinking mans army.

RTKPaul

[Hippolyte]

The Romans were very determined indeed, RTKPaul. Their intense and focused pragmatism was, I believe, unmatched by other armies in Antiquity. One of the tales told of the destruction of Carthage suggests that the Romans actually sowed the fields with salt in order ensure that Carthage would never revive, like it had after the Second Punic War. This is probably myth (the Romans built and colonized a "new" city upon the old), but there is an even more graphic illustration of their tenacity dating from this siege. And this is also a lesson in contemporary urban warfare as well

One account describes how, after they'd begun to pour infantry into a breach, they were faced with stiff resistance because the city's roads and paths wound through multi-storied buildings. This was a paradise for the Cathaginian defenders who took positions with excellent los (line-of-sight) and fired down upon the Roman infantry. Narrow streets have always been a boon to defender's but the Romans took it in stride and responded with a typically labour intensive solution. In their unrelenting and pratical manner, the Romans brough up hammererss who set to work reducing the obstructing buildings to rubble. As the Romans progressed further and further into the town they reached a point where the elevation was too high for a massed assault. They began to gather the rubble from the recently destroyed buildings, INCLUDING DEAD AND WOUNDED DEFENDERS, and adding mortar built a ramp literally upon the flesh of their opponents up to the city's next tier, to enable a massed assault. Unspeakably base and horrible? Incredibly so. Imagine the irony for those unlucky souls who died ever so slowly ensconced within the makeshift road, literally with their dying gasps providing the invaders with a path straight to their wives, children and homes

And we should keep in mind that the Romans did witness many of their own captured soldiers being terribly tortured upon the walls of Carthage by the Carthaginians prior to the successful storming (so say some), specifically to illustrate the price the Romans would have to pay for taking the city as well as showing Carthaginians the "no going back mentality" required of them. There would and could be no quarter after this. And however brutal the Romans were, and they were indeed quite brutal (even by our competitive standards), when the final Carthaginian defense was breached, tales of atrocities amongst the surrendering population (about 50,000 civilians) are not overwhelming. Of course, they (the Carthaginians--now Roman property) were immediately put on ships and shipped to Rome to begin their lives anew as Roman slaves.


Yes, the Roman war machine seems to have always found a way.

[Gaius Julius]

The Robe
Quo Vadis
Demetrius and the Gladiators

These aren't exactly Roman war films, but they do illustrate Rome during it's height.

[Hippolyte]

Another excellent TV series was "I Claudius", done by the BBC (up until the nineties, the BBC was tops in my book). This series is based on the works of Robert Graves; one of the foremost historians of Antiquity. As the title suggests it takes place within Rome and describes the transition from Republic to Empire, using Claudius's descriptions and characterizations of his family and peers. Although it has no battle scenes and is pure drama, it is nontheless magnificent. It, along with the Sharpe series, got me through the tedium that is Teachers' College. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[DthB4Dishonor]

I know what series your talking about Hippolyte. It was very interesting for me also. Although I only caught it on occasion since I live in US. In retrospect it was like an old Soprano series. Alot of cruel political shifting and power plays a real attention grabber.

RTKPaul

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Hippolyte @ April 14 2003,19:45)]The Romans were very determined indeed, RTKPaul. Their ...
Well, as you also pointed out too, the Carthagians were very brutal and used to sacrifice their children to their altars. One historians I read said that the Carthagian's brutality was one reason why Rome's allies did not desert when Hannibal ran amok in Italy.

[Mithrandir]

Moved to the home of cinema, the monastery.

[Mithrandir]

btw. only Romish movie I know (or can recall http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif) is Ben Hur, with the guy which was far ahead of his time and wore a watch on his wrist http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif .

[shingenmitch2]

Unfortunately Sparticus is about the best Roman war film... the uniforms are fairly decent and it is one of the only films in which I've seen the maniple-formations used for the Legions -- and the switch from checkerboard to line. Additionally the Gladiator techniques and attire are much more accurate than Ridley Scott's Gladiator (which really is a shame).

The down side to Sparticus is the hand-to-hand combat of the Romans -- they break out of formation and fight using Erol Flyn swash-buckling techniques (as opposed to the Roman block blows with shield --not ur sword, stay in formation to get benefit of buddies, and STAB with uppercuts to the throat or armpit.) Sadly no film with the Romans ever seems to do this properly.

Cleopatra -- has a really good, and fairly historically acurate, story. The drama is good as is the acting... but in terms of war fighting it is fairly abysmal.

Gladiator? Gah, see fighting tips from hand-to-hand Sparticus.... only the gritty film making techniques make it any better. No Legion formations either. Combat for the gladiators was an absolute joke... Crowe wears and absolute FANTASY helmet -- never ever existed... and this is doubly sad as real, full-face gladiator helmets look soooo friggin' cool. Why make one up? If u look at the armory before he fights you will find Viking helmets --- hmmm... helmets from 800 AD only approx 600 years early...

I remember the TV show Masada from my youth... my recollection was that it was well done... but I haven't seen it years so can't really comment.

Fall of the Roman Empire --- very marginal.

The silent, B&W version of Ben Hur -- if you enjoy OOOLD classics like Aleksander Nevsky, Battleship Potempkin, Nosferatu, or Intollerance you might enjoy the old Ben Hur (pre Charlton Heston).

[lonewolf371]

There have been other brutal assaults on cities, namely during the Napoleonic Wars. The British, after the French surrendering, plundered the city of Badajoz after it surrendered. They basically walked into the streets, busted open the taverns, got drunk, and then went about the whole city looting, stealing, and scariest of all, shooting. They shot many people who had some form of wealth on them while they were in their drunken state and only a large force of soldiers who hadn't even taken part in the storming were able to finally stop them.

At Leipzig, after Napoleon was forced to retreat he left a rear-guard of roughly 20,000 French soldiers. The soldiers soon ran out of ammunition and the Prussians, Russians, Austrians, and Swedes broke into the city, got drunk, and hunted down the Frenchmen as they struggled to surrender. The French basically ran through the streets trying to escape as they were caught, tortured, and slain by the Allies. Using people that are already dying as a road is horrible, but among those are delibrately hunting down fellow humans due to a deep hatred and some alchohal is just about as bad as that. That is the way war basically works.

As for war films, I honestly doubt that you will ever find a true historically acurate war film. It simply looks better to have the hero of the movie block some raging Barbarian's attack with his short sword rather than hide behind a shield. It also looks better to have the hero make a neat slash attack, in the process of which killing someone else with one stroke, which I honest doubt would have ever happened without a pretty heavy amound of luck and skill. Sure the gladius was an excellent stabbing sword, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be blocked by the countless number of objects in its path in a melee.

[Captain Fishpants]

Quote[/b] (pr Fire @ April 14 2003,03:02)]Gladiator opening scenes realistic? What about cavalry charging through the woods? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
And the Zulu chanting by the German tribesmen, of course... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

That aside, it's another great work of the UK's finest, Ridley Scott, waaaay better than his early work for Hovis. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

MikeB ~ CA

[LRossaLordJimi]

Gladiator have a great scene of battle in the beginning,but haven't storical accuracy...Commodo die in the Colosseum? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif And he kill Marco Aurelio? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
I see some day ago a film very near to Gladiator,with Sophia Loren,based on a similar history,"The fall of Roman empire".
Ave

[Pablo Sanchez]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ April 19 2003,21:29)]The down side to Sparticus is the hand-to-hand combat of the Romans -- they break out of formation and fight using Erol Flyn swash-buckling techniques (as opposed to the Roman block blows with shield --not ur sword, stay in formation to get benefit of buddies, and STAB with uppercuts to the throat or armpit.) Sadly no film with the Romans ever seems to do this properly.
One of the big problems with doing the real Roman style fighting in movies is that it's difficult to do without the proper training. Most movie makers don't have the time, money, or inclination to train their extras to fight in formation, so they just let them fight it out like Erol Flyn, as you say.

[solypsist]

not Roman but close: 300 Spartans

Also, as far as Masada goes, it never happened; it's all a sort of propaganda, perpetuated by the Israeli state (now). There are no Roman sources of a siege, only a few writings by a Jewish military leader-cum-historian. Every source on him states plainly he was less than objective.

While they've found evidence of a small fort on the mountaintop, there have been no evidence of bones or suicides, or even battles.

some links for your own reference. Note the lack of any other sources on the siege other than the one guy. We all know Romans were excellent record keepers, so I'm a bnit skeptical about this supposed heroic resistance.

links:
http://mosaic.lk.net/g-masada.html
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0dp00

[Spino]

Ok Soly. Since most nations use events from their past to glorify their current actions and boost morale (especially in times of war) I'll buy into the propaganda exploitation line. However I need to know who took the trouble of erecting the massive ramp that historians believe was used to assault the fortress with a huge siege tower? If it was done recently how come nobody leaked the story of the fabrication to the press? You're telling me that in the past 50 years a bunch of construction workers or soldiers were assigned to build that ramp and over the years not a single person has come forward to tell the truth out of guilt or even to cash in on their story? If the ramp is in fact an ancient engineering project then why would anyone bother to go to all that trouble if nobody was holed up in that fortress to begin with?

After some quick research I found that one of the challenges to Masada's history says that there was no trace of the remains of 900+ defenders. Fine. Maybe the Romans were led to believe there were several hundred people up there when in fact there were only a handful. It's better to clean the place out and make sure than to allow a pocket of resistance to remain defiant in the face of the Empire. Better yet, what if there was no mass suicide and the Romans assaulted the fortress only to make a quick and bloody ruin of the fanatical but poorly trained defenders, causing the rest to surrender without a fight? The survivors could have been enslaved and the bodies of the dead removed from the fortress for a mass burial nearby. So much for the mass suicide theory. Maybe there was serious disagreement amongst the defenders and many left the fortress during the course of the siege in the hopes that quiet escapes in the middle of the night or throwing themselves at the mercy of the Roman commander was preferable to a small scale reenactment of the assault on Jerusalem where murder, rape and enslavement were guaranteed?

I am inclined to believe that no mass suicide took place at Masada. It sounds too convenient and makes the defenders' fate much more palatable than the quick capitulation and enslavement that probably took place don't you think? It is far more plausible to think that after months of holding out many of the poorly trained defenders squealed like little girls once the 10th Legion's crack troops began to flood through the breach in Masada's walls.

Josephus may have been Jewish but his painting of the defenders of Masada was not highly complimentary. According to Josephus the defenders of Masada were reportedly the most fanatical and unreasonable bunch you could ask for in all of Judea. Not to mention that many of their number were notorious brigands responsible for the deaths of Romans and fellow Jews.

I have no doubt that some Israeli government officials and select Jewish historians and architects are guilty of garnishing the truth surrounding Masada in order to make their history more glorious. However something tells me that there was a siege at Masada but it wasn't nearly as spectacular or symbolic as the Israeli government would have us believe.

Oh, and before you think I'm hijacking this thread I do recommend Masada as the script is surprisingly good, especially for a TV movie. Peter O'Toole, David Warner and even Peter Straus are excellent as you would expect. Romans, Jews and Masada be damned, O'Toole and his delivery of Flavius Silva's lines practically steal the damn movie.

[solypsist]

Quote[/b] ]I am inclined to believe that no mass suicide took place at Masada.

okay, your sentence makes my point. Whether or not there was any "resistence" from the mountaintop is irrelevant, since there was still no heroic stand and suicide as perpetuated in the tale of Masada. Which was what my post was all about; evidence of a ramp is hardly conclusive proof when compared to other events/sources of info of the time.

Here's an imaginary comparison: William Wallace was a Scotsman who lived during the English occupation. He lived and died a farmer, killed 1 British guard after being caught stealing, and was hung. Now a movie comes out about him, and depicts him leading armies, being innovative in battle against armored knights, screwing a princess, and then being excecuted. Ultimately one could point to the existence of the man Wallace as evidence enough to account for the movie. Just how much must a narrative stray from recorded events to justify being called "fiction" ?

and yes, the Masada movie was great


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[AvramL]

Quote[/b] ]And the Zulu chanting by the German tribesmen, of course

What's wrong about this? While granted most Roman historians describe the Germans vocally with the term Barritus, a kind of elevating roar, their idea of war was as much intimidation as actual fighting and thus vocalization of anykind was common. Plus it just sounded kind of cool.

Also, please do not watch Spartacus for an example of Roman warfare, not only are the melee scenes cringe worthy but the armor/uniforms are completely made up (leather?). Kudos to Kubrick for the Manipular nod though.

[AvramL]

Quote[/b] ]Here's an imaginary comparison: William Wallace was a Scotsman who lived during the English occupation. He lived and died a farmer, killed 1 British guard after being caught stealing, and was hung. Now a movie comes out about him, and depicts him leading armies, being innovative in battle against armored knights, screwing a princess, and then being excecuted. Ultimately one could point to the existence of the man Wallace as evidence enough to account for the movie. Just how much must a narrative stray from recorded events to justify being called "fiction" ?

Ok, Willaim Wallace was a noble of Scotland (possibly a distant relative of the Stuart line), while his early years are speculative, in 1297 he did lead a Scottish army in the south of the country against the English while Moray led one in the North. The two met up shortly before Sterling and there managed to pounce upon the English vangaurd as it crossed the bridge. Wallace's army was later outmatched by the English under Edward I himself at Falkirk. Wallace and his army were however, hardly the kilt clad rabble shown in that great work of fantasy Braveheart, but rather a fairly typical Scottish medieval force, a poor man's version of any other army of the period. ironicaly enough, they were fighting for the King of Scotland, and anglo-Norman noble Edward had earlier placed into the postition but had fallen out of favour with (John of Baillol i believe, or something like it).
Anyway.... I don't claim to be an expert but I do know something in regards to the subject.

Just thought I'd get that out because I wasn't really sure what you meant by an "imaginery" comparison.