Depictions of Classical Period Battles in Film

[stupac]

I love movies, but I find very few films that give me satisfying battle scenes, and I can't think of one that takes place in the classical period. Seems to me we should be seeing more of them with the advent of advanced computer generation being wasted on fantasy films like Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia instead of on centerpieces of human history. Just wondering what are the best movie depictions of classical battles in your opinions? And are there any promising upcoming films?

[Centurion Crastinus]

The battle in Sparticus is pretty good.

[Spoofa]

of course Alexander.

The battles are what sparked my interest in Alexander in the first place!

[stupac]

I heard Alexander was horrible, so I never saw it, I'll have to rent it one of these days. Sparticus as well.

[Cybvep]

Gaugamela from Olivier Stone's "Alexander" is pretty good. It's probably the most accurate movie battle ever and it has great atmosphere. You really can feel like in the Ancient times. Too bad the rest of the film wasn't as good as this battle scene. Bad camera-work, too boring and too much emphasis put on the more intimate spheres of life...

[Andronikos]

I wrote that I like Alexander and recently have read one historical forum and many people there consider it as good with one of the best battle scenes (in the matter of realism) - Gaugamela.

[abou]

If anyone says Alexander I'll kill them.

Damn, too late. Well, at least you can guess my opinion on that.

[Moosemanmoo]

Alexander

[antisocialmunky]

HBO Rome has some interesting scenes.

[anubis88]

Gladiator may do as well:shame:

[russia almighty]

Everyone's favorite Persian Fiends were depicted horribly . You had the highlander trash mixed in with the spearmen . WTF ?


The battle in India was badass though . Alexander got pwnt along with his horse.

[Cybvep]

Everyone's favorite Persian Fiends were depicted horribly . You had the highlander trash mixed in with the spearmen . WTF ?
It wasn't perfect, but compare Gaugamela from "Alexander" to the forest battle from "Gladiator", some shit from "300" or whatever... It's the best Hollywood will ever do.

[TWFanatic]

I have yet to see Alexander. I kind of avoided it, thinking it was just another totally inaccurate movie with nude Hollywood celebrities hopping around (like Troy). Seeing the prevalent opinion here, however, has changed my mind. I will have to rent it.

The few scenes from HBO's Rome are excellent. I wish they had more. I was shocked when I found out that a moviemaker had discovered the definition of "formation." The opening scene in Gladiator was also good, until the legionaries broke formation and started wrestling in the mud. It is understandable that they used too much fire, but I generally overlook that in films since nearly all of them have it--except, ironically, LOTR. IMO, it was an epic masterpiece, in spite of my getting irked over the idiots who couldn't hold a freaken' formation if their lives depended on it. What could be better against swarms of orcs, like those in 300? That last sentence probably gives you an idea of my opinion of that movie, whose name a had better not utter again on this forum lest the mob will eat me for supper.

Spartacus was pretty good. I loved the highly polished mirror-like shields. I wished that the cohorts would have opened their ranks to let those logs roll through though, that part irked me (yes, I get irked a lot). I doubt many of you have seen this very old film, but Alexander Nevsky was surprisingly fun and had a good battle scene considering the primitive technology of the times. The story takes place in the middle ages though. It's an old Russian propaganda film about the Teutonic invasion of Russia. Look out for the swastikas on the Crusader's uniforms.:laugh4:

[Sarcasm]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLeRDk4fJc&NR=1

[Gaivs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLeRDk4fJc&NR=1

Hahahaha, ten dollars says you were there and you got owned. :beam:

[Mouzafphaerre]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLeRDk4fJc&NR=1
.
:2thumbsup:
.

[TWFanatic]

The music is horrid. Sounds like the cookie monster from Sesame Street singing. But I suppose that's part of the fun. :shrug:

I wonder how many people got seriously injured there...and how many died. :inquisitive:

[Hound of Ulster]

The combat bits in HBO Rome are really good as are the battle scenes in Spartacus. Troy isn't half bad.

Braveheart and Henry V (1988 Kenneth Branagh version) are both really good at depicting the basics of medieval warfare, if not the tactical details of the historic battles they depict.

[TWFanatic]

Braveheart. I hate that man.

[antisocialmunky]

Braveheart. I hate that man.

SPAAAARTTA!!!!

[Spvrrina Vestricivs]

Has anyone seen the original film about Thermopylae from 1960 "The 300 Spartans"? It's been a while since I last saw it, but IIRC, the battle scenes were fairly good.

I've not seen 300. Nor will I. I caught a trailer on TV and thought: "Ooh, this could be...WAR RHINOS!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :furious3: WAR RHINOS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!" I never expect too many great things from Hollywood when it comes to historical battles, but that just went a tad too far.

[Cybvep]

Has anyone seen the original film about Thermopylae from 1960 "The 300 Spartans"? It's been a while since I last saw it, but IIRC, the battle scenes were fairly good.

I've not seen 300. Nor will I. I caught a trailer on TV and thought: "Ooh, this could be...WAR RHINOS!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :furious3: WAR RHINOS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!" I never expect too many great things from Hollywood when it comes to historical battles, but that just went a tad too far.
Yeah? Then what about ele... mumakils and monsters?

Or simply... Leonidas and his friends...
http://www.r4nt.com/images/v6/article/large_pic/250/300_lg.jpg :D

[pezhetairoi]

Gaugamela from Alexander, undoubtedly. Though the rest of the movie, you don't have to bother watching.

Rome was decent, but the fighting wasn't that realistic IMHO. At Philippi they didn't even charge to contact, or hurl pila. They just walked into each other, which I found seriously dumb since the pila were their best chance to disrupt the enemy. Far better was Spartacus, the second as I saw it.

Spartacus was gritty, and the only example of the checkerboard formation ever dared/postulated on any film I have seen/known/heard of. Very impressive, but a little messy. You didn't see much of the checkerboard thereafter, just a whole lot of confused hacking which detracted greatly from it. But to be fair, the film was meant to glorify the ex-slaves not the Romans, so to show organised Roman legions showing their efficiency would be somewhat inappropriate, yes.

The 1961 300 Spartans was very impressively done, though I was disappointed since the Spartans didn't fight in much of a phalanx (most of the time it was a single line), and we didn't see much of the other Greek allies. There was an elan about the whole film which I found quite pleasant as a touch given the Spartan view on fighting and dying, and how that might have influenced the other troops with them such as the Thespians. (Eagle inspires nearby troops, or something) Definite second after Alexander.

[Rodion Romanovich]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLeRDk4fJc&NR=1
Nice! That was some real adrenaline action! Now do that on a big field, with flanking moves and temporary retreating to rest, cavalry charges filmed with the same technique as in the return of the king but its effect nerfed a lot, add some hill on which to put one of the shield walls, and some slingers on both sides... :2thumbsup:

Excellent pushing game depiction, and nice overhead slashes over the shield when the shield walls came too close to give room for anything else.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yeah? Then what about ele... mumakils and monsters?

Or simply... Leonidas and his friends...
http://www.r4nt.com/images/v6/article/large_pic/250/300_lg.jpg :D
Ah... my eyes!!!!!!!! :thumbsdown:

[pezhetairoi]

Agreed. It was sooo crappy, that movie.

[Frodge]

Are you kiddin' me, three hundred was magnificently entertaining, it wasn't accurate about anything save names and combatants but by god it was fun to watch. :laugh4:

[TWFanatic]

I loved how, in Spartacus, they played happy music while the slaves were revenging Italy. Yay!!! Burning, pillaging, looting, raping, woooooooh!! Happy!!!:dizzy2:

I hated the 300 Spartans. In addition to numerous inaccuracies, the half-hearted fight scenes put me to sleep. At least they actually tried in 300.

It disappointed me also that they didn't throw pila in HBO's Rome, but you have to realize how dangerous that would be to the actors. As for their not charging at a run, it was rare that formations would do that. That's why whenever a formation does charge at a run, it's mentioned explicitly as something extraordinary. The Persians at Marathon were astounded when the Athenians did this.

The battle scenes in Rome are simply the best I've ever seen Hollywood do Antiquity. They fought in formation, FORMATION! And there wasn't any lorica segmentata armor! There is hope for the future after all!:clown:

[antisocialmunky]

Agreed. It was sooo crappy, that movie.

The light Persian infantry looked pretty. Lots of silk.


As for their not charging at a run, it was very that formations would do that.

I would guess that it would depend on circumstance and what you're trrying to do.

[Thaatu]

The battle scenes in Rome are simply the best I've ever seen Hollywood do Antiquity. They fought in formation, FORMATION! And there wasn't any lorica segmentata armor! There is hope for the future after all!:clown:
Wait 'till you see the phalangites of Alexander. Those are teh shit.

[Leviathan DarklyCute]

Wait 'till you see the phalangites of Alexander.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDhUZGX4T0s

I just saved your time

[CirdanDharix]

My mother is going to pass me her DVD of Alexander. Apparently, she says there's only two interesting battle scenes, the rest is crap. And she's no historian.

[Cybvep]

It disappointed me also that they didn't throw pila in HBO's Rome, but you have to realize how dangerous that would be to the actors. As for their not charging at a run, it was rare that formations would do that. That's why whenever a formation does charge at a run, it's mentioned explicitly as something extraordinary. The Persians at Marathon were astounded when the Athenians did this.
They were astonished because the Greeks were outnumbered at least 2:1 and they were running from the beginning, not only at the last "phase" of army's advance. They thought Greeks mad, but you can probably imagine that it was common even for an organised formation to charge from 30-40 meters at the enemy, as the impact was much greater than in case of simply "marching into the enemy". The moment of impact was crucial. Imagine hundreds, sometimes thousands of men clashing, screaming, bashing with their shields, pushing as hard as they can and attacking with their spears from above or doing quick thrusts or swings (probably very ineffective in very close order) with their swords. Then imagine the screams of the trampled (sometimes by their own friends!), roars of pain and desperate fighting of people whose weapons got broken. And then imagine the action on the flanks, where men were forced not only to beat their enemies as hard as they could, but also watch their sides and backs. Hollywood won't go there for a loooooooooong time.

[unreal_uk]

The problem with 'Hollywood', is that it's often not the fault of the guys responsible for the foundations of the film - the writers, who would naturally have enough of a passion for history to spend months writing a script about a certain historical event.

They have great ambitions to have fully realised and entertaining historical battles, but when it comes to production, their opinion means shit. The director might know absolutely nothing about historical battles, preferring instead what might look nice or 'cool' on camera, or failing that, the studios will get involved and use the classic old excuses of 'oh, the audience won't understand what's going on', so inevitably, battles become about two large CGI masses charging at each other across a field, leading to a massive misconception about such events.

[Tancredii]

I thought Gaugamela in Alexander was pretty good. One of the historian advising the film makers was "paid" by being one of Alexander's companion cavalry. I think he whinged a bit about the use of stirrup but health and safety wouldn't let them do without.

As for 300 it's an adaptation of a comic, not meant to be a realistic view of the events at Thermopylai. Just be thankful it may have got some numpties interested in the period and leave it at that.

[antisocialmunky]

They were astonished because the Greeks were outnumbered at least 2:1 and they were running from the beginning, not only at the last "phase" of army's advance. They thought Greeks mad, but you can probably imagine that it was common even for an organised formation to charge from 30-40 meters at the enemy, as the impact was much greater than in case of simply "marching into the enemy". The moment of impact was crucial. Imagine hundreds, sometimes thousands of men clashing, screaming, bashing with their shields, pushing as hard as they can and attacking with their spears from above or doing quick thrusts or swings (probably very ineffective in very close order) with their swords. Then imagine the screams of the trampled (sometimes by their own friends!), roars of pain and desperate fighting of people whose weapons got broken. And then imagine the action on the flanks, where men were forced not only to beat their enemies as hard as they could, but also watch their sides and backs. Hollywood won't go there for a loooooooooong time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_vw_ldzlhU&feature=related

See guys on bottom. I love how those guys just keep going into the formation. Lol.

The one thing I wished that hollywood would realize is that armor actually works, its not just there for show. Arrows don't not go straight through the center of a piece of scale armor like it wasn't there!

[Rodion Romanovich]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_vw_ldzlhU&feature=related

See guys on bottom. I love how those guys just keep going into the formation. Lol.

The one thing I wished that hollywood would realize is that armor actually works, its not just there for show. Arrows don't not go straight through the center of a piece of scale armor like it wasn't there!
The guy pushing the other around 2:12 is awesome! :2thumbsup:

Edit: that festival seems interesting. Is it held anually? Might even be worth going there for vacation some time :2thumbsup:

[Gaius Valerius]

alexander is one of those few films in my opinion that give an accurate historical viewpoint, especially concerning costumes and such. the battles may not be that special (since their so short) but the movie as a whole is in my opinion pretty good. one of the best - if not the best - i ever saw.

i liked spartacus but its a bit old :idea2: yeah us youngsters right :2thumbsup: the hopeless CGI generation

the worst ever has to be gladiator. just the first scenes of that battle made me friggin sick. if romans dressed up like that i would've let them cut my head of in that forest.

troy was nice but totally unrealistic - referring to how it followed the actual myth. king arthur was pretty nice, but that late classic period. 300 was ownage but then again not realistic but oh so sweet :2thumbsup:

considering the latest craploads of movies we've seen recently like that about the last roman emperor omg!!!



lets hope someone on these forum makes it big time in hollywood...

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

How bad you might find Alexander, you must admit that

1. Gaugamela was great and
2. Roxane was indeed hot.

[Gaivs]

I strongly urge everyone to get their hands on a copy of Alexander Revisited the final cut. It goes far deeper than the original, way more in it and also completely different in that it is far more accurate and with greater attention to detail. Just small things, in the original he would say hold them with your spears, in this version, he would say hold them with your sarissas. Things like that which are noticable and make the movie way cooler.

[Intranetusa]

How bad you might find Alexander, you must admit that

2. Roxane was indeed hot.


Except Roxane was portrayed by a Cuban-black-Irish-Native American actress who looked nothing remotely close to Persian/Bactrian/inhabitants of western Asian.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
The man says hot, not accurate. :clown: Or do you think Cuban-black-Irish-Native American actresses aren't hot? :smartass:
.

[Intranetusa]

.
The man says hot, not accurate. :clown: Or do you think Cuban-black-Irish-Native American actresses aren't hot? :smartass:
.

They are hot, just not the one who portrayed Roxanne in the movie. :(

[russia almighty]

Probably could have grabbed a random Indian ho and gotten closer to the real deal .

[MiniMe]

O.Stone "Alexander" seems to be a very accurate depiction of a man with Oedipean complex who's trying to run away from his burden to the other side of the world and by neglecting female sexuality. I believe O.Stone to be a great moviemaker, "Nixon" my favourite.
However, I'm sure real Megas Alexandros wasn't driven by Oedipean complex.

As per R.Dowson... some of her... parts are the best parts of this movie :yes:

[-sKy-]

Don´t crucify me when i say... The Last Legion :smash:

Okay, just a joke... but beside the very crapy story, a mixup between Odoaker and and the Gotiv Theoderich the Great, it has a little nice battle with a Legion NOT armed with Lorica´s, but a kind of leather Armor... and they even make a Testudo :2thumbsup: (but then naturally give up formation and fight hollywood style :shame: )

[cmacq]

As long as we're crossing people?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TuejDmsSjM&feature=related

Hideous movie, yet I don't know what it is about Picts losing their heads? In English, my friendly peace loving clan's war cry was something like, 'our weapons bespeckled red.' I think the last recorded head taking occurred in the mid-1600s? Ever hear of the 'Well of the Seven Heads?' We called it Tobar-Kean.

http://www.ambaile.org.uk/en/item/photograph_zoom.jsp?item_id=4665&zoom=2

My great-great-grand dad used to scare the hell out of me with this story when I was a kid. Heads in a bag begin to wail, bawl, sob, and whine like babies cause they couldn't see as their blood had caked over their eyes. What was that line, 'Proud sirs draw near the well as you shall wash our face of sin that we may once again all see?'


Morbid, yes!

[Thaatu]

I know, it is a little hard to imagine someone living in Bactria and having a tan. These kinds of inaccuracies can ruin a movie.

A non-related image. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Afghan_children_in_Khost_Province.jpg)

[antisocialmunky]

I know, it is a little hard to imagine someone living in Bactria and having a tan. These kinds of inaccuracies can ruin a movie.

A non-related image. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Afghan_children_in_Khost_Province.jpg)

To be honest though, there was so much migration in that area that anything could happen.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

.
The man says hot, not accurate. :clown:
Exactly!


I know, it is a little hard to imagine someone living in Bactria and having a tan. These kinds of inaccuracies can ruin a movie.

So all Baktrians had to be snow-white? Think more of ski-instructors. These aren't exactly snow-white as well...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Roxanne would not have been that dark, deal with it. Her dad is Mongolid, so consider that.

However, in general Alexander was as realistic as any retelling of history ever is.

Rome was terrible, the crappy Lorica Segmentata was the final insult. There is no excuse for that level of stupidity these days.

As for Gladiator, lets just say the historical advisor there felt bad about taking his money.

[Thaatu]

So all Baktrians had to be snow-white? Think more of ski-instructors. These aren't exactly snow-white as well...
My post was 100% sarcastic.

However, in general Alexander was as realistic as any retelling of history ever is.
That is what everyone forgets about the movie. It's not a straight account by any means. It is told by Ptolemy I, through his words. I'm not sure if what you said was meant as a sarcastic remark, but you're right with that.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

My post was 100% sarcastic.
:2thumbsup: I somehow didn't get this. ~:0

[pezhetairoi]

Rome was terrible, the crappy Lorica Segmentata was the final insult. There is no excuse for that level of stupidity these days.



Ehh, what Segmentata? I didn't see no Segmentata in Rome. o.O

On the pilum issue in Rome, they could have CGI'd it in, I'm sure. Just get the guys to throw oh I don't know, black cotton wads, then model pila to follow the trajectories while the opponents just fell when touched by a cotton ball. Besides, there wouldn't be any danger. After all, they made a perfectly satisfactory arrow-storm in Alexander. And you do see arrows hitting the phalangites.

Speaking of which, were the phalangites really THAT susceptible to arrows as they were in Alexander? The impression I got was that half the phalanx went down in the arrowstorm, then miraculously healed itself next scene, not that practically no one was hurt in it as the phalanx should do. o.O

[antisocialmunky]

Ehh, what Segmentata? I didn't see no Segmentata in Rome. o.O

On the pilum issue in Rome, they could have CGI'd it in, I'm sure. Just get the guys to throw oh I don't know, black cotton wads, then model pila to follow the trajectories while the opponents just fell when touched by a cotton ball. Besides, there wouldn't be any danger. After all, they made a perfectly satisfactory arrow-storm in Alexander. And you do see arrows hitting the phalangites.

Speaking of which, were the phalangites really THAT susceptible to arrows as they were in Alexander? The impression I got was that half the phalanx went down in the arrowstorm, then miraculously healed itself next scene, not that practically no one was hurt in it as the phalanx should do. o.O

Hollywoods likes showing large groups of doods drop dead from arrows. That linothorax should have offered decent protection against arrow fire not to mention they did have some shielding too which was one of the reasons why I hate Hollywood for not protraying armour well. Also, in the second arrow show only 2-3 guys drop.

[Intranetusa]

Roxanne would not have been that dark, deal with it. Her dad is Mongolid, so consider that.

However, in general Alexander was as realistic as any retelling of history ever is.



"Her dad is Mongolid" ???

Ummm, I don't think her father Oxyartes is a Mongoloid/East Asian. They're in Afghanistan at that point, so she's a Persian.

[sdk80]

I have to agree that Alexander is probably the most realistic movie, that shows antic battle tactics

Like someone else already said, Spartacus is nice, but old

Ben Hur shows a very realistic and nice sea battle, the chariot race in the arena is also great - a must have seen!

Gladiator battle scenes are unrealistic and the whole story isn't historic at all (beginning battle scene: A teutonic army would have never attacked a superior Roman army in the open like this. no f... way. Arena battle scenes: The gladiators don't fight with the historic proofed equipment and weapons - in contrary they are dressed up in a way how clueless Hollywood directors think it looks cool)

Troy is also unrealistic, especially the battles in front of the citywall and most of the costumes aren't historic.

300 is a mere fantasy movie

King Arthur again is one of the worst movies I've ever seen (the whole story is rudiculous: in reality the not romanised Celts of Wales and Scotland probably would have been the first to greet the Saxons with open arms for slaying the hated Roman breed. By the way in real history the Romanised Celts and the Romans, which stayed in Britain, invited the first Saxons to come to Britain in order to serve as mercenaries against the wild Celts. Bad luck for them, that the Saxons prefered to take over. The battle scenes are useless, since the Saxons act like stupid canon fodder puppets. Or Keira Knightley as female celtic archer warrior... Hollywood at its best)

[antisocialmunky]

Gladiator battle scenes are unrealistic and the whole story isn't historic at all (beginning battle scene: A teutonic army would have never attacked a superior Roman army in the open like this. no f... way. Arena battle scenes: The gladiators don't fight with the historic proofed equipment and weapons - in contrary they are dressed up in a way how clueless Hollywood directors think it looks cool)

Gladiator as even the guys behind it said were based on Romanic ideas of what Rome was instead of the history. Its as much fantasy as 300.

[J.Alco]

Ah yes, 300. It ain't accurate, but it'll blow your ****ing mind :laugh4:

In all seriousness though, I thought the movie was fine but preferred the comic to it. I could give any number of reasons why, but it'll take too much space here. Suffice to say, the comic at least doesn't have any of that political intrigue crap (which, let's face it, was just filler material) nor did it blatantly pander to the 'girl-power' audience (for Chrissake, the queen had Leonidas wrapped around her little finger! I almost yelled in anger when he looked to her for permission to kick an emissary down a well!).

The gladiator battle scene was innaccurate, but it was still entertaining.

Troy was just hollywood crap. I could go on and on about Troy, but then this post would stretch on for another 2 metres.

Alexander has the most realistic battle scenes, in my opinion. Spartacus ain't bad too. Rome is pretty good too, but as to the 'crappy Lorica Segmentata', I think the poster was thinking of Spartacus, not Rome, where they use chainmail.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Gladiator battle scenes are unrealistic and the whole story isn't historic at all (beginning battle scene: A teutonic army would have never attacked a superior Roman army in the open like this. no f... way.

First of all, that is not entirely true... if cornered they would (and sometimes through sheer overconfidence), as evidenced by the writers from Caesar all the way through Ammianus Marcellinus (ie the Battle of Argentorate/Strasbourg). Apart from the simple fact that the opening battle in Gladiator is not in the open field.

Second, even though the Romans eventually tended to win the wars against the barbarians, the cost was inevitably high for them as well (much higher than most people think). They attacked quite often and, especially using surprise, they did so quite effectively. The wars of Domitian, Marcus Aurelius were so bitter and hard fought for a reason. Just before the battle of Strasbourg, the Alamanni had managed to destroy an army on its way to the area coming from Italy (one arm of the two pronged assault on the Alamanni).


Also, even though the Roman army was more disciplined and better trained than most, keeping formation once battle commenced was one of the hardest thing to do.... just as it is unrealistic to depict a battle as two hordes of unorganized mobs running at eachother, it is equally unrealistic to depict it as neat parade ground formations havig a go at each other.

Also, as far as the cleanliness and soldiers being dressed according to regulation, that is of course an illusion as well. First of all simply due to the rigors of campaigning, sometimes in miserable circumstances. The simple fact that much of the supply (things like clothing, winter wear etc) and repairs by units was done locally will also work against uniformity. The Vindolanda tables and some papyri offer ample proof of that.
Simply put, IMHO, the Romans campaigned under similar circumstances as armies all the way through the era of Napoleon, with pretty much the same possibilities (and limitations) where supply and logistics are concerned. To my knowledge most armies by the end of campaigning season looked a far cry from what they were supposed to look like under regulation. Look at ANY picture of the WW II era after taken in a combat zone (say Stalingrad, Normandy and Cassino), and most men will look quite scruffy. So why should the Roman army be ANY different?

Even in the modern era there is ample evidence for that. Few soldiers serving today in Iraq and Afghanistan follow regulation practices in the field (and that starts as soon as they by and wear stuff like shoes, vests etc bought on their own!). Hell, there is even a picture of men from a German Panzer Jaeger Abteilung in 1944 visiting the Louvre, with less than 10% of the men wearing regulation uniforms!

[Ludens]

Speaking of which, were the phalangites really THAT susceptible to arrows as they were in Alexander? The impression I got was that half the phalanx went down in the arrowstorm, then miraculously healed itself next scene, not that practically no one was hurt in it as the phalanx should do. o.O
That scene puzzled me as well. A few moments later you see that the battle lines are still half a kilometre apart. Did the Persians use sniper rifles? If their archers were so deadly, why did Darius order the charge after two volleys? He could just have waited and arrowed the phalanx into oblivion. Still, it was one of the most realistic battle scenes I ever saw on screen.


"Her dad is Mongolid" ???

Ummm, I don't think her father Oxyartes is a Mongoloid/East Asian. They're in Afghanistan at that point, so she's a Persian.
Sogdiana was part of the Persian empire, but they were not Persian by any means. The Persians were a minority in their own empire. Not sure what they were, though. Iranian perhaps.

[CirdanDharix]

Sogdiana is the steppes north of Afghanistan. Modern Uzbekistan, parts of Khyrgizistan and Tajikistan and possibly Khazakstan and Turkmenistan. Bactria is modern Tajikistan and the Tajik areas of Afghanistan, more or less.

The locals were Iranians, but not Persians. Probably fair-skinned compared to the Greeks; there's a passage in the Hellenica, where Xenophon (who was IIRC himself present at the time--explaining why he dwells on such details but forgets the foundations of Megalopolis and Messene :juggle2: ) has the Greeks making fun of how white captured Iranians are--basically their equivalent of "OMFGLOLOL pale pasty nerdz!".

[Intranetusa]

I thought the Persian were the Iranians? Based in mordern Iran?:dizzy2:




Probably fair-skinned compared to the Greeks; there's a passage in the Hellenica, where Xenophon (who was IIRC himself present at the time--explaining why he dwells on such details but forgets the foundations of Megalopolis and Messene :juggle2: ) has the Greeks making fun of how white captured Iranians are--basically their equivalent of "OMFGLOLOL pale pasty nerdz!".

Haha, I have to read that. Give me a link/source plz :D

[Ludens]

I thought the Persian were the Iranians? Based in mordern Iran?:dizzy2:
Yes, but Roxanne wasn't a Persian. She was the daughter of a Sogdianan chieftain. Alexander later also married the Persian princess Stateira, a daughter of Darius III.

[Cronos Impera]

Great Romanian historical masterpieces
Dacii
Burebista
Gerula
Mihai Viteazul
Mircea
Alexandru Lapusneanul

There are tons of noh-holywood historical movies worthy to be seen...you just have to look for them. I heard Bollywood once produced its own version of Alexander.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ehh, what Segmentata? I didn't see no Segmentata in Rome. o.O

On the pilum issue in Rome, they could have CGI'd it in, I'm sure. Just get the guys to throw oh I don't know, black cotton wads, then model pila to follow the trajectories while the opponents just fell when touched by a cotton ball. Besides, there wouldn't be any danger. After all, they made a perfectly satisfactory arrow-storm in Alexander. And you do see arrows hitting the phalangites.

Speaking of which, were the phalangites really THAT susceptible to arrows as they were in Alexander? The impression I got was that half the phalanx went down in the arrowstorm, then miraculously healed itself next scene, not that practically no one was hurt in it as the phalanx should do. o.O

You wouldn't recognise it, it was the stuff from Trajan's collumn. Just like the stupid helmets, no they aren't Coolus type.


"Her dad is Mongolid" ???

Ummm, I don't think her father Oxyartes is a Mongoloid/East Asian. They're in Afghanistan at that point, so she's a Persian.

No he wasn't in real life, but the actor was.

[Intranetusa]

You wouldn't recognise it, it was the stuff from Trajan's collumn. Just like the stupid helmets, no they aren't Coolus type.


No he wasn't in real life, but the actor was.

He was??? I thought he looked Afghani or something...or was I looking at the wrong person?

So this is funny, they get him to play the father of a Cuban-black-Irish-Native American who is supposedly portraying a Iranian...

[Spvrrina Vestricivs]

Yeah? Then what about ele... mumakils and monsters?

Or simply... Leonidas and his friends...
http://www.r4nt.com/images/v6/article/large_pic/250/300_lg.jpg :D

I only saw one trailer and that was enough. As it is, I don't watch much TV anyway.

And that still from 300 :jawdrop: :fainting: Ahhhh, :nurse: can I have my medication now please?

If movie makers want to do historical fantasy, I have no problem with it. There's plenty of legends to choose from afterall. But please, don't turn actual historical events into fantasy.

[cmacq]

Great Romanian historical masterpieces
Dacii
Burebista
Gerula
Mihai Viteazul
Mircea
Alexandru Lapusneanul

There are tons of noh-holywood historical movies worthy to be seen...you just have to look for them. I heard Bollywood once produced its own version of Alexander.


I've actually seen Dacii.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-C3LmZ64do&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LXyfnGb8_I&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvJKPNDbuYM&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6mF9ldKCds&feature=related

[The General]

Rome was pretty nice, but in the battle of Philippi... Dear god. I hate that. Hated hated HATED. Legions, okay, in formation, yeah!, marching... marching... marching into one another... Things going chaotic, formation abandoned, man-to-man fighting all over the battlefield, no sense whatsoever, until the ending, where all the 'liberators'' soldiers have apparently been beaten down the Triumvirs' forces march in perfect order again. <_>

Hrm, Alexander's battle scenes were nice indeed, and as has been mentioned, Gaugamele deserves praise, it was a very nice scene (even if there's always something to improve, meh). Oh, and how I loved Bessus's cavalry. So pretty, so pretty... *Wuvs cataphracts*


If movie makers want to do historical fantasy, I have no problem with it. There's plenty of legends to choose from afterall. But please, don't turn actual historical events into fantasy.
300 wasn't based on the Battle of Thermopylae, it was based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller which in turn is based on the battle, and that doesn't even try to portray it historically accurately.

300 is a masculine battle fantasy, and a funny one too.

[Perturabo]

Wow, the battle from Alexander has convinced me to buy the DVD, one of the first battles in mondern cinema using actual tactics and formations :2thumbsup:
Not really expecting much from the rest of the film, Alex was a bit of an unusual character off the battlefield, and from reports by friends the film sorta bears this out, like a friend who took her 11 year old son to see it at the cinema :no:

[Obelics]

I've actually seen Dacii.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-C3LmZ64do&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LXyfnGb8_I&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvJKPNDbuYM&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6mF9ldKCds&feature=related

nice. Funny how it sounds familiar the language, if you listen to it without trying to understand somethink, it seems they are speaking latin:beam:

[The Persian Cataphract]

...

Don't even get me started about "Alexander". I've seen all the cuts, even the last one "Alexander Revisited" final cut. It is given that the Graeco-Macedonians have been given a lavish treatment rarely seen in Hollywood, and under the patronage of world renowned historian Robin Lane Fox, expecting many inaccuracies on behalf of the portrayal of Macedonians will prove a futile enterprise.

The Persians on the other hand were not only unfairly vilified, and reduced to the status of uncouth barbarians. Just look at the Gaugamela some of you seemingly derive pleasure from. What is this? An amorphous mob of mixed infantry and cavalry basically dressed up as mute, unwashed Arabs? Even in the better received final cut, we still see the fictional Pharnaces screaming "Jalla!", rallying his troops. The portrayal of Persians was a mixed bag with a few moments of positive surprise, largely hidden in a monstrously large heap of dung. I've discussed this many times before, so I shall save my breath this time.

[Obelics]

Persian Catafract, just for curiosity (im not expert in this), dont you think that at last Darius was depicted quite well? He is very similar to the famous mosaic that we have here in Naples. And to me, as he is depicted in the film, he seems a super refined e noble man, very fascinating.

[Perturabo]

...

Don't even get me started about "Alexander". I've seen all the cuts, even the last one "Alexander Revisited" final cut. It is given that the Graeco-Macedonians have been given a lavish treatment rarely seen in Hollywood, and under the patronage of world renowned historian Robin Lane Fox, expecting many inaccuracies on behalf of the portrayal of Macedonians will prove a futile enterprise.

The Persians on the other hand were not only unfairly vilified, and reduced to the status of uncouth barbarians. Just look at the Gaugamela some of you seemingly derive pleasure from. What is this? An amorphous mob of mixed infantry and cavalry basically dressed up as mute, unwashed Arabs? Even in the better received final cut, we still see the fictional Pharnaces screaming "Jalla!", rallying his troops. The portrayal of Persians was a mixed bag with a few moments of positive surprise, largely hidden in a monstrously large heap of dung. I've discussed this many times before, so I shall save my breath this time.

Its not perfect obviously, hollywood at its best (and this in my opinion is one of the best modern depictions for what its worth) only very vaguely follows history. Its fair to say that the Persians were known for being one of the most cosmopolitan and tolerant nations of the ancient world, although vilified rather strongly by the Greeks. Obviously they did not conquer most of the known world by being ignorant dung raking barbarians. The fact that the producers/directors managed to get even one faction moderately accurate is something of a miracle. Hollywood needs its heroes and villans to meet all the usual formulas, and unfortunately the Persians suffered for it. In short its not worth getting upset over:balloon2:

edit: Point taken, the arab clothing etc of the Persian infantry is a little puzzling. Truth is, like usual, that reality would be far more interesting than any hollywood contrived 'modifications' to fact to make the film 'more immersive'.

[The General]

...

Don't even get me started about "Alexander". I've seen all the cuts, even the last one "Alexander Revisited" final cut. It is given that the Graeco-Macedonians have been given a lavish treatment rarely seen in Hollywood, and under the patronage of world renowned historian Robin Lane Fox, expecting many inaccuracies on behalf of the portrayal of Macedonians will prove a futile enterprise.

The Persians on the other hand were not only unfairly vilified, and reduced to the status of uncouth barbarians. Just look at the Gaugamela some of you seemingly derive pleasure from. What is this? An amorphous mob of mixed infantry and cavalry basically dressed up as mute, unwashed Arabs? Even in the better received final cut, we still see the fictional Pharnaces screaming "Jalla!", rallying his troops. The portrayal of Persians was a mixed bag with a few moments of positive surprise, largely hidden in a monstrously large heap of dung. I've discussed this many times before, so I shall save my breath this time.
*Pats the ol' Cataphract on the back*

My enjoyement came primarily from the Makedonian side, with the Phalangites marching in formation, etc, and how the battle, to quite an extent (at least by Hollywood standards), followed the actual course of the battle.

As for the portrayal of the Persian side, my only comment was that regarding the cataphracts. It shames me, but I've to admit my knowledge of the Persian military is limited, at best.

[CirdanDharix]

...

Don't even get me started about "Alexander". I've seen all the cuts, even the last one "Alexander Revisited" final cut. It is given that the Graeco-Macedonians have been given a lavish treatment rarely seen in Hollywood, and under the patronage of world renowned historian Robin Lane Fox, expecting many inaccuracies on behalf of the portrayal of Macedonians will prove a futile enterprise.

The Persians on the other hand were not only unfairly vilified, and reduced to the status of uncouth barbarians. Just look at the Gaugamela some of you seemingly derive pleasure from. What is this? An amorphous mob of mixed infantry and cavalry basically dressed up as mute, unwashed Arabs? Even in the better received final cut, we still see the fictional Pharnaces screaming "Jalla!", rallying his troops. The portrayal of Persians was a mixed bag with a few moments of positive surprise, largely hidden in a monstrously large heap of dung. I've discussed this many times before, so I shall save my breath this time.
Just saw it. Did Pharnaces really scream "Yalla!"? I didn't notice that. I did notice that the guys with big rectangular shields (meant to be the spara?) are behind the guys with violin shields and axes, for some unexplained reason. Most of the cavalry we see seems to be the mercenary heavies recruited from the steppes, the charge goes off prematurely (just one volley of arrows? come on), for some reason we get a charge of camel-riding Arabs, and there are other mistakes of this order. But, I must say, it didn't seem to be as bad as you make it out; at least, the Persians didn't seem particularly unwashed.

[Obelics]

just for contribute, i found on the tube two small segments of 1937 film Scipione l'Africano. Sorry no battles scenes on this two segments.

head titles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM50lHTJp9k&feature=related

and an ovation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjMyvq-w3B8

i still have to see the film (it is a film made under the fascist patrocine, but it have to be interesting).

here's the Imdb entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029526/

[Tancredii]

Speaking of which, were the phalangites really THAT susceptible to arrows as they were in Alexander? The impression I got was that half the phalanx went down in the arrowstorm, then miraculously healed itself next scene, not that practically no one was hurt in it as the phalanx should do. o.O

Sorry to go back to this point (really I am - as it's not half as interesting as Roxanne's jollies - ahem sorry). I don't think a phalanx would be particurlary susceptable to arrows or at least not to the extent of that scene. All those sarrisa held at angles would deflect most arrows and then they only become a load of sticks dropping around you. The most likely wound being if you trod on one. Add to this the armour and the fact the phalanx would prepare for fire I think the losses originally depicted (who then recover) were excessive. The scene when they wave the tips of the sarrisa as Alexannder encourages them also shows how a little movement could further restrict the arrows trajectory. Just my humble opinion of course.

[Intranetusa]

Sorry to go back to this point (really I am - as it's not half as interesting as Roxanne's jollies - ahem sorry). I don't think a phalanx would be particurlary susceptable to arrows or at least not to the extent of that scene. All those sarrisa held at angles would deflect most arrows and then they only become a load of sticks dropping around you. The most likely wound being if you trod on one. Add to this the armour and the fact the phalanx would prepare for fire I think the losses originally depicted (who then recover) were excessive. The scene when they wave the tips of the sarrisa as Alexannder encourages them also shows how a little movement could further restrict the arrows trajectory. Just my humble opinion of course.

Of course, there are still 3 feet gaps between each sarrissa pike.

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

The American show, Mythbusters did an episode about splitting arrows. They found that arrows wobble in flight and glance off ones already stuck in the target. I believe sarissas would deflect arrows, but not like a ricochet bullet hitting concrete. They also used a forest of dowels and they snuck between them no matter how tightly packed. You'd still have wounded people just not the numbers in the movie.

[antisocialmunky]

Also factor in the fact that people still can fight if the arrows don't hit in an unfortunate place...

[Tancredii]

Of course, there are still 3 feet gaps between each sarrissa pike.

I agree that there is a gap in between each sarissa but with the angles, any inteference by the phalangites in waving the tip of the weapon and armour each reduces the opportunity to get a clean kill or nasty wound. It's not just the tip of the sarrisa that helps defend you but it length - add to that the combination of all those rows of weapons(sorry it's been a long day!). Pretty certain otherwise the impact of persian and indian archery on the Phalanx would have been more telling.

[cmacq]

nice. Funny how it sounds familiar the language, if you listen to it without trying to understand somethink, it seems they are speaking latin:beam:

Romanian sound like Latin? Maybe a bit Slavoized Latin, like hearing Canadian French, no?

[Obelics]

yes I know well it is neo-latin etc. I was expressing this sort of sense of familiarity that feel a man like me who hear it for the first time :yes:

[Thaatu]

One could argue that Alexander's Gaugamela is presented from Ptolemy's perspective, since it is emphasized just before the battle scene.

[Starforge]

Ben Hur shows a very realistic and nice sea battle, the chariot race in the arena is also great - a must have seen!


/sarcasm=on

Bah! Ben Hur just stole the idea for the chariot race from the pod race in Star Wars!

:charge: :charge: :charge:

[russia almighty]

Fall of the Roman Empire is pretty good I've heard . Even has catatanks supposedly .

[Ayce]

Great Romanian historical masterpieces
Dacii
Burebista
Gerula
Mihai Viteazul
Mircea
Alexandru Lapusneanul

There are tons of noh-holywood historical movies worthy to be seen...you just have to look for them. I heard Bollywood once produced its own version of Alexander.


The good thing about many of the movies listed there is that the extras were army guys. Where else can you get tens of thousands of extras that will actually stay in formation? Epic battle scenes in Dacii and Mihai Viteazul before the age of CGI.

[Romano-Dacis]

My vote goes to Dacii. Just looking at the very end battle (the one after the duel but before the credits) was like seeing Trajan's column in motion. The standards, the chaos of battle, it all looked really cool.

However, the real jewel was the ambush of Fuscus's men at what I assumed was Tapae (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RNYVJivcgE). The use of archers, ALSO HORSE ARCHERS, was cool. Also, the overall design of the ambush was well done, with rock throwers, archers on the cliffs, and people chopping down trees to fall on the Romans. The portrayal of Dacian armor, hats, and equipment also seemed pretty accurate to me. Lastly, who could forget such memorable scenes as seeing a horse flying off a cliff into a river, or a rock hitting a Roman cavalryman square in the head. There is also the depiction of the wolf standard. I think the whole scene was shot around that area as well, and at the very least, in Romania.


BONUS POINTS (throughout the film): Use of Pilum. Proper depiction of Dacian sacrifice to Zalmoxis (according to Herodotus). Historical depiction of Dacians shooting arrows in the sky and laughing at the sight of rain, displaying their mythology. Displaying the wolf standard. Making massive armies before CGI (I often looked at the armies in movies like Attila the Hun and joke "and that is how Attila and his 5 horsemen ravaged the Roman Empire). Interesting use of giving Decebal that ceremonial helmet. Display of purple on Roman nobility.

NEGATIVE: Laurica segmentata used, no Falx :-(.

Well, watch for yourself on the link above. I can say that this at least equals Alexander's battles, if not outdoing them completely.

[antisocialmunky]

That's a good clip from it.

Even though I usually hate Youtube posters, this was a good quote:


Another secret of the history was revealed in this movie. At 02:25, first time we see the standard underwear of the Roman cavalry. Rejoice!

[Tancredii]

That's a good clip from it.

Even though I usually hate Youtube posters, this was a good quote:

Sorry cant resist it - thought it was pants.............

[-sKy-]

A Film nobody has mentioned... Hannibal: Rome&#180;s Worst Nightmare

A very very very good Movie (well, it is a little bit of Documentary) with a roman army which is splitt up in Velites, Hastati, etc... (the only shit is that there is again no pilla :( ) and Carthagian Elephants which are really the little Forest Elephants, not the Big Indian Monsters ^^

Here a Vid on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MveyHX7fmfA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NpKkiqLJoM&feature=related

[russia almighty]

Damn .....that was sexy .

[J.Alco]

I just remembered: One film that is particularly good at depicting historical battles (though from the 17th century, not EB's time-frame) is the Spanish film 'Alatriste', which deals with the Thirty Years War in two sequences, one being a siege, the other being a battle in open field. Both excel in that the first shows the miserable conditions of a besieging army and the early use of trench warfare during the period, and the second because soldiers use genuine period tactics during the battle (musketeers screen pikemen and fire off several volleys by using a rotating formation system, infantry form a square during a cavalry attack, and it also has a masterful Push-of-the-Pike sequence with pikemen actually staying in formation while light infantry dart beneath pikes and attack with daggers) The rest of the film, frankly, isn't great, but those two sequences nearly make up for it.

I know what I just described isn't really about EB's timeframe, but if anyone's interested in 17th century warfare, and in accurate depiction of said warfare, those two sequences are worth checking out. I'm not sure if there's anything on YouTube though, and even less sure if what is there is of any quality that could be called good.

[mAIOR]

Out of ancient times, kingdom of heaven does a pretty good job. Especialy in sword-play. But since it has Liam Neeson so, it's only to be expected. The best sword fighting movie is Rob Roy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVaslN1NiT0
tough I must say the duel in Dacii was quite good espetially the parts when the camera was more distant.


Cheers...

[Geoffrey S]

-sKy-, I agree that that the depiction of the period is quite good in that miniseries. They did a lot with what material they had, though it's let down by the editing.

J.Alco, glad you mentioned that one. It's not great as a film, but I enjoyed the depiction of the period. The pikemen battle is particularly nice.

Must also mention Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire. It's got some nice bits in it. Not accurate, but the closest recent attempts I've seen. Following link is a part of the episode on Caesar, with Pharsalus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGfyFnSv-GM&feature=related

The Persians on the other hand were not only unfairly vilified, and reduced to the status of uncouth barbarians. Just look at the Gaugamela some of you seemingly derive pleasure from. What is this? An amorphous mob of mixed infantry and cavalry basically dressed up as mute, unwashed Arabs? Even in the better received final cut, we still see the fictional Pharnaces screaming "Jalla!", rallying his troops. The portrayal of Persians was a mixed bag with a few moments of positive surprise, largely hidden in a monstrously large heap of dung. I've discussed this many times before, so I shall save my breath this time.
You know, I was planning to post something similar. From an historical standpoint the depiction of the Persians was quite awful; though as has been said earlier in this topic, a reasonable excuse could be that the film depicts Alexander's life as Ptolemy retells it.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
The film had to fit in Holywood's hero vs. villain clich&#233;. Look at the battle speech: Free Makedonians vs. army of slaves. The Persians had to play the villain, so they would need to be given the most rugged, uncouth, disorderly looks. Still they're no near awful as in a standard pseudo-historic melodrama.
.

[pezhetairoi]

Hollywood, Shmollywood. I'd sure like to see what one of our film-directing fans, with help and casting from the entire EB team and fan base, and a huge Lord of the Rings budget, could pull off for, say, Hannibal. Or Alex Megas' campaigns. Imagine if Persian Cataphract wrote the screenplay for the latter. Now -that- would be a sight to see...

I wish I lived in Europe, all these movies that I've never even heard of in my life... I saw Dacii on Youtube and was impressed. Though there was something odd about the battle formations in the scene with the final duel between Decebalus and Severus: were they arrayed in...columns?!

[Cadwalader]

I have been dreaming off a film about a film set in iron age Northern Europe. SO far I've only thought of the battle scene, heh..

It should be from a very young man's point of view. And there should be shots from his view, and heavy breathing.
And the volume of such a battle should certainly be represented. And by that I mean lots of shouting and screaming!

Northern Europe is unrepresented.. but I guess I shoudn't complain. Anyone heard of a movie about Ptolemaic Egypt or Baktria? I haven't.

[Starforge]

I have been dreaming off a film about a film set in iron age Northern Europe. SO far I've only thought of the battle scene, heh..

It should be from a very young man's point of view. And there should be shots from his view, and heavy breathing.
And the volume of such a battle should certainly be represented. And by that I mean lots of shouting and screaming!

Northern Europe is unrepresented.. but I guess I shoudn't complain. Anyone heard of a movie about Ptolemaic Egypt or Baktria? I haven't.

Hollywood creates movies they think will sell (and, sadly, typically geared to the 14 year old girl daters.) Sadly, it also seems that the formula is easy to replicate and doesn't require any innovative writing. An easy example can be seen in how they approach Sci-fi and Fantasy style programs / movies. Instead of focusing on the characters and conflict to make them more human or immersive they focus on special effects.

A movie about Ptolemaic Egypt or Baktria wouldn't have any cultural draw for most movie-goers (nearly all of whom wouldn't have a clue what those countries are.) The romance, social interactions, speech, fights, etc. would all likely be modernized to generate a wider appeal and would likely then not be all that satisfying for those of us with at least a passing interest in history.

[pezhetairoi]

Most strange that Hollywood seems to think 14-year-old girl daters would choose to bring 14 year old girls to watch men being impaled on hedges upon hedges of long pointy things, or to have their legs slashed off by scythed chariots, or to be trampled by elephants, or to see Alexander wrestle with a Baktrian woman with jugs as big as Baktria.

Now that you mention Ptolemaic Egypt: What are your comments on how Cleopatra's Egypt was portrayed in Rome? Those who do study Ptolemaic Egypt, is Rome an accurate portrayal, insofar as the episodes' coverage went?

[Starforge]

Most strange that Hollywood seems to think 14-year-old girl daters would choose to bring 14 year old girls to watch men being impaled on hedges upon hedges of long pointy things, or to have their legs slashed off by scythed chariots, or to be trampled by elephants, or to see Alexander wrestle with a Baktrian woman with jugs as big as Baktria.

Now that you mention Ptolemaic Egypt: What are your comments on how Cleopatra's Egypt was portrayed in Rome? Those who do study Ptolemaic Egypt, is Rome an accurate portrayal, insofar as the episodes' coverage went?

Was talking in general about the majority of movies that are created. Yep, there are some movies geared more towards the WoW fans and their hope to get the kids to OOOH COOL the movie (like some of the 300 comments in this very thread.) I never watched Alexander beyond the clip posted above - no desire to.

As someone who has but a passing interest in history - how would I have any idea what the perception of Cleopatra's Egypt was in Rome then or now. I'm sure it varied as much as the perception that people have of Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, George Bush, Vladimir Putin, or etc. And all that has what to do with the portrayal of battles by Hollywood? Hollywood puts out movies that they think will sell, period. If portraying the persians with cheap barbarian getups and vague representations of the American perception of Ancient modern day muslims - then they'll do it. Saves money and plays to the modern stereotype without having to explain anything. (note - I don't agree with this but certainly can see how some schmuck in Hollywood could look at it this way.)

[CaesarAugustus]

...

Even in the better received final cut, we still see the fictional Pharnaces screaming "Jalla!", rallying his troops.

Yes, Im not the only one whose noticed this! I actually had to pause the movie and just let the tears of laughter roll down my face...:laugh4:

But unfortunately Gaugamela is still the best depiction of a classical battle I have ever seen, Hollywood just doesn't care about accuracy. Not that most people even notice the difference. :shame:

[Hound of Ulster]

my problem with 300 was the politics more than anything else.
Eugenics practicing slavers as defenders of liberty....:jawdrop:

the Immortals rock though...

that video...oh boy the Russians are hard-core. I'm surprised nobody lost an arm.

Phillipi was actually fairly accurate. If you watch closely you will see several legionaries through thier pila before contact.

[Obelics]

Here's a great forgotten gem:

"Attila Flagello di Dio" (Attila flagellum of God)

The film was a megaproduction, lots of money were spent to make it historical accurate.

Attila reach the borders of the Roman Empire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQrgJeuHtaE&feature=related

training before the battle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObv5GISXNM

Roman cavalry make the Cantabrian Circle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crIoYnc1QV0

siege battle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ajh7LYblTk

Attila meet a centaurus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqEMjv-JC4U

[Romano-Dacis]

Here's a great forgotten gem:

"Attila Flagello di Dio" (Attila flagellum of God)

The film was a megaproduction, lots of money were spent to make it historical accurate.

I take it you were being sarcastic with this, right?

[kambiz]

Here's a great forgotten gem:

"Attila Flagello di Dio" (Attila flagellum of God)

The film was a megaproduction, lots of money were spent to make it historical accurate lolzj Attila rocks:laugh4: How did they find these actors? Fighting scenes were great ,Attila with his big hammer. And that roman Catapult :laugh4:

P.S : So Obelics the reason you don't have time for your AARs is that you're busy making these epic movies ,right? :wink:

[Geoffrey S]

And the guy head-butting stones from a catapult! That's more hardcore than 300!

[McAds]

The combat bits in HBO Rome are really good as are the battle scenes in Spartacus. Troy isn't half bad.

Braveheart and Henry V (1988 Kenneth Branagh version) are both really good at depicting the basics of medieval warfare, if not the tactical details of the historic battles they depict.

Ergh Braveheart. The single biggest shower of shite I have ever had the misfortune to witness. There are so many things about that film and its many, pointless inaccuracies I hate!

[McAds]

Roxanne would not have been that dark, deal with it. Her dad is Mongolid, so consider that.

However, in general Alexander was as realistic as any retelling of history ever is.

Rome was terrible, the crappy Lorica Segmentata was the final insult. There is no excuse for that level of stupidity these days.

As for Gladiator, lets just say the historical advisor there felt bad about taking his money.

Which episode contained Lorica Segmentata?

I just finished watching Series 2 again last night and I saw no Legionnaires wearing it.

[Obelics]

lolzj Attila rocks:laugh4: How did they find these actors? Fighting scenes were great ,Attila with his big hammer. And that roman Catapult :laugh4:

strange is that the actor who performed Attila, later became a dramatic actor, and he is the main actor in the oscar awarded film "Mediterraneo" (1991). He got a very good career.

im happy you noticed all the refined special effects and you appreciated the huge amount of research they spent on making it historical accurate.

[Snite]

I read somewhere once that the battle of Phillipi was remarkable in that neither side used missile weapons and as a result was considered a very brutal battle with men on both sides displaying a lot of savagery. Rome could have been trying to represent this with the two sides not throwing pilum and then merging into chaos.

Snite

[mlc82]

Which episode contained Lorica Segmentata?

I just finished watching Series 2 again last night and I saw no Legionnaires wearing it.

I don't recall any Lorica Segmentata in (HBO) Rome either...

[Cadwalader]

Attila Flagello di Dio must be like.. the Monty Python and the Holy Grail of Italy!

[Intranetusa]

I don't recall any Lorica Segmentata in (HBO) Rome either...

Good riddance to bad company.

[mlc82]

Good riddance to bad company.

Not sure what you're getting at here...

[Centurion Crastinus]

Which episode contained Lorica Segmentata?

I just finished watching Series 2 again last night and I saw no Legionnaires wearing it.


You can catch a glimpse of Lorica Segmentata briefly in Season 2, Episode 4. You see it when Pullo is searching the dead for Vorenus after the battle of Munda. When Octavian approaches Pullo, one of his guards is wearing Lorica Segmentata.

[Intranetusa]

Not sure what you're getting at here...

What I'm getting at is the history channel's love obsession with the lorica segmenta, from 400 BCE to 400 CE...it doesn't matter to them

[Spartan198]

I have most of these movies on DVD,but "The 300 Spartans" would have to be the worst. The Spartan phalanx was never more than one man deep,and I've never seen any historical evidence of a "flying wedge" phalanx. :thumbsdown: At least "300" depicted said formation somewhat accurately.
Braveheart had decent battles,but I can't gauge their accuracy because my area of expertise ends in AD 476.
The few battles in HBO Rome were done fairly well,but I was seriously disappointed to find that the Battle of Actium was skipped over for merely shot of a single lifeboat against a seemingly empty Actium Bay with a single visible burning galley.
The opening battle in Gladiator was great except for the lack of thrown pila and the afore-mentioned degenerate melee that it ended in. The gladiator bouts were great,especially Zama.
Alexander had probably the two bloodiest film battles I've ever seen (but I have the final uncut version and haven't seen the other two versions,though. Was the guy still crushed by the elephant in those?)
The battles in Troy were decent at best,but the director's cut version was somewhat better,at least to me,personally (I have a nasty habit of loving movies that everyone hate and ultimately flop in the box office. Sue me.).
I recently rented The Last Legion and was pleasantly surprised with it. Though most of the battles were just sword-to-axe brawls between just a few guys,the final battle with the 9th Legion was short but decent except for the fact that it ended a'la Gladiator with a degenerate melee. The testudo formation was somewhat accurately portrayed,though.
I liked the overall plot of King Arthur,but the battles were of worse quality than The 300 Spartans,however impossible that may seem in my opinion.

I could probably list and describe numerous others,but those are really the standouts (bad standouts in the case of King Arthur and The 300 Spartans) for me. If anyone has any must-see or run-frantically suggestions for me,let me know.

[antisocialmunky]

You can catch a glimpse of Lorica Segmentata briefly in Season 2, Episode 4. You see it when Pullo is searching the dead for Vorenus after the battle of Munda. When Octavian approaches Pullo, one of his guards is wearing Lorica Segmentata.

The LS is good in moderation. It was used, we just don't know by who exactly or why exactly... Might as well aknowledge it existed.

@ Spartan Glory, no you didn't see his head get smashed like a water melon.

[Tancredii]

I have most of these movies on DVD,but "The 300 Spartans" would have to be the worst. The Spartan phalanx was never more than one man deep,and I've never seen any historical evidence of a "flying wedge" phalanx. :thumbsdown: At least "300" depicted said formation somewhat accurately.
Braveheart had decent battles,but I can't gauge their accuracy because my area of expertise ends in AD 476.

I could probably list and describe numerous others,but those are really the standouts (bad standouts in the case of King Arthur and The 300 Spartans) for me. If anyone has any must-see or run-frantically suggestions for me,let me know.

I don't know why people get so annoyed by 300. It's like comparing the driving in Batman begins to a protrayal of modern motorsports. 300 is a comic adaptation - it's not meant to be serious.

Now you've mentioned Braveheart though.............. what a load of old.... anyway being distracted by the Hellenistic heavy debate.........

[Geoffrey S]

I don't know why people get so annoyed by 300. It's like comparing the driving in Batman begins to a protrayal of modern motorsports. 300 is a comic adaptation - it's not meant to be serious.
It shouldn't be meant to be taken seriously. But that is exactly what the film tries to be, and it takes one look at an interview with Frank Miller and a glance at his comics to see where that came from.

It wasn't the intention of the makers to make a film that isn't taken seriously, let's put it like that.

[vonhaupold]

Here's a question:

I was watching one of the youtube links on this thread on the battle of Pharsallus which depicts two Roman armies going at it and I got to thinking. How were opposing armies like that supposed to tell each other apart? I understand the Roman army was very disciplined and probably held their ranks pretty well but what about when one army broke and ran as depicted in the link? I'm sure that when the triumphant army gave chase it was a real mess trying to distinguish friend from foe. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Geoffrey S]

Codewords would then often be used.

[vonhaupold]

Codewords would then often be used.

That makes sense.

[mlc82]

What I'm getting at is the history channel's love obsession with the lorica segmenta, from 400 BCE to 400 CE...it doesn't matter to them

It made me laugh cause I thought you were calling the LS "bad company", for some reason it just sounded funny.

[Intranetusa]

It made me laugh cause I thought you were calling the LS "bad company", for some reason it just sounded funny.

lol, I really hate the history channel's inaccuracies when dealing with warfare, "barbarians," and non-western cultures

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

A movie I like is "The 13th Warrior". It's fantasy, of course, but I think it features nice fighting and a very good atmosphere.

[Hooahguy]

lol, I really hate the history channel's inaccuracies when dealing with warfare, "barbarians," and non-western cultures

lol- thats why i only watch that channel for the UFO stuff and the unsolved mysteries..... the military channel is a lot cooler, IMO.

[Intranetusa]

lol- thats why i only watch that channel for the UFO stuff and the unsolved mysteries..... IMO.

which is even WORSE, lol...

Nostradamus and UFOs...what has the history channel become...

They should just stick to WW2.

[Hooahguy]

nah, i like the UFO stories..... interesting stuff

[antisocialmunky]

nah, i like the UFO stories..... interesting stuff

Dogfights is fun and Monster Quest actually does some decent stuff (compared to other TV things).

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
I look at Mythbusters if it passes me by when that redhead chick is on.
.

[Centurion Crastinus]

.
I look at Mythbusters if it passes me by when that redhead chick is on.
.


Dude, I know what you mean. She's a hottie.

[Centurion Crastinus]

The history channel was great. They still do interesting things from time to time. Now though it seems that all they show is programs about how the human race is completely screwed due to our own undoing. Or it show programs about hypothetical natural disasters. It seems that they have run out of ideas. The best stuff they show seems to be run during the hours from 8 in the morning to about lunch time.

[Hooahguy]

the best shows are on then (8am-12pm) b/c they do a rerun of the morning shows from 12 until 6 or s/t like that

[unreal_uk]

I've always envisioned a 'Forgotten Peoples' series in the vein of the Barbarians series, about civilisations and people that are not as commonly known about. I'd love to see a great dramatic documentary about the Scythians or the Galatians.

[Sarcasm]

.
I look at Mythbusters if it passes me by when that redhead chick is on.
.

I feel you man. She could have my babies anyday.

http://saturn5.com/darwin/beef/images/kari/08-kari_byron_umbrella_1_small.jpg

What? I like shoulders...

http://saturn5.com/darwin/beef/images/38-MythBusters_Girl_Kary_Byron_2.jpg

http://saturn5.com/darwin/beef/images/kari/06-kari_byron_shark_bikini_radio_belly.jpg

[antisocialmunky]

Back on topic... sorta... *AHEM*

I found a video clip of the Roxanna bed room scene from Alexander on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

[Sarcasm]

Gotta love Rick Astley.

[antisocialmunky]

Gotta love Rick Astley.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/trolling.png