Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

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



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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

Thank you, I look forward to reading it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, I'd like to say two things.

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

https://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h...he-Patriot.jpg
Accurate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chirurgeon

https://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h...he-Patriot.jpg
Accurate?

---

ROFL

good one.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

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

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

For a move, I'll say 'Black Robe.'

Then again I just like the sound of 'this one.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

Sometimes I just want to shoot all postmodernists.

---

truth has always been viewed as subjective.

just ask Moussilini :clown:

My problem with historically inaccurate movies in general is that they are the only source of knowledge most people have about history (especially in the the US). Because no movie is without a couple of inaccuracies, usually made because the plot demands it, I divide them into more accurate and less accurate. Comedies, such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Black Adder, are not listed.

More Accurate:

Henry The Vth: Both versions are excellent, but for that one scene in the first one where the knights are lowered onto their horses with cranes.

Dat Boot: But for the crew messing with the reporter, good.

Downfall: But for a couple minor nitpicks, good.

Gettysburg: I can't think of anything wrong.

Master And Commander: I can't think of anything wrong.

Platoon: I can't think of anything wrong.

The Warlord: The costumes are a little off, but Charlton Heston's attitude is spot on.

Tora! Tora! Tora!: I can't think anything wrong.

Waterloo: The lengths they went through to make it accurate are amazing. They dug pipe systems under the battlefield to simulate the wet conditions.

Zulu: This movie is about 50-50, but I like it, so I'm putting it up here.

Less Accurate:
Anything touched by Mel Gibson or Disney.

300: 300 is special because not only does it manage to be batshit over the top ridiculous in its inaccuracy (I mean, one can't even begin to list all the things wrong with that movie), it manages to be almost stupefyingly racist as well. Also, I wish they could have dropped Gorgo's name in there somewhere, like during the sex scene.

Leonidas: "Oh, Gorgo!"
Audience: "Wait, what?"

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

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

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

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

Knights Tale: *Bangs head against the wall*

Pearl Harbor: It has Ben Affleck. That alone should be sufficient to keep you away. If that's insufficient, it contains so much chronological and technical inaccuracy that I couldn't list it all here.

Patton: :daisy: this movie. Montgomery was a badass IRL.

Saving Private Ryan: Post D-Day the movie starts veering into fantasy. Good technical accuracy though.

The Last Samurai: So many inaccuracies, and things that just stretch credibility. A dude mastering Japanese and swordplay in a single Winter?

Troy: While it's based off of a myth, it's a myth based on a true event that we know or can extrapolate a good amount of information on, and since they left out all of the mythological elements, should be taken as a depiction of a historical event. I did enjoy watching Orlando Bloom get smacked around.

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

Quote:

---

My problem with historically inaccurate movies in general is that they are the only source of knowledge most people have about history (especially in the the US). Because no movie is without a couple of inaccuracies, usually made because the plot demands it, I divide them into more accurate and less accurate. Comedies, such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Black Adder, are not listed.

More Accurate:

Henry The Vth: Both versions are excellent, but for that one scene in the first one where the knights are lowered onto their horses with cranes.

---

I disagree, Agincourt was anything but a question of Chivalry, the French lost because thay had to charge up a muddy hill against showers of longbow bolts that could penetrate their armor. The King of England was so Chivalric before the battle that he left the town of Harfluer a burning ruin with all of its population deceased, and his battlefield chivalry was so impressive that when it seemed the French might win he had all of his prisoners killed. Removing the muddy hill and longbow is like removing the Bridge from William Wallace's great battle, which is a Mel Gibson thing. It is a good play, but don't go to it for accuracy, this is literally Rennaisance Spin Artistry at work, it of course will emphasize the knights. I love the Henry V play, but for accuracy it isn't reliable.

Quote:

---

Dat Boot: But for the crew messing with the reporter, good.

Downfall: But for a couple minor nitpicks, good.

Gettysburg: I can't think of anything wrong.

Master And Commander: I can't think of anything wrong.

Platoon: I can't think of anything wrong.

The Warlord: The costumes are a little off, but Charlton Heston's attitude is spot on.

Tora! Tora! Tora!: I can't think anything wrong.

Waterloo: The lengths they went through to make it accurate are amazing. They dug pipe systems under the battlefield to simulate the wet conditions.

Zulu: This movie is about 50-50, but I like it, so I'm putting it up here.

---

I don't really remember any of those

Quote:

---

300: 300 is special because not only does it manage to be batshit over the top ridiculous in its inaccuracy (I mean, one can't even begin to list all the things wrong with that movie), it manages to be almost stupefyingly racist as well. Also, I wish they could have dropped Gorgo's name in there somewhere, like during the sex scene.

Leonidas: "Oh, Gorgo!"
Audience: "Wait, what?"

---

Everyone here knows that 300 is ahistorical, but please leave politics to a different forum, you know the part of the forum reserved for it? Determining wether or not it is permitted to allow anyone to be villain who isn't english or french is not an issue for here, and I'm serious Mel Gibson has his englishmen burning women and children in church (a direct reference to Nazi World War Two atrocities), he has his English Leaders slaughter their own troops out of impatience, and he has never been accused of racism against England, so please leave the R word out of things related to anything Medieval or earlier. For an amusing take on Britain's bad guy status watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQHtQqbJqhE

Quote:

---

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

---

Be more specific? I found that it is the most historically accurate movie ever made, and most historical by far. Oliver Stone got details you probably never heard of right, i.e. the dress worn by Scythian Archers, Greek and Macedonian Sexual Ideals, emphasis of free warriors vs slave warriors. What exactly did Oliver Stone do wrong? The movie was about Alexander, not his battles, and it did cover his most important battles very well, so in my opinion grouping it with 300 is as tasteless as grouping Shakespear with modern American rap artists.

Quote:

---

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

---

Never saw it

Quote:

---

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

---

Be more specific? There are innacuracies, but I thought it was a great depiction of the Crusader States. You don't seriously think Christians and Muslims hated each other all the time do you?

Quote:

---

Knights Tale: *Bangs head against the wall*

Pearl Harbor: It has Ben Affleck. That alone should be sufficient to keep you away. If that's insufficient, it contains so much chronological and technical inaccuracy that I couldn't list it all here.

Patton: :daisy: this movie. Montgomery was a badass IRL.

Saving Private Ryan: Post D-Day the movie starts veering into fantasy. Good technical accuracy though.

The Last Samurai: So many inaccuracies, and things that just stretch credibility. A dude mastering Japanese and swordplay in a single Winter?

Troy: While it's based off of a myth, it's a myth based on a true event that we know or can extrapolate a good amount of information on, and since they left out all of the mythological elements, should be taken as a depiction of a historical event. I did enjoy watching Orlando Bloom get smacked around.

---

I agree on those

It's good.

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

I disagree, Agincourt was anything but a question of Chivalry, the French lost because thay had to charge up a muddy hill against showers of longbow bolts that could penetrate their armor. The King of England was so Chivalric before the battle that he left the town of Harfluer a burning ruin with all of its population deceased, and his battlefield chivalry was so impressive that when it seemed the French might win he had all of his prisoners killed. Removing the muddy hill and longbow is like removing the Bridge from William Wallace's great battle, which is a Mel Gibson thing. It is a good play, but don't go to it for accuracy, this is literally Rennaisance Spin Artistry at work, it of course will emphasize the knights. I love the Henry V play, but for accuracy it isn't reliable.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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



How is that historically accurate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by risker

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



How is that historically accurate?

---

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

http://www.1watchmovie.com/wp-conten...nghis-khan.jpg

Genghis Khan he is heaving a film wroth of him.

I was thinking of a different Genghis Khan

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

I was thinking of a different Genghis Khan

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

---

ah yes! the classical white guy portraying asian conqueror.

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...offumanchu.jpg

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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



How is that historically accurate?

---

See my above refutation.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badass Buddha

Knights Tale: *Bangs head against the wall*

Troy: While it's based off of a myth, it's a myth based on a true event that we know or can extrapolate a good amount of information on, and since they left out all of the mythological elements, should be taken as a depiction of a historical event. I did enjoy watching Orlando Bloom get smacked around.

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madoushi

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

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

---

A Knight's Tale: LOL

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

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

---

As indicated above, few slaves were worse off than those of the Spartans. Spartan society was extreme and, I imagine, thoroughly unpleasant for somebody with interests other than those in line with militarized proto-fascism.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badass Buddha

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

good bloody luck with that.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

A nice teaser:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcx...ome_shortfilms

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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

---

Yes. Ominous Latin Chanting, Vanilla RTW Egyptians, and Latin with some strange (Medieval? French) accent. The rest looks interesting though.
Covers the power struggle between Marcus Antonius and Octavianus. With actors looking similar to those of "Rome".

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

Just saw Deadliest Warrior season 2 preview.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spartan defeated Samurai for deadliest Ancient Warrior

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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

---

An Anabasis film? Yay!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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

---

Sony? Nooooo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julianus

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

---

More or less... regarding both. The movie follows the basic dramaturgy of the autobiography while making it more to the point. The key events are correct more or less. The people are all based on real people except Sherif Ali who is basically two historical people in one. The movie makes the character of Lawrence larger than life in every aspect: his virtues, him being an outsider, him fitting in with the Arabs, his hybris and his fall.
The thing is, the movie is not about a historically accurate portrayal a certain person and his time (that's what modern biopics do most of the time, which makes them quite boring for the most part) but more like taking a historical person and use him as a backdrop or example for showing timeless human struggles, quests, desires and maybe failings. Basically the same approach Shakespeare had with his "Julius Caesar". "Lawrence of Arabia" basically is a movie about identity. Lawrence struggles through the whole film to find himself, his identity, a place to belong but ultimately fails. Throughout the film different people ask numerous times who Lawrence is/was and there is never given any answer.
You may have guessed that I consider "Lawrence of Arabia" one of the best movies ever made.
Lawrence himself was quite accurate in his autobiography. Maybe he stressed his contribution to the guerrilla strategy of the Arabian revolt a bit to much at times, but basically he is very accurate. He makes some factual mistakes in his rendering of the Arabian campaign but that is by error not intentionally as he had to rewrite the book basically from his memory since he lost his notes and manuscripts. It's a good read. Very compelling and a beautiful account of the rich culture of the Arabic world.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

Just saw Deadliest Warrior season 2 preview.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spartan defeated Samurai for deadliest Ancient Warrior

---

Ofcourse they did.

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Talking about historical accuracy: I really think Mickey Rourke is perfect as Ghengis Khan. Click.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius Flaccus

Talking about historical accuracy: I really think Mickey Rourke is perfect as Ghengis Khan. Click.

---

I REALLY hope this a joke. Even John Wayne would say WTH?

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

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

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

I was thinking something along the lines of :

https://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y1...1/khaaan_2.jpg

"Ghengis KHAAAAAN!"

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

Spartans lead by Megas Alexandros against a herd of dinosaurs.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plutoboyz

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

---

Well maybe its because he is the king of sparta. What should he say in your opinion? "Well nay our health insurance system is better than yours, we rather stay independant" He was the leader of a fascist society and thus a bit biased. What a character says in a movie is not necessarily the opinion of the movie makers. The movie is a graphic novel adaptation, very close to it, but morally you can only blame the movie for one thing: It doesn't get the bad side of this fatalist behavior into focus. The makers of the comic and movie state nowhere that the spartians are right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mulceber

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

---

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

@Black Persians: Maybe from egypt?

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

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

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

I responded in here. If you don't have access to the Backroom, I can also PM my comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I responded in here. If you don't have access to the Backroom, I can also PM my comments.

---

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

It differs what people see, I see an action movie, not a political message. Maybe a bit a OT, but people see what they want to see.

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

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

~Fluvius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

It differs what people see, I see an action movie, not a political message. Maybe a bit a OT, but people see what they want to see.

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

---

Relax, its just an armpit ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

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

It differs what people see, I see an action movie, not a political message. Maybe a bit a OT, but people see what they want to see.

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

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

~Fluvius

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

people see what they want to see.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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

---

*Taps the "Like" button.*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mulceber

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

---

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

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

This is going to be awesome: click.

/sarcasm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius Flaccus

This is going to be awesome: click.

/sarcasm

---

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

~Fluvius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

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

~Fluvius

---

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

And Celts becoming the new Persians.:no:

Say, how does Apocalypto rank?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal Khan the Great

And Celts becoming the new Persians.:no:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Power2the1

Say, how does Apocalypto rank?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal Khan the Great

And Celts becoming the new Persians.:no:

---

:no:
dude, that is so not cool
and,
Caesar saying: THIS IS ROME!!!!!!!!!!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

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

---

the 1746 battle? or just shares a similar name?