Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

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