Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badass Buddha

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

---

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

Racism is failed term anyways.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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

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

---

That trope is old as hell.

Just look at this.

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

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

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

2. Horns on the helmets. I mean duh.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

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

Racism is failed term anyways.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cadwalader

That trope is old as hell.

---

Always good to meet another Troper. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badass Buddha

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

*WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS ABOUND*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

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

---

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

Quote:

---

and Carthaginians.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

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

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

2. Horns on the helmets. I mean duh.

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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

---

And where is the DS9?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

And where is the DS9?

---

TNG Era.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badass Buddha

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

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

I thought the Greeks mentioned Carthaginian human sacrifice too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

TNG Era.

---

Ahh, missed the era word, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

Unfortunately I never managed to sit through Apoc

---

Nothing unfortunate about that.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I thought the Greeks mentioned Carthaginian human sacrifice too?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mediolanicus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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

---

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

Edit: Well not all, but a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badass Buddha

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

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

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

---

That's really interesting. Thanks!

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badass Buddha

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Agreed. Probably also part of what caused their downfall.

Quote:

---

The only societies I can think of that relish watching people butcher each other so much are our Western ones.

---

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

Quote:

---

but the message that the Maya were a savage, bloodthirsty, decadent civilization that needed to be saved by Western Christians seems racist to me.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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

---

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