Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

[geala]

From all movies about antiquity I like "Alexander" the most. It is not accurate, but it has at least some accuracy in it.

May I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire...

"All Quiet on the Western Front" is fictitious but is quite accurate about the Trench War experience of individuals. The book after the movie is made ("Im Westen nichts Neues" by E.M. Remarque, 1928/29) is one of several well made novels about WWI. Because it was not so much patriotic it was forbidden and burned by the Nazis after 1933. Remarque had joined the war only for a short time, but he took much information from the reports of other soldiers.

[Mulceber]

May I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire

I also was distinctly turned off from the film when it mentioned the dates at the beginning. But apart from that, the fact that there were sarmatians serving in the Roman army, the fact that they worked in Bishop Pelagius, who in fact did get excommunicated for his beliefs about free will. Looking back, I suppose you're right that it should be moved to the inaccurate column, as most of the weaponry and armor is inaccurate to the peoples/time period, but I give KA props for making use of the Sarmatian connection and some of the historical events that really were occurring in late antiquity, especially since so few movies are produced about this era. -M

[Ludens]

I also was distinctly turned off from the film when it mentioned the dates at the beginning. But apart from that, the fact that there were sarmatians serving in the Roman army, the fact that they worked in Bishop Pelagius, who in fact did get excommunicated for his beliefs about free will. Looking back, I suppose you're right that it should be moved to the inaccurate column, as most of the weaponry and armor is inaccurate to the peoples/time period, but I give KA props for making use of the Sarmatian connection and some of the historical events that really were occurring in late antiquity, especially since so few movies are produced about this era.

I give them props for introducing the theory that the myth of Arthur and his knights has its basis in the Sarmatian auxiliaries, but my impression is that they were muddled about everything else. Lucius Artorius Castus fought off a Pictish rather than Germanic invasion: I can only assume that they made the Germans the enemy because that is what the public expects. That is presumably also the reason for placing the story a century or two after Castus lived, making him a Christian, giving him modern opinions on religion and society, etc. This wouldn't have bothered me very much if it was a typical Hollywood film, but they explicitly claimed to have found the historical Arthur. Especially since the story of Castus is, at best, only one element of the Arthur myth as we known it, and there's several lines of evidence that contradict Artorius playing a significant role in the historical events.


Edit:
As for accurate/inaccurate films: how accurate is "Tora! Tora! Tora!" ? When I first watched it, I thought it was one of those role-played documentaries, but apparently it's a real film.

"The Last Samurai" is definitely inaccurate. Although the imagery of medieval samurai making a last death-or-glory charge against modernity (musket-armed line infantry) is very powerful, the reality was that both sides in the Satsuma Rebellion used muskets.

[satalexton]

Hush you, BAD LUDENS katanas can block bullets!

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

Ah how nice of you all to talk about me while I'm gone.

[Macilrille]

Edit:
As for accurate/inaccurate films: how accurate is "Tora! Tora! Tora!" ? When I first watched it, I thought it was one of those role-played documentaries, but apparently it's a real film.

"The Last Samurai" is definitely inaccurate. Although the imagery of medieval samurai making a last death-or-glory charge against modernity (musket-armed line infantry) is very powerful, the reality was that both sides in the Satsuma Rebellion used muskets.

I do not know about Tora x 3 as it is one of those I have not seen. However, the fighting in The Last Samurai is actually quite well done in contrast to most Hollywood movies. The various Achilleus Duels in Troy as well, the one with Hector is brilliant IMO.

[Krusader]

I remember that Tora Tora Tora used real planes & ships, but so long since I watched the movie now.

HBO Rome. You can say it depicts ancient Rome very accurately, but Ptolemaic Egypt? Its been given the CA treatment there too. Cleopatra's bodyguards were Galatians for one. Second the court would have had a more Hellenistic look too. Plus Bithynia is depicted as Arabic, when at this time was Hellenized.

Alexander by Oliver Stone. Persians looking like and speaking Arab...Roxanne was also caucasian. At least Macedonian army seemed accurate enough.

[satalexton]

I still can't get it out of my head, the phalangitai and their drills.....the gayness is bad, but I liked the battles with the phalanx...


ALL HAIL MAKEDONIA!!!

[athanaric]

May I ask a question about "King Arthur"? Is it the movie about the Sarmatian riders who formed the Roman cavalry? If then I would like to know what was accurate and well searched in this movie? I watched it with less than possible interest after I get told that the Romans were still in Britain in the middle of the 5th c. AD and that the pope was the leader of the Roman empire...

Yes, and it got some scathing reviews, I hear. Probably because they confused the Saxons with the Chinese and had some "Warrior Chick" (Keira Knightley with a bow. Yeah right. I wonder how she managed to draw the thing) thrown in for fanservice.

"All Quiet on the Western Front" is fictitious but is quite accurate about the Trench War experience of individuals. The book after the movie is made ("Im Westen nichts Neues" by E.M. Remarque, 1928/29) is one of several well made novels about WWI. Because it was not so much patriotic it was forbidden and burned by the Nazis after 1933. Remarque had joined the war only for a short time, but he took much information from the reports of other soldiers.

I remember reading that one as a kid. The novel is quite good.

HBO Rome. You can say it depicts ancient Rome very accurately, but Ptolemaic Egypt? Its been given the CA treatment there too. Cleopatra's bodyguards were Galatians for one. Second the court would have had a more Hellenistic look too. Plus Bithynia is depicted as Arabic, when at this time was Hellenized.

Yeah something of a wasted chance with those Ptolemaioi. Though some audiences (read: executives) probably never heard about Galatians or even Diadochs, so they would have claimed it "unhistorical" if the show had actually shown it the way it was.

Roxanne was also caucasian.

By which you mean: was also Caucasian in Real Life? Because in the film, Rosario Dawson looked vaguely African (due to her mixed white/black ancestry). Well, at least she was pretty - and not as starved as most other Hollywood chicks.

[Cadwalader]

I wouldn't call The Passion of the Christ very historical. While it's true that the characters speak Latin and Aramaic (which is damned awesome), they speak Church Latin. Greek would have been more fitting anyway. And the legionaries all wear LS.

[Mulceber]

I wouldn't call The Passion of the Christ very historical. While it's true that the characters speak Latin and Aramaic (which is damned awesome), they speak Church Latin. Greek would have been more fitting anyway. And the legionaries all wear LS.

Good point about the church latin, although that basically just means that their pronunciation was inaccurate. As for the LS, not sure how accurate or inaccurate that would be for the period: LS was at its height by the Flavian dynasty, but it's possible that it was already rather common by ~30 AD. Not saying it's right to have ALL the legionaries wearing it, but if those are the only problems with the Passion, it stands pretty well, historically speaking. Even shows like Rome had similar problems - the little Latin that is spoken in Rome is pronounced like Italian, and there's LS in season 2.

[Tenebrous]

Kingdom of Heaven is actually quite accurate. The character Balien actually did exist, but was born in Holy Land, but this is likely due to Ridley Scott making a character so sympathetic, he wouldn't get in trouble for a "pro-crusader" movie, which is kind of a touchy subject these days. For the most part, the directors cut it otherwise pretty close to what happened, minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing. Reynald of Chatillion was very well portrayed and

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

His death is generally excepted to have happened exactly like that, due to the Muslim tradition that you cannot kill a captive you have offered hospitality

The only other glaring flaw is King Guy was more of a bumbling goof who wanted everyone to like him, then a villainous jerk. Also

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Saladin didn't just let the people of Jerusalem leave.

Oh and

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Although perhaps the cheesiest part of the film, the real Balien really did knight about 50 men at arms during the siege of Jerusalem, although I'm sure in a slightly less dramatic fashion, although likely for the same reasons

Ridley Scott seems to at least due his research, and I prefer a researched film maker making my movies to a scholar making movies, which would end up being 7 hours long getting in every little thing that happened, and go way over budget making everything perfectly authentic.

Did no one else find Gladiator accurate, minus the actual storyline? I mean Commedus really was nuts, and did fight in the arena. Once again you can pick apart things, but for the most part he seems to have done a decent job representing Rome at the time.

[Mulceber]

Interesting - I haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven, although I suppose I probably should now - who knows, it might make me like Medieval II more.

I dunno, I can't put my finger on it, but something about the look of Gladiator has always struck me as wrong...it's a fun movie, no denying that, and one of the great modern sword-and-sandals flicks, but I guess it just didn't feel like a real society. There were aristocrats and then there were slaves. They didn't really delve into anyone in between, like Rome did. -M

[TancredTheNorman]

B]Kingdom of Heaven[/B] is actually quite accurate. The character Balien actually did exist, but was born in Holy Land, but this is likely due to Ridley Scott making a character so sympathetic, he wouldn't get in trouble for a "pro-crusader" movie, which is kind of a touchy subject these days. For the most part, the directors cut it otherwise pretty close to what happened, minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing. Reynald of Chatillion was very well portrayed and

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

His death is generally excepted to have happened exactly like that, due to the Muslim tradition that you cannot kill a captive you have offered hospitality

The only other glaring flaw is King Guy was more of a bumbling goof who wanted everyone to like him, then a villainous jerk. Also

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Saladin didn't just let the people of Jerusalem leave.

Oh and

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Although perhaps the cheesiest part of the film, the real Balien really did knight about 50 men at arms during the siege of Jerusalem, although I'm sure in a slightly less dramatic fashion, although likely for the same reasons

That is a bad reason though, the concern should be for quality, note that the HBO Rome series that everyone here universally liked never concerned itself with who would be offended, who wouldn't like this etc etc, although I agree that nudity and Crusades aren't the same thing.

Furthermore Guy de Lusignan was not a villainous jerk, I don't know what you have read but Ridley Scott butchered the love story, which actually was the Leper King allowed his daughter to pick a husband of her free will who she loved, and she chose Guy while the nobility and clergy was pressuring him, and her to pick Balien because his abilities were well known and respected. Muslims and Christians also did get along very well in the Crusader states, there are some very good books about it I could recommend. Saladin just letting everyone go was another change to avoid giving offense, I just don't understand things like that, the middle ages actually happened, and people who go to see movies set in it should be treated to it. It's one thing if it is one of the medieval idealist myths like King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, but there is no good reason to white wash the Crusades (except where popular perception sees it as worse then it was).

Ridley Scott seems to at least due his research, and I prefer a researched film maker making my movies to a scholar making movies, which would end up being 7 hours long getting in every little thing that happened, and go way over budget making everything perfectly authentic.

Did no one else find Gladiator accurate, minus the actual storyline? I mean Commedus really was nuts, and did fight in the arena. Once again you can pick apart things, but for the most part he seems to have done a decent job representing Rome at the time.

I agree, what he changed he did in order to make his movie more acceptable to the audience, it is clear that while he didn't depict it that he knew who Guy de Lusignan (very well portrayed, he really was a bumbling idiot who lost controll of a vassal)was, and he knew who Saladin was and he does a great job with these things.

It is ironic that Commodus couldn't be depicted as bad as he actually was, compared to Cassius Dio and other historians Ridley Scott gives Commodus a white wash. Respectable historians from the Roman Empire actually did suspect Marcus Aurelius was setting up someone else to rule, although they had no proof for it apart from comparing the reign of Commodus to Marcus Aurelius.

Ridley Scott deserves two thumbs up though, white washing and hesitation to depict slavery and massacres are minor compared to trash like Blood and Sand, 300, and other recently done idiocy

[Madoushi]

A white wash? The Commodus described on Wikipedia sounds like a saint compared to the one in the film.
Gladiator may have gotten the details of the period right, but the plot felt like a parody to me. I didn't like it at all, though I can't deny it's quality.

Kingdom of Heaven seemed really interesting, and I set time aside to watch it both times it played on History Television, but both times I fell asleep during the first act and woke up to hear Saladin assure that guy he wouldn't send his soldiers into the city the way the Christians did. I thought that part was true, History on Film said it was, but I wouldn't know the Levant from a savant.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah, I didn't care for Orlando Bloom, but the supporting cast was really great. I loved Saladin.

[Hax]

minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing.

One of the biggest misunderstandings about the crusading era is that Muslims and Christians hated eachother all the time. It's simply not true. The Copts were respected, as were the Armenian and Greek eastern churches. Before the Ayyubids took over control of Egypt, the Fatimids and Byzantine Empire were BFF. ;)

I don't know what's your problem with "300". It's officially based on a comic, not any ancient historical scource. Has there ever been a claim to be historically accurate?

Actually...

300's director Zack Snyder stated in an MTV interview that "the events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy.... I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is."

"world-class historians", yeah right.

[Tenebrous]

I wasn't saying they hated each other, but I would say it was closer to tolerance than brotherly love in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It also depended on the individual. Orlando Blooms speecha t the end would more likely have gotten him lynched than inspire the troops.

[gamerdude873]

I wouldn't call The Passion of the Christ very historical. While it's true that the characters speak Latin and Aramaic (which is damned awesome), they speak Church Latin. Greek would have been more fitting anyway. And the legionaries all wear LS.

I agree quite a bit. The passion contains many errors that could have been easily corrected.

1)Pilate is (as in all the gospels) clearly whitewashed and upright, whereas Josephus condemns him as a clearly autocratic tyrant who deliberately provoked the Jews, then executed them, on several occasions. He is also shown to be weak and easily pushed around by Caiaphas. Historically, Caiaphas only had his job as long as Pilate let him have it. Caiaphas was not popular as a roman sympathizer and thus could hardly lead a rebellion against his employer, as Pilate was worried. Moreover, Pilate was a paranoid man who was clearly in league (though one has to read the gospels VERY closely to see it) with the authorities, seeing how he lent them troops to arrest Jesus (in John). The Jews had no right to order Roman soldiers around, so who do you think gave them to the arrestors? Pilate did. The same man who caused an uprising in the Temple court was in town, so Pilate could not have an inflamatory man like Yeshua out and about during a nationalistic holiday.

2) Yeshua himself is flayed alive, but if one actually counts the number of times he was flogged in the movie, it was well above the standard 39 lashes. The other criminals are not even chastised before execution, the common procedure. The Roman execution squad appears to be either drunk on duty or excessively cruel, and defied orders in the movie. I'm really sure that would have gone over well with their officers. They also dislocate Yeshua's shoulder, something that is not mentioned anywhere nor was particularly necessary.

3)Worst of all, Mel Gibson took it upon himself to portray the Jews in general as murderous, cruel, and traitorous, rather than the simply the Temple Authorities, who were the real source of the trouble and injustice that Jesus was attempting to confront, in order to establish his vision of a new world order (The Kingdom of Heaven vs. the Kingdoms of Earth).

4) Quite ironically and irrationally, the same people who were transfixed by Jesus' teaching, welcomed him as a king into the city, could be later found tormenting him and calling for his execution in the movie. In reality, Jesus would have had the people on his side the whole way through. They trusted him. WHy would they suddenly turn on him? Mel Gibson also used a notoriously anti-semitc nun from around the 1800's who claimed to have visions of the passion as a source for the movie.

5) the Lorica Segmentata doesn't look quite right. It's better than most i've seen in movies, but it leaves the a large part of the upper chest exposed. As I understand it, the LS covered from the base of the neck to the waist. And yes, the church Latin vs ancient latin and greek...

The list could go on. The Passion is a well-made movie, but I don't know about it being terribly accurate. It tended to come off as the Gospel according to Mel Gibson. :)

[Mulceber]

I agree quite a bit. The passion contains many errors that could have been easily corrected.

1)Pilate is (as in all the gospels) clearly whitewashed and upright, whereas Josephus condemns him as a clearly autocratic tyrant who deliberately provoked the Jews, then executed them, on several occasions. He is also shown to be weak and easily pushed around by Caiaphas. Historically, Caiaphas only had his job as long as Pilate let him have it. Caiaphas was not popular as a roman sympathizer and thus could hardly lead a rebellion against his employer, as Pilate was worried. Moreover, Pilate was a paranoid man who was clearly in league (though one has to read the gospels VERY closely to see it) with the authorities, seeing how he lent them troops to arrest Jesus (in John). The Jews had no right to order Roman soldiers around, so who do you think gave them to the arrestors? Pilate did. The same man who caused an uprising in the Temple court was in town, so Pilate could not have an inflamatory man like Yeshua out and about during a nationalistic holiday.

2) Yeshua himself is flayed alive, but if one actually counts the number of times he was flogged in the movie, it was well above the standard 39 lashes. The other criminals are not even chastised before execution, the common procedure. The Roman execution squad appears to be either drunk on duty or excessively cruel, and defied orders in the movie. I'm really sure that would have gone over well with their officers. They also dislocate Yeshua's shoulder, something that is not mentioned anywhere nor was particularly necessary.

3)Worst of all, Mel Gibson took it upon himself to portray the Jews in general as murderous, cruel, and traitorous, rather than the simply the Temple Authorities, who were the real source of the trouble and injustice that Jesus was attempting to confront, in order to establish his vision of a new world order (The Kingdom of Heaven vs. the Kingdoms of Earth).

4) Quite ironically and irrationally, the same people who were transfixed by Jesus' teaching, welcomed him as a king into the city, could be later found tormenting him and calling for his execution in the movie. In reality, Jesus would have had the people on his side the whole way through. They trusted him. WHy would they suddenly turn on him? Mel Gibson also used a notoriously anti-semitc nun from around the 1800's who claimed to have visions of the passion as a source for the movie.

5) the Lorica Segmentata doesn't look quite right. It's better than most i've seen in movies, but it leaves the a large part of the upper chest exposed. As I understand it, the LS covered from the base of the neck to the waist. And yes, the church Latin vs ancient latin and greek...

The list could go on. The Passion is a well-made movie, but I don't know about it being terribly accurate. It tended to come off as the Gospel according to Mel Gibson. :)

Thanks for the points, Gamerdude. Good to get someone who knows his stuff to review it. -M

[Cyclops]

I think Hollywood spin docvtors say "oh and we did heaps of research and its 100% accurate" for any historical film they make.

SPR is a case in point, it was an excellent looking WW2 drama, but they left out details like the British army, (although the criticism of Monty was realistic, the Yanks definitely thought he was overrated) and they cast a bunch of 40 and 50-year old actors like Sammy from Cheers and that lame comedian from Big when the average age in that army was around 25 (IIRC it was a largely green army mostly raised in the States and shipped direct to the fighting). From what I saw Band of Bros was closer, they looked pretty young, even the officers.

AFAIK there was some nice costume design in Gladiator but the storyline was hokum. Marcus Aurelius was a secret republican? Commodus was a nervous self-doubter with a harelip? This is fantasy. The opening batlle scene is a delight and if an historian assures me its a good re-enactment I'll believe them but don't tell me Gladiator was history. Commodus was an overconfident nutjob who bashed animals with a club in the arena (dressed as Hercules) and was strangled in his bath. Once again excellent research on the setting but the story fell into the hands of a writer, for whom hiistory has little value.

Alexander was AFAIK a better stab at it, left stuff out but didn't stray from the accepted storyline, even left a few controversial things deliberately vague. Eg was Al big gay Al? All you see is a bit of a kiss and Bagoas putting out the lights...maybe they were just good friends, its up to the viewer to decide. I especially like the bit where old narrating Ptolemy says something like "Alexander was poisoned we all knew it...no wauit change that, he died of fever" which sort of bundles together the main theories and once again, make up your own mind.

That recent King Arthur was rubbish, Nazi Saxons? Sarmatians using 2-handed axes and weird fist-knives? Roman forces in Britian amojunted to slightly more than half-a-dozen randy Sarmatians. Some vague guesswork about the end-game of Roman rule in Britain is not history, it was wildly speculative.

Kingdom of heavebn is another Galdiator, some nice costumes, a few real names and a real war but the narrative is a fantasty and major lies told for the purpose of the story. EG the last King of Jerusalem was dwarfed and seruiously deformed by his leprosy, it wasn't just a little hole in one cheek, nor did he wear a silver mask. Also he was only about 24 when he died, the actor was a much older man.

The siege was a very bloody affair, and did not end with a peaceful line of pilgrims trudging home. Salah-ud-Din was a very noble and gentle ruler by the standards of the times (and compared to the Christians), but he slaughtered all the templars and Hospitallars IIRC.

[antisocialmunky]

If you watched the extended edition, he had no face when his mask was taken off.

[Chirurgeon]

Accurate?

[athanaric]

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.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Kingdom of Heaven is actually quite accurate. The character Balien actually did exist, but was born in Holy Land, but this is likely due to Ridley Scott making a character so sympathetic, he wouldn't get in trouble for a "pro-crusader" movie, which is kind of a touchy subject these days. For the most part, the directors cut it otherwise pretty close to what happened, minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing. Reynald of Chatillion was very well portrayed and

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

His death is generally excepted to have happened exactly like that, due to the Muslim tradition that you cannot kill a captive you have offered hospitality

The only other glaring flaw is King Guy was more of a bumbling goof who wanted everyone to like him, then a villainous jerk. Also

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Saladin didn't just let the people of Jerusalem leave.

Oh and

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Although perhaps the cheesiest part of the film, the real Balien really did knight about 50 men at arms during the siege of Jerusalem, although I'm sure in a slightly less dramatic fashion, although likely for the same reasons

Ridley Scott seems to at least due his research, and I prefer a researched film maker making my movies to a scholar making movies, which would end up being 7 hours long getting in every little thing that happened, and go way over budget making everything perfectly authentic.

Did no one else find Gladiator accurate, minus the actual storyline? I mean Commedus really was nuts, and did fight in the arena. Once again you can pick apart things, but for the most part he seems to have done a decent job representing Rome at the time.

On the other hand, Robin Hood was not only totally historically innacurate, but also innacurate to the Robin Hood story. D-Day naval invasions of Britain, the defense against which is led by some peasant and a woman, and King Richard was just killed? totally innacurate on every end of the spectrum.

[Hax]

Saladin didn't just let the people of Jerusalem leave.

Correct, at first he said he would repay the Crusaders the same way as they'd done in in 1099. Then Balian gave his monologue about how they'd burn the Dome of the Rock to the ground and kill every man, woman and child and all the Saracen captives (5,000 in total). At that point, Saladin discussed with his advisors, and he gave the Christians free passage if every man would pay 10 dinars, every woman 5 and every child (of both sexes) 2 dinars. If they would not pay (and not leave), they'd be sold into slavery. Balian proceeded to ransom all the poor for a total amount of 30,000 dinars, to which Saladin complied.

It has to be said though, that after the Bishop of Jerusalem had left with all the treasure, and some people were unable to leave the city, Saladin, his brother, and his brother in-law paid for the free passage of those people out of their own treasury.

[HFox]

D-Day naval invasions of Britain, the defense against which is led by some peasant and a woman, and King Richard was just killed? totally innacurate on every end of the spectrum.

This did occur a few times apart from Roman invasions...the battle of portsmouth harbour circa 500Ad was one of the first post Rome

http://nestmitchtri.blogspot.com/200...h-harbour.html

and after this the danes were all over us like a bad rash

Not saying it is accurate but....

[Trve Leveller]

Kingdom of Heaven was terrible in terms of historical accuracy (Ottoman renaissance armoury, saber wielding Saracens...), as was Gladiator and Robin Hood (Cate Blanchett is wearing a Sallet!)
@representation of Rome in Gladiator: Too clean and white. HBO's Rome is more accurate, painted temples, mud and graffitti.

Thing thats sucks about 90% of historical war movies is the unrealistic representation of armour. Yeah they spent a fortune to wear heavy armour that gets piercing by everything like its made of paper...


My list of accurate Films:
Flesh+Blood (About Landsknechts)
Alatriste (Most accurate depiction of warfare, weaponry, armour and clothing of such an early time since Cromwell)
Cromwell
Master and Commander (Unbelievable, an expansive hollywood movie thats accurate even in tiny details!)
Barry Lyndon

[Ca Putt]

what exactly do you mean with ridiculous? the story which was really quite far off history at least from what the wiki article states or the equipment? I'm a total noob on Chinese non treasure fleet navy so I don't have a clue about the accuracy of the ships whereas the armor looked at least somewhat plausible(unlike goemon). The tactics did not at all look very accurate but I'm no expert on chinese military.

mhhh more movies to check, YAY!

[Cyclops]

....Flesh+Blood (About Landsknechts)...

Nasty grimy renaissance authenticity.

....Alatriste (Most accurate depiction of warfare, weaponry, armour and clothing of such an early time since Cromwell)...

Absolutely loved it, stylish stylish movie.

....Master and Commander (Unbelievable, an expansive hollywood movie thats accurate even in tiny details!)...

Wasn't there a bit of lore-rape? Not too bad as entertainment though.

....Barry Lyndon

Yeah but the comment about snooefest was apposite, this one took ages. great bit of film making for realism and cinematography and it was even true to the book more or less..which was alos a bit boring.

I like your taste though, I must have a look at Cromwell.