Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

[TancredTheNorman]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[bobbin]

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.

[athanaric]

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.