Depictions of Classical Period Battles in Film

[Leviathan DarklyCute]

Wait 'till you see the phalangites of Alexander.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDhUZGX4T0s

I just saved your time

[CirdanDharix]

My mother is going to pass me her DVD of Alexander. Apparently, she says there's only two interesting battle scenes, the rest is crap. And she's no historian.

[Cybvep]

It disappointed me also that they didn't throw pila in HBO's Rome, but you have to realize how dangerous that would be to the actors. As for their not charging at a run, it was rare that formations would do that. That's why whenever a formation does charge at a run, it's mentioned explicitly as something extraordinary. The Persians at Marathon were astounded when the Athenians did this.

They were astonished because the Greeks were outnumbered at least 2:1 and they were running from the beginning, not only at the last "phase" of army's advance. They thought Greeks mad, but you can probably imagine that it was common even for an organised formation to charge from 30-40 meters at the enemy, as the impact was much greater than in case of simply "marching into the enemy". The moment of impact was crucial. Imagine hundreds, sometimes thousands of men clashing, screaming, bashing with their shields, pushing as hard as they can and attacking with their spears from above or doing quick thrusts or swings (probably very ineffective in very close order) with their swords. Then imagine the screams of the trampled (sometimes by their own friends!), roars of pain and desperate fighting of people whose weapons got broken. And then imagine the action on the flanks, where men were forced not only to beat their enemies as hard as they could, but also watch their sides and backs. Hollywood won't go there for a loooooooooong time.

[unreal_uk]

The problem with 'Hollywood', is that it's often not the fault of the guys responsible for the foundations of the film - the writers, who would naturally have enough of a passion for history to spend months writing a script about a certain historical event.

They have great ambitions to have fully realised and entertaining historical battles, but when it comes to production, their opinion means shit. The director might know absolutely nothing about historical battles, preferring instead what might look nice or 'cool' on camera, or failing that, the studios will get involved and use the classic old excuses of 'oh, the audience won't understand what's going on', so inevitably, battles become about two large CGI masses charging at each other across a field, leading to a massive misconception about such events.

[Tancredii]

I thought Gaugamela in Alexander was pretty good. One of the historian advising the film makers was "paid" by being one of Alexander's companion cavalry. I think he whinged a bit about the use of stirrup but health and safety wouldn't let them do without.

As for 300 it's an adaptation of a comic, not meant to be a realistic view of the events at Thermopylai. Just be thankful it may have got some numpties interested in the period and leave it at that.

[antisocialmunky]

They were astonished because the Greeks were outnumbered at least 2:1 and they were running from the beginning, not only at the last "phase" of army's advance. They thought Greeks mad, but you can probably imagine that it was common even for an organised formation to charge from 30-40 meters at the enemy, as the impact was much greater than in case of simply "marching into the enemy". The moment of impact was crucial. Imagine hundreds, sometimes thousands of men clashing, screaming, bashing with their shields, pushing as hard as they can and attacking with their spears from above or doing quick thrusts or swings (probably very ineffective in very close order) with their swords. Then imagine the screams of the trampled (sometimes by their own friends!), roars of pain and desperate fighting of people whose weapons got broken. And then imagine the action on the flanks, where men were forced not only to beat their enemies as hard as they could, but also watch their sides and backs. Hollywood won't go there for a loooooooooong time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_vw...eature=related

See guys on bottom. I love how those guys just keep going into the formation. Lol.

The one thing I wished that hollywood would realize is that armor actually works, its not just there for show. Arrows don't not go straight through the center of a piece of scale armor like it wasn't there!

[Rodion Romanovich]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_vw...eature=related

See guys on bottom. I love how those guys just keep going into the formation. Lol.

The one thing I wished that hollywood would realize is that armor actually works, its not just there for show. Arrows don't not go straight through the center of a piece of scale armor like it wasn't there!

The guy pushing the other around 2:12 is awesome!

Edit: that festival seems interesting. Is it held anually? Might even be worth going there for vacation some time

[Gaius Valerius]

alexander is one of those few films in my opinion that give an accurate historical viewpoint, especially concerning costumes and such. the battles may not be that special (since their so short) but the movie as a whole is in my opinion pretty good. one of the best - if not the best - i ever saw.

i liked spartacus but its a bit old yeah us youngsters right the hopeless CGI generation

the worst ever has to be gladiator. just the first scenes of that battle made me friggin sick. if romans dressed up like that i would've let them cut my head of in that forest.

troy was nice but totally unrealistic - referring to how it followed the actual myth. king arthur was pretty nice, but that late classic period. 300 was ownage but then again not realistic but oh so sweet

considering the latest craploads of movies we've seen recently like that about the last roman emperor omg!!!



lets hope someone on these forum makes it big time in hollywood...

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

How bad you might find Alexander, you must admit that

1. Gaugamela was great and
2. Roxane was indeed hot.

[Gaivs]

I strongly urge everyone to get their hands on a copy of Alexander Revisited the final cut. It goes far deeper than the original, way more in it and also completely different in that it is far more accurate and with greater attention to detail. Just small things, in the original he would say hold them with your spears, in this version, he would say hold them with your sarissas. Things like that which are noticable and make the movie way cooler.

[Intranetusa]

How bad you might find Alexander, you must admit that

2. Roxane was indeed hot.

Except Roxane was portrayed by a Cuban-black-Irish-Native American actress who looked nothing remotely close to Persian/Bactrian/inhabitants of western Asian.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
The man says hot, not accurate. Or do you think Cuban-black-Irish-Native American actresses aren't hot?
.

[Intranetusa]

.
The man says hot, not accurate. Or do you think Cuban-black-Irish-Native American actresses aren't hot?
.

They are hot, just not the one who portrayed Roxanne in the movie. :(

[russia almighty]

Probably could have grabbed a random Indian ho and gotten closer to the real deal .

[MiniMe]

O.Stone "Alexander" seems to be a very accurate depiction of a man with Oedipean complex who's trying to run away from his burden to the other side of the world and by neglecting female sexuality. I believe O.Stone to be a great moviemaker, "Nixon" my favourite.
However, I'm sure real Megas Alexandros wasn't driven by Oedipean complex.

As per R.Dowson... some of her... parts are the best parts of this movie

[-sKy-]

Don´t crucify me when i say... The Last Legion

Okay, just a joke... but beside the very crapy story, a mixup between Odoaker and and the Gotiv Theoderich the Great, it has a little nice battle with a Legion NOT armed with Lorica´s, but a kind of leather Armor... and they even make a Testudo (but then naturally give up formation and fight hollywood style )

[cmacq]

As long as we're crossing people?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tue...eature=related

Hideous movie, yet I don't know what it is about Picts losing their heads? In English, my friendly peace loving clan's war cry was something like, 'our weapons bespeckled red.' I think the last recorded head taking occurred in the mid-1600s? Ever hear of the 'Well of the Seven Heads?' We called it Tobar-Kean.

http://www.ambaile.org.uk/en/item/ph...id=4665&zoom=2

My great-great-grand dad used to scare the hell out of me with this story when I was a kid. Heads in a bag begin to wail, bawl, sob, and whine like babies cause they couldn't see as their blood had caked over their eyes. What was that line, 'Proud sirs draw near the well as you shall wash our face of sin that we may once again all see?'


Morbid, yes!

[Thaatu]

I know, it is a little hard to imagine someone living in Bactria and having a tan. These kinds of inaccuracies can ruin a movie.

A non-related image.

[antisocialmunky]

I know, it is a little hard to imagine someone living in Bactria and having a tan. These kinds of inaccuracies can ruin a movie.

A non-related image.

To be honest though, there was so much migration in that area that anything could happen.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

.
The man says hot, not accurate.

Exactly!

I know, it is a little hard to imagine someone living in Bactria and having a tan. These kinds of inaccuracies can ruin a movie.

So all Baktrians had to be snow-white? Think more of ski-instructors. These aren't exactly snow-white as well...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Roxanne would not have been that dark, deal with it. Her dad is Mongolid, so consider that.

However, in general Alexander was as realistic as any retelling of history ever is.

Rome was terrible, the crappy Lorica Segmentata was the final insult. There is no excuse for that level of stupidity these days.

As for Gladiator, lets just say the historical advisor there felt bad about taking his money.

[Thaatu]

So all Baktrians had to be snow-white? Think more of ski-instructors. These aren't exactly snow-white as well...

My post was 100% sarcastic.

However, in general Alexander was as realistic as any retelling of history ever is.

That is what everyone forgets about the movie. It's not a straight account by any means. It is told by Ptolemy I, through his words. I'm not sure if what you said was meant as a sarcastic remark, but you're right with that.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

My post was 100% sarcastic.

I somehow didn't get this.

[pezhetairoi]

Rome was terrible, the crappy Lorica Segmentata was the final insult. There is no excuse for that level of stupidity these days.

Ehh, what Segmentata? I didn't see no Segmentata in Rome. o.O

On the pilum issue in Rome, they could have CGI'd it in, I'm sure. Just get the guys to throw oh I don't know, black cotton wads, then model pila to follow the trajectories while the opponents just fell when touched by a cotton ball. Besides, there wouldn't be any danger. After all, they made a perfectly satisfactory arrow-storm in Alexander. And you do see arrows hitting the phalangites.

Speaking of which, were the phalangites really THAT susceptible to arrows as they were in Alexander? The impression I got was that half the phalanx went down in the arrowstorm, then miraculously healed itself next scene, not that practically no one was hurt in it as the phalanx should do. o.O

[antisocialmunky]

Ehh, what Segmentata? I didn't see no Segmentata in Rome. o.O

On the pilum issue in Rome, they could have CGI'd it in, I'm sure. Just get the guys to throw oh I don't know, black cotton wads, then model pila to follow the trajectories while the opponents just fell when touched by a cotton ball. Besides, there wouldn't be any danger. After all, they made a perfectly satisfactory arrow-storm in Alexander. And you do see arrows hitting the phalangites.

Speaking of which, were the phalangites really THAT susceptible to arrows as they were in Alexander? The impression I got was that half the phalanx went down in the arrowstorm, then miraculously healed itself next scene, not that practically no one was hurt in it as the phalanx should do. o.O

Hollywoods likes showing large groups of doods drop dead from arrows. That linothorax should have offered decent protection against arrow fire not to mention they did have some shielding too which was one of the reasons why I hate Hollywood for not protraying armour well. Also, in the second arrow show only 2-3 guys drop.

[Intranetusa]

Roxanne would not have been that dark, deal with it. Her dad is Mongolid, so consider that.

However, in general Alexander was as realistic as any retelling of history ever is.

"Her dad is Mongolid" ???

Ummm, I don't think her father Oxyartes is a Mongoloid/East Asian. They're in Afghanistan at that point, so she's a Persian.

[sdk80]

I have to agree that Alexander is probably the most realistic movie, that shows antic battle tactics

Like someone else already said, Spartacus is nice, but old

Ben Hur shows a very realistic and nice sea battle, the chariot race in the arena is also great - a must have seen!

Gladiator battle scenes are unrealistic and the whole story isn't historic at all (beginning battle scene: A teutonic army would have never attacked a superior Roman army in the open like this. no f... way. Arena battle scenes: The gladiators don't fight with the historic proofed equipment and weapons - in contrary they are dressed up in a way how clueless Hollywood directors think it looks cool)

Troy is also unrealistic, especially the battles in front of the citywall and most of the costumes aren't historic.

300 is a mere fantasy movie

King Arthur again is one of the worst movies I've ever seen (the whole story is rudiculous: in reality the not romanised Celts of Wales and Scotland probably would have been the first to greet the Saxons with open arms for slaying the hated Roman breed. By the way in real history the Romanised Celts and the Romans, which stayed in Britain, invited the first Saxons to come to Britain in order to serve as mercenaries against the wild Celts. Bad luck for them, that the Saxons prefered to take over. The battle scenes are useless, since the Saxons act like stupid canon fodder puppets. Or Keira Knightley as female celtic archer warrior... Hollywood at its best)

[antisocialmunky]

Gladiator battle scenes are unrealistic and the whole story isn't historic at all (beginning battle scene: A teutonic army would have never attacked a superior Roman army in the open like this. no f... way. Arena battle scenes: The gladiators don't fight with the historic proofed equipment and weapons - in contrary they are dressed up in a way how clueless Hollywood directors think it looks cool)

Gladiator as even the guys behind it said were based on Romanic ideas of what Rome was instead of the history. Its as much fantasy as 300.

[J.Alco]

Ah yes, 300. It ain't accurate, but it'll blow your ****ing mind

In all seriousness though, I thought the movie was fine but preferred the comic to it. I could give any number of reasons why, but it'll take too much space here. Suffice to say, the comic at least doesn't have any of that political intrigue crap (which, let's face it, was just filler material) nor did it blatantly pander to the 'girl-power' audience (for Chrissake, the queen had Leonidas wrapped around her little finger! I almost yelled in anger when he looked to her for permission to kick an emissary down a well!).

The gladiator battle scene was innaccurate, but it was still entertaining.

Troy was just hollywood crap. I could go on and on about Troy, but then this post would stretch on for another 2 metres.

Alexander has the most realistic battle scenes, in my opinion. Spartacus ain't bad too. Rome is pretty good too, but as to the 'crappy Lorica Segmentata', I think the poster was thinking of Spartacus, not Rome, where they use chainmail.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Gladiator battle scenes are unrealistic and the whole story isn't historic at all (beginning battle scene: A teutonic army would have never attacked a superior Roman army in the open like this. no f... way.

First of all, that is not entirely true... if cornered they would (and sometimes through sheer overconfidence), as evidenced by the writers from Caesar all the way through Ammianus Marcellinus (ie the Battle of Argentorate/Strasbourg). Apart from the simple fact that the opening battle in Gladiator is not in the open field.

Second, even though the Romans eventually tended to win the wars against the barbarians, the cost was inevitably high for them as well (much higher than most people think). They attacked quite often and, especially using surprise, they did so quite effectively. The wars of Domitian, Marcus Aurelius were so bitter and hard fought for a reason. Just before the battle of Strasbourg, the Alamanni had managed to destroy an army on its way to the area coming from Italy (one arm of the two pronged assault on the Alamanni).


Also, even though the Roman army was more disciplined and better trained than most, keeping formation once battle commenced was one of the hardest thing to do.... just as it is unrealistic to depict a battle as two hordes of unorganized mobs running at eachother, it is equally unrealistic to depict it as neat parade ground formations havig a go at each other.

Also, as far as the cleanliness and soldiers being dressed according to regulation, that is of course an illusion as well. First of all simply due to the rigors of campaigning, sometimes in miserable circumstances. The simple fact that much of the supply (things like clothing, winter wear etc) and repairs by units was done locally will also work against uniformity. The Vindolanda tables and some papyri offer ample proof of that.
Simply put, IMHO, the Romans campaigned under similar circumstances as armies all the way through the era of Napoleon, with pretty much the same possibilities (and limitations) where supply and logistics are concerned. To my knowledge most armies by the end of campaigning season looked a far cry from what they were supposed to look like under regulation. Look at ANY picture of the WW II era after taken in a combat zone (say Stalingrad, Normandy and Cassino), and most men will look quite scruffy. So why should the Roman army be ANY different?

Even in the modern era there is ample evidence for that. Few soldiers serving today in Iraq and Afghanistan follow regulation practices in the field (and that starts as soon as they by and wear stuff like shoes, vests etc bought on their own!). Hell, there is even a picture of men from a German Panzer Jaeger Abteilung in 1944 visiting the Louvre, with less than 10% of the men wearing regulation uniforms!