Ancient warfare movies

[Aemilius Paulus]

The recent HBO series ROME begins with a brief battle between a cohort and some Gauls. The legionaries are formed and the Gauls are to the front jeering and screaming before widely charging. The Romans had apparently already used their pila. As the fight progressed the centurion would occasionally blow a whistle to order the front rank to retire. It was the most convincing portrayal of legion combat I have ever seen.

Yeah, that was the only Hollywood production that I have seen up to date and that was historically accurate. I absolutely loved it!

[-Praetor-]

Yeah, that was the only Hollywood production that I have seen up to date and that was historically accurate. I absolutely loved it!

Got bad news for you, it wasn`t a hollywood production, but a joint BBC, RAI and HBO production, and it was filmed mainly in Italy.

So no, Holywood remains true to it`s principles.

[polluxlm]

In my opinion all historical movies are lacking in one way or the other. There is no Godfather in that genre.

There are some really good ones though.

Alexander

The movie with the most highlights. Stone captures Alexanders larger than life persona effectively with heroic and uncompromising portrails at the battle of Gaugamela and Hydaspes. To engage the superior army of Darius with supreme confidence immediately gives you the feeling of greatness. Zeus be with us! gives me chills every time. Farrell gives a strong performance at the key points, although he falls short on a few instances. All in all you are left with the feeling of a force of nature that shamelessly dies way too early, possibly (probably in my mind) by assassinaton. We must kill the dreamers before they exhaust us all. Great line, and very symptomatic of how historical greats are often perceived and treated by the less great ones.

Some gripes of course. Alexander is way too good and humanitarian. All his fould deeds are given justification to the extreme, and the pragmatic side of him is completely ignored. The gay aspect is given too much importance. There is nothing special about royalty in Greece having boy lovers in that time, so don't try and make it so. Especially the scene with Aristotle feels extremely forced. And the kid Alexander is a weak actor with often weak lines.

The Revisited version is far superior to the other cuts.

Kingdom Of Heaven

I'm of course talking about the DC version. Great actors for the most part. Even Bloom does a decent job. Accurate and objective in the portrails. The honor aspect works great and carries a timeless relevance. You could in a way use this film as a manual to how to lead a good life. The philosophy is very mature, one of several things making this a serious movie. Being Ridley Scott the cinematography and sets are exquisit (sp?). Beautiful and detailed all around.

Gripes: Some artistic freedom taken to portray some of the characters as either better or worse than they actually were. Guy's decision to attack Saladin is a bit too simplified. Nobody is that stupid unless somehow forced into it. Makes you feel a little cheated. The relationship with Sybylla, although possible, takes way too much freedom in establishing the mandatory love story and ignoring some of the very strict rules royalty had to follow. Going back to France with him is totally ridiculous and uncessesary.

Others in the same category, what I perceive to be serious movies:

Spartacus, Gladiator, HBO's Rome, Braveheart.

Fun movies: 300, Troy.

Stay away from: King Arthur (absolutely terrible, an insult to watch)

[||Lz3||]

umm wouldn't KoH be medieval , not ancient times?


there aren't many historical films out there... one of the best that I can remember is "the fall" but I uess that isn't ancient hehe.

and troy was... damn I couldn't finish it :P

[GodEmperorLeto]

List includes non-ancient/classical movies, too. And a few non-war but still classical-related.


FAVORITE

Alexander Director's Cut: Say what you will about Oliver Stone, and about this film, I still like it a great deal. What amazes me is how much of the actual Alexander story they managed to pull in. Although I would rather have seen Gaugamela and Granicus as separate fights, I expected the extremely cinematic events of Granicus to be merged with the ultimately decisive Gaugamela, which is precisely what occurred. The Hydaspes was a slight let-down when he was wounded. His homosexuality with Hephaistion was not over-played or under-played, in my opinion. Rosario Dawson... yeah. And I get to see Babylon recreated in all its glory.

Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut: Much better movie than the theatrical release. A superb work by Scott. Superior in all ways to Gladiator (see below). As for those of you who mentioned the brutality of the Christians against their enemies, I'd like to remind you that this was a time when everyone was generally brutal to everyone else, and that religion was just a convenient excuse to justify said brutality. As for Saladin, he was done amazingly well in this film, and the fact that he was actually not ruthless is reflected well (and one of the reasons he was such a fantastic ruler).

Spartacus: Kubrick's least Kubricky film. The checkerboard formation is displayed during the climactic battle-scene. Much better representation of actual gladitorial training and combat than Gladiator.

Ben-Hur: The chariot-race is interesting for how much it got right. But there were one or two things they messed up. Wait a second, this isn't a war movie....

The Ten Commandments: For the chariots alone. And Yul Brynner. The chariots are really good representations of actual Egyptian fighting vehicles. Though there's no real battle scene, it's nevertheless interesting to watch fifty chariots onscreen, get an idea of their mass and volume, and then realize that thousands of those things were deployed at Qadesh against the Hittites.

Titus: More Shakespeare than war, but it's still a pretty cool flick. I like the whole modern vs. ancient thing. Added to the fact that this was Shakespeare's "over-the-top" slaughterfest and you get a pretty interesting flick.

Monty Python & the Holy Grail: One of the best depictions of siege warfare I've ever seen. And of Lancelot singlehandedly storming a castle.

Flesh and Blood: With Rutger Hauer. Various and sundry sex-scenes notwithstanding, this is a pretty good movie about how a small group of ticked-off mercs with a fortress can ruin your whole week during the Renaissance. Lots of neat-o siege weapons and tactics, and, of course, dead people all over the place.


NEUTRAL

Gladiator: Essentially an action movie set in ancient Rome. Haven't seen the Director's Cut. Those scenes left on the cutting-room floor would have added something of merit to the movie, but regardless, we never see accurate representations of gladiators or the sort of matched pairs they had. We see different types, but we never actually see the match-ups. That and the legionaries break ranks during the opening battle, and don't throw their pila. The plot was a rip-off of The Fall of the Roman Empire although the execution was far superior.

The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc: The gore was overdone. Which is wierd for a medieval movie, but... it just was.

300: Whatever, man, I liked it, but it isn't my favorite. They catch the Laconic sense of humor pretty well, though. More fantasy than fact, but a lot of the dialogue is accurate. Well, more accurate than other movies I've seen.

Julius Caesar: The one with Marlon Brando. It's inaccurate, but that's Shakespeare's doing. Brando's an awesome Antony.

The 300 Spartans: The one with Richard Egan as Leonidas. It's been too long since I've seen it to give it an accurate review, but I remember liking it.

King Arthur: I was entertained. ... That's about it. Didn't expect much. Has a lot of the same problems Troy does, although Troy ticked me off more.

Cleopatra: Agrippa is the big inaccuracy here. Nevertheless, it's worth it to see the movie that nearly bankrupted 20th Century Fox. Liz Taylor pulls off the role, though. At least, I think she does.

Braveheart: Brilliant depiction of medieval war. Highly inaccurate depiction of 13th century Britain and the Scottish Wars of Independence.

El Cid: Heston's overacting keeps this from being A-#1 awesome.


HATED

The Fall of the Roman Empire: Except for Sophia Loren, this movie has little of merit. It's more of a comedy of historical errors. Alec Guinness (Obi-wan Kenobi to you) as Marcus Aurelius couldn't even save this movie.

Troy: The real Troy looked more impressive, Sparta wasn't on a cliff, and Mycenae was what, 25 miles(?) from the coast. The costumes were cool, but inaccurate. We have enough archeological findings to recreate accurate Mycenaean and Wilusan soldiers from the late 14th/early 13th century BC. If they weren't so busy fence-sitting over the whole realism vs. fantasy elements thing, it'd be okay. Nevertheless, I liked what Brad Pitt did with Achilles, and I liked the vase-painting-inspired combat choreography, but other than that, the movie was more of an insult my intelligence.

Attila: Just God-awful.


HONORABLE MENTION

HBO's Rome Miniseries: Probably the best, most accurate (not 100% perfect, though nothing is) depiction of Rome I've yet seen. But it's not a movie.

Ran, Kagemusha, and Heaven and Earth: Movies set during the Japanese Sengoku Jidai, rife with war, betrayal, and epic battles.

Conan the Barbarian: It's awesome, okay, that's why I listed it. And the raiders at the beginning. Whatever, it's a stretch, but the movie rocks.

The 13th Warrior: Yeah, yeah, yeah, inaccuracies, Beowulf, etc. I know. But, like Conan, this film is full of awesome. Every time I watch it, I fire up some Sweboz on EB and go sack the civilized world.

[SwissBarbar]

300 is interesting, because the narrator - who is the only one surviver - tells the story from his point of view. I think if an ancient Laconian sees (and fights) an elephant for the first time, he might describe it quite bigger to the audience and maybe invents some crazy creatures *G* of course he wants to underline the heroism of the 300 men

HONORABLE MENTION

HBO's Rome Miniseries: Probably the best, most accurate (not 100% perfect, though nothing is) depiction of Rome I've yet seen. But it's not a movie.

yep, that's also my opinion

[Celtic_Punk]

there were two survivors IRL! 299 Spartans died at Thermoplyae,(it was Leonidas and 300 spartans, not just 300 spartans) here is what their fates were according to my book "Greeks at war" by phillip de souza, waldemar heckel, and lloyd llewellyn-jones "Aristodemos and another Spartan called Eurytos had picked up eye infections which became so acute that they were told by the king to remove themselves from the ranks of the 300 as they were incapable of fighting. They were taken to the nearby village of Alpenos by their helot attendants to recuperate." (paraphrasing now) as the rest of the greek army retreated and told them what was happening, the two spartans argued what they should do - return and fight to the death - or follow orders. Eurytos forced his helot to guide him to back, and was slain in the battle. Aristomdemos obeyed. "One other Spartan, called Pantites, also survived because he had been sent off to Thessaly as a messenger before the battle started and by the time he got back it was over." (again paraphrasing) both of them were labelled as cowards. they were labelled tremblers (which means they refused to fight alongside their comrades, and they had to wear a patch on their cloaks to distinguish them as tremblers, nobody would speak to you, youd be refused justice in court, and barred from holding office. also nobody would marry you or your kids.) Pantites hanged himself, Aristodemos bore the shame.(aristodemos is the narrator in 300.. he would not be sitting around a campfire telling the story. hed be laughed at and nobody would talk to him) He wanted an opportunity to restore his honour! this opportunity came during the battle of Palataia the Strategos Pausanias kept getting bad omens from sacrifices, so the spartans would not charge. the Spartans (especially Aristodemos) became increasinly impatient. Aristodemos eventually broke ranks and charged, urging the men on the Teagans on the left flank seeing this rushed onwards. Pausinias (i believe to avoid a disaster) chose this moment to order the spartans on, as apparently the omens were good. Aristodemos killed a number of persians before being cut down. The Spartans and Teagans butchered the persians and killed the commander Mardonios. Herodotus says he was the bravest on that day (as well as I) but the spartans did not feel the same, though courageous he did not meet standards for discipline and obedience.

hope you guys found that a bit interesting.

Read my book, its extremely good "The Greeks at war" it goes from the origins of the greco persian wars to Alexander... the book also mentions the movie by the same name (ONLY) for its accurate depiction of the Makedonian Phalangites

the book is written by actual uni profs. and De souza and Llewellyn-jones are both doctors.


300 spartans plus 400 thebians, and 700 Thespaiai hoplites stayed back with the spartans to glory. Though the Spartans definately bore the brunt initially. All fought to the death for their country. still Persians got rocked, more than 20 000 casualties, for probably around 2000... thats a ratio of 10:1... PWNT!

MOLON LABE!!!!