Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

[Power2the1]

Bah, I just saw the Celt, and he looks awful. I think I am going to write in on this one and voice my displeasure. They should pit elite vs. elite. Immortal vs. Gallic noble!!!!!!!

[TancredTheNorman]

I'm glad you two agree with me (Mulceber+Randal). Being accurate to Roman comedy is surprisingly easy, the problem comes when trying to be sure that you are accurate to Rome. Roman Comedy, Law, various writings with various agendas and bias, and random accidently preserved remains (like inscriptions and accidently preserved reciepts) aren't easy sources to use.

Only the really exceptionally bad depictions of Rome or any ancient society deserve to be here and I must say this threat has done a good job of exposing the idiots, although perhaps we could use another thread to praise the brilliant (i.e. Funny Thing happened on the way to the forum, Cadfael).

[Randal]

Uhm. Actually, this thread was meant to be that place to discuss the good ones. I quote the original post:

Since all the old X is historically inaccurate topics where X is some movie/tv series are popping up again. Why not have a list of alternatives?

Of course, the discussion's gotten a bit side-tracked in the next 10 pages, but the original purpose remains.

So. Cadfael is good? It only rings a vague bell to me. Is it some TV show about a medieval monk? I'd like to hear some more about it.

[J.R.M]

Just saw the Inmortal vs celt ep.
LOL!! they didnt even give the celt a shield, a shield for gods sake! and seriously the club was craaaazyyyy craaaapppp, period.
Ps: ohhh well at least the inmortal was not a ninja/samurai.

Bah, I just saw the Celt, and he looks awful. I think I am going to write in on this one and voice my displeasure. They should pit elite vs. elite. Immortal vs. Gallic noble!!!!!!!

Completely agreed.

[antisocialmunky]

Just pretend its a Celtic Sweboz Mercenary.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

Just pretend its a Celtic Sweboz Mercenary.

That is an insult to Sweboz.....

[Intranetusa]

Just saw the Inmortal vs celt ep.
LOL!! they didnt even give the celt a shield, a shield for gods sake! and seriously the club was craaaazyyyy craaaapppp, period.
Ps: ohhh well at least the inmortal was not a ninja/samurai.
Completely agreed.

They did give the Celt a shield I believe. Otherwise the Persian immortal would've had 1000 kills with his bow.

[Intranetusa]

I quit deadliest warrior after the centurion versus rajput. Im taking nothing away from the rajput but a pick axe instead of his shield as a weapon? (see Spartan),. I couldnt take anymore absurdity. Just my opinion. Worth less than two cents.

They screwed over the Rajput as much as they did the Roman. Rajputs never used that useless whip thing in battle (women carried them as concealed weapons). Rajputs also never carried those death frisbees on the battlefield either because it was useless against armor or shields. Rajputs normally would have had a spear and a bow along with his sword.

I don't know, those Gaesatae were pretty tough! But the biggest piece of blasphemy came when they did that Viking vs. Samurai episode...

The episode was alright. With the exception of that ridiculous samurai club. Despite the samurai victory, the end result was basically a tie due to the close margin of error.

On Deadliest Warrior wikia pictures of both have been posted.
Good thing:
-B.C. period Celt.
Bad Things:
-Completely naked with only an scarf before private parts
-Uses wooden club and most likely an axe as well
-Lack of any armour, should have went with top of Celtic warrior society

Accuracy is totally gone and nowhere to be seen.

The actual episode turned out to be decent. Yes, the Celt wasn't wearing armor, but they weren't portrayed as screaming savages either. And most of the Adeui and Avernai Celtic EB units don't have armor either.

[Antonivs Silvicola]

They screwed over the Rajput as much as they did the Roman. Rajputs never used that useless whip thing in battle (women carried them as concealed weapons). Rajputs also never carried those death frisbees on the battlefield either because it was useless against armor or shields. Rajputs normally would have had a spear and a bow along with his sword.

I agree there as well. I know the show is just for entertainment and isn't supposed to be a "documentary" but it just feels like they're playing rock, paper, scissors. Meh. Whatever. The weapons demonstrations are still the best part of the show to me.

[Intranetusa]

I agree there as well. I know the show just for entertainment and isn't supposed to be a "documentary" but it just feels like they're playing rock, paper, scissors. Meh. Whatever. The weapons demonstrations are still the best part of the show to me.

True. I like when the experts take jabs at each other too... ;)

[Ibrahim]

I agree there as well. I know the show just for entertainment and isn't supposed to be a "documentary" but it just feels like they're playing rock, paper, scissors. Meh. Whatever. The weapons demonstrations are still the best part of the show to me.

IMHO its the worst part; I mean seriously, those tests are either unnecessary, or poorly done (to the point that a stinger was ruled ineffective in comparison to that immobile taser thingy).

I mean, srsly, ineffective? its a nonlethal weapon, which did no damage to the ballistic gel/model, and they call the stinger ineffective?

you know what? if they really wanted to test this weapon properly, they should have bought a stinger, and do what spoony proposed: give a stinger to the man who declared it ineffective, pull the pin, leave the room, then come back, handcuff the man, and then stomp on the ********' crown-jewels, and challenge him to fight back.

and you know what? he won't be able to-because the stinger has incapacitated them, without killing him..you know, like its supposed to?!

srsly, I'm never gonna let that go-I mean, there's entertainment, then there is extreme stupidity. this show is an example of the latter.

but that's just my opinion

and that was not what put me off to be frank: it was the spartan v. Ninja that did. that, and that 300-esque narrator.

[Kikaz]

http://deadliestwarrior.wikia.com/wiki/Celt

Okay, I think I made it much more acceptable. I don't know why there's weird indents though...

[Antonivs Silvicola]

IMHO its the worst part; I mean seriously, those tests are either unnecessary, or poorly done (to the point that a stinger was ruled ineffective in comparison to that immobile taser thingy).

I mean, srsly, ineffective? its a nonlethal weapon, which did no damage to the ballistic gel/model, and they call the stinger ineffective?

you know what? if they really wanted to test this weapon properly, they should have bought a stinger, and do what spoony proposed: give a stinger to the man who declared it ineffective, pull the pin, leave the room, then come back, handcuff the man, and then stomp on the ********' crown-jewels, and challenge him to fight back.

and you know what? he won't be able to-because the stinger has incapacitated them, without killing him..you know, like its supposed to?!

srsly, I'm never gonna let that go-I mean, there's entertainment, then there is extreme stupidity. this show is an example of the latter.

but that's just my opinion

and that was not what put me off to be frank: it was the spartan v. Ninja that did. that, and that 300-esque narrator.

I was more speaking of the tests themselves (cutting pigs in half and what have you). I never really listen to much of what the "experts" have to say anyway.

[Phalanx300]

http://deadliestwarrior.wikia.com/wiki/Celt

Okay, I think I made it much more acceptable. I don't know why there's weird indents though...

Don't like you took away Johny Shumates picture I posted up there lol. I think using EB to show the warriors isn't the best thing to do, better look for artwork of some kind then game models.

For the rest it looks quite nice.

[Apázlinemjó]

Am I the only one who finds this series very boring?

[Phalanx300]

I gues so. Lately in season two I kind of hooked off, the complete inaccuracies are even worse then before and they aren't even reacting to people asking them about it in the Aftermath. While the comments are always littered with accuracy questions. Also of their tests...

[Intranetusa]

http://deadliestwarrior.wikia.com/wiki/Celt

Okay, I think I made it much more acceptable. I don't know why there's weird indents though...

Someone plagiarized EB's picture of the Gallic Heavy Swordsmen... O_o

And they also plagiarized several more pictures...

[bobbin]

No, he put them in himself.

[Kikaz]

whoops, yeah it was late and I didn't think of that... Should I take them down if they haven't been? Also I didn't see the Johnny Shumate pic that Phalanx put up, but with talk of plagiarism...

[Hax]

Saw the episode. A shame about there being bagpipe music and the "Celt" wearing a kilt. Riiiiight.

[Ibrahim]

I was more speaking of the tests themselves (cutting pigs in half and what have you). I never really listen to much of what the "experts" have to say anyway.

those on their own are indeed decent, but I tend to look at the experiments as a whole, not just the carving up. afterall, they do claim in their advertisements and such, that they are scientifically testing the issue, and have in fact brought in specialists for the purpose (a doctor, weapons expert, bunch of guinea pigs, etc). If they are going to do that, the I darn well expect them to conduct at least a decent, basic level test of the issue, in the scientific method.

as an example:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

if I were to test the stinger and mass taser thingy, here's the background (technically, an observation):

1-the weapons are used by two different paramilitary agencies.
2-both are meant as non-lethal weapons.

using the above, I can form a hypothesis: "one of the weapons may or may not be better than the other in the hands of paramilitary forces"

now to test the two to see who is best, we have to look at the following:

1-how can the weapons be deployed?
2-are they flexible in their deployment? (portability, tactical uses, ease of use)
3-what is the range (both throwing/shooting, and "blast radius")
4-are they reliable?
5-what is the likelyhood of collatoral damage? (bear in mind, this is a paramilitary deal; they want to get as many people out alive as humanly possible)
6-most important of all: as the weapons are supposed to be non-lethal, which weapon can incapaciate better, while causing the least likelyhood of permanent injury, or God forbid, death?

now that we have criteria, we make a prediction, based on the hypothesis. in this case, I'll predict that the superior weapon will excel at more of these tests than the other weapon.

we then test these variables in a series of controlled experiments, and compare the results with one another (we can even run the tests for multiple factors at once), and with a third "control", and come to a conclusion. the conclusion must logially follow the hypothesis. an example of a good one would be my conclusions about the origins of the moon, based on the lunar rocks I got to examine (yes, I did write a paper about it, and yes, I really did get to look at lunar rock; my assessment is actually the teach's; she loved the paper). an example of an irrational conclusion (summed up version): "since dinosaurs have no respiratory turbinals, but birds do, it logically follows that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs". this ridiculous statement is from Rubin et al, 1997. and the results and conclusions are both wrong.

anyways, on topic: if the conclusion fits the hypothesis nicely (i.e one is superior to the other by a wide margin), we go with that, and "publish" our findings (or, since we are doing this on national TV, broadcast it), and maybe modify it slightly to fit the data. if the tests invalidate a hypothesis, the conclusion becomes the new hypothesis, or, now that it has been demonstrated, a theory.

let's compare that to Deadliest warrior, shall we?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

hypothesis: whichever does the most damage is the most rad maaan!!

test: let's deploy the teser thingy on one target (a person), and the stinger on another (a dummy), and see which keels over or is damaged first.

result: taser knocked stuff down, but stinger left everything intact, without a trace of damage.

conclusion: taser is awesomz! stinger is *****! yay!!

compare the two, and tell me which one makes some level of sense. I srsly doubt its the latter approach.

mind you, this is what an undergrad came up with in 10 minutes of typing, without actually putting any thought to the matter-just pure instinct-so naturally whatever I propose may be far from perfect.

but if some random internet ******* came up with this, then imagine what they can do, if they put 2 or 3 hrs into it, and spent the rest of the time collecting data and filming it.

and you know what the sad part is? my mom and brothers think its scientific as a show is. my dad is neutral, since he never saw it, or heard about it.

EDIT: now, what about the claim that its "just entertainment"? well, I agree; it is, and I wouldn't take issue if they billed it as such, with a "lab twist". but they billed this as a state of the art lab in the city of crack, and they are supposedly doing scientific tests. I'm thus more ****** off for the principle of the matter, more than just what they did/do.

[antisocialmunky]

:-\

You know, I've always wanted to see a show where they just brought different groups of reenactors together and had them beat on each other to do various tasks to show who was better..

[Intranetusa]

The funny thing is, despite Deadliest-Warrior being a show on Spike TV, it's STILL more historically accurate than the majority of the shows on the History Channel.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

The funny thing is, despite Deadliest-Warrior being a show on Spike TV, it's STILL more historically accurate than the majority of the shows on the History Channel.

Yeah, but that's not saying much.... when I watch a history channel show on the 410 A.D. sack of Rome, first thing I see: LS, rectangular shields, and coolus type helmets. Need I say more?

[Talimze]

Deadliest Warrior is a show that I hate, but watch all the time. I started hating it when the Viking lost to the Samurai, and I realized it was full of balls when it told everyone that a 18th century pirate would beat Medieval knight in a duel. I screamed like a lunatic when I had to watch the Alexander vs. Attila and Centurion vs. Rajput episodes too. But, the show did give me the odd pleasure of actually being able to desperately wish for the Nazis to win, and I get to watch it with my sister, and we like to act out the voice of Gelly the Gel Torso as he gets assassinated five times an episode. Really, it's just a show about being a retarded as possible, but with weapons and a guy named Dr. John Dorian, who stole his name from Scrubs.
Never saw the Celt vs. Immortal episode, and I suppose that's for the best. Do the Immortals look like they did in 300? I mean, the Spartans from 300 were in the show twice.

Well, to be more on topic, I'm not very good with finding historical inaccuracies in movies. I guess I'm just not very observant. I read through this whole thread and have seen lists of historical inaccuracies in movies that I've seen, and I apparently missed all of them. So, I guess I would not be the best person to say which movies are the most historically accurate, but I suppose Alexander is the best one I have seen, in that regard.

Actually, I have kind of a funny and sad story about the historical accuracy of The Patriot. I had to do a report on the Battle of Cowpens in 7th grade, which is the final battle at the end of the movie. The battle in the movie was only vaguely like the real battle, with the only significant similarity being that the militia at the front fired two volleys and then fell back, and then the over-confident British unexpectedly ran into the Continentals and Virginia riflemen, etc. After that, the real battle culminated in a Cannae-style pincer envelopment by the Continentals.
Now, the funny and sad part of this story is that before I presented my paper to the class, my teacher (who I don't think was actually qualified to teach a history class) gave a brief description of the battle to the class, and it was basically an exact description of the battle in the movie. For instance, he said that Gen. Cornwallis was leading the British army, which he wasn't, he referred to Col. Tarleton as "Tavington," who was obviously supposed to be Tarleton but for some reason had his name changed for the movie, and he said that when the militia feigned retreat, they went down a hill to where the continental army was hiding, because the British couldn't see them there until the last second, and then there was a fun bayonet charge and the 'Murkans won. The only thing that was missing from that was him saying that Mel Gibson stabbed the mean British guy in the neck at the end. The worst part of it for me was having to present my report after that, and tell everyone that my teacher was wrong.

Story over.

[Ibrahim]

Yeah, but that's not saying much.... when I watch a history channel show on the 410 A.D. sack of Rome, first thing I see: LS, rectangular shields, and coolus type helmets. Need I say more?

don't forget that retarded 300-esque style show called "battles BC"...

[Intranetusa]

Deadliest Warrior is a show that I hate, but watch all the time. I started hating it when the Viking lost to the Samurai, and I realized it was full of balls when it told everyone that a 18th century pirate would beat Medieval knight in a duel. I screamed like a lunatic when I had to watch the Alexander vs. Attila and Centurion vs. Rajput episodes too.

What was wrong with Viking v Samurai? Both were great warriors and the results at the end were fairly close. The Samurai had better armor (18th cent?).

Alexander vs Attila was fine too. 1v1 or squad vs squad, Hunnic cavalry would have shot Alexander's phalangites full of holes. Alexander beat the Scythians in one battle thanks to a crap load of missile weaponry and the Scythians falling into a trap.

As for centurion vs Rajput, I didn't know how they used unhistorical weapons for both sides, and the testing was crap, but the result at the end was expected. Fully armored Rajput warrior who trained mostly for one on one combat beats a centurion who mostly drilled for formation combat.

Do the Immortals look like they did in 300? I mean, the Spartans from 300 were in the show twice.

Is that a serious question? O_o

The movie 300 is to the history of Thermopylae as the Lord of the Rings is to the history of the European Middle Ages...

[Intranetusa]

Do the Immortals look like they did in 300? I mean, the Spartans from 300 were in the show twice.

Saying 300 is historically INACCURATE is an UNDERSTATEMENT. Roughly 90-95% of the movie is total fantasy.

-There were 300 Spartans + at LEAST 7000-8000 other Greek soldiers at Thermopylae for the first two days.
-There were 300 Spartans + at LEAST 700 Thespians and most likely 300 Thebans on the last day (probably also Spartan slaves/helots)
-Persians did not have a million soldiers. They had 70,000-300,000 max by modern estimates, and only a fraction of that fought at Thermopylae. (logistically speaking, a million man army marching from Iran to Greece wasn't feasible)
-There was a huge Athenian navy preventing the Persians from flanking the soldiers at Thermopylae. Thermopylae was a tactical and strategic failure since the Greeks had to abandon almost half of Greece.
-Spartans wore heavy bronze muscle curiass armor, not speedos.
-At Thermopylae , the Persians did not have giant LoTR oliphaunt like-war elephants nor giant armored rhinos.
_Persians had already abolished slavery
-The Spartans were the biggest dictators of ancient Greece, and were not fighting for democracy. (2/3 of the Spartan populace were enslaved neighbors - Helots)
-It was part of Spartan training to go out into the countryside and murder a Helot
-The Persian 10,000 immortals aren't mutant-lizard ninjas with East Asian masks.
-Persians didn't have giant Doom-esque bald fat guys with saw blades attached to their arms
-Persians had many Greek city states and Greek mercenaries fighting on their side
-Xerxes is not a 10 foot tall, dark skinned metro sexual she-male with thousands of gold body piercings on his body.
-Persians were not suicidal as portrayed in the movie.
-Xerxes wasn't personally present at Thermopylae iirc (?)
-The Persians did not have grenades (Song gunpowder weaponry) in the 5th century BCE.
-The hoplites did NOT break the phalanx formation to fight in one-on-one barbarian brawls
-Persians are not dark skinned Arabian looking people or black sub-Saharan Africans. Their skin color was equivalent to the tanned Mediterranean Greeks due to their Aryan background. Persians are Indo-Iranian-Europeans
-Spartans had 2 kings ruling simultaneously.
-Spartan males (even high ranking officals) lived in barracks, not the luxurious palaces you see in the movie.
-Oracle of Delphi did not say Sparta will burn to the ground.
-Spartans did not speak with Irish accents, and not all Spartans had 6 packs.
-Persia did not just randomly decide to invade Greece - they the Greeks had supported various Greco-Persian colonies in Turkey in a rebellion against Persia.

Regarding the Helots, they were worse off than the other slaves in Greece.
As the Spartans became a military state solely in order to control the Helot population, and each year they would terrorize (and murder) the Helot population in order to instill fear and prevent rebellion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regards to Spartans vs Immortals:

The battle of Thermopylae involved 300 Spartans AND over 8000 Greek hoplites defending the narrow pass. They defended against the Persian for 2 days. On the 3rd day the 300 Spartans, several hundred Spartan slaves, 300 Thespians, 700 Thebans stayed behind as the rear guard.

Herodotus, who we get the story from, never said the Spartan/Thespian/Theban beat the Immortals in any meaningful manner. We only know that the Persians were unable to break through the Greek line - and before long, the Persian king sounded a withdrawal because he had found a way around the mountains.




....


whew, that felt better...

[Hax]

I love you, Intranet. <3

Thanks.

-Persia did not just randomly decide to invade Greece - they the Greeks had supported various Greco-Persian colonies in Turkey in a rebellion against Persia.

Of course, it wasn't called Turkey back then. It was called Mikras Asia in Greek or Yauna in Persian, after "Ionia".

[Apázlinemjó]

I agree, though I wouldn't call the battle of Thermopylae a strategic failure as it did give enough time to the Greeks to counter the invasion.