Historical Inaccuracy Corner

[Cahir]

And in terms of Troy, I think it's a similar case; they've made it a historical account rather than a mythical one.

I view the movie Troy as being more inaccurate than the legend. Everything from the weapons, to the armour, to the fighting style, to the length of the campaign was completely wrong. You don't take a massive fortified city in a matter of days, it can take months or even years (Harlech Castle held out for seven years).

In regards to Beliyal's comment on the use of iron, the Iliad is set during the Greek Dark Ages, when iron was becoming more common, so it's not a historical inaccuracy. Iron probably would have been used at Troy, and likely in greater amounts than bronze, which was more expensive.

 

[Spacewolf]

The tigers in gladiator always got me. I think a BBC documentary once said that in fact, the wild animals when released were too afraid of the roar of the crowd to actually come out. The guy who came up with that particular idea was promptly executed, if memory serves.

wild animals where a quite often specticle and the romans got quite good at getting them to fight by beating them and starving them but they still didnt exactly rush the people sent to kill them except for when they got close

 

[Lt_Bromhead]

And in terms of Troy, I think it's a similar case; they've made it a historical account rather than a mythical one.

I view the movie Troy as being more inaccurate than the legend. Everything from the weapons, to the armour, to the fighting style, to the length of the campaign was completely wrong. You don't take a massive fortified city in a matter of days, it can take months or even years (Harlech Castle held out for seven years).

In regards to Beliyal's comment on the use of iron, the Iliad is set during the Greek Dark Ages, when iron was becoming more common, so it's not a historical inaccuracy. Iron probably would have been used at Troy, and likely in greater amounts than bronze, which was more expensive.

I know, I know - I was just stating that, as in the case of 300, they'd changed the format but that in itself didn't make it innacurrate.

I did a speech for an English class once about the innacurracies of Troy...

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

Snort... Americans.. always showing up late for every world war.

Captain America even made a point of it, it was just very subtle.
Very subtle.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Tbh, most big films aren't there to display historical accuracy. Its there to pump the adrenaline of the viewer, it's just set in a different time. It really pisses me off, but I know that it's just a film, and is not correct historically.

Historical accuracy doesn't sell sadly, over the top action and violence does.

 

[Cahir]

And in terms of Troy, I think it's a similar case; they've made it a historical account rather than a mythical one.

I view the movie Troy as being more inaccurate than the legend. Everything from the weapons, to the armour, to the fighting style, to the length of the campaign was completely wrong. You don't take a massive fortified city in a matter of days, it can take months or even years (Harlech Castle held out for seven years).

In regards to Beliyal's comment on the use of iron, the Iliad is set during the Greek Dark Ages, when iron was becoming more common, so it's not a historical inaccuracy. Iron probably would have been used at Troy, and likely in greater amounts than bronze, which was more expensive.

I know, I know - I was just stating that, as in the case of 300, they'd changed the format but that in itself didn't make it innacurrate.

I did a speech for an English class once about the innacurracies of Troy...

Fair enough. It just seemed like you were using the same excuse for Troy as 300, that it was being told by the Greeks with a spin on it. Even the Greeks wouldn't try and compress ten long, bitter years into a few days for the sake of propaganda. It'd take too much away from the tragedy.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Inglourious Basterds.

I'm pretty sure that isn't how Hitler died, but I could be wrong.

 

[Cahir]

Tbh, most big films aren't there to display historical accuracy. Its there to pump the adrenaline of the viewer, it's just set in a different time. It really pisses me off, but I know that it's just a film, and is not correct historically.

Historical accuracy doesn't sell sadly, over the top action and violence does.

The thing is, you don't need to be historically inaccurate to have action and violence equal to any Hollywood film. History is filled with battles that are so violent that no Hollywood producer would ever try to make accurate movie out of it, and there are plenty of people who are so damn badass that they'd make the Terminator cry.

 

[Doclector]

The tigers in gladiator always got me. I think a BBC documentary once said that in fact, the wild animals when released were too afraid of the roar of the crowd to actually come out. The guy who came up with that particular idea was promptly executed, if memory serves.

wild animals where a quite often specticle and the romans got quite good at getting them to fight by beating them and starving them but they still didnt exactly rush the people sent to kill them except for when they got close

Hmm. The documentary was set at the opening of the colloseum so maybe they found ways to get them to go out over time.

 

[Lt_Bromhead]

And in terms of Troy, I think it's a similar case; they've made it a historical account rather than a mythical one.

I view the movie Troy as being more inaccurate than the legend. Everything from the weapons, to the armour, to the fighting style, to the length of the campaign was completely wrong. You don't take a massive fortified city in a matter of days, it can take months or even years (Harlech Castle held out for seven years).

In regards to Beliyal's comment on the use of iron, the Iliad is set during the Greek Dark Ages, when iron was becoming more common, so it's not a historical inaccuracy. Iron probably would have been used at Troy, and likely in greater amounts than bronze, which was more expensive.

I know, I know - I was just stating that, as in the case of 300, they'd changed the format but that in itself didn't make it innacurrate.

I did a speech for an English class once about the innacurracies of Troy...

Fair enough. It just seemed like you were using the same excuse for Troy as 300, that it was being told by the Greeks with a spin on it. Even the Greeks wouldn't try and compress ten long, bitter years into a few days for the sake of propaganda. It'd take too much away from the tragedy.

Sorry, didn't make it very clear!

Inglourious Basterds.

I'm pretty sure that isn't how Hitler died, but I could be wrong.

Didn't he...? :O

 

[Robert Ewing]

Tbh, most big films aren't there to display historical accuracy. Its there to pump the adrenaline of the viewer, it's just set in a different time. It really pisses me off, but I know that it's just a film, and is not correct historically.

Historical accuracy doesn't sell sadly, over the top action and violence does.

The thing is, you don't need to be historically inaccurate to have action and violence equal to any Hollywood film. History is filled with battles that are so violent that no Hollywood producer would ever try to make accurate movie out of it, and there are plenty of people who are so damn badass that they'd make the Terminator cry.

But if you want to make that sort of movie based in that time period, why don't they just do that? Instead of taking an already existing historical story, and changing it to fit the movie? It doesn't seem very respectful. Why not just create their own story, within that time period?

 

[speight88]

Steve McQueen jumping the fence on a motorbike in The Great Escape, done at McQueen's request, never happened.

Also no Americans escaped from the camp tunnels, although they did help dig it.

Damn you McQueen!

 

[Mr Thin]

Wow, not one mention of Braveheart? That's surprising.

I honestly don't give a damn about historical inaccuracies; documentaries fascinate me, and I love nature shows... so when I want realism, I go to them. When I want spectacle, I go to Hollywood.

Regarding Braveheart; off the top of my head, I recall reading that William Wallace was not a commoner, and was in fact a Scottish noble; that the clothing they wore was very different, and that by the end of the film, they would've been pretty much just as well armed and armoured as the English; that Prima Noctis never existed; and that Wallace and Robert the Bruce were never really best buds.

 

[Cahir]

But if you want to make that sort of movie based in that time period, why don't they just do that? Instead of taking an already existing historical story, and changing it to fit the movie? It doesn't seem very respectful. Why not just create their own story, within that time period?

Because then you wouldn't be basing it on a true story/much loved legend .

 

[Beliyal]

... I know. That's pretty much what I was saying about 300, dude.

And in terms of Troy, I think it's a similar case; they've made it a historical account rather than a mythical one.

I got it, yeah, I just wanted to expand the explanation a bit, in case someone disagrees. And I agree with this about Troy.

In regards to Beliyal's comment on the use of iron, the Iliad is set during the Greek Dark Ages, when iron was becoming more common, so it's not a historical inaccuracy. Iron probably would have been used at Troy, and likely in greater amounts than bronze, which was more expensive.

Actually, traditionally, the Trojan War has been dated to 12th century BC which is the period of the Bronze age. The Greek Dark Ages started somewhere after the Trojan War. They kinda overlap, but 12th century is still regarded as the Bronze Age (although the question is tricky). I mean, that period is severely lacking in data and the switch from one to the other wasn't really over night. However, I usually ran into data that says the use of iron in the Illiad was a mistake (a few days ago I watched a documentary about the Trojan War where the same thing was noted, as well as some other mistakes that show that the author didn't really know the actual culture of the Bronze Age). I'm interested in the matter so I'm curious about where did you see that the iron part was actually not a mistake.

Gladiator. To my knowlage, the Romans never used the bow and arrow in their military.

They did. Mostly, archers were foreigners, usually from the east and served in the auxiliary troops. The auxiliary cavalry consisted of archers. Archers were called the sagittarii.

 

[BlackStar42]

Pretty much every WWII movie ever made where America saves the day single-handedly. I'm looking at you, Saving Private Ryan. Has there ever been a movie about the Eastern Front?

 

[Rawne1980]

U-571

Depicting Americans finding the German Enigma machine and basically making up an entire history about a u-boat that was never sunk.

First off, Britain was given the Enigma code by a Pole and went on to crack it. Nothing to do with the USA .... in fact it was before they got involved.

I'm not "hating" on America or anything it just really irritates me when they have to be seen as the heroes of everything and go as far as making shit up in films.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?116073-Battle-of-Britain-movie-being-made.-Tom-Cruise-saves-Britain-Really&s=c6da441eb477978f3d13efa89e76eb7b

If that film had come to pass it would have pissed off just about everyone.

Yep, you read it right folks. Hollywood was thinking about depicting an American as being the sole winner of the Battle of Britain. A battle America had very little involvement in and the story about a guy who shot sod all down and didn't last very long before being shot down himself.

 

[DSK-]

Pretty much every WWII movie ever made where America saves the day single-handedly. I'm looking at you, Saving Private Ryan. Has there ever been a movie about the Eastern Front?

Enemy at the Gates. 'Based on a true story', it's essentially about the Battle of Stalingrad.

 

[Superior Mind]

Pearl Harbour bothers me for their depiction of the Doolittle Raid as some great heroic and strategic attack on the Japanese. The Doolittle Raid was a retaliation attack with no bigger purpose behind it. It was a morale lifter, nothing more, it wasn't strategic. In the film they're very particular that they are going after military targets and it's all very heroic and noble. Bullshit. The only impressive thing that happened out of the Doolittle Raid was getting a B-25 to take off from an aircraft carrier. Other than that it was a waste of time, resources and personnel and it ended in torture and death for many of those who took part and even the Chinese who helped the downed airmen.

But Pearl Harbour wasn't about a war it was a story about a stupid love triangle with a war thrown in.