Yeah, I'm aware that the Trojan War is dated to the early 12th Century BC, which is pretty much when the Greek Dark Ages started [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Dark_Ages]. At this point, iron tools and weapons were increasingly common in areas that the Greeks had access [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ferrous_metallurgy#cite_ref-waldbaum_6-0] to. Given that iron has been historically cheaper than bronze, it makes perfect sense for the Greeks to use it for arrowheads, spear heads, which were generally disposable, and the poorer members of the army (although still relatively rich compared to the rank and file) might possibly have used iron weapons and armour.Beliyal said:
.
Got a few to add as well; the French queen in the movie was just a few years old during the specific time. There also wasn't any kilts at the time. They didn't appear until late 1800's, iirc.Mr Thin said:
From imdb.comProfessor Cubbage said:
Pearl Harbor: a Michael Bay movie. About as historically accurate as Con Air and Transformers.SckizoBoy said:
Wiki says [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart#Historical_accuracy] that Cracked.com's not that far off the mark.DanielBrown said:Got a few to add as well; the French queen in the movie was just a few years old during the specific time. There also wasn't any kilts at the time. They didn't appear until late 1800's, iirc.Mr Thin said:
Though it can be debatated wether Cracked.com is a trusted source or not.
One could also argue that the film was based on a comic book and not based directly on the historical events on which said book was based, an argument supported by the aesthetic, music, cinematography, inclusion of monsters that I'm pretty sure we don't have historic evidence for, and the closing credits in which said book is credited. One could further argue that it's not supposed to be a work of realistic fiction, again because it has those strange monsters hyped up in the trailers.Lt_Bromhead said:OT: 300. The whole damned thing, pretty much.
Then again, one could argue against this - as the story of 300 was the battle as told by Dilios, and as first hand accounts by Spartans go, that was likely pretty much how they would have told the tale. Especially if appealing for help...
300 was based on a comic book. The comic book was "loosely" based on the event.Lt_Bromhead said:[
-snip-
OT: 300. The whole damned thing, pretty much.
Then again, one could argue against this - as the story of 300 was the battle as told by Dilios, and as first hand accounts by Spartans go, that was likely pretty much how they would have told the tale. Especially if appealing for help...
You expect historical accuracy from TARANTINO?ChupathingyX said:
They had Auxilary foces attached to each legion after the reformation of their military. The auxilary were recruited from the conquered "civilians" - people from Gaul, for example.Th3Ch33s3Cak3 said:
I read the book - Americans and their equipment were flown in, but I guess they skipped that in the movie. Aussies put up a bloody amazing effort, even by the rep of the diggers, but I think it was only because Americans finally turned up at Port Moresbey that the Japanese dropped back.Cahir said:
I pity the original script writers. What they started out with was an interesting twist on the Robin Hood legend that was also period correct. Then Ridley Scott got hold of it and turned "Nottingham" into "Robin Hood". The amount of effort they went to in order to get things right, even researching how criminal investigations where carried out in the 12th century, was staggering, and Scott wasted it all.Heronblade said:
Apaprently it was originally supposed to centre around the sherif and Robin Hood was supposed to be a side thing, but then ridly scott came in and said "fuck this, we are making a robin hood movie" and that was thatHeronblade said:
No, it's okay. I like a good debate and I've researching about this for the last half an hour. I'm just under the influence of what we've been taught in classes and by the fact that, while iron was known in the 12th century, it wasn't yet used as much so I don't know whether it would be so common in an entire army at that point. Metals were always present and known far before they became a common place in the society. I'm sure they knew about iron, but would it be so wide-spread already that early on? It would take huge amounts of iron to make all those weapons and shields and armour and I'm not sure it was very cost efficient to switch on that that early; usually, in the beginning, something new is regarded as a rarity and it takes decades, even centuries for it to find its place in a civilization. The lack of data from that period (after the fall of the Mycenaean civilization) doesn't help either and Homer's depiction of a wealthy period rich in iron weaponry (which, in 12th century, would still be a novelty) is quite puzzling. Historians usually believe he just described his own period and I think I remember that most of the finds from the actual site of Troy are typical bronze age finds (along with bronze arrowheads). However, who knows; as I said, the Illiad is full of both facts and fiction; distinguishing between the two can be a pain in the ass, especially when the archaeological evidence is scarce.Cahir said:Yeah, I'm aware that the Trojan War is dated to the early 12th Century BC, which is pretty much when the Greek Dark Ages started [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Dark_Ages]. At this point, iron tools and weapons were increasingly common in areas that the Greeks had access [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ferrous_metallurgy#cite_ref-waldbaum_6-0] to. Given that iron has been historically cheaper than bronze, it makes perfect sense for the Greeks to use it for arrowheads, spear heads, which were generally disposable, and the poorer members of the army (although still relatively rich compared to the rank and file) might possibly have used iron weapons and armour.Beliyal said:
Edit: Argh, that doesn't sound right. I'm sorry if I sound hostile. I'm just sleepy and aren't phrasing myself properly
I always viewed Inglorious Basterds more like an alternate reality than as a real historical movie. I'm pretty sure that Hitler's death is not the only inaccurate event, as most characters and other events are also completely fictional. I saw it as an "what if" type of a movie that is only set in a certain period, but actually makes its own story.TheIronRuler said:
Yeah, I agree that there's not much to go on and that Homer would have based certain bits and pieces on his own times. I'm probably going to have to agree with you that iron wouldn't have been all that widespread, since I've just found the first page of a journal article saying [http://www.jstor.org/pss/623888] just that. It looks as though iron was added to the Iliad at a later date.Beliyal said:
