Historical Inaccuracy Corner

[xXAsherahXx]

WWI was aiding our allies while defdnign our trade routes and preventing Germany from convincing Mexico to invade us, Vietnam and Korea we were defending countries from hostile invasions, and France was involved in Vietnam. Korea was a UN conflict, including countries like England, Spain, Germany, and France. WWI was all of Europe as was WWII. The Spanish American War was in response to the way Spain was treating Cuba and the sinking of the USS Maine, which at the time was believed to have been a Spanish attack. 1812 was in response to England's illegal pressing of American soldiers into service in their navy. The Philippines was a revolution of them against the US after we bought the territory from Spain.

Alright, I see your take on these wars, and they have valid points, the information presented is factual. However, from what I have learned in my days of APUSH, The Spanish American War was entirely declared because of a huge influence from the tabloids and the results of Yellow-Journalism. The treatment of Cubans was actually very greatly exaggerated, so was the sinking of the USS Maine. I have read some of the newspapers from the era while doing a research project. We went to war with Spain because we wanted to, not really because of some tragedy like Pearl Harbor. The Philippines revolted against us because of poor treatment. Again, the tabloids were pro American, and therefore, underplayed our treatment. We wanted to expand, bottom line. In Korea and Vietnam, we invaded because of the containment policy, the goal was to keep Communism out. As far as the UN goes, our troops made up most of the fighting force. We were the ones who persuaded the UN to allow a conflict to happen. In WWI, Mexico would never have invaded, they were too weak and we were too powerful. We had already shown them who's boss in the previous century. They weren't even that unified. In 1812, our soldiers weren't being forced into the Navy, some of our soldiers just went with them. Also, we really just wanted the territory in what is now Canada.

 

[Lord Merik]

Gladiator. Commodus WAS killed my a perfomer. Not a gladiator in the arena. He was strangled by a wrestler in his bath. Not as cool.

 

[artanis_neravar]

WWI was aiding our allies while defdnign our trade routes and preventing Germany from convincing Mexico to invade us, Vietnam and Korea we were defending countries from hostile invasions, and France was involved in Vietnam. Korea was a UN conflict, including countries like England, Spain, Germany, and France. WWI was all of Europe as was WWII. The Spanish American War was in response to the way Spain was treating Cuba and the sinking of the USS Maine, which at the time was believed to have been a Spanish attack. 1812 was in response to England's illegal pressing of American soldiers into service in their navy. The Philippines was a revolution of them against the US after we bought the territory from Spain.

Alright, I see your take on these wars, and they have valid points, the information presented is factual. However, from what I have learned in my days of APUSH, The Spanish American War was entirely declared because of a huge influence from the tabloids and the results of Yellow-Journalism. The treatment of Cubans was actually very greatly exaggerated, so was the sinking of the USS Maine. I have read some of the newspapers from the era while doing a research project. We went to war with Spain because we wanted to, not really because of some tragedy like Pearl Harbor. The Philippines revolted against us because of poor treatment. Again, the tabloids were pro American, and therefore, underplayed our treatment. We wanted to expand, bottom line. In Korea and Vietnam, we invaded because of the containment policy, the goal was to keep Communism out. As far as the UN goes, our troops made up most of the fighting force. We were the ones who persuaded the UN to allow a conflict to happen. In WWI, Mexico would never have invaded, they were too weak and we were too powerful. We had already shown them who's boss in the previous century. They weren't even that unified. In 1812, our soldiers weren't being forced into the Navy, some of our soldiers just went with them. Also, we really just wanted the territory in what is now Canada.

I have noticed that I didn't come across the way I wanted to, I wasn't necessarily saying that we had good reasons for war, I'm just trying to make the point that pretty much every country goes to war for reasons that may not be the best, it is not an exclusively American fault. And yes America citizens were pressed into the British navy because Britain refused to acknowledge that America had the sovereignty to grant citizenship to former citizens of other countries

 

[xXAsherahXx]

WWI was aiding our allies while defdnign our trade routes and preventing Germany from convincing Mexico to invade us, Vietnam and Korea we were defending countries from hostile invasions, and France was involved in Vietnam. Korea was a UN conflict, including countries like England, Spain, Germany, and France. WWI was all of Europe as was WWII. The Spanish American War was in response to the way Spain was treating Cuba and the sinking of the USS Maine, which at the time was believed to have been a Spanish attack. 1812 was in response to England's illegal pressing of American soldiers into service in their navy. The Philippines was a revolution of them against the US after we bought the territory from Spain.

Alright, I see your take on these wars, and they have valid points, the information presented is factual. However, from what I have learned in my days of APUSH, The Spanish American War was entirely declared because of a huge influence from the tabloids and the results of Yellow-Journalism. The treatment of Cubans was actually very greatly exaggerated, so was the sinking of the USS Maine. I have read some of the newspapers from the era while doing a research project. We went to war with Spain because we wanted to, not really because of some tragedy like Pearl Harbor. The Philippines revolted against us because of poor treatment. Again, the tabloids were pro American, and therefore, underplayed our treatment. We wanted to expand, bottom line. In Korea and Vietnam, we invaded because of the containment policy, the goal was to keep Communism out. As far as the UN goes, our troops made up most of the fighting force. We were the ones who persuaded the UN to allow a conflict to happen. In WWI, Mexico would never have invaded, they were too weak and we were too powerful. We had already shown them who's boss in the previous century. They weren't even that unified. In 1812, our soldiers weren't being forced into the Navy, some of our soldiers just went with them. Also, we really just wanted the territory in what is now Canada.

I have noticed that I didn't come across the way I wanted to, I wasn't necessarily saying that we had good reasons for war, I'm just trying to make the point that pretty much every country goes to war for reasons that may not be the best, it is not an exclusively American fault. And yes America citizens were pressed into the British navy because Britain refused to acknowledge that America had the sovereignty to grant citizenship to former citizens of other countries

The War of 1812 was a huge mess for everybody. And yeah, I know that 'Mericuh doesn't have exclusive rights to being stupid, but I still believe that Europe has found better reasons for declaring war (although I would say the Franco-Prussian war takes the stupid cake since it was declared because of a letter.

 

[Leemaster777]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the Disney movie Pocahontas was filled with historical, and geological inaccuracies.
First of all, Pocahontas was not some tall, willowy super-model; at the time the film took place, she was a average to plain looking teenager (14-16). And John Smith was a short, fat, (possibly balding) man with brown hair, he was not a tall, slender blond Adonis.

As for the geological inaccuracies, the movie showed tall cliffs and waterfalls near the coast of the bay (Chesapeake Bay to be specific), which is totally impossible. The area near the coast line is the Tidewater region, and is totally flat. The only area in the entire state that would have cliffs or waterfalls is the mountainous region on most western third of the state, over a hundred miles away from the coast.

There were many more errors in that movie, but I can't remember them at this time.

Eh, wouldn't be the only time that Disney filled it's animated movies with inaccuracies. Lest we forget Mulan.

And since I can't think of anything better to add, here's this:

Spoiler

 

[ComprehensiveGoo]

Oh this thread sets off a certain nostalgia relating back to my last history exam.. There's so much to pick from but if I had to chose it would be Gladiator. From little things like a lack of evidence to support the use of German Shepherds (the dogs) in combat and their tac-tics to slightly larger inaccuracies. Commodus actually reigned for some thing in the region of 13 years which was of course significantly condensed in the film. Although it is true the emperor did have a fondness for gladiatorial combat he did not kick the bucket in the arena. That occurred in the baths by a wrestler named Narcissus.

 

[Brawndo]

The inaccuracies in Braveheart really annoy me. The Battle of Stirling Bridge is the worst. Instead of being fought near a bridge it is fought in an open field with no river in sight. Then instead of taking advantage of the enemy's disorganisation and carefully timing their charge the Scots just charge blindly at the enemy and magically win because they're the underdogs.

+1. Also, The Patriot was really bad in the historical accuracy department.


I love movies with unabashed realism, bordering on cynicism. For example, Unforgiven (1992) is probably the only Western I've ever enjoyed watching.

 

[RoBi3.0]

Don't remember when but someone told me I was a moron when I said Alfred Nobel invented dynamite.

http://inventors.about.com/od/dstartinventions/a/Alfred_Nobel.htm

He then told me to go f**k myself and that I was a communist.

Americans, you need to put those guys in the looney bin asap They're bad for your image.

That guy was a wank. Of course Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. He invented it to aid in mining and was completely horrified when humans started using it to kill each other. This is the main reason why Alfred established the Nobel Peace Prize.

Not all Americans are wank myself included.

Alfred Nobel actually hoped that people would stop waging wars when a complete army could be wiped out in moments with explosives. Ah if he only had known how that particular theory would work out...

hmmm interesting insight Thank You.

 

[Lord-Ivan]

In regards to 300, regardless of storytelling and such, Spartans did not go into battle wearing nothing but a helmet and loincloth. They wore heavy brass armour I believe.

In regards to Braveheart, I believe, though have not personally confirmed, that in one scene where he is giving some dramatic speech to his troops, you can see he is holding a coffee mug in one hand. Not to mention some extras wearing watches.

 

[teebeeohh]

Less stupid reasons then wanting our freedom and wanting to end slavery? like what? Conquering France? Attempting to conquer the world, over and over and over. Killing all of the Muslims and Jews that they could find?

converting the Baltic to Christianity, converting the Spanish peninsula to Christianity, Poland had it coming, wiping out non-catholic Christians to stop them spreading their believes, i want your Kingdom too, they try to get rid of monarchy, get em!, Poland had it coming(again), your cousins sisters uncle had a son who is the father of my sisters child so you are sitting on my throne and sometimes we fought over resources.
oh and i forgot the classic: the ma in the clouds with the fluffy white beard told me to tell you to kill people.

 

[emeraldrafael]

... all of which ignore the period "No women on board" rule.

...

I take it you never heard of Calico Jack, Anne Bonnie, and Mary Read.

or any of these <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_piracy>piratesses?


I'm just going to go ahead and cut to the chase and say any movie tat claims to be historically accurate, but specifically the Boy in the Striped Pajamas. really, a little nine year old snuck in to the camp, looking nice and clean, full head of hair, looks different form the majority of other people, and he gets gassed, when you work for his father? No, I dont think so.

 

[DSQ]

I think the only film where I really cared was U-571 because it didn't just bend the truth but obliterated it. I mean the US wasn't even in the war when the enigma codes where being broken!

Otherwise it is not too important as long as the changes serve the narative. When dealing with real events it is important to handle the events carfully.

 

[BristolBerserker]

Historical inaccuracy is one of my pet hates. Medal of 'Honor' as it is known(it's spelt honour) has already been mentioned so i will mention other ones.

1. Saving Private Ryan. Great film but apparently Steven Spielberg has never heard of Sword, Gold and Juno beaches before and didn't read up about Omaha much either. In reality, the rangers disembarked from British ships and were taken to Omaha Beach by Royal Navy landing craft. The film depicts them as being United States Coast Guard-crewed craft from an American ship.

2. The Bridge over the River Kwai. Again a great film but a lot of inaccuracies and it follows the tradition of..i'm going to tell you later. Firstly, the bridge was never that big or made out of wood, it was a steel and concrete bridge. Secondly, the prisoners were treated worse than depicted in the film and there was no collaboration. In fact, the British senior officer encouraged sabotage in the building process. Lastly, it was never destroyed, it is still there, which brings me to the demo team and the tradition thing i mentioned earlier which is in British war films there always seems to be some heroic american who leads the team when in reality we (i'm British if you hadn't guessed already) wouldn't of asked or needed a american to lead a special forces team because we were too busy teaching the americans about special forces. Well what do you expect from an american funded adaptation of a french novel.

3. Army of Darkness.

If you read my whole rant, thank you and have some applause.
P.S. I don't hate the americans, just their arrogance. I do hate the french and also their arrogance.

 

[mental_looney]

Braveheart, it's just meh and not scottish histroy, there was no secret romance and the battle of stirling bridge was portrayed wrong, it's all wrong and a horrible dump on scottish history and accuracy

 

[redisforever]

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?

Yes. I think. It was a Russian movie. And it was violent. Can't recall the name...

The brilliant "Stalingrad" (the German movie) is in the Russian Front, and it's simply superb. Then again, there's "Enemy at the Gates", which can suck a horse's dick.

Possibly. I'm not sure...

 

[redisforever]

Don't remember when but someone told me I was a moron when I said Alfred Nobel invented dynamite.

http://inventors.about.com/od/dstartinventions/a/Alfred_Nobel.htm

He then told me to go f**k myself and that I was a communist.

Americans, you need to put those guys in the looney bin asap They're bad for your image.

That guy was a wank. Of course Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. He invented it to aid in mining and was completely horrified when humans started using it to kill each other. This is the main reason why Alfred established the Nobel Peace Prize.

Not all Americans are wank myself included.

Alfred Nobel actually hoped that people would stop waging wars when a complete army could be wiped out in moments with explosives. Ah if he only had known how that particular theory would work out...

Humans, someone tells you something, you feel the need to test it out. They're still not done trying...

 

[chrono16]

Inglourious Basterds.

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

Nope. Thats definitely how it happened. lol

 

[Brutal Peanut]

I know people who kept going on about 'The Tudors' HBO show. "Oh, it's so wonderful! And it's teaching me so much!" Then they try to talk with me about it. They would start out strong and I would think, "Oh well maybe this is an alright show." Then their comments and the 'facts' that they were learning were disturbingly inaccurate. I tried watching it for myself and I found myself raging a bit. Even just the look of the characters made me shake my head and sigh heavily.

Of course I know why they really enjoy it, but hardly any of them would ever admit that it's not because they are learning. They really love the drama or they just want to see naked people, or perhaps both. Either way, it's garbage to me. But then I'm argued against that it is just a t.v. show, and it is not supposed to be accurate and that I need to lighten up. But if I were to start talking nonsense about something that they enjoy and know about, I doubt they'd react any differently.

 

[Kimarous]

Most historical inaccuracies don't bother me in a lot of films. The only one I ever really freaking out over was "Ancient Egyptian sai weapons in 'The Mummy 2' WTF?"

 

[emeraldrafael]

The Last Samurai, that movie is so filled with innacuracies it hurts.

1: Tom Cruise should have been French or German, as those were the nationalities the Japanese hired the most for military training, you know, people who had actually fought real wars and not extermination campaigns against natives (Fighting was brutal but much smaller scale adn against a poorly equipped enemy*.)

...

Because I suppose the Seven Years War (French and Indian for us in the US), the American Revolution, and the war of 1812, the Civil War, and (you could argue) the Utah War, dont count as "real" wars. Right.

as well as fighting a guerrilla unit the likes of which they wouldnt really see in such deadly force until fighting the Vietnamese (who also were a small and more poorly armed force then the US army) in the Native Americans, pretty much literally every step they made across the continent.

I'm not saying you're wrong, or that had to be the US that would go and help over all, but to say the US hadnt fought in any real wars before that time is just so... wrong.

*Also, there are historians who say that the US might not exist today if it werent for the fact that even before Cortez and most other countries had a real interest in staking claims in the new world, disease had wiped out a HUGE portion of the Native population, making pretty much whatever the Europeans and US Americans did cleaning up. Its very well possible that had it not been for thigns like Small Pox, the Europeans would have never been able to keep their stake in the land just through sheer overwhelming force and guerrilla warfare (of course, thats all speculation and heresay mostly)