Historical Inaccuracy Corner

[wench]

2001: A Space Odyssey. That never happened.

Seriously, though, Elizabeth 2 was really inaccurate. It just blended all the most interesting parts of Queen Elizabeth's life into a one-or-two month period, made up the rest of the character's actions, and layered it all with a green-tinted anti-Spanish message. Also, the acting was melodramatic and the film itself was weirdly colored, but that's a different issue.

My girlfriend refuse to Watch 'Elizabeth' or 'The Tudors', because she's a historical clothing geek, and she knows she'd spend every minute of every show berating the costuming for historical inaccuracy. The sad thing is, I've absorbed enough knowledge from her that I can occasionally pick out why the clothing is wrongly or inaccurately made, and it scares me.

Yeah, the clothes are always what gets me in films. I can deal with it if it's a fantasy setting (ok, so I got a minor twinge from some of Elizabeth's outfits in POTC), but the problems I see with costuming in "historical" films just pull me completely out of the story. I get that they do it for the look, and that 99% of people don't know/couldn't care... but it does get to me.

 

[ShakyFt Slasher]

Inglourious Basterds.

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

It is at least how he SHOULD have died

 

[KarlMonster]

Don't read this. You already know what you believe. I must be lying.

But it is clearly obvious that Jesus lord our Christ and saviour was brought back from the dead and anyone saying that, the Bible isn't historiclly accurate then he's an idiot!
Because you would be in hell without god.
Hell!

Oh, I wouldn't say it is inaccurate...

The Synoptic Gospels were written for very specific audiences, so the message of the Good News was slightly altered in each to better adapt to the cultures to which they were written. They were never intended to be used as a dogmatic message to people 2000 years in the future. Yet the minor inconsistencies were latched onto within a few hundred years. Also Paul was a dick, and a granular reading of his letters reveals as much. He had a "break" of one sort or another on the road to Damascus. Peter couldn't stand Paul, and the Jewish Christians didn't trust him, because of his pre-break persecutions. The only possible audience left for Paul was "everyone else"; the Gentiles - to whom he had the stones to call himself an Apostle. Paul encouraged the Christian communities to seal themselves off from everyone else. This led to Christian elitism as early as the 4th century, and some of the world's most tragic violence. For example; Rome was sacked in 461 by Goths. Goths that were Christians.
[Also 'hell' was not invented until about the 5th century]
(source: Charles Freeman "The Closing of the Western Mind")

I don't have a (readily available) source for this but consider:
Jesus - if he had not already drowned through crucifixion - was probably killed by a spear wound. [Unless that wound happened to relieve the pulmonary edema, which is unlikely. Right?] His body would have been taken down on a Friday evening. The Sabbath begins Friday at sundown, and lasts until Sunday at daybreak. Jesus' friends and supporters had mostly fled, so only a few Jewish women would have been bold enough to claim the body and then prepare it for burial. But women weren't allowed out on the Sabbath. Even if they violated these very firm rules, the shops would not be open on the Sabbath, so they could not have gathered the materials to prepare the body until Sunday morning. So, people who could not have been around the body of Jesus since sundown-ish on Friday, went to the tomb (by way of a little shopping) on Sunday morning and found it empty.

"Stop this war"

"Stop slavery"

"Back to war"

"Stop this war" ....repeat last two until history is over.

"Slavery" is often cited as the proximate cause of the American Civil War. But it wasn't. While Lincoln was reputed to favor the abolition of slavery (which was true), he publicly denied that he had any intention of forcing abolition on southern states. Yet by the time news of Lincoln's election had spread, southern politicians had worked themselves into such a lather that various states began declaring their secession before the new administration could take office.

Therefore, the American Civil War was caused by political polarization, misinformation, and scare-mongering.

Funny, that sounds so familiar...

 

[KarlMonster]

Yeah, the clothes are always what gets me in films. I can deal with it if it's a fantasy setting (ok, so I got a minor twinge from some of Elizabeth's outfits in POTC), but the problems I see with costuming in "historical" films just pull me completely out of the story. I get that they do it for the look, and that 99% of people don't know/couldn't care... but it does get to me.

Sorry, I can't resist...

"...It's BLEEDIN' weird having half the Tudor nobility on motorized bicycles!"

"It is velly sullear."

...

(*snif*) I love those guys.

 

[ChupathingyX]

SNIP

You failed to see the sarcasm in my comment.

 

[Commissar Sae]

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)

Yeah I meant to expand on that at the time, I mean real by the standards of the international superpowers the US had not had any real wars. I've read plenty about the Cheyenne recently and those wars were as bloody as anything I've ever read about, but they were significantly smaller scale than say the Napoleonic campaign of 1812. The US was still a fairly insignificant power on the world stage at that time. Sure they were starting to pick up steam but Japan was much more interested in German and French military prowess.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Your not exactly a history buff are you?

Before pearl harbour there was alot of Americans in the british RAF, it was their only way to get involved in the war really.

1. Clearly not.

2. I wasn't particularly sure about that one after I posted it. The extent of my knowledge was that at the time, American military personnel were prohibited (under then American law) from serving with the RAF (namely around the time of the Battle of Britain and indeed any foreign military service, though a general pardon was issued in 1944), largely to do with maintaining political neutrality. However, this didn't prevent American civilians (whether it was hundreds or thousands is a matter of some debate) from disregarding this and while American pilots did form the Eagle Squadrons (71/121/133, though I think only really 71st got involved in the Battle of Britain) as part of the RAF under one Charles Sweeney (who had to smuggle Americans through Canada to be able to circumvent US authorities) originally to serve with BEF against the German Case Yellow. Anyway, the RAF supported him with the Clayton Knight Committee/Foundation (can't remember what it was called exactly) under the auspices of a Canadian AVM (can't remember his name) and the titular Clayton Knight, though how he managed to get away with it (being a WWI vet notwithstanding) I haven't the faintest idea.

Also, their ranks would've been in line with the RAF system, so the main characters should've been referred to as Flying Officers, not Lieutenants (though having not seen the film in a looooooooong time, and thank god for that, they may (or may not) have gotten that right).

So, it wasn't the fact that there were Americans serving with the RAF that is the inaccuracy, it's that they're active serving American military personnel serving with the RAF that's wrong. And if they did serve with the RAF and returned in time for the attack on Pearl Harbour, I don't think Hep Arnold would've avoided a severe dent to his reputation when his corps personnel are serving at their own whims. *shrug*

 

[SckizoBoy]

except that the spartans did not participate in the war after thermopylae, 300 was all their tiny little slave-state of pedo-flavored angry gay men could afford without losing control of their own country. much less send a contingent of ten thousand soldiers.

Huh... you might want to check up on the Battle of Plataea... Spartan contingent (according to Herodotus): 5000 Spartiates, 5000 Perioeci (Laconians) & 35000 helot bearers/psiloi/peltasts.

Also, Battle of Mycale that occurred at more or less the same time: Greeks commanded by the Spartan duarch Leotychides in command of 40000 or so Athenian and Spartan marines.

 

[Darks63]

The Pianist. Why were the Polish speaking English!!!!!!!!

Because the English speaking world contains so many illiterates or people who can't read at sufficient speed, that subtitles just won't work for them.


Anyway, ontopic. First episode of the great series called Rome by HBO, starts with a battle between roman legionaires and Gauls, likely in the siege of Alesia because they sack Alesia right after the battle.

What struck me is how standard the equipment of the legionaires was. They all wore the same. While the whole idea of uniforms is typically an invention of later times. Now it was after the Marian Reforms were professional soldiers replaced the system of mandatory service if you had enough money to purchase your own gear, so things will have been a little more standardised, but still it's inaccurate.

Actually that campaign took place between 58 -51 bc, the marian reforms were in around 100 bc. The mantiple legions your talking about were long phased out in favor of the cohort legions which caesar took with him to gaul.

 

[artanis_neravar]

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.

My point exactly, thank you

 

[Jake Lewis Clayton]

Your not exactly a history buff are you?

Before pearl harbour there was alot of Americans in the british RAF, it was their only way to get involved in the war really.

1. Clearly not.

2. I wasn't particularly sure about that one after I posted it. The extent of my knowledge was that at the time, American military personnel were prohibited (under then American law) from serving with the RAF (namely around the time of the Battle of Britain and indeed any foreign military service, though a general pardon was issued in 1944), largely to do with maintaining political neutrality. However, this didn't prevent American civilians (whether it was hundreds or thousands is a matter of some debate) from disregarding this and while American pilots did form the Eagle Squadrons (71/121/133, though I think only really 71st got involved in the Battle of Britain) as part of the RAF under one Charles Sweeney (who had to smuggle Americans through Canada to be able to circumvent US authorities) originally to serve with BEF against the German Case Yellow. Anyway, the RAF supported him with the Clayton Knight Committee/Foundation (can't remember what it was called exactly) under the auspices of a Canadian AVM (can't remember his name) and the titular Clayton Knight, though how he managed to get away with it (being a WWI vet notwithstanding) I haven't the faintest idea.

Also, their ranks would've been in line with the RAF system, so the main characters should've been referred to as Flying Officers, not Lieutenants (though having not seen the film in a looooooooong time, and thank god for that, they may (or may not) have gotten that right).

So, it wasn't the fact that there were Americans serving with the RAF that is the inaccuracy, it's that they're active serving American military personnel serving with the RAF that's wrong. And if they did serve with the RAF and returned in time for the attack on Pearl Harbour, I don't think Hep Arnold would've avoided a severe dent to his reputation when his corps personnel are serving at their own whims. *shrug*

Indeed you've got it now,


Never post about inaccuracies if you're not sure about them.

 

[emeraldrafael]

snip

Thats still rather funny considering that more then a few of the greatest powers at that time (spain, the UK, France, Germany, Prussia) had went either toe to toe with or against the US (I'll count the Seven Years War. Mostly cause the UK could and for a large part did completely botch that up and it took colonial thinking to win) in each of the wars listed (except the Utah Wars).

Like I said, Im not saying the Us had to run over and fight for japan, but I wouldnt say they're not a power in comparison to those at the time. Sure they didnt have the scale of land mass, and thus not the scale of population, but they had just as much war and death dealings, and could be argued to be superior because of what they had learned, and the weapons they had mastered.

And lets not forget, it was an (US) American, who opened japan up to the world.

 

[Commissar Sae]

snip

Thats still rather funny considering that more then a few of the greatest powers at that time (spain, the UK, France, Germany, Prussia) had went either toe to toe with or against the US (I'll count the Seven Years War. Mostly cause the UK could and for a large part did completely botch that up and it took colonial thinking to win) in each of the wars listed (except the Utah Wars).

Like I said, Im not saying the Us had to run over and fight for japan, but I wouldnt say they're not a power in comparison to those at the time. Sure they didnt have the scale of land mass, and thus not the scale of population, but they had just as much war and death dealings, and could be argued to be superior because of what they had learned, and the weapons they had mastered.

And lets not forget, it was an (US) American, who opened japan up to the world.

True, Commodore Perry was the one to open the Japanese ports (with what can onlt be called gunship diplomacy) but the fact is while the US was an up and comer, it wasnt an established power yet. Thus internationally received very little in the form of international recognition from the great powers. It was considered a far flung territory of comparative little worth. And while there was plenty of fighting there, it was much smaller scale.

Also Germany didn't exist yet, and the major power list should look more along the lines of Great Britain, France, Prussia (to a lesser extent), Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire (losing steam at this point). Plus from memory the US actually had more territory than any of the others (save Russia and the Ottomans)

 

[emeraldrafael]

snip

Thats still rather funny considering that more then a few of the greatest powers at that time (spain, the UK, France, Germany, Prussia) had went either toe to toe with or against the US (I'll count the Seven Years War. Mostly cause the UK could and for a large part did completely botch that up and it took colonial thinking to win) in each of the wars listed (except the Utah Wars).

Like I said, Im not saying the Us had to run over and fight for japan, but I wouldnt say they're not a power in comparison to those at the time. Sure they didnt have the scale of land mass, and thus not the scale of population, but they had just as much war and death dealings, and could be argued to be superior because of what they had learned, and the weapons they had mastered.

And lets not forget, it was an (US) American, who opened japan up to the world.

True, Commodore Perry was the one to open the Japanese ports (with what can onlt be called gunship diplomacy) but the fact is while the US was an up and comer, it wasnt an established power yet. Thus internationally received very little in the form of international recognition from the great powers. It was considered a far flung territory of comparative little worth. And while there was plenty of fighting there, it was much smaller scale.

Also Germany didn't exist yet, and the major power list should look more along the lines of Great Britain, France, Prussia (to a lesser extent), Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire (losing steam at this point). Plus from memory the US actually had more territory than any of the others (save Russia and the Ottomans)

I'm pretty sure Britain still had India at this point, and somed of its African colonies like South Africa. and most the US "terrority" was still under the natives living there so we (the US) didnt, and probably still shouldnt, have rights to claim.

... and i was more thinking the hessians as germans.

 

[Commissar Sae]

snip

Thats still rather funny considering that more then a few of the greatest powers at that time (spain, the UK, France, Germany, Prussia) had went either toe to toe with or against the US (I'll count the Seven Years War. Mostly cause the UK could and for a large part did completely botch that up and it took colonial thinking to win) in each of the wars listed (except the Utah Wars).

Like I said, Im not saying the Us had to run over and fight for japan, but I wouldnt say they're not a power in comparison to those at the time. Sure they didnt have the scale of land mass, and thus not the scale of population, but they had just as much war and death dealings, and could be argued to be superior because of what they had learned, and the weapons they had mastered.

And lets not forget, it was an (US) American, who opened japan up to the world.

True, Commodore Perry was the one to open the Japanese ports (with what can onlt be called gunship diplomacy) but the fact is while the US was an up and comer, it wasnt an established power yet. Thus internationally received very little in the form of international recognition from the great powers. It was considered a far flung territory of comparative little worth. And while there was plenty of fighting there, it was much smaller scale.

Also Germany didn't exist yet, and the major power list should look more along the lines of Great Britain, France, Prussia (to a lesser extent), Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire (losing steam at this point). Plus from memory the US actually had more territory than any of the others (save Russia and the Ottomans)

I'm pretty sure Britain still had India at this point, and somed of its African colonies like South Africa. and most the US "terrority" was still under the natives living there so we (the US) didnt, and probably still shouldnt, have rights to claim.

... and i was more thinking the hessians as germans.

True, Britain technically had a larger empire but its not contiguous or all under the control of the same person. Slipped my mind for some reason... Must be getting older than i thought.

Also I guess the Hessians count as Germans, but its hard to compare what was fundementally a mercenary company with infantry regulars.

As I side note I'm now really looking forward to being a teacher.

 

[YesIPlayTheBagpipes]

Braveheart, almost all of it.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Braveheart, almost all of it.

First thing that came to mind... Battle of Stirling Bridge... completely wrong on all counts.

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.

This is true, and the work done by the Poles served the Allies well.....until the German Navy changed their enigma machines in 1942, rendering encrypted messages to the U-boat fleet unreadable. Whilst there were teams working on the new code, the capture of U110 and both its enigma machine and codebooks enabled the guys and girls as Bletchley Park to crack the new code.

So the film U571 is a bastardised version of the U110 incident, and really in name only. It has been a few years since I've seen the film, but if I remember correctly the premise of the film is an operation to specifically capture a U-boat (by Americans, of course). Whereas the real incident was a chance opportunity. U110 had been heavily damaged by British destroyers whilst attacking a convoy, so the Captain Lemp ordered an emergency surface, had the ships vents opened to scuttle it and evacuated the crew. Expecting the boat to sink the crew didn't destroy the machine or any other sensitive material, but it didn't sink. It was some quick thinking by the destroyer captains that netted them the U110, as they were intent on sinking it (the crew evacuating was initially interpreted as the crew preparing the deck gun for firing). Realising that the crew had abandoned ship and the boat wasn't sinking, they pulled alongside and stripped it of anything and everything that wasn't bolted down.

SO yeah, U571 does have some basis in history....it just completely ignores it to make the Americans look good.

Oddly, what I remember of that film that rankles at me is the representation of the interior of U571. Please see Das Boot for a good illustration of life and functioning on a U-Boat i.e. fuck-all space.

It has been many years since I've played CoD2, but I don't remember there being Tigers in the desert. I do remember Panzer II's though, which was just as amusing. The commander was afraid of them? A Tank that was obsolete before the war began, which the Germans knew was obsolete before the war began (and most likely the British) and only used in that sort of role at the beginning because they didn't have enough heavier tanks? HAH! Pull the other one...

Fairly sure they were supposed to be PzKpfw III's (Pz II's were armed with a 20mm Kwk Flak 30, which would've been a joke even by game standards). Take a screen cap of the tracks from the side, six road wheels and three track-suspension wheels IIRC (I mean from the game, not reality).

 

[SckizoBoy]

snip

Huh... I stand corrected... and good lord... Pz II's?! I know 21PD had about 50, but the mainstay of Afrika Korps' armour was Pz III's at the time (with more IV's coming in).

Oh well, no wonder Crusader Charge was so easy...