Historical Inaccuracy Corner

[SckizoBoy]

Because I feel like it, pick a film or game or book that you enjoyed (or hell, even one you hated) that was based on historical fact but either slightly, partially or completely ballsed up the 'historical fact' part.

I'll start: Pearl Harbour... THE ENTIRE FUCKING FILM (well, most of it...)

More specifically: Two Americans serving with the RAF. Most of the attack on Battleship Row. Adm Yamamoto's location during the attack. Representation of Lt's Taylor & Welch. etc. etc.

And just to piss some people off: Gladiator...

The riveted carriage?! Most of Commodus' clothing & armour. Flavian Amphitheatre's size (though to be fair, the rest of the detail was well done). Opening battle scene & casualty count (plus the soundtrack of Zulu in the background?!). Maximus' name (Maximus was a cognomen not a praenomen, Decimus was a praenomen not a nomen, and Meridius was a nomen not a cognomen). Commodus relationship with his sister etc. etc.

 

[Valagetti]

If have an eye for it, you can tell how wood was planed, as in manually or with a machine. Don't know how many times I've seen this in films that the setting was before electricity. And Pirates of the Caribean, the ships have propellers. You can tell by the water trends they make.

 

[Lt_Bromhead]

Because I feel like it, pick a film or game or book that you enjoyed (or hell, even one you hated) that was based on historical fact but either slightly, partially or completely ballsed up the 'historical fact' part.

I'll start: Pearl Harbour... THE ENTIRE FUCKING FILM (well, most of it...)

More specifically: Two Americans serving with the RAF. Most of the attack on Battleship Row. Adm Yamamoto's location during the attack. Representation of Lt's Taylor & Welch. etc. etc.

And just to piss some people off: Gladiator...

The riveted carriage?! Most of Commodus' clothing & armour. Flavian Amphitheatre's size (though to be fair, the rest of the detail was well done). Opening battle scene & casualty count (plus the soundtrack of Zulu in the background?!). Maximus' name (Maximus was a cognomen not a praenomen, Decimus was a praenomen not a nomen, and Meridius was a nomen not a cognomen). Commodus relationship with his sister etc. etc.

Just wondering what you mean by the Zulu track in the background...?

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...

 

[Neverhoodian]

I'll start: Pearl Harbour... THE ENTIRE FUCKING FILM (well, most of it...)

More specifically: Two Americans serving with the RAF. Most of the attack on Battleship Row. Adm Yamamoto's location during the attack. Representation of Lt's Taylor & Welch. etc. etc.

I've only seen a few short clips from that movie, and I can tell that it's full of inaccuracies (dogfights at treetop level and whipping around buildings? Please!). However, there were a handful of American pilots that joined the RAF during the Battle of Britain. Indeed, the first American pilot killed in action in World War II died on August 16, 1940, almost a year and a half before Pearl Harbor.

The movie Flyboys. I like the film, but it's full of inaccuracies:

1. The unit that the American volunteers join is actually a combination of two different ones, the Lafayette Escadrille and the Lafayette Flying Corps.

2. Dogfights depict Nieuport 17s fighting Fokker Dr.1 triplanes, even though the Dr.1 entered service after the Nieuport 17 was phased out of action.

3. Every German fighter is a Fokker triplane, even though the Albatros biplanes were more commonly used. Moreover, most of the Fokkers have entirely red paint jobs, yet in reality only a handful of planes had such markings.

4. To my knowledge, the Germans never sent a Zeppelin to bomb Paris.

There are some small miscellaneous inaccuracies as well (such as rotary engines not spinning with the propeller due to the planes being replicas that use radial engines), but aren't nearly as noticeable.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Just wondering what you mean by the Zulu track in the background...?

Listen carefully during the build up to the opening battle scene, in and around the time when the German barbarian throws a head and taunts the Romans (in High German... another inaccuracy), there's Zulu chanting in the background. It took me a while to realise that, and when I did... what... the... fuck...(?!)

Might be off slightly in the timing, but it's definitely there. Also, the battle itself was a misrepresentation of the Roman military system as well...

 

[0986875533423]

And Pirates of the Caribean, the ships have propellers. You can tell by the water trends they make.

You may also have noticed that Pirates of the Caribbean is a film series where a made-up British colony is repeatedly threatened by zombies and the embodiment of a symbolic myth about death at sea, such menaces thwarted only by an incompetent and (comparatively) very hygienic pirate captain sailing on a succession of ships, all of which ignore the period "No women on board" rule.

I think we can allow propellers in this case.

EDIT: All right, going to nip this in the bud before every fool who won't read past the first page tries to get their oar in: I KNOW there was a real carribean port called Port Royal, but (and I quote myself here):

"'Port Royal' is too generic a name to imply a specific place because it sounds like the archetypal British colony name for any franchise using that era: undescriptive, shamelessly imperious and Neo-english. So unless the location in the film does actually mimic the real port in some meaningful way (which we've confirmed that it doesn't) then I see no reason to presume they are the same place."

 

[Zeema]

well i was going to say gladiator but someone stole my idea

but Passion of the christ missed alot of stuff and swapped to the wrong language at one stage

The film shows Jesus being crucified with nails through the palms of his hands. This is almost certainly historically wrong. The Romans more likely crucified people with nails through their wrists, rather than the palms of their hands. (See: 'The crucified man' on this site, for a detailed description).

 

[Ben Simon]

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.

 

[Jake Lewis Clayton]

Two Americans serving with the RAF.

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.

 

[Aerodyamic]

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.

 

[Beliyal]

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...

I'd like to say that I'd argue against inaccuracy of 300 with this. The story was never about how the battle really happened; it was about how the Greeks perceived it happening. Knowing how ancient Greeks were pretty much racist and hated their enemies (especially Persians), they would have told the story exactly like that, all the monsters included. I actually consider 300 being the most historically accurate film, because it shows how Greeks would have re-told the story back in the day when it happened. It shows the actual history and how people praised their war campaigns instead of looking at our scientific and purified version of every historical event. 300 immersed me much more than any other historical film and made me get the little of the feel of how did a Greek society like its story to be told (all the way with the macho heroes, horrible enemy-monsters and impossible fighting skills). No doubt, the real thing didn't look like that at all, but people who didn't participate in it, didn't know that; they got romanticised over-the-top story like the one told in 300.

OT: I usually notice inaccuracies a lot and I've noticed so much of them, that I can't even remember anymore. But, I do always note the inaccuracy in Troy, although it's debatable whether we can call it "historical" inaccuracy; while I actually liked the movie, I was disappointed with Paris surviving. It was unnecessary change of the original story. Him dying actually has a meaning in that tragic epic and would be something that he actually completely deserved (especially after killing Achilles with an arrow; the Greeks considered the arrow to be a coward's weapon). However, speaking of Troy, the Illiad itself has historical inaccuracies (for example, mentioning iron when the battle happened in the bronze age and there was no iron) so I guess that changing things from it is not really that much of a crime, considering the fact that the story itself is full of implausible stuff.

well i was going to say gladiator but someone stole my idea

but Passion of the christ missed alot of stuff and swapped to the wrong language at one stage

The film shows Jesus being crucified with nails through the palms of his hands. This is almost certainly historically wrong. The Romans more likely crucified people with nails through their wrists, rather than the palms of their hands. (See: 'The crucified man' on this site, for a detailed description).

Also, this a bit disappointed me, but then again, it might be the same thing as with 300. It's an adaptation of a Biblical story and it had to look "familiar". The emphasis wasn't really on history, otherwise, there wouldn't be Satan in the movie (... let's not go into a religious debate). So, I forgave Passion of the Christ for that (also because the movie was not in English which made it really impressive). Oh, while we're at it, Apocalypto was awesome for the same thing, but I did find it a bit irritating with inaccuracies. For example, sacrificing to the god Kukulkan to whom human hearts were not sacrificed and various mixing of Mayan and Aztec cultures (the last scene is the conquistadors showing up in Americas, which would be the period of the Aztec civilization and not classical Mayan one that was depicted in the movie).

One more thing I find infuriating is the presentation Cleopatra VII. (the Cleopatra) in media. She's always beautiful in the modern sense of that word and cares about being dressed nicely and stuff like that, while in reality, she was actually not "beautiful" at all and instead was just very charming, intelligent and a very well educated woman (she spoke five languages). I know that might be as appealing, but then again, no one tried (though, the Cleopatra from the TV series Rome was actually very good).

 

[Cahir]

The 2010 MoH reboot features very little resemblance to real life. Bagram airport was never in Taliban hands and was secured by the British SBS instead. The militia in control of the airfield, although allied with the ISAF, weren't told that the SBS were going to be landing, and it was only the quick thinking, and even quicker tongue, of the SBS commander that prevented violence. He has since died.

The battle of Shah-i-Kot was also shown completely incorrectly. The ANA? Yeah, they got fired on by an AC-130, but they didn't turn tail. No, they kept on going once the misunderstanding was cleared up and get into position for the massive aerial bombardment. A couple of bombs later, the ANA were left high and dry and sustained very heavy casualties.

When the Rangers landed and came under heavy fire, they dropped all of their radios and extra ammunition in their made struggle to get to cover. It was only the fact that they had two members of the Australian Special Forces, one of whom was a dedicated radioman, that allowed them to call in airstrikes. Later, when the Ranger QRF force had been shot down, it was another Australian SASR team who called in the vital airstrikes that kept the Taliban at bay.

Also of interest is that the 2nd and 3rd longest sniper kills, which were the 1st and 2nd at the time, were made by Canadian snipers during the battle, and the Germans, Norwegians, New Zealanders, and Danes were all involved in the special forces side of things.

TLR - The 2010 MoH reboot decided to portray Operation Anaconda as a purely American operation despite the vast and significant range of contributions from other countries, and deliberately ignored serious tactical errors made by the Americans that got a lot of people killed needlessly.

 

[J-dog42]

Charlie Wilson's War was on television last night. I was watching it in between doing an assignment. While I'm sure that it was rife with historical inaccuracies, the most obvious was when they were talking about the Mujahideen shooting down Soviet planes. They then showed an F-4 Phantom, an F-16 Falcon and I think an A-6 Intruder getting blown apart. Very pretty, but they were obviously American planes. Surely the director could have got his hands on stock footage of a MiG or something.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

Pretty much every WW2 film ever made.
I am getting so fed up with no other country being mentioned other than
TEH AMERICAN SAVIOURS!!!111!!1!
We get it.
You helped.
...Eventually.

 

[winter2]

Pretty much every WW2 film ever made.
I am getting so fed up with no other country being mentioned other than
TEH AMERICAN SAVIOURS!!!111!!1!
We get it.
You helped.
...Eventually.

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

 

[Alon Shechter]

Generation Kill.
I'm sure the marines are not THAT much of badass assholes..
...Right?

 

[gigastar]

Command and Conquer: Red Alert. (Allied senario)

Einstien biulds a time machine and uses it to travel back to (about) 1930 to kill Hitler before he gained any recognition in Germany.

Stalin, under psychic influences that would not be hinted at until the second installment in the series, launches an all out invasion on Europe. And pretty much takes all of it except for Britan.

Youre the British commander, cue game start.

 

[Lt_Bromhead]

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...

I'd like to say that I'd argue against inaccuracy of 300 with this. The story was never about how the battle really happened; it was about how the Greeks perceived it happening. Knowing how ancient Greeks were pretty much racist and hated their enemies (especially Persians), they would have told the story exactly like that, all the monsters included. I actually consider 300 being the most historically accurate film, because it shows how Greeks would have re-told the story back in the day when it happened. It shows the actual history and how people praised their war campaigns instead of looking at our scientific and purified version of every historical event. 300 immersed me much more than any other historical film and made me get the little of the feel of how did a Greek society like its story to be told (all the way with the macho heroes, horrible enemy-monsters and impossible fighting skills). No doubt, the real thing didn't look like that at all, but people who didn't participate in it, didn't know that; they got romanticised over-the-top story like the one told in 300.

OT: I usually notice inaccuracies a lot and I've noticed so much of them, that I can't even remember anymore. But, I do always note the inaccuracy in Troy, although it's debatable whether we can call it "historical" inaccuracy; while I actually liked the movie, I was disappointed with Paris surviving. It was unnecessary change of the original story. Him dying actually has a meaning in that tragic epic and would be something that he actually completely deserved (especially after killing Achilles with an arrow; the Greeks considered the arrow to be a coward's weapon). However, speaking of Troy, the Illiad itself has historical inaccuracies (for example, mentioning iron when the battle happened in the bronze age and there was no iron) so I guess that changing things from it is not really that much of a crime, considering the fact that the story itself is full of implausible stuff.

... 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.

 

[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.