evilthecat said:
With the Napoleonic wars, the average person has little concept of how it looked, and therefore they are less likely to be immersed.
True, but there's nothing to stop the film/series-makers from making a(n informed) effort to educate the viewer, and a fair few series and films (e.g. Waterloo) made a fair fist of it, even if a lot of the really small details (such as the regimental standards and some of the uniforms) are incorrect.
So, lack of public awareness won't impact quality, though I suppose you imply that it will impact popularity, but then, the HBO series with British casts did rather well, didn't they?
Medieval warfare is even worse because it's just unfair. It's ludicrously, ludicrously unfair, like every aspect of medieval society.
Can you imagine an attempt to portray the siege of Magdeburg?! Man, that'll be a shitshow irrespective of how well or badly it's done.
Samtemdo8 said:
Now imagine that concept but in a far older period of war in history. Like imagine that in the Napoleonic War following a unit of French or British Soldiers and what not.
As already mentioned, Sharpe was a thing, but only really popular in the UK. A truly accurate piece though will be so jarring though. Take the Peninsular War... after a certain point, everyone went running to the British because the French and Spanish butchered each other out of hand, the British and Spanish political hierarchies hated each others' guts (not much of a surprise, but the extent is truly breathtaking) and the gentlemanly British displays (and oftentimes French reciprocation) would be regarded as pure insanity nowadays, even if it was almost second nature then.
Even something as far older as a group of Knights or Men at Arms in the Medieval period or a Phalanx in Greek Antiquity.
Still waiting for someone to do an (on-screen) adaptation of the Anabasis that isn't the Warriors...!
Basically a moive about the stories of th common soldier/warrior in antiquity. Can a movie like that be done or has it already been done? Because when it comes to older wars in history most of the time when they portray it in film and tv we often always follow the story from the perspective of the Generals or Leaders of a nation at war.
The problem with this (not that I don't agree with the concept, I like it) is as already mentioned by evilthecat, but to expand on their point, while the viewing public has (in our estimation) a lower than intended knowledge and/or desire to know about the famous names of this period, said knowledge of the grunt of then is even less. And for those who do know, the representations on screen will always be insufficient because it always requires justification (whether of justifying to the viewer when the characters adhere to historic norms, or of why the creators have done what they did if the characters don't adhere to historic norms, which are increasingly, as time goes back, divergent from how we are now, something that, perhaps not you specifically, people in general at least, still need to be reminded of and a lot of behaviours that may appear to coincide between now and then will have completely different connotations), which extends to how the militaries throughout the world conducted themselves. So there's a lot of sugar coating, like Troy (200-whenever) and the post-siege sack which was a really diabetes inducing sugar-coat.
Viewers need to know the socially acceptable by modern standards reason why the characters do what they do, and while having a couple characters say 'for the money, 'cos I like money', or 'family's poor, so for the money' or 'my lord's a dick, so only doing it for the money', it's fine, but not when the entire damned cast shares this apparent 'justification'.
Further, the disassociation between the commanders and the foot-sloggers was massive, much more than it is now, owing to perceptions and general ignorance. Like... who among the ranks of his army actually cared that Wallenstein was assassinated in 1634? Who would actually know why he was assassinated? Now, as a modern viewer, how is this to be portrayed to be both accurate/authentic and appealing in the entertainment sense beyond the usual subtle contempt for late-medieval barbarism? From the PoV of his troopers, this narrative is borderline non-existent and there is neither any desire nor (historic) justification for wanting to know any of the details behind the wholesale change of command so it just appears as an inexplicable plothole. And don't get me started on Macedonian/Diadochi """"""politics"""""".
Like I have never seen a Napoleonic War movie where Napoleon himself is not the protagonist.
LOL, ya do know why they were called the 'Napoleonic Wars' dontcha?!
All kidding aside, he was the centre of those conflicts, so it makes perfect sense to have him as a perpetually central character. Even historians have less interest in a Napoleonic era film about someone else than him, because his character, his life and his career are such compelling subjects. Hell, I'd like to see something from Frederick William's perspective, just to see how they'd cover Louise's death, but dear lord, he's a boring character.
While I will never hope for something to be made about the German Wars of Unification from a German/Prussian perspective, I'm still hoping for something about the Second Punic War (mixed perspective or otherwise), 'cos my, there's a lot of material there to cover, and the contrivances aren't even that bad, IMO.
