Historical Inaccuracy Corner

[Cahir]

In regards to Beliyal's comment on the use of iron, the Iliad is set during the Greek Dark Ages, when iron was becoming more common, so it's not a historical inaccuracy. Iron probably would have been used at Troy, and likely in greater amounts than bronze, which was more expensive.

Actually, traditionally, the Trojan War has been dated to 12th century BC which is the period of the Bronze age. The Greek Dark Ages started somewhere after the Trojan War. They kinda overlap, but 12th century is still regarded as the Bronze Age (although the question is tricky). I mean, that period is severely lacking in data and the switch from one to the other wasn't really over night. However, I usually ran into data that says the use of iron in the Illiad was a mistake (a few days ago I watched a documentary about the Trojan War where the same thing was noted, as well as some other mistakes that show that the author didn't really know the actual culture of the Bronze Age). I'm interested in the matter so I'm curious about where did you see that the iron part was actually not a mistake.

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.

Edit: Argh, that doesn't sound right. I'm sorry if I sound hostile. I'm just sleepy and aren't phrasing myself properly .

 

[Cahir]

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?

Check out "Kokoda". There aren't any Americans there to save the day, and MacArthur gets derided. Thank goodness that there's one movie intelligent enough to do that.

 

[DanielBrown]

Wow, not one mention of Braveheart? That's surprising.

I honestly don't give a damn about historical inaccuracies; documentaries fascinate me, and I love nature shows... so when I want realism, I go to them. When I want spectacle, I go to Hollywood.

Regarding Braveheart; off the top of my head, I recall reading that William Wallace was not a commoner, and was in fact a Scottish noble; that the clothing they wore was very different, and that by the end of the film, they would've been pretty much just as well armed and armoured as the English; that Prima Noctis never existed; and that Wallace and Robert the Bruce were never really best buds.

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.
Though it can be debatated wether Cracked.com is a trusted source or not.

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.

From imdb.com
When asked by a local why the Battle of Stirling Bridge was filmed on an open plain, Gibson answered that "the bridge got in the way". "Aye," the local answered. "That's what the English found."

 

[funguy2121]

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.

Pearl Harbor: a Michael Bay movie. About as historically accurate as Con Air and Transformers.

Gladiator: I have no idea what you're saying in parenthesis there - are those like surnames? Though I do agree that, unless you're going for comic book absurdity as in 300, period pieces shouldn't feature modern electronic/metal music, as it is cheesy and contextually inappropriate, not to mention amateurish. This was a low point in Ridley Scott's career. I was about ready to abandon him at this point, but then he gave us American Gangster.

 

[Cahir]

Wow, not one mention of Braveheart? That's surprising.

I honestly don't give a damn about historical inaccuracies; documentaries fascinate me, and I love nature shows... so when I want realism, I go to them. When I want spectacle, I go to Hollywood.

Regarding Braveheart; off the top of my head, I recall reading that William Wallace was not a commoner, and was in fact a Scottish noble; that the clothing they wore was very different, and that by the end of the film, they would've been pretty much just as well armed and armoured as the English; that Prima Noctis never existed; and that Wallace and Robert the Bruce were never really best buds.

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.
Though it can be debatated wether Cracked.com is a trusted source or not.

Wiki says [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart#Historical_accuracy] that Cracked.com's not that far off the mark.

 

[funguy2121]

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...

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.

 

[TheIronRuler]

[
-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...

300 was based on a comic book. The comic book was "loosely" based on the event.
.

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

You expect historical accuracy from TARANTINO?
.

The Pianist. Why were the Polish speaking English!!!!!!!!
Gladiator. To my knowlage, the Romans never used the bow and arrow in their military.

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.
Basically after the Marian Reforms entrance to the military was very easy which bolstered their ranks (Was at about 100 BCE) and also changed their tactics and composition of their soldiers. Hello bows.
Also, they used mercenaries gathered in occupied land, mostly in lands with a heavy cultural influence from hunting and bowmanship, like Crete and Thrace.

 

[TailstheHedgehog]

The Other Boleyn Girl.
Henry VIII never raped Anne Boleyn D:<! Sure she was a cold hearted witch, but that was just ridiculous and pretty much ruined the rest of the film for me. Book was a hundred times better.

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?

Check out "Kokoda". There aren't any Americans there to save the day, and MacArthur gets derided. Thank goodness that there's one movie intelligent enough to do that.

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.

But I read it years ago and I am by no means a WWII expert. I just know the yanks were involved.

 

[Mr Thin]

Though it can be debatated wether Cracked.com is a trusted source or not.

Nonsense. Cracked.com is GOSPEL, and I'll thumb-wrestle any scallywag who says otherwise.

 

[lachcal]

300, nuff said.

 

[B-Lavaunit]

Wow, not one mention of Braveheart? That's surprising.

I honestly don't give a damn about historical inaccuracies; documentaries fascinate me, and I love nature shows... so when I want realism, I go to them. When I want spectacle, I go to Hollywood.

Regarding Braveheart; off the top of my head, I recall reading that William Wallace was not a commoner, and was in fact a Scottish noble; that the clothing they wore was very different, and that by the end of the film, they would've been pretty much just as well armed and armoured as the English; that Prima Noctis never existed; and that Wallace and Robert the Bruce were never really best buds.

Wasn't there a bus in one scene of this? Like in the background?

 

[Heronblade]

The latest Robin Hood movie for one. The whole invasion scenario was off, the French landed on a beach that doesn't exist in England, in boats that didn't exist in the time period, in a manner that was clearly made to be reminiscent of the "Saving Private Ryan" D-day scene.

Then there was the whole bit with John burning the Magna Carta instead of signing it...

 

[Cahir]

The latest Robin Hood movie for one. The whole invasion scenario was off, the French landed on a beach that doesn't exist in England, in boats that didn't exist in the time period, in a manner that was clearly made to be reminiscent of the "Saving Private Ryan" D-day scene.

Then there was the whole bit with John burning the Magna Carta instead of signing it...

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.

On the bright side, though, at least it wasn't like the BBC TV series. I honestly can't watch that show, and that's saying something.

 

[B-Lavaunit]

The latest Robin Hood movie for one. The whole invasion scenario was off, the French landed on a beach that doesn't exist in England, in boats that didn't exist in the time period, in a manner that was clearly made to be reminiscent of the "Saving Private Ryan" D-day scene.

Then there was the whole bit with John burning the Magna Carta instead of signing it...

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 that

EDIT: ninjad

 

[Beliyal]

In regards to Beliyal's comment on the use of iron, the Iliad is set during the Greek Dark Ages, when iron was becoming more common, so it's not a historical inaccuracy. Iron probably would have been used at Troy, and likely in greater amounts than bronze, which was more expensive.

Actually, traditionally, the Trojan War has been dated to 12th century BC which is the period of the Bronze age. The Greek Dark Ages started somewhere after the Trojan War. They kinda overlap, but 12th century is still regarded as the Bronze Age (although the question is tricky). I mean, that period is severely lacking in data and the switch from one to the other wasn't really over night. However, I usually ran into data that says the use of iron in the Illiad was a mistake (a few days ago I watched a documentary about the Trojan War where the same thing was noted, as well as some other mistakes that show that the author didn't really know the actual culture of the Bronze Age). I'm interested in the matter so I'm curious about where did you see that the iron part was actually not a mistake.

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.

Edit: Argh, that doesn't sound right. I'm sorry if I sound hostile. I'm just sleepy and aren't phrasing myself properly .

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.

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

You expect historical accuracy from TARANTINO?

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.

 

[Supernova2000]

Call of Duty 2, whilst playing the tank mission in the dessert; according to the briefing, the German tanks have a significant range advantage over their British counterparts but in the early part of the mission, I've already killed 3 Tiger tanks from a mile away even though my CO keeps saying "hold your fire until we're in range".

 

[Cahir]

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 to rely on 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.

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.

 

[ChupathingyX]

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

You expect historical accuracy from TARANTINO?

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.

My original comment was meant as a joke, don't take it seriously.

I really enjoyed the film, and I'm pretty sure Tarantino isn't dumb enough to make Hitler die that way and call it a "historical film".

I think MovieBob said something like the movie is supposed to be some kind of parody of the film industry, and how we, the audience, would react to seeing Jews massacring Germans and Nazis.

 

[gbemery]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Shit was way inaccurate. Everyone knows King Richard the Lionheart would have gone to Camelot during the dancing and singing because he was an avid fan of musicals and show tunes.

 

[Del-Toro]

Gladiator. To my knowlage, the Romans never used the bow and arrow in their military.

True and false. Armies under the Roman banner did, in fact, make use of archery as did every army worth the name, however, by the time we would be talking in terms of a professional army those taking to the field bow in hand weren't Roman, but Provincial Auxiliaries who would be rewarded with Roman citizenship (and a few of the other benefits mainliners received upon completing their 25 years) upon retirement. It's a false difference to make between the provincials and everyone else in the army since most of the heavy infantry were barbarians (lots of Germans) by the late BCs and ADs anyway, but that specific detail remains accuratish.