Historical Inaccuracy Corner

[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...

 

[Matt-Sama]

Black Hawk Down - Merged some people into one character.
Kingdom of Heaven - Some of the armour isn't correct and some of the timelines don't line up.
Gladiator - Names and costumes are a bit wrong.

Look, they're all Ridley Scott movies

 

[PAGEToap44]

Braveheart. As a Scot, I loved it but... you know. Awful ,awful research. It is still an awesome film though.

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.

I'll add some more.
1. The Battle of Stirling Bridge was fought in a field. It actually took place on a bridge, and the Scots were on a steep hill on one side of the river.
2. No one wore kilts at the time. Not at all. It was all a bit more "medieval."
3. Wallace never knew Bruce.

 

[EHKOS]

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.

Caaareful, this is how wars are started.

OT: Yeah I don't pay attention to detail enough to notice this.

 

[StarCecil]

I've got a buddy who's a movie buff, and he loves pointing out things like this, especially the inaccuracies of the soldiers uniforms (he's a marine.) In fact, he's the one who told me that there is some law in America that states that in every movie in which a soldier is depicted, there has to be something wrong with it. Go ahead and check it out: find ANY movie where an American soldier is portrayed, and look for something wrong with his uniform.

No, that's not true. It probably WILL be wrong, because uniforms change so much and no one can be paid to care that much, but it's only illegal in a non-theatrical/reenactment setting.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Kingdom of Heaven - Some of the armour isn't correct and some of the timelines don't line up.

I don't know much of the Crusader era, but while I enjoyed the film... sort of, they really dropped one with Balian's character. He was already middle-aged by that time, had no dealings with Sybilla beyond the political and there was no mention of his brother, Baldwin of Ramla, and he was already married (to Maria of Constantinople, I think).

Also, Jeremy Irons' character was supposed to be Raymond of Tripoli wasn't it? The Marshal(l) of Jerusalem was a fairly junior administrative rank, and his colours were all wrong (his symbol was a three-towered castle (i.e. Tiberias) not the crosses of Jerusalem).

Note: not my specialist historical era, please correct as applicable.

 

[JackWestJr]

Oh, haha, any movie where the protagonist is playing a video game. It is always the wrong sound effects, wrong controlls, that game wasn't on that platform, the list goes on. You name it, it will be screwed up.

Is it SO HARD just to get a game THAT IS ACTUALLY ON THE PLATFORM??????? C'mon, just borrow a random dudes PS3 and use what ever game is in there at the time!

 

[StarCecil]

And speaking of uniforms, Mark Wahlberg's character in Shooter is a US Marine, but in the opening scene he's wearing an Army uniform.

 

[StarCecil]

Oh, haha, any movie where the protagonist is playing a video game. It is always the wrong sound effects, wrong controlls, that game wasn't on that platform, the list goes on. You name it, it will be screwed up.

Is it SO HARD just to get a game THAT IS ACTUALLY ON THE PLATFORM??????? C'mon, just borrow a random dudes PS3 and use what ever game is in there at the time!

There's actually a half-decent reason for that.

Because a scene might shot multiple times in a day, or specific portions of it will be, or even shot out of order with a scene that takes place minutes earlier in the film, continuity between minor details is near impossible. Most "video games" in film have sound effects and even images added in post-production, to keep continuity. To reproduce actual aspects of a real game would be copyright infringement.

For much the same reason as above, you'll rarely see characters in a film actually eat what they order.