What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Historical inaccuracies in movies

Parra Pride

Referee
Messages
20,444
There's some historical innacuracies in Transformers 3, America and Russia didn't stop landing on the moon because of the Deceptacons. :sarcasm:
 

fightingirish69

Juniors
Messages
1,642
braveheart

fact: edward ii is shown as a twinkie style gay, when he in fact he was supposed to be very butch.

fact: their was a bridge involved in the battle of sterling.
 

fightingirish69

Juniors
Messages
1,642
i know its a nothing issue, but when people use american accents in movies based in rome or medieval england, i know theyre trying to market the film and no-one can really be sure what accents where used, but when most of medieval england sounds like the cast of greys anatomy it kinda bugs me

oh ffs

in movies like "the eagle" and centurion. do you think the dialogue should be in latin and scots gaelic.

accents are accents... even the australian accent has probably changed in the last 100 years.

so how do we know how a medievel english accent actually sounded like.and how different the english language was in 1311 compared to 2011.
 

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
62,165
300 is biased greek propaganda that I assume was just made up by people like herodotus. So its pretty true to the source (although they didn;t say the Persians were literally monsters or anything)

it would be like if I made a movie in 2000 years that was based on a comic book that was based on Skeepes forum posts about the refs. It would probably seem like it was pretty unrealistic but it would be at least true to the source material.
 

Parra Pride

Referee
Messages
20,444
300 is biased greek propaganda that I assume was just made up by people like herodotus. So its pretty true to the source (although they didn;t say the Persians were literally monsters or anything)

it would be like if I made a movie in 2000 years that was based on a comic book that was based on Skeepes forum posts about the refs. It would probably seem like it was pretty unrealistic but it would be at least true to the source material.

I would pay to see that movie.
 

Apey

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
28,294
300 is biased greek propaganda that I assume was just made up by people like herodotus. So its pretty true to the source (although they didn;t say the Persians were literally monsters or anything

oh dear... :lol:
 

WireMan

Bench
Messages
4,479
braveheart

fact: edward ii is shown as a twinkie style gay, when he in fact he was supposed to be very butch.

fact: their was a bridge involved in the battle of sterling.

Braveheart is one long historical inaccuracy.

But correct. Edward ii was gay, but not a weakling like you say. A big lad. His Wife locked him up and had him killed by sticking a red hot poker up his ass!


Accents don't bother me. American war films do a bit, as they seem to pop up fighting everywhere. That U boat movie about finding the enigma machine U*some number* was passed of as 'based on real events' but was in fact just fiction.
 

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
62,165
oh dear... :lol:

Frank Miller based the comic on Herodotus I do believe. Herodotus was pretty inaccurate/biased as he was in the business of selling stories to the the Ancient Greeks. Most of his account of the Persian war to me rings as pure bullshit. There are too many "moral" stories like Xerxes being so confident in the victory at Salamis that he built a gigantic chair to watch the battle. This is a classic example of Greek hubris and nemesis which are two important aspects of their story telling.

So yes the source material for the battle of Thermopylae is utterly ridiculous and far out there anyway. Frank Miller just made it more so. Of course he made the Spartans RAR WE HATE GAYS RAR when they were all raging benders themselves and there aren't as I say literally monsters in Persia.

Lets keep in mind that Herodotus also made the following claims in his histories: Black people ejaculate black semen, there are ants the size of dogs in India that can sniff out gold, the pyramid of cheops was paid for by prostituting out his daughter (who would collect a little brick every time she had sex with a client AND ONE OF THE SMALLER PYRAMIDS WAS MADE OUT OF THESE BRICKS AM I RITE GUYS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Herodotus as a source is just pure Greek propaganda and thats why its barely taken seriously as a historical work outside of "well I suppose this was a pretty decent attempt at history for the time".

Probably the most offensive thing about 300 from a historical inaccurate point is that in case people don't have eyes Persians (Iranians) and Greeks actually have the same colour skin and I didn't like the racial undertones that Snyder inserted into the film. That said as an over the top larger than life form of the original Herodotus text on the subject I think it works quite well.

EDIT

There is actually a school of thought (outside the mainstream of course) that Herodotus made up the entire thing or that the Persians actually sent a tiny little raiding party rather than an invasion fleet. That said there is NO WAY that his claimed numbers could be correct imo anyway but estimating numbers in antiquity was a difficult thing. Even the Romans who had perfected the art its difficult to trust numbers. I find it somewhat difficult to believe that nearly 100, 000 Romans died at Cannae but thats the upper claim historically. I mean thats in a single day like 1/10th~ of people killed at Stalingrad. Its pretty safe to just take a third or something off every ancient number. *nerdsout*
 
Last edited:

Coaster

Bench
Messages
3,162
I dont really get into the inaccuracies too much, but there is a few movies that made me laugh.

Red Oktober - Connery accent for a russian commander was hilarious.
Demolition man- i mentioned this in another thread, but it is set in 2015 last reported murder was in 2010. So far off it too funny.
Rambo III- Old Syl trying to protect the harmless Taliban, didnt this come back to bite the film on the freckle.
 

edabomb

First Grade
Messages
7,208
I love the intentional historical innaccuracy on Apocalypto. A tree is felled right in front of a guy and he shouts out in Mayan and the subtitle reads as "I'm walking here!" :lol:
 

nqcowboy87

Bench
Messages
4,181
I dont really get into the inaccuracies too much, but there is a few movies that made me laugh.

Red Oktober - Connery accent for a russian commander was hilarious.
.

exactly thats the kinda thing that pisses me off if they can get close to an old english or roman dialect than im cool. but its the stuff like red october and scorpion king, i know its fictional but when michael clarke duncan and the rock are talking with american accents and other movies based in that time try and put an effort in it pisses me off
 

Munky

Coach
Messages
12,264
Not really getting this accent thing.

Surely the movie should be dubbed in the native tongue if you want linguistic accuracy.

The best for the dodgy accent is "The Eagle Has Landed" and Michael Caine doing his "I am a German" speech in his thick English accent.

I don't think you can bring historical accuracy into "The Hunt For Red October" as it was based on a fictional novel in the first place.

Also, I thought U-571 was kind of based on a true story except that it was the Brits who captured the enigma machine.

Speaking of which has anyone ever read what happened to Alan Turing after WW2. The bloke was a hero and instead what happened is a disgrace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing
 

Mr Spock!

Referee
Messages
22,502
Who were the good guys in 300?

What stretches the limits of hypocrisy is that there isn't a single shred of archeological evidence that the Persians ever owned slaves. Yet we know that slavery was an integral cornerstone of Greek society. Aristotle's manifesto even sanctions it. Persia, which was once a haven for runaway slaves from Egypt, Greece, and later Rome, is today branded as a slave-hungry empire by cultures which were built on slavery!
..............................


Democracy may well be the best form of government. But what makes America great is not so much democracy, as it is its Bill Of Rights. And this is exactly what made Persia Great. Democracy can often lead to tyranny by the majority as was the case in democratic Athens, where women, slaves and foreigners did not have the right to vote.

In monarchic Persia, however, women enjoyed a level of gender equality unmatched even to this day, and slavery was not practiced. The fact is, Persia's monarchy was more free than Athens' democracy, all because of Persia's Bill Of Rights.

No one exemplifies Persia's freedom better than Herodotus himself. He describes Athens as the bastion of freedom, yet he chose to live in Persia. Xenophon, on the other hand, who actually lived in Athens, reminisces enviously about the monarchy of Cyrus The Great.

Herodotus claims Persia had enslaved most of the known world, yet we know Herodotus was not a slave. He traveled freely throughout the empire, openly criticizing it.

Why did Herodotus not live in Greece? Because Persia - the empire he is so quick to demonize - afforded him the very freedom to publish his scathing report of it. People want to live where their god-given rights are protected, regardless of whether its democratic or monarchic.

.........................

Persia's 9/11:

In 498 BCE, Athens carried out a terrorist attack on Sardis, a major Persian city, which made 9/11 seem like child's play. Aristagoras, an Athenian, set fire to the "outlying parts" of Sardis trapping most of its population "in a ring of fire." (Herodotus 5:101)

More innocent civilians died at the hands of Aristagoras than Osama bin Laden could ever hope to kill. And just as most of the world supported America's retaliation against Al Qaeda, so did it rally in support of Persia's attack on Athens.

The Spartans were not even targets of Persia's attack, until they violated a universal protocol by killing a Persian messenger who Herodotus claims was asking for Sparta's submission but in reality was probably sent by Persia's king, Xerxes to convey the same message America sent to the entire world after 9/11: "you're either with us, or against us."

The Spartans were Greek Jihadists who lived only to die. They were by all accounts ruthless savages who murdered Greek slaves known as "Helots" just for sport, cultivated a culture of thievery and rape, and practiced infanticide, as the movie '300' rightly points out in its opening scenes. Sparta was not even democratic. It was an oligarchy at best. Despite knowing all this, the West continues to hail the Spartans as the saviors of Western democracy.

Yes, the Spartans died fighting a foreign invader. But so do countless terrorists. Yet few would consider them "good guys." Those who do are then not much different from Westerners who cheer for the Spartans.

Persia was drawn into a protracted war against terror, much the same way the U.S. was. Cheering for the Spartans merely because they were underdogs, is like cheering for Osama bin Laden today.

http://www.spentaproductions.com/300themovie_the_truth_behind_300.htm
 

Apey

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
28,294
Herodotus was pretty inaccurate/biased as he was in the business of selling stories to the the Ancient Greeks.

I don't disagree he was inaccurate or biased in some, or a lot, of instances. The rest of your post seems to indicate that this means he is incapable of recording anything accurately, though. I've also never heard of him being in the business of selling stories to the Ancient Greeks.

Most of his account of the Persian war to me rings as pure bullshit. There are too many "moral" stories like Xerxes being so confident in the victory at Salamis that he built a gigantic chair to watch the battle. This is a classic example of Greek hubris and nemesis which are two important aspects of their story telling.

I think "most" is a pretty extensive exaggeration but do agree that some of it is undoubtedly bullshit (the numbers at battles, for one). He does include plenty of myths in his account. I am not really sure how Xerxes supposedly building a gigantic chair to watch a battle is an example of Greek hubris, nor how it is a good example of Herodotus telling fibs about the Persian Wars - I'd say Xerxes doing that is actually far more likely than some of the others things he mentions.

So yes the source material for the battle of Thermopylae is utterly ridiculous and far out there anyway.

How so? While Herodotus' account has its flaws, the positives of it cannot be simply written off; it is our primary source for the event. As long as you read it with a careful eye and can acknowledge his bias and hyperbole, I think the general outline of it is satisfactory.

Lets keep in mind that Herodotus also made the following claims in his histories: Black people ejaculate black semen, there are ants the size of dogs in India that can sniff out gold, the pyramid of cheops was paid for by prostituting out his daughter (who would collect a little brick every time she had sex with a client AND ONE OF THE SMALLER PYRAMIDS WAS MADE OUT OF THESE BRICKS AM I RITE GUYS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

He certainly included plenty of ridiculous stories (whether the particular ones you quoted are from his mouth or his sources I can't recall) in his account that can cause doubt over the authenticity of his entire work. However, once again, I'd argue that you'd be silly to write him off completely because of this.

Herodotus as a source is just pure Greek propaganda

Again, 'pure Greek propaganda' is a bit of a stretch. Certainly some of the themes in his work are perceived that way which I agree with. A good example being the motives of the Persians for attacking Greece and also what the Greeks really accomplished by repelling them.

and thats why its barely taken seriously as a historical work outside of "well I suppose this was a pretty decent attempt at history for the time".

I am not sure what you are on about here. His attempt at history is taken quite seriously by modern scholars. Perhaps I am misinterpreting you. Nobody is claiming the book is 100% factual, but you're trying to insinuate that it is irrelevant to modern research?

Probably the most offensive thing about 300 from a historical inaccurate point is that in case people don't have eyes Persians (Iranians) and Greeks actually have the same colour skin and I didn't like the racial undertones that Snyder inserted into the film.

I don't think anyone is offended by the historical inaccuracies, they just like to comment on them. Besides the obvious supernatural elements, I mentioned some of the more common ones in my first post... the bottomless well in the middle of Sparta, their outfits and the Battle at Artemisium being right... there.

There is actually a school of thought (outside the mainstream of course) that Herodotus made up the entire thing or that the Persians actually sent a tiny little raiding party rather than an invasion fleet. That said there is NO WAY that his claimed numbers could be correct imo anyway but estimating numbers in antiquity was a difficult thing. Even the Romans who had perfected the art its difficult to trust numbers. I find it somewhat difficult to believe that nearly 100, 000 Romans died at Cannae but thats the upper claim historically. I mean thats in a single day like 1/10th~ of people killed at Stalingrad. Its pretty safe to just take a third or something off every ancient number. *nerdsout*
Hah. That sounds like a load of rubbish to me, quite frankly. The school of thought you mentioned, I mean.

I completely agree that his numbers were made up - if you bother to total the Persian numbers he gives for the Battle of Thermopylae you ended up with some ridiculous number in the millions :lol:
 

Apey

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
28,294
Ps. Apologies for turning this thread into a history debate :lol: but I've always been interested in the topic.

What stretches the limits of hypocrisy is that there isn't a single shred of archeological evidence that the Persians ever owned slaves. Yet we know that slavery was an integral cornerstone of Greek society. Aristotle's manifesto even sanctions it. Persia, which was once a haven for runaway slaves from Egypt, Greece, and later Rome, is today branded as a slave-hungry empire by cultures which were built on slavery!
..............................


Democracy may well be the best form of government. But what makes America great is not so much democracy, as it is its Bill Of Rights. And this is exactly what made Persia Great. Democracy can often lead to tyranny by the majority as was the case in democratic Athens, where women, slaves and foreigners did not have the right to vote.

In monarchic Persia, however, women enjoyed a level of gender equality unmatched even to this day, and slavery was not practiced. The fact is, Persia's monarchy was more free than Athens' democracy, all because of Persia's Bill Of Rights.

No one exemplifies Persia's freedom better than Herodotus himself. He describes Athens as the bastion of freedom, yet he chose to live in Persia. Xenophon, on the other hand, who actually lived in Athens, reminisces enviously about the monarchy of Cyrus The Great.

Herodotus claims Persia had enslaved most of the known world, yet we know Herodotus was not a slave. He traveled freely throughout the empire, openly criticizing it.

Why did Herodotus not live in Greece? Because Persia - the empire he is so quick to demonize - afforded him the very freedom to publish his scathing report of it. People want to live where their god-given rights are protected, regardless of whether its democratic or monarchic.

.........................

Persia's 9/11:

In 498 BCE, Athens carried out a terrorist attack on Sardis, a major Persian city, which made 9/11 seem like child's play. Aristagoras, an Athenian, set fire to the "outlying parts" of Sardis trapping most of its population "in a ring of fire." (Herodotus 5:101)

More innocent civilians died at the hands of Aristagoras than Osama bin Laden could ever hope to kill. And just as most of the world supported America's retaliation against Al Qaeda, so did it rally in support of Persia's attack on Athens.

The Spartans were not even targets of Persia's attack, until they violated a universal protocol by killing a Persian messenger who Herodotus claims was asking for Sparta's submission but in reality was probably sent by Persia's king, Xerxes to convey the same message America sent to the entire world after 9/11: "you're either with us, or against us."

The Spartans were Greek Jihadists who lived only to die. They were by all accounts ruthless savages who murdered Greek slaves known as "Helots" just for sport, cultivated a culture of thievery and rape, and practiced infanticide, as the movie '300' rightly points out in its opening scenes. Sparta was not even democratic. It was an oligarchy at best. Despite knowing all this, the West continues to hail the Spartans as the saviors of Western democracy.

Yes, the Spartans died fighting a foreign invader. But so do countless terrorists. Yet few would consider them "good guys." Those who do are then not much different from Westerners who cheer for the Spartans.

Persia was drawn into a protracted war against terror, much the same way the U.S. was. Cheering for the Spartans merely because they were underdogs, is like cheering for Osama bin Laden today.
1. There may be scarce archaeological evidence but there is a decent amount of relevant written evidence regarding slaves in the Persian Empire.

2. I admit I don't know much about Persia being branded as a slave-hungry empire. I always thought the criticisms of Persia were mainly focused on it being a monarchy more than anything else, which doesn't imply slavery. However if it was, it's definitely hypocritical and laughable.

3. "Persia's monarchy was more free than Athens' democracy" Pretty big statement to make and is quite subjective I think.

4. Since when did Herodotus "choose" to live in Persia? He was born in Ionia and lived there in his younger years and possibly on nearby islands shortly after. However it is generally understood he spent the majority of his "living" in Greece. I don't doubt he travelled there for his writings, but chose to live there? Please...

5. Last bolded paragraph: Herodotus did live in Greece, for the majority of his life. I am not sure what the writer is on about.

6. Haha, a terrorist attack on Sardis. That's a good one. They should read up a bit more on the Ionian Revolt...

7. I don't think the rest is even worth replying to, to be brutally honest.
 

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
62,165
Greek story telling centred around a person doing something out of arrogance and taking a big fall. Maybe Xerxes just was an arrogant leader but building a giant chair because one is so confident of winning the battle and then losing it strikes me as a Greek story trope.

The Histories 3.101.1-2 said:
These Indians whom I have described have intercourse openly like cattle; they are all black-skinned, like the Ethiopians.[2] Their semen too, which they ejaculate into the women, is not white like other men's, but black like their skin, and resembles in this respect that of the Ethiopians. These Indians dwell far away from the Persians southwards, and were not subjects of King Darius.

The Histories 3.102-5: said:
102. There are others of the Indians who are neighbors of the city of Caspatyrus and the Pactyic country, north of the rest of India, and these live much like the Bactrians. They are the most warlike of the Indians, and it is they who go in quest of the gold; for in these parts all is desert because of the sand. In this desert, and sand, there are ants that are in bigness lesser than dogs but larger than foxes. Some of them have been hunted and captured and kept at the palace of the Persian king. These ants make their dwelling underground, digging out the sand in much the same fashion as ants do in Greece, and they are also very like them in form. The sand that they dig out has gold in it. The Indians start off into the desert to get at this sand. Each of the hunters harnesses together three camels, a male on either side, on a trace, and the female in the middle, on which the rider is mounted. He takes care that this mare camel should have offspring as young as possible, from which she has been taken away for the ride. Among these people, camels are every bit as quick as horses, apart from being far more capable of carrying burdens.

I can't be bothered going through the section of Khufu because I don't have it saved in a word document and would have to actually pull out my copy of the Histories or search online.
 

Latest posts

Top