"Worst Things Hollywood gets Wrong about Ancient and " Topic

…Medieval Battles.

"Personally, I love Hollywood historical epics no matter how ridiculously inaccurate they are. Anything that gets history out in the world is okay with me. They key to enjoying them and still getting something of historical value from them is to understand what the movies do right and wrong. Just to be clear, this is going for mostly intentional choices rather than "movie mistakes" like the gas canister on the Gladiator chariot…."
Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

Warriors leaping in the air to attack or doing a 360 turn to strike with sword.

exploding missiles weapons

Battles that within 20 seconds turn into individual sword duels

1) The "stomp" marching.
2) Armies march in perfect formation, there is a charge and everyone is spread all over the battlefield dueling away.
3) Every missile contains napalm.
4) Horses are living battering rams with no sense of self-preservation whatsoever.
5) Charging at full speed over a mile or more to reach the enemy.
6) Shield formations are either made of concrete or soft butter. You either can't put a dent in it or you just step your way through as required.
7) Unlimited endurance, characters can fight the entire battle and are only slightly winded at the end.

No one in Ancient or medieval times washed their faces, evidently.

The fact that armour is pointless. With the possible exception of Excalibur, I can't recall any armour stopping a blow of any description. Chain mail in particular having the resilience of warm butter. Even so called weapon documentaries testvweapons on butted not riveted chain. Just look up on YouTube sword v riveted chain mail, the swords just bounce off.

ZULUPAUL +1

Flaming missile weapons!

Useless armour

Utter lack of hygiene

Heroes not wearing helmets. Because, after all, how could we nimrod observers remember who was who?

Rhino cavalry

Commanders ordering their archers to "Fire!", rather than saying, "Shoot", or "Loose!"…

The thousand one-on-one fencing matches spread over a hectare or two.

Fight in units and lines you idiots, gain mutual protection.

The heroes can be shown re ordering lines and defeating breakthoughs.

Actually, in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, commanders did do without helmets so that their men would know who they were.

Now the breakup of battle lines into individual melees and all the rest are far too common.

goragrad,

I have read many account of commanders having to un-helmet themselves to let their men see that they were still alive after rumors of their demise were demoralizing their men (e.g., Pyrrhos and William the Conqueror, just to name two that come to mind. I believe that Richard III was helmeted as well, though I could be wrong about that one.) I'm not saying that you're not correct in other cases, especially since my Renaissance military knowledge is basic. Seems like it would be inviting disaster.

Good points!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I read several books suggesting that some leaders did take off their helmets only to be injured. Charles the bold was wound in the neck against the French after pulling down is bevor to yell commands. I think archer tended to fire at will, except maybe Longbows but then they keep firing once given the command.

Barbarians wearing furry boots(especially in a desert climate).

There always has to be a white guy protagonist.

Dude….! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Commanders wore helms but sometimes lifted them to give orders or to reassure waivering armies. This does not mean that they did not wear them.

Two lines running together to insure no order and fatigue – a constant and very dumb scene. I guess both run and fall into disorder to assure a fair fight.

TomT