Ancient-Warfare Historian Rates 10 More Battle Scenes In Movies And TV | How Real Is It? | Insider
TLDRThe video script features a detailed critique by Roel Konijnendijk, an ancient history professor from the University of Oxford, who assesses the historical accuracy of various battle scenes from movies and TV shows. He points out anachronistic elements such as the use of modern landing craft in medieval settings, unrealistic combat tactics like archers with implausible ranges, and the portrayal of warriors like the Úlfhéðnar without proper historical context. Konijnendijk also addresses common cinematic liberties taken with battle formations, the use of fire in warfare, and the depiction of sieges and fortifications. He emphasizes the importance of strategic thinking in historical warfare, often finding that the portrayed scenes lack this depth. Despite the inaccuracies, he appreciates some scenes for their depiction of tactics like ambushing and the use of integrated defensive systems. The critique is a blend of historical insight and an understanding of the dramatic license often employed in visual storytelling.
Takeaways
- 🎬 The portrayal of historical battles in movies often prioritizes visual spectacle over historical accuracy.
- ⛵️ Modern landing crafts are inaccurately used to depict medieval invasions, which historically would have been unopposed and not involved such technology.
- 🏰 Defending a village would involve using the terrain and fortifications effectively, not leaving the village undefended as often depicted.
- 🏹 Archers in movies sometimes have an unrealistic range and impact, with arrows lacking force upon landing when fired from extreme distances.
- 🛡️ Formations in battle, such as a shield wall, would provide better defense against cavalry than the loose lines often shown in films.
- 🔥 The use of fire in defense, as seen in some movies, is historically inaccurate, especially when defending one's own village.
- 🏙️ Ambushes with archers can be effective, but their lethality is often overstated without overwhelming numbers.
- 🕳️ The presence of a defensive ditch, as shown in one scene, is a historically accurate element of siege warfare.
- ⚔️ The technological innovation often seen in siege warfare is accurate, with many historical examples of rapid development of new warfare techniques.
- 🏰 Inaccurate depictions of warriors such as Berserkers and Úlfhéðnar, who were actually well-equipped and fought in units, not as frenzied, nearly naked individuals.
- 🌊 The tactical use of natural terrain, like rivers and forests, to ambush and defeat a technologically superior force, as seen in the Teutoburg Forest scene, is a historically sound strategy.
Q & A
What is the historical inaccuracy in the depiction of the landing craft in the movie?
-The landing craft in the movie is a modern design dressed up to look medieval. Historically, the landing during the period of the Barons' revolt would not have used such craft, and the actual landing was unopposed, unlike the movie's portrayal.
Why would it be strategically unwise to fight the enemy on the beach as depicted in the movie?
-It would be more strategic to block off the ramp leading up from the beach and let the enemy starve or retreat, rather than fighting them on the beach. This would avoid unnecessary risks and potential losses.
What is the issue with the archers' range in the movie?
-The archers are shown firing from hundreds of meters away from the cliff tops, which is unrealistic. At such a range, the arrows would lose force upon landing, making them ineffective against shielded or armored enemies.
How should the defenders form a line against charging horsemen according to historical tactics?
-Defenders should form a tight shield wall, close together with spears out to prevent the horses from charging in. This would give them a range advantage and deter the horsemen from getting too close.
What is the historical inaccuracy regarding the use of fire in defending the village?
-In reality, defenders would not set their own village on fire as it is counterproductive. Defenses are typically built to pin the enemy in place, not to cause destruction to one's own territory.
Why is the depiction of the wolfskin warriors, or Úlfhéðnar, inaccurate in the movie?
-The movie portrays the Úlfhéðnar as wild, frenzied warriors fighting nearly naked. However, historical sources indicate they were ordinary soldiers equipped with shields, clothes, and armor, fighting as a unit.
What is a more realistic approach to defending a simple wooden fortification?
-A realistic defense would involve forming a solid formation, possibly in the streets of the town, making it difficult for invaders to break through. The defenders should be equipped with armor and shields to counter the invaders' reach disadvantage.
What is the historical context of the battle scene in the Teutoburg Forest?
-The battle of the Teutoburg Forest was a real event where three Roman legions were destroyed by an alliance of Germanic tribes. The Romans were lured into the forest where they were unfamiliar with the terrain and were attacked from all sides.
Why is the use of fire in the battle scene of the Teutoburg Forest tactically unsound?
-Creating large lines of fire would force the Romans to consolidate their formation, making it harder for the attackers to break them. It would also provide the Romans with a clear target to fight back against, reducing the element of surprise.
What is the typical combat style of the Crabfeeder's men in the movie?
-The Crabfeeder's men are depicted with swords and bucklers, which is a specific style of combat involving curved swords and small shields used for both offense and defense.
Why is the portrayal of the northwest European peoples as wild and uncivilized inaccurate?
-Historically, wealthy warriors from northwest European societies would have been as well-equipped as their Roman counterparts. The portrayal as wild and uncivilized is a stereotype that dates back to Greek and Roman times and does not reflect their actual combat capabilities.
What is the historical inaccuracy in the depiction of the chariots in the movie?
-The movie confuses chariots, which were missile platforms, with scythed chariots, which were an unsuccessful attempt at an armored battering ram. In reality, chariot warriors would have been heavily armored and engaged in combat from a distance.
Why is the depiction of the defensive wall in the movie considered primitive and ineffective?
-The wall depicted in the movie is a single, simple structure without bastions for cover or defense against enemies reaching the wall. A more effective fortification would include multiple layers or ranks and cover for the defenders.
Why is the use of gunpowder in the depicted siege inaccurate for the time period?
-Gunpowder was known in Europe at the time, but the type of gunpowder weapons shown, which are more akin to later cannons, did not exist yet. The use of gunpowder in the movie is more for visual spectacle rather than historical accuracy.
What is Roel Konijnendijk's opinion on the depiction of the Battle of Gaugamela in the movie 'Alexander'?
-Despite the movie 'Alexander' not being highly regarded, Roel Konijnendijk appreciates the depiction of the Battle of Gaugamela for its historical accuracy in showing the formations and equipment of the units involved.
Outlines
🎬 Historical Accuracy in War Scenes
Roel Konijnendijk, a lecturer at the University of Oxford, critiques the historical accuracy of various battle scenes from movies and TV shows. He discusses the implausibility of a single person facing an army, the misuse of modern landing crafts in a medieval setting, and the ineffectiveness of archers firing from extreme distances. Konijnendijk also points out tactical errors such as fighting on unfavorable terrain and the unrealistic portrayal of defense strategies and siege warfare.
🏰 Inaccurate Depictions of Defense and Siege
The paragraph highlights the unrealistic aspects of defending a village without fortifications and the portrayal of a town with no defenses. It discusses the ineffectiveness of archer ambushes without overwhelming numbers and the strategic use of ditches in integrated defensive systems. The critique extends to the portrayal of the Roman army's tactics in forests and swamps, emphasizing the lack of historical use of battle maps and the misrepresentation of Norse warriors as unarmored Berserkers.
🏺 Misrepresentations of Ancient Warfare
This section deals with the misrepresentation of ancient warfare tactics, such as the splitting of armies along narrow roads, the portrayal of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, and the unrealistic use of fire in battle formations. It also addresses the incorrect command given to archers, the portrayal of the Crabfeeder's men with inaccurate combat styles, and the chaos of battle that deviates from the organized and strategic nature of historical warfare.
🛡️ Critique of Fortifications and Weaponry
The final paragraph focuses on the critique of fortification methods, such as the primitive single wall defense, the lack of proper use of crossbowmen and pavises, and the anachronistic use of gunpowder in a siege. It also touches upon the depiction of chariots and scythed chariots, emphasizing the confusion between the two and the incorrect portrayal of the warriors' equipment and combat readiness.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Ancient History
💡Historical Accuracy
💡Medieval Warfare
💡Tactical Analysis
💡Archers and Archery
💡Siege Warfare
💡Viking Raids
💡Roman Army
💡Defensive Fortifications
💡Gunpowder
💡Cultural Stereotypes
Highlights
Roel Konijnendijk, a professor of ancient history at the University of Oxford, evaluates the historical accuracy of battle scenes from movies and TV shows.
The modern landing craft in a medieval setting is inaccurate; historically, the landing was unopposed.
Archers firing from hundreds of meters away with no force upon impact is unrealistic.
A proper defense against charging horsemen would involve forming a tight shield wall, not a loose line.
The use of fire in defending one's own village is historically rare and not tactically sound.
Ambushes with archers can be effective, but their lethality is often overestimated.
Defending a village without fortifications would involve using rooftops for a vantage point.
The depiction of a defensive ditch and the struggle for ladders on the walls is broadly accurate.
Historical siege warfare often led to rapid technological innovation, such as Archimedes' defensive devices against the Romans.
The use of strange machines in city defense is historically accurate, though the specific devices shown were not effective.
The Battle of Limoges was misrepresented as a battle outside the city walls, when in fact it was a siege resulting in a massacre.
Úlfhéðnar (Berserkers) were not frenzied, nearly naked warriors but rather ordinary soldiers with proper equipment.
Viking raids typically targeted more vulnerable locations rather than defended towns, making the depicted scenario unlikely.
The marching order in ancient armies was loose to prevent soldiers from getting in each other's way.
The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest is accurately depicted as a trap set by Germanic tribes against the Romans.
The use of fire to split up formations during battle is counterproductive and historically inaccurate.
Archers in battle would not operate with the unrealistic command structure of 'nock, draw, loose'.
The depiction of Roman and Celtic warriors as poorly equipped is a misrepresentation; they were often as well-equipped as their Roman counterparts.
Scythed chariots were historically ineffective and not used for close combat as depicted.
The simplistic wall in the scenario is ineffective as a defensive fortification and historically inaccurate.
The use of gunpowder and the depicted weapon is anachronistic and not reflective of the time period.
The scene from 'Alexander' depicting the Battle of Gaugamela is praised for its historically accurate representation of ancient warfare.
Transcripts
Browse More Related Video
World War I Expert Rates More WWI Battles In Movies | How Real Is It? | Insider
World War I Expert Rates 6 WWI Battles in Movies | How Real Is It? | Insider
Warfare Historians Rate 51 Military Battles In Movies And TV | How Real Is It? | Insider Marathon
Palaeontologist Thomas Halliday breaks down dinosaur films
Palaeontologist Reacts To Jurassic Park Dinosaurs
Special Ops Sniper Rates 11 More Sniper Scenes In Movies And TV | How Real Is It? | Insider
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)
Thanks for rating: