As a filmmaker, Ridley Scott has the right to create whatever he believes will be more cinematic.
However, historians also have the right to point out differences. This is not nit-picking; it is the communication of actual historical science, which is as important as the film itself, if not more so.
Not everything is about making the most money. Sometimes, your legacy is about accurately recounting events based on the best available research.
I am led to believe Ridley Scott is over being told he isn't historically accurate. He knows. He also does care about some things, and doesn't like being nitpicked about others. He really cares about a visually beautiful, historically "acceptable" framing, colour matched and evoking a mood. "But the Germanic people didn't wear braes at this time and wolfskin wasn't worn with laminar armour" makes his temper show.
Bret Devereaux isn't wrong. He's also not in the film business.
Ridley Scott thinks "acceptable" means he may at least ask a historian to suggest things. He won't give Russel Crowe a raygun, he may misuse ballista freely and reinterpret gladiator school freely. They didn't die usually? Pshaw.
"nitpick" is the kind of pejorative he'd use I think. I don't think Devereaux is nit-picking, the battle scene and a shitload of other stuff is about as a-historical as you can get without Kirk Douglas and Ray Harryhausen.
"The Duellists" which is Scott's movie of a Joseph Conrad story is beautiful, "Barry Lyndon" (by Stanley Kubrick) levels of attention to detail. I have little doubt Historians of Napoleonic era rip it to shreds. Harvey Keitel and Keith Carradine .. just wonderful.
Bret Devereaux does touch on an interesting concept though in his articles on this nitpick... That movie goers are so acclimated to seeing how "movie Roman" armies fight, that showing them a more historically accurate battle scene would be highly jarring to the point of being novelty.
I'm hoping the days where movies show the Romans forming testudo, moving up to fur clad enemies and then breaking up to do one on one gladiator style individual battles are gone.
Brett has said in his past reviews of the battles of Minas Tirith and Helm's Deep that the important part of a film is that it works _on screen_. So he points out differences between the book and the film, but says this is not meant to be criticism of the film. Except the bit where they get the logistics wrong.
He absolutely tore into Rings of Power, but that only makes me like him more.
He does get a bit worked up, understandably, when the Romans attack with an M777 howitzer firing napalm shells. Rome wiped everything that stood in their way for a long while, but not like that.
Yeah, since the M777 doesn't have a napalm shell [1] that would be totally absurd! :D
In fact, since I got curious, it seems nobody fires napalm out of howitzers, it's non-trivial to combine the thin easy-to-break shell skin needed by napalm with something tough enough to be fired from artillery [2].
> Bret Devereaux isn't wrong. He's also not in the film business.
However I would be interested in seeing someone put to the test his thesis that a more historically grounded battle scene would be even more epic and visually interesting.
This I strongly agree with. We seem capable of making film footage of modern war which soldiers say manage to capture some of the essence of things, so doing it for past times is out there as a goal.
Devereaux's objection is that Scott is to some extent trading off a reputation for making "historically accurate" movies. As TFA points out, on a "historical accuracy scale" Gladiator gets about a 2/10. So in that sense it's false advertising.
The biggest nitpick for me is that it was filmed in Bourne Woods which was my local mountain biking haunt. Leaving aside me recognising singletrack all over the place, it took me a good twenty minutes of the film to understand that it was meant to be Germania and not Britain.
Stirrups are among the more forgivable historical inaccuracies, as it is difficult enough to find people who can both act and horse-ride with them reasonably well. Also, if the depiction of cavalry was more historically accurate it would matter a lot less.
I’m pretty sure that stirrups have been crucial to cavalry tactics since they showed up in Europe (I think around the Dark Ages). Being able to stand up in the saddle was certainly important to lancers.
I would say that isn't really worth the author pointing out though. Someone wearing jeans is a mistake, and everyone knows it. This blog series is about the many deliberate choices made to break from historical accuracy (which not many will recognize without having them pointed out).
I was unfortunate enough to watch that when it came out. Work "reward". Historical accuracy aside, it was childish storytelling woodenly acted and pompously presented. Shockingly, inhumanly boring. A bore crime.
I couldn't remember the idiot's name at the end of the movie.
My only detailed memory the next day was "My name is Biggus Dickus Dorkus Maximus. You keeled my {long list}. Prepare to die.". Except played straight. Oh, and some kind of stupid solarized heaven.
Readit News
However, historians also have the right to point out differences. This is not nit-picking; it is the communication of actual historical science, which is as important as the film itself, if not more so.
Not everything is about making the most money. Sometimes, your legacy is about accurately recounting events based on the best available research.
No - some people's legacy is that. It's not sometimes that for everyone.
Bret Devereaux isn't wrong. He's also not in the film business.
Ridley Scott thinks "acceptable" means he may at least ask a historian to suggest things. He won't give Russel Crowe a raygun, he may misuse ballista freely and reinterpret gladiator school freely. They didn't die usually? Pshaw.
"nitpick" is the kind of pejorative he'd use I think. I don't think Devereaux is nit-picking, the battle scene and a shitload of other stuff is about as a-historical as you can get without Kirk Douglas and Ray Harryhausen.
"The Duellists" which is Scott's movie of a Joseph Conrad story is beautiful, "Barry Lyndon" (by Stanley Kubrick) levels of attention to detail. I have little doubt Historians of Napoleonic era rip it to shreds. Harvey Keitel and Keith Carradine .. just wonderful.
I'm hoping the days where movies show the Romans forming testudo, moving up to fur clad enemies and then breaking up to do one on one gladiator style individual battles are gone.
He absolutely tore into Rings of Power, but that only makes me like him more.
He does get a bit worked up, understandably, when the Romans attack with an M777 howitzer firing napalm shells. Rome wiped everything that stood in their way for a long while, but not like that.
In fact, since I got curious, it seems nobody fires napalm out of howitzers, it's non-trivial to combine the thin easy-to-break shell skin needed by napalm with something tough enough to be fired from artillery [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M777_howitzer#Ammunition
[2]: https://www.quora.com/Was-napalm-ever-used-in-artillery-roun...
However I would be interested in seeing someone put to the test his thesis that a more historically grounded battle scene would be even more epic and visually interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_Wood#Location_for_filmi...
They didn’t have them, and thus, couldn’t really fight well, from horses.
Stirrups are one of those “silly little ideas” that changed the world.
I’m pretty sure that stirrups have been crucial to cavalry tactics since they showed up in Europe (I think around the Dark Ages). Being able to stand up in the saddle was certainly important to lancers.
Of course, horse training was also important.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7MYlRzLqD0
I couldn't remember the idiot's name at the end of the movie.
My only detailed memory the next day was "My name is Biggus Dickus Dorkus Maximus. You keeled my {long list}. Prepare to die.". Except played straight. Oh, and some kind of stupid solarized heaven.