Which era of warfare gets the most accurately depicted in movies or other media?

[tater]

My hatred for PH the movie is... astoundingly high.

Edited December 14, 2016 by tater

[James Kerman]

14 hours ago, 78stonewobble said:

For supposedly decent representation, though it certainly get's some things wrong... I like Master and Commander.

My problem with that film is that the Acheron (French man of war) was actually an American ship in the book.  Too hard to sell to Hollywood.

[78stonewobble]

11 hours ago, James Kerman said:

My problem with that film is that the Acheron (French man of war) was actually an American ship in the book.  Too hard to sell to Hollywood.

True, but the depiction of that age is supposedly done rather well.

[NSEP]

Movies in medieval times are waaay too inaccurate, because most of them fall in the "fantasy" catagory.

[kerbiloid]

Third question for the poll:

Which epoch is worse depicted in medieval arts: ancient or future.

[Green Baron]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Third question for the poll:

Which epoch is worse depicted in medieval arts: ancient or future.

The future isn't depicted, it hasn't taken place yet ... ?

 

[wumpus]

11 hours ago, NSEP said:

Movies in medieval times are waaay too inaccurate, because most of them fall in the "fantasy" catagory.

One history of Monty Python insists that "Holy Grail" originally contained period authentic music and bombed when first shown to backers.  They went back, added the "lamas" opening and a completely over the top sound track and launched to the overquoted movie we know today.

Now that I think about it, period (and/or geographically) correct movies would annoy *everybody*.  The people who care would wonder why all the little details of life were that way (because the way of life would be pretty strange to viewer's eyes) and disappointed when the movie hurried along with its plot.  The people who *don't* care woudl be annoyed that the plot has to be advanced in such weird ways, because that is how they acted then/there.

[todofwar]

Was rewatching Rome on hbo, I rather enjoyed the scene where one legionary runs out to try some 300 style antics, had to be dragged back to formation, punches his superior officer, and gets sentenced to death. While they don't always stick to realism that scene at least highlighted that Roman strength was always in its discipline. And going berserk never worked out to well, even if the person doing it is a super human with extra strong plot armor.

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, todofwar said:

Was rewatching Rome on hbo, I rather enjoyed the scene where one legionary runs out to try some 300 style antics, had to be dragged back to formation, punches his superior officer, and gets sentenced to death. While they don't always stick to realism that scene at least highlighted that Roman strength was always in its discipline. And going berserk never worked out to well, even if the person doing it is a super human with extra strong plot armor.

It's an allusion to Titus Manlius Torquatus, who sentenced his son to execution (successfully done).
But this incident was a sentence for his political career, as only elder men met him with victory, while the youngsters declared a total boycott. So, he was forced to retire from social activity.

[Red Iron Crown]

14 hours ago, todofwar said:

Was rewatching Rome on hbo, I rather enjoyed the scene where one legionary runs out to try some 300 style antics, had to be dragged back to formation, punches his superior officer, and gets sentenced to death. While they don't always stick to realism that scene at least highlighted that Roman strength was always in its discipline. And going berserk never worked out to well, even if the person doing it is a super human with extra strong plot armor.

This is true in any military. The single heroic warrior is not often a significant factor (or even a positive one) in real battles, but that doesn't make for good movies. Military units live and die by discipline, training, and following orders efficiently and effectively as a unit, not individual heroics.

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

This is true in any military. The single heroic warrior is not often a significant factor (or even a positive one) in real battles, but that doesn't make for good movies. Military units live and die by discipline, training, and following orders efficiently and effectively as a unit, not individual heroics.

An shield wall is probably the strongest example of this, it works because its an solid wall, if it break up its just an fraction of its strength. The roman gear used with it: an oversize shield and an short sword was also not very suited for an man to man engagement. Purpose was to pile the enemy up against the wall and then use the short swords on them, a long sword would be to long here. 
I guess an common tactic would be an deception, make it look like you run to hope the enemy run after you and then counter and hit the loose formation. 

No place for individual heroism. Modern or small unit warfare has more room for it. 

[wumpus]

19 hours ago, todofwar said:

Was rewatching Rome on hbo, I rather enjoyed the scene where one legionary runs out to try some 300 style antics, had to be dragged back to formation, punches his superior officer, and gets sentenced to death. While they don't always stick to realism that scene at least highlighted that Roman strength was always in its discipline. And going berserk never worked out to well, even if the person doing it is a super human with extra strong plot armor.

 

14 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It's an allusion to Titus Manlius Torquatus, who sentenced his son to execution (successfully done).
But this incident was a sentence for his political career, as only elder men met him with victory, while the youngsters declared a total boycott. So, he was forced to retire from social activity.

If that was during the time Rome was likely to have "barbarians" in the legions (but not so many to lose Roman methods) it wouldn't be terribly surprising.  I suspect that such things weren't unknown at the time, and were known in relatively similar cultures around the time of Hastings.  I think somebody decided to "go out in a blaze of glory" before that battle (or maybe Stamford Bridge) and killed a few before dying.  If they worshiped Odin (or possibly Ares/Mars above other gods) this type of thing is bound to happen.

[kerbiloid]

Manlius Torquatus' action was mentioned as a historical sample for centuries, so we can presume that even Ancient Romans found it as an outstanding cruelty.

Probably kinda that Spartan boy who had stolen a fox-puppy, hid it under clothes and insolently answered that he never had seen it, while the fox was eating his stomach.
The boy died, and the Spartans always held him as an example of sustaining power for their pupils.
(Though it's hard to imagine how he could hide a fox under a thin tunic which he was allowed to wear,
probably even Spartans were shocked "what an idiot, don't try this at home", otherwise this would become a mainstream).

 

9 hours ago, wumpus said:

If that was during the time Rome was likely to have "barbarians" in the legions

According to wiki, mentioned Torquatus lived in 350 BC fighting against Gauls and attacking Etruscan capital Caere. Also he was a plebeian tribune.
So, the Early Republic, when the original robbers were already patricians, while peasants who immigrated later were still plebeians,
"barbarian" meant "that guy from another village", and "legio" = "1/4 of our armed crowd", Odin and Ares — a kind of alien Cthulhu.
So, Torquatus' demarche was taken close to heart as a murder of next-door-guy.

According to the Roman literature, in following epochs the soldiers were mostly worried about how to get back their annual salary,
the Roman army mostly consisted of auxilliary forces who of course were not so pretentious and mostly had an opposite problem: make them more hit  than run.

There were "decimation" (execution of every 10th), "vicesimation" (1/20), "centesimation" (1/100), "lictors" with "fasces".  Undisciplined heroes look the least of Roman problems.

The "Rome" series takes place in I century BC when the former was actively mutating.into the latter.

Edited December 18, 2016 by kerbiloid

[KerikBalm]

On 12/12/2016 at 11:43 PM, Slam_Jones said:

Oh man, making a game FUN instead of REALISTIC?  What are they thinking?!  Battlefield has never been a Simulator, it's always been a game... Expecting realism from them is like expecting realism from superhero movies.

That's why more realistic games like Operation Flashpoint and its Armed Assault successors were all failures.... oh wait...

*Not that they were completely realistic... but they are a heck of a lot more realistic than other shooters...

The medics are the most unrealistic things.... sure its good that shots to the legs makes you unable to walk, a shot to the arm makes one unable to hold a gun steady..... but.... a few seconds at a medic, and you're good to go... not that it mattered so much when a single body shot from most weapons kills you 90% of the time.