Worst History Movies

I decided to do a lighthearted post on history and film today.

For reference, here's The Medieval Sourcebook: Medieval History in the Movies page and the Ancient History Sourcebook: Ancient History in the Movies page to read and enjoy. I'm going to be borrowing liberally from their website in this post, so I figured I should link them now rather than later.

Now, to get straight to the point, there are tons of movies made each year based in history. For as long as both film and history have existed, there have been films taking place in history. And I'm not just talking about recent well-documented history like the Civil War or the World Wars either. I'm talking about classical Greece, ancient Rome, and the Middle Ages. There's less information available about those time periods, but there's still enough to create a reliable portrayal of an ancient or medieval place and time in film. Still, some films fail anyways. Usually out of choice, and sometimes out of ignorance.

Here are the ones that I have watched and have a strong opinion of:

Braveheart.

This is an easy one. Almost everything about the film was wrong. The Battle of Stirling Bridge took place on an actual bridge, not on a field. In fact, the bridge would have been more entertaining anyways, so the only explanation for why Mel Gibson fought on a field instead is likely due to budget problems.

The supposed right of a Lord to sleep with his subordinate's wife is also totally fake. The portrayal of William Wallace's life is wrong, and his image in the film is that of a barbarian wearing a kilt (which wasn't worn by the Scots until 300 years later). William Wallace, in real life, would have looked like this:

William Wallace was a knight in full armor on horseback. The Scottish have a proud history of Knighthood dating back to as long as the English had Knights themselves. The movie Braveheart pretty much ignored all that. None of the Scots in the 13th century wore kilts or face paint either.

Don't get me wrong; there were some entertaining moments. But the lack of effort to achieve any historical accuracy is too distracting. They might as well have changed the names and turned it into a fantasy fiction movie like Lord of the Rings.

Gladiator.

I loved this movie for entertainment purposes, and I'm glad it was made simply because it inspired more filmmakers to make their own historical epics. Troy, Alexander, King Arthur, Kingdom of Heaven and Lord of the Rings are all in one form or another a response to the Gladiator movie. Gladiator inspired a generation of kids to learn more about ancient history, and it keeps hope alive for all history buffs that their knowledge might actually be appreciated. Unfortunately, the movie itself is another epic failure in terms of historical accuracy.

First, Marcus Aurelius did not die after a final battle with the Germanic tribes. The last major battle of the sort occurred a year before his death (by the way, he died of chicken pox). The use of catapults and ballistas during that battle is also wrong, since such cumbersome weapons were only used in sieges. They had to be built on-site in most cases, which could take a long time. Such time was best found in long sieges of enemy fortifications. The battle at the start of Gladiator obviously does not qualify.


Emperor Commodus, the big bad of the movie, reigned for 13 years in real life, so either the movie encompasses a 13 year period or it was shortened for entertainment purposes. The arena fighting sequences are not as accurate as those in Ben Hur (Ben Hur is probably the best example of real arena fighting in film, believe it or not). Oddly enough, the bit about Commodus fighting in the arena against gladiators is actually true. The Emperor won over 600 gladiatorial fights before dying in his bath tub. However, in real life Commodus had a very strong physique (in the movie he is depicted as small, weak and whiny), and likely won many fights fair and square. Also, the movie depicts him as a single man, but in reality he was already married when he became Emperor at the age of 18.

The idea that any of the imperial family members or senators at that time wanted to restore the old Republic is absolutely false. The Republican concept was as dead to the Romans then as the concept of monarchy and nobility is dead to modern Americans. We might be fascinated by the idea, but we won't suddenly decide to make Obama our king. Still, for all of its faults, Gladiator was an important and popular movie.

300.

To be fair, the movie 300 isn't based on the actual Battle of Thermopylae, but is instead based on a comic book published in 1998. The comic book describes itself as a fictional retelling, so any historical inaccuracies in the movie are excused by the comic book's own liberal tendencies. It is, in the words of its author, a "theatrical portrayal" of the battle.


Now that I've gotten the disclaimer out of the way, here's why 300 is historically inaccurate. The Persian soldiers, and Emperor Xerxes, obviously did not look anything like what was depicted in the movie. The Immortals (a real Persian military order) were not Ninjas. They rode on horseback as often as not, and did not use Japanese-style swords. The beasts, such as the Rhino and Elephants, were also over-dramatized for entertainment purposes.

But even the depiction of the Spartan warriors is incorrect. In real life, Spartans went into battle with bronze armor. They weren't bare-chested. Also, Sparta was one of the most openly-homosexual societies in the world at that time. According to some sources, homosexual relations were made mandatory for all Spartan soldiers to promote bonding between comrades and introduce young men to free society. So, when one Spartan makes a negative comment about "boy-lovers," he's basically criticizing every real Spartan warrior that fought at Thermopylae.

Also, while it is tempting to speak of the story of just 300 Spartans holding off a million Persian soldiers, the reality of the battle is less thrilling. In fact, there were 300 Spartans PLUS hundreds of other non-Spartan Greeks at the battle. Furthermore, the Persian forces were likely no more than 250,000 (the million number was a form of propaganda widely circulated at the time). The part about the Spartans being betrayed to their doom is more or less true, though. In the end the Spartans were surrounded and killed to the last man.

The Last Samurai.

This movie was well-received in Japan, as it put the spotlight on a part of history that their own people have very little memory of. Samurais are as mysterious and fascinating to the majority of Japanese as they are to the rest of the world. So, many fans of the movie appreciate the attention given to them through this movie. It wasn't totally inaccurate either. Some parts of this movie were actually true, such as the Japanese seeking the help of Western military experts to modernize the Japanese army. However, I still have some criticisms for it.

The idea that a white, alcoholic Civil War veteran played by Tom Cruise was the last Samurai of Japan is absurd, but hardly the only inaccuracy in the film. Ken Watanabi's character, in real life, was obsessed with the idea of starting a war with Korea, and that was his primary motivation for rebelling against the Meiji government. He was not as concerned about restoring old Samurai traditions as the movie depicted him to be. Besides, Samurai first started using guns several centuries earlier, when the Portuguese traders arrived. So, it's not like the Samurai were strangers to gunpowder weapons. Oda Nobunaga is famous for uniting Japan in the 16th century using guns. Also, when the Japanese turned to western military experts for help modernizing their army, they relied on French experts instead of American ones. And in the end, when Ken Watanabi's character is killed in battle by an imported Gatling Gun? Totally false. In real life, he committed ritual suicide.

Still, it was an entertaining movie. And if you are willing to forgive or ignore the historical inaccuracies, the story is very compelling and the action is very exciting.

------------------------------------------

In fact, now that I think on it, I've mostly been talking about relatively good movies that just lack historical accuracy. Maybe I should talk about a historical movie that is just plain terrible.

------------------------------------------

King Arthur.

It had its moments, but for the most part King Arthur was terrible. The historical inaccuracy was overwhelming. The worst part is that the producers of the film claim it is a historically accurate portrayal. They are the only ones to do that. Braveheart, Gladiator, 300 and the Last Samurai all admit to being fictional depictions. King Arthur is the only movie (besides Alexander, perhaps) to claim itself to be true. Let's kill that claim now, while I'm on the topic.

King Arthur is based on the Sarmatian hypothesis, which stipulates that the Arthurian legend is based on an older story about Sarmatian heavy cavalry stationed in Britain in the 2nd and 3rd centuries by the Romans. This hypthoesis has some strong arguments for it, but it is only one of many possible origins for the Arthurian legend. None are known to be fact.

In the movie, Arthur and his Sarmatian troops head north of Hadrian's Wall to rescue a Roman family. Such a mission was unlikely, since the wall represented Rome's northern-most boundary. Everything north belonged to the Picts, and the Picts would not have allowed a Roman family to live there. In the movie, the Picts are called "Woads," although there is no evidence of them being called as such.

Also, the movie has the Saxons invading Britain north of Hadrian's wall. But by the date given at the start of the movie (467 AD) the Saxons had already invaded Britain well south of Hadrian's Wall, and the Romans had abandoned the island over 50 years earlier. Furthermore, the movie shows the Saxon leader killing another Saxon for having sex with a native Briton. But genetic evidence proves that Saxons intermingled with many native peoples at that time, forming the Anglo-Saxon genetic makeup of modern Englishmen.

The movie also depicts the Saxons using crossbows, probably because there's a tendency in films to associate crossbows with evil and regular bows (or longbows) with good guys (or girls). Unfortunately, the opposite was more likely to be the case in real life. Saxons used bows, and the Romans were the only people at that time and place who had crossbows in their arsenal. Also, the Romans in the movie are depicted wearing Legionnaire uniforms. This might sound acceptable, until you learn that the Romans stopped issuing Legionnaire uniforms to their soldiers over a century earlier. In the 5th century, Roman soldiers wore whatever they could afford, a far cry from their glory days.

The movie also depicts the Pope as having real political power in the Western Roman Empire. The reality is that the Pope didn't have such power until centuries after the Roman Empire had fallen. In fact, one might argue that the Empire had to fall for the Pope and the Catholic Church to emerge as a true political body.

I could go on. There are a lot more historical inaccuracies to talk about. And there are many movies I want to talk about, such as Alexander or Prince of Persia. But I'm getting tired. So, I'll leave you with this. I hope you were able to endure it all, and that you enjoyed at least some of it. Until my next post...