# Historical inaccuracies that are not minor **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 16, 2012, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057 "2012-05-16T03:11:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/1 "2012-05-16T03:11:12Z")
OK, so, [Edward the Prince of Wales](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_ii) (later King Edward II) did not marry [Isabella of France](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_France) until 1308 (and they got married in France, not in England), and [William Wallace](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace) was executed in 1305, so Wallace could not have met her, etc. But, what the heck, they could have cut that whole subplot and made [_Braveheart_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart) substantially the same story. Fine. Hollywood directors are not historians, artistic license, etc. (I actually have more trouble with the portrayal of the _jus primae noctis;_ [The Master Speaks.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1139/did-medieval-lords-have-right-of-the-first-night-with-the-local-brides)) But, now I’m watching [_Becket_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becket_(1964_film)) (1964) (Richard Burton as Becket, Peter O’Toole as Henry II). And one thing repeated over and over – the very key to Becket’s **character** in this story – is that he is a Saxon working for the Normans. Other Saxons despise him as a collaborator, Norman barons despise him as a common Saxon, and it’s all indispensable to his character development. Only, [Thomas Becket](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket) was no Saxon, he was a **Norman.** On **both sides.** What excuse can there be for getting **that** wrong?! When it’s so important to the story?! Got any? (I’m not talking about _Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter_ kinda stuff, I’m talking about films and novels that at least purport to be more or less historical.) ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/2 "2012-05-16T03:23:56Z")
I think _Inglourious Basterds_ might have gotten a few tiny details wrong. 😃 Joking aside, any rendition of Shakespeare’s Richard III is open for debate. Compressed time is the very least of that play’s/movie’s problems. (Did anybody see the Ian McKellan Richard III, set in WW2-era times? Awesome!) ---
**Author:** ![I\_Know\_Nothing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f04885/32.png) [@I\_Know\_Nothing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Know_Nothing)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/3 "2012-05-16T03:36:13Z")
Haven’t read it but I hear War and Peace has Napoleon burning down Moscow when all evidence shows the Russians did it, a myth widely believed in Russia today. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/4 "2012-05-16T03:40:17Z")
Well, there are the moderately significant issues of Commodus being promoted to co-Emperor three years before his father Marcus Aurelius’ death rather than being passed over. Or the fact that he didn’t murder his father. Or the fact that he reigned for ~12 years and didn’t perish in an arena. However he _was_ an accomplished gladiatorial competitor, so that much of **Gladiator** was accurate at least. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/5 "2012-05-16T03:51:10Z")
> [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > I think _Inglourious Basterds_ might have gotten a few tiny details wrong. 😃 > > Joking aside, any rendition of Shakespeare’s Richard III is open for debate. Compressed time is the very least of that play’s/movie’s problems. > > (Did anybody see the Ian McKellan Richard III, set in WW2-era times? Awesome!) I did. Awesome. But, I think Shakespeare always gets a pass – we know more true facts now about the times he set his plays in than he could possibly have gleaned from Holinshed. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/6 "2012-05-16T03:52:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, now I’m watching [_Becket_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becket_(1964_film)) (1964) (Richard Burton as Becket, Peter O’Toole as Henry II). And one thing repeated over and over – the very key to Becket’s **character** in this story – is that he is a Saxon working for the Normans. Other Saxons despise him as a collaborator, Norman barons despise him as a common Saxon, and it’s all indispensable to his character development. > > Only, [Thomas Becket](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket) was no Saxon, he was a **Norman.** On **both sides.** What excuse can there be for getting **that** wrong?! When it’s so important to the story?! The film’s Wiki article which you link to explains it. > [@](#): > > Actually, Anouilh was made aware of this historical error before his play was produced (he had based the play on a 19th-century account that described Becket as a Saxon), but decided against correcting it because the story was better the way he had written it, and because “history might eventually rediscover that Becket was a Saxon, after all.” He was a playwright, not a historian. In other words, artistic license. 🙂 (As an aside, if you’re watching the DVD, O’Toole says at the very beginning of the commentary that Anouilh told him it was inspired by a rift in a French Marxist theater group.) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/7 "2012-05-16T06:28:10Z")
Well, _Krakatoa, East of Java_ is taking the long way around… ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Hartwick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Dave\_Hartwick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Hartwick)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/8 "2012-05-16T06:40:35Z")
_Braveheart_, previously mentioned, was pretty much end to end inaccuracies. Even people who knows very little about Scottish history must’ve noticed when the words “Battle of Selkirk Bridge” appeared onscreen and the bridge was conspicuously absent. John O’Farrell made a crack about how the movie could hardly have been less accurate if they’d added a plasticine dog and called it _William Wallace and Gromit_. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/9 "2012-05-16T08:37:02Z")
> [@Dave\_Hartwick](#): > > _Braveheart_, previously mentioned, was pretty much end to end inaccuracies. Even people who knows very little about Scottish history must’ve noticed when the words “Battle of Selkirk Bridge” appeared onscreen and the bridge was conspicuously absent. > > John O’Farrell made a crack about how the movie could hardly have been less accurate if they’d added a plasticine dog and called it _William Wallace and Gromit_. In the spirit of deploring historical inaccuracy, I should point out that it was the Battle of \*Stirling \*Bridge. (The subsequent battle was the Battle of _Fal_kirk.) ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/10 "2012-05-16T09:26:31Z")
“The Patriot” was widely savaged in the press in the UK due to the misrepresentation of, well, a lot but mostly due to a scene involving the locking of people in a church and setting fire to it. Sometimes it feels like Gibson hates the English as much as he does the Jews. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/11 "2012-05-16T09:45:17Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > “The Patriot” was widely savaged in the press in the UK due to the misrepresentation of, well, a lot but mostly due to a scene involving the locking of people in a church and setting fire to it. Never mind the South Carolina plantation with free African American labor rather than slaves. It was too bad because I think there was actually a germ of an interesting story in _The Patriot._ Gibson’s character was a veteran of the French/Indian War and he was haunted by his own brutal actions to the point where he did not want to fight the English. It might have been a more interesting story had he wrestled with his humanity while sliding into his former brutish self while fighting for independence. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Mondegreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/91b2a8/32.png) [@Lord\_Mondegreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Mondegreen)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/12 "2012-05-16T09:53:31Z")
The movie U-571 has the US Navy capturing the first Enigma machine rather than the Royal Navy. Whether this is major or minor is probably up for debate, and the side you take in the debate is probably almost entirely dependant upon which side of the pond you come from. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_s\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/13 "2012-05-16T10:12:15Z")
About the only thing accurate about the 1940 biopic on George Custer “They Died With Their Boots On” was his love of onions. The film about twice-convicted for murder boxer Rubin Carter “Hurricane” ended up with he director changing his spiel from "the truth will set you free " to “who really knows what truth is” once the inaccuracies were pointed out. Of course when it comes to accuracy, both Oliver Stone and Michael Moore avoid it the way a cat avoids swimming. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/14 "2012-05-16T10:23:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, what the heck, they could have cut that whole subplot and made [_Braveheart_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart) substantially the same story. Well, except for the kilts, and the swords, and the lack of armour on Wallace and co…and his lack of a human skin belt. Basically, it’s the most inaccurate popular portrayal of historical events I know of that isn’t Shakespeare. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Hartwick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@Dave\_Hartwick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Hartwick)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/15 "2012-05-16T11:25:29Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > In the spirit of deploring historical inaccuracy, I should point out that it was the Battle of \*Stirling \*Bridge. (The subsequent battle was the Battle of _Fal_kirk.) Thanks, I should’ve checked. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/16 "2012-05-16T12:03:24Z")
**JFK** deserves equal status with **Braveheart** as the poster-bearer of revisionism. **Amadeus** is also worth mentioning. A superb film, but I’m glad I knew before I saw it that it’s highly fictionalized, or I’d have felt cheated. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/17 "2012-05-16T12:12:41Z")
it’s debatable whether 3_ **00** _ even counts as “inaccurate” or more like “a fable inspired by true events”. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/18 "2012-05-16T12:25:00Z")
> [@rowrrbazzle](#): > > The film’s Wiki article which you link to explains it. He was a playwright, not a historian. In other words, artistic license. 🙂 (As an aside, if you’re watching the DVD, O’Toole says at the very beginning of the commentary that Anouilh told him it was inspired by a rift in a French Marxist theater group.) Becket himself explains this in his forward to the play. When he wrote it, it was not only what he believed, but what an awful lot of people believed as well. He was made aware of the change in attitude before the play premiered. As he pout it, a friend told him that “history, like everything else, progresses.” and that then-recent scholarship had decided that Becket was Norman. So what was Anoiulh going to do? The play wasd already written, and on the verge of being put before the public. Rewriting it to correct the historical error would have destroyed the play, removing the conflict at the very heart of it. As Anouilh himself wrote, (I’m paraphrasing) ‘If history makes progress, it might as easily be discovered that they were wrong, and Becket really _was_ Saxon.’ but, as i say, what other option was open? “Sorry, folks, it turns out my initial assumptioon was wrong. We’ll have to scrap the play. Pity, really.” ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/19 "2012-05-16T12:29:28Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I did. Awesome. But, I think Shakespeare always gets a pass – we know more true facts now about the times he set his plays in than he could possibly have gleaned from Holinshed. Houston’s Main Street Theater’s recent production of _Richard III_ was stunning. Notes in the program explained all the inaccuracies. But the main thing was that the part of Richard was a feast for an actor–[the star (& director)](http://www.houstonpress.com/2012-05-03/culture/richard-iii-main-street-theatre/) of the production feasted… Historical inaccuracy is easier to forgive on stage. The audience can understand about symbolism, reflection on modern times, Tudor propaganda–whatever drives the story beyond what you’ll find in the history books. (Not that all history books agree.) In movies, everything _looks_ so real that it can be jarring to realize that the story you’re seeing is not The Truth. (I’ll forgive _Amadeus_; Prague is so beautiful & all that music really was Mozart’s.) ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057/20 "2012-05-16T13:54:14Z")
Almost a decade ago, Joseph Fiennes starred in a documentary about [Martin Luther](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309820/), which I saw on opening day because of an interest in that period of history. Let’s just say that if Mr. Luther was as peaceful and calm as Mr. Fiennes portrayed him, we’d all be Catholics today. 😉 It also didn’t touch on his anti-semitism, and IIRC (as I said, it’s been a decade since the film was released) in the film Luther was on the peasants side in the Peasant’s Rebellion of 1524, when in fact the guy wrote a tract called _Against the Murderous and Thieving Hoardes of Peasants_ denouncing the revolt. Luther wasn’t stupid - his Reformation and even his life depended upon his keeping the trust of the Princes who protected him, so he (in his mind) really had no choice. But I don’t think that would have served the purposes of the film-makers, so there you go. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-inaccuracies-that-are-not-minor/622057.md?page=2)