In the preview, “trailer” to all you savvy, Hollywood types, they show the two armies coming to meet on the battlefield. One side stands firm, the other in a close approximation to staying in formation—most importantly keeping a loose approximation to the battleline. When they meet, the battle lines more-or-less stay, to a crude approximation. IIRC, this is before the Greeks really orgainzed into the Greeks as we know them—art, science, but in this case warfare, esp. tactics—but this doesn’t change the fact that they’ve given us a droolingly-enticing suggestion that a movie make may have actually created an historically accurate portrayal of ancient warfare.
I don’t know anything about that (and I’d love to hear your thoughts when the movie is released) but the movie is getting raves from people who’ve seen test screenings. My anticipation factor has risen considerably in the last few weeks.
If it’s a good movie and historically accurate (as much as possible anyway) that will be interesting. In general, I’m more interested in seeing how historically accurate Alexander turns out.
Even if they’re both just “men do stupid things and lots of people get killed” tales, I’m still a sucker for these types of movies.
I noticed that, too, and I might go to see the movie for that reason alone. I’m a big medieval warfare buff, so it’s always good to see an army that looks like it’s being managed by a general that’s not a total idiot.
I’ve read that the movie will only be loosely based on The Iliad, which could be good or bad, depending on the liberties they’ve taken with it. However, I did read that they kept the part where:
Achilles gets pissy and threatens to take his spear and go home, resulting in bad things happening.
So, it looks like they’re at least trying to hold to the story.
Joke acknowledged, both its existence and quality are appreciated. Don’t let that be lost in the following remark:
I’m all for poetic license. It’s poetic abuse that gets me annoyed. From Spartacus to Braveheart, the abuse is just too much to take. (Indeed, it was the ridiculousness of of Braveheart that got me to pick up some history of warfare books to get the straight dope.)
Now, back to your joke…wasn’t there a middle-finger smiley around here somewhere? :-p
I’ve read about some of the historical inaccuracies in Braveheart here, but could you recommend some (readable) history of warfare books, please? It’s an area of knowledge in which I am woefully inadequate.
Who cares? As long as Brad is at least half-nekkid for at least half the movie… authentic Mycenaean Greek is fine with me. I’ll read the subtitles the third or fourth time I see it!
Also very important to historical accuracy – plenty of half-naked, hot slavegirls in chains begging to please their masters. I hate that so many so-called “historical” dramas about the ancient world miss this everyday aspect of ancient life.
John Keegan’s A History of Warfare is the one I was told to start with, and I think that advice was very good. It is very readable and eye opening (for me at least!).
The book The Military Institutions of the Romans was written by Flavius Vegetius Renatus in the 4[sup]th[/sup] century A.D. It is an account of a military reformer who wanted to bring back the methods that had previously served Rome well. The book is quite detailed and very, very interesting, IMO. It floors me that I’m reading this stuff from someone so long ago. The book is short, but it details how units were constructed (how many men, armor, weapons, etc.), formations they used, how they maneuvered (sp?) on the field, training, encampment, and some battlefield tactics. IIRC, the Edward from Braveheart who had Braveheart’s head lopped off had acquired a copy of this book and began modelling his armies on it. Again IIRC, he reintroduced organized tactics to European armies—I have no cites for this.
How Great Generals Win by Bevin Alexander is another readable book that I found highly instructive. He covers a number of historical generals from “Scipio Africanus (“The General Who Beat Hannibal”), Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, Stonewall Jackson, William Tecumseh Sherman (“The General Who Won the Civil War”), Mao Zedong, Erwin Rommel and Douglas MacArthur.” (That’s from the Amazon.com page.)
Sun Tsu’s The Art of War is a classic (I guess). It is good, IMO, but very cryptic and obscure. I would read instead Sun Bin’s The Lost Art of War, though I don’t think he titled it that—it’s “lost” because it was discovered in '72. He gives specific formation and tactical descriptions lacking in Sun Tsu’s book. After reading these, I think Sun Tsu will make more sense.
This stuff isn’t really “history” in the sense of detailed historical accounts. Alexander does describe specific battles and wars; however, they help us understand the ideas behind what was going on.
What about the battle from the War of the Last Alliance, shown at the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring? Admittedly, it’s not history, but it’s presented in a historical manner, with technologies similar to those at Troy. And we see the vastly outnumbered but disciplined Elvish army (who hold their line, attack on command, etc.) making mincemeat of the Orcish hoards.
I don’t have a strong memory of that scene. But the rest of the two movies I saw seemed pretty bad. In the mines the party was clearly ambushed, right down to having an “escape” route to be destroyed by the what’s-it. That was not reflected at all in the movie. At the seige by the orcs at Helm’s Deep (I can’t remember all the names of stuff) the orcs approached well within bowshot, carrying pikes of all things—as if they’re going to scale castle walls w/ pikes. That was topped off by a disorganized cavalry charging completely out of control into a disciplined pike square, the horsemen having no lances, shileds (IIRC), nor armor for their horses. Even blinded by the sun, how could the cavalry had gotten past the phalanx?
Even in the ambush on the forced march—were those supposed to be wolves the orcs were riding?—the cavalry didn’t form up for a unified response. If they had, it would have been two or three on one against the orcs, who were out of formation, since each lone opponent approaching the line faces you and each person on either side.
I guess what makes me so nuts about this is that nothing is gained by using license in portraying this stuff. Wouldn’t it have been much more striking if, when the wolf-riding orcs were spotted, a horn was sounded and, while some of the swifter riders rode out to screen the attack, the rest of the horsemen formed up into a wedge and then charged out in unison, crushing the disorganized attackers with stunning efficiency? Wouldn’t Wallace’s defeat have been much more moving if we watched his army be whittled down by archers until his pike hedgehog was too thinned out to offer an effective defense? Or if we watched Sparticus’s line thin and bow out under the weight of the Roman heavies until it broke, or if his wings were rolled up and his army encircled in the press—either way it would be a metaphore for the methodical, inexorable advance of the Roman empire!
The inaccuracy bothers me quite a bit, I’ll admit, when it is unnecessary. But in this arena, I think there is a lot more lost than just the facts.
Honestly I don’t see anything in the Troy trailer other than an attempt to ape similar special effects shots in Fellowship of the Ring. (Namely the opening battle, where orcs assault a line of elves.) Never ascribe anything in Hollywood to accuracy that can be better explained by imitation.
And as for it being historically–shouldn’t it be poetically?–accurate, I don’t remember anything in Homer about the desirability of maintaining an unbroken line: all the emphasis is on the exploits of individual soldiers, not on group tactics (apart from the Trojans surging forward to threaten the ships, and the Greeks beating them back.) Been ages since I read the Illiad, though, so I could be wrong.
Throughout the Iliad the Greeks do several things as a unit. They build a ditch and line it with spikes, they build a wall and man it, and at one point Poseidon, in a series of disguises, rallies the Greeks to stand against the Trojans. Even some of the heroes chastize others to fight more bravely and quelled any talks of retreat. The focus was certainly on our heroes and their looting but I think Homer made it pretty clear that both sides worked in units.
Somehow I think very few people, other than a few ecstatic classics professors, would really find it an improvement to have the actors speaking in flawless Achaeian accents. Actually, even the classics professors wouldn’t be happy because none of them would agree on what Achaeian-accented English would sound like in the first place.
