Inspired by a previous topic, in Saving Private Ryan there’s mention of a woman’s giant breasts, dubbed “Size 40 Double E”.
I decided to look it up, but using band size and double letters wasn’t really a thing in the 40s. In 1944 you maybe would have said “E cups” but a bunch of guys talking about breasts would have just used a descriptor like “Huge”. Even today you normally don’t hear people describe large breasts as bigger than DD even.
Actually… sugar was an issue.
In some cases it was extremely sugary fruit like dates. In some places it was honey. And from the late 1500’s-1600’s refined sugar began more and more common in Europe thanks to colonialism, slave labor, and sugar cane plantations. Dental health took a screaming nose-dive, starting with royalty and the upper classes and trickling downward.
Add in those new fads of tobacco, coffee, and tea and people started having really mucked-up teeth from something like 1550 onward and it just got worse from there.
Before that, and in places like the Americas and Australia before the Europeans arrived, you had crooked teeth because of the lack of braces, and they’d get yellowed with age, but yeah, in general better teeth than the invaders. But not perfect - people still had decay issues in any era. Particularly the royal and wealthy who could afford to eat things like honey fairly often.
Um… it actually is a circular slide rule. I own one myself. They’re pretty nifty. Also not at all unusual among pilots even today since they don’t require batteries to operate. Get good enough you can use one one-handed for a lot of things.
And a lot less beard. Especially on Mr. Ingall. In the books, Papa’s beard was a thing, commented on multiple times.
This is the TV version of the couple:
This is what they actually looked like:
No they weren’t, not even in the Highlands. But in fact, the English were fighting against Scottish Lowlanders, who were mainly of Saxon and Norman heritage, not much different from the English.
Robert the Bruce’s ancestor came over to England with William the Conqueror, and William Wallace was a nobleman, whose family held large estates.
And while they’re at it, they should also speak Latin!
Movies have to work for the audience, even at the expense of accuracy. You don’t want the audience laughing at silly-looking period-accurate haircuts, or sneering at bad teeth and blemishes. If a character is supposed to be good-looking, then they have to be good-looking to the modern viewer, not to the people of the period depicted - because the story demands that the audience think they’re good-looking, too.
That said, I hate it when commanders in medieval or fantasy films order their archers to “Fire!”. Peter Jackson does it in Lord of the Rings, for instance, and it annoys me to no end. Saying “Shoot!” or “Release!” is just as easy, and perfectly understandable to the viewers.
But they usually have burning arrows, don’t they? 
I forget which, but there was supposedly one western where the lead actor (Henry Fonda?) wore a Fu-Manchu type mustache that was actually appropriate for the time. The audiences laughed.
Getting back on topic: Just about any TV or movie western where the pioneer farm/ranch women are wearing tight fitted blouses. According to actual pictures, they usually wore shapeless sack dresses. (I’m not referring to the “dance hall girls”.)
Most historic movies where people have more than one set of everyday clothes and one set for “Sunday best”. Cloth was expensive. In the 1800’s enough gingham for a dress could cost a “hired girl” several weeks of wages.
And - NO ONE has visible marks from surviving smallpox.
In Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves, Robin and Azeem. walk from Dover to Loxley in a few hours, apparently via Hadrian’s Wall – a diversion of another 300 miles.
William Wallace would not have been wearing a kilt in the 13th century. The kilt was invented by an Englishman after the Union of 1707.
Of everything wrong about Prince of Thieves, the one thing that angers me the most is that it has a nobleman teaching English peasants how to use a longbow. I mean, WTF?
(Also, the fact that Robin Hood is depicted as a nobleman is in and of itself a late-period retcon. In the original stories he was a yeoman - a commoner - and really, that’s the only way his character makes any sense. An English nobleman of the period wouldn’t last two hours alone in a forest).
The modern form of the kilt (fèileadh beag) developed in the late 17th and early 18th century, but the earlier form (feileadh mòr) was in use from the 16th century.
Not only did kilts not exist in Wallace’s time, but he was a lowlander, and only highlanders wore kilts at any period before modern times.
I’m guessing the “shapeless sack dress” was in part because a loose fit made it easier to do the hard work of running a pioneer homestead. Also, in some cases they might have actually been made out of flour sacks and/or feed bags. Not sure how far back that went, but it was certainly a thing during the Great Depression, to the point that mills would deliberately make the sacks out of attractive-looking fabrics intended for such recycling.
One moment I found particularly jarring in Prince of Thieves was the way the Sheriff referred to Robin and his men as thugs. Now, I wasn’t expecting the dialogue to be authentic 13th Century English, but naming them after bandits active in India several centuries later sounded strange.
True, but IIRC the soldier who was talking worked in his parents’ lingerie shop, so may have been more knowledgeable about the subject than other guys.
If dams built and teams picked within a handful of years of the “claim” in movies are the most anachronistic things you’ve seen in fictional works, movies have it pretty good.
…Or tertiary syphilis. I think Kurt Vonnegut wrote somewhere that there was a time you couldn’t walk down the street without seeing someone presenting signs of venereal disease.
To be fair, you wouldn’t see much of that in Europe prior to 1492.
Not true, although “any era” is vague. There were plenty of times and places, mostly but not only within the hunter-gatherer realm, where tooth decay was practically non-existent, although tooth wear, buildup of tartar (a treasure trove of information to us about past lives) and cracked teeth were common, and in the latter case, potentially deadly, occurences.
The now-pandemic Caries bacteria had a much smaller range in Stone Age times, while diets and therefore mouth floras were much more conducive to teeth and gum health than ours. This is a hot topic of study, with said evidence in the tartar on the hundreds of Paleolithic and Mesolithic individuals we have to look at.
For a sample study, see e.g.
Adler, C. J.; Dobney, K.; Weyrich, L. S.; Kaidonis, J.; Walker, A. W.; Haak, W.; Bradshaw, C. J. A.; Townsend, G.; Soltysiak, A.; Alt, K. W.; Parkhill, J. & Cooper, A. 2013. Sequencing ancient calcified dental plaque shows changes in oral microbiota with dietary shifts of the Neolithic and Industrial revolutions. Nature Genetics 45: 450 – 455.
On the lack of crooked teeth before the advent of agriculture (and before modern times), there’s research like this:
Pinhasi, R.; Eshed, V. & von Cramon-Taubadel, N. 2015. Incongruity between Affinity Patterns Based on Mandibular and Lower Dental Dimensions following the Transition to Agriculture in the Near East, Anatolia and Europe. PLoS ONE 10(2)
It is also funny to go from “any era” to “the royal and wealthy”. For roughly 95 % of our tool-using past, there weren’t any royal and wealthy people, to eat sugary foods that the common folk didn’t get.
I believe “careworn” is the term we’re looking for here. 
When I said “any era” admittedly I was thinking “recorded history”. I’ll also point out that I mentioned the advent of industrial sugar production having an effect.
At any time or place, if there were wealthy individuals they certainly were more likely to be able to consume sugar/honey/etc. that could lead to decay, IF such things were available. If those things weren’t available and/or not really any substantially wealthy people that would not apply.
Sure, even hunter-gatherers would go after honey, but they didn’t eat it every day and ate a lot of other high fiber stuff that help scrape the nasty off their teeth. Toothpicks, teeth cleaning rags, and so on probably helped with dental hygiene in many cases. It’s not like people didn’t care about their teeth, they just wouldn’t have a clear idea of what caused problems or access to dentistry much beyond “pull problem tooth”.
Gregory Peck, The Gunfighter
But the point is, they don’t HAVE to be wrong. No one would care one bit if Jack Dawson just said he fell “through the ice”. But the writers made a specific point of naming a lake that didn’t exist. They didn’t need to do that at all. Jack didn’t even need to be from Wisconsin.
Either way, I didn’t say it was the most. I pointed out Rin Tin Tin, which is as anachronistic as William Wallace’s kilt.