As a filmmaker, Ridley Scott has the right to create whatever he believes will be more cinematic.
However, historians also have the right to point out differences. This is not nit-picking; it is the communication of actual historical science, which is as important as the film itself, if not more so.
Not everything is about making the most money. Sometimes, your legacy is about accurately recounting events based on the best available research.
The biggest nitpick for me is that it was filmed in Bourne Woods which was my local mountain biking haunt. Leaving aside me recognising singletrack all over the place, it took me a good twenty minutes of the film to understand that it was meant to be Germania and not Britain.
I am led to believe Ridley Scott is over being told he isn't historically accurate. He knows. He also does care about some things, and doesn't like being nitpicked about others. He really cares about a visually beautiful, historically "acceptable" framing, colour matched and evoking a mood. "But the Germanic people didn't wear braes at this time and wolfskin wasn't worn with laminar armour" makes his temper show.
Bret Devereaux isn't wrong. He's also not in the film business.
Ridley Scott thinks "acceptable" means he may at least ask a historian to suggest things. He won't give Russel Crowe a raygun, he may misuse ballista freely and reinterpret gladiator school freely. They didn't die usually? Pshaw.
"nitpick" is the kind of pejorative he'd use I think. I don't think Devereaux is nit-picking, the battle scene and a shitload of other stuff is about as a-historical as you can get without Kirk Douglas and Ray Harryhausen.
"The Duellists" which is Scott's movie of a Joseph Conrad story is beautiful, "Barry Lyndon" (by Stanley Kubrick) levels of attention to detail. I have little doubt Historians of Napoleonic era rip it to shreds. Harvey Keitel and Keith Carradine .. just wonderful.
Brett has said in his past reviews of the battles of Minas Tirith and Helm's Deep that the important part of a film is that it works _on screen_. So he points out differences between the book and the film, but says this is not meant to be criticism of the film. Except the bit where they get the logistics wrong.
He absolutely tore into Rings of Power, but that only makes me like him more.
He does get a bit worked up, understandably, when the Romans attack with an M777 howitzer firing napalm shells. Rome wiped everything that stood in their way for a long while, but not like that.
Bret Devereaux does touch on an interesting concept though in his articles on this nitpick... That movie goers are so acclimated to seeing how "movie Roman" armies fight, that showing them a more historically accurate battle scene would be highly jarring to the point of being novelty.
I'm hoping the days where movies show the Romans forming testudo, moving up to fur clad enemies and then breaking up to do one on one gladiator style individual battles are gone.
> Bret Devereaux isn't wrong. He's also not in the film business.
However I would be interested in seeing someone put to the test his thesis that a more historically grounded battle scene would be even more epic and visually interesting.
This I strongly agree with. We seem capable of making film footage of modern war which soldiers say manage to capture some of the essence of things, so doing it for past times is out there as a goal.
Devereaux's objection is that Scott is to some extent trading off a reputation for making "historically accurate" movies. As TFA points out, on a "historical accuracy scale" Gladiator gets about a 2/10. So in that sense it's false advertising.
I would say that isn't really worth the author pointing out though. Someone wearing jeans is a mistake, and everyone knows it. This blog series is about the many deliberate choices made to break from historical accuracy (which not many will recognize without having them pointed out).
I'm a big fan of Bret Deveraux and a long term subscriber, but this is mostly nit-picking.
The Roman armies didn't dress as uniformly as this? They did in contemporary depictions (Trajan's column) so this is only as much artistic license as real Roman artists would take, and for the same reason - it's more visually impressive.
A Roman army wouldn't have this mix of units, or at least, it would have them in different proportions? Well, this wasn't typical, but you fight with the army you have - maybe your light infantry took heavy losses in a previous battle but you were able to cobble together a load of extra archers.
The tactics weren't typically Roman - or maybe they were, but not in 180 AD, because that specific period happens to be well-documented? Mixing some patterns from different eras is again allowable artistic license, one of the things that makes this art rather than an exact reproduction of a specific battle. And also, a good general adapts to the conditions: he had more archers than typical, so needed a different battle plan.
Comparing the weaponry anachronisms to having tanks at the Battle of Gettysburg is unfair: the American Civil War lasted 5 years, while Roman campaigns in Western Europe (Gaul and Germania) lasted at least a few centuries. It's closer to having an ironclad show up at Fort Sumter and complaining that design wouldn't exist until a year later.
The title literally says it's nitpicking, so I'm fine with that. But the introduction oversells it a bit more: "such a deceptive historical mess", etc. Like I said, big fan, but I was expecting inconsistencies more on the scale of "they seem to have marched 30,000 troops 100 miles in two days to relieve Minas Tirith, with no sign of any logistics to supply them".
> They did in contemporary depictions (Trajan's column) so this is only as much artistic license as real Roman artists would take, and for the same reason - it's more visually impressive.
The point is that Trajan’s column was propaganda. So this depiction is second-hand fiction (rehashing ancient propaganda with modern values).
The whole point of the series is that the scene is completely wrong from a historical point of view.
> Well, this wasn't typical, but you fight with the army you have
He makes the point that this was way outside the normal composition of a Roman army, not slightly off. And that as a result it would be terrible for Roman tactics and would have no hope to survive such a battle. Also, medieval siege engines in a pitch battle is just silly, there is no defending that.
I enjoyed the movie but I think that we can completely drop the assumption that it has any grounding in historical reality. It’s fiction, just slightly more realistic than Games of Thrones. Then we can appreciate the movie for the silly entertainment it is (and he does not dispute that).
> but not in 180 AD, because that specific period happens to be well-documented?
As for "why pick 180 AD then?" it's clear that this was chosen in order to have Commodus as a villain. Commodus is shown mostly historically accurately: he really was with his aging father Marcus Aurelius in Germania, he really was a teenage emperor who was seen as immature, vain and capricious (if the historical record doesn't explicitly support "downright evil") and he really did love staging ever-greater gladiator games.
As a filmmaker, Ridley Scott has the right to create whatever he believes will be more cinematic.
However, historians also have the right to point out differences. This is not nit-picking; it is the communication of actual historical science, which is as important as the film itself, if not more so.
Not everything is about making the most money. Sometimes, your legacy is about accurately recounting events based on the best available research.
My favorite nitpick about “movie Romans,” is stirrups.
They didn’t have them, and thus, couldn’t really fight well, from horses.
Stirrups are one of those “silly little ideas” that changed the world.
The biggest nitpick for me is that it was filmed in Bourne Woods which was my local mountain biking haunt. Leaving aside me recognising singletrack all over the place, it took me a good twenty minutes of the film to understand that it was meant to be Germania and not Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_Wood#Location_for_filmi...
I am led to believe Ridley Scott is over being told he isn't historically accurate. He knows. He also does care about some things, and doesn't like being nitpicked about others. He really cares about a visually beautiful, historically "acceptable" framing, colour matched and evoking a mood. "But the Germanic people didn't wear braes at this time and wolfskin wasn't worn with laminar armour" makes his temper show.
Bret Devereaux isn't wrong. He's also not in the film business.
Ridley Scott thinks "acceptable" means he may at least ask a historian to suggest things. He won't give Russel Crowe a raygun, he may misuse ballista freely and reinterpret gladiator school freely. They didn't die usually? Pshaw.
"nitpick" is the kind of pejorative he'd use I think. I don't think Devereaux is nit-picking, the battle scene and a shitload of other stuff is about as a-historical as you can get without Kirk Douglas and Ray Harryhausen.
"The Duellists" which is Scott's movie of a Joseph Conrad story is beautiful, "Barry Lyndon" (by Stanley Kubrick) levels of attention to detail. I have little doubt Historians of Napoleonic era rip it to shreds. Harvey Keitel and Keith Carradine .. just wonderful.
Brett has said in his past reviews of the battles of Minas Tirith and Helm's Deep that the important part of a film is that it works _on screen_. So he points out differences between the book and the film, but says this is not meant to be criticism of the film. Except the bit where they get the logistics wrong.
He absolutely tore into Rings of Power, but that only makes me like him more.
He does get a bit worked up, understandably, when the Romans attack with an M777 howitzer firing napalm shells. Rome wiped everything that stood in their way for a long while, but not like that.
Bret Devereaux does touch on an interesting concept though in his articles on this nitpick... That movie goers are so acclimated to seeing how "movie Roman" armies fight, that showing them a more historically accurate battle scene would be highly jarring to the point of being novelty.
I'm hoping the days where movies show the Romans forming testudo, moving up to fur clad enemies and then breaking up to do one on one gladiator style individual battles are gone.
> Bret Devereaux isn't wrong. He's also not in the film business.
However I would be interested in seeing someone put to the test his thesis that a more historically grounded battle scene would be even more epic and visually interesting.
This I strongly agree with. We seem capable of making film footage of modern war which soldiers say manage to capture some of the essence of things, so doing it for past times is out there as a goal.
Devereaux's objection is that Scott is to some extent trading off a reputation for making "historically accurate" movies. As TFA points out, on a "historical accuracy scale" Gladiator gets about a 2/10. So in that sense it's false advertising.
The article talks about some costume goofs but imo the most egregious is after the battle when you see someone walking around in jeans
I would say that isn't really worth the author pointing out though. Someone wearing jeans is a mistake, and everyone knows it. This blog series is about the many deliberate choices made to break from historical accuracy (which not many will recognize without having them pointed out).
I wonder if he has covered the battle scene in Rome S01E01, though it's much shorter and has a lower budget.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7MYlRzLqD0
Part II and III are out too.
I'm a big fan of Bret Deveraux and a long term subscriber, but this is mostly nit-picking.
The Roman armies didn't dress as uniformly as this? They did in contemporary depictions (Trajan's column) so this is only as much artistic license as real Roman artists would take, and for the same reason - it's more visually impressive.
A Roman army wouldn't have this mix of units, or at least, it would have them in different proportions? Well, this wasn't typical, but you fight with the army you have - maybe your light infantry took heavy losses in a previous battle but you were able to cobble together a load of extra archers.
The tactics weren't typically Roman - or maybe they were, but not in 180 AD, because that specific period happens to be well-documented? Mixing some patterns from different eras is again allowable artistic license, one of the things that makes this art rather than an exact reproduction of a specific battle. And also, a good general adapts to the conditions: he had more archers than typical, so needed a different battle plan.
Comparing the weaponry anachronisms to having tanks at the Battle of Gettysburg is unfair: the American Civil War lasted 5 years, while Roman campaigns in Western Europe (Gaul and Germania) lasted at least a few centuries. It's closer to having an ironclad show up at Fort Sumter and complaining that design wouldn't exist until a year later.
The title literally says it's nitpicking, so I'm fine with that. But the introduction oversells it a bit more: "such a deceptive historical mess", etc. Like I said, big fan, but I was expecting inconsistencies more on the scale of "they seem to have marched 30,000 troops 100 miles in two days to relieve Minas Tirith, with no sign of any logistics to supply them".
> They did in contemporary depictions (Trajan's column) so this is only as much artistic license as real Roman artists would take, and for the same reason - it's more visually impressive.
The point is that Trajan’s column was propaganda. So this depiction is second-hand fiction (rehashing ancient propaganda with modern values).
The whole point of the series is that the scene is completely wrong from a historical point of view.
> Well, this wasn't typical, but you fight with the army you have
He makes the point that this was way outside the normal composition of a Roman army, not slightly off. And that as a result it would be terrible for Roman tactics and would have no hope to survive such a battle. Also, medieval siege engines in a pitch battle is just silly, there is no defending that.
I enjoyed the movie but I think that we can completely drop the assumption that it has any grounding in historical reality. It’s fiction, just slightly more realistic than Games of Thrones. Then we can appreciate the movie for the silly entertainment it is (and he does not dispute that).
> but not in 180 AD, because that specific period happens to be well-documented?
As for "why pick 180 AD then?" it's clear that this was chosen in order to have Commodus as a villain. Commodus is shown mostly historically accurately: he really was with his aging father Marcus Aurelius in Germania, he really was a teenage emperor who was seen as immature, vain and capricious (if the historical record doesn't explicitly support "downright evil") and he really did love staging ever-greater gladiator games.