 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Gladiator vs. Star Wars? posted by unleasHell on May 31, 2000 at 16:20:15:
***How come people (and you know who you are) can pick apart a movie like Gladiator by saying it is not completely accurate yet can watch the Matrix, Star Wars, Star Trek, Titanic, or any of hundreds of other trendy, fluffy, fantasy and/or futuristic junk and be thoroughly entertained?Well, not me, for sure... too broad a brush?
I have not seen the Gladiator, nor do I expect to do so at the theater, but there is apparantly oen piece of evidence. According to some knowledgeable sources, he is not using what people thought was the Gladius, and he is not using the Gladius fighting technique either. He is apparently using the Spatha.
What does this have to do with movies? Well, whatever. Perhaps a question for those who saw it...
Victor--The inaccuracies in Gladiator are legion. It's just that in details that won't interfere with the plot it's as easy to get things right as to get them wrong. The makers of Gladiator obviously did a great deal of research on the Roman army, the look is right, but then they disregard this research to show Romans engaging the Marcomanni with napalm and fire-arrows and the Legionaries attacking and fighting like a mob and using their pila (javelins) as thrusting spears (hasta) like they were Spartan hoplites or something. Disappointing to those who love history and would like to see a recreation of the real thing.
yeah, the way these romans conducted that openning battle, they could have not only easily routed the english in braveheart (over a thousand years later) they probably could have beat the zulus, circa 1848, which was some 1700 years later! Behold the power of cinema.
Unleash---Interesting you bring up the Zulus as the Zulus and Romans had much in common in fighting technique and mindset. Like the legionary the Zulu sought very close combat and used a large shield held with a handgrip and used a short thrusting weapon; the Zulu stabbing spear (iklwah) was used much as the gladius was. A shame the Zulus lacked enough iron to provide for true swords and armor, an armored impi would have been a sight :-) I think a late Republican or early Imperial Roman army would have rolled over any Medievil army, Mongols and Swiss would give them the hardest time.
***I think a late Republican or early Imperial Roman army would have rolled over any Medievil army,Well, maybe, if not for the crossbows and Damascus steel...
*** Mongols and Swiss would give them the hardest time.
I don't know much about the Swiss army except that they adapted the world's first repeating rifle in military service. Please explain what you mean here. You don't mean they would use that rifle against the leather-armoured Romans?
Hello Victor---Romans were armored in iron not leather. Medievil armies were sorely lacking in training and disipline not to mention logistics and engineering, things the Romans had in spades. Crossbow was slow to fire and more usefull in sieges than the field, in any case they developed methods for dealing with missle armed enemies like the Parthians. Damascus steel is no big deal, in Crusades Western Knights were more than a match for Damascus armed Saracens in fighting hand to hand. As for the Swiss--in the late Middle Ages they were the champs of Europe, defeated Burgundy and the Hapsburgs and became Europe's foremost supplier of mercenaries. They were most excellent soldiers; well trained and displined and with excellent weapons and tactics. They were incredibly brave and aggresive and very cruel, gave no quarter and expected none.
..no wonder they make the best bankers...
***Hello Victor---Romans were armored in iron not leather.Dear Tom, I don't mean to argue - you are obviously a much better military historian than I have a chance of ever becoming - but I seem to remember from several sources that the leater indeed was very widely used by the Romans. For instance, Richard Burton describes the armor of the light infantry as "leather strips, studded with metal". The armor of Hastatus, or spearmen, is stated to consist of thin bronze plates, and the heavy cavalry wore "complete suite of bronze". Perhaps the iron was used later and is it possible that it first found its way into the suits of the heavy cavalry rather than the infantrymen?
***Medievil armies were sorely lacking in training and disipline not to mention logistics and engineering, things the Romans had in spades.You are, of course,right on that one. However, the Roman tactics were not too efficient in anything other than the large plains, while the Medieval troops could fight better in a disorganized mass, in tight spaces, woods, etc.
***Crossbow was slow to fire and more usefull in sieges than the field, in any case they developed methods for dealing with missle armed enemies like the Parthians. Damascus steel is no big deal, in Crusades Western Knights were more than a match for Damascus armed Saracens in fighting hand to hand.
I agree that the Damascus is way too over-glorified, but it also seems like the typical knight's broadsword was substantially inferior, at least in its metallurgy, if not in its battle efficiency, to the flexible blades of the infidels. Surely, victory takes more than just superior steel, but it was not for the lack of impression that the Westerners had horder their best swordsmiths and brought them to Asia to study the secrets of the welded steel blades. They also brought the local masters back to Europe to teach their local smiths.
***As for the Swiss--in the late Middle Ages they were the champs of Europe, defeated Burgundy and the Hapsburgs and became Europe's foremost supplier of mercenaries. They were most excellent soldiers; well trained and displined and with excellent weapons and tactics. They were incredibly brave and aggresive and very cruel, gave no quarter and expected none.
Apparently then they had discovered cheese and banking and the rest is history...
BTW, given your obvious knowledge, would you be able to guess the origin of this steel-hilted beauty?
The History Channel and CSPAN books overview last two weeks have provided a number of insights and questions into the subject of the Romans and the purpose of the Colosseum (some new books last year on that in particular--re: the role of Colosseum in Roman life.) Basically the building was an architectural abbatoir. Questions raised included:1) a book surely available to filmmakers was a tome written by Italian woman, scholar of Roman history, delineating the astonishing cruelty and carnage--beyond anything even hinted at in the film. She reveals, with modern scholarship, an ecological and cultural side previously downplayed. Wildlife indigenous to Africa were destroyed at a rate that would make Greenpeace and Peta faint. Historians of the period of the film make mention of the number of elephants, tigers, lions, etc. etc. on a scale that had some fearing for continued existence of these species.
2) Check the date of the film's setting--and the pc (?) sellout of the cultural/religious war on Christians--entirely missing in the film. Doesn't even hint at the presence (incredible omission that can only be seen as purposely eliminating any religious overtones that might engender sympathy for that belief system.)
3) Comparison of opening sequence of Gladiator with Fall of the Roman Empire...stolen in entirety? Including camera setups, similar lenses, content, etc.
4) As has been already parsed on the thread...good scholarship was available...but Scott outdoes even Cecille B. DeMille on historical/armory/tactical flaws...Hollywood did it better years ago.
5) On the strictly visceral filmgoing, experiential level--history aside--the film stinks. Tiny groups of fighters; the "fair' fights seen in film are ridiculous and small scale. Thousands might be slaughtered in a day...defenseless. The contemporary scholars on the subject have brought up interesting points about what could be so compelling to the Romans of the time about watching thousands of absolutely defenseless Christians, etc. killed by animals in a single morning session? The blood lust was beyond contemporary comprehension--parallels to Nazi holocaust were discussed. The incredible system of hydraulics and pulleys, etc. that made that building an architectural marvel capable of full scale naval battles,etc. is ignored...given the ability of contemporary filmmakers to use even digital techniques to fake it makes the omission of these aspects even more puzzling.
6.) Special effects and sets? Average to poor--seen better recreations of Roman buildings in films from the silent era! The fight sequences? Generic and poorly shot. The pixillation effect is absolutely ineffective and derivative.
i just wish they would have pulled the camera back on some of the fight sequences. it was very difficult to follow the fights (especially on the battle field) with the camera so damned close.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
