So movie battles...

> to show action not historic accuracy
True but these are not contradictory. They're just patronizing the public thinking that they can only pay attention to a historical movies if there are explosions and car pursuits in the middle of medieval battle scene. There can be plenty of action in a historically accurate battle depiction.

The problem with realistic battles like this one is that it looks dumb and people will shit on it.

That hurt just to watch-

Yea like in Fury when people went nuts over the tracers thinking it was lazers.

But fuck em if theyre too dumb its their problem.

>those people going underneath the pikes, delivering blows to the enemy line
Couldn't they have used attack dogs, or dwarves, or better yet Komodo dragons? That would have been sick.

Did dudes really go under the pikes like that? Was it their own initiative or was that sort of special role?

what the fuck

Those are people panicking.

What the fuck I hate realism now.

This looks very cool.

Yes to all three.
You would do fine in Hollywood.

Surely you'd have some dudes launching arrows over your head or peeking between the men at the front?

wtf I hate war now

>launching arrows
Dude, its the 17th century.
And there was probably an exchange of musket fire before the push of pike.

>Dude, its the 17th century.
Bows and arrows were used to great effect against 17th century European militaries by the Turks as late as the Great Turkish War, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth used them too, even when fighting as mercenaries in the Thirty Years' War (pic related).

Read Marsigli's and Montecuccoli's reports on the Turkish military they made for the Habsburg court (not sure if they're available in English). Bows are no joke.

That said I imagine a grenade could cause quite a bit of mischief in a situation like that. Probably dangerous to both sides though.

I think the webm was depicting a tercio, which never fought against the Turks (on land).
And of course you can use bow and arrow if you want, the cossacks used them during the Napoleonic Wars for example; but you just look stupid.

Movie is Alatriste, the scene is the Battle of Rocroi.
youtube.com/watch?v=625iTKITRoA

Did someone say using bows in the 17th century?

I gotchu covered

>Laird Adolphus, I'm Gallowglass
>Ach, you don't get to bring friends

braveheart is literally the genesis of the nonsense hollywood "let's rush at each other and completely mingle our lines and then try to survive when you could have an enemy at your back or either side, at any moment"

>in such fashion go the 800 IRISH landed in Stettin
Surely that had to be Scots
(and the pamphlet makes fun of them being almost nigger-tier and worthless)

"War and Peace" from 1967. One of the best Russian movies ever and a great film in general. I highly recommend it.
youtube.com/watch?v=AQXdzdEx0h4

Highland Scots and the Irish were regarded as the same people back then. Even in Scotland proper Highlanders were sometimes derided for being "Erse" (Scots for "Irish").

Also at one point Scots made up 1/3 of the Swedish army's commanders so they can't have been that bad

SPAIN?

The same director who did Waterloo did a couple films on Tolstoy's War and Peace and his works are literally orgasms for napoleonic combat.

It's sad that there are no other good films on napoleonic combat (or atleast that i know of)

Tercio BTFO

this is pretty weird

people don't know tracer rounds exist?

did these people thinking the roman army from gladiator had laser weapons as well?

Amazing

It's not a medieval movie, but Zulu is pretty historically accurate as far as the combat goes.

But not by the Spanish or western Europeans.

The film has muskets in the same battle.

what movie?

What I hated in Fury was how the Germans at the end seemed to be more concerned with killing themselves than destroying the tank.

Like after the first few seconds they should gave figured out what was going on and started trying to go around in the ditch with panzerfausts instead of charging in like lemmings.

It's too bad because the scene afterwards is actually nice and poignant.

No it was actually a tactic that was attempted to counter pike squares, but I forget what the Spanish/Portuguese called them.

>Not that I know of.
Gaugamela in Alexander was pretty well done.

As shitty as GoT is, you can find some gems resembling real battles there, like this youtu.be/aim-cHKNZB4

Fuck no. That's the weakest pike formation ever.

>So movie battles, where the armies scatter all across the battlefield and engage in random 1v1 fights are completely bullshit right?
>he's never heard of the Gauls
lmao, du yu even into history?

>redshanks storming the breach barefoot
>tfw you won't even get in the shower barefoot

Bruh they were pikemen dropping their pikes and crawled to the other side to stab people in the dick.

Celts fought in formation.

What do you think those bigass shields that the Romans copied were for?

Ironclad
Kingdom of Heaven

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeleros

yes, interesting ideas, copied, and improved upon

it was just like the celt to use something for a thousand years without realizing its potential

It seemed to happen in Homeric warfare

Alatriste.
Spanish movie.

Alexander
Alatriste

Completely unrealistic. You never had this stuff happening.

Lloyd is that you?

This is what a real push of pike looks like. not that hollywood shit

Oh Im sorry, were you there?

please enlighten us as to how it all REALLY went down.

...

>pushing themselves instead of stabbing each other
>hollywood shit
>not a spanish flick

you know, he's having a real suit of plate made for his measurements

you shall find your mockery cut short then!

please they only do that in the movies so simple minds like you aren't confused which you displayed with your post. leave real history to adults please.

Lots of Irish mercenaries went to fight for Gustav Adolf. When they realised he was a protestant king fighting against Catholics, they deserted to the Polish and promptly got BTFO by the Swedes in the next battle.

Or maybe it had a different usage? Like one on one combat which the Gauls revered above all other aspects of war?
>Celts fought in formation.
This meme again.
They emphasized single combat over interlocked formation combat.
A formation doesn't preclude single combat, it only gives a loose structure (for Gauls) how to march and who to march with.

>Have a perfectly serviceable blade on a stick
>Lift it up to shove against the enemy like a dumbass
I bet people never actually used swords either if they had shields, they could just push against each other until one side had to go home for dinner

Samurai split off and fought 1v1 duels.

You clearly don't understand warfare

I can attest that this is 100% historically accurate.

t. armchair general thinking that reenactings are the real deal

I can see that the two fellas on the right are debating whether they should call a timeout or let the guys push a bit more

>interlocked formation combat
The Romans didn't practice this either, they stood two meters apart from one another.

If the way the Irish and Welsh conducted warfare is anything to go by then the Celts practiced single combat BEFORE a battle, not instead of one.

its based on illustrations from back then..

>they stood two meters apart from one another.
So the Romans engaged in one on one combat too?
I'm talking about the Gallic wars and subsequent documentations regards the "Celts" (Gauls) (Gauls weren't really Celts, they had a different culture, different genetic lineage and footprint, different social structures, they need their own classification, they are only "celtic" in the sense they have a similar relationship to other "celtic" societies, by the time they were their own people, they were totally unique)

>Every battle played out like this illustration.

Oh but they did realize its potential. The dominates half of europe before Rome arrived. Not unifed as a single empire though, that would have required to conquer other celts with the same equipment.

>tfw no romepunk laser legion movie
WHY LIVE?

>Pike blocks never encountered each other
RETARD ALERT. The Swiss pike formation was specifically designed to fight other pike blocks.

>The romans didn't practice this either
>two meters apart
Yes they did, you absolutely cuckold! They would ground their shields and stand two meters apart to throw their pilum, not to fight lmao.
>protip :read a book on roman warfare

This is a broken formation

Russian War and peace. Zulu.

Kill yourself.

It is absolutely bullshit. Such large scale battles were one group acting cohesively to fight another, or several small groups fighting each other. One on one fighting could have been common in small skirmishes, but major battles? Definitely not. One example of a film that portrays ancient battles somewhat realistically is the original Spartacus directed by Stanley Kubrick starring Kirk Douglas and Laurence Olivier in 1960. While it is not particularly accurate in the way that it deals with specific Roman tactics used when the film is set, nameley 73-71 B.C. (the Triplex Acies, etc.), it does portray a battle that focuses on the two armies in their entirety rather than individual warriors fighting each other. Also, excellent film.

>Russian War and Peace
>Zulu
Why don't we make monumental historical epics like they did back in the 50s, 60s and 70s? Whenever they make a historical movie today, it's typically a candyass faggotfest full of inaccuracies, shitty CGI, slow motion and the main hero is typically a secular humanist atheist even if takes place in 1100 AD.

thank you

You know the PC culture is so strong right now that they're afraid to show the swastika in WW2 movies and games

The entire end battle makes no sense. They're in a tank, with an operational main gun, multiple machineguns and small arms. The enemy are on foot,m walking a column directly in front of you.

Do you.
A. Let them get in range and then open up with everything you have
B. Sit around talking about how it's the best job you every had and let yourself get surrounded

I know they wanted the big emotional piece right before the end (like that godawful "you're a good person" redemption scene) but fucking hell.

>Whenever they make a historical movie today, it's typically a candyass faggotfest full of inaccuracies, shitty CGI, slow motion and the main hero is typically a secular humanist atheist even if takes place in 1100 AD.
Hey man, Kingdom of Heaven was still pretty solid.

>They emphasized single combat over interlocked formation combat.

This is wrong. They emphasised CHAMPION combat, sure, but that wasn't for the average Gallic warrior. The chiefs would try and engage their foes one on one if they could, but the average Gallic fighter would stay in formation, albeit a loose one.

They're probably English Civil War reenactors. Pokey bits are pretty unsafe to stab at people with, even blunt ones, so all the reenactor troupes make their pikemen do that to avoid injury.

They'll start with their pikes leveled at each other, then as they get closer they pull them up and then just do that bodyslam bullshit.