Alright Veeky Forums, what is THE most historically accurate depiction of combat (in any time period) in a movie?

>leather segmentata armor
>going testudo when nobody is firing missiles of any kind

Is this a joke?

I saw it. Bretty good

>melee enemy troops
>charge with testudo
so that movie is supposed to be sequel of centurion

>I've heard it's exaggerated
Just a bit... That picture for example is an exceptional concentration of corpses for a fairly light battle, compared to the meat grinders of the pacific.

...

...

The battle of Gaugamela in the Oliver Stone Alexander movie actually nailed Macedonian pike Battle pretty well. It captured the truly chaotic aspects of ancient battle, with “fog of war” via dust being kicked up by thousands of troops, limbs being hacked and people getting dirty and bloodied. Guys pissing themselves in formation, the need for messengers and musicians to indicate formations. The troops even had mismatched armor. It is probably the best part of the film.

I hope The Pacific was exaggerated/inaccurate, because dear god this looked terrifying to go through

youtube.com/watch?v=LJeA4fpXwM0

Jarhead.

I liked the ruthlessness of it. It was good that they showed them crushing dudes heads with boulders instead of just stabbing them.

youtube.com/watch?v=maMQcutkHFw

With the exception of the lighting, the lack of people fucking around to get changed and ready to fight and the over use of tracers for cinematic effect (maybe they did use tracer rounds like that back then, I don't know), this seems like a pretty accurate depiction of a night time defensive battle.
We actually showed this clip to Army recruits on one of the basics I instructed on as an approach for a lesson on night routine.

Did hackerman offer him a cig?
Tbh though this is making me nervous I filled out my FAFSA a few months ago and now I'm signed up for the draft. If war breaks out in Korea and a college deferment isn't an option Imma join the Navy so I don't have to make a landing in Korea or China or something

Just be a pogue like 90% of any service

maybe my asthma will keep me in the rear. Still don't wanna risk it

Nearly all depictions of ancient combat are wrong. Combat was much more hesitant and even organised units would move back and forth, engaging in combat only intermittently. The idea that people threw themselves against the enemy like orks in lord of the rings is an exaggeration of reality and ignores crucial aspects of human nature that factor into combat (fear, self preservation).

I'm not really sure pitched battle was strictly uncommon, though you're closer to correct than not.

>he idea that people threw themselves against the enemy like orks in lord of the rings is an exaggeration of reality
You’re mostly right, but Greek phalanx combat is all about the opthismos, the push between the two phalanxes until the trope, the run occurns after one side breaks.

Ridley Crowe's Gladiator

I was referring to actual physical combat between participants. The frequency of pitched battle is orthogonal to frequency of individual battles of which the frequency is very dependent on the time period and location. Military engagements in western medieval Europe, for example, was mostly seiges and fucking the countryside up.

The reality is that for most of human history, man against man combat had a very low lethality and the most destructive element of any battle would always be the retreat.

That is until armies started using canons of course.

>Using pila as stabbing spear
>Cavalry somehow circles a Germanic army whose centered in a dense forest
>Germanics all furred Barbarians, no chainmail in sight
>Lorica Segmentata for everyone, even Archers
>Explosive napalm
>Breaks out into nonsensical brawl instead of maintaining formation (a la Rome)
>Praetorians dressed like HVGO BOSS was in Ancient Rome
No

True.

Don't forgot the use of catapults as field artillery which for some reason are using incendiary ammunition.

That movie is seriously underrated. I actually liked Colin Farrell's performance too

>ignores crucial aspects of human nature that factor into combat (fear, self preservation).
But you also ignore fanatism, indoctrination, determination, and sometimes the use of psychotropics, all combined with general stupidity... I really believe people were capable to jump in the melee for the sake of "glory".

Mel Gisbon's Apocalypto Now

Good point and you're right, those were factors but really most soldiers were just regular people. Sure some Danish raiders, for example, worked themselves up into a fury but the vast majority didn't and they were more in it for the loot. Were most of the Japanese soldiers in the Pacific theatre suicidal? A higher percentage than the western troops perhaps but I bet the rest of them were more concerned with self preservation.

Still, I will always find it incredible how 18th century soldiers would just walk towards incoming fire when every instinct would have been telling them to get down and take cover. I guess that's the power of drills.

>Were most of the Japanese soldiers in the Pacific theatre suicidal?
No, but we were talking of ancient times. The Pacific theatre was gruesome but somehow everyone wanted to live. I'm not sure it was the case within forest tribes who worshiped stones and trees and absolutely believed there was a good life after a combat death.

Thats a myth actually, phalanxes didnt fight in a literal shoving match. They poked each other with their spears then broke off, then came back together to poke some more

>Thats a myth actually, phalanxes didnt fight in a literal shoving match. They poked each other with their spears then broke off, then came back together to poke some more
The othismos being literal shoving is a generally accepted view taken by most scholars as orthodoxy.

>>Using pila as stabbing spear
Whats wrong with this? Its a documented use

I also think they just recently discovered that the idea that pila were supposed to bend was just a myth because that would be impractical and stupid

The heretics are the new orthodoxy brah, the old view is pretty much completely wrong

Actual shoving matches did occur, but they werent the point of hoplite warfare or the primary form of combat

I'm not sure its even a recent discovery. Although there were different types of pila, the lighter ones would be pretty useless in hand to hand

The Battle of Pearl Harbor from the Batley Townswomans' guild.

>They absolutely believed there was a good life after a combat death.

I don't doubt that people believed and continue to believe this. However I think for most, without the aid of alcohol or other drugs, evolved instincts of self preservation are stronger.

>Ctrl + f
>No Platoon (1986)
My uncle (Nam vet) attests to this day that it's the most accurate Vietnam movie. He has a strong discontent for Apocalypse Now. Also, as a vet myself, i find the "army talk" to be pretty damn on point. Probably stems from Oliver Stone being an actual Vietnam vet with the 25th Infantry Division.

Contemporary sources document the legionary using both "light" and "heavy" versions, with the heavy having a hardened shaft that wouldn't bend.

Apocalypse Now wasnt trying to be realistic, to be fair

>evolved instincts of self preservation are stronger.
It doesn't necessarily implies individual self preservation. Social animals are perfectly able to sacrifice themselves for the group. Otherwise we couldn't do wars after all.
Also
>and continue to believe this
It's just my opinion but faith nowadays is just a joke compared to what it was when people feared the night and thunderstorms.

Are you talking about waltz with bashir?

Please watch Barry Lyndon. And Kiss an Old Dude.

Troy.

its an old idea and iirc its only partially true. the thin shaft is there to enable it to pass easier through a shield, a thicker shaft being less able to do so. thin shaft also means less metal, which means you have to carry less weight and the metal carried for making new ones can be less. the other side of this is that they did bend which had the further effect of making them less useful to enemy in action. like everything with rome it depends on when too, its a long period with many changes in military, weaponary, tactics and materials.

Apocalypse Now is an art house movie about imperialism and American imagination. It isn't a "realistic" war film. Platoon suffers most from the conceit of a volunteer college boy viewing the war from his own perspective. From a historian's perspective, a perspective friendly to the PLAF / PAVN / PRG / NFL, the film "Deer Hunter" encapsulates US working class enlistee experience best. Yes, as in Platoon, black Americans were over represented in the "teeth" of combat units, but Deer Hunter represents the primarily political nature of the war best. To be considered is Kubrick's film about sucking daddy's cock and being afraid of women, "Full Metal Jacket." Despite the primacy of psychosexual themes, FMJ represents boot and Hue quite well.

p.s.: AP BAC MOTHER FUCKERS

Cross of Iron, it's one of the only WW2 movies using working period tanks thanks to the Yugoslavs having a tonne of T-34 reserves

Generation Kill has been consistently cited as the most accurate depiction of Marine life during the Iraq War

Fury was pretty fucking spot on with military culture and how the troops really where, but the battles where not.

Fuck I love Heat. Solid film.

The battle scenes are good (even if they're not strictly accurate to Alexander's battles), but there's just so many problems in that movie.

Is that the Onion Knight?

>THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONGTHIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONGTHIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONGTHIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONGTHIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG THIS NO LOVE SONG

Lebanon (2009) is the film in question btw

Also, if everyone else is doing it you kind of have to too. It would be cowardly to run if everyone else stayed behind.

Because they recorded actual gunfire instead of replacing it with shitty studio samples. I have no idea why moviemakers even do the latter.

Underrated

Brest Fortress

If you want a film about civilian life in Leningrad during the Siege, Assault on Leningrad is good.

No it's Michael Assbender

What about the combat scenes in Paths of Glory? Are they accurate?

Yes yes!

I hate you

>The heretics are the new orthodoxy brah, the old view is pretty much completely wrong
Citations fucking needed.

>Band of Brothers
The combat is quite bad in BoB

No, it's a terrible movie with good battle scenes.

I don't think there is a single movie and definitely not TV show which has even moderately accurately portrayed medieval or ancient combat.

Every single one makes at least one but usually multiple critical errors. In order of worst to least worst

>Combat immediately develops into a series of checkerboard style 1v1 battles
>Armour is completely pointless and visual only, everything goes straight through it
>Soldiers die from being lightly slashed across their chest (and usually armour) or a single arrow, or a random light hit
>Main characters never wear helmets, one of the most important pieces of armour

Lets not also forget how the majority of the time the equipment is totally wrong, with weird as fuck dark leather armours replacing mail and helmets. I'm looking at you Vikings. Why does that show go to so much effort to portray traditional Norse mythology and rituals but then put everyone in fetish outfits.

>Soldiers die from ... a single arrow
Not necessarily unrealistic, although it can be. Depends on the kind of arrow and bow (which depends on the culture/time period) and of course where it hits.

I mean instantly die. Dying from infection after the battle would be quite high, but just dropping to the floor dead from an arrow in the gut or even lungs is stupid, especially when the adrenaline would be surging through you. Arrows aren't like bullets at all, when a bullet hits you its basically an explosion inside your body, but an arrow is just an arrow with little shock wave.

To add to the 3rd point, the majority of soldiers killed in melee did not die easily, they died hard, and they died from a final killing blow. We can see this in all skeletons recovered from battle sites. They all have multiple wounds sometimes beyond 10, with one fatal wound usually in the head. Killing a man is fucking hard, it isn't easy, you have to cut them and stab them all over and finish them.

This is why you often hear about murder victims who were stabbed 10-20 times. It isn't actually because the murderer was crazy, it's because unlike in the media where one stab kills someone, people actually just don't fucking die, you need to stab them repeatedly to kill them outright.

Atleast in the swedish army you served alongside the eligble men from your home community. If you fled you didn't just embarass yourself but brought shame to your father and your uncle who were standing right beside you.

It's wrong in the sense that it's not the designed use for the weapon. You could go to war wielding a butcher knife and protect yourself by wearing a cooking pot on your head but using spear and a helmet would be more prudent.

>I mean instantly die. Dying from infection after the battle would be quite high, but just dropping to the floor dead from an arrow in the gut or even lungs is stupid
OK, obviously that's true, although frankly the convention is pretty stupid with guns, too, hydrostatic shock notwithstanding. Generally speaking bullet wounds are not immediately debilitating either (to say nothing of immediately fatal), although obviously they can be.

Personally, I think it's excusable as a dramatic convention, but that's arguable I suppose.

Yeah, and being knocked over is basically instant death, because it can break your neck. Drinking a glass of water too, because you can choke on it and die. You know well what he did mean by dying from single arrow, don't be a retard.

Bullet wounds to the torso will basically stop a man, excepting the shitty modern rounds we use these days.

A musket ball was devastating, so is a battle rifle, 5.56 is a little sketchy

It's also probably to help ensure the safety of the actors. Even with fake weapons, flailing around with a piece of metal can cause accidents, especially if the script calls for Extra #35 to be hit 15 times before dying.

Stop being a twat. This is a history board; I'm taking what he said and expanding on it, not arguing. It is not like I'm under the impression that I'm giving him Totally New Information that he has never once considered before. There are other people in this thread.

It's a conversation, not a debate. If every minor clarification or addendum reads like an "ackchyually"-style disagreement to you, you should spend some time off this site.

>Bullet wounds to the torso will basically stop a man, excepting the shitty modern rounds we use these days.
I'm afraid that's not true at all. Obviously that *can* happen - again, depending on where they were shot - but there's a reason "stopping power" is generally considered to be a myth, albeit a pervasive one. And half of the time (not a figure I mean to be taken literally, I just mean a substantial proportion of the time) that a single shot manages to instantly debilitate somebody the reasons are more psychological than physical.

There's a reason you so often read news reports of police emptying their firearms into whoever they're shooting, and it's not just adrenaline. One shot is often not enough to immediately neutralize the threat.

I've seen enough combat footage to know that stopping power is a thing. Police reports are generally about pistols, I'm talking about rifles.

>Bullet wounds to the torso will basically stop a man,
/Literally/ untrue.
Unless you have a severe psychiatric response and your CNS just fucking shuts down, lights out, you can go for quite a while with a shot to the chest.

Bullets don't actually have much "knock down" power like they do in movies.
One of the major modern teachings of the US Army in regards to casualties is that they can still fight for a good while, and if they can help to eliminate the threat by keeping their gunfire in the fight for a few minutes then they can get aid faster.

There are countless reports of people being mortally, or near mortally, wounded and continuing to fight/kill enemies until their actual stopping point.

That said, some people's instant reaction to unexpected pain/trauma is to pull the plug/reboot the system.
I've seen big, muscular dudes drop like a sack of potatoes because their arm popped out of socket or their hip dislocated. (Even one who got too bad of a brain freeze)
Not debilitating injuries, but enough that their brain decides to send them to sleep for a few seconds.

It's really not. Sure, if someone is hit with a .50 it will cause psychological damage, but the wrong itself doesn't carry enough kinetic energy to slap a full grown man to the ground, they usually crumple because they're fucking dead or paralyzed. Shot placement >>>>>>>>>round size.

t. Combat veteran

>I've seen enough combat footage to know that stopping power is a thing.
It is most definitely not.
The force of the bullet will not provide enough knockdown power to throw you down.
That said, many people's first reaction is to drop, but that's not something to be relied on.

Bullets don't hit like bricks, it's like a hot piece of metal through butter and sails on in/through, it doesn't throw yo down.
I've met a lot of dudes that've been shot with 7.62x39 and they all compare it to being burned badly, rather than actually being hit by anything.

Pic related in one of the only (reasonably) accurate portrayals of Roman warfare ever put to film

Der Untergang

As long as you ignore whatever the fuck those Gauls are supposed to be wearing

You are being the smartass here, You just stated the most obvious thing, this is not discussion.
>(...) of course where it hits.
Yeah, damaging brain or heart or blood loss kills people. Amazing! Now we need some movies about war with people killing themselves with spoons. Because you know, depending where you hit with it, you can kill a person! Not necessarily unrealistic.
>Depends on the kind of arrow and bow (which depends on the culture/time period)
So, let's try to discuss things. Show me a bow, which will do things a bows in movies do.

The Gauls though. They look ridiculous. Like straight out of Asterix and Obelix.

You could argue that accurate Gauls would look too similar to the Romans for the viewer to make sense of but they could've just included a line in Vorenus' opening monologue explaining briefly who the Gauls were.

shame that the shitty budget restrained them from doing a lot of the battles justice in the series, and eventually led to the cancellation

if that series was released these days, there would be a fuckton more support for it imo

Like I said, I wasn't arguing with him, I was expanding and clarifying. I think it's pretty clear by now, even if it wasn't clear from the original post, that I'm not defending the "one shot to the chest = instadeath" movie convention. I'm pointing out (not just to him, but to anyone reading) that single arrow wounds could and can absolutely be fatal. Just not usually in the way they're portrayed in movies.

Equating that to people killing each other with spoons is being a smartass. Also being willfully obtuse.

I actually think it would've been more cost efficient too. You could've basically just halved the amount of extras on the Roman side, got the rest to act as Gauls, and buy them a few dozen pairs of tartan pyjama pants and cheap plaid blankets.

Also I was always mad about how cool Vercingetorix looked and he never even speaks. When Caesar comes to fetch him for the Triumph I thought it would've been interesting for them to have a conversation.

Apocalypse now isn't about anything specific about the war, it's an adaptation of Heart of Darkness and it's entirely about the character's own journey and not the world they're in.

pretty much the same for FMJ, the war itself is just a vehicle.

Alatriste did Spanish Tercios perfectly

by the time of the triumph, vercingetorix had been imprisoned for months and was mentally broken iirc, so it would be the equivalent of talking to a mad beggar