Historian cringe

>Gladiator is an historicaly shitty movie normies take seriously.

It's a movie normies know has some director and historical liberties but enjoy because it's a good story with good actors.

Battlefield 1 and I'm not talking just about the black soldiers.

Agreed,

The Bedouin chick looks fucking European.

The History channel games, not for being bad but hammy, and bad.

youtu.be/HQ2fQBI0b_E
I remember this being a short lived meme

It also spawned a sequel, secret missions a game I've played from start to finish, was below average, and had historical events just duck taped to the story.

Like you and your Dixie spec ops find Stonewall Jackson mortally wounded on the ground at the end of the first mission.
Also weird having bizarrely rendered historical figures address your character by name and thanking them for their efforts.
youtube.com/watch?v=0zyhzjIMS-4

Lot of FPS games often try to shuffle inn patriotic sentiments that sometimes border on hammy movie lines to that kid who tried to play the national anthem on electric guitar.

This piece of shit here pic related.
youtu.be/tKOJzoq09zM

All the idiots on here probably think the Norse looked like this.

Based Metatron.

an easy one

>The fucking Christ sign on a black Hannibal.
This never gets old.

And dont forget about the ships and the glorious Eva green titties. Second one is underrated

we wuz messiah n shiet

The chi-ro was used before christianity existed, not by Phoenicians though, to the best of our knowledge.

Literally the only good scene in the entire movie, wasted in the first 10 minutes

spartacus tv
>roman troops wearing muscle cuirass/lorica musculata rather than lorica hamata/chain mail rather than just simply the generals and/or the imperator (commander in chief)
>in the third season romans (probably triarii) are also seen wearing lorica segmentata
>romans using spears instead of pilla
>gladiators dual wielding in battles

What the fuck is hammy

the entire “How _______ Created the Modern World” genre

...

...

Yeah he's pretty based for a sw*rthoid.

LOTR

Gladiator was so inaccurate that historians quit so they would not ruin their reputation

300 is based on the comics which aren't supposed to be realistic

Left >what his thinks the ancient Germans looked like.
Right >what they actually looked like

youtube.com/watch?v=-EPoGQZbLD0

>saxon army outfit looks absolutely ridiculous. It would be very similar to the ones that the norsemen were wearing
>the saxons and norsemen should be able to understand eachother more or less. The languages weren't that distinct from each other

In Germania, Tacitus describes them as running around naked only with some leather wrapped around their necks like a cape

The liquid you mom spills, better go plug the leak with some tape

>trusting roman sources
They said the gauls preferred male companions to female to insult them. Nowadays homosexuals use this as evidence that their behaviour is common throughout history. Trusting roman descriptions on other tribes is foolish

Forrest Gump

Tacitus admired Germans though and said that Romans should be more like them, i think its pretty trustworthy

it was the single greatest thot patrol ever. They're both great, if not historically bullshit. Tho I share that history buffs guy on youtube feelings that "this is a story being told by Spartans before a battle. Of course things are going to be embellished and over the top to help inspire the troops"

This outfit is based on archeological finds in the thorsberg moor in northern Germany.
When Tacitus described them being named he meant that peasant warriors fought shirtless on occasion.

some warriors on history looks pretty pimp,don't know why people wanna make them look ahistoric

...

Anything released from the modern BBC and "History" Channel.

>All wear a cloak for clothing, fastened with a brooch or, failing that, a thorn: and otherwise naked will spend whole days round the hearth and its fire.
Doesn't really sound like he means shitless peasant warriors.

>The richest are distinguished by undergarments, not loose like Parthians or Sarmatioans, but tight and moulded to the limbs.
Sounds like your archeological find was just some richfuck.

Admittedly though, i know jack shit about the subject, my focus is on 17th century.

Dual wielding gladiators were a thing, and the lorica segmentata was not invented in the first century AD, it just became standard issue then. You can discount those two.

Just do what I do and say "I'm a historian" to lend your argument credence even when it has nothing to do with your area of expertise

Well it's possible that alot of them did fight naked, unlikely in the winter though.

Thing is Tacituses sources are second hand accounts probably from soldiers he spoke to.
So the nakedness of alot of the Germans probably terrofied and bewildered them so they over emphasized it likely.
Also they may have had a bias against them, they were their enemies after all.

>Medieval landing crafts in Robin Hood (pic related)

>muh 1 rifle for 2 soldiers in Stalingrad (liked the movie though)
youtube.com/watch?v=KMjYNKED0U0

>Almost every fighting scene in Fury
youtube.com/watch?v=WTXFXidqhtI

And as said basically everything in vikings.

Robin Hood was fucking horrible in general, like your average B-tier hollywood shitvie

Fury is kind of grounded in reality
Audie Murphy killed or injured around 50 German soldiers from the top of a burning tank destroyer with a machine gun
And there was an incident where a disabled KV2 held off a German attack at a crossroads for a long time by itself

>Audie had to cut down the part with the burning tank destroyer because he thought people would think he made it up

Also i think the worst part of Fury was the tiger battle,the Tiger would've been took 1 Sherman out at best,the last battle scene shows that the Germans have to scoop at the bottom of the barrel

That movie is just ridiculous, the landing craft look so much like WW2 ones, and why does every movie need a D day scene.
Fury went too far, one tank holding off hundreds of guys armed with AT weapons.
The tiger scene is dumb because the tiger advances forward from its defensive position. This dumb shit did happen in the late war because tank crews had no training or experience, but we see what looks like a veteran crew in the film. It should have been full of boys and then it would be fine.

>Fury is kind of grounded in reality

I know Wardaddy is based on a real ww2 ace tank but I found the movie really retarded to be honest and I doubt they had any historian or military consultant on the film set.

In Fury they do not succeed because they're good but just because the germans are acting like a bunch of retarded lemmings, throwing themselves in front of enemy fire, marching in column singing without any recon...

I mean tanks were never sent as isolated units back then (for many reasons, like logistics, maintenance, vulnerability...) but in the movie you see several lone tanks without any infantry support.

This movie is very cliché and predictable overall but the "military part" was always the worse in my opinion. As a friend said the movie is like Inglorious Bastards but where the director and the writers took it way too much seriously.

Don't forget an actual gritty and impressive display of battle. Not like those clean choreagraphed battle scenes out of the 60s like with Spartacus and Cleopatra.

>Romans wearing trousers

why do they do this? Are the actors just uncomfortable? or embarrassed by exposing their legs?

But Romans did wear trousers.

>In colder parts of the empire, full length trousers were worn.

>Soldiers on active duty wore short trousers under a military kilt, sometimes with a leather jerkin or felt padding to cushion their armour, and a triangular scarf tucked in at the neck.

They were seen as effeminate and non roman though.

> Trousers — considered barbarous garments worn by Germans and Persians — achieved only limited popularity in the latter days of the empire, and were regarded by conservatives as a sign of cultural decay.

>In colder parts of the empire, full length trousers were worn.
They didn't wear them in Scotland apparently

im aware that in the 4th 5th centuries trousers were sometimes worn.

I get where you are coming from, just wanted to expand a bit on the whole trouser thing.

>not an emperor
>wearing fucking purple

In the period this show is presenting, they didn't wear trousers, and an Italian born Roman commander wouldn't have, the commanders who did were provincial commanders who'd never really been to Rome.

>everyone else is wearing a shade of brown
>even the purples and scarlets have a brown tinge

>source on pic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_(TV_series)

>"Set in AD 43, the series follows ancient Rome's conquest of the Celts in the British Isles — "a mysterious land ruled by wild warrior women and powerful druids who can channel the powerful forces of the underworld."

>ruled by warrior women
>magic druids

>wild warrior women
i really dont understand where this comes from and why its attributed to the Britons particularly the pitish tribes.

why are their Victorian drawings of nude warrior women. surely they knew queen boudica and having more domestic power/political power doesn't equal being a warrior.

This is the new show about the Roman invasion of Britain.

It's awful and everything that is wrong with modern historial TV

>Everyone wears various shades of brown
>equipment is comically bad, the helmets are literally leather and clearly dont even fit
>Half the cast is sub saharan african
>rather than actually showing the roman invasion of britain, its a soap opera jumping from various camps and obvious at some point some of them for some reason have sex with each other despite it supposedly being a serious military invasion

Ignorant sexist
Here is an image of a warrior woman killing a Roman

I watched this one documentary on the Bubonic Plague on the History Channel.
There was a part of it where it talked about this one merchant
>this is (name that I can’t remember)
>he was a Jew
>dramatic bum bum bum music
The delivery was just too silly.

is she using a bronze age antenna sword!?

Found it.
About 10 minutes in. m.youtube.com/watch?v=RNbC18QNVyA

Ha thats great

If I fought against someone who fought naked, I would cut off his dick. I wouldn't kill him, I'd just take the dick. I would spend my empire's entire military budget on funding elite legions of soldiers specialized in low sweeping blows that would do nothing except slice off the dick.

We might get overrun by barbarians but I bet they wouldn't think fighting naked was such a hot idea anymore.

>no mention of Spartacus' worse offense

>and the lorica segmentata was not invented in the first century AD
First archaeological evidence is 9BC yes BC not AD, so it was probably invented a bit earlier, presumably under Augustus's military reforms.

Over acting.

I don't think triarii existed as a distinct category of legionnaire by the time of Spartacus - though maybe the term was still used to refer to experienced veterans.

No that's obviously Charlie sheen.

Most Chinese hitsoricals, especially big-budget CGI crapfests and their fantasy armor. It's mind-numbingly common since the days of 70's Hong Kong Cinema.

I don't agree with OP regarding historical liberties in 300 - it doesn't pretend to be accurate. But here's one of the worst offenders in a show that has pretensions of historical accuracy - Saxon soldiers in Vikings and their Renaissance helmets.

Though the good thing about modern Chinese audiences - especially younger ones- is that there is a clamor for accuracy. Which has been met recently in the late 2000s/2010s.

There was some joint western-Chinese film called Dragon Blade about a lost legion winding up in China - they also gave the Romans the fantasy treatment.

It kinda reminds me of the Dwemer armour in the Elder Scrolls games

The 1 rifle per 2 soldiers could’ve been true. After googling, I haven’t found anything saying it was false, and one anecdotal evidence saying his Russian girlfriend’s dad said it was true.

They both got the fantasy treatment.

Theyre basically 300 tier though, not to be taken seriously as history, just historically inspired, so there is no reason to get bothered by it.
This is what is stupid and unacceptable.

>watch Vikings
>Floki furiously hates on everything Christian every moment of the show and wants to kill all Christians
>find himself in a mosque
>suddenly he is enlightened and stop other Vikings from killing Muslim in prayer
I don't why I even watched it that far. Ragnar, Athelstan and Alfred were fun, I guess. The whole feminist warrior narrative was unbearable.

anything heroizing Churchill

It's definitely bullshit, as is the general "le Soviets always zerg rush" meme.

i haven't watched it but some casual observations

>no helmets
>no spears
>holding migration era swords from the top
>enjoy your broken wrists
>eye liner
>hair not fully tied back
>sword handles far too large for migration era
>holding center grip shields tight to your body exposing your head

Really?
Cause most of the recent Chinese stuff that involves their ancient history all have fantasy armor.

What conan movie is this?

It seems like a characteristic of Celtic culture was that women who weren't hot for our times standards were not allowed to be warriors.

Lol I thought we were talking about the Celtic warrior women, replace Celtic with Norse.

Pretty sure it's re-used Baratheon helmets from Game of Thrones. Props are expensive, and when a big budget production commissions some props, they get re-used over and over by shows that can't afford to make their own props.

But its 17th century helmets. They might as well put 18th century soldiers in modern military equipment.

They are shameless its fine tho

Oh man. That movie wad super dumb and i love it

Yeah, that was my suspicion as well - I still don't think it makes the choice any less forgivable. Given that the Saxon soldiers in the show are all uniform I assume they were trying to make them look more 'civilised' to contrast them with the Norse.

I've always thought it's pointless to ask for historically accuracy in a show made exclusively to get some leftover GoT money.

I'm actually surprised that Vikings hasn't shoved in dragons yet.

if normies dont know any better would it really hurt to show a more accurate show.I mean they make them look less interesting

making good helmets is a lot of money, most of times they still look like cheap replicas
better throw some dirt and eyeliner to give that barbarian vibe, that's what we want to see

Like another user pointed out - I think it comes down to budget. They just reuse props and costumes from other assorted medieval/fantasy shows and movies rather than make their own.

Pic is how they represented Mercians in the show.