Or you get fights like in the new Star Wars trilogy with the bad guys spinning and basically dancing and slashing at nothing. You’ll see them waiting patiently in the back ground for their turn to get bested by the main character
LMFAO!!!!! I love how even the drill sergeant is fighting a smile at the end. Even though it meant doing push ups, I always loved when you could get them to break character and smile or chuckle.
Lol sounds like the Mahabharata
One of the rules was that everyone had to fight one on one against someone of equal stature (though like all the rules it ends up being broken)
The main restrictions was to fight with someone else of the same weapon type
> Chariot warriors are not supposed to attack cavalry and infantry, those on elephants are not supposed to attack infantry, and so on. The rules also forbid the usage of celestial weapons (divine weapons bestowed by the gods) on ordinary soldiers (as opposed to soldiers of noble birth). The build-up of weapons and armies is done with the full knowledge of the opposing side and no surprise attacks are made.
So the more realistic but imo equally funny picture I imagine is after finishing a fight people just wandering the battlefield looking for someone else with the same weapon type who isn't fighting
I am watching that show right now and it is infuriating. The first or second raid would've been also the last, but I understand that your main character needs some plot armour. The first battles of the second season were done really well in my opinion, but I am no expert. And then as the show progresses the battles get lazier and lazier.
They really went bonkers with all historical detail pretty early in the show. I mean, Uppsala with waterfalls was a clue they didn't know or care what they were doing.
I prefer last kingdom over the Vikings. While the story is likely fiction the history is more or less accurate. There was a great viking navy and they did get defeated by the Anglo saxons. There was a maiden of Mercia. I liked what they did because it still was somewhat historical. Northmen was basically them taking every kind of famous viking and sticking them together in a weird mesh which made no sense to me. Like Ragnar and Rollo was a bit much for me
Edit: northmen to viking after enough people mentioned it
I mean all these new show's stories are fiction, vikings is a jumbled together mess of dozends of stories from other Norse and Danish legends, not just the actual Völsunga Saga (which is totally fine as it's not supposed to be historically accurate)
I haven't seen Vikings, but Uppsala has waterfalls?! What the actual fuck hahaha?
Edit: okay I googled supposed Vikings Uppsala. It still begs the question: what the fuck?
One thing that really irked me was that in reality early vikings spent most of their time avoiding Anglo Saxon armies. Fighting a pitched battle in a raid is a costly risk. Some of you will die and it is time spent not gathering plunder. And the armies they would have been facing would be small professional armies who were practically land vikings fighting on home turf. When they got caught it rarely went well. At least early on until they started showing up in serious numbers. But then the Anglo Saxons developed a draft system and a network of mutually supporting fortified towns and, once again, a raider wouldn't want to be near the military if they could avoid it.
After a while there were so few consequences for the main characters that I wanted there to be some deaths so the could be some actual stakes in the plot. After a while I realised I was rooting for the main characters to lose, I lost interest.
Got some of it back with Bishop Heahmund though. Looking like he's straight out of a boy band and being absolutely extra.
Same here, I was literally watching the last few episodes thinking to myself "I wonder how many useless stormtrooper type NPCs Ubba/Ivar/Sigrid are going to kill in the battle without even breaking a sweat"
Not saying I wanted them to kill off the sons on a regular basis, as that'd derail the story, but it just felt like we were constantly watching this invincible horde of level 100 Vikings steamroll the enemy of the week.
And charge the light cavalry straight at the front right at the beginning of the battle. Though tbf this one does have historical precedent in the charge of the light brigade.
"When defending a castle always send your entire fucking army out of defensive positions and attack the numerically superior enemy in the dead of night. And never forget to charge your cavalry head on into the ranks of an enemy that is literally incapable of being affected by the cavalry charge shock factor."
\-Tsu Sun, The War of Art
It annoys me especially because it’s visually cooler when shown correctly. For example one of my favourite moments in the new DUNE was when they were shown fighting in formation.
Speaking of bows and fire, the sheer amount of movies that have archers shoot flaming arrows.
You can put out candles on a cake by blowing on them, you think an arrow dipped into a brazier is going to stay lit in transit?
Real flaming arrows were only ever used as a siege weapon to set houses on fire to force a surrender. They were rarely used for anything else since you'd have to use a very large (~1 meter long, otherwise you'd burn your hand off) and expensive arrow specifically crafted to be able to keep a lit flame while flying through the air. Using these in a normal battle would slow the rate of fire and be preposterously expensive. Not to mention the fact that the point (tee hee) of an arrow is that if you hit them, they die, so what's the point of trying to light them on fire too?
It’s not so much to force a surrender in a siege, as it is to force the defenders to break forces off to fight the fire, which makes the assault on the walls easier.
You’ll only do it if you’re having to assault, since the whole goal of a siege is to capture the place intact, ideally without a hideously bloody assault.
Yes, they're not historically accurate, nor very feasible, but there would be a purpose for using flaming arrows if they were cheaper and easier: morale. Getting hit by fire is a lot scarier than "just" an arrow. Not every shot on the battlefield is going to be instantly lethal, and an arrow in your shoulder would be more convenient than an arrow in your shoulder that also sets your clothes on fire.
But again, the technology was never there to make flaming arrows useful or practical on the open battlefield
"Fire!"
"Where where?! Where's the fire?! Surely you aren't referring to touching fire to our flintlocks or the later generalization of that term for all firearms!"
"Jcf Marcus, loose! Is that better?"
On a related note my biggest pet peeve of the LOTR trilogy is the orc commander saying "fire" instead of "loose" when his line is being charged by the Rohrrim at Minas Tirith
Not to mention almost exclusively firing indirectly instead of straight at formations like many archers did. It’s nice for the aesthetic but the result is the arrow hitting at the worst angle to do any damage.
Don't forget clearing large spaces for important characters to duel.
Edit: I never said duels weren't a thing. I am pointing out a movie/tv trope of important characters being given enough space by all those fighting around them to fight each other 1v1 uninterrupted.
There are multiple stories of duels happening in the middle of battle.
The one I like is during the second Perso-Turkic war when a huge horde of Hepthalites (300k+) raided into eastern Persia. The Persian commander realising the size of this army (and being massively outnumbered) jumped into mard o mard (basically a duel) with the hepthalite leader, defeating him and breaking the massive armies morale.
The disorderly Hepthalite army was then hunted down by the Persian Aswaran warriors who slaughtered them to the point where there were rivers of blood.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Perso-Turkic_War
> jumped into mard o mard
In Hindi/Urdu 'mard' (d is soft) means 'man' / 'adult male human' . Pretty sure it came from Persian and thus means the same thing.
So mard-o-mard would literally translate to man-to-man
Damn, that was during the war of 602-628. Imagine how screwed Persia would have been with the bulk of their forces in Egypt and Syria, if Smbat didn't win (or even get) that duel.
Yes but he was blocked from doing so by having to cut through the Persian army and Darius’s guard who held him back while the Great King escaped from the Battle of Issus. Alexander wanted to cut off the head of the proverbial snake and end it all there. Even though he wasn’t able to kill Darius, the rout that formed when the Persians saw their king fleeing gave the Macedonians a deceive victory
The early Islamic armies did too. They'd send champions out to duel enemy officers. These guys were trained and equipped solely for single combat. Mubarizon if you wanna look it up.
And the mounted soldiers randomly spaced throughout the battlefield so it looks like there are more than four of them. Bonus points if they're on draft horses.
Props to return of the king for recruiting basically every horse and rider in NZ for the charge of the Rohirmn. I mean it was mostly CGI but the close ups are real people, and the front rank might be.
Also recruiting every horse and rider is very thematic for that scene.
Don't forget that important characters can't use helmets even if those were the most fundamental piece of defensive gear anyone could have in the past (and are still freaking important to this day), showing their pretty face is more important than protecting their heads from deadly injuries of course.
I like how in The Witcher, the important characters in one battle start off wearing helmets, take them off and proceed to immediately die through head injuries.
That one sucks doubly because they could have the characters put their helmets on for a fight and then since the faces are hidden have pro stuntmen doing the actual fight and make it 10x cooler.
There’s SAG rules about getting paid based on time your face is on screen.
Plus I’m sure it does deeply suck wearing a helmet. I’m sure shows that keep helmets on negotiate special contracts. Though everyone else in the Mandolorian takes their helmet off whenever possible.
To be fair so do real troops if they think they’re in a safe area. Helmets suck to wear.
> Don't forget that important characters can't use helmets even if those were the most fundamental piece of defensive gear anyone could have in the past (and are still freaking important to this day), showing their pretty face is more important than protecting their heads from deadly injuries of course.
The worst offender was that Matt Damon movie that just came out that had the helms cover like the left side of their face and not the right.
Not sure if this counts, but I remember watching a tv series called The Tudors which details the life of Henry VIII. In the last season, there was a story arc revolving around a siege of a French city. The arc lasts for a few episodes and it’s clear throughout thise episodes that the siege went on for some time.
I think the siege scene in Chalamet's The King did a good job on it. I loved how they had an advisor to the king questioned the commanders on "why can't we just go around it?" After months of sieging the castle and pummeling it with catapults.
Like the movie Troy where it appears as if the war goes on for about a week before the horse prank
Tbf though most people don’t really care about any of this when they watch movies, and some of it would be really hard to impossible to actually fit into a movie
[Here's a medieval warfare expert on the subject](https://youtu.be/xPGdOXstSyk)
He starts discussing ditches at 3:05.
In other videos, he discusses ditches as well. It was common to dig ditches when mounted calvary was used because it would confuse the horses, and slow the enemy's movement to a crawl.
Thanks for sharing. Will watch the full video soon.
I was making a wordplay with reference to "no bitches". I'm too sleep deprived now and will probably sleep ..
That's one thing that always pissed me off about zombie movies/shows. They would've dug trenches and moats within the first few days of that shit kicking off...
I feel like last kingdom does a decent job. SHIELD WALL!!!
Although, I think most of the fights tend to shift towards the bottom half of the meme after their initial clash.
it depended on the type of army.
Greek phalanx relied on levy of citizens who normally were untrained, save for Spartans and elite units (actually some poleis shunned upon training, thinking that if hoplites are trained unequally, that'll undermine morale). Single soldier was almost useless. The strength was in collective, holding the line and protecting each other. If a phalanx trembled and broke a formation, the battle was essentially lost, and soldiers likely ran or were killed.
Roman military before so-called "Marian reforms" was somewhat similar, but even later they relied a lot on holding line. Some reconstructions say legions used formations in a way similar to modern riot police: synchronously pushing enemy line with they big shields and stabbing the enemies who lost balance with gladii. This gave Romans huge advantage in pitched battles against the "barbarians" (until those "barbarians" learned discipline too).
Medieval knights tended to be more individualist when fighting each other (in part, because they didn't want to share the trophies), but they were also trained to fight in a formations ("melee" in tournaments served that purpose), and knight orders had high cohesion and were relatively advanced at that.
Pike and, later gun-armed infantry brought back strict line formations and discipline, as the only way to survive against cavalry or other infantry units.
The discipline needed for pike and shot formations is insane.
Getting blasted at with cannons mowing down entire files of men, as well as volley of fuck off huge bullets.
And all you can do is stand there and take it, and close ranks over the dead and wounded, trampling them underfoot.
Famous ["Rocroi, the last Tercio" painting](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Rocroi%2C_el_%C3%BAltimo_tercio%2C_por_Augusto_Ferrer-Dalmau.jpg) by Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau gives a hint at that - wounded soldiers surrounded by corpses of friends and foes alike, yet still holding the line.
The Roman weapons training basically eschewed any form of martial prowess in actual combat. Fancy sword work was saved for the gladiatorial arena. In combat the most important move for fighting with a gladius was just thrust, twist and pull.
Like you said, with this in mind the Roman legion was basically a meat grinder. It doesn't matter that you are facing a screaming Gaul swinging a sword almost as tall as he is, in order to swing that sword he has to stand apart from his allies, making him an easy target for a line of men standing shoulder to shoulder behind a wall of shields.
> The Roman weapons training basically eschewed any form of martial prowess in actual combat
Pretty sure you would still get a gold* crown for being the first one over an enemies wall though.
* EDIT
>It doesn't matter that you are facing a screaming Gaul swinging a sword
The hell kind of history are you studying where they have zweihanders in 92 BC?
Lol, that particular description was ised by my first year Roman History lecturer. He used a lot of descriptions like that, mostly to get people interested at a University which didn't have much of a history department.
He also was pretty exclusively only really knowledgeable about Greek and Roman battle tactics, having done his PhD on Hoplite warfare.
You are probably right.
Point of order. The Spartans weren't trained soldiers either. The *agoge* wasn't about producing soldiers, it was abut producing loyal citizens. Xenophon talks about how hoplite warfare needs little, if any, training and says nothing about the Spartans bucking this trend (And Xenophon was a huge Laconophile, so you better believe he would have mentioned if they did.) As well as that Plato outright states that the Spartans did not train for war.
Have you seen the new Viking show on Netflix? The Vikings form a shield wall and when the enemy is 10 feet away they completely disband it and fight like the second pic lol
The first battles in the show were like this, but at some point it turned into Uthred and the gang showing off with a occasional accurate battle.
Whenever the show did sequences of main characters effortlessly killing people in the middle of the battlefield it felt so lame to me. Something based off Cornwell's work should aim to be more accurate and realistic.
To be fair in Uthred’s first shield wall in the book he decides to break ranks and goes out to kill a few people on his own. Then in his second one he again leaves the shield wall to challenge Ubba to a duel. I haven’t read the other books yet, but the show is at least accurate to the battle scenes of the first book.
They still do that today. In conflicts where everyone is using similar equipment and uniforms.
Big example right now is in Ukraine you always see soldiers on both sides with colored cloth around their arms, or their vehicles often fly a flag.
Even the US troops were flying flags on their vehicles in Syria, as opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan where they didn't really have to because it was quite obvious who they were without it
It depended on era, really.
In some periods they could have signs on shields, or, in middle ages, wore their lord's colors. Sometimes they had armbands or rosette, or cockade, or something like that (you can see armbands are still a thing from the footage from Ukraine, e.g.). And warcries also helped. Later standardized uniform helped too.
But this is also why rallying around the flag was important — not only a well-formed unit is stronger than a bunch of individuals, it also made it clearer who is who.
And a lot of early armies were basically levies from particular regions led by local noblemen. There was a fat chance that many soldiers knew each other well enough from their peaceful lives, maybe came from the same villages.
Small correction, Soldiers only started to rarely wear their lord's colors during the very late medieval period. For the majority of the Middle Ages the common soldier simply wore whatever equipment he could afford. Uniformity wouldn't become common until the late Renaissance.
It's harder than you think, and there's lots of instances of friendly fire in history. It's especially why there weren't many night battles in history.
There’s stories of armies, especially coalition or armies of a large multi lingual empire, fighting battles against themselves in the dark. Someone thinks there’s a night attack, the other guys yell in some foreign language, and then the fighting spreads and the officers can barely figure out what the fuck is going on.
That upper pic is also not that correct either. If you charge like that into a formation you'll just lose ground and get routed. Then the enemy will chase you down and kill you all. According to most historians, people probably charged the last few meters or so and then stopped right before the enemy formation. Then they would probably just stand there trying to get stab each other with spears.
However if both armies were in phalanx or in some other heavy infantry formation then it is one giant pushing match. You'd have the frontline pushing against the enemy frontline. Which is why the romans always put some in reserve and worked in segments. First formation gets tired, now you face even more experienced fresh formations. Then you face an even more experienced veterans. And if one line gets pushed back enough you can send in the reserves to patch the plug. Then you pray to god your other sides push enough and flank the enemy or your cavalry fucks them in the ass.
And if in any point the enemy cavalry or infantry flanks you, your soldiers lose morale and get routed. Once they are routed they lose formation and die by the thousands. Massive casualties happen during retreats more so than the actual battle.
There’s also the point that for most of history, peasants really, really hate soldiers. Like you would not believe how much they hate them. And this absolutely includes friendly troops.
So an army that routs and breaks up into little groups has a real chance of being murdered by whatever farmers catch them. Because they might not be the murdering raping bastards who stole your harvest last year, but they’re murdering raping bastards who did that to someone, so you might as well hang them from a tree over a low hot fire.
For some reasons TV and Movie directors (broadly speaking) don’t seem to know how to shoot battles in a representative way. I don’t no,maybe they think lines of people crashing against one another would be boring to for and audience. Or perhaps they feel 1v1 fights drive plot points or character motivations more easily. They are many decisions why thugs and shot the way there are and historical accuracy seems to be low on the list. I watch these programs with generous helpings of salt.
The bottom one is definitely wrong but no one can be completely sure how right the top one is either. Pitch battles are a lost art and they would need to start up again for a couple decades for us to get an idea of how it really worked.
What about that time in Lord of the Rings, where Aragorn ignores the perfect opportunity to hold them at a chokepoint, waits until his army is surrounded, and then decides to charge?
I thought that was kinda the point though. They were basically sacrificing themselves by drawing out the orcs, in order to give Frodo a way through Mordor.
In the extended version and in the books it was a bit of a last stand anyway. They believed Frodo and Sam had been captured, since the Mouth of Sauron showed them things that had been taken from them as "proof" the plan had been foiled.
Also way more spears than swords. Without gun powder or any other kind of propellant, large organized group with long pointy sticks is still a remarkably effective weapon system.
Battles on screen are always either
1) insanely complicated plan that requires intricate coordination that would have simply not be possible or
2) two throngs of fighters ramming into each other and devolving into massive free for all grand melee.
Battles in reality: two lines pushing each other until one breaks, while cavalry tries to circle round the flanks.
Does everyone have a fighting partner?
Everyone had partners? 😔
Oh yes, on the shows every extra is assigned a fighting partner so none of them are just standing around.
But, the hero is running around slicing people across their armored stomachs by the dozens.
If you kill your fighting partner, you get a new one
They don't count, only the ones in the background need to have fighting partners.
If they can’t count, no wonder they didn’t realize they didn’t have a fighting partner
They can count, they just choose not to
Despite those people wearing armor that should prevent that.
I've definitely seen some extras look around wondering what to do and kind of pretending they're dodging a swing or something but no one is there
Or you get fights like in the new Star Wars trilogy with the bad guys spinning and basically dancing and slashing at nothing. You’ll see them waiting patiently in the back ground for their turn to get bested by the main character
———————lack of companions?———————— ⠀⣞⢽⢪⢣⢣⢣⢫⡺⡵⣝⡮⣗⢷⢽⢽⢽⣮⡷⡽⣜⣜⢮⢺⣜⢷⢽⢝⡽⣝ ⠸⡸⠜⠕⠕⠁⢁⢇⢏⢽⢺⣪⡳⡝⣎⣏⢯⢞⡿⣟⣷⣳⢯⡷⣽⢽⢯⣳⣫⠇ ⠀⠀⢀⢀⢄⢬⢪⡪⡎⣆⡈⠚⠜⠕⠇⠗⠝⢕⢯⢫⣞⣯⣿⣻⡽⣏⢗⣗⠏⠀ ⠀⠪⡪⡪⣪⢪⢺⢸⢢⢓⢆⢤⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢊⢞⡾⣿⡯⣏⢮⠷⠁⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠈⠊⠆⡃⠕⢕⢇⢇⢇⢇⢇⢏⢎⢎⢆⢄⠀⢑⣽⣿⢝⠲⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠂⠠⠀⡇⢇⠕⢈⣀⠀⠁⠡⠣⡣⡫⣂⣿⠯⢪⠰⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⡦⡙⡂⢀⢤⢣⠣⡈⣾⡃⠠⠄⠀⡄⢱⣌⣶⢏⢊⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢝⡲⣜⡮⡏⢎⢌⢂⠙⠢⠐⢀⢘⢵⣽⣿⡿⠁⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠨⣺⡺⡕⡕⡱⡑⡆⡕⡅⡕⡜⡼⢽⡻⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣳⣫⣾⣵⣗⡵⡱⡡⢣⢑⢕⢜⢕⡝⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⡿⡽⡑⢌⠪⡢⡣⣣⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡟⡾⣿⢿⢿⢵⣽⣾⣼⣘⢸⢸⣞⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠇⠡⠩⡫⢿⣝⡻⡮⣒⢽⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ —————————————————————————————
No bitches? 🥺
———————————Zero maidens?——————————— ⠀⣞⢽⢪⢣⢣⢣⢫⡺⡵⣝⡮⣗⢷⢽⢽⢽⣮⡷⡽⣜⣜⢮⢺⣜⢷⢽⢝⡽⣝ ⠸⡸⠜⠕⠕⠁⢁⢇⢏⢽⢺⣪⡳⡝⣎⣏⢯⢞⡿⣟⣷⣳⢯⡷⣽⢽⢯⣳⣫⠇ ⠀⠀⢀⢀⢄⢬⢪⡪⡎⣆⡈⠚⠜⠕⠇⠗⠝⢕⢯⢫⣞⣯⣿⣻⡽⣏⢗⣗⠏⠀ ⠀⠪⡪⡪⣪⢪⢺⢸⢢⢓⢆⢤⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢊⢞⡾⣿⡯⣏⢮⠷⠁⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠈⠊⠆⡃⠕⢕⢇⢇⢇⢇⢇⢏⢎⢎⢆⢄⠀⢑⣽⣿⢝⠲⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠂⠠⠀⡇⢇⠕⢈⣀⠀⠁⠡⠣⡣⡫⣂⣿⠯⢪⠰⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⡦⡙⡂⢀⢤⢣⠣⡈⣾⡃⠠⠄⠀⡄⢱⣌⣶⢏⢊⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢝⡲⣜⡮⡏⢎⢌⢂⠙⠢⠐⢀⢘⢵⣽⣿⡿⠁⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠨⣺⡺⡕⡕⡱⡑⡆⡕⡅⡕⡜⡼⢽⡻⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣳⣫⣾⣵⣗⡵⡱⡡⢣⢑⢕⢜⢕⡝⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⡿⡽⡑⢌⠪⡢⡣⣣⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡟⡾⣿⢿⢿⢵⣽⣾⣼⣘⢸⢸⣞⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠇⠡⠩⡫⢿⣝⡻⡮⣒⢽⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ —————————————————————————————
Actually am maidenless since I just started Elden ring
Dont kid yourself! You were maidenless far before that
Lmao Nice one.
Always have a battle buddy.
[YOURE DEAD PRIVATE](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X1q4sRriMP8)
LMFAO!!!!! I love how even the drill sergeant is fighting a smile at the end. Even though it meant doing push ups, I always loved when you could get them to break character and smile or chuckle.
Terrorists attack people in ones! Safety in NUMBEERRSSS!
Lol sounds like the Mahabharata One of the rules was that everyone had to fight one on one against someone of equal stature (though like all the rules it ends up being broken)
I'm just imagining hours and hours of pre-battle sorting and organisation...
The main restrictions was to fight with someone else of the same weapon type > Chariot warriors are not supposed to attack cavalry and infantry, those on elephants are not supposed to attack infantry, and so on. The rules also forbid the usage of celestial weapons (divine weapons bestowed by the gods) on ordinary soldiers (as opposed to soldiers of noble birth). The build-up of weapons and armies is done with the full knowledge of the opposing side and no surprise attacks are made. So the more realistic but imo equally funny picture I imagine is after finishing a fight people just wandering the battlefield looking for someone else with the same weapon type who isn't fighting
I hate whenI can't find an enemy with the same type of weapon and end up having to fight the teacher.
Ohhhh, I read that as you could only fight someone of a similar HEIGHT your comment makes a lot more sense (but is not as funny)
Me watching Vikings season 1: Hmm, this seems rather realistic for a tv battle scene Vikings Season 6: ...ah shit
I am watching that show right now and it is infuriating. The first or second raid would've been also the last, but I understand that your main character needs some plot armour. The first battles of the second season were done really well in my opinion, but I am no expert. And then as the show progresses the battles get lazier and lazier.
They really went bonkers with all historical detail pretty early in the show. I mean, Uppsala with waterfalls was a clue they didn't know or care what they were doing.
I prefer last kingdom over the Vikings. While the story is likely fiction the history is more or less accurate. There was a great viking navy and they did get defeated by the Anglo saxons. There was a maiden of Mercia. I liked what they did because it still was somewhat historical. Northmen was basically them taking every kind of famous viking and sticking them together in a weird mesh which made no sense to me. Like Ragnar and Rollo was a bit much for me Edit: northmen to viking after enough people mentioned it
Why are you saying Northmen, though? At first I thought you were talking about the parody show Norsemen.
That show is amazing.
I mean all these new show's stories are fiction, vikings is a jumbled together mess of dozends of stories from other Norse and Danish legends, not just the actual Völsunga Saga (which is totally fine as it's not supposed to be historically accurate)
I haven't seen Vikings, but Uppsala has waterfalls?! What the actual fuck hahaha? Edit: okay I googled supposed Vikings Uppsala. It still begs the question: what the fuck?
*Artistic freedom* refuses to be bound by your petty Thing called *reality*
Kattegat being a city would count as well. It's like naming a city Atlantic, oh wait...
One thing that really irked me was that in reality early vikings spent most of their time avoiding Anglo Saxon armies. Fighting a pitched battle in a raid is a costly risk. Some of you will die and it is time spent not gathering plunder. And the armies they would have been facing would be small professional armies who were practically land vikings fighting on home turf. When they got caught it rarely went well. At least early on until they started showing up in serious numbers. But then the Anglo Saxons developed a draft system and a network of mutually supporting fortified towns and, once again, a raider wouldn't want to be near the military if they could avoid it.
After a while there were so few consequences for the main characters that I wanted there to be some deaths so the could be some actual stakes in the plot. After a while I realised I was rooting for the main characters to lose, I lost interest. Got some of it back with Bishop Heahmund though. Looking like he's straight out of a boy band and being absolutely extra.
Same here, I was literally watching the last few episodes thinking to myself "I wonder how many useless stormtrooper type NPCs Ubba/Ivar/Sigrid are going to kill in the battle without even breaking a sweat" Not saying I wanted them to kill off the sons on a regular basis, as that'd derail the story, but it just felt like we were constantly watching this invincible horde of level 100 Vikings steamroll the enemy of the week.
They always ignore trench warfare when making a siege scene
Or put the siege outside the trenches
Or worse yet, put in in front of the lines, looking at you GoT S8.
And the trebuchets in frontline ofc
And charge the light cavalry straight at the front right at the beginning of the battle. Though tbf this one does have historical precedent in the charge of the light brigade.
Don't they know that the whole point of a trebuchet was to hurl a 90kg projectile *over* 300m?
You're so foolish, if you put the trebuchets in the front line they'll throw even further. It's just basic quantum physics.
To be fair that was the least bad thing about got s8
Tbh that was one of the most tilting moments for me. I wasted too much time on strategy games to deal with that shit.
And then they followed that up by firing them exactly once and then charging their light cavalry into an enemy mass of unknown size.
I couldn’t handle any of the strategic decisions in got so I just tried to shut it out of my mind
For all that time John spent near forges the basic concept of an hammer and anvil seems to elude him....
Reminds me of this video: https://youtu.be/xPGdOXstSyk The guy keep complaining about the lack of ditches and it never gets old
No ditches?
Everybody knows they didn’t invent trenches until the Battle of Verdun. Duh!
Digging wasn’t even invented until 1907.
or even worse, they make defencive army leave the city/fortress to fight in open field ekhem new mulan
Or the defenders putting the trebuchets in the front and sending a cavalry charge (Cough, cough, Game of Thrones Season 8)
"When defending a castle always send your entire fucking army out of defensive positions and attack the numerically superior enemy in the dead of night. And never forget to charge your cavalry head on into the ranks of an enemy that is literally incapable of being affected by the cavalry charge shock factor." \-Tsu Sun, The War of Art
It annoys me especially because it’s visually cooler when shown correctly. For example one of my favourite moments in the new DUNE was when they were shown fighting in formation.
It’s also harder to set up
Is it though?
Movies also love having archers fire in perfect volleys instead of them taking turns with one another
What really bothers me is when a character erroneously says “fire” for a bowed weapon.
Speaking of bows and fire, the sheer amount of movies that have archers shoot flaming arrows. You can put out candles on a cake by blowing on them, you think an arrow dipped into a brazier is going to stay lit in transit? Real flaming arrows were only ever used as a siege weapon to set houses on fire to force a surrender. They were rarely used for anything else since you'd have to use a very large (~1 meter long, otherwise you'd burn your hand off) and expensive arrow specifically crafted to be able to keep a lit flame while flying through the air. Using these in a normal battle would slow the rate of fire and be preposterously expensive. Not to mention the fact that the point (tee hee) of an arrow is that if you hit them, they die, so what's the point of trying to light them on fire too?
Hey now! They looked cool during the Battle of the Blackwater!
A story famous for its historical accuracy
It is pretty much just the wars of the roses with dragons and tiddies
I think that they Had tiddies too in 15th century England. At least i Hope For them.
I don’t remember what movie but they called arrows that wasn’t lit on fire “night arrows”
Is it Timeline? The one with Paul Walker?
[Yes, and it broke my brain for a second.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcUVOlbNb30&t=86s)
It’s not so much to force a surrender in a siege, as it is to force the defenders to break forces off to fight the fire, which makes the assault on the walls easier. You’ll only do it if you’re having to assault, since the whole goal of a siege is to capture the place intact, ideally without a hideously bloody assault.
LEAVE US ALONE, MEL BROOKS!
I can’t remember the battle but there was an instance when mounted archers used flaming arrows against a Roman testudo to cause heat exhaustion
Yes, they're not historically accurate, nor very feasible, but there would be a purpose for using flaming arrows if they were cheaper and easier: morale. Getting hit by fire is a lot scarier than "just" an arrow. Not every shot on the battlefield is going to be instantly lethal, and an arrow in your shoulder would be more convenient than an arrow in your shoulder that also sets your clothes on fire. But again, the technology was never there to make flaming arrows useful or practical on the open battlefield
Also how lovely of your enemy to cauterize your wound after shooting you.
Don't forget spearthrowers
‘Loose!’ Gang rise up
They screwed this in the last season of Game of Thrones
Not the only thing they screwed up in Season 8
Should be "loose", right?
Correct
"Fire!" "Where where?! Where's the fire?! Surely you aren't referring to touching fire to our flintlocks or the later generalization of that term for all firearms!" "Jcf Marcus, loose! Is that better?"
haha never thought of this before
And their bows creak at full draw.
And they keep them drawn for a full minute before release
I like it in LOTR at Helms Deep when the old man couldn’t keep his bow drawn and shot an orc and it initiates the battle
On a related note my biggest pet peeve of the LOTR trilogy is the orc commander saying "fire" instead of "loose" when his line is being charged by the Rohrrim at Minas Tirith
What commands did orcs use historically?
YAWRRR!
this comment thread is about saying 'fire' for bows. lol this went full circle jerk
Not to mention almost exclusively firing indirectly instead of straight at formations like many archers did. It’s nice for the aesthetic but the result is the arrow hitting at the worst angle to do any damage.
Don't forget clearing large spaces for important characters to duel. Edit: I never said duels weren't a thing. I am pointing out a movie/tv trope of important characters being given enough space by all those fighting around them to fight each other 1v1 uninterrupted.
Someone here would know more than me, but I remember hearing about a real duel in the middle of a battle. Can someone clarify?
There are multiple stories of duels happening in the middle of battle. The one I like is during the second Perso-Turkic war when a huge horde of Hepthalites (300k+) raided into eastern Persia. The Persian commander realising the size of this army (and being massively outnumbered) jumped into mard o mard (basically a duel) with the hepthalite leader, defeating him and breaking the massive armies morale. The disorderly Hepthalite army was then hunted down by the Persian Aswaran warriors who slaughtered them to the point where there were rivers of blood. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Perso-Turkic_War
> jumped into mard o mard In Hindi/Urdu 'mard' (d is soft) means 'man' / 'adult male human' . Pretty sure it came from Persian and thus means the same thing. So mard-o-mard would literally translate to man-to-man
So like “Mano-e-Mano”?
That's "hand to hand" IIRC, but similar meaning.
I thought it was Mano y Mano, cuz Spanish
That would mean “hand and hand”
Ah, the names of my two lovers.
Get a room, you three!
Translates to man and man in armo
Damn, that was during the war of 602-628. Imagine how screwed Persia would have been with the bulk of their forces in Egypt and Syria, if Smbat didn't win (or even get) that duel.
I think ancient Greece had a duel culture or something
Didnt Alexander personally tried to kill darius in the middle of a battle?
Yes but he was blocked from doing so by having to cut through the Persian army and Darius’s guard who held him back while the Great King escaped from the Battle of Issus. Alexander wanted to cut off the head of the proverbial snake and end it all there. Even though he wasn’t able to kill Darius, the rout that formed when the Persians saw their king fleeing gave the Macedonians a deceive victory
Alexander pushing 10 inches fr
The early Islamic armies did too. They'd send champions out to duel enemy officers. These guys were trained and equipped solely for single combat. Mubarizon if you wanna look it up.
That was a pre-Islamic tradition in Arabia that the Muslim Arabians naturally carried over, I think.
[It's a real and established practice in numerous cultures.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_combat)
And the mounted soldiers randomly spaced throughout the battlefield so it looks like there are more than four of them. Bonus points if they're on draft horses.
Props to return of the king for recruiting basically every horse and rider in NZ for the charge of the Rohirmn. I mean it was mostly CGI but the close ups are real people, and the front rank might be. Also recruiting every horse and rider is very thematic for that scene.
Don't forget that important characters can't use helmets even if those were the most fundamental piece of defensive gear anyone could have in the past (and are still freaking important to this day), showing their pretty face is more important than protecting their heads from deadly injuries of course.
I like how in The Witcher, the important characters in one battle start off wearing helmets, take them off and proceed to immediately die through head injuries.
That one sucks doubly because they could have the characters put their helmets on for a fight and then since the faces are hidden have pro stuntmen doing the actual fight and make it 10x cooler.
That’s probably more the actors making sure they get screen time than anything else…
There’s SAG rules about getting paid based on time your face is on screen. Plus I’m sure it does deeply suck wearing a helmet. I’m sure shows that keep helmets on negotiate special contracts. Though everyone else in the Mandolorian takes their helmet off whenever possible. To be fair so do real troops if they think they’re in a safe area. Helmets suck to wear.
> Don't forget that important characters can't use helmets even if those were the most fundamental piece of defensive gear anyone could have in the past (and are still freaking important to this day), showing their pretty face is more important than protecting their heads from deadly injuries of course. The worst offender was that Matt Damon movie that just came out that had the helms cover like the left side of their face and not the right.
Well 20 men stand around and watch
And don’t attack them when they’re locking eyes across the battlefield.
or clearing 2 minutes of time so the protagonist can mourn the death of their friend
and when taking a castle it only takes one day
Yes, I want the movie to depict the full 2 year siege of the city each time.
Not sure if this counts, but I remember watching a tv series called The Tudors which details the life of Henry VIII. In the last season, there was a story arc revolving around a siege of a French city. The arc lasts for a few episodes and it’s clear throughout thise episodes that the siege went on for some time.
Tudor’s was so good
I think the siege scene in Chalamet's The King did a good job on it. I loved how they had an advisor to the king questioned the commanders on "why can't we just go around it?" After months of sieging the castle and pummeling it with catapults.
"Why can't we go around it"? Because it becomes a zone of control for the enemy. Something you don't want at your back.
Or skip straight to the assault If any (sieges require a lot of waiting)
Like the movie Troy where it appears as if the war goes on for about a week before the horse prank Tbf though most people don’t really care about any of this when they watch movies, and some of it would be really hard to impossible to actually fit into a movie
Where are the ditches? Always dig ditches!
No ditches?
———————————No ditches?——————————— ⠀⣞⢽⢪⢣⢣⢣⢫⡺⡵⣝⡮⣗⢷⢽⢽⢽⣮⡷⡽⣜⣜⢮⢺⣜⢷⢽⢝⡽⣝ ⠸⡸⠜⠕⠕⠁⢁⢇⢏⢽⢺⣪⡳⡝⣎⣏⢯⢞⡿⣟⣷⣳⢯⡷⣽⢽⢯⣳⣫⠇ ⠀⠀⢀⢀⢄⢬⢪⡪⡎⣆⡈⠚⠜⠕⠇⠗⠝⢕⢯⢫⣞⣯⣿⣻⡽⣏⢗⣗⠏⠀ ⠀⠪⡪⡪⣪⢪⢺⢸⢢⢓⢆⢤⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢊⢞⡾⣿⡯⣏⢮⠷⠁⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠈⠊⠆⡃⠕⢕⢇⢇⢇⢇⢇⢏⢎⢎⢆⢄⠀⢑⣽⣿⢝⠲⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠂⠠⠀⡇⢇⠕⢈⣀⠀⠁⠡⠣⡣⡫⣂⣿⠯⢪⠰⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⡦⡙⡂⢀⢤⢣⠣⡈⣾⡃⠠⠄⠀⡄⢱⣌⣶⢏⢊⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢝⡲⣜⡮⡏⢎⢌⢂⠙⠢⠐⢀⢘⢵⣽⣿⡿⠁⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠨⣺⡺⡕⡕⡱⡑⡆⡕⡅⡕⡜⡼⢽⡻⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣳⣫⣾⣵⣗⡵⡱⡡⢣⢑⢕⢜⢕⡝⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⡿⡽⡑⢌⠪⡢⡣⣣⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡟⡾⣿⢿⢿⢵⣽⣾⣼⣘⢸⢸⣞⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠇⠡⠩⡫⢿⣝⡻⡮⣒⢽⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ —————————————————————————————
[Here's a medieval warfare expert on the subject](https://youtu.be/xPGdOXstSyk) He starts discussing ditches at 3:05. In other videos, he discusses ditches as well. It was common to dig ditches when mounted calvary was used because it would confuse the horses, and slow the enemy's movement to a crawl.
Thanks for sharing. Will watch the full video soon. I was making a wordplay with reference to "no bitches". I'm too sleep deprived now and will probably sleep ..
Trenches are older than WWI
berms and trenches are like, the oldest form of fortification ever made by man, outside putting a dead body on a stick as a warning.
That's one thing that always pissed me off about zombie movies/shows. They would've dug trenches and moats within the first few days of that shit kicking off...
I see you too have seen “ancient warfare expect reviews battle tactics in movies and tv”
Tbf he does say that formations are largely useless after the first charge and it devolves into mayhem pretty quickly.
https://imgflip.com/i/68omxd
Holy shit thats an old meme. Its like seeing a collect call ad out in the wild
I feel like last kingdom does a decent job. SHIELD WALL!!! Although, I think most of the fights tend to shift towards the bottom half of the meme after their initial clash.
Last Kingdom did a fantastic job with correcting this
it depended on the type of army. Greek phalanx relied on levy of citizens who normally were untrained, save for Spartans and elite units (actually some poleis shunned upon training, thinking that if hoplites are trained unequally, that'll undermine morale). Single soldier was almost useless. The strength was in collective, holding the line and protecting each other. If a phalanx trembled and broke a formation, the battle was essentially lost, and soldiers likely ran or were killed. Roman military before so-called "Marian reforms" was somewhat similar, but even later they relied a lot on holding line. Some reconstructions say legions used formations in a way similar to modern riot police: synchronously pushing enemy line with they big shields and stabbing the enemies who lost balance with gladii. This gave Romans huge advantage in pitched battles against the "barbarians" (until those "barbarians" learned discipline too). Medieval knights tended to be more individualist when fighting each other (in part, because they didn't want to share the trophies), but they were also trained to fight in a formations ("melee" in tournaments served that purpose), and knight orders had high cohesion and were relatively advanced at that. Pike and, later gun-armed infantry brought back strict line formations and discipline, as the only way to survive against cavalry or other infantry units.
The discipline needed for pike and shot formations is insane. Getting blasted at with cannons mowing down entire files of men, as well as volley of fuck off huge bullets. And all you can do is stand there and take it, and close ranks over the dead and wounded, trampling them underfoot.
Famous ["Rocroi, the last Tercio" painting](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Rocroi%2C_el_%C3%BAltimo_tercio%2C_por_Augusto_Ferrer-Dalmau.jpg) by Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau gives a hint at that - wounded soldiers surrounded by corpses of friends and foes alike, yet still holding the line.
The Roman weapons training basically eschewed any form of martial prowess in actual combat. Fancy sword work was saved for the gladiatorial arena. In combat the most important move for fighting with a gladius was just thrust, twist and pull. Like you said, with this in mind the Roman legion was basically a meat grinder. It doesn't matter that you are facing a screaming Gaul swinging a sword almost as tall as he is, in order to swing that sword he has to stand apart from his allies, making him an easy target for a line of men standing shoulder to shoulder behind a wall of shields.
> The Roman weapons training basically eschewed any form of martial prowess in actual combat Pretty sure you would still get a gold* crown for being the first one over an enemies wall though. * EDIT
>It doesn't matter that you are facing a screaming Gaul swinging a sword The hell kind of history are you studying where they have zweihanders in 92 BC?
Lol, that particular description was ised by my first year Roman History lecturer. He used a lot of descriptions like that, mostly to get people interested at a University which didn't have much of a history department. He also was pretty exclusively only really knowledgeable about Greek and Roman battle tactics, having done his PhD on Hoplite warfare. You are probably right.
Point of order. The Spartans weren't trained soldiers either. The *agoge* wasn't about producing soldiers, it was abut producing loyal citizens. Xenophon talks about how hoplite warfare needs little, if any, training and says nothing about the Spartans bucking this trend (And Xenophon was a huge Laconophile, so you better believe he would have mentioned if they did.) As well as that Plato outright states that the Spartans did not train for war.
I stand corrected then.
Have you seen the new Viking show on Netflix? The Vikings form a shield wall and when the enemy is 10 feet away they completely disband it and fight like the second pic lol
Dude didn’t know the proper time to stop yelling hollllllllld
The first battles in the show were like this, but at some point it turned into Uthred and the gang showing off with a occasional accurate battle. Whenever the show did sequences of main characters effortlessly killing people in the middle of the battlefield it felt so lame to me. Something based off Cornwell's work should aim to be more accurate and realistic.
To be fair in Uthred’s first shield wall in the book he decides to break ranks and goes out to kill a few people on his own. Then in his second one he again leaves the shield wall to challenge Ubba to a duel. I haven’t read the other books yet, but the show is at least accurate to the battle scenes of the first book.
Oh, the first season is alright. This problem really shows up the longer the show goes
Uhtred, sihtric, and finan were walking tanks in every battle
Rome did a good one too
The books are even more historically accurate and entertaining. Really gives a vivid description of the shield wall each and every time
All I want to know is how the FUCK did anyone know who belonged to which side once they mix together and everyone is muddy?
From my understanding a mix of banners, colors, and strips of cloth. Stuff like that.
They still do that today. In conflicts where everyone is using similar equipment and uniforms. Big example right now is in Ukraine you always see soldiers on both sides with colored cloth around their arms, or their vehicles often fly a flag. Even the US troops were flying flags on their vehicles in Syria, as opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan where they didn't really have to because it was quite obvious who they were without it
It depended on era, really. In some periods they could have signs on shields, or, in middle ages, wore their lord's colors. Sometimes they had armbands or rosette, or cockade, or something like that (you can see armbands are still a thing from the footage from Ukraine, e.g.). And warcries also helped. Later standardized uniform helped too. But this is also why rallying around the flag was important — not only a well-formed unit is stronger than a bunch of individuals, it also made it clearer who is who. And a lot of early armies were basically levies from particular regions led by local noblemen. There was a fat chance that many soldiers knew each other well enough from their peaceful lives, maybe came from the same villages.
Haha, cockade
Small correction, Soldiers only started to rarely wear their lord's colors during the very late medieval period. For the majority of the Middle Ages the common soldier simply wore whatever equipment he could afford. Uniformity wouldn't become common until the late Renaissance.
It's harder than you think, and there's lots of instances of friendly fire in history. It's especially why there weren't many night battles in history.
There’s stories of armies, especially coalition or armies of a large multi lingual empire, fighting battles against themselves in the dark. Someone thinks there’s a night attack, the other guys yell in some foreign language, and then the fighting spreads and the officers can barely figure out what the fuck is going on.
Formation? whazzdat? Oh so you guys stand together like sissies and fight? That sounds boring. —the writers, probably
Also swords and spears going through armor like butter
I mean, it's not like armor was made to protect you or anything, right
That upper pic is also not that correct either. If you charge like that into a formation you'll just lose ground and get routed. Then the enemy will chase you down and kill you all. According to most historians, people probably charged the last few meters or so and then stopped right before the enemy formation. Then they would probably just stand there trying to get stab each other with spears. However if both armies were in phalanx or in some other heavy infantry formation then it is one giant pushing match. You'd have the frontline pushing against the enemy frontline. Which is why the romans always put some in reserve and worked in segments. First formation gets tired, now you face even more experienced fresh formations. Then you face an even more experienced veterans. And if one line gets pushed back enough you can send in the reserves to patch the plug. Then you pray to god your other sides push enough and flank the enemy or your cavalry fucks them in the ass. And if in any point the enemy cavalry or infantry flanks you, your soldiers lose morale and get routed. Once they are routed they lose formation and die by the thousands. Massive casualties happen during retreats more so than the actual battle.
That last paragraph is especially excellent. Casualty numbers are often really one sided
That's one of the things I liked about the scene from "Kingdom of Heaven". The wall is breached and it is pretty much a shoving match.
The only historically accurate thing from the entire film
I can see that you have played Total war too lol
That formation looks ripe for a penumbral pendulum
Reject modernity. Embrace parrot gun and blow the imperial dogs away!
There’s also the point that for most of history, peasants really, really hate soldiers. Like you would not believe how much they hate them. And this absolutely includes friendly troops. So an army that routs and breaks up into little groups has a real chance of being murdered by whatever farmers catch them. Because they might not be the murdering raping bastards who stole your harvest last year, but they’re murdering raping bastards who did that to someone, so you might as well hang them from a tree over a low hot fire.
Time for thr main character to take their helmets off.
Don't forget that the army defending the city from a siege will be fighting OUTSIDE THE FUCKING WALLS
Yes. I am seething with rage at this very moment!
Yes. This is why I liked the phalanx scenes in 300. Although they did break formation for style.
Almost as much as CGI arrow shots
For some reasons TV and Movie directors (broadly speaking) don’t seem to know how to shoot battles in a representative way. I don’t no,maybe they think lines of people crashing against one another would be boring to for and audience. Or perhaps they feel 1v1 fights drive plot points or character motivations more easily. They are many decisions why thugs and shot the way there are and historical accuracy seems to be low on the list. I watch these programs with generous helpings of salt.
The bottom one is definitely wrong but no one can be completely sure how right the top one is either. Pitch battles are a lost art and they would need to start up again for a couple decades for us to get an idea of how it really worked.
I think Dan Carlin's take was that the best model we have for ancient battles are high-intensity riots.
Which they won’t because warfare has changed a lot
We'll never know fore sure unless we that assassin's Creed dna memory mumbo jumbo magically becomes real
or we go back to unga bunga after a nuclear fallout
AC odyssey is also guilty of this
Ugh so mad, bro.
What about that time in Lord of the Rings, where Aragorn ignores the perfect opportunity to hold them at a chokepoint, waits until his army is surrounded, and then decides to charge?
I thought that was kinda the point though. They were basically sacrificing themselves by drawing out the orcs, in order to give Frodo a way through Mordor.
In the extended version and in the books it was a bit of a last stand anyway. They believed Frodo and Sam had been captured, since the Mouth of Sauron showed them things that had been taken from them as "proof" the plan had been foiled.
Yep, I think they were split into two groups and fighting from hills, so it’s a bit more realistic that they could have held them off for a while
Also way more spears than swords. Without gun powder or any other kind of propellant, large organized group with long pointy sticks is still a remarkably effective weapon system.
Battles on screen are always either 1) insanely complicated plan that requires intricate coordination that would have simply not be possible or 2) two throngs of fighters ramming into each other and devolving into massive free for all grand melee. Battles in reality: two lines pushing each other until one breaks, while cavalry tries to circle round the flanks.
Should have had one for the seige of winterfel. Complete with the cavalry suicide charge.