Best Ancient / Medieval Military History Movies: I'll start...

[Xant]

Some Italian was theorizing that Troy was in Finland

[Overdriven]

Do I get this right? - First both, team orange and team black, send in their infantry, and once the melee has started both teams send in their masses of elephants, and the elephants only kill the enemy soldiers?

And there is a guy who is using his bow in melee, covered by a few bodyguards who form a ring around him? And this ring is moving rather freely to a melee which is kind of "scattered" all over the place by duelling pairs, so that it rather reminds on a prom with pairs everywhere than on a melee where you try to hold your line and stick to your mates?

Well...here's wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Panipat_(1526)

You forget that this is bollywood...and they don't often do historical films like that 

[Draggon]

There is a lot of lush and wet teritories in Turkey even in western part. People look at summer holiday advertisements and think that Turkey only has that climate. (Or worse they belive Turkey is some desert country because it's muslim.)

Good point Sky, I should've been more specific.  "The area where they say Troy is located in Turkey" would have been better.  Obviously most, if not all countries, do not span the same exact type of terrain across its entirety (unless of course it's a very small country - lol)

In my eyes hitoric movies should stick close to realism and history to be "good" historic movies. Everything else is just entertainment. Like "King Arthur", which in my eyes is very similar to "The last Legion". Concerning both the setting and the quality. The best part in "The last Legion" were the Goths at the beginning, the best part in "King Arthur" was Stellan Skarsgard as Saxon King. Screw the rest.

You’re totally right on that.   You’ll notice I didn’t put King Arthur on the list – mainly because it’s more of a legend than history, although there are ‘some’ things that point to an existence of a ‘King Arthur’ of some kind.  It’s still not really proven.
But yeah man, that’s also probably why forgot to even think of The Last Legion initially, because it wasn’t historic at all – lol.  It was a great “medieval” movie, but not a “medieval historical” movie.

But then again, all of this is kind of a mute point since NONE of the movies I’ve seen yet have been all that  historically accurate.  Except for maybe the movie Glory which had probably the least number of inaccuracies out of anything to date, but that’s not medieval.

However, films like Last Legion  and King Arthur aren’t even close.  So yeah, I see your point.  Of course, we could probably take Gladiator off the list too since Maximus was a totally fictional character built from a combination of four different historical figures (Cincinnatus, Narcissus, Marcus Nonius Macrinus & Spartacus).

[Franke]

I for my part do not regard movies like "King Arthur" or "The last Legion" as historical movies, rather as fiction or some kind of fantasy.

Historical movies in my eyes do not necessarily have to stick 100% to what happened but at least to what could have happened. That byzanion amazon is the best example. What happened to the good old historical movies in which almost no women appeared?

 On the other hand, a gladiator killing the Roman emperor in combat (as in "Gladiator") might sound awkward, but if you check history, you will see that emperor Commodus indeed was assasinated by some kind of athlete or whatever the guy was. Furthermore, the battle scene from the beginning (Vindobona- vs the Germanic tribes) is one of the best ancient battle scene I've seen in newer movies so far... That's why I would still regard "Gladiator" as historical movie, the both movies mentioned above not.

P.S. However I like the fact that both movies approach the roots of the legendary King Arthur from a different direction....


P.P.S: Different topic: I always thought the battle of Panipat was fought in 1757- the same year as Leuthen. Seems I got my facts wrong 

[Overdriven]

If they make King Arthur into a movie again, it HAS to be based on the Bernard Cornwall books. Those bought that legend alive for me. It really turns the legend into something realistic and makes it believable. Probably one of my favourite book series of all time.

That King Arthur movie was truly awful however. Clive Owen is possibly one of the worst/most wooden actors on the face of this planet.

However, films like Last Legion  and King Arthur aren’t even close.  So yeah, I see your point.  Of course, we could probably take Gladiator off the list too since Maximus was a totally fictional character built from a combination of four different historical figures (Cincinnatus, Narcissus, Marcus Nonius Macrinus & Spartacus).[/font][/size][/color]

In all fairness, King Arthur didn't actually technically exist. Certainly not as a King. He cropped up in some monks history of British monarchs sometime around Edward I reign. The story then generated much popular support and many monasteries claimed to have certain relations to the legend. Including his sarcophagus at Glastonbury. It's hard to be historically accurate when there is no real history and it was all made up

In fact, it was so widely believed that Edward I used the title of King Arthur as the 'King of all Britain' to form the basis for his attempts to take over Scotland by suggesting English Kings were from King Arthurs lineage.

P.P.S: Different topic: I always thought the battle of Panipat was fought in 1757- the same year as Leuthen. Seems I got my facts wrong 

There were two battles of Panipat (1526 and 1761 according to wiki) 

[Thucydides]

However, there has been more 'evidence' that Troy may have very well been in Cornwall.  And the "Achaeans" very possibly may have not been Greeks, but Celts that inhabited that part of Greece during that era.  And hence part of the reason that it is known as Greek Mythology, since Greeks derived most of their mythology directly handed down from the Celts.

It's wild, I know, but there are some pretty strong indicators that point to this.
- Early Greeks of that time weren't strong enough or unified enough to field a massive army or fleet of that size.
- The terrain around Cornwall matches the accounts that speak of a lush, wet climate (rather than the arid, dry climate of Turkey)
- The number of rivers that ran thru and around Troy, match the number of rivers spoken about in the stories.
- The fact that the Celts needed tin for their bronze, which Cornwall was overly abundant in.
- Massive amounts of Celtic influence all around Cornwall that still exists today proves they were in fact there.
- Accounts of a "Brutus of Troy," a descendant of the Trojan hero "Æneas" and according to the Historia Regum Britanniae say he was the legendary founder and first king of Britain.
- In a borrow found at Trelowarren (which is in Cornwall), there are ancient monuments made of clay and stone, of Hector and Patroclus.

And there is a lot, lot more that I can’t remember.  Been awhile since I’ve read any of the books on that, but it was definitely interesting stuff.  They go on to talk about the differences between the seas that were crossed, and the accounts of the return home from Troy and how a return voyage from Cornwall matched the geography so much more, etc, etc.  And some interesting archeological findings in various places along the route.

But this is already turning into a “tldr” kinda thing so I’ll shut it down for now.

The fuck? The Keltoi were not even close to Greece during the 11th century BC. The Kelts reached northern Greece  during the Hellenistic age where they were stopped by Antigonus II Gonatas of Macedon, and Antiochus II Soter of the Seleucid Empire. Never has there been archeological evidence of a “keltic” culture existing in Greece during the Mycenaean era. Furthermore, there is stronger evidence that the Hellens derived their gods from the Phoenicians, rather than the kelts.

now to analyze your points.

- Early Greeks of that time weren't strong enough or unified enough to field a massive army or fleet of that size.
- The terrain around Cornwall matches the accounts that speak of a lush, wet climate (rather than the arid, dry climate of Turkey)
- The number of rivers that ran thru and around Troy, match the number of rivers spoken about in the stories.
- The fact that the Celts needed tin for their bronze, which Cornwall was overly abundant in.
- Massive amounts of Celtic influence all around Cornwall that still exists today proves they were in fact there.
- Accounts of a "Brutus of Troy," a descendant of the Trojan hero "Æneas" and according to the Historia Regum Britanniae say he was the legendary founder and first king of Britain.
- In a borrow found at Trelowarren (which is in Cornwall), there are ancient monuments made of clay and stone, of Hector and Patroclus.

1.   Early greeks were a collection of city states led by the Basileus, in the story Agamemnon united most of the cities by war, or shrewed diplomatic marriages. Suggesting that the unification of Greece occurred during the lifetime of Agamemnon. Furthermore, it has been shown in archaeology that the nearby empire of the Hittites recognized the Mycenaeans as “equals” In the same league as Egypt and Mesopotamia during this time. Thus the idea that the Mycenaeans weren’t “strong enough” or unified is a bit silly.
2.   The climate 3000 years ago was dramatically different than it is now. Sea Levels were much lower and the climate was cooler during this time. If we were to base the climate  description on the contemporary agreed timeline of 900-800 BCE, we’d see that the world was experiencing a cooling cycle, that picked up to a warming cycle beginning in 700 BCE:
“From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and coastal areas that are still above sea level today. A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.”
this would account for the difference in climate in turkey, as well as the fact that people have been cultivating turkey for thousands of years, soil erosion and the destruction of forests tend to cause a change in climate. (source: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html)
3.   Rivers change when water levels change+ gradual unification of tributaries
4.   The major source of Tin during this time was from the Taurus Mountains in Turkey. Troy would be a major source of tin as they would be a port where tin is sold to the rest of the Aegean. Also, Homer mentions that some of the Achaeans used “Cypriot Bronze armor”, which Cypriot was known for during this time, most likely received tin from the traders in the mainland.
(Until 1984 we did not know the source of tin for the ancient bronze civilizations of the Near East. Now more than 40 ancient sites of tin mining have been discovered in the Taurus mountains of southern Turkey, only 40 km from the Cilician Gates, the main pass through the Taurus. The area has a great variety of metal ores, including placer deposits of gold and silver. But lead (as galena) is also present, and lead artefacts are known from Çatal Höyük. Cast lead figurines had become common by the late third and early second millenia, and silver was important from the late fourth millennium. Source: http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~gel115/115ch4.html)
5.   Æneas gives birth to brutus who is mentioned in the middle ages and not classical texts? Seems to me that this is an indigenous attempt to connect the history of Britain to the history of rome, which the romans did to the Greeks with the Aeneid.
6.   Britain was occupied by the romans. Romans loved Troy. Romans claimed descendance from Troy. Would it not make sense to have statues of Trojan heros in a roman colony?
T.L D.R. I smell some seriously sloppy interpretation going on here

[Overdriven]

(click to show/hide)

1.   Early greeks were a collection of city states led by the Basileus, in the story Agamemnon united most of the cities by war, or shrewed diplomatic marriages. Suggesting that the unification of Greece occurred during the lifetime of Agamemnon. Furthermore, it has been shown in archaeology that the nearby empire of the Hittites recognized the Mycenaeans as “equals” In the same league as Egypt and Mesopotamia during this time. Thus the idea that the Mycenaeans weren’t “strong enough” or unified is a bit silly.
2.   The climate 3000 years ago was dramatically different than it is now. Sea Levels were much lower and the climate was cooler during this time. If we were to base the climate  description on the contemporary agreed timeline of 900-800 BCE, we’d see that the world was experiencing a cooling cycle, that picked up to a warming cycle beginning in 700 BCE:
“From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and coastal areas that are still above sea level today. A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.”
this would account for the difference in climate in turkey, as well as the fact that people have been cultivating turkey for thousands of years, soil erosion and the destruction of forests tend to cause a change in climate. (source: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html)
3.   Rivers change when water levels change+ gradual unification of tributaries
4.   The major source of Tin during this time was from the Taurus Mountains in Turkey. Troy would be a major source of tin as they would be a port where tin is sold to the rest of the Aegean. Also, Homer mentions that some of the Achaeans used “Cypriot Bronze armor”, which Cypriot was known for during this time, most likely received tin from the traders in the mainland.
(Until 1984 we did not know the source of tin for the ancient bronze civilizations of the Near East. Now more than 40 ancient sites of tin mining have been discovered in the Taurus mountains of southern Turkey, only 40 km from the Cilician Gates, the main pass through the Taurus. The area has a great variety of metal ores, including placer deposits of gold and silver. But lead (as galena) is also present, and lead artefacts are known from Çatal Höyük. Cast lead figurines had become common by the late third and early second millenia, and silver was important from the late fourth millennium. Source: http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~gel115/115ch4.html)
5.   Æneas gives birth to brutus who is mentioned in the middle ages and not classical texts? Seems to me that this is an indigenous attempt to connect the history of Britain to the history of rome, which the romans did to the Greeks with the Aeneid.
6.   Britain was occupied by the romans. Romans loved Troy. Romans claimed descendance from Troy. Would it not make sense to have statues of Trojan heros in a roman colony?
T.L D.R. I smell some seriously sloppy interpretation going on here

Rather than discount his points largely off your own interpretation, you should go read some books about this theory. It's actually very interesting and does have some weight behind it. Draggon gave a quick summary of some of the issues and theory behind it, but naturally, it is a forum post and of course you can pick holes every way you look at it.

Here's a lecture based on it given by one of the main theorists behind this:
http://phdamste.tripod.com/trojan.html

This one is heavily based on relating it to Homer but there are other books/works that look into it in a far more scientific ect fashion.

The problem is many 'serious' classicist simply dismiss this theory because it goes against everything they have ever believed. As with much historical argument, when the standard views are argued against, the long time 'scholars' in the field simply dismiss it out of hand, despite the fact that in many cases the new view has become the accepted in later generations. Simple fact is though, there's very little evidence that Troy existed in Turkey either. So this is as likely a possibility in my eyes as that.

In all honesty though, I consider Troy to be like the King Arthur legend (opinions of which I expressed a few posts above). It's essentially the same thing. 'Finding' Troy in Turkey is the equivalent to me driving down to Tintagel in Cornwall (the castle long associated with Arthurian legend) and claiming I found Camelot.

[Thucydides]

Rather than discount his points largely off your own interpretation, you should go read some books about this theory. It's actually very interesting and does have some weight behind it. Draggon gave a quick summary of some of the issues and theory behind it, but naturally, it is a forum post and of course you can pick holes every way you look at it.

Here's a lecture based on it given by one of the main theorists behind this:
http://phdamste.tripod.com/trojan.html

This one is heavily based on relating it to Homer but there are other books/works that look into it in a far more scientific ect fashion.

The problem is many 'serious' classicist simply dismiss this theory because it goes against everything they have ever believed. As with much historical argument, when the standard views are argued against, the long time 'scholars' in the field simply dismiss it out of hand, despite the fact that in many cases the new view has become the accepted in later generations. Simple fact is though, there's very little evidence that Troy existed in Turkey either. So this is as likely a possibility in my eyes as that.

In all honesty though, I consider Troy to be like the King Arthur legend (opinions of which I expressed a few posts above). It's essentially the same thing. 'Finding' Troy in Turkey is the equivalent to me driving down to Tintagel in Cornwall (the castle long associated with Arthurian legend) and claiming I found Camelot.

Read some books? i know enough about the ancient world to see that there is a lot more evidence to suggest that troy was somewhere in between europe and asia, not somewhere south of britain.

first of all, the Ancient greeks always overestimate/embellish statistics. We see this in herodotus, Plutarch, etc etc. So it is more likely that the Trojan war had, at most, 20k participants. Secondly, recent excavations have unveiled a new layer of debris that corresponds to a large city like that described by homer. So yeah, there goes a large reason for disbelief of the theory.

Third, The similarities of the Keltic religion to the Greeks is probably because they share the same genetic origin and once shared the same language. The kelts did share the same "warrior culture" but that warrior culture was ubiquitous throughout the hunting/gathering societies of the world. I see no reason to suggests that the greeks came from the kelts,.

finally, theres still the problem of relying on a  Geneaology that was invented in the 11th century AD to prove something that occurred in the 9th century bc. Thats just bad form

[Overdriven]

(click to show/hide)

Read some books? i know enough about the ancient world to see that there is a lot more evidence to suggest that troy was somewhere in between europe and asia, not somewhere south of britain.

first of all, the Ancient greeks always overestimate/embellish statistics. We see this in herodotus, Plutarch, etc etc. So it is more likely that the Trojan war had, at most, 20k participants. Secondly, recent excavations have unveiled a new layer of debris that corresponds to a large city like that described by homer. So yeah, there goes a large reason for disbelief of the theory.

Third, The similarities of the Keltic religion to the Greeks is probably because they share the same genetic origin and once shared the same language. The kelts did share the same "warrior culture" but that warrior culture was ubiquitous throughout the hunting/gathering societies of the world. I see no reason to suggests that the greeks came from the kelts,.

finally, theres still the problem of relying on a  Geneaology that was invented in the 11th century AD to prove something that occurred in the 9th century bc. Thats just bad form

Well regardless I simply think it is an interesting theory. And my point still stands, until they find the conclusive proof that Troy did exist in Europe/Asia then it can be located any where that a theory can be made to support it. As of now Troy is still pretty much myth. Certainly the fall of Troy is.

And uncovering a settlement does not count as proof. Archaeologists have a horrific tendency to uncover something and say they found something related to some myth. Partly because they only really get one chance in their career's to uncover something like that. So my point about Tintagel and Camelot still stands. Until they find proof that that settlement is indeed Troy (of which there is scarce little in the settlement claimed to be homeric Troy), then they can claim whatever the hell they like. It doesn't make it true.

[Thucydides]

Well regardless I simply think it is an interesting theory. And my point still stands, until they find the conclusive proof that Troy did exist in Europe/Asia then it can be located any where that a theory can be made to support it. As of now Troy is still pretty much myth. Certainly the fall of Troy is.

And uncovering a settlement does not count as proof. Archaeologists have a horrific tendency to uncover something and say they found something related to some myth. Partly because they only really get one chance in their career's to uncover something like that. So my point about Tintagel and Camelot still stands. Until they find proof that that settlement is indeed Troy (of which there is scarce little in the settlement claimed to be homeric Troy), then they can claim whatever the hell they like. It doesn't make it true.

We are not going to find a giant neon sign that says "WELCOME TO TROY, POP. 100 000". The fact that Archeologists found a settlement that is Large enough to fit the description of homer, in the location that has always been speculated to be troy, suggests that troy was there. Compared to Cornwall,  which has no archeological evidence of a city even approaching that size until the roman period,  it is far more likely that the convention theory is correct.
The problem with this theory is the dearth of Keltic mythology avaliable to us. If we had copies of the myths and legends the gauls/other kelts shared, we would be able to draw comparisons to the ancient greek myths. Unfortunately rromans and greeks detested the Kelts... SO this comparison can never be made.

[Overdriven]

We are not going to find a giant neon sign that says "WELCOME TO TROY, POP. 100 000". The fact that Archeologists found a settlement that is Large enough to fit the description of homer, in the location that has always been speculated to be troy, suggests that troy was there. Compared to Cornwall,  which has no archeological evidence of a city even approaching that size until the roman period,  it is far more likely that the convention theory is correct.
The problem with this theory is the dearth of Keltic mythology avaliable to us. If we had copies of the myths and legends the gauls/other kelts shared, we would be able to draw comparisons to the ancient greek myths. Unfortunately rromans and greeks detested the Kelts... SO this comparison can never be made.

Well one of the large problems is the fact there are no real written records found in the site they have uncovered. Such records could potentially point to it being Troy as written correspondence of a sort were the norm then. Unfortunately they have uncovered very little evidence of this sort and so much of it is down to guess work. But the fact that there are still large portions to be excavated does leave the potential for finding something more conclusive.

[Draggon]

Holy crap, you guys wrote a damn book while I was gone. =P
Good stuff all around.  Love this topic.

Anywho, lots to chime in about but I'll just throw this tidbit in for now.  I'm gonna look for some links to it, but if I'm not mistaken there were quite a large number of tablets recovered from the site in Turkey, but none of them mention a large battle that would fit the description of "Troy", nor are any of the commanders, leaders, "heros" names mentioned anywhere in them.  They do however mention the battle of Kadesh I believe it was?

I'll see what I can find on that.

[Thucydides]

Holy crap, you guys wrote a damn book while I was gone. =P
Good stuff all around.  Love this topic.

Anywho, lots to chime in about but I'll just throw this tidbit in for now.  I'm gonna look for some links to it, but if I'm not mistaken there were quite a large number of tablets recovered from the site in Turkey, but none of them mention a large battle that would fit the description of "Troy", nor are any of the commanders, leaders, "heros" names mentioned anywhere in them.  They do however mention the battle of Kadesh I believe it was?

I'll see what I can find on that.

Kadesh? Wouldn't this suggest that the area was Hittite dominated?  Also, if a city was razed to the ground just before the advent of a dark age, i doubt written records would exist of the sacking. We see this in other mycenaean palace complexes where the sack preserved clay tablets that showed life just before the destruction

[Glaurung]

Flesh and Blood (also named Flesh+Blood) is a pretty good late medieval movie.  It's fucking grim, realistic, brutal, and features a naked girl in most scene. Rutger Hauer is in it as a flamberge wielding mercenary that doesn't give a shit. It is directed by the glorious Paul Verhoeven, who is a fucking badass.

One of my favorite movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOy1JZBH5c

[djavo]

Absadlutly besast mesadieval movdie aeva madeada!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091763/