Should Historical Films be Accurately Portrayed?

Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,154
Location: Australia

20 Feb 2026, 8:07 pm

funeralxempire wrote:

the Christians who wrote those tales struggled to believe that the earlier Christians would choose to abandon the church for pagan gods. Christianity was reintroduced a few generations later, and was much more inline with continental Christianity, rather that the Celtic church that was dominant prior to this.

Yes, the venerable Bede and Gildas certainly had reason to inject Christian bias into the Anglo-Saxon chronicles but some of their information is likely based on truth. For example the earliest Anglo-Saxon pottery unearthed in Britain show that the early boundaries drawn by Bede of Bernicia/Northumbria, Mercia, Anglia, Kent and Wessex/Sussex lined up exactly with pottery from the original homelands of the Jutes (pottery in Kent lining up with northern Denmark), Angles (pottery in Anglia/Northumbria lining up with Southern Denmark) and Saxons (pottery in Wessex/Sussex lining up with north/western Germany). Reasonable proof Bede understood the history of Anglo-Saxon settlement fairly accurately.

cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,154
Location: Australia

20 Feb 2026, 8:20 pm

funeralxempire wrote:

Britain couldn't have been doing so well before the Saxons were invited by Vortigern to serve as foederati, if the natives viewed the pagan barbarians as enough of a prestige culture to assimilate into them, rather than trying to assimilate them or violently resist them.

The Romano-Britons must have figured it was safer to be subjects of the Saxons than to be victims of them, the Picts and the Scoti (largely from Ireland at the time).

So basically, the opposite of what happened to the other Germanic hordes appears to have happened in Britain. The Saxons assimilated the locals, rather than being assimilated by them. Only small pockets of Celtic languages (and no Vulgar Latin) remained in their wake.

I think you are right on the question of Celtic chiefs not having a clue how to maintain cities following the Roman exit. Classic decolonisation. Ample evidence the celts has zero knowledge how to maintain Roman constructions, roads, aqueducts, sanitation, harbours, building brick homes, bath-houses, trade or record keeping. Coupled with that no Roman army to defend Christian Romanised Celts against pagan Scoti and Picts.

However the incoming pagan Saxons weren't much better. It's likely being part of France allowed influence of Mediterranean renaissance and Judeo/christian law/ethics to flow into Britain

deadregen7
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 19 Aug 2025
Gender: Female
Posts: 41
Location: United States of America

20 Feb 2026, 8:39 pm

Yes, historical films should most definitely be accurately portrayed.

I'll be speaking for the subsidiary ancient near eastern catalogue of historical films, particularly ancient Egyptian historical films as those seem to be the most imbibed by fantasy than legitimacy. It's quite disheartening to see the ancient near east be represented by White leads while North African/African/West Asians/ are cast as deuteragonists, tritagonists. I forgot to mention the representational inaccuracies are inherently political.

Next, depicting ancient Egypt and the ancient near east as a monolith is quite popular, my thoughts are this may be a case of modern-day orientalism, moreover a political overshadowing. Outfits, I've noticed, are reduced to simple white Togas and Jalabiyas; colors, patterns, the intersection of material and spiritual meaning is removed for the sake of "simplicity"; historic events are made the thinnest part of the plot as they're supplemented with irrelevant dynamics that westernize these matriarchal cultures. I'm not a huge Cleopatra buff or fan but I can for sure tell you she wasn't a "cunning seductress" waning a man's knowledge of diplomacy. I get its for entertainment but a clear line must be drawn somewhere. Ancient Egypt is the butt of the historical fiction world.

cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,154
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2026, 2:41 am

deadregen7 wrote:

I'll be speaking for the subsidiary ancient near eastern catalogue of historical films, particularly ancient Egyptian historical films as those seem to be the most imbibed by fantasy than legitimacy. It's quite disheartening to see the ancient near east be represented by White leads while North African/African/West Asians/ are cast as deuteragonists, tritagonists. I forgot to mention the representational inaccuracies are inherently political.

Yeah a lot of modern projection cast on the Persians, Indians and Egyptians. India for most of the last two millennia, was one of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous civilizations, accounting for roughly 25-30% of global GDP until the arrival of the British in the 18th century. today Indians are portrayed (unfairly) in social media as a laughing stock especially in movies like Slum Dog Millionaire.

cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,154
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2026, 2:48 am

deadregen7 wrote:

Next, depicting ancient Egypt and the ancient near east as a monolith is quite popular, my thoughts are this may be a case of modern-day orientalism, moreover a political overshadowing. Outfits, I've noticed, are reduced to simple white Togas and Jalabiyas; colors, patterns, the intersection of material and spiritual meaning is removed for the sake of "simplicity"; historic events are made the thinnest part of the plot as they're supplemented with irrelevant dynamics that westernize these matriarchal cultures.

Egypt (like many parts of the world closer the equator like India) is very warm. It's likely simple thin garments made perfect functional sense.

Also apart from Southern India, matriarchism has been entirely erased from middle east/west Asia/South Asia thousands of years ago.

cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,154
Location: Australia

21 Feb 2026, 2:58 am

deadregen7 wrote:

I'm not a huge Cleopatra buff or fan but I can for sure tell you she wasn't a "cunning seductress" waning a man's knowledge of diplomacy. I get its for entertainment but a clear line must be drawn somewhere. Ancient Egypt is the butt of the historical fiction world.

Agreed. Fact was, a female ruler in Cleopatra's time was as rare as a unicorn. Her real appearance isn't actually very flattering

I think her story was embellished in the 19th century when Egyptian women were portrayed as exotic, promiscuous and belly dancing seductresses (invoking queen of Sheba and Delilah, Jezebel and Salome from the bible).

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Feb 2026, 1:38 am

funeralxempire wrote:

cyberdora wrote:

Yes, a few come to mind.
1. King Arthur (2004) directed by Antoine Fuqua
Ironically this movie is considered historically inaccurate as its an interpretation of the original King Arthur Story. But what critics don't realise is that King Arthur is already a romanticised medieval fiction reflecting popular romance of medieval Britain about brave Knights and kingdoms.

what Fuqua did was go back to the original Welsh source of the legend around the time Roman garrisons were leaving Britain approx 400AD. Fuqua attempted to recreate Britain of the time.
- Romanised and Christian Celtic kingdoms
- tattooed Pagan Picts
- Saxon warbands
- former Roman cavalry given land who were drawn from tribes subdued on continental Europe.
whole story was plausible from a historical perspective

King Arthur was marketed as historically accurate, but was utter dogshit. They turned the Saxons into Nazis and the costuming and choice of weapons was all off, for two examples of it's shortcomings.

The Sarmatian POW's in Britain had actually been deported there after having been captured by the Romans.
Besides being portrayed as Nazi types, the Saxons were portrayed as using crossbows. Like their descendants in England and northern Germany, they were renowned as longbowmen.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,154
Location: Australia

24 Feb 2026, 2:58 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

The Sarmatian POW's in Britain had actually been deported there after having been captured by the Romans.

Sarmatians were legendary horseman and while it's plausible some may have been garrisoned in Britannia, I seriously doubt they rode as knights of King Arthur fighting Saxons. More likely they yearned to return to their home land after serving Rome.

cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,154
Location: Australia

24 Feb 2026, 3:00 am

funeralxempire wrote:

King Arthur was marketed as historically accurate, but was utter dogshit.

Strong evidence he was a Welsh leader who had some success in protecting Wales from the Saxons.

cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,154
Location: Australia

24 Feb 2026, 3:09 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

the Saxons were portrayed as using crossbows. Like their descendants in England and northern Germany, they were renowned as longbowmen.

In the venerable Bede's Anglo-Saxon chronicles, Anglish brothers Hengist and Horsa served Rome as mercenaries and may have had a garrison of Angles and Saxon legions to help Rome fight the goths. If correct, then like Alaric's goths, they adopted Roman fighting techniques, weapons and ships. Both Viking and Saxon swift longships seem to copied Roman ships and most famously both Saxon and Viking warriors copied the Roman Shield wall as a bulwark against charging enemy troops or waves of arrows.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Feb 2026, 4:13 am

cyberdora wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

The Sarmatian POW's in Britain had actually been deported there after having been captured by the Romans.

In such cases, those resettled prisoners of war stayed where the Romans had left them as permanent settlers. Their descendants often continued in service of Rome, such as in the case of the Salian Franks who had been settled in what is today Flanders. Though such settlers didn't always stay put, as another group of Franks who had been settled on the Black Sea seized a Roman fleet, went on a rampage of piracy and raiding, before returning to their home on the east bank of the Rhine.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Last edited by Kraichgauer on 24 Feb 2026, 4:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Feb 2026, 4:20 am

cyberdora wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

the Saxons were portrayed as using crossbows. Like their descendants in England and northern Germany, they were renowned as longbowmen.

It is possible the first Anglo-Saxons in Britain had been mercenaries for the Romans. As for their ships; the Saxon/Viking long ship probably had more to do with earlier Germanic war boats that were long, low, and fast. The shield wall in fact had been used by Germanic tribal warriors from early on, as reported by Julius Caesar who had fought Germans of The Swabian tribal confederacy who had invaded Gaul around the same time the Romans had.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,154
Location: Australia

24 Feb 2026, 4:06 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

The shield wall in fact had been used by Germanic tribal warriors from early on, as reported by Julius Caesar who had fought Germans of The Swabian tribal confederacy who had invaded Gaul around the same time the Romans had.

Interaction through trade between Rome and Germania precedes 55BC. Germanic tribal leaders copied Rome, they didn't have manufacturing capacity to produce Roman shields or armour but the tribal leaders acquired such items either through trade or copying Roman techniques.

cyberdora
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 3,154
Location: Australia

24 Feb 2026, 4:13 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Not in the case of Brittania. Diaries of troops stationed in the islands showed they were homesick and Brittania was considered primitive and backward compared to other provinces. Records also show Rome needed their troops back to defend Rome from "barbarians" so made no sense leaving seasoned Sarmatian horsemen to defend a remote backwater.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Feb 2026, 4:23 pm

cyberdora wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Actually, I found something about Sarmatians permanently settled in Britain by Rome. While Britain was culturally primitive in the eyes of Romans, so were the Sarmatians.
https://x.com/nxt888/status/1695811036572795067

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Feb 2026, 4:26 pm

cyberdora wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

The shield wall, or phalanx, was a military formation used by many if not most ancient infantry. I suspect it went back further among the Germanic tribes than their contact with Rome would account for.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Should Historical Films be Accurately Portrayed? Post Reply New Topic

Should Historical Films be Accurately Portrayed?