|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Apr 18, 2010 17:47:37 GMT
Gents:
(I would say "gents and ladies" but, frankly, I don't think I've ever seen a lady post in this forum, so I'll just stick with "gents" and operate under the presupposition that digging on Roman stabbiness is mostly a guy thing.)
It probably goes without saying for any member in good standing here, but I kind of dig on history. Lately, again, I've been on a Roman kick. The Starz showing of Spartacus: Blood and Sand, probably plays at least a contributory role.
One of the things, when I watch History Channel shows, that drives me crazy is the representation of the Roman legion in action. The action tends to rapidly degenerate into one-on-one "gladiatorial" contests, with no sense of close order drill or discipline.
Some of my readings on Roman history (including, I freely admit, thrilling historical fiction!) have indicated that frequently the barbarians (of whatever stripe or flavor) were better individual warriors than the Romans, but that the Roman legion was a machine for killing people and taking their stuff. The Roman legion was clockwork. Wind it up, point it where you want it to go. It rumbles, it tumbles, it rarely falls down! The Roman legion ground on, no real heroes, just a machine. Organization, teamwork, clockwork tactics: that's what the Roman legion was to me.
So why do they always show the Romans cavorting about like wild Celts? I may be missing something, but the only filmic/cinematic representation I can think of, offhand (as opposed to kneeling or prone!), is the first few scenes in HBO's Rome.
As centurion, Lucius Vorenus used his whistle to announce the start of battle, and his whistle to announce "the shift"---dropping back the front rank man, retiring in close order, while the next rank stepped up to the front. Order, discipline, feeding the barbs six inches of point and bashing with the shield.
Any other good filmic representations that I'm missing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2010 13:45:34 GMT
i agree 100 % they just show one on one combat which is completely wrong from everything i was tought they need to come out with a better documentary
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2010 14:44:47 GMT
Look at some older movies, Spartacus had some good group drill since they used the Spanish Army. You got a lot more of that in the old days before digital effects. Also, I don't think many movie makers really understand subjects like this. Compare ROTK where the cavalry charge breaks up with Olivier's Richard III.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2010 3:29:05 GMT
I think there is a perception among film directors that formation fighting isn't exciting, while single combat is. Thus we have the opening battle of "300," which starts quite well with the Spartans desperately holding their formation together during the opening shock, then shoving and thrusting in unison, like clockwork. Then, for no apparent reason, people break out of the formation and fight individually. It makes no sense but apparently directors feel it gives them more freedom to stage action sequences and, perhaps more importantly, it gives the star a chance to strut his stuff in front of the camera instead of just being one of the guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2010 3:51:39 GMT
It's not Roman, but I thought there was a pretty good depiction of phalanx tactics in Troy. During the first big battle of the war, the Greeks were disorganized and got steamrolled by Trojans in a tight formation.
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Apr 21, 2010 6:43:59 GMT
The opening battle in 'Gladiator' showed the roman army fighting in group formation and using sound tactics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2010 7:06:59 GMT
The pilot episode of: HBO Rome depicts how the lines formed and moved. It's the only time in film I have ever seen the centurion blow the whistle and the next rank move forward to replace the first rank. I'd read about this for years, but only once I seen it in Rome did I really understand how it worked. This was the historically-authentic way of how it was done! It also shows them holding onto the the soldier in the front of them by the rear of their harness - something else that was noted historically. Each soldier only fought for 2 minutes or so. With ranks 8 deep (in most cases), you would have a 14-16 minute break for each 2 minutes you fought. There are examples of units fighting 16-20 deep, which means you might fight 2 minutes in every 32-40 minutes! This was very efficient use of manpower, in that many countries fighting with the Romans thought that they never tired. Additionally, what is not shown in Rome, is that whole company-sized (100+), or even battalion-sized (500+) elements of men could do this on a larger scale to advance the line. This system of changing maniples was used for centuries to great effect. However, it's kind of hard to envision unless you see it. You can see this in the clip below: I hope I was able to feed your curiosity a little more...
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Apr 21, 2010 11:36:27 GMT
OdinGaard: That was EXACTLY the scene I was fumblingly alluding to! +1 for not only the audio/visual aid, but for the much better explanation (while I just blithered on about "the machine").
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2010 2:45:16 GMT
Now that was a good fight scene Odin, are there any books which focus on the small unit tactics you mentioned?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2010 3:47:35 GMT
Now that was a good fight scene Odin, are there any books which focus on the small unit tactics you mentioned? Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy: www.amazon.com/Roman-Warfare-Phoenix-Adrian-Goldsworthy/dp/075382258X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272079909&sr=1-1-spell is a great beginning intro. It will give you enough insight and focus into specific tactics to look into doing research in more specific areas. It gives an overview of tactics and major battles thoughout the history of Rome. I have read it 3-4 times, just because it's so interesting time and time again. Also: The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthywww.amazon.com/Complete-Roman-Army-Adrian-Goldsworthy/dp/0500051240/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_bis a good read too, buy the same author. Some of the information is redundant, but this goes a little more into the specific combat aspects of the army as it changed over time. Lastly, the little Osprey Press books are great for a general reference on a specific period of interest - though alot of their artwork comes off being a little cheesy at times. There are probably 50 Roman-themed titles here, so the best thing might be to go to their website and look at the different categories - cause Amazon is going to flood you with stuff. www.ospreypublishing.com/ancient_world/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2010 7:22:59 GMT
Outstanding mate, +1 from me ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2010 11:36:18 GMT
It’s not just roman warfare that Hollywood butchers. Every time they portray medieval combat its horribly inaccurate. Battle scenes almost inevitably end up being portrayed as both sides running towards each other screaming battle cry’s with their weapons above their heads. Then the armies clashing together and the whole thing descending in to a chaotic series of individual fights. The whole thing is far from the reality.
I guess that there are two reasons for this, 1 film makers what battle scenes to be as dramatic as possible. And 2) the film going ordinance have a preconceived idea (largely created by Hollywood) of what a battle scene should be. There are key scenes that if you don’t have in you movie battle the audience will feel cheated.
|
|
|
Post by torawashi on Apr 24, 2010 13:57:24 GMT
.....there is some hope that some directors in Hollywood may be improving. the opening sequence in "Gladiator" was not too bad, and "Kingdom of Heaven" had some good sequences in it, but then Ridley Scott is usually pretty thorough. Hollywood knows its market.....the thundering herd isn't interested in history or accuracy; they want action and blood.....much like the ancient Roman mob in the Coliseum. ;D
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Apr 24, 2010 14:17:30 GMT
Grey Wolf---
Or should I call you Jim? I agree with your post. I enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven and Gladiator, but I've got a history of liking Ridley Scott movies. (Although, I confess, I absolutely despised Bladerunner the first time I saw it, but it's since become one of my favorite slow sci-fi movies.) I also agreed with you (now missing) comment about the History Channel: crap, boiled in crap, with a crap sauce, and crap as a garnish. How frustrating! History is so fascinating, and it's so shabbily treated. Sometimes it makes me want to stab our ignorance to death---with a gladius.
|
|
|
Post by torawashi on Apr 24, 2010 19:13:27 GMT
Cossack; Yes, please call me Jim. You're 100% right. What kills me is that the uninformed will tune in to the "History" channel and believe what they see. Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2010 7:04:26 GMT
So is HBO: Rome worth watching? To be honest I never really considered it until that sweet fight scene ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2010 10:10:32 GMT
HBO's Rome is a great series. I highly suggest it.
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on May 7, 2010 17:55:21 GMT
Ceebs:
Rome rocks. There is not all that much fighting in it. The two heroes, Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus, are simply such badasses that usually the fights aren't shown at all. You see them pull knives and swords, and then you see the end result.
Other than that, however, it's all good. You have heroes and villains, villainous heroes and heroic villains, good people, bad people, bad people being good, good people being bad.
They spent money on it, and it shows.
Cirarin Hinds makes an excellent Caeser. James Purefoy makes an excellent Marc Antony, the kind of fellow you go out drinking with and end up with a social disease and a bloodied dagger and fond memories of the whole time. Kevin McKidd and Ray Stevenson make excellent heroes as Vorenus and Pullo.
The first episode I saw was on a business trip when I saw, oddly enough, the episode featuring the fight scene RicWilly posted. I rented it from Netflix and loved it. Recently I found a copy on Amazon for fairly cheap ($50 plus shipping) and both the wife and I re-watched it. I loved it all over again, she loved it for the first time.
One of my professors said that with historical movies, you either get good history, or a good movie. With Rome, you don't get either---but you get a damn good HBO miniseries.
|
|