this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2025
44 points (95.8% liked)
Movies & TV
23540 readers
151 users here now
Rules for Movies & TV Discussion
-
Any discussion of Disney properties should contain a (cw: imperialism) tag. If your post isn't tagged appropriately it will be removed.
-
Anti-Bong Joon-ho trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/movies and submitted to the site administrators for review.
-
On Star Trek Sunday only posts discussing how we might achieve space communism are permitted. Non-Star Trek related content will be removed and you will be temporarily banned until the following Sunday.
Here's a list of tons of leftist movies.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's hilarious. I had no idea.
There's a bunch. Rome wasn't white marble, they painted the shit out of everything (also dicks graffiti'd everywhere). Over millennia, the paint wore off and people in the Renaissance didn't have the technology to scan the marble, so they thought it was plain white. All the fascination with Greece and Rome during that era resulted in depictions of Rome as a white marble city. The show, Rome, has a more accurate representation of what the city would have looked like.
In the opening scene, the "catapults" are trebuchets, something invented hundreds of years later for destroying castle walls, not launching fireballs. It's like if you had a movie about the American Civil War and the Union calls in a drone strike using flag signals. Also, flaming arrows were never a thing (a lot of movies do this).
The forest isn't right, either. It's a monoculture forest, which wasn't something that existed until early industrialization when Europe had cut down too many trees. To make up for overharvesting, they planted as many trees as they could, using whatever they had available. Germania during the Roman Empire would have forests that were incredibly diverse, even during winter. There would have been dozens of species.
You don't slash/cut with a Gladius. You can because it's still a sharp sword. But the primary method of using it was stabbing. They were meant to expend as little energy as possible while fighting in tight formations. The blade could easily slip between two shields while the shields were held up to block. Opponents with other weapons would have trouble staying in packed formations like the Romans could while wearing themselves out. Gladiator isn't the only movie guilty of this, though.
Those are some of the main ones. It's still one of my favorite movies, but it's about as accurate as Enemy at the Gates.
The rest of this seems pretty fair but I imagine scaring up a historically accurate forest is..... impractical
Relevant
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hcUVOlbNb30
I thought this was going to be the robin hood men in tights opening
https://youtu.be/4Q6LgU9BeKI
Fire arrows are cool ngl
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Ridley Scott is a deeply incurious man who prefers telling a "good story" to any sort of historical accuracy. See also: the whole Napoleon shooting the Sphinx, and this rather interesting video on orientalism in music about using Armenian instruments in scenes depicting Morocco.
I actually find the plots in most of his movies really boring though. Alien and Blade runner are the only movies of his i like
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Any "historical media" that isn't run by a complete history nerd with absolute control over every decision is going to have tons of shit like this. It's almost all terrible for anyone who has a clue about the time periods being represented.