PDA

View Full Version : Movies on famous battles



ChrisF202
06 Jan 05,, 11:22
What famous battles and stands should be made into movies, my list:

- Wake Island
- Little Round Top part of Gettysburg
- 1st Minnesota at Gettysburg
- Bunker Hill or something about the Revolution, more accurate though unlike Mel Gibson and "The Patriot"
- An accurate version of Custer's last stand at Little Big Horn
- Something about Iraq (Isent there one about the 1st battle of Fallujah coming out?)
- Something about Afghanistan (maybe a NYC firefighter who was at the WTC and is also a reserve special forces guy and he goes to Afghanistan)

Tronic
06 Jan 05,, 16:34
-Operation Cactus :biggrin:

Praxus
06 Jan 05,, 20:11
-The Battle of Thermopolyea because of the sheer size and scope. A recreation of the book "Gates of Fire" on the silverscreen would be great.

-Battle of Platea because it was Battle which finnally threw Persia out of greece. Not to mention the fact that the shear size of the battle is astounding.

-Battle of Marathon because it forced the Persians away in the first war.

-Battle of Zama, which would be good if it also shows Hannibals triumphs prior to it, and then shows this epic Battle to decide who will have dominion over the known world, Rome, or Carthage.

ChrisF202
06 Jan 05,, 21:09
Werent they supposed to make a movie about Termapolye called "The Brave 300" or something, wahtever happend to this movie?

griftadan
07 Jan 05,, 00:44
What famous battles and stands should be made into movies, my list:

- Wake Island
- Little Round Top part of Gettysburg
- 1st Minnesota at Gettysburg
- Bunker Hill or something about the Revolution, more accurate though unlike Mel Gibson and "The Patriot"
- An accurate version of Custer's last stand at Little Big Horn
- Something about Iraq (Isent there one about the 1st battle of Fallujah coming out?)
- Something about Afghanistan (maybe a NYC firefighter who was at the WTC and is also a reserve special forces guy and he goes to Afghanistan)

there is a good one about little round top, its called gettysburg. i would add in some agent battles like the battle of cannea and trebia. also, theyre making a movie about soldiers in iraq, and supposedly someone i know is in it. i forgot what it was called...

Praxus
07 Jan 05,, 01:05
there is a good one about little round top, its called gettysburg. i would add in some agent battles like the battle of cannea and trebia. also, theyre making a movie about soldiers in iraq, and supposedly someone i know is in it. i forgot what it was called...

Cannea and Trebia were clear victories for the Carthiginians, exspecially Cannea. That's why I mentioned Zama, so it would tell the whole story of the 2nd Punic war not just Hannibals initial victories. Also they are making a movie about it called "Hannibal the Conquerer". It's based on a book by the same name, sadly I have heard it is told from the Carthiginian point of view. Hannibal is going to be played by Vin Diesil.

lemontree
07 Jan 05,, 05:01
WW2 era
Battle of Jassami - Burma
Battle of Mektilla - Burma
Orde Wingate's Chindit operations - Burma.
LRDG ops (David Sterlings) North Africa.
Sino-India war
Battles of Chushul and Razangla.
Indo-Pak
Most major battles would make good movie stories.

Ray
07 Jan 05,, 06:13
All Indo Pak War (and not the mushy nonsense already made).

Slim's Return to Burma.

Battle of Panipat.

Sikh and the Moghuls War.

The Indian Muntiny.

The North African Campaign.

The British Iraq War.

Exploits of the 4th India Division.

Kosovo.

Battle of Staligrad.

Battle of Leningrad.

Operation Barbarossa.

Tora tora tora from the Japanese viewpoint.

lemontree
07 Jan 05,, 06:41
The Indian Muntiny.

Sir,
The film "Junoon" based on Ruskin Bond's book "A flight of Pegions", had the mutiny as the back ground. But still a movie based on it is required.
Even the rise of the marathas against Aurangzeb would be intresting.

ChrisF202
07 Jan 05,, 11:15
there is a good one about little round top, its called gettysburg.

I ment like a whole movie, rather then a part of one.


Kosovo
There one about Bosnia called "Behind Enemy Lines" (2001) - with Owen Wilson and Gene Hackman, its loosely based on the story Scott O'Grady. I also think there is a movie called "No Man's Land" and its also about Kosovo or Bosnia.

Amled
07 Jan 05,, 14:25
The Battle of Camerone

...This battle took place on April 30, 1963 near the village of Camarón in the state of Veracruz and constitutes a heroic last stand comparable to the Alamo and Thermopolae. Sixty Legionnaires opposed an army of thousands: it is an exciting story of the Legion's 'Fidelity to the Mission."

http://members.tripod.com/~vet4/foreignlegion.html

griftadan
10 Jan 05,, 20:57
I ment like a whole movie, rather then a part of one.


There one about Bosnia called "Behind Enemy Lines" (2001) - with Owen Wilson and Gene Hackman, its loosely based on the story Scott O'Grady. I also think there is a movie called "No Man's Land" and its also about Kosovo or Bosnia.

no mans land is probably my favorite foriegn film besides city of god.
behind enemy lines has one problem: scott o'grady is palyed by owen wilson, who probably isnt the best guy for the role. actually, i met scott o'grady at my church last year, hes a good guy. kind of reminds me of my uncle..

griftadan
10 Jan 05,, 21:00
Cannea and Trebia were clear victories for the Carthiginians, exspecially Cannea. That's why I mentioned Zama, so it would tell the whole story of the 2nd Punic war not just Hannibals initial victories. Also they are making a movie about it called "Hannibal the Conquerer". It's based on a book by the same name, sadly I have heard it is told from the Carthiginian point of view. Hannibal is going to be played by Vin Diesil.

damn as i read i was thinking "as long as the role isnt played by colin ferrel it should be pretty good" but then i read the part about vin diesel and nearly crapped my pants... meh he was good in saving private ryan, maybe he can salvage his career

Aryan
10 Jan 05,, 21:13
Zulu was on tv a few weeks ago, its always a pleasure to watch. But I find most films based on war to be attuned to appease the diets of the general public, rather than historical accuracy.

ChrisF202
10 Jan 05,, 21:55
Zulu was on tv a few weeks ago, its always a pleasure to watch. But I find most films based on war to be attuned to appease the diets of the general public, rather than historical accuracy.
That movie is a classic ... a true example of heroism and leadership. Theres another movie about the Zulu War (Zulu Dawn made in 1979 - about the battle before Rorke's Drift - Isandlwana, its not as good as Zulu, nor as well known but its ok)

Bill
11 Jan 05,, 02:33
Thermopolye.

I would love to see a modern adaptation of the 300 Spartans.

griftadan
11 Jan 05,, 02:44
Thermopolye.

I would love to see a modern adaptation of the 300 Spartans.

meh, atleast one of them would be vin diesel or brad pitt

brad pitts a bad ass, but i dont think hes a good gspartan warrior, hes too pretty

Bill
11 Jan 05,, 07:40
He played up the pretty role on purpose to play Achilles.

I thought that was an awesome flick, and Pitt played the part far better than i thought he would...or could.

Kudos to him. :)

Broken
11 Jan 05,, 07:49
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
Thermopolye.

I would love to see a modern adaptation of the 300 Spartans


meh, atleast one of them would be vin diesel or brad pitt

brad pitts a bad ass, but i dont think hes a good gspartan warrior, hes too pretty

Yep, I'd like to see the scene where Dieneces says, "Brother, you bring us good news! We get to fight in the shade", when told that the Persian arrows would darken the sky.

ChrisF202
11 Jan 05,, 11:01
Yep, I'd like to see the scene where Dieneces says, "Brother, you bring us good news! We get to fight in the shade", when told that the Persian arrows would darken the sky.
Well, they would have to have someone for the teenage girls, heaven forbid they dont have a heartthrob in a movie. That is what ruined Pearl Harbor ... along with the 3 hour love story before the films namesake even occurs.

If properly done, it would be a classic, sadly Hollywood always messes up somehow.

El Raymundo
11 Jan 05,, 13:13
I'd like to see a faithful representation of the Battle of Hurtgen Forest. It's little known outside history buff circles and was such a violent and costly clash.

Parihaka
11 Jan 05,, 17:39
I'd like to see one on the battle for Chunuk Bair, but then I'm biased.

Bill
11 Jan 05,, 17:56
"If properly done, it would be a classic, sadly Hollywood always messes up somehow."

I think Troy is an instant classic. I thought it was a very good movie.

Achilles was the first 'superstar', supposedly half-god. He WAS a pretty boy, lol. ;)

Praxus
11 Jan 05,, 20:34
The Battle of Thermopolyae would be truely an awsome site. The Spartans and their Allies amounting to around 5,000 ( to my knowledge) standing against over a million persians. Then when their allies retreat to leave the Spartan Knights, their King Leonidas, and their squires to stand alone against a force over 4,000 times their size coming from both directions.

It would be truely a gory sight, but a terrific story if they do it correctly.

Bill
11 Jan 05,, 20:53
The key part of the battle is when the 300 bravest handpicked Spartan warriors held the pass at thermopolye against 50,000 persions...for four days.

Amazing feat. Amazing.

griftadan
11 Jan 05,, 21:32
Yep, I'd like to see the scene where Dieneces says, "Brother, you bring us good news! We get to fight in the shade", when told that the Persian arrows would darken the sky.

it would go like this:

"brother you bring us good news"
pauses to wipe his hair out of his rugged face
"we get to fight in the shade

griftadan
11 Jan 05,, 21:33
The Battle of Thermopolyae would be truely an awsome site. The Spartans and their Allies amounting to around 5,000 ( to my knowledge) standing against over a million persians. Then when their allies retreat to leave the Spartan Knights, their King Leonidas, and their squires to stand alone against a force over 4,000 times their size coming from both directions.

It would be truely a gory sight, but a terrific story if they do it correctly.

over a million?

Veni Vidi Vici
11 Jan 05,, 21:57
I just saw King Arthur and while I have no Idea how accurate it was I thought it wasn't a bad movie. Although Guinivere need to seriously find something to wear and get rid of those belts she treats like clothes. :tongue:

Praxus
11 Jan 05,, 22:55
over a million?

Herodotus puts it at around 1.7 million, modern estimates place it more around 700,000-1,000,000. Xerxes assembled an army from all over the Empire. It numbered around 300,000 at the Battle of Platea, with the main contigent of the Persian Army being sent back after the defeat at sea.


The key part of the battle is when the 300 bravest handpicked Spartan warriors held the pass at thermopolye against 50,000 persions...for four days.

That's not entirely true, the first three days of fighting were with their allies who took the brunt of the casulties and the fighting. Only on the last days fighting were the Spartans alone, and by that time only around 200 had survived.

Amled
11 Jan 05,, 23:12
I just saw King Arthur and while I have no Idea how accurate it was I thought it wasn't a bad movie. Although Guinivere need to seriously find something to wear and get rid of those belts she treats like clothes. :tongue:
I thought she looked quite fetching!
But being a dirty old man, :rolleyes: I'm biased! :biggrin:

troung
12 Jan 05,, 00:08
"Thermopolye. I would love to see a modern adaptation of the 300 Spartans."

Wouldn't fly in the red states seeing as they would of course have to mention how "unmannly" the Spartans actually were...

"Zulu was on tv a few weeks ago, its always a pleasure to watch. But I find most films based on war to be attuned to appease the diets of the general public, rather than historical accuracy."

I found a lot of things wrong with that movie. It was more based off the battle then about the battle.

---

I would love to see a movie on the Makin Island raid (wonder if they would show them trying to surrender to the last Japanese guy left on the island)...

Praxus
12 Jan 05,, 00:17
Wouldn't fly in the red states seeing as they would of course have to mention how "unmannly" the Spartans actually were...

There's no need to bring up homosexuality.

Officer of Engineers
12 Jan 05,, 00:36
Herodotus puts it at around 1.7 million, modern estimates place it more around 700,000-1,000,000. Xerxes assembled an army from all over the Empire. It numbered around 300,000 at the Battle of Platea, with the main contigent of the Persian Army being sent back after the defeat at sea.

Actual military estimates put it around 50,000. Us soldiers start laughing whenever anyone quote those numbers and have no idea how to support those numbers.


That's not entirely true, the first three days of fighting were with their allies who took the brunt of the casulties and the fighting. Only on the last days fighting were the Spartans alone, and by that time only around 200 had survived.

IIRC, 1000 Greeks, including the Spartans, stayed. Can't recall which other city state it was but they surrendered after the Spartans were killed.

ChrisF202
12 Jan 05,, 00:50
Actual military estimates put it around 50,000
Still 300 against 50,000 is impressisve, very impressive. IMO they were among the best soldiers in History, the Spartans ranked alongside Napoloen's Imperial Guard and the Roman Legionaires.

Praxus
12 Jan 05,, 01:05
Actual military estimates put it around 50,000. Us soldiers start laughing whenever anyone quote those numbers and have no idea how to support those numbers.

Whoever came up with 50,000 pulled it out of their ass, because there are exactly ZERO historical accounts of it being 50,000. Don't even pretend like they couldn't amass an Army as large as the numbers I've given. During the time period just prior to the second punic war the Romans and their Allies had 700,000 men of military age to draw from and the land mass and population they controled at that time period was small relitive to the vast territories of the Persian Empire.


IIRC, 1000 Greeks, including the Spartans, stayed. Can't recall which other city state it was but they surrendered after the Spartans were killed.

I don't think they all surrendured, I'm pretty sure most of them left before the Immortals came in the rear. Also your right, one of their allies remained.

Officer of Engineers
12 Jan 05,, 01:09
Whoever came up with 50,000 pulled it out of their ass, because there is ZERO historical accounts of it being 50,000. Don't even pretend like they couldn't amass an Army as large as the numbers I've given. During the time period just prior to the second punic war the Romans and their Allies had 700,000 men of military age to draw from.

You could not feed an army that big going through a little pass at Thermopylae. A single march would have seen the leading edge of march stripping everything bare and leave nothing for the tail end of the army to eat.

The logistics simply isn't there for an army that size with so little room to survive on.


I don't think they all surrendured, I'm pretty sure most of them left before the Immortals came.

Google said that in addition to the Spartans, the Thespians and the Thebans stayed behind.

Praxus
12 Jan 05,, 01:13
You could not feed an army that big going through a little pass at Thermopylae. A single march would have seen the leading edge of march stripping everything bare and leave nothing for the tail end of the army to eat.

The logistics simply isn't there for an army that size with so little room to survive on.

What do you mean "so little room". They had thousands of acres all around their camp to get food from. But please tell me where this number "50,000" came from. Since it doesn't come from historical texts how could you possibly come up with such a number?

I don't mind you presenting arguments but I HATE IT when you say something stupid like "Us soldiers laugh...". It ads nothing to the dicussion and only serves as an insult, implying somehow that only soldiers can know it, and pretty much saying I'm a dumbass.



Google said that in addition to the Spartans, the Thespians and the Thebans stayed behind.

Yes your right.

Officer of Engineers
12 Jan 05,, 01:17
Still 300 against 50,000 is impressisve, very impressive. IMO they were among the best soldiers in History, the Spartans ranked alongside Napoloen's Imperial Guard and the Roman Legionaires.

It was the technology. The Greek shields were the M1 Abrams of the day with no equal in the Persian Army. Add to that, the phalanx was far more effective (and far simpler to use, requiring very little training. All you require is men who would not yield) than anything the Persains could come up with.

The Spartans, for all their reputation, were not an innovative lot. In the Pelopanisian Wars, it was the Athenians who did the most bold actions. The Spartans were just an unrelenting military juggernaught.

However, when they met Thebes with just a slight variation of the phalanx (the Thebans stacked one end giving them a local superiority on a flank), the Spartans collapsed.

Praxus
12 Jan 05,, 01:22
It was the technology. The Greek shields were the M1 Abrams of the day with no equal in the Persian Army. Add to that, the phalanx was far more effective (and far simpler to use, requiring very little training. All you require is men who would not yield) than anything the Persains could come up with.

Something to sheild the weak flanks of the phalanx helps too;)

Officer of Engineers
12 Jan 05,, 01:29
What do you mean "so little room". They had thousands of acres all around their camp to get food from. But please tell me where this number "50,000" came from. Since it doesn't come from historical texts how could you possibly come up with such a number?

It was from a lecture when I was an officer cadet at RMC by then Col Pergot. It's not based upon historical accounts but studying the terrain and actual food stocks available. The problem is that the army are not farmers. They are not going out and harvesting the crops. They're going to take whatever is out there. And that's where things don't make sense. A village of 100 is only going to grow enough food for a village of 100, maybe a 1000 at the most and that's stretching it.

That's also assuming all the harvesting is done and that the villagers had not flee with their food.

Even if that were the case, the army would have to travel pretty far and wide to get enough food for a million men, meaning the force would have to spread far, far out ... which not be a million men concentration at all when it gets to Thermopylae.

I have no doubt that Xerses had a million men under arms. An empire that big requires it. But the logisitics and the timings of the battle could not have sustained more than 50,000.

And this has nothing to do with the course but of the actual historic accounts. You do realize that the size included the camp followers (ie, the women, the dishwashers, the merchants, etc).


I don't mind you presenting arguments but I HATE IT when you say something stupid like "Us soldiers laugh...". It ads nothing to the dicussion and only serves as an insult, implying somehow that only soldiers can know it, and pretty much saying I'm a dumbass.

Don't take things so personal. You should know me by now that when I want to call anyone a dumbass, I will state it outright. I have not call you one. It was trying to explain to you an inside joke we all share.

Veni Vidi Vici
12 Jan 05,, 01:44
I thought she looked quite fetching!


Yes exactly... thats why they(hollywood) do it. :rolleyes:

Praxus
12 Jan 05,, 02:12
It was from a lecture when I was an officer cadet at RMC by then Col Pergot. It's not based upon historical accounts but studying the terrain and actual food stocks available. The problem is that the army are not farmers. They are not going out and harvesting the crops. They're going to take whatever is out there. And that's where things don't make sense. A village of 100 is only going to grow enough food for a village of 100, maybe a 1000 at the most and that's stretching it.

That's also assuming all the harvesting is done and that the villagers had not flee with their food.

Even if that were the case, the army would have to travel pretty far and wide to get enough food for a million men, meaning the force would have to spread far, far out ... which not be a million men concentration at all when it gets to Thermopylae.


I have no doubt that Xerses had a million men under arms. An empire that big requires it. But the logisitics and the timings of the battle could not have sustained more than 50,000.

Sure, I can buy that 50,000 Persians were available to fight, I thought you meant that the invasion force was only 50,000. If that were the case then then no wonder they got their ass whooped at Platea;)


And this has nothing to do with the course but of the actual historic accounts. You do realize that the size included the camp followers (ie, the women, the dishwashers, the merchants, etc).

Yes.


Don't take things so personal. You should know me by now that when I want to call anyone a dumbass, I will state it outright. I have not call you one. It was trying to explain to you an inside joke we all share.

But it's a joke directed at me. I understand though.

troung
12 Jan 05,, 02:32
Guys with whicker basket helmets and shields and cloth vests trained to fight battles of maneuver versus guys on the defense with armor, heavy shields (similar to cutting boards) and long spears and swords in a narrow pass that cannot be flanked and the only way for two days was to charge them head on…

Officer of Engineers
12 Jan 05,, 02:41
But it's a joke directed at me. I understand though.

No, it wasn't. Don't take things too personal again. You may be the one who stated it (hell, who hasn't. I've got my foot in mouth disease many times over). It was a simple inside joke and once you start thinking things through, it's the illogical thought that was funny, not the person.

griftadan
12 Jan 05,, 04:46
Actual military estimates put it around 50,000. Us soldiers start laughing whenever anyone quote those numbers and have no idea how to support those numbers.



IIRC, 1000 Greeks, including the Spartans, stayed. Can't recall which other city state it was but they surrendered after the Spartans were killed.

i was about to say, i thought it was down around that range

Blademaster
12 Jan 05,, 07:49
Can anyone tell me how the hell do they feed an army of 50,000 men for 3 months without having the food being spoiled or suffering diseases in the ancient days? How the hell do they clean up their ****, literally, without suffering cholera or such?

I mean looking at the aftermath of the tsunami, the biggest fear was cholera and disease due to bad drinking water. No way in ancient times, did they have technology to clean the water.

You know what I think? The casaulties they quote during the ancient days are mostly due to diseases and food poisoning.

Yeah sure some soldiers died but those who were injured or miamed died shortly after due to complications of injuries or diseases.

Sir and military guys, can you tell me what are the requirements to feed an army, let's say, of 75,000 for 3 months? How would you break the logistics down?

Bill
12 Jan 05,, 08:26
One meal a day for each guy, composed of whatever you can rummage or carry, or grow, or bring with.

Blademaster
12 Jan 05,, 09:22
One meal a day for each guy, composed of whatever you can rummage or carry, or grow, or bring with.

Sure it is easy at first, but when you start adding all up, it becomes one huge affair.

There's no way that an individual can carry enough food or live off the land for 3 months and be a healthy effective soldier.

For that, you need farmers and transport drivers. Now back in ancient days, it is a mighty tall order to feed 50,000 men in a march that will take over 3 months.

How did they do it?

ChrisF202
12 Jan 05,, 11:32
Sure it is easy at first, but when you start adding all up, it becomes one huge affair.

There's no way that an individual can carry enough food or live off the land for 3 months and be a healthy effective soldier.

For that, you need farmers and transport drivers. Now back in ancient days, it is a mighty tall order to feed 50,000 men in a march that will take over 3 months.

How did they do it?
Dident the Greek spy say that the Persians "ate the food of whole cities" and "gobbled up whole rivers" or something along those lines? Obviously exegerrated. Dont most modern sources put the # around at least 250,000? Then again these were the same people who claimed Troy was beseiged for 10 years when in reality no city can hold out that long.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae) has 250,000 to 300,000, Ill have to check what the Osprey book on Thermopalye says, I know of have one of their books on the Spartan Hopilites.

El Raymundo
12 Jan 05,, 12:16
I just saw King Arthur and while I have no Idea how accurate it was I thought it wasn't a bad movie. Although Guinivere need to seriously find something to wear and get rid of those belts she treats like clothes. :tongue:

Post a pic! :biggrin:

Veni Vidi Vici
12 Jan 05,, 12:43
Post a pic! :biggrin:
google for it. You'll find plenty. :rolleyes:

Officer of Engineers
12 Jan 05,, 14:19
For that, you need farmers and transport drivers. Now back in ancient days, it is a mighty tall order to feed 50,000 men in a march that will take over 3 months.

How did they do it?

They did what every army did until Napolean. They march from one city to the next, took all the food (sometimes, extremely rarely, they pay for it) and let the inhabittants starve. It was not until the Napoleanic Wars that they discovered how to can food.

El Raymundo
13 Jan 05,, 11:50
google for it. You'll find plenty. :rolleyes:

Ah, Keira Knightly. I didn't know. Yes, she's kinda hot and stuff. :biggrin:

Veni Vidi Vici
13 Jan 05,, 22:26
Ah, Keira Knightly. I didn't know. Yes, she's kinda hot and stuff. :biggrin:
:rolleyes:

Bill
14 Jan 05,, 16:40
VVV is kinda hot and stuff too. ;)

gautrek
14 Jan 05,, 16:47
I just saw King Arthur and while I have no Idea how accurate it was I thought it wasn't a bad movie. Although Guinivere need to seriously find something to wear and get rid of those belts she treats like clothes. :tongue:




My kids watch shows like Hurcules and Zena.These are about as accurate as the Authur film.

Apparently the had to rewrite the ending as it was deemed to sad.

They have taken alll the legends and ignored them and then writen a Hollywood version of my countrys history.

Which they did with Troy.Which is a bad film from start to finish and i see Alexander has been panned as well.Oh well thats three Crap ancient films on the trot.
And i think Gladiator is also one of the top crap films off all time.

Hollywood should stick to what it does best which is action films with out two much depth or the need to think to much on the part of the viewer.And the latest praxar films as well.

And leave films like Braveheart,Troy,Arhtur,Gladiator,Pearl Harbour,U571 and the Patriot on the cutting room floor.Leave them until we can do a good job of them and if there is nobody who is up to the job then don't make them.

Veni Vidi Vici
14 Jan 05,, 21:29
And leave films like Braveheart,Troy,Arhtur,Gladiator,Pearl Harbour,U571 and the Patriot on the cutting room floor.Leave them until we can do a good job of them and if there is nobody who is up to the job then don't make them.

All of those films IMO were very good.

Blademaster
14 Jan 05,, 22:45
They did what every army did until Napolean. They march from one city to the next, took all the food (sometimes, extremely rarely, they pay for it) and let the inhabittants starve. It was not until the Napoleanic Wars that they discovered how to can food.

But how did they plan for it? How do they count on the cities providing enough food for their armies and their long marches?

By thinking over this, I can tell why the Romans were so hard to beat. It was not because of their tactics, but their logistics and staying power. Because they created an infrastructure and a logistic chain the ancient equilavent of the US Army logistic chain, the Romans were simply unbeatable in duration for a long long time.

Conversely I can tell why the Mongols only lasted 100 years. They killed everybody in sight and suffered in the long run. They could not find enough food to feed their armies for long no matter how nomadic they are. To sustain such an army, you need heavy duty farming.

Praxus
15 Jan 05,, 01:03
But how did they plan for it? How do they count on the cities providing enough food for their armies and their long marches?

By thinking over this, I can tell why the Romans were so hard to beat. It was not because of their tactics, but their logistics and staying power. Because they created an infrastructure and a logistic chain the ancient equilavent of the US Army logistic chain, the Romans were simply unbeatable in duration for a long long time.

Conversely I can tell why the Mongols only lasted 100 years. They killed everybody in sight and suffered in the long run. They could not find enough food to feed their armies for long no matter how nomadic they are. To sustain such an army, you need heavy duty farming.

I wouldn't just toss "tactics" out. If your army get's massacred over and over again, supply trains mean nothing.

Broken
15 Jan 05,, 01:25
They did what every army did until Napolean. They march from one city to the next, took all the food (sometimes, extremely rarely, they pay for it) and let the inhabittants starve. It was not until the Napoleanic Wars that they discovered how to can food.

From what I have read, Xerxes did not depend on living off the land, but instead had a very sophisticated logistics train back to Persia. I believe this is why some historians claim Xerxes had a million troops. At most he had 200,000 soldiers when he crossed the Hellespont. The support troops were likely several times this number, and added to the soldiers, Xerxes may have had close to one million total. However, this army would have shrunk a good deal by the time it reached Athens, both from men alloted to the lengthening logistics train and from the natural high rate of attrition in large marching armies of the era.

Xerxes spent several years preparing his invasion of Greece. He built military roads through Thrace, cut canals through peninsulas, and deployed 2500 meter bridges across the Hellespont. He was quite the engineer.

Broken
15 Jan 05,, 01:44
By thinking over this, I can tell why the Romans were so hard to beat. It was not because of their tactics, but their logistics and staying power. Because they created an infrastructure and a logistic chain the ancient equilavent of the US Army logistic chain, the Romans were simply unbeatable in duration for a long long time.

Yep, the Romans could maintain a vast empire with a relatively small number of soldiers in part because of their sophisticated logistics and transport. They had the interior lines relative to their enemies, high mobility, and less need to forage.


Conversely I can tell why the Mongols only lasted 100 years. They killed everybody in sight and suffered in the long run. They could not find enough food to feed their armies for long no matter how nomadic they are. To sustain such an army, you need heavy duty farming.

The Mongols empire lasted from 1211 to about 1340, when the Black Plague wiped out their trade routes. They did not "kill everyone in sight", they killed only those who resisted. It was a very simple and effectively run empire.

The Mongols would approach a city in their path of conquest and ask them to join and pay tribute. If the city agreed, they were spared. Otherwise they were slaughtered except for skilled workers such as translators, engineers, metal workers etc. If a city agreed to submit and then rebelled, it was annihilated. The Mongols subjects were so terrified that the Mongols had no need of garrison troops.

Once having founded their empire, the Mongols maintained the trade routes between China, Persia, India and Europe. They made a huge fortune from this trade and their tributary system and were only wiped out when their trade routes collapsed in the Black Plague.

Broken
15 Jan 05,, 01:46
"Thermopolye. I would love to see a modern adaptation of the 300 Spartans."

Wouldn't fly in the red states seeing as they would of course have to mention how "unmannly" the Spartans actually were...

They did oil their hair and tie it back in a pony-tail before battle. :)

Broken
15 Jan 05,, 01:50
IIRC, 1000 Greeks, including the Spartans, stayed. Can't recall which other city state it was but they surrendered after the Spartans were killed.

The Thebans and the Thesbians stayed with the Spartans. The Thesbians stayed willingly. The Thebans were "hostages" of Leonides; he did not trust Thebes from going over to the Persians. The Thesbians died with the Spartans, the Thebans surrendered.

Blademaster
15 Jan 05,, 05:53
I wouldn't just toss "tactics" out. If your army get's massacred over and over again, supply trains mean nothing.

Romans were defeated from time to time even numerous times against Hannibal. But the key difference was that the Romans were able to rebuild their forces fairly quickly by modern times but very fast in ancient times because they had readily available food surpluses and weapons and other supplies to outfit a new army.

Their opponents had no such capability. Yeah they could field huge armies but they had very little staying power compared to the Romans and I think a great deal of the opponents' tactics stemmed from the need to feed and equip a large army, thus putting them at serious disadvantage in terms of freedom in strategic and operational planning.

Officer of Engineers
15 Jan 05,, 05:55
But how did they plan for it? How do they count on the cities providing enough food for their armies and their long marches?

The strategy is simple. Go to each city on your march and get enough food (or riches) before you move on. In the case of a seige, the attacking forces would attack the surrounding villages.


By thinking over this, I can tell why the Romans were so hard to beat. It was not because of their tactics, but their logistics and staying power. Because they created an infrastructure and a logistic chain the ancient equilavent of the US Army logistic chain, the Romans were simply unbeatable in duration for a long long time.

Roman troops build roads as a SOP.


Conversely I can tell why the Mongols only lasted 100 years. They killed everybody in sight and suffered in the long run. They could not find enough food to feed their armies for long no matter how nomadic they are. To sustain such an army, you need heavy duty farming.

The Mongol Khanates survived alot longer than 300 years. The Moguls still considered themselves Mongols when they invaded India.

Blademaster
15 Jan 05,, 06:10
The strategy is simple. Go to each city on your march and get enough food (or riches) before you move on. In the case of a seige, the attacking forces would attack the surrounding villages.

Right it is simple but what happens if they find out that they don't have enough food? What do they do?





Roman troops build roads as a SOP.

The Mongol Khanates survived alot longer than 300 years. The Moguls still considered themselves Mongols when they invaded India.

Really? I thougt they considered themselves as Afghans or Turks.

Why did the Mongol Empire break into several Khanates? Was it because of the complexity of managing so large of an empire or there was a civil war?

Broken
15 Jan 05,, 07:04
Really? I thougt they considered themselves as Afghans or Turks.

Why did the Mongol Empire break into several Khanates? Was it because of the complexity of managing so large of an empire or there was a civil war?

They broke into several Khanates because there was no agreement on who should be the Great Khan. After Genghis, the Great Khans were Ogodei, Guyuk, and Mongke; but there was less recognition of the legitimacy of their rule than the rule of Genghis. After Mongke, there was no concensus at all. The Mongols were essentially a confederacy at that point, not a single empire.

Khubilai Khan, the grandson of Genghis, was ruler of China and the Yuan Dynasty, but the Golden Horde (Russia), Moghulistan (central asia), and Ilkkhanistan (Persia) had separate Khans.

Kieran Bennett
15 Jan 05,, 09:24
Something about the polish-lithuanian-ukrainian joint invasion of the USSR, mere months after their own war.

Speaking of Poland and movies, has anyone seen 'With Fire and Sword'? I've only ever managed to catch the first half, and I'm spewing, it was so great, I want to see how it ended!

Praxus
15 Jan 05,, 14:42
Romans were defeated from time to time even numerous times against Hannibal. But the key difference was that the Romans were able to rebuild their forces fairly quickly by modern times but very fast in ancient times because they had readily available food surpluses and weapons and other supplies to outfit a new army.

Their opponents had no such capability. Yeah they could field huge armies but they had very little staying power compared to the Romans and I think a great deal of the opponents' tactics stemmed from the need to feed and equip a large army, thus putting them at serious disadvantage in terms of freedom in strategic and operational planning.

I am not diminishing their other virtues in war, I am just saying that tactics should not be dismissed as one of the major reasons the Romans were so powerful.

gautrek
17 Jan 05,, 22:58
All of those films IMO were very good.

This is a joke right.

Aryan
18 Jan 05,, 04:00
They did what every army did until Napolean. They march from one city to the next, took all the food (sometimes, extremely rarely, they pay for it) and let the inhabittants starve. It was not until the Napoleanic Wars that they discovered how to can food.


Actually the French did "live of the land" for large portion of the war, especially the earlier campaigns in Italy and the Rhine / Germany.

Veni Vidi Vici
18 Jan 05,, 21:00
This is a joke right.

No I was being quite serious.

gautrek
21 Jan 05,, 11:20
No I was being quite serious.

Sorry i'm gobsmacked.

If you think that the list of films i posted are good then we are at such extreme ends of the viewing svale i just wouldn't know here to start.

Veni Vidi Vici
21 Jan 05,, 13:17
Sorry i'm gobsmacked.

If you think that the list of films i posted are good then we are at such extreme ends of the viewing svale i just wouldn't know here to start.

When I go to see a movie I go for the entertainment not the historical accuracy. :)

ChrisF202
22 Jan 05,, 22:13
When I go to see a movie I go for the entertainment not the historical accuracy. :)
Very good point, I to go for entertainment but if its not unaccurate then it kinda also takes away from the fun.

Veni Vidi Vici
23 Jan 05,, 00:20
Very good point, I to go for entertainment but if its not unaccurate then it kinda also takes away from the fun.

Who wants to see the nitty grity details of the the battle preparations or the logistics of the marches? Who cares if it could never happen in reality. I go to see the men bash each other to a pulp. :biggrin:

ChrisF202
23 Jan 05,, 16:11
Who wants to see the nitty grity details of the the battle preparations or the logistics of the marches? Who cares if it could never happen in reality. I go to see the men bash each other to a pulp. :biggrin:
What I ment was like a WW2 tank on a WW1 battlefield or something along those lines :)

gautrek
25 Jan 05,, 21:43
Who wants to see the nitty grity details of the the battle preparations or the logistics of the marches? Who cares if it could never happen in reality. I go to see the men bash each other to a pulp. :biggrin:

Couldn't agree more.
But i would like to have some idea about why so and so wants to beat so and so to a pulp.So a bit of historical accuracy helps a lot.

And the less i see of this bleeding Zena like carrying swords round on your back the better.It never happened like that swords are always carried on the side.So they are easy to reach.

Also what with this smacking people round the head with Bows.They are made for shooting arrows and thats it.
Also i think you will find that Kung Fu and the like didn't reach medievial times.

This is what annoys me about "historical" films.
They are not.

ChrisF202
27 Jan 05,, 01:23
Couldn't agree more.
But i would like to have some idea about why so and so wants to beat so and so to a pulp.So a bit of historical accuracy helps a lot.

And the less i see of this bleeding Zena like carrying swords round on your back the better.It never happened like that swords are always carried on the side.So they are easy to reach.

Also what with this smacking people round the head with Bows.They are made for shooting arrows and thats it.
Also i think you will find that Kung Fu and the like didn't reach medievial times.

This is what annoys me about "historical" films.
They are not.
For one, I seriously doubt there were very many Xena like ladies running around back then. I was told that show was made just to please the PC Brigade and the Hillary Clinton think alikes, is this true?

gautrek
27 Jan 05,, 11:42
For one, I seriously doubt there were very many Xena like ladies running around back then. I was told that show was made just to please the PC Brigade and the Hillary Clinton think alikes, is this true?

I havn't got a problem with Zena as a light enterainment program.
Its not saying this is what happened its just candy floss for the eyes.
I have a problem when elements from this program get placed in"historical" films.

Like using bows for smacking people round the head and the carrying of swords on your back.And the use of Kung Fu style moves in historical movies.

These are wrong.

To take Arthur as a prime example.
Apart from Bodicea(who had her reasons for hating the Romans) women didn't fight against men.This is a Hollywood myth to please the PC people.
But it didn't happen.
And i know that Arthur is not based on a factual person as such but is made up of lots of myths and legends.

If you want to see a good film about King Arthur which tells a lot of the myths and legends as well as being a good film to boot then get out an old film called Excaliber.From what i know of the many myths about Arthur this one seems to fit more in than most.Just be aware that the armour and weapons and castles in the film are about 500 years to late for the time period that Arthur is now thought to have been around in.

lemontree
28 Jan 05,, 10:31
To take Arthur as a prime example.
Apart from Bodicea(who had her reasons for hating the Romans) women didn't fight against men.This is a Hollywood myth to please the PC people.

I have no problems with Hollywood in portraying Keira Knightly as Guinevere. ;)

Veni Vidi Vici
29 Jan 05,, 16:57
I have no problems with Hollywood in portraying Keira Knightly as Guinevere. ;)
lol, and I take it you have no problem having her "armor" consist of two very thin leather belts. :biggrin: :rolleyes:

Julie
29 Jan 05,, 18:13
For one, I seriously doubt there were very many Xena like ladies running around back then. I was told that show was made just to please the PC Brigade and the Hillary Clinton think alikes, is this true?If it is true, men sure go to long lengths just to appease women, don't they? :rolleyes:

Bill
29 Jan 05,, 21:28
Most men are horney and not in control...which of course you ladies take advantadge of to no end. ;)

Bill
29 Jan 05,, 21:31
"If you want to see a good film about King Arthur which tells a lot of the myths and legends as well as being a good film to boot then get out an old film called Excaliber"

One of my all-time favorite flicks.

gautrek
29 Jan 05,, 23:28
I have no problems with Hollywood in portraying Keira Knightly as Guinevere. ;)


Sorry mate she does nothing for me.
I like my women to have a few important bits like breasts,**** and hips and not look like a bleeding stick insect.
Zena is a prime example of a good looking woman.
Lots of bits to grab hold of. :biggrin:

Bill
30 Jan 05,, 06:46
Zena is a fat ass.

I like the stick-figure much better.

Veni Vidi Vici
30 Jan 05,, 16:35
If it is true, men sure go to long lengths just to appease women, don't they? :rolleyes:


I've said it before and ill say it again... Laura really runs the country. :tongue:

ChrisF202
30 Jan 05,, 18:35
"If you want to see a good film about King Arthur which tells a lot of the myths and legends as well as being a good film to boot then get out an old film called Excaliber"

One of my all-time favorite flicks.
I belive ive seen that, good movie.


I've said it before and ill say it again... Laura really runs the country. :tongue:
My History teacher told me that FDR gave women more freedom just so that Elenor (his wife) would shut up and stop nagging him lol :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
30 Jan 05,, 18:39
Most men are horney

Marriage stops that problem real quick.

lemontree
31 Jan 05,, 05:29
lol, and I take it you have no problem having her "armor" consist of two very thin leather belts. :biggrin: :rolleyes:
Especially that. :biggrin:

lemontree
31 Jan 05,, 05:30
Marriage stops that problem real quick.
Lol.. :biggrin: good one sir.

lemontree
31 Jan 05,, 05:31
Sorry mate she does nothing for me.
I like my women to have a few important bits like breasts,**** and hips and not look like a bleeding stick insect.
Zena is a prime example of a good looking woman.
Lots of bits to grab hold of. :biggrin:
Each one to his own. :cool:

EPA
25 Feb 05,, 05:30
Saving private ryan, braveheart, Timeline but strange.

Beaugeste93
06 Mar 05,, 05:38
[QUOTE=Amled]The Battle of Camerone

...This battle took place on April 30, 1963 near the village of Camarón in the state of Veracruz and constitutes a heroic last stand comparable to the Alamo and Thermopolae. Sixty Legionnaires opposed an army of thousands: it is an exciting story of the Legion's 'Fidelity to the Mission."

I'm glad I'm not the only one who'd love to see a movie about Camerone. The true story is already "hollywooded" up enough to be impressive without hyperbole. Unfortunately, there's no place for a female character; which apparently is a big no-no in war movies now. They'd probably add Salma Hayek as the heroic widow who brings water to the legionnaires or some such nonsense. (and I like Salma Hayek)
I'm also afraid of hearing the words "and starring Vin Diesel as Capitaine Danjou" :biggrin:

To echo some other posts, a reasonably accurate movie about Thermopylae and any one of a hundred battles involving the Romans would be outstanding.

A gritty movie or miniseries in the vein of "Band of Brothers" or "Saving Private Ryan" about the First Special Service Force would be great. "The Devils Brigade" just doesn 't cut it.
Likewise one about the pacific war (something better than "windtalkers" PLEASE!) The 1/2 mile assault through the surf at Tarawa under fire could be an outstanding scene as powerful as the D-day scenes of "Ryan"

Appropros of nothing, how come "The Thin Red Line", a film about Guadalcanal, only shows three marines in the whole movie? Grrrr.

Langers
30 Mar 05,, 13:36
New to all this but had to put my opinion forward.

I have to admit that I think that the 1990's film "Henry V" (starring Kenneth Brannagh) is a pretty good movie.
I believe that the battle of Agincourt is historically accurate plus it shows the French losing despite overwhelming odds!
:biggrin:

Bill
31 Mar 05,, 18:13
"Originally Posted by gautrek
Sorry mate she does nothing for me.
I like my women to have a few important bits like breasts,**** and hips and not look like a bleeding stick insect.
Zena is a prime example of a good looking woman.
Lots of bits to grab hold of."

IOW, you like fat biitches?

Ick.

ChrisF202
01 Apr 05,, 01:09
Dident they make a movie about FFL in Mexio? With Clint Eastwood attacking a French fort?

Anyways, a movie about Camerone would rock lol ... even with Vin Diesel.

Also arent they making a movie about Thermopalye? Gates of Fire or something.

Jeremy
01 Apr 05,, 07:17
I loved Band of Brothers, but I can relate to Vietnam flicks because a few of my Uncles served.

leib10
02 Apr 05,, 04:37
Please tell me that I am not the only one who didn't go head over heels for Saving Private Ryan...

TopHatter
04 Apr 05,, 00:30
Please tell me that I am not the only one who didn't go head over heels for Saving Private Ryan...

We all did :biggrin:
Or, at least the opening scene.
After that, it got a little cliched and Spielbergian.
Not that I didn't immensely enjoy the entire movie mind you.

Jeremy
04 Apr 05,, 02:08
Saving Private Ryan was great flick, I'd like to see it again.