Fr, Romans during the Punic war should wear lorica hamata but they are always depicted with lorica segmentata
theotherforcemajeure on
A knight in full plate armour is closer in time to an attack helicopter than the crusades.
Thoguth on
I mean, a thousand years from now they well might.
CrushingonClinton on
Showing people with arms or armour from different era is not uncommon.
It’s usually a matter of ignorance, lack of knowledge or trying to make a point.
In Peru, you can find so many 16th and 17th century paintings of the crucifixion of Christ by Indigenous artists with the Roman soldiers made to look like Spanish conquistadors.
XComThrowawayAcct on
I don’t gotta tolerate shit.
Movies are movies. They don’t have to be accurate, they have to be good. Half the tropes we have about wars — ancient and modern — *come from movies*.
John_Oakman on
[Patton tanks [cosplaying as German Tiger tanks] fighting against Patton in the movie Patton](https://youtu.be/dObTXYa-_n4?si=17z1LW71srDPWfUx), most casual audience already don’t care much in the way of historical accuracy.
Smart-Response9881 on
Apples and oranges. Technological advances made the difference between 18th century-20th century warfare far more different than the difference between the Roman era differences.
jamesyishere on
Have you considered that I dont like the shitty looking roman armor, and *do* like the middle period armor?
LeviAEthan512 on
Someone never heard of percentages
AssociateWeak8857 on
No? Not only passing time, but speed of progress matters. American revolution and Iraq war had absolutely different tactics and used weapons, therefore much different armour.
Nice meme though, abd I agree with general idea of being accurateÂ
Kooky_March_7289 on
Mel Gibson in *Braveheart* as William Wallace, wearing a kilt (which would not be adopted by the Scots for another 250 years after Wallace’s death) and woad paint (which went out of style with the decline of the Picts 400 years prior) comes to mind.
Basically like doing a biopic of George Washington where he’s wearing a suit of armor and shooting an AR-15.
LightningNinja73 on
Slightly off topic: would the WWII era US Army do better at a Afghanistan/Iraq style war than the modern US military, assuming they were had a proportional tech overmatch? I think maybe, more numbers makes holding territory easier, and a P-51 Mustang or P-47 Thunderbolt can drop bombs pretty well.
sephirothbahamut on
I don’t tolrate either
Prudent-Income2354 on
I understand the point. (I was at a Roman festival in Carnuntum, Austria, in September.)
But I don’t see the difference in the armor right now.
But as a fun fact: they placed a legionnaire from the early and late 4th century side by side and explained the differences… But you could see them more clearly…
RedBlueTundra on
Iv ruined a lot of historical media for myself just by learning the development and evolution of Roman armour, i’ll be watching something and in my head it’ll just be constant “Wait a minute, they’re not supposed to be wearing that”
Any_Course102 on
Reticulated armor FTW!
Was actually introduced during the reign of Claudius, IIRC, though many of the legionnaires preferred the older chainmail armor as it was more flexible (but heavier).
RomaInvicta2003 on
Same reason movies about Greek mythology feature people in classical-era hoplite garb instead of period-accurate Mycenean armor, the segmentata is just far too iconic compared to literally any other armor type Rome went through over her history so of course filmmakers are gonna use it wherever they can. That being said, I’ve seen some productions *cough cough* Vikings *cough cough* featuring what was supposed to be *Byzantine* soldiers in segmentata, which is just plain *ridiculous*
blehmann1 on
It gets much worse, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a contested amphibious landing in a movie supposed to be set during the Peloponnesian wars.
Which, ain’t quite right. But people loved Saving Private Ryan, so we have ancient Greek landing craft now.
Nod_Lucario on
Real shame we don’t see Late Roman uniforms a whole lot in media. They actually look pretty good.
>!And I actually kinda prefer the Late Roman uniforms over the usual Lorica Segmentata we usually see with Roman Soldiers in media.!<
Obvious_Villain on
No I don’t.
Own_Watercress_8104 on
Ridley Scott really shat the bed for everybody here
Y_10HK29 on
TBF you can still find WW1/2 weapons in some modern battlefields
Maxim machine guns in Ukraine right now, mosin-nagants, and even the Canadians just recently fully retire the Lee Enfield rifle
AEXX_AHLLL on
Alright yeah you have point we must give the sneeze in comparison to Roman history the same amount of respect to historical accuracy regarding their drip as the actual Roman Empire
Malvastor on
You really mustn’t. I get that it’s inaccurate, I might wish it were more accurate, but the movie largely isn’t trying to be a textbook. It’s aiming to create verisimilitude, where the audience feels like they’re watching the past. So they can get away with using Roman armor from 1900 years ago instead of Roman armor from 2100 years ago, because most viewers don’t have a detailed knowledge of which armors should be used when and won’t be bothered.
On the other hand most of us are a lot more familiar with the Revolution and the Civil War and the Iraq War, and seeing an actor patrol Baghdad with a Kentucky Rifle and tricorner hat would be very obviously wrong in ways that would take us straight out of it.
It’s okay that not everything is perfectly accurate, as long as we understand it’s a fictional presentation and not a history lesson.
Trainer-Grimm on
The point of costuming and set design is a vibe, and (to the chagrin of nitty gritty types,) the ancient and medieval worlds have multi-century long “vibes,” due to how long ago they were. Even the 1700-1800s, this is on the scale of centuries not decades. It’s not until the world wars that you see more specific elements work their way in (still not perfectly!)Â
A movie about the 1848 revolution in France is probably still gonna have a bit of Napoleon hanging around because that’s the “vibe” of 19th century France, at least before it reinvented itself in the Belle epoch. I’d imagine that redcoats are used for damn near any British campaign before ww1 despite ending almost 40 years before that. The Pickelhaube feels Prussian, so I’d readily expect to see some anachronism in a movie about the 7 years war.Â
By the 2200s, when the US is no longer the hegemon of the world, I’d be surprised if movies about its wars didn’t start clumping its eras together- maybe not as extreme as Rome, but still. As long as it has the vibe of “the American empire,” it’ll fit the cinema. Maybe that process will be stalled out by the presence of film and photography in most of our history, but it’s kinda inevitable as events transition from our eyes to the stories we tell the kids at the dinner table that inspire the movies they make.Â
26 Comments
Context?
Fr, Romans during the Punic war should wear lorica hamata but they are always depicted with lorica segmentata
A knight in full plate armour is closer in time to an attack helicopter than the crusades.
I mean, a thousand years from now they well might.
Showing people with arms or armour from different era is not uncommon.
It’s usually a matter of ignorance, lack of knowledge or trying to make a point.
In Peru, you can find so many 16th and 17th century paintings of the crucifixion of Christ by Indigenous artists with the Roman soldiers made to look like Spanish conquistadors.
I don’t gotta tolerate shit.
Movies are movies. They don’t have to be accurate, they have to be good. Half the tropes we have about wars — ancient and modern — *come from movies*.
[Patton tanks [cosplaying as German Tiger tanks] fighting against Patton in the movie Patton](https://youtu.be/dObTXYa-_n4?si=17z1LW71srDPWfUx), most casual audience already don’t care much in the way of historical accuracy.
Apples and oranges. Technological advances made the difference between 18th century-20th century warfare far more different than the difference between the Roman era differences.
Have you considered that I dont like the shitty looking roman armor, and *do* like the middle period armor?
Someone never heard of percentages
No? Not only passing time, but speed of progress matters. American revolution and Iraq war had absolutely different tactics and used weapons, therefore much different armour.
Nice meme though, abd I agree with general idea of being accurateÂ
Mel Gibson in *Braveheart* as William Wallace, wearing a kilt (which would not be adopted by the Scots for another 250 years after Wallace’s death) and woad paint (which went out of style with the decline of the Picts 400 years prior) comes to mind.
Basically like doing a biopic of George Washington where he’s wearing a suit of armor and shooting an AR-15.
Slightly off topic: would the WWII era US Army do better at a Afghanistan/Iraq style war than the modern US military, assuming they were had a proportional tech overmatch? I think maybe, more numbers makes holding territory easier, and a P-51 Mustang or P-47 Thunderbolt can drop bombs pretty well.
I don’t tolrate either
I understand the point. (I was at a Roman festival in Carnuntum, Austria, in September.)
But I don’t see the difference in the armor right now.
But as a fun fact: they placed a legionnaire from the early and late 4th century side by side and explained the differences… But you could see them more clearly…
Iv ruined a lot of historical media for myself just by learning the development and evolution of Roman armour, i’ll be watching something and in my head it’ll just be constant “Wait a minute, they’re not supposed to be wearing that”
Reticulated armor FTW!
Was actually introduced during the reign of Claudius, IIRC, though many of the legionnaires preferred the older chainmail armor as it was more flexible (but heavier).
Same reason movies about Greek mythology feature people in classical-era hoplite garb instead of period-accurate Mycenean armor, the segmentata is just far too iconic compared to literally any other armor type Rome went through over her history so of course filmmakers are gonna use it wherever they can. That being said, I’ve seen some productions *cough cough* Vikings *cough cough* featuring what was supposed to be *Byzantine* soldiers in segmentata, which is just plain *ridiculous*
It gets much worse, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a contested amphibious landing in a movie supposed to be set during the Peloponnesian wars.
Which, ain’t quite right. But people loved Saving Private Ryan, so we have ancient Greek landing craft now.
Real shame we don’t see Late Roman uniforms a whole lot in media. They actually look pretty good.
>!And I actually kinda prefer the Late Roman uniforms over the usual Lorica Segmentata we usually see with Roman Soldiers in media.!<
No I don’t.
Ridley Scott really shat the bed for everybody here
TBF you can still find WW1/2 weapons in some modern battlefields
Maxim machine guns in Ukraine right now, mosin-nagants, and even the Canadians just recently fully retire the Lee Enfield rifle
Alright yeah you have point we must give the sneeze in comparison to Roman history the same amount of respect to historical accuracy regarding their drip as the actual Roman Empire
You really mustn’t. I get that it’s inaccurate, I might wish it were more accurate, but the movie largely isn’t trying to be a textbook. It’s aiming to create verisimilitude, where the audience feels like they’re watching the past. So they can get away with using Roman armor from 1900 years ago instead of Roman armor from 2100 years ago, because most viewers don’t have a detailed knowledge of which armors should be used when and won’t be bothered.
On the other hand most of us are a lot more familiar with the Revolution and the Civil War and the Iraq War, and seeing an actor patrol Baghdad with a Kentucky Rifle and tricorner hat would be very obviously wrong in ways that would take us straight out of it.
It’s okay that not everything is perfectly accurate, as long as we understand it’s a fictional presentation and not a history lesson.
The point of costuming and set design is a vibe, and (to the chagrin of nitty gritty types,) the ancient and medieval worlds have multi-century long “vibes,” due to how long ago they were. Even the 1700-1800s, this is on the scale of centuries not decades. It’s not until the world wars that you see more specific elements work their way in (still not perfectly!)Â
A movie about the 1848 revolution in France is probably still gonna have a bit of Napoleon hanging around because that’s the “vibe” of 19th century France, at least before it reinvented itself in the Belle epoch. I’d imagine that redcoats are used for damn near any British campaign before ww1 despite ending almost 40 years before that. The Pickelhaube feels Prussian, so I’d readily expect to see some anachronism in a movie about the 7 years war.Â
By the 2200s, when the US is no longer the hegemon of the world, I’d be surprised if movies about its wars didn’t start clumping its eras together- maybe not as extreme as Rome, but still. As long as it has the vibe of “the American empire,” it’ll fit the cinema. Maybe that process will be stalled out by the presence of film and photography in most of our history, but it’s kinda inevitable as events transition from our eyes to the stories we tell the kids at the dinner table that inspire the movies they make.Â