12 Historical Movies Where They Clearly Didn't Do the Research - Startefacts Reaction 

A friend of mine, Anna Busby, was a nurse at Pearl Harbor on the day of the attack. She was in her 80s when the Michael Bay atrocity was filmed. The production company sent a team to interview her on film and I got to see the video of her interview. She told the interviewers several stories that were not only true and great stories but would have been PERFECT for the film: how the first notion of something bad coming was when the breakfast trays in the hospital began to rattle, how during and after the attack when the nurses had far more than they could handle the hospital was filled with an army of volunteers who included prostitutes, nuns, Buddhist monks, Mormon college students, officer's wives- people who would never have socialized or mixed under normal conditions all working together to help the wounded, about driving a remote road with other nurses a few days after the attack to visit convalescing wounded when she heard a putter and a Japanese zero that had apparently landed during the attack flew over them (she never knew why it was there or how its crew got it working again). The interview crew's reaction was basically "That's nice. So tell us where did you go on dates when you dated doctors or flyboys?" She told them, REPEATEDLY, that nurses rarely dated doctors or flyboys and for the simple reason that it was hard to be romantic when the dates were chaperoned, had a curfew, you were limited to officers only, and you had to get formal permission. She said this was not formality or turn a blind eye either: it was rigidly enforced- violate any one of them and it was court martial for both parties. The crew was basically "Uh-huh. So what kind of things would you do on dates? Where would you go if you wanted privacy to make out?" Again, she said, there was a lot less making out than you'd think and in fact she didn't know of any. If doctors or sailors or pilots wanted to make out, they had R&R time and could avail themselves of any lady willing to go out with them or the many brothels and bars and pool halls, but the nurses were as close as you could get to a convent without taking holy orders. Again, she repeated several times, this wasn't "nudge nudge wink wink"- the US Navy wasn't concerned with the chastity of the men but if a naval nurse were to get pregnant then there better be a star leading shepherds and Middle Eastern men on camels bearing gifts to the nursery or else there'd be hell to pay. This was partly because of different standards and norms of course, but also to protect the nurses from sexual assault or STDs or a million other possible bad things that could happen in a place with lots and lots and lots of sailors. Then she'd proceed to tell them another fascinating story, like about the mild mannered sweet old gardener everybody loved who had spy cameras in his hut, or the doctor who reported for duty on the day of the attack so quick he was barefoot and in his bathrobe, or other true stories she'd personally witnessed, and they'd continue with "Hmmm. So were you given condoms?" (That's an actual question they asked her: in the first place, she'd just told them there was not really any need for them unless you were dating The Flash and managed to get behind a tree for five seconds [my analogy, not her's], and in the second place, those were issued to men, not to female nurses.) Needless to say, she hated the movie. She said every nurse in it would have been dishonorably discharged.

Chris, stop giving these AI channels views. Find someone that puts in the time and proves they are real

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter should be top of the list. We all know he was a werewolf hunter, but obviously these writers don't do any research.

When Braveheart was in theaters, I was working as a book seller at Borders. A pair of teen-age girls came in and asked for books with the real Braveheart. I was so happy that the movie inspired young people to learn about history. When I showed them books about William Wallace in the Scottish history section, they giggled and clarified that they wanted something with pictures of Mel Gibson. For a minute there, I had hope for the future.

The 1965 film "The Battle of the Bulge" was so bad that Eisenhower came out of retirement to publicly deride it.

I've been reenacting the american revolution for some 30 years now. When we went to see'the patriot' my wife kept saying "It's just a movie i don't want to hear a peep out of you." HALF WAY through the movie SHE was yelling at the screen.

My favorite part of Braveheart is the first 10 seconds… The narrator says some will call me a liar then he tells a bunch of lies lol

Definitely surprised to not see Pearl Harbor on here.

"Cate Blanchett is just awesome.. she's also really hot." 😅 I like this new Chris.

Pocahontas died at Gravesend, Kent. After being taken ill shortly after setting sail for Virginia. Her grave was lost after the original St George's Church, Gravesend was destroyed by fire. "Since 1958 she has been commemorated by a life-sized bronze statue in St. George's churchyard, a replica of the 1907 Jamestown sculpture by the American sculptor William Ordway Partridge."

Not a movie, but a series. I finished Manhunt about a month ago, and I have to say, it bugged me to NO END that the Confederates Booth interacted with kept saying they had been part of the Battle of Bull Run. Booth himself repeatedly calls it that. They were Confederates. They would have called it Manassas.

I also take issue with the movie Pocahontas showing talking trees. There were obviously no talking trees at that time.

U571 U571 Did I mention U571? Pearl Harbor U571

my 5x great-grandfather fought with Francis Marion in South Carolina. He stated in his pension application that he would rather have suffered the deprivations of camp than to be on furlough, because being at home was more dangerous - loyalists would kill a man at his fireside for being a patriot - whether he was or not.

What frustrates me the most about historical inaccuracy in movies/series is that oftentimes the very real and historically accurate story itself is straight out of a movie and I will never ever understand why the filmmakers would set the real thing aside and make up a new one.

10:08 I have to disagree. We don't have written history, but archeology exists. The archaeological record can certainly establish that horses and chickens were not domesticated during that period at that location.

"The Conqueror"... You know the one with John wayne as Ghengis Khan 😂😂😂

My issue with movies based on history is that many people are fools and take what they see in films as truth. In that awful Napoleon film where she shot the pyramids, many people thought that was true because it was in a "historical" movie. That's my main issue. *Edit* I know I'm dumb. It's he not she.

I have seen Alexander (2004) for a history project I did in high school. The role of Alexanders mother was way over the top, in some scenes it looks like she is going to *nudge nudge wink wink* her own son. But some scenes are based on history. There is a scene where Alexander asks a princess how she wishes to be treated after her country as fallen. She responsed: "As I am, a princess." Alexander gives her the treatment of a princess. That is based on a report in which Alexander asks a conquered king the same question, and he responded 'As I am, king", and Alexander did treat him as such.

You make a good point during the review of Alexander. Hellenic and Greek mythos does not seem to label sexuality at all like we do today. Zeus would often take the shape of animals during some of his promiscuity. The myths surrounding Heracles during his 12 trials suggest as one of his rewards he impregnated up to 50 of King Thespius daughters and later in life also had many male lovers. Alexander was recorded as being very pious towards the Hellenic gods. His bisexuality would not have been something he had to hide. I don't think it would have even been notable. Original creator of this list of videos doesn't seem to have researched much Greek myth themselves lol.

The defeat of the Spanish Armada didn’t occur at day or night, it was fought over several weeks as the English fleet pursued the Armada around the British coast!

You can say Mel Gibson was just trying to make a good movie, but he made a movie so inaccurate that both the English and the Scottish unanimously agree is offensive.

Chris the gaming channel needs food💀💀💀

One historical inaccuracy in Gladiator that they failed to mention was the fact that gladiators did not fight each other to the death. That is a falicy created by Hollywood. In truth, gladiators were very expensive to train, feed, and maintain. Having them fight to the death was ridiculously expensive and unnecessary. So they fought until they were forced to yield. Of course, when fighting with swords, tridents, etc, accidents will happen and deaths would sometimes occur. But they were typically not planned. Some Roman emperors, specifically Tiberius and later his son, Caligula, were so depraved and blood thirsty that they would insist on the gladiators fighting to the death. However, they were the exception, not the rule. Normally they would fight until one of them is too injured to continue, or one of them would yield.

The 300 thing makes me crazy, if you pay attention, the movie or at least the battle scenes are narrated and based on the story Dilios is telling to the leaders in order to have the rest of the army mustered, he's exaggerating to make a better, more heroic story to get people's attention. And, as Chris says, it's based on the graphic novel.

U571 is one of the most egregious examples I can think of

My mother doesn't usually use the word "hate" but she genuinely hates this movie about Alexander the Great.

Alexander is well worth your time if you've an interest in historical movies. It has some of the most accurate battle depictions ever put to film (phalanx formations, Hellenic cavalry etc.). The general vibe of the film is supposed to come off almost like the rendition of a contemporary epic poem (especially given the narration and narrator - no spoilers!), so the innaccuracies like Olympias (the way I see it) are those flourishes for the epic poem audience. Sort of like Herodotus.

Age is showing, I remember a weekly kids show titled “Swamp Fox” about Francis Marion. “Swamp Fox, Swamp Fox! Tail on his hat! Nobody knows where the Swamp Fox’s at.”

Maybe it’s just me, but I have never gone to a movie theatre to learn history, but to be entertained.

One of my favorite movies is The Ghost and the Darkness. Based on a real event, it obviously over dramatizes the facts but its wonderfully enjoyable and like you said, it led me to looking up the actual history behind it.

Odd as it may seem, 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' was much praised by my history teacher as it emphasised the vital importance of Christianity in Medieval Europe, the tendency for irrational beliefs to become taken as fact, the violence of the era, the feudal system and the dangers of killer rabbits in them days.

The Last Samurai is a 2003 New Zealand-Japanese-American film directed by Edward Zwick. It is a loose adaptation of the events of the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877. The main character is also based in part on Jules Brunet, a French officer who resigned from the French army out of loyalty to the last shogun Tokugawa Yoshinobu, who had previously made a treaty of friendship with Napoleon III. So the history is an interprétation of that Napoléon III ' officer...

300 is the Battle of Thermopylae as recounted by a storyteller (Dilios). The wild exaggerations and fantastical beasts/monsters make sense in a story meant to rouse Greeks to fight the Persians. They used multiple sayings attributed to the Spartans in 300. Alexander may not have gotten the time of day correct for the Battle of Gaugamela, but it is considered one of the best depictions of battlefield tactics of that time period.

It’s a shame that a lot of the time they don’t care about accuracy.

I wonder if Elizabethan-era attendees of the Globe Theater came away being all pissy that HAMLET wasn’t an accurate depiction of the Danish kings?

I would certainly have included "Pearl Harbor". A distortion of a historic event if ever there was one!

VTH, I'd recommend you watch Alexander. Alexander is an underrated gem in my opinion. If you can get past the accents - which never bothered me - it's a wonderful and pretty accurate portrayal of the life of Alexander the Great. Many of the lines in the film are taken straight from the sources, and pretty much all of the important events are recounted from sources like Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander, and Diodorus' Bibliotheca Historica. The narrator throughout is Ptolemy himself as he wrote his own history of Alexander, which is lost to us but is the basis for most of the classical writers whose accounts we do have. The armor and weaponry of the Macedonians is pretty accurate, and the same can be said for the Persians. The Battle of Gaugamela is one of the best portrayals of a historical battle in modern cinema, and it's pretty obvious why an early morning filming wouldn't have worked for how its shot; you wouldn't be able to see the armies if it was an early morning shoot, especially through the dust that gets kicked up. One of the things people complain about is the over dramatic acting, especially from Colin Farrel. Those complaining about it are missing the point, in my opinion. It's acted just like how an ancient-greek tragedy would be acted; legendary heroes with stormy emotions that match their incredible deeds. That also explains why Alexander's mother is portrayed as a witch who has a passion for the esoteric. Writers did claim that she was involved in cult practices for Dionysus, and Diodorus Siculus claimed she was involved in so-called "mystical practices" relating to the cult. These ideas stuck with Alexander throughout his campaign, and as he pushed East, his celebrations and self-association with Dionysus became more prominent. Many writers have also claimed that Olympias orchestrated the death of Phillip II so that Alexander could take the throne, or at least lead the charge to plant the double-edged words in Alexander's head that he was the son of Zeus, and destined for greatness. He was very close with his mother, and not very close with his father, who saw him as a rival or a threat. The depiction of Olympias as a witch with a cunning side is certainly exaggerated, much like Greek theatre, but it is not exactly a terribly inaccurate portrayal if the producers and writers stuck with the ancient sources and interpreted them for the movie. The biggest issue I see people point out is that it's boring, and I'm not going to argue against that. It's 3 hours long with two major battles (The Battle of Gaugamela and the Battle of the Hydaspes), and some have complained that it becomes "like a documentary." If you're not interested at all in Alexander, or his life and campaigns, it's not something you should watch. But if you have an interest in Alexander, or how the Greeks forever changed the course of Europe, Asia, and North Africa, you should certainly watch it. (Also, yes, in Greece at the time male-on-male relationships were incredibly common, but it was not seen as proper for a man to marry another man in the same way he would a woman. You can see evidence of this in the dialogues of Plato, and other works that were made in Classical Greece.)

Amadeus is a continuing character assassination of Salieri that is well known to be very inaccurate.

I would have added Saving Private Ryan, because sending out a full squad to locate and retrieve 1 sodier from an active warzone was completely unacceptable to high command and so would never have happened

A couple of points regarding the church burning in The Patriot. While the British didn't go around burning all churches, they DID desecrate churches not part of the Church of England. John Burgoyne turned a church into a riding stable infuriating the local population. A few churches did actually burn down, including first Speaker of the US House Fredrick Muhlenburg's New York church, but there's debate if it was intentional or not. So to say it has no historical basis is itself historically questionable. That said, there were never any people in any destroyed church. There was a historical event in which the town was forced into a church which was then burnt down killing everyone inside. But it happened June 10, 1944, four days after D-Day, in the village of Oradour-sur-Glane. The Nazi accused them of helping the French Resistance without any evidence. This incident was part of the Nuremberg Trials and 2 were executed for their part. Others received prison sentences. It is too bad the British army was made to look like Nazis in the movie, a scene we all could have done without.

Although this doesn’t really have much to do with this topic, I’d like to recommend a war movie you’ve probably never heard of unless you’re Finnish, called Unknown Soldier. It takes place during the continuation war between 1941-44 (for context it was around the time Germany invaded Russia) and focuses around a machine gun company. It is based on a book with the same name written in 1954. The author was a guy called Väinö Linna, who served in the very same war and based the characters on people he served with. The thing I like about it is the fact that no character no matter how big or small seem invincible, just like in real life, unlike other movies. The reason why I mentioned it here is because I’m not too sure on the accuracy of the battles themselves that happen and the things that occur during the movie, but it’s accurate enough and it’s so good you really just enjoy it because of the greatness of the movie. The 2017 version is the one I recommend you watch, it is in Finnish but subtitles exist, and it should be on Netflix.

Re: Alexander - most historians say that Alexander is quite accurate. The things shown as inaccurate are just added for entertainment. Regarding Elizabeth and Elizabeth: The Golden Age are both really historically inaccurate. They didn't point out the real true historical issues in the second movie (and the first). The second film is just as bad as the first. Changes they made to history in the first film affected the second film. In the first film, the only explanation that I can think of for why they switched the ages of William Cecil and Kat Ashley is that they really wanted Richard Attenborough as Cecil. They also made changes to 'history' to move things from later in the reign to the beginning (execution of Norfolk). At the end of the first movie, they decided Elizabeth should retire Cecil. Completely untrue - the man was dying and she wouldn't let him retire. It also shows Robert Dudley taking part in a plot against Elizabeth and it says she never saw him again. Completely untrue. Those choices affected the second movie because both of those characters should have played big roles in the sequel.

14:01 One thing about the Battle of Gaugamela in that movie, the time of day may have been inaccurate but the battle itself and the tactics that were used were shockingly accurate.

I honestly couldn't say which is the most inaccurate historical movie, but I do know which one is absolutely the most true and best told historical movie, and that's, Robinhood Men In Tights👨‍🏫

My 6th great grandfather was a blacksmith for the Pennsylvania militia during The Revolution. He was murdered by loyalists in 1789, long after the war had ended.

The Patriot and Bravehart are the same movie.

What do I think? I'm so glad you asked: 1) I think that "Troy" has even less business being on this list than "Arthur" does, given that both movies' origin stories are equally mythological in nature, and were written multiple THOUSANDS of years ago, so accuracy was never going to be the strong suit of either tale. At least "Troy" had the decency to take place right about where it needed to, and didn't involve any actual "god work" in the story, whereas "Arthur" was a complete fabrication that turned King Arthur into a simple Roman Commander, who was out of his element. If anything, "Troy" was the more believable of the two movies. 2) Why, oh dear God, WHY is "Pearl Harbor" not included on this list??? That movie is a prime example of RECENT HISTORY being blatantly fudged up, and twisted around, so as to make the movie more exciting, rather than tell an accurate story of what actually happened! And it was made by a director KNOWN for his science fiction-level explosions, moreso than his actual ability to tell a great story! "Pearl Harbor" was an insult to historians everywhere. Why the hell is it nowhere among the Top 12 of this list?! 3) "Titanic" was a good romance flick, involving a historical incident. But its' accuracy leaves a lot to be desired. Particularly when you take in the fact that 90% of the main cast of the movie NEVER EXISTED AT ALL, and were created purely for the drama of the whole event, whereas the actual historically accurate characters were blatantly shoved to the side, and made to be nothing more than "hey, look at him over there!" pieces, than as players in the big game. Also, it is now KNOWN that the Titanic did not actually snap in two, at the surface, as depicted in the film. It broke apart underwater, after it had already sank beneath the surface. So nobody would have seen it happen at all. 4) "Braveheart" should be higher on this list, because it has LOADS of historical inaccuracies, moreso than many of the other inclusions hereon. It in fact should be TOP FIVE in terms of inaccuracy. Not bringing up the rear, at number 12. I dare say that "10,000 BC" is arguably more accurate, and we KNOW what's wrong about that stupid movie! 5) "Dunkirk" was a great movie. I hate to include it here. But it is also pretty stupidly inaccurate. It's a well-told story, and the characters are all well-directed and well-acted. So again, I hate to say it should be on this list. But again... recent history being "romanticized" for the sake of entertainment is a little bit more unforgivable than some story from WAY BACK in ancient times, that has the argument of "Well, we really don't know for sure," to defend itself with. World War II movies do not have this advantage. Nor should they.

The Patriot is very innacurate, but I was obsessed with it as a kid and it definitely led me to learn more about colonial America and the Revolutionary War, so I'll always love it.

I am not sorry, Braveheart is a travesty where making money doesn't make it all right, it makes it worse. e.g. showing Robert the Bruce as a traitor, when actually historically HE is "braveheart" - troops carried a box containing his heart after his death to inspire the scots - is unforgiveable. When a movie could so easily be much more accurate and arguably be more entertaining because of it, it should not be tolerated. Being inaccurate for no reason is not acceptable.

Outlaw King is definitely the most historically accurate and authentic medieval movie I’ve seen.

Sexuality in Rome was more based on dominance. Men were expected to be men and to have a family and father children. But it was okay if a man wanted to have a guy on the side, as long as he was the dominant partner. Being on the receiving end would have been seen as submissive and, thus, effeminate and wrong.

Not a "gross representation" of the Praetorian Guard. They were involved in the assassination of Caligula, almost a hundred years before Commodus took the Throne, was assassinated by the Guard and Senate (then then Guard installed Claudius when they realized they would be out of the job with no Emperor). They did auction off the Throne, after they killed Emperor Pertinex (who suceeded Commodus) in 193 to Julianus.

You should really see Alexander, it needs to be seen. It is good, no matter what the critics say

Elizabeth had eyes on her virtually every minute of the day and night, and ambassadors paid her staff to find out when she menstruated. Yet there is no solid evidence (aside from rumour and innuendo), that she ever had sexual relations with anyone. Given the risk of pregnancy and disgrace- why on Earth would she risk it? Everything of her family history would indicate Elizabeth would not want to make herself that vulnerable to any man.

My children refuse to go watch any historical movie with me because I keep pointing out inaccuracies.

Oliver Stone's Alexander, that pretty much sums it up. You either dig Stone films or like normal people, you ignore them. As for Arthur, "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government." Pretty sure Monty Python and the Holy Grail should have been number 1 on this list.

I attended a lecture on greek philosophy in college, where they touched on the subject of homosexuality. According to quite a few greek philosophers the love between two men was the purest because it was a connection of body, mind and spirit, whereas love between woman and man was purely a biological necessity. Therefor I am pretty sure that the greeks/macedonians couldn't care less if Alexander was bi-sexual :)

Hi! I would like to add that the character of Nathan Algren in The Last Samurai is not entirely fictional - he is based of a french officer/ adviser who fought for the shogun. He defied orders from France to stay and fight for what he came to admire. His name was Jules Brunet, and his story is actually quite remarkable and interesting.

You talking about The Patriot reminds me of your reaction to History Buffs video on the film. He was furious at this film, like a personal insult, and you just weren't having it lol

When I was a young kid in the late 50s and early 60s there was a Disney series called The Swamp Fox about the exploits of Francis Marion. I remember being enamored with it and peaked my interest in the Revolutionary War.

That comment about Achilles heel not being "historically" accurate needed a bit more commenting on. If anything, I feel it's one of the few parts of the movie that makes it somewhat historically "accurate", as the makers of the movie choose to go with a much less mythological version of the story: If a warrior named Achilles fought in this war and was said to be near invincible in combat, but had a weak heel, then it's very likely that he was a very skilled warrior who just so happened to take an arrow to the heel at a critical moment that cost him his life - thus causing the myth that he had been blessed by the gods and this was the only way of killing him.

They do show Achilles being shot by an arrow to the heel, followed up by multiple shots to his torso, which Achilles pulls out, on screen it implies he bleeds out, though in the Illiad he is shot in the heel with a poisoned arrow, which is not out of the realm of possibility in the film either. What they get wrong is that Achilles is killed during the sacking of Troy, whereas in the Illiad, he's killed prior to the building of the Horse.

The problem with playing fast and loose with the facts is that movies are a very evocative medium. Even if I get interested in the facts after and do some internet searching, it's going to be really hard to get other content to sort of "overwrite" the movie in my brain, just because of how more memorable movies are in comparison with text. It's kind of like when you read a book you imagine characters a certain way, but when you see a film adaptation and then re-read the book, you have a hard time not seeing actors' faces in your mind. So that's why I think that there is a certain responsibility there, not to get everything exactly right, but just not completely wrong.

Yesss!! I was hoping from the start you would mention Master and Commander at some point 😉👌🏼

Chris, new Mr Beat just dropped: 10 Worst Laws, seems like something you would like to take a look at

My favorite two things on Pocahontas was John Smith looking like a California surfer, and Smith jumping through a waterfall with a matchlock musket.

13:19 re: Alexander’s mother Olympias - Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History has multiple episodes where he quotes contemporary writers AT LEGNTH that say she absolutely was a “snake worshiping witch” Source: Glimpses of Olympias Mania for Subjugation episode 1

I throughly enjoyed this analysis and you're very well rounded take on these movies. I love history and I love good historical movies but I can let slide something that helps move the story along as long as it's not out in left field. Thank you for this!

10,000 B.C. is a caveman movie, like Quest for Fire. It's not supposed to be a historical movie, it's literally the story of Moses in the Stone Age. Good fun, but watch it as just that, fun.

The graphic Novel of 300 was inspired in a large way by the 1962 Movie "The 300 Spartans" which is a fairly accurate retelling of the battle whilst Gladiator is an OTT Reboot of 1964s The Fall of the Roman Empire. The legends of Arthur were being told as early as the 7th century and the 2004 movie went with the not wholly accepted Sarmatian hypothesis.

AI generated channel you are reacting to

The British did burn a church with Patriots trapped inside, but it was in St-Eustache (QC) in 1837. They also burned entire villages in Quebec during the 1837-1838 Rebellions under General John Colborne's order.

One of the reasons Pocahontas turned out the way it did was the timescale it was made. Disney saw Beauty and the Beast do really well and so wanted another film in the forbidden love/love brewing as a battle happens story frame, and the next film in their production line that was early enough in production that they were able to make that sort of change to was Pocahontas (other films like the Lion King were too far into production) I've not seen the Pocahontas sequel (as, like most Disney straight to home media sequels, it's got AWFUL reviews), but it does appear to be *somewhat* (and I use somewhat very loosely) more accurate to the real Pocahontas, as she does at least go to London as her love interest in that film is John Rolfe Also, I want a *good* Disney Pocahontas prequel about the Lost Colony of Roanoke

One thing everyone forgets about 300 is that the ENTIRE MOVIE is a story being told by a Spartan soldier that has a talent for storytelling. Of course he'd exaggerate the story to make the Spartans be more badass.

Thats stupidity 10000 BC was not intended to be historical.

Alexander is extremely historically accurate, and definitely worth a watch if you are into ancient/classical history.

My only issue with 300 is that there are people who think that actually happened the way the movie portrays it. 300 contributed to this weird psuedo-mythology we have today about Spartans being super soldiers that were better than everyone else at the time, when in reality most historians would tell you that they only really differed in the fact that military service was a major focus of their culture. They were good soldiers, absolutely, but they were not making everyone else look like rubes.

The myth of Alexander's mother being a snake worshipper was taken from the myth that his mother slept with a serpent to conceive him. And yes, you're correct Chris: the Praetorian Guard started under Emporer Cladius, led by Sejanus.

The last samurai is based over Jules Brunet, a french officer. But as a french officer wasn't good enough for Hollywood, they americanized him.

Francis Marion was also portrayed in "The Wonderful World of Disney" by Leslie Nielsen during the 1960's. I don't remember any mention of his owning slaves on the show, either.

Moral of this story if your Historical Drama involves Mel Gibson any way the history is gonna suck.

So that's the reason for all those Francis Marions in my family tree. Him and Lorenzo Dow.

Disney had a series about Francis Marion called 'Swamp Fox'. Starred a very very young Leslie Nielsen. Doubt it had much in the way of historical accuracy, but it was how I first heard of him.

Film Historian graduated with a Masters in film. Bohemian Rhapsody is inaccurate, Argo almost completely ignored the Canadian's help, Untouchables, just a few to name. Congrats on the channel.

Concerning "Alexander", it is probably the most accurate depiction of the use of the phalanx in war that has ever been committed to film, and the course of the battle of Gaugamela is spot on.

To me this is a bad list because it misses the most egregious thing a historical movie can do, which is to portray themselves as historically accurate when they are not. To me the worst case would be JFK, which is done to look almost like a docudrama while intentionally getting facts incorrect to paint a specific narrative. Another egregious example would be 12 Years a Slave. which changes just about every fact that happened in real life.

Alexander may have it's issues, but it has probably the best depiction of ancient warfare I've ever seen. The fact that they actually had the troops move in formation and maintain unit cohesion is superb. I wish more movies/shows would do this instead of depicting helmetless warriors engaging in a chaotic mess.

I've been in the Fate fandom for so long, that it's weird for me to see King Arthur as a dude lol

I appreciated the fact that in ‘Those About To Die”, Domitian had Titus murdered in a secluded place and told his men to tell everyone that Titus died of a fever from bad food. It shows the fact that the writers are straying from history, while also acknowledging that Titus really did die from a short illness.

At the time of Alexander it was common to have male lovers. I remember an old quote 'A man for love, a woman for duty and a boy for pleasure' sex between soldiers was promoted to create a deeper bond.

Alexander is one of the most historically accurate films made. The attention to detail, meticulous reconstruction of the uniforms, characters and, especially, the battles means it normally appears in the lists of MOST accurate films. Do yourselves a favour and watch it!! You will not regret it!!!

I think the most obvious movie to put on a list like this is DW Griffith’s Birth of a Nation. The insane portrayal of freed black men destroying the post-war south, and threatening the virtue of white women, but then valiantly saved by the ku klux klan, was a gross inaccuracy that caused immeasurable harm to the US.

Just discovered your channel! Love it! Here are a few-all of which I love-which are just hopeless when judged against the historical record: 1) The Ten Commandments (😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂); 2) The Lion in Winter (a fictional Christmas Court in 1183 held Chinon France with King Henry II, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, King Philip of France, Richard the Lionhearted); 3) Kingdom of Heaven (another Ridley Scott sunglazed, exotic costume fantasy shot in locations bearing no resemblance whatsoever to the real sites in which they occurred, with echoes of the story of Baldwin IV King of Jerusalem and Saladin Sultan of Egypt, along with a fictional romance between two people who absolutely never met); 4) Elizabeth AND Elizabeth, The Golden Age (both fabulously entertaining, AND absolutely PERMEATED with historical inaccuracies); 5) The Wind and the Lion (Theodore Roosevelt, navigating a foreign policy crisis in Morocco with a brigand sultan who has kidnapped an ambassador’s wife, along side his grief over the loss of both his wife and mother on the same day during a month’s long hunting expedition into the Wyoming/Montana wilderness); 6) Franklin and Eleanor (made for TV, two part mini-series that does admirably-but stops short of the the aftermath of Roosevelt’s death); 6) Jackie, Ethel, and Joan (also made for TV, which predictably gives short shrift to the far less more troublesome and tawdry second and third Kennedy wives).

The 1965 film battle of the bulge was so bad Eisenhower came out of retirement to denounce the movie for being so wrong and inaccurate. Like... the film was made in spain amd there is no snow. They have some fake snow but not much. And almost no trees. For the battle of the bulge which was in december 1944 in the Ardennes

When I was a kid what to say 1965 Disney had a show called The swamp Fox and I would watch it every time it was on

Pocahontas is buried at a church in Gravesend not London. There is a life size bronze statue of her in the churchyard. I know I have actually seen it.

The false history in Ron Howard’s “Apollo 13” and “Sully” was an atrocity. Filmmakers have responsibilities not to falsify history to fit their industry’s financial formula.

The critique of historical accurateness should be based on what the filmmaker intends

TO THIS DAY i don't understand the hate Alexander get. Especially from the historical community. I was for the longest time passionate about ancient history and the period of classical till late antiquity was always my favourite. i used to read the authors pieces.. i read all of Herodotus and more.. Alexander IS a great movie. It give the CORRECT vibe to the historical events surrounding Alexander's life and epic. It has great storytelling, amazing battles and it is one of the few movies in HISTORY that bothers to show people fighting in ACTUAL FORMATIONS, not the garbage moshpits of hollywood. The entire Gaugamela sequence is a masterpiece alone! The "issues" of the movies are more due to sincretism, they had to condense 20years of history into a few key moments including a few battles, so yes, there is a lot of "people in the wrong place" or multiple events and people condensed into one. Is not a 20 hours TV series. is a barely 3h movie. They had to cut things up. Anthony Hopkins as an older Ptolomy narrating his biography and "changing" it to make it look nicer as he is dictating it to his scribe is majestic. Also Soundtrack from Vangelis. COME ON. Shittier films get hyped and a really good one is dumped. I know NOW Ritter has a mark on his shoulder for being a hack. But in the 2000s he was on fire. Give the movie a try at least.