Hate the portrayal of Celts in Hollywood

Sep 2012
1,072
Tarkington, Texas
#51
There were between 400 to 500 Greek City States. They were all different. Some looked down on Homosexual Behavior and some did not. Spartans did have some gay behavior, but all were expected to marry and have children.

The English Troops in Braveheart were often second line Troops while Longshanks kept the best troops outside the Kingdom. Wallace was a Lowland Scot. They did not wear a Kilt. They wore a garment that looked like a long Nightshirt. Armor was whatever the man could afford, which explains why many took farming tools to battle. Where was the Bridge at Stirling Castle?

The Eagle was pretty unbelievable. Where were the Pilums and Roman Auxiliaries firing Missile Weapons?

Pruitt
 
Apr 2017
138
Bayreuth
#52
Ha! See what a luck I totally forgot that thread, that it showed up on first page.

It's quite naive to assume that Braveheart portrays accurate depictions of medieval warfare. (...)
Military history especially is ignored, even more so the farther back you go in time. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but there is no way you can argue a battle sequence in Braveheart is remotely realistic.
That is not the point, Spike.

My point is the arrogance to believe only because pop-culture does exist that every artist is an idiot, and it is absolutely hypocritical.
Like the guy saying – they had no form of strategy in that movie. Somebody who says this has not seen the movie.

It does not matter if that is accurate or not. You can not say that this is somehow a downgrade of people in Scotland or 'Celts' in general.
That is totally absurd.

And from a historical/archaeological perception – if you – like the one I was referring to – comes up with Celt in connection to Scotland – that is modern.
If you go to a Celt expert and say Celtic high-culture the last thing he thinks about is Scotland.
That is deadly give away to see from whom such accusations come from.

That is hypocrisy to argue movies are not accurate. It is not their job to be. They deal with mythology.

And if you (random name) think you spotted something in a movie – you have been lied to 2000 times before and in all modern media you are lied to everywhere on levels the average Joe is not even aware about without any problem.
Take sound. You hear sound effects even in animal documentaries and at the Olympics.
That shows how random that accusations are and what they are actually after:
It is about I do know more than the people who did the story – translates to: I am better than them.

And that is already a give away for actually everybody who deals in that fields that you do not.
If you start in f.e. Gladiator with the fire on arrows trench – and not that this a pine-forest, that are not natural to Europe and only existed in specific environments – you give away on what level you are. You are bombarded with fiction in picture and sound – but only spot one thing? There are 1000 and most can not even name them.
And then you (not talking to you – the guy I am referring to or anybody who does this) explain to me in the same breath how incompetent and lazy story-tellers are?
This is where I wake up and that is my point. That is what I am targeting.

Knowledge is power. Like I know you do not know much about Braveheart and have never seen Gibson's commentary as well. Nevertheless are you arguing with me about that?
Do I argue with you about baseball? I know nothing about baseball.
Would you think that is a little strange if I would start with you a baseball debate, while giving away that I know not much about baseball?

What you refer to as : Excuses of the main-actor...

He is the flipping director of that movie. He is the guy in charge of every artistic direction, who explains to you 1.5 hours which artistic decisions they made despite knowing that they were not accurate, with the reason why it would handicap the fictional story they try to tell.
That is to you an excuse?^^ Or should we both agree that you have not seen it and have no clue what is in it, while you seem to be very interested into the accuracy, too.
You got the material at hand – where the maker, the guy in charge explains his position in detail and shows an extreme knowledge and you did not even care to listen to him first and I have to do the PR job of Fox now or Mr. Gibson's agency, who will not give me one cent for it.

That is all info you give me – if you write this sentence:

The main actor making excuses doesn't equate to credible reasoning,(...)
I say it constantly here: Dealing with historical sources is paying attention to details. And that works in RL as well.
Director of the movie explains 1.5 hours what is inaccurate in his own movie, downgraded to: As a PR stunt the main-actor tries to sell his movie.

Seems to be an extreme incompetent guy, because he destructs his own mythology.^^
Or watch it with a girl and go: "Prima Nocte did never exist, That is something from French novels of the 15th century. They made it up, to add drama to the story."
Free dating pro-tip: Don't!

Means: He does the opposite of what you accuse him of. While we both know – you have never seen it.

So let's talk baseball! The Cincinnati Bengals are the best baseball team...
Yeah? Wut? I do have an opinion on baseball, too. And I know very well that now a lot of you US guys sitting there with itching fingers to inform me about a mistake I just did.

And my answer to that is: Only because they do not play this – does not matter that they are not the best. I am talking here based on my opinion not on things I do know, even if they are factually wrong no matter how absurd it becomes... It is the same thing...
While: It would take me - one second - to figure out who is actually in what sports – if I really so interested in that to make such a claim (best baseball team), instead of guessing in the dark and based on this develop thesis.

AFAIK the fighting naked bit was a Pictish thing. It also wasn't used as a general combat thing but rather as a contest between 2 champions. As in "I'm so bad i don't need no stinking armour". It was also a way to intimidate you're opponent with your scary tattoos & muscular physique.
Where I am here:

We wear armor in Europe since the bronze-age. The popular mistake comes from the misleading latin translations for the word 'bare'. Bare does not mean just 'naked' it means 'without something you would expect'. That is where all that naked guys come from in Europe up to the medieval time. We are here on the height of Canada. We do not have the same impact of weather – because of the streams of the Atlantic ocean, but we have the same temperature-rise and falls.

You in the Appalacian mountains do live in Italy down to Africa. The guys on Britain are living in Canada. With no problem can you take guys from Scotland and put them onto Alaska, they have all the stuff that they can survive there. They only do not need it as as long as people in Alaska. That is the only difference.

And that naked displays you always see from Germanics and the like are deities. That are no real people.
If you think you can impress me with your naked body in the iron-age – specifically in a society where everybody does it, I know who will win the war. The Italians would have marched straight over you. Most about the Picts comes from the 15th, 16th century and is economical marketing that used "nationalism" as justification, that corrupted the whole picture of that people.
 

M9Powell

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
4,441
appalacian Mtns
#55
Well the Italians didn't march straight over the Picts. They retreated too Hadrisns wall & gave up trying too conquer Caledonia. What does the climate in the Appalachians have too do with Pictish champions fighting naked? BTW though the climate here is nothing like Southern Italy. You are going by latitude. Elevation has its part too play. Maybe like the Italian Alps.
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
4,019
Slovenia, EU
#56
I agree completely. However, (in my case) not sure if that's due to insightful analysis or to the prejudices of age and the vagaries of memory.--All my favourite directors are dead, and have not been replaced by Ridley Scott or the great hauteur, Quentin Tarantino. There are a few, but very few.


Haven't seen the Russian waterloo, but have heard about its brilliance for years. I'll see if i can get hold of a copy. Amazing what old/obscure films and music that can be found on Ebay, at little cost.

There is a saying "nostalgia ain't what it used to be" My corollary is "and it never was"
Яндекс.Видео

Waterloo, 1970. Check if this suits you. Russian streaming sites, I'm sure there are versions in different languages.
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
4,019
Slovenia, EU
#57
even though the movie 500 was made pro greek, i couldn't help but notice the stereotypes which were hurled at them like being gays, naked etc and couldn't help but laugh :lol::lol::lol:

regards
300 is a parody taking itself seriously which makes it a terrible film. I'm sure there would be easier to search for accurate parts than fallacies because most of film is wrong in everything.
 
Likes: Ashoka maurya
Aug 2014
4,679
Australia
#58
300 is a parody taking itself seriously which makes it a terrible film. I'm sure there would be easier to search for accurate parts than fallacies because most of film is wrong in everything.
The film is a cinematic rendition of the 1998 comic book series, and seems to have kept faithful to the source material. The comic isn't historically accurate but that isn't the fault of the movie.
 
Aug 2014
4,679
Australia
#59
^
Or watch it with a girl and go: "Prima Nocte did never exist, That is something from French novels of the 15th century.
It originated much earlier than that. The first occurrence of this is in the Epic of Gilgamesh and reoccurs in various literary texts from then until the end of the Middle Ages. But you are right that there is no evidence of it ever actually occuring.

The popular mistake comes from the misleading latin translations for the word 'bare'. Bare does not mean just 'naked' it means 'without something you would expect'.
In many cases it is not a mistranslation of the Latin; it stems from a misunderstanding of the English word "naked". It did not refer to one who was completely unclothed until fairly recent times. Naked used to simply mean "bare chested" or even "unarmoured".
 
Last edited: