Hollywood is clueless about military history (665 views, 12 replies)

You would think a military adviser would be a routine aspect of any show featuring archery and swordsmanship and showing the tactics of battles. Obviously not or else the moronic writers just don't give a crap.

A crossbow is a very powerful penetrating weapon based on stored energy. That when released penetrates armor. However, there are two ways to charge the crossbow. Cranking which takes a long time and using a foot to press against a metal device (cocking stirrup). Either is slow.

A run of the mill professional archer/soldier can fire three arrows in the same time a crossbowmen can fire a single "bolt".

If using ballista, a ballista might do a lot of damage to a group of infantry if they are standing right behind each other, but otherwise no. In terms of artillery, then while they could be used but more to start fires.

Again, note the long length of cabling and the cranking needed to reload. These were terribly slow. In terms of ballistics, they were accurate when from a fixed position, but if one were not fixed ie moving across the x,y axis, the small change in elevation would radically alter the precision and accuracy (they are NOT the same thing).
...
There is no way to realistically acquire a moving object darting across the x,y,z axis. You would miss probably every time.

I see Hollywood improperly using cavalry all the time. One did not blindly charge into infantry as doing so ends up annhilating the horses upon spearpoints. One flanks or pins with cavalry to rout the enemy as typically there are already in a pitched battle with other infantry.

To even think about penetrating a fortress means significant rams, ladders, and siege towers have been constructed. At the very least one brings a month of provisions with "baggage train" or else your invading army will starve.

The farms are outside the fortress proper and then the invaders may feast on provision IF these are there. It depends on the growing season, right? It depends on the harvest and likely all livestock are taken inside plus any dried plants plus meats.

To even consider doing an invasion typically requires 3 x the number of defenders and expect horrible losses on the invading side.

A siege might last 3-6 months and counting upon both confederate spies inside befouling the water and defender provisions. It could last a year.

At least in a handful of films like the opening of Gladiator in Germania, you see how multiple tactics are at play at once to do a hammer and anvil.

At least in Alatriste you see some proper pike formations.

Otherwise it's a lot of nonsense.

Ran makes this mistake with teppo that seem to be rapidfire instead of painfully slow to fire once discharged.
Read moreLess

Yep and the founding fathers also knew about weapons with multiple fire per minute... How did they know, Thomas Jefferson owned two of them.

Again, an example of the private citizen having more fire power than the military did... Don't even mention civilians owning cannons at the time.

thefederalistpapers.org/founders...

A long time ago, there were Pentagon liason to Hollywood to ensure Hollywood had access to US military resources, for safety, for historical accuracy, for technical assistance, for advice on tactics and strategy.

Leftist Hollywood just burned that bridge.

Imagine trying to do The Last Ship tv series without that kind of advice?

I don't know many liberal soldiers.

While the Romans did use the ballista as an effective siege weapon on relatively stationary infantry, it was useless later.

It's laughable what Hollywood does.

Other than ancient Rome, during the medieval period, you have some onagers but switching to mangonels hurling flaming projectiles that cracked and broadcast flammable liquid. Then better catapults. Then crude trebuchets. Then more precise and accurate trebuchets.

Early trebuchet used a weight, often soil. Then used a mechanical system where a soldier would spin a drum to create tension. If you drop a heavy mass of stone or soil, then just to reload, you have to lift that BULKY MASS. Good luck. It's not only fallen butlikely mashed into the surface and has to be extracted and then primed for the next shot. There is nothing fast about this.

Now think logically. Any system with tension and cordage like rope will be wildly inaccurate based upon how frequently it is wound. Thus "repeatability" of the ballistics is all over the place. These are not precise weapons whatsoever.
...
Then the first gonnes. The Mongels had an extremely crude cannon that fired an iron bolt. And so on.

The Japanese tried and failed with the O-yumi which was sort of like a ballista but it routinely would break due to the required tension. Old historical reports indicated they lacked an "engineer" to repair it and so it was out of order.
Read moreLess

While it looks dramatic for there to be 15 minute duels with flashing swords, often in actual history, swords battles were short. The superior swordsman most often used a thrust not a slash as the thrust is very difficult to parry. A thrust into the vulnerable portions of the body, that were likely to cause intense bleeding, or a thrust into weak sections of armor.

The Japanese aiuchi means a simultaneous attack, and if it truely was simultaneous, both could die. Often a soldier died and the other was a few milliseconds faster and had used a better technique on better footing and so escaped a lethal injury.

Think about it: slashing is not the aim. My sensei would say, "Stop attacking the sword. Attack me".

The scariest part of swordsmanship is to close with the enemy and get inside as the other opponent may have "reach". If you are of lesser staure and you do not close with the enemy, then they will will wear you down with attrition. You have to negate their reach by getting very close and thrust.
...
This lesson goes back to the ancient Romans (the gladius is a short thrusting weapon) and affected all dismounted infantry. By necessity when a cavalry rider was wielding a saber, it had a curve, and that necessitates an arc as they cut. Otherwise a yari was used by lighter armored swordsmen in Japan or a lance carried by a heavy cavalry, then couched lances in Western Europe. The maxium penetration is the point to achieve the most force.

The longer the sword, the slower it is in the arc. If fighting inside, that length could then hit walls and objects. In some cases such length could be a severe hinderance.
Read moreLess

While people talk about the Japanese katana, it honestly had little use on the battlefield. It was not designed to withstand the "duty cycle" on repeated battlefield applications.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagamaki
Instead the samurai went to the armory and took a nagamaki. That is a robust blade with a longer handle and used to much more lethal effect when doing a tsuki (thrust). It's a polearm that can be used like a spear or a sword.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=qMdDWN4PKP...

It's amusing that people have a fascination with the katana as that is just one of the personal sidearms of the samurai. The one he could always wear was the wakizashi ie the short sword.

Watch Seven Samurai again. Toshiro Mifune goes through seven katanas as they chip on impact with armor. A katana is fine against an unarmored foe.

For most of medieval history, infantry got clobbered by cavalry.

There are a few exceptions like brilliant crusaders who had lost their horses (they didn't survive the arduous trip) held up spears and swords, bent on one knee, and crushed the Saracens. It was a close call but the cavalry ran right into the spear point.

But at the Battle of the Golden Spurs, ordinary people clobbered knights by a very modest weapon called a Goedendag. It was a club at one end and a spike at the other. That "thrust" I mentioned pierced their armor, and to the knight's horror, ordinary folks gave them a good old asswhoopin'.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goedenda...

Here is one version.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=dqlIcT9Ps8...

Goedendag means a cheery "Good Day" while pummeling and piercing a hapless mounted knight.

In history, from ancient times through the Renaissance, one ruler or general had to carefully plan battles based upon the enemy response, the Papacy, and the weather/season. The rise of professional soldiers was the most significant factor, but they typically were aristocracy (generally cavalry) at some level, thus managed estates. The men-at-arms were lower and still semi-profressional(your sergeants and infantry) and were needed as artisan/craftsmen and for the harvest. Sergeants are the BACKBONE of your military forces. Your morale goes to Hell if you lose cavalry as leadership and sergeants as minor practical tacticians.

One cannot just go to war as the crops must be tended and the livestock cared for and maintained and harvested and preserved.

Hollywood just blithely ignores this.

Imagine the effects of destroying crops at any stage of development. You get famines and bankrupt kingdoms and usury and the detrimetal effect on the Church. The death of soldiers then inflicts weakness on both sides. That causes a cascade where a 3rd nation, healthy and strong, goes in and mops p the survivors.
...
You cannot wage war in late autumn with rains and mud and cold and exposure and sickness as then you get horrid attrition, starvation, and plague. They are burying soldiers and so getting sick from handling bodies.

It's insane to attack in winter yet that is when you actually have surplus. All your soldiers will get ill and die.

This means you got healthy well fed soldiers in Spring. You are counting on mountain passes being open, easier travel, baggage trains, sailing and naval invasions, etc.

Then if you fail, you are ruined as the peasents who planted the fields have no leadership and are UNPROTECTED and you ate up the harvest on a foolish military adventure that likely broke the Treasury.
Read moreLess

After the Rain (1999)
m.youtube.com/watch?v=mvNCznBhSl...

Released internationally in 2004. It won many Japanese awards.

dosmovies.com/watch_movie/After_The_Rain....

Carefully watch and rewatch this scene. Compare the quiet humility of the samurai who erred and spoke his mind, and thus likely will not get the position. He is sef-effacing and refuses special treatment as he blames himself for being indiscreet.

Then is set upon by many angry assailants and tries to calm them down, and gets caught up in an unwilling battle.

I doubt these kinds of films will happen in Japan anymore. In the old days, one had to study for years to demonstrate that calm demeanor that suddenly was brutally effective. Most can't just fake it.

Today the actors cheat with CGI. In fact,the swords are often just handles and entirely missing blades.

Not so here. The slightest error and some actor could get stabbed in the throat or eye or impaled in their abdomen.
...
This is why jidaigeki and chambara are so thrilling. They were extremely dangerous and to control that took serious study and discipline. The actors all have to be very agile with tight tolerances and careful choreography.

It looks real because it is real and reflective of history.
Read moreLess

Gohatto (1999) [Taboo]
m.youtube.com/watch?v=mYRBJ_HrAL...

Here are some examples of the use of the tsuki (thrust) sometimes in rapid succession to overcome a slashing technique. The tsuki in incredibly fast and one points the sword at the opponents eyes, for if they lunge, they lunge onto the sword. To attempt to parry a tsuki is extremely difficult.

In kenjutsu ie the generalized name of Japanese swordsmanship there are "stances" called kamae.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waki-gam...
Waki gamae is deceptive to a beginner as it appears the swordsman is entirely open, is not pointing the sword tip at the opponent to prepare for a lunge, and thus has no "reach" ie extension of their arm using the sword.

And yet a superior adherent of kenjutsu who uses mushin(no mind) and zanshin(alert awareness that is maintained yet relaxed) will often choose waki gamae.

Why would they choose to do so? What do you think?

Battles are won on the basis of who controls the best terrain and who can get suckers to try to take it from them.

Battles are won based not on brute strength versus brute strength, but based on tactics to exploit a weakness, usually by shock troops or flanking cavalry or superior technology.

Battles are won by better morale. Middlin' soldiers who are passionate, deserate, and led by a charismatic leader have defeated many times their numbers.

Yet Hollywood rarely shows these aspects in film and televsion.