review: Gladiator: The Extended Edition

[Entsuropi]

One of the reasons I marked Mohicans as one of the more fantastic films is because it totally ignored the realities of warfare and fighting in order to make the hero seem superhuman in his abilities and the british bumbling and largely incompetent.

That's exactly what I was talking about. Nobody can charge a musket line and not take massive casualties. It's not going to happen. The American Indians were outnumbered by troops that should have mown them down in that open terrain and yet miraculously won with little loss.

Oh, and the main character is apparently using the Artic Warfare Sniper Rifle version of a musket at several points

Though the end fight sequence was amazing, irregardless of it's unrealism.



The 'inept' fighting style comments seem to forget that the americans firing from behind trees is just another form of guerrila warfare. Good at pining troops down maybe, but name me a single guerrila warfare force that has managed to take and hold terrain and cities? I can only think of the VK capturing cities during the Vietnam war, and they were heavily backed up by regular north vietnamese army units and tanks.

It's also worth mentioning briefly that the British in america had very few reinforcements coming in, compared to the revolutionaries who were drawing on a civilian population for multiple waves of troops. We were destined to lose a war of attrition.

[Fellfrosch]

That ambush scene in Patriot is indeed the best in the movie, but I thought it was just as unbelievable as anything in Mohicans.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

 Ent, there may some debate as the the democratic values of the Roman Senators, but not that much, they weren't a democratic body in any modern sense of the word, and they didn't have a great deal of love for either the Equestrian class or the Plebeian classes.  


The Patriot & LOTM
To be really fair we did have several success against the British, namely Saratoga, Cowpens and Yorktown all conventional battles. It was these increasingly conventional battles, the impossibility of supply (facilitated by the success of a massive privateer effort) and war in Europe with every other nation (Holland, Sweden, France, Spain and Austria) and sympathy in Parliament that tipped the British hand toward abandoning the war. A brief comment on the villain in the patriot is that he's based on a real man, Col. Banestre Tarleton http://www.wga.hu/art/r/reynolds/tarleton.jpg and his "Legion" of Tories who were effectively Guerillas. Tarleton holds the distinction of being the most hated British officer to serve during the Revolution. Though he was probably not as bad as reported, "Bloody Ban" made himself a useful propaganda figure for his enemies. In reality he had a lot of problems controlling his troops, who lacked the discipline that more regular British Regiments had. It was Tareltons loss at Cowpens and the threat of an enemy fielding much larger armies in the south (Guilford Courthouse) that forced Cornwallis to retreat toward Yorktown.


Besides the events with Nathaniel and the company of foot early on in the movie and the miraculous shooting later on, I didnt think that LOTM did a bad job with their fight scenes. Considering that the french and indians outnumbered the column 3 to 1, and that it was made up of men, women children and a few regulars. They were also unarmed as per the surrender terms.

The actual numbers of people killed is unknown and probably wildly inaccurate, but historians place the full number at about 80-140. It is possible that the number was higher.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1175.html

[Entsuropi]

Ent, there may some debate as the the democratic values of the Roman Senators, but not that much, they weren't a democratic body in any modern sense of the word, and they didn't have a great deal of love for either the Equestrian class or the Plebeian classes.

Granted. But in comparison to the other nations, it was still something that a Roman, especially a Rich one like Crowe played, could take pride in. After all, our nations are not true democracies either.

[Patrick_Gibbs]

It was the gratuitous nature of working that out. Why are we interested, in any way whatsoever, in a villain with absolutely no redeemable values at all? I don't care about the historical reality of incest in Rome. I don't care about the historical reality of his capriciousness and total selfishness. If he can't at least APPEAR to have at least ONE thing about him that is REMOTELY sympathetic, then I can't even think of him as human. Thus stories about him are uninteresting. The incest was just some tacked on crime to make him that much more dispicable. Maybe they made a reason for it, but it was completely uneccessary for the story.

See, I thought he was a sympathetic villain. He was crazy and evil, but I felt sorry for him, because he was so screwed up, nad in his mind, all he wanted was love, which he never felt he had recieved. Okay, maybe he's not sympathetic, but certainly pitiable.

[Patrick_Gibbs]

That ambush scene in Patriot is indeed the best in the movie, but I thought it was just as unbelievable as anything in Mohicans.

That's because it was lifted straight out of "Mohicans."

[Patrick_Gibbs]

That's exactly what I was talking about. Nobody can charge a musket line and not take massive casualties. It's not going to happen. The American Indians were outnumbered by troops that should have mown them down in that open terrain and yet miraculously won with little loss.

Oh, and the main character is apparently using the Artic Warfare Sniper Rifle version of a musket at several points

Though the end fight sequence was amazing, irregardless of it's unrealism.



The 'inept' fighting style comments seem to forget that the americans firing from behind trees is just another form of guerrila warfare. Good at pining troops down maybe, but name me a single guerrila warfare force that has managed to take and hold terrain and cities? I can only think of the VK capturing cities during the Vietnam war, and they were heavily backed up by regular north vietnamese army units and tanks.

It's also worth mentioning briefly that the British in america had very few reinforcements coming in, compared to the revolutionaries who were drawing on a civilian population for multiple waves of troops. We were destined to lose a war of attrition.

I see your point, though I must say that "irregardless" is not a word. Guerrilla has defintely been effective in winning battles (take a lot at "Black Hawk Down") but in the long, run, it is not the best.

The British troops are being attacked from the sides, and they are taken by surpirse. I thought it was completely believable, and was based on a scene from the book, which in turn based the events on actual skirmishes and battles.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

they also werent positioned to take advantage of the weapons they were using. ie... standing in many ranks or a square. The column formation is very vunerable in the history of warfare, especially when you are being attacked from all sides by enemys who are also shooting at you from the woods as well as fighting hand to hand. The musket fire wasnt massed or organized, and order quickly broke down as the line fell apart. The indians did take casualties... but they werent outnumbered, they very clearly outnumbered the british.

[Fellfrosch]

A fun side note - I remember reading a quote by Mark Twain about James Fenimore Cooper, the author of LotM: "Whenever the plot requires a character to step on a twig, he will find one and step on it no matter the difficulty."

[Entsuropi]

I see your point, though I must say that "irregardless" is not a word. Guerrilla has defintely been effective in winning battles (take a lot at "Black Hawk Down") but in the long, run, it is not the best.

o_o

1,000+ dead somali militia. 18 dead american troops. This is 'effective at winning battles'?

A fun side note - I remember reading a quote by Mark Twain about James Fenimore Cooper, the author of LotM: "Whenever the plot requires a character to step on a twig, he will find one and step on it no matter the difficulty."

True

[Patrick_Gibbs]

o_o

1,000+ dead somali militia. 18 dead american troops. This is 'effective at winning battles'?

I thought about it realized I was wrong shortly after posting that. You are right, of course. But "Blackhawk Down" does prove the point that superior weaponry and numbers can still be hit hard by a surprise attack.

I am a history buff, but I will readily admit that I am hardly an expert on warfare. I just believe that wearing bright redcoats that scream out "shoot me!" and and firing all at once in a volley that the enemy knows is coming leaves them an opening to know when to hide and when to attack. But again, I don't claim to be an expert - I am pretty certain you know more about this subject than me, and I am not going to argue with someone that can obviosuly win.

Ultimately, "Last of the Mohicans" is one of my favorite films, whether it entirely realistic or not.  As a peice of visual poetry and character development, it's wonderful. The fact is that none of the films we are talking about here are exactly "Schindler's List" in terms of being spot on with historical accuracy or believability. Epics are emant to be larger than life.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

1,000+ dead somali militia. 18 dead american troops. This is 'effective at winning battles'?

It is when you think life is cheap.

[Skar]

That ambush scene in Patriot is indeed the best in the movie, but I thought it was just as unbelievable as anything in Mohicans.

As far as I can tell, and I have some experience, it was entirely believable.  All the way down to Gibson getting in among the british on the trail.  Surprise is supreme.  Even all the way down to one of Gibson's sons having problems with having killed later and the other not.

Everything about it would have worked.  Getting ahead of the brits on the road by cutting overland.  Their positions being in easy range of the british but hidden and behind cover...

It was a beautiful example of an ambush that could realistically have been pulled off by an experienced soldier and two green kids.  

[Entsuropi]

One of the reasons I regard BHD as a good film is that it protrays soldiers acting in a professional manner, as opposed to the hellraiser-teenagers-with-guns that are portrayed in many films (eg, starship troopers). Though american troops have a very low reputation here, heh.

Guerrila warfare works when used in concert with regular warfare. Killing a few guys and making life hard by slowing down the shoe shipments ain't gonna win a war. But doing that while you've got a normal war going on can just about tip the balance. Film makers, however, want heroes. As in people who tip the balance by themselves. Since a movie about men sitting around looking at maps (ie generals) would not be overly interesting, they go for the guerrila fighters, and then massively over-emphase the importance of their role in the war effort. It's a lot easier to make pre-gunpowder characters heroes since they could have more of an effect, and it looks more believable (even if they kill the same grandiose numbers of enemies).

It is when you think life is cheap.

True I suppose. Though it's rarely worked - the Zulu leaders tried the same trick and it failed abysmally.

I think that me, Skar, Fell and Patrick need to load up Rome: Total War (using the Total Realism mod of course) to prove this arguement once and for all! Or just to have a big battle with romans, I guess.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

On the whole american troops are the best educated in the world, unless your talking about the navy.