Are battle scenes in movies real?

Ru Kik is a historian of Ancient Warfare at Lincoln College, University of Oxford. He specializes in classical Greek warfare. He is back again to analyze battle scenes in movies and TV shows. He will judge how realistic they are.

This clip is interesting. It accurately shows how to approach a fortified position. The attacking force uses a spread-out formation. They hold shields in front and use screens for cover while advancing. This tactic reduces their exposure as targets.

The command “loose” is commonly misrepresented in movies and TV. Filmmakers like to show archers firing in volleys at a command, which is historically inaccurate. There are no records of archers shooting in volleys. This portrayal looks good on screen but lacks authenticity.

Some bows have a draw weight of 60 lbs or more, while longbows can reach 120 lbs. Waiting for a command while holding such heavy bows would quickly exhaust archers. The defenders focus on eliminating those operating the engines, as they're essential for the assault.

A common counter-tactic is to protect the ram with a roof or screen. Rams historically batter down walls or pry apart stones. Signaling in battle is done through loud musical instruments or flags. A clear trumpet blast can convey commands over the noise of combat.

However, simple signals can be confusing. A single trumpet blast could signal various actions, like retreat or attack. Roman armies had complex signals for different maneuvers involving trumpet players in each unit. They relied on voices and clear commands for reliability.

Leaders like Aegon engage directly in battle, symbolizing their commitment to their side. Leading by example has historical significance as it shows a leader’s worthiness. However, it carries risks, as many leaders can die in combat.

Overall, I rate this scene a six. I dislike the use of archers commanded to shoot at fixed intervals. It detracts from the realism. Yet, the orc army demonstrates a historical example by blocking the river and lowering its water level.

This tactic reflects the historical siege of Babylon by Cyrus the Great. He diverted the Euphrates River to infiltrate the city, showcasing clever engineering. Some actions in the clip, like launching projectiles at a height, seem more convenient for narrative than realistic.

The defenders’ walls lack adequate cover for archers, and they appear primitive. If there’s enough time to build defenses, they should have incorporated protective features. Without proper earthworks, the enemies could quickly approach, exposing defenders to danger.

Horses were sometimes trained for combat, unlike ancient times when this was rare. There are accounts of war horses becoming aggressive. Using catapults to launch corpses into besieged cities is a historical tactic to incite panic and spread disease.

The fictional weapon, the "ravager," reflects real siege tactics. In ancient times, attackers often dismantled walls with simple tools rather than intricate methods shown in the scene. The concept of using siege hooks to pry apart stones aligns with historical reality.

While some technologies seem fantastical, the idea of a dry riverbed as a means to approach a city is grounded in historical precedent. I'd rate the depiction a seven. The ships shown seem inspired by ancient Roman designs, although there are minor inconsistencies.

For naval battles, ancient ships relied on rowing power rather than sails. The layered defense system in the depicted city reflects common practice in larger settlements. However, the use of catapults throwing fireballs is exaggerated and not historically accurate.

The introduction of trebuchets is also misleading, as they belong to a later period. The mix of equipment appears as a blend of historical arms from different Mediterranean cultures. The protagonist’s attire should have strong historical references for authenticity.

The depiction of gladiatorial combat with rhinos isn’t entirely accurate, though wild animals were used in arenas. Evidence suggests they were displayed rather than directly used against humans. The concept of naval gladiatorial combat is intriguing and has historical inspiration, but the inclusion of sharks lacks evidence.

Thumbs-up and thumbs-down gestures are a cliché with little historical basis. Some elements in the clip are commendable, like the portrayal of naval assaults. However, the execution of tactics appears chaotic and misleading.

The depiction of Greek infantry and their equipment also differs from historical realities. The portrayal of cavalry tactics appears unrealistic. Units rarely galloped into prepared positions and maintained close formations to prevent breaking ranks.

While some cinematic moments are exciting, they often diverge from historical truths. Overall, the scene captures the essence of premodern warfare but carries numerous inaccuracies.

Calvary charges were typically not direct assaults against a prepared enemy and weren't as visually dramatic in reality. Lastly, the portrayal of Mongol warfare could showcase strategic advantages in open battle, aligning with historical accounts.

In conclusion, while there's value in depicting historical moments, adherence to accuracy is crucial. The blend of fact and fiction enriches narratives but should strive for greater authenticity.