History and Cinema: Why they don't mix.

Over the past decade, Americans have been subjected to an onslaught of so-called “historical” movies that recount epic warriors and courageous leaders of a time long past. They celebrate the births of civilizations and the bravery of greatly out-numbered soldiers facing odds that are stacked against them through the use of computer-generated imagery, flashy special effects, and overly-gory scenes of battles en masse. However, the biggest weapon that the production companies use against the uneducated masses is our lack of knowledge about the truth of these wars and epic heroes. Instead, the truth is buried beneath a mountain of falsely created romantically-driven storylines, deified generals, kings, and conquerors, and broad views and speculations on what could have happened.

Henceforth, our “new and improved” version of history begs the question: WHY? Why do we choose to take documented historical facts and embellish them with images of shining virtuous people, forbidden romantic trysts, and overly gory battle scenes that are ripe with gruesome images, fantastical sword play, and things that do not belong in the movie’s time line? Because it makes it more entertaining for the viewer, that’s why. Let’s take a look at a few prime examples of fairly recent movies that got major hype in the Hollywood universe.

We start our dissection of these high-definition historical docudramas with the prehistoric 10,000 B.C. Set in, obviously, 10,000 BC; the story revolves around a young warrior named D’Leh who belongs to a tribe of mammoth hunters. When a group of unknown horse-backed warriors raid his tribe’s camp, lay waste to his people, and kidnap many of the other members of his tribe along the “love of his life,” Evolet, he proceeds to lead a small band of hunters in pursuit of the warriors to rescue her. The chase ends when D’Leh and his group find the fortress of the mysterious warlords, fortress being the operative term. They find that the men are using man-power and domesticated mammoths to build pyramids. Desperate to save his love, D’Leh stages a coup d’ etat, toppling the burgeoning civilization, releasing the mammoths on a rampage through the city, and rescuing his love. Hollywood at its finest. So, let’s look at the gross historical inaccuracies that Roland Emmerich felt necessary to make his film more “realistic.”

First off, we look at the opening scene of the mammoth hunters doing what they’ve dedicated their lives to doing: hunting mammoths. While mostly accurate with the chase and the actual kill, one thing truly stands out: the hunters crawling on their bellies through the grass in between the unsuspecting mammoths. While most people would figure that this is entirely true, mammoths were shown to have a highly developed olfactory lobe, giving them a great sense of smell. Not only would they’ve smelled the hunters as soon as they’d gotten close, they surely wouldn’t have ignored them. No. They would’ve trampled them, tried to gore them, et cetera. So, here’s Mr. Emmerich’s first mistake.

The next one made pertains to the beast that graces the cover of the DVD: Smilodon Populator, known more famously as the Sabre-Toothed Tiger. Now, while these big cats did go extinct around 10,000 BC, they were not as large as the movie portrays them to be. The largest specimen of these big cats was measure to be about 4 feet at the shoulders, making them the size of a large African lion. However, in the movie, you see that the specimen they create is nearly 7 feet at the shoulder, and looks to be close to 18 feet long. Either Mr. Kitty was on steroids, always ate his Wheaties for breakfast, or like the Velociraptors in Jurassic Park, was just embellished to make the movie more interesting.

Another big mistake is the geography and behavior of all the animals in the film. Considering that the film is presumably set in Northeast Africa/ Mesopotamia, there is no way that Smilodon, mammoths, or Diatryma (the large “Terror Birds”) would have posed any threat to D’Leh and his tribe. For one, Smilodon’s species and the mammoths were found in North and South America, so the trek to Africa must have been one hell of a commute. Also, the Diatryma were native almost exclusively to South America, though specimens have been found in parts of Europe and North America. Once again, an animal that doesn’t belong.

A huge misconception is the talk of the bull mammoth leading the herd. Modern day elephant herds are lead strictly by a matriarchy; the bulls are kicked out once they’ve matured and don’t have any interaction with the cows until mating season. Scientists are fairly certain it was the same things with mammoths and mastodons. The biggest glaring historical misconception, however, is the horse-backed warlords. Horses were not exploited for human use until at least 4,000 BC and were commonly hunted and eaten at this stage of history, meaning that either these men were from an extremely advanced civilization, or they’re time-travelers. If Emmerich’s goal was to be historically accurate, he failed miserably.

Finally, when it comes to glaring mistakes, four things stand out. First, the use of domesticated mammoths to help build the pyramids by hauling large stone blocks with the help of some sort of man-made harness. At this point in time, no other animals besides dogs and goats were known to be domesticated. Not only that, but domesticating what was the largest land mammal of this era to build pyramids? Highly unlikely and improbable. Maybe very slightly possible, but highly improbable. Continuing along the same vein of thought, the construction of pyramids and any major cities the size of what’s portrayed in the film was documented, at the earliest, 5,000-3,000 BC. Once again, something that wouldn’t have existed at this time.

Another example of ignored historical fact comes from the presence of sailboats going up and down what is presumably the Nile River. The earliest known ships were papyrus reed boats built by the Egyptians about 4000 B.C. The Greeks and Phoenicians didn't begin trading by ship until around 1200 B.C. Ships with the triangular sail design did not appear until the 17th Century AD. Ships, if you could call them ships, were just crude log rafts or dug-out canoes during this time period. So, how exactly were there wooden sailboats/schooners/ships in Africa in the time period of 10,000 BC?! It makes no sense at all, other than to give more evidence to an unknown technologically advanced race, or promoting my theory on time-traveling Vikings. Personally, I like the idea of time-traveling Vikings because it would be pretty awesome, but let’s face facts… Oh, wait, I don’t want to face facts. I want explosions, loin clothes, and insanely big saber-tooth tigers.

Finally, the last, and probably most important and prominent mistake, is the metallurgy portrayed in the film. Not only do the riders have Viking-styled helmets (again, technology that didn’t even exist at this time), but they, along with their compatriots in the pyramid-city, carried what appeared to be steel swords. Steel wasn’t even an idea in anyone’s head during this time period! Granted, while copper weapons may have been around at this point, the earliest, and tentatively speculated, appearance of copper weapons is 7,500 BC, much later than what is portrayed. The earliest known bronze weapons were said to have appeared around 3,500 BC, and iron extraction from ore wasn’t discovered until around 1,200 BC. Once again, we either have time-traveling Vikings or a race that is way too advanced that our experts haven’t discovered yet, but Roland Emmerich seems to have had no problem digging up.

Given just a small glimpse into the myriad of historical inaccuracies that run rampant in 10,000 B.C., it is pretty easy to say that, while not based on any true story, the director definitely took the liberty of taking what he believed was the coolest, most entertaining parts of prehistory and early civilization and mashed them together into one big, hour and a half long box office success that probably should’ve gone straight to DVD, or at least ended up in a bargain bin somewhere. Why? Because, while critics harshly trashed it and put Emmerich in his place, the general public said, “OOH! SHINY! LOOK! A FUZZY ELEPHANT!” and came flocking in droves. This leads me into another box office hit full of historical lies and probably homosexual body-builders who wore nothing but Spandex man-thongs, capes, and leather skirts. Yes. I am indeed talking about 300.

300, which is based on Frank Miller’s graphic novel of the same title, is the story of King Leonidas and the battle of Thermopylae. While it was completely stunning with amazing special effects, spectacular combat scenes, and phrases that became catchy for college frat-boys everywhere (THIS… IS… SPARTA!), it also took the story of Leonidas and his Spartans, examined it, and said, “Nah, we gotta spice this sucker up so the people will love it! It’s not amazing enough already, we need to beef it up with six-packs, Spandex, and ninjas.” And thus, an abomination of history is born.

First, let’s look at the Spartan lifestyle. Yes, it is true that babies were judged at birth, and if they had so much as a single slight deformity, they were brought to a hill outside the city, speared through the hands and feet to the ground so they couldn’t move, and were left exposed to the elements, though they usually just bled out. No giant pits of baby skeletons inside the city walls. Our first example of truth being turned to fiction to make the Spartans seem more hardcore. Next is the right of passage that all Spartan boys underwent on their journey to becoming men. Yes, they were schooled in combat, forced to sleep outside unprotected and unclothed in the winter months in a martial education known as the agoge, but instead of killing animals, they were made to kill helots (Greeks from smaller city-states that were forced into slavery) in a rite called the Crypteia. However, future kings, like Leonidas, would’ve been exempt from this ritual. Due to our lack of knowledge on Leonidas’ history, making up a back story is understandable, but not essential to the plot.

Continuing on this same thought is the character of Ephialtes, the Greek who betrayed the Spartan warriors to Xerxes and the Persian army. Portrayed in the movie as a grotesque hunchback who is rejected due to his inability to lift his shield high enough to participate in the hoplite fighting style and the phalanx maneuver, as well as the fact that he is, in accordance to Spartan standards, an undesirable warrior. The fact that he is even alive doesn’t work with the Spartan tradition of infanticide. However, according to historians, Ephialtes was not even a Greek. Instead, he was a perfectly healthy North African from the country of Mali, making his transformation just another way to thicken the plot with some hints of betrayal through revenge that was spurned by his rejection from his fellow countrymen.

Another interesting concept and visual tool used in the movie was the Spartan’s mode of dress. Much like comic book heroes, they are shown charging fearlessly into battle, brandishing nothing but swords, spears, and six-pack abs, while the Greeks are portrayed as heavily armored, but fearful and retreating at the first sign of over-whelming odds. In reality, it was quite the opposite. Spartans are highly regarded as some of the best warriors in history, and are depicted in many ancient pictures and statues as being heavily armored, much like the Legionnaires of Rome. While the highly romantic idea of Spartan men fearlessly charging into battle wearing next to nothing against their heavily-armored opponents is visually appealing, it’s also completely idiotic and no military commander of that era would’ve fought in such a style. It would have been nothing but a suicide mission at the very best. This shows how the directors worked to appeal to our concepts of heroism. A lack of armor made the Spartans seem to be superheroes, and was highly sexual and romantic while portraying the Spartans as strictly heterosexual.

This also brings up another good example of inaccuracies within the film. While Xerxes, the Persian king, was portrayed with highly homosexual imagery and suggestion, the Spartans were shown to be the epitome of masculinity and heterosexuality. However, it was a common Spartan practice for the soldiers to engage in sexual intercourse with their fellow man. This creates an underlying sexual tension between Leonidas and Xerxes. What it would portray to the viewer was a classic film example of good and evil. The protagonist was extremely fit, had a wife and child, and was fully heterosexual. On the other side of the spectrum was the antagonist, Xerxes. He was shown not to be married, freakishly tall, indulged in sin, and was a “closet” homosexual. For those that picked up on the references of homosexuality in Xerxes, the fight would have an underlying purpose of the superhuman, heterosexual Leonidas warding off the freakish, homosexual Xerxes.

Speaking of Xerxes, let’s talk about his army! The Persian army is portrayed as an army of monsters, ranging from Kabuki-faced warriors that bear a striking similarity to Japanese ninja, grotesque giants that are seemingly impervious to sword, spear, or arrow while reminding one of a creature from a George Romero film, to giant armored elephants and rhinoceros. While it was very true that Xerxes would use the armies of his conquered territories to wage his wars, it was the portrayal and stereotypical nature of these armies that created inaccuracy in the film. The “immortals” who attacked the Spartans on the second day of the battle were made to look like early versions of the Japanese ninja, and were claimed in the movie to have been recruited from the continent of Asia, wore metal masks that hid their faces, and wielded dual shortswords similar to the Japanese wakizashis. Historically, the Immortals were actually of Persian descent, wore cloth masks to keep debris out of their faces during battle, bore wicker shields, short swords, spears, and a bow. Then of course, there was also the Persian “uber-immortal,” massive in size, and is virtually invincible. No doubt such a being could not exist in reality, especially one given the title of the Persian’s most powerful fighting force.

The Spartans in the movie for a short period held a very fortified line against the Persians trying to advance, before breaking into an all-out frenzy of intense man-on-man combat. In reality, the Spartans engaged in no such combat. The Spartans and Greeks formed in a standard phalanx formation, and stood shoulder to shoulder in a hoplite fashion, rotating constantly to prevent fatigue of those in the
front. A large portion of this formation was actually occupied by the Athenians.

In the movie, it is during this point in time where the phalanx formation is being used that Leonidas allows the Greeks a taste of the action. The Greeks attempt to hold off the Persians, but fail miserably, and end up retreating and giving up the battle. In reality, many Greeks did retreat during the battle, but roughly seven hundred Greeks stood with the Spartans, and like the Spartans, every one of them died in the end.

Next, let’s look at the portrayal of the Greek military in the film. In the film, the Greeks were considered to be a lesser form of warrior than the Spartans, almost being cast into the shadows. Whereas the movie portrayed the Spartans as being God-like, having perfect forms, excellent fighting styles, and no fear whatsoever, the Athenians were quite the opposite. They were shown to be average in physique; their strategies very disorganized, and were in a constant state of fear for their own lives. In the movie, the Greeks were only given a chance to fight when Leonidas saw fit, and only to give them a taste of the “glory” that the Spartans believed to be their right as the proudest and fiercest warriors in the land. Later on, the Greeks fled in fear of their own lives at the sight of the seemingly endless number of Persians up against them. Historically, there were around an overall seven thousand Greeks present at the battle, and nearly a thousand died alongside the Spartans during the last stand on the third day.

In the end of the movie, Dilios, one of Leonidas’ close friends, is sent back to Sparta to convey the events of the battle, and to rally support. In the very last scene, it shows the Spartan military gearing up for what would be the Battle of Plataea. What the film fails to talk about is the fact that while this battle was going on, the Athenians were fighting a very similar naval battle, in an attempt to drive back Xerxes’ naval forces. Upon the defeat of the Greek army on shore, the naval forces retreated, only to defeat the Persian naval fleet soon after at Salamis. The film’s failure to speak of the naval battle only serves to strengthen the notion that the Athenians were helpless without the aid of the Spartans and their “superior” military might.

Looking back on what we’ve reviewed, we can easily see what the entertainment industry thinks that we as movie-goers would like to see. We want explosions, epic battles, men who are chiseled from stone and wear Spandex thongs, big scary monsters, and complete ignorance towards historic facts. Hollywood has put so much glamour into these so-called historic movies to make them more visually appealing or to create a better story that they ignore a grand majority of all the facts. I wish I could say that I was lying, and that I didn’t find the evidence, but I’m not going to kid myself. All I have to say is thank you, Hollywood, for ruining history for me. In the years to come, when people watch these movies, after books are outlawed so we can learn history from the shiny television box, I’ll make sure to spin a few times in my grave for the crimes committed against the epic heroes of our past.

If you want more examples of rampant historical inaccuracy in modern films, check out such films as Braveheart, Rob Roy, Kingdom Of Heaven, Gladiator, Troy, Michael Collins, Spartacus, From Hell, and many others that have come out within the past 30 years. Watch them, then do your research, and I’m sure that you, like me, will be most assuredly disappointed.