Alexander the great trailer up

[Caid Ivik]

Actually, Aeneas written by Vergillius was historically valued by Greeks at same level as we value Troy or King Arthur now. Perhaps it was same with Homer's poems, altough classic greek writings don't show it so.

[Tako]

Homer was an 4th century (?) po

[Caid Ivik]

Homer lived in 9th or 8th century before Christ, Trojan War occured somewhere around 1100 I think. However, problem is that Hollywood showed in view of a present man; emotionality and individualism, nowadays primary values, weren't adored in those times. In Homer's time it was physical perfection or fear of gods, in Vergillian patriotism and worship of ancestors. Recently I've seen a movie Titus based on a shakespearean inscenation, where the Capitol was replaced by a skyscraper and emperors were riding cars. However, if we look at soul of the movie, it was historically much more accurate than Troy...

[Tako]

Troy is histrorically correct by essenc, if we keep looking and nipicking details, then Yes it is inaccurate but it is the essence of the story is still the same, the characters are the same, and so is the way theuy lived back then

No, directer (how F##ked up may be) will alter a storythe story so that it may not represent the "true" story...

most things that matter where histroricly correct in some way, But it is the essence of the story that matters

edit:

the capitol in the titus movie was the colloseum of mussolinie, it really stands in Rome, (mussolini was pretty F##ked up that he wanted to rebuild the Roman Empire)

[Caid Ivik]

Yes, it resembled me one of those weird giants in EUR town part of Rome  ;D  However, what I tried to show was, that essence was wrong, while the details like names were only accurate.

[nemafakei]

"Homer was an 4th century (?) po

[Mahdi]

Brad Pitt has pecks and sleeps with beautifull women?

[Seal89999]

This is new news to you?

[Mahdi]

Nema asked what part of Troy was in essence accurate.  I answered.

[nemafakei]

Incidentally, what character does he play?

[Caid Ivik]

Mighty aryan Achilleus, who else?  ;D

[nemafakei]

In which case, remember to add Patroclus to your list, Mahdi.

[Tako]

did not say I was an histry teacher, just a teacher I teach children of 10 and 11 years old, you don't want to be that abstract with them.

as for my own knowledge I'm still learning in that area,

the essence is correct as where it follows the story as wtitten by Homer

of course Aral tradition leaves alot of room for adding ones personel touch, but snce we don't have a time machine we can learn a lot by the Way it was written and the subject of the story. It gives us insight in what people thought was important back then,

[nemafakei]

"the essence is correct as where it follows the story as wtitten by Homer

...

and: I did not say the film was accurate to the book."

"is thera any way we can get some kind of agreement here?"

I'd love to, but I want to know what I'm agreeing with first!

[Anathema]

As someone who didn't knew squat about Greek history before watching Troy, I have to say it did spark some interest in their history. I think it would do the same to other people.

King Arthur didn't though, everything was obvious bullshit. Saxons must have been an amazing people, wielding crossbows 700 years before they were even invented ::)

The end battle was also pure BS.

[Mihail]

Yep.The whole movie was spoiled for me because the little Japanese dude died(The one with the hawk and what looked like a katana)

[Caid Ivik]

Already Romans had crossbows to be sure. And that wasn't katana, but a sabre, weapon used on steppes of eastern Europe for long time ;) But still, no one would convince me that Lancelot or Gawain are sarmat names.

[slaphapy]

i'm not a history buff, but werent' the people... i guess the people of merlin... in the king arthur film supposed to be that group of warriors who would paint themselves in wode (i think that was the name of it... the blue paint) ... a drug made from plants that would make them halucinate.

[Anathema]

Already Romans had crossbows to be sure.

Where did you get that bit of info? As far as I know they still used bows in 400 AD. Besides in the movie it was the Saxons who used crossbows, not the Romans.

[nemafakei]

"Already Romans had crossbows to be sure"

Unless you're talking about renaissance dwellers of the city of Rome, I beg to differ. I have no immediate reference I can prove their non-existence with, though the fact that the word is lacking in my English to Latin dictionary implies that the Roman Republic and Principate were devoid of crossbows.

[Mahdi]

Where did you get that bit of info? As far as I know they still used bows in 400 AD. Besides in the movie it was the Saxons who used crossbows, not the Romans.

Not just crossbows, ARMOUR PIERCING crossbows.

All the weaponry and armour and plot and characters and set up AND EVERYTHIGN ELSE IN THAT BLOODY MOVIE was wrong though, so no use just harping on the crossbows.

Try reading some real books by real archeologists and historians like Alcock, Ashe, and my personal favourite, Castleden.  They all present different theories and all argue with each other, but they are all educated people who know what they are talking about and back up there arguements (well, not really Ashe, in my opinion he gets by more on his rep as "THE" Arthurian scholar than by actual wrok.  Still, his idea of Riothamus being the origins of Arthurs Gallic campaigns does striek true).

[Caid Ivik]

altough this is no historical document... it's "fibula" in latin, I think

[Khan]

Is that not a balista? A bit bigger than a crossbow, but same principle I suppose.

[nemafakei]

As far as I can tell from Cassell's, a fibula is a brooch, clasp, or, at best, an iron clamp fastening beams together.

Online, here are some more meanings.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2318076

It occurs 25 times in extant latin texts.

I'm not inclined to trust "The Michigan Toy Soldier Company" too strongly.

[Caid Ivik]

or better picture...

Fibula was used in later times of the Empire, I couldn't tell you exactly how. Another type of crossbow was manuballista (handy ballista, could be) which was rather larger, Greeks already knew such thing under name of gastrapheton or what. But these played a role more like present mortars.

But as we started such academic discussion, do you know something about materials used by Byzantines for armors?