The myth of two armies attacking

  • Topic: History 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sbrothy
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
6 replies · 1K views · last reply
sbrothy
Gold Member
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
1,585
Oh I forgot to say that I read that two armies seldom attacked as we always see on TV.


I read that somewhere (please don’t ask as I’m watching Braveheart right now.) I dont really buy it though as the vikings shield walls were very very real. You weren’t a warrior until you had participated in one. The larger battles with their beforehand negotiation though. For them it rings true.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org

Discussion

Forgive me if I do not follow your reasoning correctly, but movie reenactments almost never resemble historical battles. Directors must limit scenes to fit within camera limitations. Even using on screen 'extras' most film budgets cannot sustain thousands of realistic cast members. Until recently, film codes forbade portraying actual battle wounds such as disemboweling, dismemberment, or realistic bleeding.

Using WWII as an example, the popular television series "Combat!" set in post D-Day France, rarely depicted actual bloodshed. Wounded soldiers sort of pirouette to the ground then expire. Famously, most guest stars were doomed to die within an episode while permanent cast members carried on the struggle for many years of filming.

Contrast this TV show with the much more realistic film, at least in combat depictions, "Saving Private Ryan". Heavy machine guns literally tear apart human bodies while explosions deafen and shock nearby soldiers. After D-Day the director mainly films a small squad of soldiers who fit within normal camera range. The need for interesting dialogue overcomes realism when combat veterans converse in normal tones while scouting enemy positions in broad daylight.

Although battle years differ somewhat from the Wikipedia references, Crécy is well known to weapon historians for documented early use of gunpowder weapons; i.e., "guns".

The English army was also equipped with several types of gunpowder weapons, in unknown numbers: small guns firing lead balls; ribauldequins firing either metal arrows or grapeshot; and bombards, an early form of cannon firing metal balls 80–90 millimetres (3+1⁄4–3+5⁄8 in) in diameter. Contemporary accounts and modern historians differ as to what types of these weapons and how many were present at Crécy, but several iron balls compatible with the bombard ammunition have since been retrieved from the site of the battle...

Japanese cinema also depicts early firearm use in historical battle depictions during similar time periods.
 
It was somewhat of an idle thought (I tried to “Google translate” the Danish term - “strøtanke”, “strø”=spread, litter, “tanke”=thought - but it responded with “litter tanks”. Not even close Google.)

I didn’t really mean on TV as much as the way storybooks tell us it happened, but I guess that’s not exactly an epiphany. I just used TV as an example (perhaps even Braveheart as a particular noteworthy example).

I know they usually negotiated before unleashing the violence (as also happens in Braveheart, albeit rather silly). Sometimes it must’ve gone wrong though.

As in the battle of Crécy.
 
Also, to be blunt, I was a little inebriated when I made the post so there may not so much to misunderstand as it was mostly bunk to begin with. :smile: