Books to Movies: X is for the X-Marks-the-Spot Quest of History Movies

What should a history movie do? Be visually stimulating? Be a story? Be accurate? Can it be accurate?

I occasionally show my College Writing students a clip from Cameron's Titanic. I point out all the inaccuracies. I also point out that the movie offended some people, namely citizens of Commander Murdoch's hometown. No, Murdoch did not commit suicide because he ran the ship into an iceberg.  

I ask my students, "Do you think Century Fox should have apologized? Since they did, was the money [pocket change to James Cameron] enough?" 

Most of them think a movie is a movie but the low compensation was tacky. 

Since I'm going in alphabetical order, I picked Xenophon for the history movie here. Xenophon was an Ancient Greek who wrote about Ancient Greek stuff.

300 was the movie. 

Although Xenophon lived later than the events in 300, he did write about Sparta and Spartans. A rather melodramatic person, it is doubtful whether Xenophon's knowledge of Sparta was more than cursory. He lived near Sparta since he fought with them but he doesn't strike me as a guy that delves beyond what he is told. Kind of like Charles Lindbergh and the Nazis only Xenophon is slightly less irritating.


I would not say that 300 is a historically accurate film. Rather, it is a melodramatic film with the look of its graphic novel, which means...

It does its job.

In terms of history, Gary Corby's fiction books about an Athenian detective captures the Sparta upbringing somewhat better. The detective meets Markos, a great character who was raised in the Spartan way. Markos is clever and cunning and tough and practically sociopathic. He embodies why Sparta was so successful and, also, why it eventually couldn't sustain itself. Human nature cannot be so strenuously "cancelled" for a social good. It just doesn't happen.
 
300 does imply that family ties are stronger than the Spartans like to admit. It also leaves out a, uh, great deal. It also, like a good graphic novel, occasionally provides quite lovely images. And the narration by Wenham is stirring. (Wenham has one of those "marbles in the mouth" rounded voices, like James Sloyan's, that I happen to adore.) 


In sum, despite the dubious historical accuracy, I would argue that the movie, again, does its job. I get irritated by books that whine about "WHAT MY TEACHER DIDN'T TELL ME!" The fact is, when teaching history, one has to focus on what is possible. I try to teach my students that history is complicated but most of the time, I just want them to know that the Enlightenment occurred before the Industrial Revolution and that the Spanish-American War occurred before World War I. And yeah, it matters, because later times react against previous ones. People purposefully challenge older ideas as well as use them, change them, adapt them, get influenced by them. Beliefs and ideas also continue, having far longer pedigrees than modern humans often acknowledge. Historical events are not islands.

Would I have suggested changes to the 300 script? Yeah. For one, don't use "Greek." It is highly doubtful that the city-states saw themselves as having a common culture. Common cause, yes. Not necessarily a common culture.

I think it would be okay to leave in all the freedom stuff, even though (1) the Spartans had slaves (so did the Athenians); (2) most of the ideas about reason and self-governance come from Athenian writings, not Spartan ones. But the city-states were, in essence, fighting off an empire for the sake of making their own decisions. And they succeeded. (Alexander the Great eventually "united" what we think of as Greece, not the Persians.)

Although the 1962 movie The 300 Spartans has MORE anachronisms, the politics is somewhat more accurate. But it doesn't remotely capture Spartan culture, so 300 comes out ahead there. (If you are thinking The 300 Spartans looks like a World War II film with fresh-faced G.I.s.,you would be entirely accurate.)
 
Of course, capturing mindsets is a different problem from capturing facts.

Battle Truths Throughout History

I watched a number of documentaries about battles this winter, and a few "truths" became clear. 

If one wants to win a battle...

Flexibility is more important than numbers. Technology also helps.

 

A number of battles, such as the Greeks versus the Persians, have resulted in the supposedly obvious winner crushing itself with its larger numbers. (The same happened at Agincourt.) Too many ships/troops/horses can actually create a self-imposed blockade: no way out. 

 

The ability to alter plans continually also helps, such as Drake and Howard continually changing tactics towards the Spanish Armada. 

 

RADAR helped tremendously with the Battle of Britain or Channel War though Dan and Peter Snow point out that HOW the information about planes was handled and distributed was just as important. Flexibility again.

 

Putting the most experienced commanders in charge is more important than their status. 

 

The point here may seem obvious. But the Spanish Armada was led by a good commander on land up against a good commander on land and a totally experienced maverick commander (Drake) on sea. Sidenote: The hopelessly stupid Charge of the Light Brigade was led by a not-good commander who was only there due to status. He survived. Almost all his men died. 

 

If your army is not disciplined, do not go out onto an open field to fight an army that is. 

The history of the Roman Republic and Empire was lots and lots of people figuring out this point too late. Boudicca did a great deal of damage and destroyed about three cities before encountering the Roman army in a final battle. And the Celts didn't stand a chance. The disciplined-at-all-costs Roman army didn't mind taking the defensive, if that meant they had the advantage. They could wait out anyone.

 

Interestingly enough, the most evenly matched face-to-face battle I learned about this past winter was the Battle of Hastings, Saxons against Normans, 1066. Both commanders were intelligent, experienced, tough, willing to fight with their troops, and both were invested in tight smart maneuvers. King Harold Godwinson lost, in part, because, well, he died--but also because his troops broke formation towards the end of the day. But the battle was an even match for most of that day.

Supplies and weapons matter. 

 

Beware going too far into enemy territory. The South learned this truth at Gettysburg. Likewise, the Jacobites at Culloden lacked food supplies and had to hunt up food before the battle. 

 

True, Drake and Howard sent burning ships into the Spanish Armada. However, despite way too many Hollywood movies falling back on fire at sea, they didn't send in the burning ships right away because burning a bunch of your ships is...burning a bunch of your ships. Not a smart thing to do if it can't actually accomplish anything. What it accomplished here was a great deal: the Spanish Armada suffered NOT because any of its ships burned but because the formation scattered to prevent catching fire. The attack was almost entirely psychological. 

 

Regarding supplies, the Spanish Armada was broken in the channel. It was entirely decimated during its return home due in part to lack of food and fresh water on the ships. 

 

Likewise, fuel made all the difference to the German bombers in the Battle of Britain.

 

Weather plays a role. 

 

The role that weather has played with the channel may seem obvious: when William was able to cross; winds in favor of the English against the Spanish Armada. Weather has impacted other battles. The mud at Agincourt after heavy rains, for instance, slowed down the French cavalry.

 

Finally, lack of patience plays a huge role.

 

The desire for a dramatic win is a death knell. Harold's decision to immediately move south with exhausted soldiers to face off against William was likely a mistake. Hitler's decision to go after London rather than RAF airfields was thankfully a mistake. Eric Cline tells the story of a Crusader who chased after the enemy because the first time, when he didn't, he got accused of cowardice. The first time was a stalemate. The second, his soldiers got slaughtered. 

 

And so on. Prince Charles retook Scotland with little difficulty. If he had stayed there, what would have been the difference?

Historical Insights: Twitter Always Existed

I hate Twitter, in part because the moment it showed up, I recognized it: Oh, a forum where people arrive with pre-determined stories...and no knowledge...and then label and bully and dictate to people who, because of the stories, aren't supposed to fight back.

However, I don't blame Twitter for this behavior (for furthering it maybe--but not for its existence). Twitter has always been with humanity. Probably, some cave paintings have gossipy meaning buried in the handprints and animal shapes.

Graffiti in the ancient world is a GREAT example. One of the wonderful discoveries when Pompeii was uncovered was how much official and unofficial graffiti covered its walls. Some of it was "official" in the sense that it was obviously the equivalent of advertising posters--painted to promote sporting events, shops, politicians...

These writings are usually signed. 

And some of it was "unofficial" in the sense that people were writing Twitter-like comments to each other. The boasts, criticisms, mockery, wishes and slagging matches  would actually go on for awhile, taking up quite a bit of wall space.

Human nature is human nature. And, by the way, the archaeologists and anthropologists are thrilled!

History is Written by the Winners...No, It Isn't

I recently posted about Xenophon. The time period fascinates me in part because it is such a short period, 546 B.C.E. to 404 B.C.E. (Dr. Hale extends the time period beyond the end of the Peloponnesian War). This is the time in which Greek democracy developed and then fell apart. 

In fact, the democracy part lasted only about 50 years--but consider what came out of that time period! Greek "freedom" (free by the standards of the ancient world) faces off against Persian imperialism and kicks its butt;  Herodotus shows up (before everything falls apart) and sets the standard for researching history; a whole bunch of playwrights do their stuff and they are remembered (even when their texts vanish); a number of philosophers propound on the purpose and material of life before Socrates (Socrates is part of the failing system). 

 

During this time, names and ideas and hypotheses rose to prominence--names and ideas and hypotheses that made such an impression, people recorded their thoughts about those names and ideas and hypotheses, which records lasted (in part)...till now.

 

Here's the reality, though. The most amazing experiment of the ancient world failed. It wasn't the Persians who wiped it out but the Macedonians, specifically Alexander the Great. And then the Romans came along. 

 

Actually, one could argue that Athenian democracy failed due to its own overreaching. In any case, it didn't last.

 

And yet: Pericles. Xenophon. Herodotus. Euripides. Sophocles. Thucydides. Hydna. Aspasia. Socrates. 

 

Pieces of writing did survive, but NOT because the system their authors thrived in won. They survived because people saved the tomes and manuscripts and bits and pieces. 

 

The same is true of Paul's letters. At the time he wrote them, he wasn't a winner, and Christians were a barely acknowledged group. For that matter, Christianity was still twinned with Judaism, and the Romans were about to inflict a devastating blow on Judea. Circa 70 C.E., many Christians and Jews could be excused for believing that their world was at its end.

 

And yet, the letters survived. Jewish writings from the time survived. People saved those writings. 

 

I think the point here is the important one: what survives is what people save. I suspect that the missing letter of Paul's to the Corinthians didn't survive because it was just Paul being pissed off and lecturing people. But the letters where he suddenly went off-topic and talked about God and Christ and human purpose: 

 

THOSE letters people saved.  

 

The nobler efforts of Athenian democracy were also saved.

 

Historical Insights: Most People Weren't Elites

 From The Great Courses' History of the Ancient World: A Global Perspective:

 Professor Gregory S. Aldrete states...

 He goes on to describe that farming life: 

"You were born on a small family farm. There was a pretty good chance that you would die in childhood of a disease; [if you survived] you would spend a couple decades scratching out just enough food from the soil to maybe avoid starvation. Then, you die. You would never travel more than 20 miles from the village where you were born. You would never see a king, never take part in a battle, or read a book...in addition, you would never witness or participate in any famous event that makes it into the history books [and is the admitted focus of the course]. It was the universal experience of 80% who lived on the earth prior to the Industrial Revolution."

I think Aldrete's view--as even he admits--is a bit grim. Human beings have a remarkable ability to inject gossip, rituals, scandal, games, and tale-telling into their everyday life. Good grief, cave people created hand prints for no other reason, it appears, than fun! 

However, Aldrete's point is well-taken and yet another reason to be grateful for the Industrial Revolution.

Historical Insights: Thoughts on Rome and What People Really Want

One of the smartest aspects of Gate: Thus the Japanese Self-Defense Force Fought There! is that a town, then a city, begins to grow up near the JSDF force's compound in the other world. 

It starts out as trade. Then more people--both refugees and people simply looking for a better life--arrive and build shelters, which become houses and inns. Then, extra businesses arise near those houses or out of those inns, not simply the businesses associated with trade with Earth but businesses associated with haircuts, clothes, and so on and so forth. 

It's a point that Marx kind of got but failed to take to its natural conclusion. People care about money but honestly, it is less about power (class systems) and more about "I woke up this morning and my front lawn wasn't a crater."

Socialites, philosophers with monetary support, and wealthy societies don't always get this. But lots of Roman citizens did. As historians point out, Rome lasted a very long time because even when Rome got invaded and taken over, the conquerors continued to use the infrastructure, sometimes even the lingo, attached to Rome. 

People really do want peace but not for the fuzzy "I love humanity" reasons extended by peace movements. They want peace because they want to trade and get haircuts and create art and visit family and take care of their kids and hold shindigs and go to Comicon and relax in bathhouses and shop and read yaoi (yup, characters do that in Gate!). 

They want ordinary.