I'd like to see a movie about the British tankers of WW1.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tanks_and_world_war_one.htm

Are you looking for big bangs or sheer scale or what? I think some of the historical battle slike Waterloo etc would count on several points, or else you could go back a lot further, to say 1066 and the battle of hastings. You know the outcome, but it was so close, and it lasted a long time as battles go, and you have the ready made romantic heros, the saxons who had marched and rode from defeating the norse invaders at the battle of Stamford Bridge only a few days earlier, but half the country away. Then of ocurs eit involved cavalry, archers, hand to hand combat, a shield wall, axes, swords, spears, etc. Plenty of scope for stuff.

Thermopylae. Rarely have so few stood against so many.

I'd like to see one about the seige of Constantinople.

I'm just curious what people would be interested in. I think some very interesting things happened in battle that don't really get the attention they deserve.

Guthrie, 1066 was a very interesting year I've read some about the saxons and their jarls (spelling?), good times. (The reading was probably not a good time to be Saxon.)

"I think some very interesting things happened in battle that don't really get the attention they deserve."

Aye, probably, but then we dont tend to hear about them. Maybe theres a fair bit to be found out about WW2 and Korea etc, but anything much further back theres no or very little evidence about what actually happened in the broader sense, let alone interesting things that get overlooked.
Jarls, Karls, whatever, I cant quite remember. The demise of the saxon kingdoms was unfortnate, and need not have happenned. If the Norsemen hadnt invaded, then Harold would have had the entire army. CAn you imagine a united SAxon kingdoms of England going on to greater and better things, having freed itself from Norse domination? (oops, wrong thread.)

panzerschlacht by kursk , ww2
witnesses said "the landscape appeared to be too small for this fight"

The Pelopenisian war....27 years of battle compressed in 3hr long movie.

15ofthe19 and sargentlard they have both of those movies already...

actually i would like to see "Ledovoe Poboeshe" epic made. Battle around 11-1300
Baltic-Germans vs Russians with total anihilation of the Baltic-German crusader army.
Alexander Nevsky was forever remembered after that every Russian knows the poem about this battle they teach it in like 1st grade several page poem. I forgot it tho lol.

Gaugamela. 331 BC. Alexander vs Darius III. I would love to see a recreation of the Macedonian Phalanx in battle against the Persian scythed chariots.

The Shadows VS The Borg

The Battle of Lutzen, which ended the Swedish Period of the Thirty Year's War

King Gustavus Adolphus and his loyal, Protestant Swedes were victorious over the merciless Wallenstein, who led the Catholic, Habsburg force, but, tragically, the King was also slain on the field of battle, when he and his guard, befuddled by the mist, ran into an enemy formation.

another cool thing would be to see the taking of Peiking by the
Mongolo-Tartars and the battle that led to taking it. Cause the chinese had a huge force that fell to the Mongolo-Tartars before the city was taken.

The last one.

The defeat of Alexander the great, I'm still not so sure where it was or who dunnit, any info would be good thanks

Alexander died of malaria in Babylon. He was not defeated during his conquest of the East. His empire was simply broken up among his generals after his death.

The battle of culloden(since i dont recall it ever being made before), last battle fought on british soil, though it would be better as a short film rather than an epic movie as the battle only lasted 40 minutes.

Culloden- the antidote to Braveheart.

I thought Alexander died of influenza or something, but not malaria.

i heared alexander died because of lead or tin or something like that .....

Dunno for sure. I've read different reasons given for his death, so there is certainly plenty of dispute. I just mentioned the first one that came to my mind when I noted that he had died from sickness rather than being defeated.

I don't know if any movies have been made in Germany about this topic, but what about Herman? The man who destroyed two of Rome's legions (under Varus something I think) in Germania and stopped Rome from settling most of Germany. He doesn't get much mention here in the states, mostly I think because of the similaritis between The Romans and Custer.

Off topic: I saw a BBC special about the battle that implied German victory eventually lead to WW2. The logic went something like No German victory->Romans settle Germania-> German culture more like the rest of europe-> No WW2, If I had been holding an empty beer I would of thrown it at my TV.

I don't know if any movies have been made in Germany about this topic, but what about Herman? The man who destroyed two of Rome's legions (under Varus something I think) in Germania and stopped Rome from settling most of Germany. He doesn't get much mention here in the states, mostly I think because of the similaritis between The Romans and Custer.

Off topic: I saw a BBC special about the battle that implied German victory eventually lead to WW2. The logic went something like No German victory->Romans settle Germania-> German culture more like the rest of europe-> No WW2, If I had been holding an empty beer I would of thrown it at my TV.

it wasnt really a battle more like slaughter the romans were anihilated in a forest setting where they couldn't cohesively use their units. And it wasnt 2 legions it was 3 and the general who lead them was a complete moron. Romans tried to settle in germany they simply couldn't create a stable front & incentives for settlers to live there. The germans more or less were severely militant and destroyed any roman settlement across the rhine at any sign of lowered guard or whenever it was erected. They had a documentary on this in history channel.

hmm .. i don´t really know a movie about this topic .... but i think it would look like the battle in GLADIATOR with russel crowe
"varus , varus - where are my legions" :D

PS : I saw a BBC special about the battle that implied German victory eventually lead to WW2

well , and i blame george washington for the iraq-war :cool:

Nobody actually knows what illness alexander the great died of exactly, the latest speculation is typhoid fever.(just incase anyones still interested)

the era of the Three Kingdoms. So many years compressed into just a few hours...

Eluminate, Been a while since I've saw it and I was doing homework while I watched makes it even harder to remember the facts. Thanks for the Info. So you think it'd make a good movie?

Sweet Pentax, based on the same logic I have to blame the third handmaiden of King Tut for Suez Canal's high upkeep cost. :D

Lemm, I read as much as I could find on Alexander the Great's death but some of it is either superstitious talk, guess work or down right ignorance, all they seem
know is that he got worse gradually & died for no apparent reason ( After a drinking binge). given the medical knowledge & the kind of man he was it seems mysterious to just die, but why all the superstition? Some of the people writing this were historians, learned men. HHm, suppose any movie could do with mystery

Probably something about the French Revolution.

the romans were encicled and just broken up into uncohesive groups and killed off severe routing+slaughter no contest at all. I dont know if it would make a good battle for a movie I doubt it its more like an ambush.

Aleric sieging rome would be a good battle much better than varus the moron ya I think it was varus. But germany could have been taken under rome the crucial point was when german was recalled to rome and his family and relatives except the little caligula were killed off. German was loved so much by the germans/romans that were settled on the rhine he had almost complete control and basicly was semi-king of germania if he would have became emperor part of rhine woulda been romanized for sure. But all that cohesiveness was basicly rooted out.

Also the siege of carthage woulda been very nice cause they fought till death and it was burned to the ground afterwards.

Btw if Russian emperor Pavel the 3rd i think (who was the worst ever ever ever) when Russia took berlin ahem ahem some 150years before the revolution. The idiot idolized fredrick the 2nd and gave him a very very generous peace allowing him to fight on against the others if he striped prussia of some lands and forced a painful peace the german state woulda been more humble.

The idiocy of roman empire was that they never followed up in doing things that good emperors did. When the people italian-gaul(po river valley milan etc..) were finally given citezenship they shoulda gradually granted it to the loyal romanized tribes in lower france and incorporate them as well. Also the capital should moved from Rome somewhere more centralized... like lyon or switzerland it woulda consolidated france & other parts and the roman hold on it as well as integration etc...

I'd imagine a recreation of the somme would be quite aproprite, the level of suffering and spectacular explosions have huge scope for a block buster movie.

I think the Roman invasion and destruction of German territory would end up looking like Gladiator+Braveheart+first 20 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" for the ambush scene. The most expensive part of making the movie would probably be the 10'000 gallons of fake blood for the slaughtering not to mention the fake limbs body parts.

I agree with you about the Goths it would make a good movie if the movie started with the cruel treatment the Romans handed out to the goths, before the goths sacked Rome.

I don't think any battle would make a good movie as it would usually be biased, over-glorified and absolutely historically incorrect, as one can see through any Hollywood Movies, such as "pearl harbour" etc

The battle for Wulin / Chibi. :)

Lord of the Rings?

oh
and Braveheart

They meant real battles, I'm pretty sure. LotR doesn't qualify. :D

For showing the gruesome side of war, I'd say Paschendale (I think I spelled that right.) Being sucked down into the mud isn't a pleasant way to die, I imagine, but Hollywood, especially these days, wouldn't want anything so realistic as to show less-than-heroic deaths. It would have to be an independent film.

Something that would lend itself over immediately is the hunt for the Altmark. Carrying poorly treated prisoners, that ship snuck around all over the place avoiding detection and denying inspectors to verify that there were no prisoners on board (sound familiar?). Her name was changed several times, and all the while the prisoners were being denied their rights as POWs. Time was running out for them, and when the Altmark was finally located, the broadside to broadside battle would make any Hollywood screenwriter cream his pants. It's not really a battle, per se, but it has all the elements for a good movie.

It's not a specific battle per se, but two movies. Fitnah and Second Fitnah, covering two Islamic civil wars from 656-660 and 680-692. Dramatic to say the least, it's six hours of cinema that America, at least, desperately needs. Maybe they'd have to be TV miniseries.

The last war in Iraq would be interesting.

The politics were alot more exiciting then the actual combat. Most Iraqi troops were starved, dehydrated, demoralized, and poorly armed. They didn't want to fight and I don't consider them cowards for surrendering. I'd like to see a movie from their point of view.

yeh it would be an awsome movie, and i'm sure they'll make at least a couple in the next ten/twenty years when it's appropriate.

I would do it on Hastein the viking, who sacked every city from Normandy all to the strait of Gibraltar. He even ravaged the Great Mosque and dove down to Africa where the vikings met blacks for the first time (they called them blue men). Hastein wintered at a fort and then moved on to the city of Luna, thinking it was fabled Rome. He entered the city and converted to Christianity. A few hours later he pretended he was dead and his warriors held a funeral for him. They carried his coffin into a church and began to weep. He then supposidly jumped out of the coffin, slit the priest's throat and burned the whole city. On the way back through the strait half their ships were destroyed by Muslims out for revenge. They rebuilt their mosque using the wood of Viking ships. Hastein still lived and his tale was immortalized by both Christian and Muslim scribes. Now THAT would be an awesome film!

A movie about the siege of Constantinople is one of my dreams. The strategy of the battle was amazing and very clever. I am sure it would be a great movie. I sent some e-mails to directors but they didnt reply :rolleyes:

I don't think any battle would make a good movie as it would usually be biased, over-glorified and absolutely historically incorrect, as one can see through any Hollywood Movies, such as "pearl harbour" etc
Pearl harbour seemed biased in favour of the japanese to me. It was a shit movie but if it gave the impression of one side being more awesome than the other I think that side was clearly the japanese. I mean their planes could move like ufos.

I see the same people in this thread that wish for world peace. I find that ironic. You clearly see how conflict makes history interesting, so why do you wish to deprave future generations of interesting history?

I'd like a movie about wars from pre-history, hunter/gather tribes breaking eachother's skulls open with rocks and bones.

I see the same people in this thread that wish for world peace. I find that ironic. You clearly see how conflict makes history interesting, so why do you wish to deprave future generations of interesting history?

LOL, good point, but we've already made plenty of war history we should move on and make some competitive history that involves less death like a space race or something.

I'd like a movie about wars from pre-history, hunter/gather tribes breaking each other's skulls open with rocks and bones.
I'd like to see it too but only if giant felines and bears make surprise visits when humans are sleeping or eating.

Specify what you mean by 'good movie'. If you're asking about something that's going to sell, then something angsty like the siege of Troy would work. Add some steamy sex scenes involving Helen and add plenty of angst to it, and you're set. The general public will lap it up like morons.

If you're actually looking for a movie with some artistic value in it, well then. Anything is game, perhaps something from WW2? :)

--Long Live the Female Messiah.
http://www.angelfire.com/fang/goategg01/Defiance.gif (http://www.pinkeye.se)

Specify what you mean by 'good movie'.
A movie you would like to watch, on a theme that hasn't been done to death.

If you're actually looking for a movie with some artistic value in it, well then. Anything is game, perhaps something from WW2? :)

No offense but, I'm not so friendless that I'd ask an online forum for movie viewing advice. I'm more interested in what other people would think would make a good movie, did you read this entire post?

spain vs the Aztecs,
it may have been a fairly one sided fight (guns vs spears)
but if you make the movie from the Aztec point of view, the goal could be something smaller then beating the Spanish, it could be set around saving one tribe or village, in which case a victory is still possible

A moive about Hastings would be good. The violence adn intrigue surrouding the life of William, Harold's battle against the Vikings and then the rather dramatic finale at Hastings would be rather impressive.

The siege of Constantiople would be intresting, but its a long siege, so Id suppose there would be some sort of love story or something using the battle as a backdrop, just to give it a real plot.

The Crusades would be intresting, the First Crusade would be best, I think. Youve got the mix of religon and politics, the personal conflicts, the epic battles. It makes for great drama. And when one considers the sucess of religous themed films in the US(eg the Passion) and the current bit of anti-arab sentiment, a film about the Crusades has the ability to tap into a very profitable bit of sentiment.

A movie about the last battle, Ragnarok.

I'd like to see a movie about the British tankers of WW1.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tanks_and_world_war_one.htm


I agree, the battle of Cambrai in Nov 1917 when for the first time tanks were used en masse over suitable terrain and showed the way forward, bringing to an end the slaughter of trench warfare. The colours of the flag of the Royal Tank Regiment highlight this,

Brown, Red and Green, " Through the mud and the blood to the green fields beyond"http://

I'd like a movie about wars from pre-history, hunter/gather tribes breaking eachother's skulls open with rocks and bones.

It would probably be short on good dialogue though. Clan of the Cave Bear and 1,000,000 Years, BC, come to mind as particularly bad movies, although Rachel Welch and Darrly Hannah looked good in fur.

I would like to see one about stalingrad in the second world war.

I would also like a serie about the Islamic Conquests. Especilly the conquest of Iraq and iran and the defeat of the armies of Heraclius in the levant. (They achieved in 90 years more than Rome did in 800, with more lasting impact) Speciall attention should be given to Khaled ibn al.Walid -May Allah reward him.

The Roman and the Alexandran Conquests would be great to.

The Italian wars of the late 1400, early 1500 would be great. With special attention for Duke valentino and the swiss infantry.

Regarding Stalingrad, check out Enemy at the Gates. It does have some battle scenes. But a full-blown modern movie about Stalingrad might be interesting, I agree.

Regarding the crusades, Kingdom of Heaven is due out next summer, I believe, starring Orlando Bloom. According to the IMDB he leads the people of Jerusalem against the crusaders.

There are two movies about Alexander in production. Oliver Stone's version should be out around Christmas time. It features Colin Farrell as Alexander, Angelina Jolie as the random love interest, Val Kilmer as Philip of Macedonia, and Anthony Hopkins as Ptolemy.

Another one by Baz Luhrman featuring Leonardo diCaprio as Alexander is in turnaround. Probably dead.

Enemy at the gates is not exactly what I had in mind. I need to have an overview of the battle, not the fictional live of one meaningless guy. I want to see the tragedy, from both sides. I want to feel their need to survive (in whatever form that is)

Culloden- the antidote to Braveheart.

Not quite sure of your point here guthrie.

Braveheart is a "Hollywoodised" version of a small nations (Scotland) fight against invasion by a larger, expansionist neighbour (England), who had already conquered Wales.

Culloden was the final battle in the House of Stewarts attempts to regain the throne of the UK from the Hanovarians. At Culloden, more Scots fought on the government side than on the Jacobite side.

If it is an English victory over the Scots you desire, then there are many examples. Culloden however, is not one.

If I was a Hollywood anything, I'd make something about Huns (already being done with Vin Diesel), the Turks, or Ghengis Khan.

Put two generations of Mongol invasion and occupation into a 2 hour movie... that'd be awesome. Massive cavalry charges, knights, footmen, cossacks, chinese, sieges, Arab assassins, Persian immortals, Indian elephants: it'd be two continents of eye candy. Throw in the Great Khan, his good son, bad son, nice son, dumb son, and the splitting of the empire and couple hot queens, it'd make great Hollywood fare.

It seems to me that the battle which is just crying out to be filmed is the Siege of Malta, 1565.

It has everything you could possibly want. And I mean EVERYTHING. And more!

To begin with, it is the tale of the heroic struggle of a vastly inferior force against a vastly superior foe. A bit like the Alamo. Only LaValette's men weren't all dead at the end of it.

You've got the lead-up to it: the galleys of the Order of St John "defending" the Eastern Mediterranean for Christendom - or committing repeated acts of piracy against Moslem shipping depending upon one's point of view. Until finally Suleiman the Magnificent vows to wipe out this scourge once and for all.

You've then got the magnificent armada sailing from the Bosphorus, bearing an army of 40,000. You've got the preparation of the defences of the Three Cities. You've got the plea for help going out to all of Europe - and one by one the Christian kings of Europe decline to send help to the knights who are so obviously staring defeat in the face.

You've then got conventional siege warfare. You've got mining, and counter-mining, and underground battles in the tunnels between the miners. You've got a boom across the Grand Harbour, and you've got battles in the water between rival bands of swimmers as the Turks try to cut open the boom and the native Maltese try to stop them.

You've got the bombardment of the walls with cannon. You've got Greek Fire being lobbed in (and huge butts of water all around the walls so that men who are set alight can jump into them and douse the flames). You've got siege towers being built - and destroyed. You've got a huge rollign mine being prepared and pushed up to the walls; but its fuse is too long and the defenders break through the wall and push it back into the lines of the besiegers, where it explodes.

You've got scouting forays and cavalry actions on the plains. You've got the pirate Dragut coming and throwing in his lot with the Turks.

And finally, at the climax, like the Old Gurad at Waterloo, you've got the Janissaries unleashed ... and thrown back.

Finally, Sulieman's army withdraws, broken as much by disease and ******** wells as by any military action. But there is still one last twist in the tail.

As they retreat, they vow to destroy Mdina, the ancient capital of Malta, as an act of vengeance. Mdina is defenceless. It has a tiny garrison with very littel gunpowder. Apart from that it is populated by women and old men. It cannot hope to withstand an assault. So the governor decides prevention is better than cure. He has all the old men and women dressed as soldiers, and sends them up onto the parapet. When the Turks are still hopelessly out of range, he has his men start firing their guns and cheering.

The demoralised Turks take this as a sign that the city is well garrisoned and has powder to burn. In short, it will not be easy to take by storm. They have not the stomach for another long siege, and so they turn aside and make for their ships.

As they sail away, the Kings of Europe suddenly realise that they should have backed a winner, and try to make amends. The Knights of St John are suddenly the darlings of Christendom. They have broken the Ottoman army. Seven years later, at Lepanto, their galleys will help to break the Ottoman navy, and Christendom will begin to feel secure again. The risk and fear of a Moslem over-run of Europe will not be finally put to rest for another century and more, and the Turks will reach the gates of Vienna before they suffer their final reverse.

But the Siege of Malta is their first defeat in the Eastern Mediterranean, and marks an important turning point in the balance of power in Europe and the Middle East. It was certainly perceived as such at the time, and when La Valette began to build his new capital city, all the finest craftsmen in Europe flocked to his assistance.

And if you read the book "The GReat Siege" - published in 1965 to mark the quarter centenary, you will both find it riveting (I read it in one sitting, when I was about 15, finishing at 4 in the morning because I just could not put it down) and also that it is just crying out to be filmed.

Like I say, it's got everything other than aircraft and automatic weapons!

Stalingrad, Stalingrad!!!!!!

I'm afraid I do not know why it's replaced the word p-o-i-s-o-n-e-d with a line of **** but there it is.

Stalingrad has already BEEN made into a film, of course.

And Waterloo, mentioned somewhere above, has been filmed at least twice (if you count Sharpe's Waterloo)

Something that would lend itself over immediately is the hunt for the Altmark. Carrying poorly treated prisoners, that ship snuck around all over the place avoiding detection and denying inspectors to verify that there were no prisoners on board (sound familiar?). Her name was changed several times, and all the while the prisoners were being denied their rights as POWs. Time was running out for them, and when the Altmark was finally located, the broadside to broadside battle would make any Hollywood screenwriter cream his pants. It's not really a battle, per se, but it has all the elements for a good movie.

but the Altmark was captured and boarded by the Royal Navy before the US entered the war, how can Hollywood change history to show that the US navy did it? oops silly me U 567 or whatever number it was showed that hollywood simply ignored history.

It seems to me that the battle which is just crying out to be filmed is the Siege of Malta, 1565.

It has everything you could possibly want. And I mean EVERYTHING. And more!

To begin with, it is the tale of the heroic struggle of a vastly inferior force against a vastly superior foe. A bit like the Alamo. Only LaValette's men weren't all dead at the end of it.

You've got the lead-up to it: the galleys of the Order of St John "defending" the Eastern Mediterranean for Christendom - or committing repeated acts of piracy against Moslem shipping depending upon one's point of view. Until finally Suleiman the Magnificent vows to wipe out this scourge once and for all.

You've then got the magnificent armada sailing from the Bosphorus, bearing an army of 40,000. You've got the preparation of the defences of the Three Cities. You've got the plea for help going out to all of Europe - and one by one the Christian kings of Europe decline to send help to the knights who are so obviously staring defeat in the face.

You've then got conventional siege warfare. You've got mining, and counter-mining, and underground battles in the tunnels between the miners. You've got a boom across the Grand Harbour, and you've got battles in the water between rival bands of swimmers as the Turks try to cut open the boom and the native Maltese try to stop them.

You've got the bombardment of the walls with cannon. You've got Greek Fire being lobbed in (and huge butts of water all around the walls so that men who are set alight can jump into them and douse the flames). You've got siege towers being built - and destroyed. You've got a huge rollign mine being prepared and pushed up to the walls; but its fuse is too long and the defenders break through the wall and push it back into the lines of the besiegers, where it explodes.

You've got scouting forays and cavalry actions on the plains. You've got the pirate Dragut coming and throwing in his lot with the Turks.

And finally, at the climax, like the Old Gurad at Waterloo, you've got the Janissaries unleashed ... and thrown back.

Finally, Sulieman's army withdraws, broken as much by disease and ******** wells as by any military action. But there is still one last twist in the tail.

As they retreat, they vow to destroy Mdina, the ancient capital of Malta, as an act of vengeance. Mdina is defenceless. It has a tiny garrison with very littel gunpowder. Apart from that it is populated by women and old men. It cannot hope to withstand an assault. So the governor decides prevention is better than cure. He has all the old men and women dressed as soldiers, and sends them up onto the parapet. When the Turks are still hopelessly out of range, he has his men start firing their guns and cheering.

The demoralised Turks take this as a sign that the city is well garrisoned and has powder to burn. In short, it will not be easy to take by storm. They have not the stomach for another long siege, and so they turn aside and make for their ships.

As they sail away, the Kings of Europe suddenly realise that they should have backed a winner, and try to make amends. The Knights of St John are suddenly the darlings of Christendom. They have broken the Ottoman army. Seven years later, at Lepanto, their galleys will help to break the Ottoman navy, and Christendom will begin to feel secure again. The risk and fear of a Moslem over-run of Europe will not be finally put to rest for another century and more, and the Turks will reach the gates of Vienna before they suffer their final reverse.

But the Siege of Malta is their first defeat in the Eastern Mediterranean, and marks an important turning point in the balance of power in Europe and the Middle East. It was certainly perceived as such at the time, and when La Valette began to build his new capital city, all the finest craftsmen in Europe flocked to his assistance.

And if you read the book "The GReat Siege" - published in 1965 to mark the quarter centenary, you will both find it riveting (I read it in one sitting, when I was about 15, finishing at 4 in the morning because I just could not put it down) and also that it is just crying out to be filmed.

Like I say, it's got everything other than aircraft and automatic weapons!

The convoy which included to tanker 'Ohio' is worthy of a film on it's own, but once again how could Hollywood replace the Royal Navy with the US Navy? but of course history can be manipulated!!!

There seems to be a "historic epic" trend in hollywood these days. First Troy, now Alexander the Great. Interesting to see how they portray his death.

Armageddon or do a pulp fiction type movie of the different theaters is WWII showing different points of view of each battle over the years the war.

Or you could do a movie about both of my Grandfathers each one was in WWII, Korea, & Vietnam. And they weren't in the air force my one grandfather was in the Marines as a Raider and the other one was in the Navy he was a diver and demolitions man U.D.T. his ship shank in the middle of the pacific

He floated at sea for almost two weeks watching his buddies get eaten by sharks. he saved one of them by killing a shark he swam underneath the shark when it was swimming by and cut it wide open with his Mk3 knife that he gave me.

Before he died he gave it to me he told me the story I had never heard him talk about anything he had done in the war it was the only time I ever saw him cry.

My other grandfather was in the pacific theater also he told me that in Guadal Canal the Japanese would sneak across the lines at night and cut peoples heads off and stick the on poles well My grandfather and his buddies started to do the same thing but they went a step further they cut heads off and boiled them then stuck the skulls on poles.

The point I am trying to make is that war is necessary and it happens but neither one of my grandfathers or uncles or cousins or father that was in battle was proud of it they just simply did their duty and went on with their lives as much as they could. But it always haunted them...

The greatest war movie is and will always be the Story of Sgt. York if you haven't seen it I would suggest buying the movie. It will give you a different outlook on life.

I would like to see a movie of the battle where Ireland takes back N.Ireland and the Faeroe Islands, liberates Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man, Brittany, Basques, Galecians, Sardinians and Corsicans.... I would like to see that :D

Oh wait!, that hasn't happened yet!, crap I've said too much! :eek:
Time to get out the amnesia ray
*picks up a revolver*
Ok, who read this post?


What battle would I like to see... I don't exactly know... I'm very interested in WWII history, many battles have been filmed (and hyped up! which is bad).
So... I can't exactly say which one.

The invasion of Grenada.

The Battle of Crecy would be an awesome movie battle.

I love the days of the sailing ships, so I would love to see more movies like Master and Commander. I would enjoy see Nelson's hunt for the French fleet in the Mediterranean in 1798 that culminated in his destruction of the French at the Battle of the Nile in Aboukir Bay. Particularly the terrific explosion of the 120-gun L'Orient, when fires reached her powder stores at 10:00 in the evening. It was reported that the explosion was heard over 20 miles away at Rosetta. And the story of one of the French captains who, as the battle raged, had one arm shot off; then the other; and when a cannonball took off one of his legs, he had his crew place the stump in a barrel of bran on deck so that he could still stand and command his ship, which he did until he bled to death. What a movie that would make.

I've had my fill of bombs and bullets, so I'd like to see something a little more covert and political like the US involvement in Laos from late '58 'till the start of the VietNam War. Operations Ambidextrous, White Star and Hotfoot (http://www.specialoperations.com/History/Cold_War/White_Star/Default.htm) come to mind.

[FONT=Arial Black][SIZE=2][COLOR=Black]

Adrianople, 378 AD. Why? 1) interesting lead-up story (Goths being treated like shit by the Romans) 2) Great battle action (Romans getting the snot kicked out of them by the Goths) 3) One of the world's most decisive battles, according to General Fuller. :)

There seems to be a "historic epic" trend in hollywood these days. First Troy, now Alexander the Great. Interesting to see how they portray his death.

Yes, and its a good trend. I reckon we should have a film of the 1st British Afghan war, with the awful retreat from Kabul. Theres too many American history films already, and we are well establshed showing Indians as the good guys now.

The war of the Triple Alliance (http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/tango/triple1864.htm) in South America could be very moving, and the movie would end in the Campaign of Lomas Valentinas. Horrible what happend to the people of Paraguay in that war..

Yes, and its a good trend. I reckon we should have a film of the 1st British Afghan war, with the awful retreat from Kabul. Theres too many American history films already, and we are well establshed showing Indians as the good guys now.

The war of the Triple Alliance (http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/tango/triple1864.htm) in South America could be very moving, and the movie would end in the Campaign of Lomas Valentinas. Horrible what happend to the people of Paraguay in that war..

jenny, have you read the book 'At the Tomb of the Inflatable Pig'? It's a good read, and goes into a lot of detail about Lopez, Lynch et. al. and the WTA. Also there's a book specifically about Madam Lynch; and Joseph Conrad's novel 'Nostromo' is based on the Paraguayan experience during the WTA.

From an Historical and literal perspective, The Battle of Agincourt,
Henry V, Shakespear...

'And we shall shear up the walls with our English dead'

For anyone who has read the 'play' or more, the book, this is a superb description of warfare of the age.

jenny, have you read the book 'At the Tomb of the Inflatable Pig'?

No, never heard of it - Im sure I'd remember such a wacky title! Will look on amazon, thanks.

The Battle of Agincourt,
Henry V, Shakespear...

Havnt all or most of Shakespere's works been filmed already? Not that a new version cant usualy be worth doing..

I supose the various Joan of Arc films are closely linked with Henry V. Same war, anyhow.

From an Historical and literal perspective, The Battle of Agincourt,
Henry V, Shakespear...

'And we shall shear up the walls with our English dead'

For anyone who has read the 'play' or more, the book, this is a superb description of warfare of the age.

Shakespeare's 'Henry V' was filmed in 1942, I think--during WW2 anyway--with Sir Laurence Olivier as H5. Stuck closely to the text of Shakespeare's play. In one scene, where Henry addresses his troops while he stands at the stern of the ship that's about to take him over to France, there's a backdrop of a steep hill. Look closely at the background while he's speaking, and you'll notice a delivery-truck driving up the steep grade. Something the cut-out people missed. :)

Look closely at the background while he's speaking, and you'll notice a delivery-truck driving up the steep grade. Something the cut-out people missedXylene
It's so difficult to get decent help these days, don't you think?
Seriously, I haven't seen the film to which you refer, but there is an element of the written text which, when read in the context of the entire work really draws you into the scene; I'm not sure that even a modern visual production of the piece could recapture that! :)

I know, the quality of servants has declined in recent years, I've noticed :D
The Romans et al never had the problem of course--they just went out conquered new territory, and took a whole tribe into slavery. Which is why we're sitting here talking about what would be the best battle to put on screen. :)

Oh, those romans mustve known that 2000 after their time, people would want to make shows + stories about the battles they were having. I mean, they had their own plays about the more anceint Greeks or Egyptans, right? Perhsaps Roman writers caried on discusions similar to this, about what old battle they should put on stage..

I don't know about a battle but I'd love to see the Second Punic War in film.

Punic? wasnt that Hannibal against the romans? I supose the fall of Carthge would be a powrful movie theme.

It was. There's so much drama, incredible feats, politics and thoughtful strategy!

the elephants hannibal used might look unimpresive now though, after those super-phants in LOTR!

Who would you like to act in the PUnic War film?

The Spartans at Thermopylae mentioned in an early thread was done very well (40+ years ago) with Richard Egan as the Spartan general. A great turning point in history. The Persian army was held for about 10 days by 300 men. This allowed the Greek City states to unite and recruit an army. Without the time to mobilize, Greece would probably have been defeated. They contributed a lot to later cultures: Art, music, literature, mathematics, science, philosophy. Much would probably have been lost for a long time.

A great battle never made into a move was the Battle of Tours in 732. It actually took place 40-50 miles south of Tours, France. Charles Martel (The Hammer) defeated the Arabs who started an invasion of Europe after conquering Spain. If Martel had lost, all of Europe would have been ruled by Islamics for a long time. The Arabs ruled Spain for about 500 years. They were driven out of Grenada in 1492. Grenada was the last area they controlled. Charles was called the Hammer (Martel) because he pursued defeated foes attempting to annihilate them. The Arabs were so demoralized by him that they never again ventured into Europe from Spain.

I reserve my comment on battle but im sure the Nuremburg Rally deserves to be ranked as one of the greatest military rallies in the history of the human race. I'm not a Nazi, but from the perspective of a nationalist/ mass pscycologist& propogandist, they were amazing in sheer numbers and quality, i mean thousands of soldiers armed and marching- what an amazing sight!!!

visit http://www.redsoulja.tk

The sea battle of Lepanto, 1571--galley-war at its most extreme. One of the biggest seabattles of all time.

Who fought who at Lepanto?

>>Red soulja - that web site of yours should be fun, any idea wen itll be ready?

battle scenes bore the shit out of me. when i see them i just see lots of silly hotheaded men totally ignorant blowing them selves away--or spearing--or swording etc themselves and each other away,,,,for WHAT?....for more wars?...and that gets you OFF?

so, that said. i dont have much enthusiasm for this thread's subject matter

Watching movie battles dont get me "off" in the sex sense if thats what you ment!! anyone who DOES orgasm at the site of blood shed must be very f****n freaky + not the type we want here, right?

Don John of Austria, Cervantes and Christendom vs "the Soldan of Byzantium" at Lepanto.
From one of the greatest poems in the English language. G. K. Chesterton:


. . .Dim drums throbbing, in the hills half heard,
Where only on a nameless throne a crownless prince has stirred,
Where, risen from a doubtful seat and half attainted stall,
The last knight of Europe takes weapons from the wall . . .

But noise is in the mountains, in the mountains, and I know
The voice that shook our palaces—four hundred years ago:
It is he that saith not 'Kismet'; it is he that knows not Fate;
It is Richard, it is Raymond, it is Godfrey at the gate! . . .

(Don John of Austria is going to the war.)
Sudden and still—hurrah!
Bolt from Iberia!
Don John of Austria
Is gone by Alcalar . . .

The noise is gone through Normandy; the noise is gone alone;
The North is full of tangled things and texts and aching eyes
And dead is all the innocence of anger and surprise,
And Christian killeth Christian in a narrow dusty room
And Christian dreadeth Christ that hath a newer face of doom,
And Christian hateth Mary that God kissed in Galilee,
But Don John of Austria is riding to the sea.
Don John calling through the blast and the eclipse
Crying with the trumpet, with the trumpet of his lips,
Trumpet that sayeth ha!
Domino gloria!
Don John of Austria
Is shouting to the ships.


http://poetry.poetryx.com/poems/8623/

that Don John of Austria would be a real star role for some1 - it could make his career if he pulled it off wel!

Johnny Dep maybe? - but hes alredy famous.
Chris Evans? (not the ginger limey, the guy in Fnatastic 4)
Franky Muniz? (let him grow out of teeny roles)

Mel Gibson is on the edge on. Five years ago he would have been perfect.

It was a heroic event. A united Christendom was gone. A fragmented Europe of nation states was forming. Everyone would have rather done something else. Figuring out how the new order would work for one. But Islam was on the move, Christian slaves were in the Turk ships, so the last knights of Europe set sail into a much more powerful force than they.

Another of the last knights was John Sobieski. Out numbered three to one, in 1683, he routed the army of Grand Vizier Kara Mustapha saving Vienna and, almost certainly, all Christendom from Turkish occupation.

If movies about these events are ever made, it won't be for a long, long time. Too offensive to the descendants of those who tried to take over Europe.

If movies about these events are ever made, it won't be for a long, long time. Too offensive to the descendants of those who tried to take over Europe.[/QUOTE]

Good point, Muhlenberg; when the Germans beat the Russians at Tannenburg in 1914, they were happy to have at last got revenge for their defeat by the Russians at the First Battle of Tannenburg--which was fought (correct me if I err) in 1444. Memories are long when it comes to great battles.

battle scenes bore the shit out of me. when i see them i just see lots of silly hotheaded men totally ignorant blowing them selves away--or spearing--or swording etc themselves and each other away,,,,for WHAT?....for more wars?...and that gets you OFF?

so, that said. i dont have much enthusiasm for this thread's subject matter

well then you don't need to be posting anything in this thread if you have nothing to say about it.

The battle that never was.

well then you don't need to be posting anything in this thread if you have nothing to say about it.

hmmmm, all i did was share you my feelings about watching batle scenes and i get war.

obviously i SAID something about it

really poweful battlescences that show the true horror of war i DO find moving. incredibly so

Platoon, Full Metal Jacket....foreign non-Hollywood films too that show the full horror. but i dont enjoy them. i hate war

Funny how most people find battles on screen or in books exciting + look frward to them.. but if war happend to them for real, theyd of course be weeping, paniked and cowardly. even the best of us can still enjoy watching others sufer + die..

Another of the last knights was John Sobieski. Out numbered three to one, in 1683, he routed the army of Grand Vizier Kara Mustapha saving Vienna and, almost certainly, all Christendom from Turkish occupation. this crosses over to the 'worlds of what if ' thread. You realy reckon that muslims couldve wiped out Christianity completely?? the time to do that wouldve been in the dark ages Id think.. Europe was much weaker then + had no colonies in America yet.

Warfare is the natural state of affairs. In the 20thC the most vocal advocates for "peace" were working for the Soviet Union, the motherland of all totalitarian states.

Muslims almost did wipe out Europe. But not working alone. Jews and Muslims were allies in the conquest of Spain. Had Martel not thrown them back in France it would have been game, set match. And during they reconquest they worked together to destroy the Christian Crown.

Muslims did conquer the orginal heart of Christendom. They took everything from Constantinople to North Africa early on. Of course all we hear now is how evil it was for Christs to try to take back, during the Crusades, that which was stolen from them.

The "dark ages" is a Protestant term used to denigrate Catholic Christendom. Give me the "dark ages" anyday over Calvin's Geneva. Or over the "enlightenment" which led to the French and Bolshevik revolutions.

jeeeeshuz...you patriarchs!...war is NOT a 'natural state of affairs" for MANY.

and the 'Dark Ages' was when the Cjhristian church was THE only information source. this ended somewhat with the Rennissance

the 'Dark Ages' was when the Cjhristian church was THE only information source. this ended somewhat with the Rennissance

Right - how can Muhlen berg prefer a time when we know so litle about events? at least in the Rennisance Europe had proper painters and scientists again..

Well you can walk into the Cathedral at Chartres and see what they were doing during the high point of Western Civilization.

I'll take that structure over Bauhaus anything.

A little later we have Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry (http://www.christusrex.org/www2/berry/index.html)--put that up against anything done in the last 100 years. There are a few equals but not many. Certainly none of the stars of 20th century art compare.

And those Renaissance scientists didn't pop up out of nowhere. The ground work for those advances was done centuries before.

Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry (http://www.christusrex.org/www2/berry/index.html)--put that up against anything done in the last 100 years. There are a few equals but not many. Certainly none of the stars of 20th century art compare.

what lovely pics!! Thankyou Mulen! ;)
but how can you realy judge modern painters against them, since the styles have been so diferent - esp. since cameras came along? I mean, can you say Savador Dali was beter or worse than Michelangelo.. or that either ofthem was beter than a modern artist like David hardy (http://www.hardyart.demon.co.uk/html/p-debrs1.html), who does subjects they never worked on?

And those Renaissance scientists didn't pop up out of nowhere. The ground work for those advances was done centuries before.

At least they could make there discoveries available to the public, not just to priests + monks.

Thermopylae. Rarely have so few stood against so many.

I also think this should be made a movie.

500 spartens vs 3million persians and mercaneries

Thats awesome

I agree that the battle at Thermopylae was a great battle,
I wanted to suggest it as my choice, but had forgotten the name.
Although I doubt that the spartens would have said that the situation was awesome. ;)

p.s those were about 7000 greeks + 300 spartans not 500

500 spartens vs 3million persians and mercaneries

an army of 3 MILLION..? I didnt think thered have been that many people in most whole countrys back then.

Herodotus claims a total strength of 3.4 million; today's estimates range from 250,000 to 300,000

That sounds more likely.. or perhaps the word 'million' wasnt translated right + Herodotus meant some smaller number.

Maybe, just like with "thousand and one arabian nights" which actually is "a hundred and one arabian nights" when translated correctly, or Herodotus just wanted the battle to look even more glorious.

So perhaps the movie would be done as a kind of naration, by Herodotus - like "Alexander" with Ptolmy telling the story.

Alexander? please..
The closest depiction to real history in any movie I think is Lord of The Rings.
I don't watch those Hollywood abominations of history. Too cheesy, to americanized.

If LOTR is more real than Alexandr you obviously don tlike Hollywood 1 bit.

I thought that movie wasnt too bad, especialy as they werent afraid to show how he was bisexual. the sets were exelent as well, though it did get a bit slow in the middle.

It was more realistc than Troy, I am sure..

"Not being afraid" doesn't cover it. An agenda was being pushed. Just as was pushed in the recent book "proving" Lincoln was a homosexual.

It never ends in Hollywood. And won't end considering who runs the town.

Here's an interesting and disturbing (but not surprising given the USA's imperialism) article on the historical revisionism that is occurring in American-made war movies.

Hollywood's dirty little secret (http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/02/19/1108709445835.html): It's the scripts that pay a high price when Hollywood goes into battle. Brian Courtis looks at one of the movie world’s murkier truths.

That realy is disturbing Herc! If Hollywood scripts are being maniulated from capitol Hill... what happend to freedom of expression ?

Thanks to the MPAA, FCC, EPA, etc. almost nonexistant now...
anyway, heres my idea for a trailer of the best battle movie:

*camera pans around. craters and fire are everywhere*
voice: "Nearly a million died here, at this fortress of ages past. As one side attacked, the other general said 'they shall not pass', and the battle begun. Never before or since have so many perished for so trivial a place. The year is nineteen-sixteen. Let the carnage begin"
*shell lands in a trench. blast sends a few people flying. machinegun fire and etc. fly across the screen*
*troops go over the top of one trench, and charge forward, only to be shot to pieces*
*screen goes black*
*bold red words flash across the screen: "VERDUN"*