Top 10 Historically Inaccurate Movies
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 жов 2015
- “Based on a true story.” Whenever you see that tagline, take it with a grain of salt. Welcome to www.WatchMojo.com, and today we’re counting down our picks for the Top 10 Historically Inaccurate Movies. Click here to subscribe: ua-cam.com/users/subscription_c... or visit our channel page here: / watchmojo Also, check out our interactive Suggestion Tool at www.WatchMojo.com/suggest :)
Check us out at / watchmojo , / watchmojo and / watchmojo .
Special thanks to our user Spencer Higham and john1138, sical4christ, Bohemian Brandi and Kilt Wearing Warrior for submitting idea at www.WatchMojo.com/suggest
Check out the voting page here,
www.watchmojo.com/suggest/Top+...
If you want to suggest an idea for a WatchMojo video, check out our interactive Suggestion Tool at www.WatchMojo.com/suggest :)
Want a WatchMojo cup, mug, t-shirts, pen, sticker and even a water bottle? Get them all when you order your MojoBox gift set here:
watchmojo.com/store/
WatchMojo is a leading producer of reference online video content, covering the People, Places and Trends you care about.
We update DAILY with 4-5 Top 10 lists, Origins, Biographies, Versus clips on movies, video games, music, pop culture and more! - Розваги
I knew there's something fishy about "300"... I did not believe Leonidas was speaking english so fluently with a scottish accent.
+Davyen Actually, the Spartan dialect of classical Greek was identical to modern colloquial English. Unfortunately, the Athenian dialect was the one that we know as Greek.
***** You're a random guy from the internet, so I'm gonna believe you.
+Davyen And you should. You can find answers to all important questions on the internet. Especially in comment sections.
***** From the random strangers.
+Davyen Well, 300 is based on fictional novel. So I would never think it's very historically accurate.
How about Star Wars? I'm pretty sure that shit didn't happen a long time ago in a galaxy far far away...
+Hidious Vanity how can you tell???
+Hidious Vanity You're wrong. Science says that there is an infinite number of universes across different dimensions, all of them containing every single possible outcome of physics and possibilities. So, according to science, Star Wars did happen in one of those universes.
schizer not all science says that. certain theories do.
of course it did.
"In a galaxy far far away"
Not sure if you're a trolling or an actual idiot...
Anatasia shouldn't really be on the list, since it is purposefully based on the conspiracy theories that she might have escaped the shooting, so it is more of an alternate history movie in the first place - not to talk about that it features Rasputin as an undead wizard who could do real Magic, this doesn't really qualify as a movie that claims to be based on historical facts.
@@CandiceGoddard no it's not it's one of a string of film depicting the Anastasia myth like the one from 1956 with Ingrid Bergman and Rasputin was designed after the newspaper caricatures of him in the tsarist era, also he was already dead as the whole Anna Anderson story began and, for the life of me, I cant recall that Anastasia in the Don Bluth film tried to drown herself in the Landwehrkanal in Berlin, so what the heck are you talking about - btw do you have Jesus trial records, because it seems they are conveniently lost, and no the bible doesn't count, it's more fiction than anything and only based on hearsay and copy and paste - especially the modern one which is only one third of the old ones
Anastasia would have been a very short, bloody violent film if it was historically accurate.
Not to mention it was made BEFORE they finally found the bodies of Anatasia and her brother. while they had found most of the family before this movie was made (in 1979), two of the family members were missing and not found until 2007.
Chris Rudolf Anastasia's body was not discovered until 10 years after the movie. so her getting away was how people hoped her story ended. then reality kicked them in the nuts
Bartok is real though, right?
You can’t say “We won’t be including myths” and then put the animated “Anastasia” on the list. The film is entirely based on a myth/legend/rumor that Anastasia Romanov survived.
Exactly. 300 aslwell, it is entirely told through the eyes of a diegetic in-universal narrator, re-telling the events as a story. It obviously isn't intended to portrait any historical accuracy, as it's also simply based on a comic book...
Rasputin comes hunting for the Romanovs with Soviet-style soldiers, but he'd been assassinated way before the First World War, and the revolutionists wouldn't have had much truck with him if he'd have been around.
American Sniper.
Full of propaganda, fictional characters and exaggerations.
+only half bad 333 "Historically"
+Nozomi Suzuki The Iraq war was in the past. By their criteria, it's historic.
bladudemovies The word "historical" is usually used within the context of a lifetime, not a few years ago.
+Nozomi Suzuki 0:50 "There's no specific time period, anything in the past is considered historic."
bladudemovies Wow, I stand corrected... My apologies. However, by that logic, yesterday was historic... It just sort of takes away some of the meaning of the word via that definition. *shrugs*
Speaking of historical inaccuracy, does anyone else cringe whenever they see horned viking helmets in movies?
***** Yep.. Good ol' Wagner.
+christhefishhunter Its why I killed everyone wearing steel horned helmets and iron helmets.
+christhefishhunter There is some evidence of horned helmets for ceremonial use, but it was never designed for combat purposes. Horned helmets were mainly used during the bronze ages, and for some odd reason, the Knights Teutonics have been known to use horned helmets (I guess because they thought it scared Pagans... I don't know).
Let us also not forget about winged helmets, female armor with boob plates, cast made swords, and kilts in the late 1200s.
xxFalconArasxx I just thought of another thing - when people wear longswords on their backs.
christhefishhunter Yes you are right. It is silly when longswords are holstered that way. It's crazier when a greatswords such as a Montante, Claymore, or Zweihander is holstered as such.
Knights usually held it in their hands, strapped it to their horse, had a squire hold it for them, or rested the sword on their shoulders.
You actually can hold a sword on your back, but mainly for simple storage, since in a combat situation, it would be difficult to draw. People that held swords this way also usually used a rifle strap, as it made it much easier to unsheathe.
In the beginning you say that you exclude films that are purposely distorted, but then you include Anastasia and 300??? These films never hide their tendencies to put comic-book / fairy-tale logic ahead of any historic facts.
Not too mention all the movies were intentionally inaccurate.
@@Dankman9 Well, with 300, it's innacuracies come from that it comes from an in-universe narrator who tells the story as he saw it, not from a historical perspective. As for Anastasia, at the time of release, no one knew if she had lived or died. Her body was not found until the early 2000's.
@@godzillavkk 300's inaccuracies come from from Frank Miller's repressed homosexual tendencies. The entire comic book industry would be improved if he would get therapy and figure that out.
@@luceret No wonder he's a racist lunatic.
@@godzillavkk Why is he racist? (I'm genuinely asking)
I'm not sure 10,000 BC was intended to be historical.
78 agree to that?
Well, it gives a definite date and...
10,000 BC makes my bran hurt
@@jimboonie9885 People in 10,000 BC didn't even know they were in 10,000 BC.
Of course the specific story the movie told was not intended to be historical, since there are obviously no records from that time, but IIRC the movie was advertised as a realistic depiction of stone age
Let's not forget "2012", NOTHING happened when the day finally came.
It was fiction set in the future,not history re told with inaccuracies.
+antipodeandreason yeah but still
+Hornetzilla78 its not historically inaccurate, because it never happened, and it was a futuristic movie.
+JacobI Cope but the movie wasn't made after 2012
Still technically not historical. If you're predicting what might happen it's not historical. A movie like Zodiac is a historical movie kinda. Because it took place after the killings and is pretty damn accurate. Back to the Future 2, is not. In 1985 it "predicted" what they thought would happen in 2015
Other inaccuracies on Braveheart
1. Prima Noctis is a medieval Myth, there have been no evidence that it has ever been used.
2. King Edward was not as cold blooded as he is in the Film, he never orderd his archers to fire blindly into both Scot and English soldiers
3. Battle of Stirling bridge was missing a bridge
4. Scots didn't paint their faces also they would of wore armor just like the English
5. Robert the Bruce never betrayed Wallace
Even more inaccuracies:
It's likely Wallace and Bruce never met
Andrew Murray was the prime commander at Stirling bridge
Bruce switched sides at least three times
+Charlie Drummond Prima Noctis wasn't a myth everywhere... here in Spain there were records of it, and so have they been found on france and southern germany.
+Charlie Drummond also bruce wasn't a huge pussy like he's depicted in the film
+Charlie Drummond -Wallace never even got close to york
-The picts 1000years earlier painted their faces
-they didn't fought for freedom, they fought to be oppressed by more scottish lords who told them too fight
-studded leather in scottish crowd (studded leather never existed)
+Charlie Drummond and the scots never got near york
"The Mayans were peaceful. They only had a few human sacrifices..."
They were indeed. They only sacrificed their own nobility when in dire situations, they didn't sacrifice prisoners on a festive and regular basis as the Aztecs did.
In a cultural context in which nearly every culture around did the same, they were mild practitioners of human sacrifice.
You can add the Jewish, Greek, Roman and many other kinda civilized ancient peoples to that list. And the others that get into wars and revere their dead as the ones who made "the ultimate sacrifice" and mark their houses with golden stars.
@Dwayne The Cuck Johnson Lord Fraquaad wouldn't agree
María Martínez so basically what ur saying is “cults” who sacrificed others are peaceful.. no sacrifices are peaceful...
@@vortexgamer8793 different time period has different scale and definition of peace, what they said was that they portrayed Mayans and Aztec, Even though Mayans were more peaceful than them
And they only were a bit of war mongers
Mel Gibson almost deserves a list in his own right for rewriting history in films.
What about the animated Titanic movie? You know, the one were "no one really died."
what about the one with the rapping dog?
Sebastian muñoz ochoa I'm pretty sure that really happened. Don't you remember the historic K9 Hip Hop movement of the 1910's?
Man, 1910 times were weird.
Oh right my bad don't you forget the Mexican Mice.
*where
+Mitch L (Mitten) Guys, no one died in the sinking of the Titanic. Sure, a gang of prison sharks had a deal with a whaler, and they tricked an octopus into throwing an iceberg in front of the oncoming ship, but the octopus and whales saved the day. Oh, and the mice. It's all okay.
In the patriot Mel Gibson never lived during the American revolution. Although I do believe that he'll eventually move to Australia and become a cop and survive the coming nuclear holocaust
+jefferson steelflex Yeah but don't tell Mel. You don't want to get him in a tizzy again
it is not even lived in the medieval age
+jefferson steelflex gibson is inmortal.. he even helps crucify the Christ...
+Juan Carlos Barbosa true.
but i liked the passion of the Christ
I'm sure Mel's character would have helped Washington capture the British airfields like our glorious leader related in his 4th of July address.
The phrase "based on a true story" or even worse, "INSPIRED" by a true story immediately makes me roll my eyeballs.
haha
Especially when they add the phrase "must watch"!!!
Me too, with one exception. "The Girl Next Door" (2007) was loosely based on a true story and in the horror genre that typically means the crime is sensationalized. In this case the opposite was true, the crime being so horrific that to show the full extent of it would render the film unwatchable.
When “Pocahontas” came out, I asked my then-eight-year-old niece if she wanted to go see it. She declined, explaining that she knew the story of the real Pocahontas and she didn’t want the Disney version to ruin it for her. Smart kid, and now that she’s in her thirties she’s still very smart. The only good thing that the movie has going for it is that Disney actually got a Native American actress, Irene Bedard, to voice the title character.
Amy Fisher - Congratulations! That sure is one smart little lady. You have much to be proud of. Best wishes to you and yours ❤❤
🙄
Fake news
Did she have a different voice for the singing as ik for a fact that it was Judy Kuhn?
Pearl Harbor: a Japanese attack interrupts a love story
Pearl Harbor: Ben Affleck
Since someone else quoted there's a song from there called 'Pearl Harbour sucks and I miss you' which is probably one of the funniest things in the film.
The song/video is actually from the movie "Justice League" which makes it no less true. But PH would have been my #1 choice. For a "true" movie it got two things right: The Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor and the date was December 7, 1941.
tora! tora! tora! >>> pearl harbor
Perfectly said.
300? You mean the movie with giant two-headed ogres and a ten foot tall Xerxes wasn't historically accurate? The devil, you say?
Still perpetuating the myth of the 300 rather than the 300 or so Spartans plus boat loads of slaves and allies should matter a little bit. Sneaking in little common lies are far more likley to be believed if sandwhiched between numerous obvious big lies...
the movie 300 is based on a comic or a graphic novel, not the actual historic event.
Ferl It is not the Argonauts with Hercules. The 300 story was based on a real event. The fact that the movie was based on a comic book that was itself based on the myth version of the event is pretending not to notice the source.
The 300 comic was INSPIRED by the Battle of Thermopylae but isn't based on it. If fact, it is based of the history told by the missionary King Leonidas sent to ask for the other Greek free cities for support against the persians. The movie was based on the comic so no, it had no intent to be anywhere close to the historical event.
yeah, 300 is actually quite accurate to Thucydides account. The problem is that he was a Greek patriot probably more than he was an objective historian, plus there weren't a lot of primary witnesses or any forensic evidence.
Thank you for including Argo, but it should've been in the number 1 spot. As a Canadian yourself, you know what a travesty that film's message. It's the height of hubris to take credit for others' bravery in saving your countrymen, and it reverses what was actually a great moment in American-Canadian relations.
U571 also could've vied for the #1 spot. Another flick where Americans take credit for others' courageous achievement.
"Lincoln" got screwed by the Academy Awards. Argo did not deserve it
Obviously hollywierd doesn't care about even it's own countries history.
I agree!
"Even Disney isn't exempt from choosing story over history."
That's *ALL* Disney does with its history and legend based movies. Little Mermaid. Aladdin. The aforementioned Pocahontas.... Disney is the king of white-washing.
Also.... Back to the Future is now historically inaccurate! XD
+Krescentwolf how do you mean?
musicaltheatergeek79
Go and read the original Little Mermaid story. Got news for ya...it doesn't have a happy ending. Aladdin? Radically different. The video shows how Pocahontas was white-washed. Peter Pan? Much darker in its original telling.
I like some Disney movies... and Aladdin is one of my childhood favorites... But Disney has a bad habit of changing things around for its audience, which then thinks the Disney version is the true one.
+Krescentwolf well the LIttle Mermaid and others are all fiction so at least, the majority of time, they are dealing with fantasy to begin with. There is a difference between fact and fiction you know.....I do not think the Little Mermaid nor Aladdin were historical characters.
MrChilli56
Never said they were. That's exactly why I used the word legend. It doesn't HAVE to be history just to get white-washed.
The problem is... Disney is so famous that oftentimes it's peoples first and sometimes only interaction with the stories.
+Krescentwolf Happy F-ing Belated Back to the f-ing future day. We f-ing didn't f-ing get the f-ing hoverboard we f-ing needed.
But genghis Kahn was really white, and looked kind of like John Wayne.
Temujin was not white, but not Asian looking either. All his depictions are from people who did not see him in person. The image regularly used in media is actually Kublai Khan, his grandson
+TheoneandonlyCrowMan I think I also saw Elvis in Urumqi last time I visited XD
he most likely had red hair and green eyes
+Richard Fitzgerald Yeah, right.
+TheoneandonlyCrowMan He would have looked a bit paler and with slightly squarer eyes the mongols today.
300 purposefully changed the history you broke your own rule
Exactly this!! The reason it is told by the one character to leave is because, his king told him go to tell the "story"! It portrays him embellishing the actions that happened to rally the rest of the Greek troops... it was exaggeration on purpose.
So did Anastasia and Pocahontas
So was Braveheart
I think you need to research your
"Peaceful" Mayas. Since their writing has been decoded we've
Learned they were not the people we thought they were in the 60s.
They did not research anything, they stole most from another youtube channel, and could not even do that right.
I did not know their writing had been decoded. That's fascinating. How was it done? Was some kind of Rosetta Stone discovered? Where can I learn more?
@@odysseusrex5908 google the name Yuri knorosov. He cracked it around 1985. No real rosetta stone, but there was a stone slab where text was placed on the arms of the depicted characters. Realizing that where names set the whole decipherment in motion
@@trottlesnot Ah, yes, thank you very much. Wikipedia has a very good article about him with an excellent list of references. Fascinating.
@@trottlesnot Actually he started much earlier (1947) and his work was based on the de Landa documents which had attempted to translate, with the help of Mayans, the Mayan language into Spanish. Although confusing as often the same symbols had more than one meaning it provided him with the basis of future advances in translation which he started working on in the 50's. Other than one trip to Copenhagen he did not even visit the land of the Mayans until 1990.
I think Back to the Future 2 was historically inaccurate: in 2015 a 3D Jaws movie was never made, neither were power laces, self-fitting jackets, bionic implants, hover conversions for vehicles, 1980s nostalgia cafes, super model cops, giant televisions that let you watch multiple channels simultaneously, video games that don't require your hands, hover boards or tiny dehydrated Dominos pizzas
You're an idiot-when the movie was made, 2015 was in the future so it featured events that MIGHT have happened, not events that actually did
Duh, really?
Maybe Marty and Biff have been messing around in the time-lines again!!!
lol..he's just being sarcastic..he's not serious about it..take it easy..
M. A. Packer ddd
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
I wish that movie was historically accurate.
It actually was more accurate then some of the movies in this list, believe it or not.
In all seriousness, if you took out the vampires and Abe Lincoln action stuff then it would be near perfectly accurate.
GOOD ONE
You must have missed the part where she said they are avoiding movies that were intentionally inaccurate: i.e. Inglorious Basterds. They are alternate history movies, like Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.
Neither Anastasia nor Pocahontas should be mentioned since, like Inglorious Basterds, neither of those movies were meant to be historically accurate. I mean, why state you are only going to cover movies meant to be historical as the standard of what makes the list when you clearly aren’t going to adhere to it? Likewise, 300 probably shouldn’t be on this list either since Snyder was adapting an admitted historically inaccurate comic book.
The legend of Anastasia already existed. Don Bluth just made a new adaptation of it. It absolutely was never intended to be historically accurate. And as such doesn't belong on this list.
With Pocahontas, though, it seems a bit of a cop out to say "it wasn't meant to be historically accurate." Especially when one of the animators actually said, "Contrary to the popular verdict that we ignored history on the film, we tried hard to be historically correct and to accurately portray the culture of the Virginia Algonquins." Hmm...
The problem isn't just depicting Pocahontas as much older than she actually was, plus condensing the time frame in which everything happened. The way they depicted the James River area of what would be called Virginia was just... bizarre. I grew up in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, southeast of Jamestown on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean. Seeing the trailers before its release, I remember thinking to myself, "Did anyone from Disney actually visit Jamestown?"
What Disney did with Pocahontas was manufacture a story based in part on what actually happened. Not tell a side story of a larger event, lending an air of plausibility to the story - e.g. The Patriot. They took some details of her story and the settlers at Jamestown, changed some major details, sped up the timeline, and threw a romance on top of it for... reasons.
This wasn't an adaptation or a retelling of what happened. They completely rejected reality and substituted it with the imagination of whomever wrote the script.
They didn't completely rejected reality. They just altered it for the story's sake. At least the movie has some symbolic meaning and I don't think it offends anyone, in contrast with the patriot. Even the title is wrong. The character didn't even want to fight, he got in the war because his son died.
"They didn't completely rejected reality. They just altered it for the story's sake."
Okay, they didn't completely reject reality, just "borrowed" from it while still claiming to have been historically accurate... Getting it right while still taking some creative license for a good narrative is one of the main difficulties with making a story or movie involving an historical figure.
As an example, the portrayal of the Massachusetts 54th and their commanding officer in _Glory_ won accolades for being mostly true to what was known, while obviously taking some creative license where allowable. One such aspect was that Shaw was not immediately commissioned Colonel upon assuming command, but later promoted up, although rather quickly - from Captain to Major to Colonel in a matter of weeks. Shaw was also only 25 years old when he was killed in action, and white, so it would've made no sense for... Morgan Freeman to portray him - yes, I'm being intentionally out of bounds on that.
Yet with Pocahontas, they did something very similar to this. Making her 10 years older than she was, and compressing the storyline significantly. This turned it from merely a retelling, similar to _Glory_, to taking an historical figure in name only, along with some aspects of history, and creating something completely different.
While still claiming to have been historically accurate.
The way they were made gives the implication that they WERE made to be historically accurate!!!
@@brandishwar I may have misunderstood what you mean about glory and I’m no historian but I am a movie nut and as far as the movie is concerned Morgan Freeman didn’t play colonel Shaw it was the Matthew Broderick who is white and at the time around the age of 25 so that part is totally accurate Morgan Freeman played one of his soldiers that he promoted to be one of his non commissioned officers because the army wouldn’t allow him to be an officer.
The Untouchables is entertaining but it is almost complete fiction. Elliot Ness did almost nothing to bring down Al Capone and he did not kill Frank Nitti, among other glaring errors.
All movies even though very inaccurate are still very entertaining.
@@mickmcgrath7074 they should call it fiction. The only true scene was the "liquor" raid where Ness uncovered the tropical umbrellas.
@@MrEab2010 ok then👍
Unlike popular rumour, Ness was never in the F.B.I., either.
@@Glicksman1 Ness was not even a Treasury agent, he was part of a Prohibition task force set up inside the Treasury Department. It is true that the Chicago press dubbed the local task force The Untouchables because they allegedly would not take bribes, but no one remembered Ness until he wrote ((with popular journalist Walter Winchell) his mostly exaggerated memoir The Untouchables before his death in 1957. The book was optioned by Desilu Studios for the tv series.
Just gotta say it, 300 wasn't based on the actual battle of Thermopylae, but a graphic novel that purposley fantasized the battle so I don't think it should be included on the list
300 based on a graphic novel 94% loosely based on a real battle of 7,000 vs 200-400,000. The Persians may have a million troops, true or not, but logically speaking only took a few hundred thousand to invade Greece.
+Jacob Snyder The funny thing is,''300'',despite beeing a comic adaptation is still more accurate then movies like ''Braveheart'',''Patriot'' or ''Gladiator''.For example,the whole ''phalanx''-tactic(building a wall with their shields and spears and just pushing the enemy away) and using the terrain to their advantage(positioning in a narrow mountain pass,so that the Persians couldn't deploy their forces like on an open battlefield) were accurate.''Braveheart'' on the other side get's much more facts wrong,for example the Battle of the Sterling Bridge,which in the movie didn't had the bridge or the river but took place on a open field!
It was not actually 400k Persians vs 7k Spartans, there were three hundred and two Spartans and 6,000 some Athenians. The Athenians went back to Athens two days before the battle, so there were 300 Spartans there. The Persian force was actually more like 510,000 as well.
+avi tavalin thespians, the other troops were thespians, actors.
+avi tavalin There were others than just the Athenians and Spartans, it was pretty much a coalition of all the Greek city states who opposed Persia there.
Top 10 historically accurate movies
+Syn Stilo WatchMojo will most likely take Star Wars in his movie xD
Independence Day
+Syn Stilo Star Wars
The terminator
+PereVale what is going on in Star Wars now that it's 2015 it must be sooooooooo futuristic right?
Even if it's inaccurate, Amadeus is a masterpiece!
Samuel Alaster I 💘 thay 🎥. Pure Entertainment.Its just a movie.
And Amadeus Mozart actually was childish and rude though he was still a genius and hard-working.
Smart kids often get bullied and hated by adults for being good at what they do. Regardless of speculations about Salieri, which I don't agree with either, his sentiments towards Mozart may not be so off the mark.
It isn’t fully inaccurate. There are a lot of real events. Like Mozart himself, the film is a masterpiece in historical inaccuracy
By whose standard - I saw the movie and thought it was one of the most distorted movies of the time!!!
The list should really only include movies like Argo that are claiming to be accurate. So at least half here aren't really claiming to be accurate
WM never misses a chance to virtue signal its Wokeness.
If they claim to be based on a real happening - they belong here!!!
2012 is definitely the most historically inaccurate movie.
+Travis Matthews Of all time :)
+Travis Matthews What about The Passion of Christ? I think it is a historically inaccurate movie.
+R.w T.
Yep, since there is no historical proof if jesus really existed
+Travis Matthews You win
+Travis Matthews LOL!!!!
I don't think either Disney movie should be on the list because they involve fantasy elements like people breaking out into song and talking trees, so of course they're inaccurate since they're not even realistic.
+imperfectlypretty And of course they made Rasputin into a sorcerous leper...
+imperfectlypretty Yeah. Cartoons shouldn't be on the list. No shit Anastasia didn't get shot and die in the cartoon. Because it's a freakin cartoon!
Anastasia is not a Disney movie. :)
*****
True. Don Bluth, formerly of Disney created it.
WHY would they even include cartoons that are clearly full of artistic liberties for the sake of the kiddies. These animation clearly never had the intent of being historically accurate. Watchmojo is cracking up, or they had too much to drink in that day...
i literally laughed when i watched apocalypto. it starts in the 12th century and ends with spanish ships showing up. you're off by 400 years, that's more than a hundred years longer than the US has been a country lmao
Still visually it was pretty cool.
Yeah, I liked the movie...as a story, but I love pre-Columbian history of the western hemisphere, so that shit HURT to see.
Actually the number of Spartans was actually only three hundred. But there were 2,700 soldiers from other places
But their professions were not Ahoo Ahoo!
Where in history does it say that???
No ... even Herodotus says there were at least 5200 soldiers total ... and most modern historians place the number at slightly above 7000.
Okay yes but the Spartan army was called back only three hundred were left there while they weren't the only other nation there where we get the larger number of soldiers there but it is historically accurate that at the point of fighting there were only three hundred Spartans there.
@@Testimentsnow Who said anything about the Spartans??? I specifically commented on the TOTAL number of soldiers ... which by your count would have been circa 3000.
300 is a comic book adaptation!!!!!!!! I doesnt matter if the comic is inaccurate, the movie is a comic book ADAPTATION!!!!!!!!
+Matt Simpson It has monsters in it m8
the comic was based off a movie based off historical events. the 300 spartans
+Andrés Oliver Joya Didn"t you listen? They called it a comic movie. And that comic movie is "based on" a historical battle.
+Andrés Oliver Joya A Comic book based on a movie based on ancient Greek propaganda that was bassed on actual events
+Nerds Eternal Remember it is also the most homosexual film since Top Gun :)
300 is historically inaccurate? No shit Sherlock.
+McLarenMercedes When they say they do not include movies that are inaccurate on purpose and then few minutes later they include 300... WTF...
+McLarenMercedes ^_^
Its very historicaly innacurate since there were about 7,000 greeks fighting about 200,000 persians but on the final fight, when the greeks were betrayed by a greek-pesian-simpathyser King Leonidas told the other greeks to go while they held them off it was the 300 soldiers of Sparta who did the sacrificce for Grece
Actually, if I'm recall correctly, 300 does include soldiers from one other Greek city-state in the fighting at Thermopylae, specifically Arcadia. Arcadia's force was *much* larger than King Leonidas and his 300 numbers-wise. There's even a back and forth between Daxos, leader of the Arcadian troops, and King Leonidas in the movie over why Sparta's forces were so small compared to size of the force gathered by Arcadia.
Maybe there were actually 7,000 Greeks fighting against the Persians when you combined the Sparta's 300 with the unknown quantity of Arcadian troops involved in the battle, but since the movie focuses so much on the Spartans it's impossible to tell for sure.
The truth is that nobody really knows exactly the number of the greeks and the persians, some historical believes that the greeks were 3,500 and the persians 150,000, others say 8,000 greeks and 1 million persians...the point is that the greeks were like 1 man fighting against 10 and beat the 7 of them until the end and that's very impresive.
While I agree with the films themselves sometimes the reasons you picker were strange. The kilts in Braveheart is a minor issue compared to the film depiction Robert the Bruce, he came to Bannockburn to fight the film claims he came to surrender but had a last minute moment of remorse, unlikely is an understatement. regarding Anatasia in fairness I think the film was made when her body was still missing.
They were around 300 spartans, but they also had around 6000 greeks
The Spartans were Greeks.
Yeah the Spartans were Greeks so were the athinains just dif city states
*6000 OTHER greeks
Yeah, but Leonidas sent most of them away once the position was outflanked.
Odysseus Rex Yes, there were only 300 for the final stand, to give the others time to get away
"The Maya were actually peaceful...". Well, not really. You need to check the research: they were as bloodthirstly and warlike as everyone else.
Nah my ancestors were Mayan they were chill
I'm pretty sure your also thinking of the Aztecs
+ZombiE Gaming No - you need to check your history. Since we started being able to read Mayan texts and inscriptions in the 70's and 80's (thank you David Stuart and others), we've been able to document a history that includes the same kind of warfare and violence we find in other cultures. Now be clear - I'm not trying to discount Mayan achievements. They were grand and many. However, the Maya were human beings, like anyone else, and had their share of violence and abuse, from warfare to the ball-game. See, for example, the fall of Tikal's Chak Tok Ich'aak, or the sack of Copan in 738. Let's not impose our hyperbole on ancient peoples - let's let them speak for themselves, and be as human as the rest of us.
+B Miller I agree with you B Miller. Also, I always thought that while main characters were Mayan, they were brought to the Atzecs for sacrifice. Either way, it doesn't matter to me. We do know that the Native Americans practiced human sacrifice. Knit-picking who did it and when is minor when the depiction is so vivid.
+Nepthu The Maya were an impressive civilization. I think we need to recognize how brilliant they were. But, as with most human beings, we need to recognize the brutal side of their civilization. I don't think it does us any good to to treat any civlization ahistorically. Thanks for your comment!
"Gladiator" is missing here. A lot of inaccuracies.
Gladiator isn't based on a true story.
Especially the gas bottle under the chariot!!!!
I don't believe it was based on a true story. Therefore, it shouldn't be on the list.
@@babajohn2303 - I mean historical mistakes in the details that were supposed to be historical. The story could be fictious.
But its a damn good movie
Thank you Mojo for recognizing that Argo was 90% fiction.
I thought in apocolypto it was Aztecs kidnapping Mayans
You guys should now do a video on historically accurate movies.
Hard to decide, depending on what historians you talk to.
+Glenn Lester
Then perhaps, don't talk to historians, maybe consult proper history books, like we all used to do not so very long ago. :0
+abodysite
Who do you think write historical books? Historians either contemporary or modern. You do reload nothing is written in indifference. Everything written recounting events has an underlying agenda.
+Nick Bleker (SkullxGaming873) I believe those are called documentaries.
I guess Apollo 13 was fairly accurate.
+Glenn Lester
Are you on the same planet as the rest of us ?
I'd say that "300" was a tad more unrealistic than "Pearl Harbor".
Nope
+trevipp Yeah, you're insane.
+Cy Clennon Agreed
+Cy Clennon to make a guess maybe its because pearl harbor is considered to be more factual than 300? purely because uneducated people would watch pearl harbor and beleive they have a fair understanding, meaning that the inacurracies hold more weight?
+Cy Clennon I think it ranked higher simply because we have so much documentation on how Pearl Harbor actually went down. While we have evidence about what happened in the film 300, inconsistencies can be given some benefit of the doubt because of how long ago it took place. Pearl Harbor on the other hand is still pretty fresh for history, people who were around during the attack, some are still alive as of now. There is no reason other than to glorify Americans and add drama to a film was were the events altered when you have all the resources to create a accurate film.
"The Canadians are the good guys."
No truer words have ever been spoken.
Nor have they been more relevant.
Elaborate, please. 🙄
Is there another list coming up? I would like to see Patch Adams on the second list on this subject.
We Canadians are never given the credit we're due. Many Americans I've met didn't even know Canada was in WWII way before the US.
+Lori Burnip Well of course you were. Canada still swears allegiance to the queen.
Everyone knows that
+CriminalGameplay an are the more civilised because of it :-)
+Lori Burnip Sadly true. Many US citizens don't know their own place in history let alone the places of other nations. I've heard people state honestly that they didn't even think Canada had a military. Others have told me they think we're Canada's military. Yeesh x_x
+Lori Burnip It's like Pearl Harbor where it shows the two main characters in American uniforms during the Battle of Britain. Impossible. It's very, very likely that they were serving with the RCAF.
So basically, Murica being Murica.
+Nielspiels You don’t watch many movies do you? Filmmakers of all nations twist and alter history for their own ends. Part of that is because movies need a good guy/bad buy and history isn’t that clean-cut.
+wolverineeagle Yes, it's mostly for propaganda. But America is verrrry guilty of that.
+Nielspiels What of note have the British whitewashed? I understand all countires do it but I'm curious why you said 'especially' and singled them out.
Stuart Gibbons The best example I can think of is that "Britain controlled half the world, the sun would never go down in the british empire" like it was something Britain would be proud of. As far as I'm aware, Britain caused the most wars out of any country in the world and is second place as to have commited the most genocide. But also a good example would be any british movie about the second world war, the medieval wars with Ireland or the useless war with Argentina in the 80's
+Nielspiels
Do you have sources to back up your claims about the British. Caused the most wars? Source? Define caused? Plus that isn't whitewashing history.
Regarding that useless war against the Argentinians, that was a retaliation to invading British territory. Any other country would have done the same.
As for the British films, you'll find many of them are actually still from 'Hollywood' and the ones that aren't never go as far as these films on the list.
Besides, I don't think Britain is any worse than anyone else when it comes to putting a bias on history.
THANK YOU for at least including Amadeus in your Honorable Mentions. Wow, that's a conspiracy theory that won't die.
Also I like movies that say “inspired by true events” rather than “based on a true story.”
Because one implies clear fictional liberties
3 Mel Gibson Films in Top 10.
+On Taka And they didn't even include "The Road Warrior," the most historically inaccurate of them all.
Gibson is a renown anti Jewish, anti English bogot.
How can it be historically inaccurate when it is total science Fiction? What next I have to explain the difference
between allegory and allusion?
"The maya were a very peaceful group" ?!!!! just read Maya history specialist , one sample "decapitation took place after the victim was tortured, being variously beaten, scalped, burnt or disembowelled"
Considering inacuracy Mel Gibson's movie is just too smooth.
Actually 4 films Gibson was involved with. He did the voice of John Smith in Pocahontas too.
Um... did Anastasia ever claim to be historically accurate, based on truth, or anything other than fantasy? I think we figured out that it wasn't at a reference for historical study within the first 5 minutes when Rasputin *sells his soul*...
ennanitsua it's actually based on myth
You mean to tell me that talking bats don't exist either?
I have to argue on the Disney cartoons since they were intended to entertain kids rather than promote historical accuracy.
Yep, though I figured I'd see Titanic in there as well.
300 is based on a Comic Book, not in actually History.
And besides....the 'actual' history is largely a myth as well.
@@trottlesnot Not myth, propaganda
@@trottlesnot wtf?
@@trottlesnot 😂😂😂😂 what's the myth about the real history. I think you should start reading it
And the comic book was based off the work of Herodotus. Who basically fabricated the details of the battle itself. So much for being the ‘World’s First True Historian’.
If you listed 300, you probably havent understood the point of the movie. Jesus Christ, its not about three hundred Spartans fighting against orcs and shit. Its about a general leading his army to battle, its about how men become legends, and how legends twist facts.
+Daniel von Paška men stop it. The film was based on a comic, and the comic was ''based'' on a historiacl event. And thats it, relax bro xD
+Daniel von Paška no matter what the moral of the story is, it is still historicly inaccurate. Though my history teacher did recommend it to us when we had about greece and sparta in school, but that was more for imagining how the spartans were
Twisting historical facts is one of the worst things one can do.
You dont get my point.
+blooperman1997 *You're. The irony.
Most of these movies have Mel Gibson in them LOL
Samus Aran yeah, QED, the movies gonna be about as accurate as Vikings with horned helmets because Mel Gibson doesn't care, he picks and chooses what he wants from history just so he can have a chase scene in the jungle
Eric Margolis its a shame bc I really really loved apocolypto 😞
"Based on a true story" and, "Starring Mel Gibson" are good reasons to avoid a film.
Paul Cooper loooool
@@marquittabryant4632 Mojo doesn't have their facts straight on this one. Of course plenty of inaccuracies in Apo but the Maya's did perform human sacrifice on a huge scale. They had a more peacefull image, but that image came crushing down ever since their script and language was deciphered around 1985.
You missed The Great Escape.
A couple of things about "Pearl Harbor" Having seen the movie I realize that an American flying with the RAF would have still been in England when Pearl happened and as for the odd aircraft there was a woman, (Copied from Wikipedia) (February 5, 1919 - March 21, 1943) was a United States aviator who became famous for being part of two aviation-related events. The first occurred while conducting a civilian training flight at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 when she was the first United States pilot to encounter the Japanese air fleet during the Attack on Pearl Harbor. She and her student narrowly escaped a mid-air collision with the Japanese aircraft and a strafing attack after making an emergency landing.The following year, Fort became the second member of what was to become the Women Airforce Service Pilots or WASP. Cornelia was working as a WASP ferry pilot on 21 March 1943 when she became the first female pilot in American history to die on active duty. She was involved in a mid-air collision and crashed ten miles south of Merkel, Texas in Mulberry Canyon, Texas. Both "Tora, Tora, Tora", which had her as an older woman, and "Pearl Harbor" showed the incident.
I'm pretty sure Apocalypto is about the Aztecs, hence the Spaniards at the end.
The Mayans and the Aztecs were both in modern day Mexico.
True, but the Mayan civilization had collapsed by the year 900. The Spanish did not arrive for another five hundred years
+Slade Wilson Mayans were still pretty much around and kicking when Columbus met them in 1502 on his 4th voyage. It was the Spaniards who eventually destroyed Mayan culture.
+Icarian As a people, of course they survived, but they had declined severely even before Europeans appeared in America. Mayan culture was naturally dying and being replaced by cultures that had sprung from their original empire. It is similar to the Jews after their expulsion from Palestine, as a people they did indeed live on, but as a nation they ceased to exist.
+Slade Wilson but the language of the film is a dialect of Mayan, spoken in S. Mexico (I think Yucatec)
"The last samurai" is based on the story of a french officer who had been a military advisor in Japan. Sorry america...
+Brice Leclem Didn't know that until now. Very cool.
Yes! John Oliver (who I adore) complained about it in one of his episodes (I think he was touching on the lack of diversity and white washing of characters), harping on the "Last Samurai" was made into a white man. Of course he was! He was based on a real person John Oliver!!! There are the rare occasions where I wish people would research some movies a bit more before complaining about them.
It was a terrible movie anyhow, doubt many cared enough to and I wouldn't blame them.
Brice Leclem; I read it was Prussia that provided military advisers to help modernize the Japanese army, but French or Prussian, it WAS NOT American advisers.
oldgysgt Exactly.
The Characters in the Patriot were fictional.
The Disney films were supposed to be kid friendly and not necessarily accurate.
300 was based on a comic, not a historical story.
Anastasia was a legend, not a historical documentary.
Where was Remember the Titans?
Where was the Blind Side?
Both were embellishments of real people.
These people making these lists are idiots.
Christopher Columbus was inaccurate-starting with Columbus being Italian...evidence suggests he was most likely a Spaniard.
@@zatoth13 Columbus was from Genova, it's inaccurate to say it was italian because the notion of Italy as a nation did not exist in XV century but culturally he was italian
They never claimed U-571 was historically accurate.
No??? The movie is claimed to be based on a real happening - leaving the whole thing to be totally inaccurate!!
How can you have a list like this and not include The Conqueror with John Wayne as Genghis Khan? It's so bad that Howard Hughes (the producer) tried to buy and destroy all copies of the film.
+Boyd McCollum Between the two or three packs of cigarettes a day, and filming the thing on the McGregor Range out of El Paso where nuclear bomb tests had taken place, I believe those factors whittled down The Duke's life considerably.
+Boyd McCollum -- No one remembered that movie. It is seldom broadcast. I have never seen, while all Wayne's other movies have been shown on TV numerous times.
+IronheadOfScroteus shipping radiation contaminated sand from the site the director wanted to film at for a indoor set price didn't go well
Does anyone ever pee to the side of the toilet to make less noise?
only in public bathrooms
LMAO yes. Ive been waiting for a comment like this
XD yes I used to
...See, I think this is something we women don't ever think about. Ever.
your comment is random as hell but yes lol
Kenneth Douglas "Ken" Taylor, OC was a Canadian diplomat, educator and businessman, best known for his role in the 1979 covert operation called the "Canadian Caper" when he was the Canadian ambassador to Iran. Wikipedia
How about Ridley Scott's "Kingdom Of Heaven" (2005)?
Mulan is also hugely historically inaccurate. It's set in the Ming period but the Huns were around about 700 years earlier than that, were based in Russia and spread west to Europe, so Huns invading China doesn't make sense anyway. Also, if you're doing a list about mythologically inaccurate movies, Disney's Hercules needs to be top. The backstory and the hydra battle is pretty much the only part they borrowed. Hercules never fights the Titans and Pegasus is from a completely different myth. Also, Hercules ends up killing his and Meg's kids. All this doesn't stop me from loving both those movies obviously.
+SCP Jack I loved Mulan..but i know the disney version of her is so damn inaccurate it hurts
Agreed, these movies are the corner stone of childhood memories. I think that's why, for these movies, they should be allowed to take liberties: it makes the stories more accessible to children without traumatizing them w/ graphic info.
+SCP Jack The Hercules argument is irrelevant, since they said that movies based on myth were not going to be on the list.
Hmm... the Huns, we'll, they actually did invaded China but at that time they be called the Xoginu wich is pronouned "Hising-nu" but they invaded it around 200 B.C.E so yeah, your right in the time period
+Logan Sahdala It's assumed the Huns and Mongols were the same people simply because the Chinese called one of the sub groups Hun. That makes no sense, but the same historian that came up with that also believed the Egyptians built the great wall of China... Simply because both cultures put blocks around names of people in their writing systems.
The huns were a Turkish people (in what is now Russia), spoke Turkish, didn't call themselves the Huns, and never invaded China.
They only shared similar religious beliefs with their far eastern neighbors, and love of horsemanship.
"Freedom... from historical accuracy!!!" ~Wallace
Seeing historical movies and reading historical novels is what turned me on to history - I wanted to know what "really happened." That was when I was 9 years old - 68 years later and a degree in history, I've learned that history is in the eye of the beholder!
Also, the Mayan monk in Apocalipto is using the Mask of Tlaloc (the Aztec God of rain), it was Chaac the Mayan God of rain.
While the line THIS IS SPARTAAAA is awesome and all, i personally like the original historic line. The messenger told Leonidas that Xerxes wanted his land and water, to with Leonidas responded "Dig it out yourself!" right before he kicked him into the well.
Did her actually do that? If so that's awesome
Something along those lines but yes. The Spartans were pretty notorious trash talkers.
The line about tonight we dine in hell and fighting in the shade is historically true
+Tim Jordan Apart from "Hell" being a judeo-christian thing and not part of the greek pantheon. If they dined after death, it would most likely have been together with Hades ;)
+Lavrentivs it is thought that Leonidas or his lieutenant said "we will dine in Hades" before the first attack .
They say that Algren wouldn't be able to master the katana in such a short time yet they forget that he was a Calvary officer who trained most likely at West Point in saber combat and he has even taken out samurai when he ran out ammo for his revolver. Algren was also a Civil War vet and has faught against the Native Americans which means that he has experience with enemies using melee weaponry. This shows that he already had a good base to start with and that he would be able to train and fight with the Katana in a short time but them like alot of people don't listen to every detail about the characterl and then question how they did what they did.
*forgot
*character
I believe Rurouni Kenshin depicted a better view of the Restoration and early Meiji than the Last Samurai.
+gjesus051
It rather suggests you don't know how a cavalry saber is used, especially by cavalry, vs. how a Katana is used.
+Oliver H I know how to use both a saber and a katana. I rather love historical weapons. I just agree with the in-sight that the Last Samurai is too American centered. I feel the series of Rurouni Kenshin captured the soul of the people of the Restoration of Meiji Era Japan. I love the movie The Last Samurai, but it just is too impractical. It's of Algren's acceptance that throws me. No matter how integrated he became, he would be first and foremost a gaijin, a foreigner. So a samurai yes, but always a second class one. Even further, check out The Shinsengumi for another view of Restoration.
THANKS for including the Last Samurai, everyone just loves that movie...it portrays the samurai as honorable spiritual underdogs, in reality they were horrific criminal tyrants. A samurai would cut down a peasent child in the street with very little consequences if he felt the child disrespected him in anyway
General Tavington, the main antagonist of The Patriot, was actually based off of a real life British general by the name of Banastre Tarleton who was known for his reputation for brutality during the War of Independence. But even then, General Tavington was a highly exaggerated version of him.
You say that the Spartans blocked Thermopylae with not 300 spartans but actually an army of 7,000. This to me says that you said they had 7,000 spartans. That isn't quite right they only had about 300 spartans but the rest of their army was made up of other Greek city-state's soldiers.
As long as the film is good, nobody really cares with historical inaccuracies until you finished the film.
Are you sure? The inaccuracies ruined 300 for pretty much every Iranian, if I'm not mistaken.
+Disappointed Turtle I didn't see any Iranians in the movie, only uruks from lord of the rings fighting guys in bondage gear.
+Ardimo Harsa Historical Inaccuracy is probably the stupidest thing someone would fault a movie for.
+Disciple of Khorne Iranians are Persians. And the Persians in this movie were, like you said, Orcs. Get it?
+DrIScream A movie based on a comic based on ancient greek propaganda based on a historical event.
"This....can only end in tears" Still use this quote from Anastasia, historical accuracy be damned.
I would be curious to see a list based on mythology because we would have a full length video covering Troy and Clash of the Titans!
Well, Disney did address Pocahontas's voyage to England in the sequel, but nevertheless twas still quite inaccurate. Also, her real name wasn't even Pocahontas, it was Matoaka. Pocahontas was essentially a nickname.
Was she to do with Pontiacs Rebellion? When the Indian chief Pontiac fought against the British for some time before Britain gave the Indians Ohio and established the Proclamation Line?
+HatBoxBro We watched Pocahontas in class just after studying her and it made me cringe so much. Couldn't stand to watch it again.
Braveheart was far more accurate than the patriot.
+Valrock Mograth But still, Mel Gibson seems to suck out all truth in his movies based on history.
it was not accurate apart from the general flow of events.
-Wallace wore armor and had his own coat of arms
-Robert de Brus was no friend to Wallace, who supported his rival John Baliol
-Bannockburn was not some kind of parley, it was a scared English army trying to save a Scottish castle
-The queen from France was actually a small kid at the time
-Edward I was actually very popular with the people of England and quite charitable.
-Wallace was likely excommunicated as he tended to lock dissident or English villages in a church and burn it all down
SantomPh
The whole movie is like one big glass of Scottish beer to me. And what you've typed is just page one of the inaccuracies.
+Valrock Mograth Both are legit flicks anyways, even if neither one is interested in being historically accurate.
+godzillavkk everything he said is documented, its accepted fact. The Bruces were a french norman family which is why he clalled the de Brus.
Regarding Braveheart, it is implied in the film that Wallace sired a child with the wife of Edward II, NOT Edward III. Edward I was the sitting king of England. His son Edward II, formerly the first English Prince of Wales (a title held by every heir-apparent since then and relinquished upon accession to the throne) succeeded him and did, indeed, sire the prince who would be known as Edward III upon accession to the throne.
When "Mel Gibson" can't get enough screen time so he sneaks in at the end with Disney =DDD
the samurai are constantly depictes in a heroic light...for the most part, they were glorified thugs
Ndima Silwana yes, the samurai rebellion was largely about loss of status. Samurai under the Shogonate were the only armed class, and had the freedom to punish and kill lower classes. The closest American comparison was the relation of all whites to blacks both before and after the Civil War.
another fallacy-there were black slave owners and there were areas where blacks and whites were able to fraternize together before Woodrow Wilson brought forth Jim Crow as a national policy. in fact, northern US had havens for escaped slaves (despite there being people such as Patty Cannon) until Dread Scott. there were also whites who did not own slaves.
It's just like with Gangster films. These films always say they fight for 'honor, family, tradition' when really, they were pretty much heartless thugs who wanted to stay on top of the food chain.
They did have an honor code though, but it’s not honorable by today’s standards
After watching this you are never going to ask Mel Gibson what the exact time is again.
All Mel Gibson does now is create torture porn, like "The Passion of the Christ" - he hasn't lived in the real world for a very long time.
BURN.
He's been in Hollywood for far too long.
torture porn for history buffs I might add
Poor Mel Gibson, three of his best films are listed here. Historically inaccurate they might be, but great flicks they are.
In Apocalypto you forgot to mention the last scene, when Spanish conquistadors arrive in Central America, which happened in the early 16th century, while the movie is set around 10-11th century
Good choices and yet its notable how many are films I really loved. I loved Braveheart but I could find almost nothing true in it. I never considered Apocalypto to be accurate since it was mostly a personal story of an unknown character, and the events were over the top. It was worth pointing out the difference between Aztecs and Mayans in this essay. Apocalypto was a seminal Mel Gibson film in what will be looked later in a fascinating life and career study in violence.
I would love to see a Top 10 Historically Inaccurate WatchMojo Top 10´s
Batman vs superman wasn't historically accurate
Dump Trump
And ironically, like 300, a Zach Snyder film.
you are talking about comic books characters you idiot
Just so you know, the mayans regularly did human sacrifices, a few dozen a year, generally by beheading. Certainly not like in Apocalypto, or anywhere near the aztecs, but human sacrifice was very common.
You should add TROY too, where Aggammemnon doesn't die in the city but when he returns home, Ajax also doesn't die and finally Achileas isn't the first to set foot on troy's beach as the myth said that the first person who would touch that beach will die and noboby wanted to step out of the ships!
During the pre-Columbian era, human sacrifice in Maya culture was the ritual offering of nourishment to the gods. Blood was viewed as a potent source of nourishment for the Maya deities, and the sacrifice of a living creature was a powerful blood offering. By extension, the sacrifice of a human life was the ultimate offering of blood to the gods, and the most important Maya rituals culminated in human sacrifice. Generally only high status prisoners of war were sacrificed, with lower status captives being used for labour
Human sacrifice among the Maya is evident from at least the Classic period (c. AD 250-900) right through to the final stages of the Spanish conquest in the 17th century.
This made me hungry.
Turtle FTW.
Props for calling out Braveheart on kilts!
Now they just need to mention the warpaint thats about 1000 years out of place
@@lavrentivs9891 wasnt really paying attention but did they mention the battle of stirling bridge you know, not actually taking place on the bridge?
@@nobbynobbs3418 Nope, but they didn't get into that many specifics of what's wrong with the movie, like the missing bridge, that he never sacked York et cetera^^
Yeah i bet clan colours were completely wrong.
@@lavrentivs9891 also wrong culture. The blue warpaint was known to the Celts, not the Gaels for whom the Scots are descended.
Ok “watchmojo” why is kingdom of heaven not on here..
cant piss off the muslims
Exactly
Yes
@@gunfighterzero I'm sure that had NOTHING to do with it, moron.
I just thought someone should “hire a Samurai”
Are you telling me Tom Cruise as a Samurai is not historically accurate? Say it's a lie!!!
People keep forgetting that 300 was based on a graphic novel...
Geistmeister6 And that graphic novel is based off of the Battle of Thermopylae, which 300 Spartans and other Greek forces, equaling 7,000 men, defended Greece against Persia.
I'm surprised Kelly's Hero's wasn't mentioned at all. I enjoy it, but it has a 60's theme for a WWII movie.
Of course Disney altered anastasia ! You wouldn't show kids the brutal execution of a family ! Gee wizz.
Anastasia isn't a disney movie but i do agree with you on the story altering
Well.. Untill 1990-tys the true fait of anastasia was not really well known. The communist pushed down it , and that lead to some comspiracy theorys. The story is based on those, not what actually happen. The Movie was actually made quite soon after that the truth came to light
matsv201 Even if she had survived, Rasputin died in 1916, a year before the revolution and had no reason to be chasing her around.
I don´t really remember the move, i just saw it once.... and it was when it was new. i also didn´t really like it
The movie made him "undead"-In the beginning he was in either hell or Purgatory(most likely hell)