Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Netflix Barbarians: Arminius' Combat Skill, Does He Fight Like a Roman?" video.

Is there really an inverse relationship between historical accuracy and entertainment?
38
Did Arminius really want to kill him though? I thought he had previous relationships with most of the people in that village. So maybe his poor fighting performance stemmed from his conscience or lack of desire to kill?
27
@Duke_of_Lorraine Perhaps. But I can't think of a single example where a film or tv-series became "more entertaining" because the writers opted for a historically inaccurate approach to a scene. They often cite "artistic license". But it hardly ever ensures to make their production more entertaining as a result.
13
@ThatElephantSeal Funny you should mention it. I saw some feminist complaint article the other day about movies that not only have few female characters but NO female characters at all. And Master and Commander was listed as one of them. I sat there thinking: "Wait, the entire film takes place on a sailing navy vessel out at sea for the duration of the film... How much historical sense would it make for women being on board at the time?" :S
10
@Athalfuns Call me cynical if you will, but I think the real reason is that script writers and directors are usually very egomaniacal and suffer from a bit more than a fair share of hubris. They don't like the idea of having their "creative process" hampered by pesky details like historical accuracy. They want to let their own, often mediocre, imagination run wild during the production, so they come up with lies like claiming that historical accuracy wouldn't be as entertaining as their fiction is.
4
@mrkiky That's ridiculous. What ultimately determine your competency in fighting is how much you've fought in your life. Romans had training on their side, but far from every roman soldier was an experienced fighter in life or death situations. If a roman soldier was posted in some backwater province, stuck with constructing roads all day long rather than partaking in battles, then he would never have the opportunity put his training into practice, and it would wither over time. It's the same as even modern armies really. I wouldn't trust a bunch of national guard reservists to be able to outshoot a group of experienced partisan militias who've been in a constant state of war for years, being in firefights every single day. The first group will crap their pants once they realize they're being shot at. The latter will be about as affected by gunfire as if it was a light rainfall. Even though they've had no formal training as "professional soldiers", whereas the national guard reservists have. Training will only get you so far. Real life experience ultimately determines competency.
2
@mrkiky A veteran yes. But a veteran high ranking officer. In battles they were usually riding a horse, protected by several legionaries on foot. It wasn't usual for mounted officers to do much fighting, since they were busy shouting orders and directing their troops. They had training to fight, but if they HAD to fight, then something had gone horribly wrong during the battle.
2
@mrkiky That's not an absolute certainty. The line between "soldier" and any other profession for a man at the time was very blurred. Especially in Germania, since their tribes didn't have "professional soldiery" to begin with. Every man who was of a fit age and constitution would be expected to partake in wars when the need arise. So this blacksmith could've been a veteran of several battles. It's hard to know just by looking at their profession.
1
@mrkiky Yeah, sure. But considering that he was adopted by an influential political official, I doubt he had to "rise through the ranks" like the common roman legionaries had to. As with most militaries throughout history, most sons of noblemen went straight into the officers corps. Never serving as privates.
1
@mrkiky The film "Jarhead" is pretty educational in this regard to show the plights of professional soldiers. Even though Swofford was posted at the very front lines of war, he never got to fire a single shot against the enemy. It was a lot of "Hurry up and wait". And this would also have been true for the majority of Roman soldiers. Imagine being in an actual battle, and your position in the extremely effective Testudo formation is right smack in the middle of the wall of Scutums. You wouldn't engage in much melee combat at all. All you'd do is basically wait for the front ranks to falter so you could replace them. Which you rarely got to do, since it was very effective against the barbarian enemies of the empire And the men who actually served in the front lines were a minority, since most of them were tasked with guarding local garrisons in the provinces, and doing construction of roads. The soldiery of Rome was a stroke of genius in the strategic sense, since they covered all the angles. But it wasn't a surefire way of making soldiers being involved in personal fights.
1