/his/ interjection

What movies never get right about history:

>speech about honor, family and country to the army
Rarely ever happened pre-19th century, the speeches were otherwise focused on money, fame or killing dirty [insert enemy religion]

>anybody speaking to the whole army with no support
There was a function of heralds in the armies who passed the word on, only immediate surrounding heard the actual speaker

>battle becomes a series of 1v1 brawls
Army that would leave its formation would start killing each other by accident and lose immediatelly

>christians in medieval using any sort of tactics
Medieval battles were about fighting head-on, anything else was dishonorable (it happened, but rarely and usually resulted in losing some alliances)

>africans being all tribesmen
Except some bushmen deep inland (like Zulus), most of Africa had fully gunpowder armies by late 17th century

>nationality having any importance pre-19th century
First and foremost was alliegance to your ruler, most of states were heavily multi-ethnic and being [insert nation] meant being loyal to ruler who held title of [insert nation]

>"Dark Ages" is time where sun didnt shine, everyone killed each others and demons roamed
It's a historical name for era which has little primary sources - there is nothing to enlighten us what was going on = dark age

>Europeans being oppressive to anyone except Amerindians pre 19th century
Europeans didn't even own any land outside Europe, they were just renting it from local rulers and their position was of traders

>serfs and slaves being treated as garbage
There were laws preventing mistreatment of lowest classes, you don't want majority of your population hating the elite

>pre-18th century battles resulting in thousands dead
Usually only about 5% of the army actually died, battles were more about who makes the enemy panic and run first

cont.

Attached: outlaw king.jpg (600x400, 34.39K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Marchfeld
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>fighting with sword in battles
Sword is a duel weapon, the best and most common pre-gunpowder weapon was a spear

>knights fighting from horseback inbetween peasants
That would mean the knights horse would get stabbed immediatelly and knight would get pulled down, knights were charge cavalry

>vikings being awesome horrible warriors
They were raiding parties and got wrecked in most open battles against christians

>mongols being horrible menace
Literally mongol propaganda, they ruled through fear but were fairly tolerant if you didnt revolt against them and had lowest crime in the world

>castles and buildings showing stones
Most castles and stone buildings had plaster and were often pretty colourful

>everybody wearing leather
Leather sucks and is hard to get, most common was linen or wool

>church is evil pre-13th century
Church was basically the equivalent of nowadays non-profit humanitarian organization that took care of education, helping the poor and healing the sick

>ancient athens being democratic liberal paradise
Only about 30% of population could vote, they had tons of slaves, they killed deformed babies etc.

>nobles being pompous gluttonous retards pre 16th century
The whole point of nobility was that they were elite warriors, trained to fight from birth

>archers being anyhow respected
Being an archer was considered being a pussy (with England being the only exception)

>Romans being great warriors
Romans had extremely good logistics and fortifications, they were relatively meh in battles

>anyone east of Europe being a barbarian
Persians had better discipline and education than Greeks, Mongols had more advanced tactics and less crime than Euros, Ottos were more tolerant etc.

>greeks accepting homos
It was relatively normal to fuck boys, but it wasn't anything to brag about and actual gay relationships were nonexistent (maybe except Lesbos)

Attached: mongols.jpg (640x360, 47.34K)

That's all of my rant, i feel better now. It is extremely annoying how we consider our fantasy more interesting than actual reality in history movies.

>sources quoted: none

Such an obvious non white cope
>dude africa was totally civilized and shieeett

Attached: 1647892206477.jpg (827x813, 92.14K)

>most of states were heavily multi-ethnic

Attached: 1000.jpg (904x864, 85.07K)

Fuck off nigger

I'm writing a post on Any Forums, not a diploma thesis. If you don't believe something just say so, i'll elaborate and provide sources.

Based OP. Keep these retards seething

What a pathetic and pretentious load of pseud garbage

>sources: my cock

>>speech about honor, family and country to the army
>Rarely ever happened pre-19th century, the speeches were otherwise focused on money, fame or killing dirty [insert enemy religion]
This isn't true. I'm not gonna say what because I'm using my source to write a script but I've literally been reading a court case pre 19th century where the defendant's final words talk about all of this. And he's not a very well known historical figure that's referenced a lot

>Being an archer was considered being a pussy
OP says this while also referencing the Mongols in the same post. Stupid cunt.

>>christians in medieval using any sort of tactics
>Medieval battles were about fighting head-on, anything else was dishonorable (it happened, but rarely and usually resulted in losing some alliances)
Holy fuck this is so stupidly false. Are you retarded? Literally every medieval battle between the English and the French were decided solely by tactics used

nigga I’m not reading all of this, are you high

The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, you're just being a contrarian pseud

>>serfs and slaves being treated as garbage
>There were laws preventing mistreatment of lowest classes, you don't want majority of your population hating the elite
Also false. Hence why Europe was in a constant state of civil wars and revolutions on top of all the wars they had with each other. The magna carter literally only exists because the King was treating the noblemen like dirt as well as all the poor people

I like how you took the only point mentioning africa, misinterpreted it (there was 0 mention of how civilized they were) and started crying about reality not fitting your views. Poltards really are pathetic.

Okay, I don't belive anything you said

>Church was basically the equivalent of nowadays non-profit humanitarian organization that took care of education, helping the poor and healing the sick
Yeah the church was so good that Martin Luther reformed the whole thing to get away from its for-profit model right?
The church was so good that literally every pope between 200 and 1500 was a known criminal right? The church was so good that it literally founded the mafia.
Jesus christ

>reddit spacing
Stopped reading right there. Neck yourself, cunt.

>most of Africa had fully gunpowder armies by late 17th century
Blatantly false and a 20 sec Google search is enough to confirm that

>court case
i specifically said im talking about speeches to the army

Fair point though childish delivery, i should've specified i meant in European armies

Their "tactics" were about who to put on left, right, middle, who goes first, who goes second etc. Attacking from behind, hiding in cover for surprise moments, using the terrain to your advantage etc. was shunned. I also didn't say it didn't happen, i said it was rare and considered dishonorable.

First example i could think of from wiki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Marchfeld
>Rudolph ordered a fresh heavy cavalry regiment he had concealed behind nearby hills and woods to attack the right flank of Ottokar's troops.[4] Such ambushes were indeed commonly regarded as dishonourable in warfare and Rudolph's commander Ulrich von Kapellen apologized to his own men in advance.[4]

>>ancient athens being democratic liberal paradise
>Only about 30% of population could vote, they had tons of slaves, they killed deformed babies etc.
BASED
Also women weren't allowed to leave the house, save for those who were pretty preteen virgins selected to work in the Temples

nigger I played eu4 so I know that the africans were only a couple of mil techs away from cannon at the start if the 16th century

dumbest thread I have ever seen

Magna charta was about nobles, it's irrelevant here
The laws were often broken sure, lots of nobles or slaveowners treated their herd as garbage, but it definitely wasn't a norm

>specifically say pre-13th century
>mentions things happening post 13th century as an argument

I was never on reddit, i just tried making my post easy to read. Neck yourself, retard.

My source is Warfare in Atlantic Africa by J. K. Thorton¨, but let's pretend academic work is equal to your google results, can you show me what you found?