Attila (2001 movie) historical accuracy

[Razzoriel]

I've recently watched this movie with Gerard Butler. I was wondering how accurate it portrays late roman army's outfits, as well as Visigoth and Hunnic military men. With my limited knowledge in this history period, I'd say the Romans were depicted with the correct post-reform structure (Cohorts) but their armor and weapon were pre-reform (Pila and square shields).

The Visigoths looked too viking-like with their helmet adornments, and didn't portray their absorption of Roman military style by using shields and spears. Though there was little military organization on those tribes, it seemed to me the Visigoths were one of the most organized ones.

At least the Huns IMO were portrayed at least very accurately.

[AMELIANVS]

Expressed in percents: o% accuracy.
And not only in the view of Attila's time-Romam army NEVER looked like this.

[AMELIANVS]

I'm sorry to not have time to talk about it in more detail now.But maybe I should admit to that movie at least 1% of accuracy because it is truth soldiers had even back then two hands,two legs and head :wink:

[Razzoriel]

Isn't 0% a little too harsh? The hunnic swords, short bows, and clothing looked similar to what is considered "historically accurate".

What struck me as the most oblivious thing was the leather cuirass those roman soldiers were wearing.

[AMELIANVS]

Yes I am very harsh to it but thereare very many reasons for it.I'm sure more people will tell you something about it.

[Razzoriel]

Eager to know what others think, then.

[Nathan Ross]

I've never seen this, but I thought I'd try and find some stills.

Here's Attila himself. Tunic looks okay - cuirass not so okay... Not sure whether Gerard Butler looks much like a Hun, strictly speaking...

Here are some other barbarians - Huns? Goths? They look pretty generic shaggy barbarians though. Not sure what that pagoda/greenhouse in the background is all about.

Things go quite badly wrong at this point though...

Here we have Attila and 'Flavius Aetius' entering Rome. Yes... But anyway: awful moulded plastic shields, terrible galvanised 'mail' (I think) and a collection of badly-fitting lids. Aetius's bodyguard is modelling the usual brown leather 'praetorian' gear from the props warehouse.

This stuff might have looked semi-passable if the story was set in the 1st or 2nd century. Actually, better than a lot of recent attempts in that direction... But these are just generic 'movie Romans', with no attempt to adapt to the 5th century at all.

You might think, bearing in mind the fantastic and exotic costumes of the later Roman empire, that the civilians might be better dressed. There was a recent BBC drama-documentary on the sack of Rome that did a reasonable job with this. But not here, if this turquoise Renfaire corset is anything to go by.

For some reason, no matter how 'accurate' Roman-themed film and TV things are trying to be, they still can't resist dressing all the women like fantasy hookers... :-|

[Nathan Ross]

While I was searching for pictures of the 2001 Gerard Butler Attila I came across a few from a later version, 2008's Rory McCann Attila ('Heroes & Villains')

Some more interesting-looking 'Huns' (although I don't think they look very Hunnic!)

The Romans are a little bit better too. They've borrowed their gear from the previous BBC thing I mentioned in the post above!

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I've seen both. The 2001 movie by Gerard Butler is complete bullshit. No other way of describing it.

The 2008 Attila "movie" from the heroes and villans series is far better, but still has a lot of issues. They actually listened to Dr. Peter Heather when making it, getting some details down to the letter, like the Dwarf Zercon who Priscus records that he liked to wear armor while on the road with the Huns.

If you want me to, I could rip their costumes to shreds, as well as the historical accuracy the films' storylines as well, but I doubt you want to hear a multiple page rant.

Still, if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. I don't bite. Well... dentists, but that's different.

I maintain the wikipedia page on Flavius Aetius and the Battle of Chalons (although I haven't checked them in a while).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chalons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_A%C3%ABtius

[AMELIANVS]

As for that Attila from heroes and villans:if I remember it correctly the Huns(who look very non-Hunnic) in that 'documentary are represented as a rule going to battle on their foots(how very Hunnic!)and also as being everything but horse archers.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Huns in the Tisza and Wallachian Basins fielded mostly infantry, they couldn't have supported more than 7500horsemen (based on a figure of 20 horses per man which was standard amongst steppe warriors).

[Dan Howard]

I'm sorry to not have time to talk about it in more detail now.But maybe I should admit to that movie at least 1% of accuracy because it is truth soldiers had even back then two hands,two legs and head :wink:

They had horses too. Unfortunately most of them are too large, the saddles are wrong, and they are using stirrups.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Well... there is the argument the Huns introduced stirrups but I honestly seriously doubt it. I haven't read what Kim has to say on Hun military equipment, but I don't think he deals with it. He told me to look to the Strategikon for Hunnic warfare because nobody has ever written about it really.

[Michael Kerr]

I thought the troops fighting for Attila, mostly seen on the 2008 semi-documentary were meant to be Scirii & not Hunnish troops as their leader Edeco was one of the main characters in that particular episode which was based on Priscus.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

They are. But I'm of the camp that even the Huns were mostly infantry by this point, with an elite core of cavalry.