Thanks, I never knew that was the tune of the Austrian Anthem. Like the Star Spangled Banner being the tune of an old English drinking song. I understand why they used it, but your right it's historically inaccurate. Can you think of a tune that would be contemporary, and recognizable to a modern audience? I doubt modern audiences can distinguish between Germans, and Prussians.
Overestimated battles
- Thread starter Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
- Start date
Thanks, I never knew that was the tune of the Austrian Anthem. Like the Star Spangled Banner being the tune of an old English drinking song. I understand why they used it, but your right it's historically inaccurate. Can you think of a tune that would be contemporary, and recognizable to a modern audience? I doubt modern audiences can distinguish between Germans, and Prussians.
Hohenfriedberger March, maybe? It might not be immediately recognisable, but once the Prussians have appeared a couple of times I'm sure people will be able to link the song to them.
IIRC, the Prussian appearance in the movie amounts to few minutes total: couple appearances of general Muffling and a short scene with Blucher (played by the Georgian actor) ordering Prussians to advance. So, not too much time to get used to any tune, especially with a background of the never-ending explosions (the joke was that for the scenes of Borodino and Waterloo Bondarchuk used more gunpowder than was spent in the real battles).
Interestingly enough, none of the inaccuracies listed so far found its way into Wiki's article on the subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_(1970_film)#Historical_inaccuracies) a big part of which is dedicated to who was really whom in the British army/aristocracy.
IIRC, the Prussian appearance in the movie amounts to few minutes total: couple appearances of general Muffling and a short scene with Blucher (played by the Georgian actor) ordering Prussians to advance. So, not too much time to get used to any tune, especially with a background of the never-ending explosions (the joke was that for the scenes of Borodino and Waterloo Bondarchuk used more gunpowder than was spent in the real battles).
Interestingly enough, none of the inaccuracies listed so far found its way into Wiki's article on the subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_(1970_film)#Historical_inaccuracies) a big part of which is dedicated to who was really whom in the British army/aristocracy.
For a dramatic movie Waterloo was a lot better then most. Interesting that Rod Steiger said his favorite Roles were Napoleon, and Al Capone. Always a leader of men I guess. As an English speaker my favorite Napoleon was David Swift, in the 1976 BBC production of War & Peace. It was also the first time I saw Anthony Hopkins on screen. I guess I'm giving away my age.
Of course, it has to be good. It has a good script, a good director with experience of making the battle movies (and just recently made his version of War and Peace), budget allowing to hire the good actors, ability to get something like 15,000 soldiers trained to act as the XIX century troops, 2,000 cavalrymen trained for participation in the costume movies, means (and willingness of the authorities) to change site’s landscape and basically to get whatever deems necessary.
As for the War and Peace movies, the 1st was typical Hollywood with the actors, except for Audrey Hepburn, ill suited for the roles and fantastic ideas regarding uniforms, military awards, etc. The battle scenes clearly suffered from the shortage of extras. 2nd, by Bondarchuk, was much more authentic (but Bondarchuk and his wife acting as personages 20 - 30 years younger were pathetic) but rather boring. I could not bring myself up to watching beyond the 1st part of either BBC or the recent series and can’t comment upon the performances.
Siege of Constantinople in 1204. This is often cited as being the cause of the collapse of the eastern roman empire and rise of the ottomans.
All this Waterloo talk makes me realize that HBO/Amazon/whomever could probably make a great miniseries about Napoleon's life.
Back to the thread...how about the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains?
Back to the thread...how about the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains?
It seems pretty indecisive. The collapse of the Romans was inevitable, the victory of the Roman-Gothi alliance simply delayed it a bit. By the time Rome had defeated them, the Huns had already sacked much of Gaul. And its not like the Huns were instantly destroyed. They would collapse a few years later in Pannoia, the other side of Europe.
Gonna go with Lepanto. It, coupled with Malta, was a good morale booster for the Christian world to be sure. Thing is, none of the states making up the Holy League really gained much from it aside from prestige. Venice couldn't take back Cyprus or anything in the Aegean, Spain just lost money and kept edging closer to bankruptcy, and the other Italian states were too insignificant to take advantage. It was a (fairly potent) symbol, but nothing more.
There were miniseries about his life (2002, Franco/Canadian/British) and they were not too great even with a good cast and the budget of over $46M. An attempt to squeeze his life into 4 episodes made them too sketchy.
Well yes, but actually no. It was extremely important in terms of what it prevented. If the Ottomans had continued to sail unchecked, venice may well have fallen, and further Spanish losses throughout the Mediterranean likely would have been catastrophic. Malta, the Balaerics, Crete, Spain's North African possessions all would have been on the chopping block. If Corfu had fallen, an invasion of Apulia was a distinctly terrifying possibility. Barbarossa's terrifying cruise though the Western Mediterranean in 1544 was never repeated. The shattering defeat at Lepanto also scotched Turkish enthusiasm for naval projects in other theatres, like the Indian ocean.
Moreover, it's worth pointing out that the Lepanto campaign didn't actually damage Spain's finances much if at all; most of the expenses would have to be borne anyway (the fleet did not appear out of thin air, after all), and the extra expenses were generally covered by the new taxes the pope allowed them to levy as well as spoils from the battle itself. The strategic alternative of a passive coastal defense would also have been expensive, and probably much less effective. The cost of losing the battle was very serious for the ottomans; rebuilding their fleet after the battle led to higher taxes and stagnating economic development. This drove peasant flight, and a vicious cycle of taxation and evasion. John didn't get to sail into the Golden Horn at the head of his fleet and personally behead Selim, but the battle had profound consequences.
Musically speaking the joyous crowd in Grenoble singing the Ca Ira is a bit of a gaffe as well ... the song was banned by Napoleon.
Ironically, it could still have been used in the Movie as it was also the Regimental March of The 14th (Buckinghamshire) Regiment, whose 3rd battalion fought at Waterloo.
Can you say why you think 1204 was overrated? The argument for it being important is pretty obvious, and even if the Byzantines were doomed to decline it seems that their capitol being captured and the empire shattered would have speeded things along quite a bit.
The problem with this response is that it commits the orientalist fallacy of viewing the Ottoman Empire and it’s ambitions during the 16th and/or 17th century as purely militarily expansionist. However this narrative is largely untrue and is one which contemporary historians have been trying to overturn for quite a few decades now.
No, Venice itself and the Balearic Islands probably wouldn’t have “fallen” because there’s little evidence to suggest that the ottomans planned on annexing them. (Not to mention the combined Spanish and venetian naval strength still being an extremely formidable force). Asserting that they did without evidence once again stems from the largely unsubstantiated and now obsolete narrative that they were hellbent on conquering literally everything in the Mediterranean because they could.
The conquest of Cyprus took place so that the ottomans could solidify their hold over the eastern Mediterranean. The conquest of Rhodes and attempted conquest of Malta took place in order to ring the death knell for the knights piracy against ottoman shipping the region. It wasn’t (as I’ve heard some have argued) an attempt to launch a naval invasion of Sicily or something absurd like that.
Regardless, Lepanto didn’t stop Ottoman conquests in the Mediterranean. Since they went onto also decisively conquer Tunis from the Spanish in 1574. The conquest of Crete which happened later in the 17th century took place as part of a separate war with Venice and for different reasons.
You are correct that Barbarossa’s and Dragut’s decisive pitched naval battles,
terrifying but profitable piracy and tactical genius wouldn’t be repeated after Lepanto. But that wasn’t because of the battle of Lepanto, it’s because both Barbarossa and Dragut were already long dead by this point anyway.
Last edited:
Actually you are correct here. In which case I will change my suggestion. OP mentioned the Battles of Tours and Vienna, however I’d like to suggest another oft cited battle whose consequences are either misinterpreted or overstated. I’m referring to the siege of Vienna in 1529. A lot of people don’t really understand why this siege wasn’t actually a “turning point;”
The 1529 siege was no turning point or end of Ottoman conquest, it was a simple defeat. The Ottomans' decisive move into Central Europe didn't even come until 1541, when they definitively conquered Buda and, through several additional campaigns, wrested most of Hungary from Habsburg hands. "The tide" of Ottoman expansion came to an end in the 1560s as it became clear that they weren't going to be able to easily conquer the entire Hungarian kingdom, with peace being signed in 1568. No exciting turning point, just a gradual winding-down of conflict. The second siege of Vienna in 1683, on the other hand, was indeed a major turning point, not so much because it prevented Ottoman expansion (taking Vienna would have been hard enough, how much further could they have possibly gone?) but because it created the circumstances which allowed the Ottomans to be pushed back out of Hungary.
Speaking of the former, I also did an alternate history thread on 1529 for those that are interested: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ottomans-won-the-siege-of-vienna-1529.475715/