Wednesday, December 20, 2023

This is How you Austerlitz!

Exploits of the Cavalry Regiment at the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805¹
Bogdan Pavlovich Willewalde (PD)
Why yes, I am still ranting about the movie.

I was driven to look up who was the military consultant for Ridley Scott's Napoleon. Who to blame for this abject departure from history? Turns out he had a British military consultant and a French historical advisor. I read this about his military consultant, the title of this article ...

Critics of Napoleon epic have fallen for emperor’s fibs, says film’s military expert

... pretty much told me all I needed to know, but I read the article anyway. One word, poppycock. (Though in The Guardian's defense, they do look at both sides of the argument, the last line in the article struck a chord with me.)

Want to know how to do warfare in the Napoleonic era? Hire a British ex-paratrooper? I'm sure the guy knows modern warfare, but he sucks at history. He's the kind of guy I would hire to teach actors and extras how to act like soldiers. From what I saw, he did okay at that. He's done some excellent work on other films, check out his demo reel from his LinkedIn page.

So he knows the small bits, but if he was responsible for setting up the battle scenes (particularly Austerlitz and Waterloo) then Sir Ridley should have hired someone else. Which is where I assume the French historian was relied upon. I'm not seeing any expertise on his LinkedIn page to support hiring him as a consultant on the wars of Napoléon.

Sir Ridley could probably have hired the guys who do the Austerlitz and Waterloo reenactments and gotten a lot more bang for his buck (literally).

The reenactment of these battles are held periodically, Austerlitz is reenacted once a year and from what I have read is always on the anniversary of the battle, the 2nd of December and takes place on the ground where the battle was actually fought. Waterloo is reenacted every five years on the actual ground but is on a weekend near the anniversary of the battle. (I had the extreme fortune to have attended the reenactment on the 18th of June 1995, a Sunday, the 180th anniversary of that battle. Same day of the year, same day of the week, and, wonder of wonders, the weather was damned near identical to what it was like in 1815!)

The Waterloo reenactment is a much larger affair (after all it's within spitting distance of Brussels and its international airport) whereas the Austerlitz reenactment is smaller but seems to be growing every year. (I suppose when your reenactment is in the wilds of Czechia, sixty plus miles from Vienna, you have to be happy that you get as many reenactors as you do. I will say this, the guys who do Austerlitz do it very well.)

So why do I keep going on and on about this? Other than my obsession with the Napoleonic period, well, I hate seeing Hollywood make a hash of history. If they do it, at least make it entertaining (and here I'll cite Sir Ridley's Kingdom of Heaven and The Last Duel for being ripping good yarns and well-made films, in terms of history, meh, not real accurate). I have friends who found Napoleon very entertaining, perhaps I make too much of the film's mistakes. But I also found it to be a very boring movie, it wasn't edited well and it seemed to drift from one scene to the next without a lot of context.

I know, I know, "You want history, read a book!" That I have read so many books on this era is probably why I dislike the film as much as I do.

Now the title of the post "This is How you Austerlitz!" is because I wanted to expose you to a few short videos. The first is by a guy who toured the area of Austerlitz. (It's not called that anymore, now it's Slavkov u Brna, Austerlitz is the name of the place in German. Remember, back in the day this was part of the Austrian Empire, and what language do Austrians speak?) I show you this to illustrate how far off the location Sir Ridley chose for the film was.


The following clip is from this year's (2023) reenactment of Austerlitz. Note that Sir Ridley's film is mentioned as well.


The rest of the clips are all of the reenactments at Austerlitz. Take my word for it, the reenactments gave me a far better flavor for this sort of thing than Sir Ridley's film.

Also from the 2023 reenactment. (There wasn't nearly as much snow there in 1805, if you believe the paintings of the battle. Yeah take those with a grain of salt as well.)


This is from an earlier reenactment, though the text accompanying the video didn't make it all that clear (note the lack of snow!)


And last (and perhaps least, though the cinematography is better, the historical accuracy isn't) here's the scene from Ridley Scott's Napoleon:


For anyone looking to make a film about Napoléon, call me, I'm available.

I'm still a fan of Ridley Scott's films but ...

Now I'll get down off my soapbox.

For now ...




¹ I rather wish I could have found the original title of this painting. It's in the Artillery Museum in St. Petersburg, no, not the one in Florida. The painting depicts the capture of the Eagle of the 4ème Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne by the cavalry of the Russian guard at Austerlitz. The French lost only one eagle at the battle of Austerlitz.

30 comments:

  1. One word Sarge....Hollywood. Excellent reenactment vids, well chosen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their reenactments are superb. They do a lot of ceremonial stuff as well, remembering those who fought and died there. Reenacting done right!

      Delete
  2. Sarge, I know someone who’d make an excellent military history advisor to Movie directors. Since he’s fixin’ to retire from his day job, his availability should improve enormously soon. His commute to Hollywood would be long, but worth it.
    One hundred percent of short putts…
    Just sayin’
    juvat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, but would the Hollywood types listen? Some might, which would make it all worth the while.

      Delete
  3. Crusty Old TV Tech here. Wow, those dudes spent some real green on their reenactment kit! Horses, blankets, uniforms, weapons...man, that is superb. Thanks for the embeds Sarge, enjoyed them.

    Looking at those beautiful rolling green hills of the Czech Republic around Austerlitz, I can see why the Bohemian and Moravian settlers to Texas in the 19th century chose the area they did. Drier, but the same sorts of rolling hills, same sorts of farming techniques possible. Austerlitz gave Texas Chicken Fried Steak, Kolaches, and Central Texas Style BBQ, prosit!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those folks brought some awesomeness to the U.S. didn't they?

      Delete
    2. The right kind of immigrants always do; the wrong kind of "immigrants" are properly called "invaders"
      Boat Guy

      Delete
  4. There are people who get their news from Face Book & a larger percentage who get their history from movies...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is why I have so many problems with Hollywood in general and this movie in particular.

      Delete
  5. Me: "I wonder what delight Sarge has prepared for us this morning...(reads post)....Oh. My. Stars."

    It is a funny thing, Sarge. These days we are called upon to believe in experts above all - and the experts in this case would have been the historians and even the practical amateur archaeologists and anthropologist (because really, that is what re-enactors are), who actually have studied the period and worked within materials of the period (and the geography of the place), not someone who is a modern warfare expert. Because modern warfare is, well, modern.

    This seems like a pretty big miss for Scott (and one of the reasons I have avoided seeing Kingdom of Heaven; I spent many years in my youth reading about the Crusades and was not about to be disappointed) - although having seen Prometheus, another pretty big miss, I am now wary.

    If you have not seen "The Northman" (2022), I would highly recommend it both for a rip-roaring good tale as well as highly historical accurate as they consulted actual historians. Warning, NOT child friendly.

    All this videos. If only I had the time to...oh wait, I am between jobs! Plenty of things to fill the gap.

    (And hats off to those re-enactors out in the snow in Austerlitz. That is dedication.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kingdom Of Heaven was a really good movie, the directors cut told the story better...

      Delete
    2. It was very good "Prince Valiant" version of the fall of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. A lot of sub-text was very missing, like, oh, say, the whole reason for the Crusades in the first place. And, no, it wasn't because suddenly some euro-toughs got a hankering for desert gold (that actually was a byproduct, not a cause.) Something, something, Muslim destruction and enslavement of Christian holy sites and Christians, something something (cough, cough...)

      There were a lot of good parts. Small little details that were good. But also a lot of very big mistakes. Trebuchets are not direct-fire weapons unlike in the movie, they are heavy howitzers, the original Nautilus exercise machines. Things like that bug the historian in me. Arms and armor were... okay, better than a lot of movies but could have been improved greatly by application of some more cash (the maille wasn't riveted and welded flat links for the Europeans. And the horses were wrong, mostly mares were used in the movie for both sides, which the Crusaders preferred stallions.

      Oh, the historical accuracy was far better than a lot of 'medieval' movies. And stayed somewhat to the original actual story. But...

      Delete
    3. TB - First off, thanks!

      I have seen The Northman, OMG what a film! (Looking to watch it again in the near future.)

      I enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven because the story moved along well, it's historicity wasn't an issue because of that. At least for me. But as you know the material well, I feel your pain.

      I look forward to December for the Austerlitz reenactment videos. Seriously.

      Delete
    4. Rob - I did enjoy the Director' Cut, but understand the pain that a Subject Matter Expert would have upon watching it.

      Delete
    5. Beans - Most films get the minutiae wrong, but Napoleon got damned near everything wrong.

      Delete
    6. You all almost persuade me to give it a viewing.

      Delete
    7. At the very least it would give you blog-fodder. 😁

      Delete
    8. I enjoyed the story of "Kingdom Of Heaven", it's right up there on my list with "The 13th Warrior"... but I liked those movies for the story and what I take as a glimpse into how life was back then ("Ride with the Devil" is in that group too). The action did not hurt either.
      But I'm not picky about the sex of the horses or if the armor has the correct rivets, mainly because I know so very little about that stuff....

      I am familiar with Coast Guard aviation, helicopter rescues and the people who man the flights so when I watched "The Guardian" with Kevin Costner & Aston Kutcher I could not enjoy the movie. Right from the beginning it grated on me. When that basket got tangled up with the boat I was in the theater shouting "shear shear shear"... old habits...
      I was not able to enjoy the movie as it wasn't even close to accurate. I can understand (maybe) how it is when they get the details you know about wrong.

      Delete
    9. And there you have it. I enjoyed The Guardian not knowing the details of that business. As Rob points out, when you're a SME, the mistakes can overwhelm your enjoyment of the film.

      That being said, even with the errors in the film Waterloo (Rod Steiger as Napoléon, Christopher Plummer as Wellington) I was able to enjoy the film as the errors weren't really egregious, annoying yes, egregious no.

      Delete
    10. Sarge,
      Agreed! That’s the reason I’m not particularly fond of Top Gun. Lots of BS “dogfighting” which in reality would have made you a debrief movie star. Every fighter pilot I knew did his damndest to avoid that. And if he didn’t would pay attention in debrief to learn and improve for the next time.
      juvat

      Delete
    11. Scott famously said of the original "Topgun" - "I don't make movies for fighter pilots, I make movies for moviegoers"
      Fewer Napoleonic veterans around these days than fighter pilots. All that said, Sarge has convinced me to pass on this flick.
      Boat Guy

      Delete
    12. It's something we have to live with I suppose. Just wish Hollywood would stay away from history if they're going to distort it.

      Delete
  6. I think what is most irksome about the inaccuracies is that it wouldn't cost more for them to Get It Right. I'll begrudge them not filming on the exact location because they can't always get access, but they should be able to find a location that is a close approximation of the place.

    Some reenactors shell out serious money on their kit. I was with a Confederate artillery unit, so didn't need much leather or rifle musket and associated gear. Still, for the basic uniform i spent about $300, maybe $400. Basic Infantry could easily run $1500 depending on the quality of the rifle musket.

    The guy who supplied the gun for our unit dropped somewhere around $35,000 for the he tube, carriage, and implements from Steens Cannon Works, as well as the trailer to haul it. Why? He had always wanted a cannon, came into a substantial sum of money and bought a 3 Inch Ordnance Rifle. Funny thing about him, he hated camping. A self-described "New York City Jewish Intellectual."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have laid out some serious sums in my pursuit of reenacting over the years. So yeah, I feel their "pain." But I also know the satisfaction of doing it up right.

      No, it wouldn't take much to get it right. But can they be bothered? (Rhetorical question ...)

      Delete
  7. You are rightly peeved. It's the problem of being a historian and an authenticarian.

    It's like most history movies. Gotta change the story to protect the actual history or something.

    Now, what's the best retelling of the Arthur story? This will cause nosebleeds, aneurisms and heart-attacks, but it's "Excaliber" hands down. Yeah, Nigel Terry as King Arthur. They took the story with little to no embellishment directly from "Le Morte de Artur." Armor was fantastical, but based on reality (even though most was fiberglass, the pieces functioned correctly, moved correctly, covered correctly.)

    Now change my mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Best retelling in film you mean. 😉 The absolute best take on that tale I've ever seen is Bernard Cornwell's three book series, The Warlord Chronicles. Good stuff. Then again, Cornwell does historical fiction at a very high level.

      Delete
  8. My blood boils everytime I see any of the clips about this abomination of a movie!!!! As an amatuer student of the Napoleonic wars, retired re-enactor and blackpowder shooter for over 40 years "Napoleon" offends me on so many levels! It is obvious that the last thing on Ridley Scott's mind was creating a movie that was even remotely connected with the historical facts, I mean he is just making things up as he goes along and it makes for a parody of the historical Napoleon (who starts out looking pretty old for someone who is 23, and never ages over the next 20 years).

    Thank God we have the classic movie Waterloo from 1970 to keep watching, for all it's many "artistic" faults and innaccuracies it plays like a documentary compared to Napoleon! Sorry about the rant but I hate to see history being treated this way, the sad thing is if Ridley Scott had tried to portray things more historically (Linear warfare anyone?) the movie would have been just as dramatic.

    Historical note: the 2nd battalion of the 73rd regt of Foot fought at Quatre Bras and Waterloo where they repulsed no less than 11 French cavalry charges and suffered the second highest casualty rate of all the line regiments. The 1st battalion was safely in NSW at the time, having replaced the Rum Corps as the garrison and restoring order after several years of military rule (read juanta), their Colonel Lachlan Macquarie was made Govenor to replace William Bligh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I see that the 73rd was originally Highland regiment, losing that status in 1809 due to recruiting difficulties. Eventually amalgamated with the Black Watch (originally the 73rd was the 42nd's 2nd battalion before being granted regimental status).

      The 73rd were tough bastards.

      Delete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)
Can't be nice, go somewhere else...

NOTE: Comments on posts over 5 days old go into moderation, automatically.