by Garrison Frost

The Charge: Nearly every period battle includes a brave charge by the heroes across an open field. While this is always very dramatic, I've always thought that when the hand-to-hand combat begins, I'd much rather be the guy who hasn't just sprinted 800 yards with a 40-pound shield in one hand and a 20-pound sword in the other. But of course, pre-modern civilizations were known for their excellent cardiovascular training.

Bows and arrows. In nearly every period battle from the pre-gunpowder era, it seems like nobody kills more people more easily than the archers. Why don't these armies have more of these guys? Why do they only seem to carry enough arrows for one or two volleys, at which point the battle seems to be handed over to the guys with swords?

Anyone see a rock? Sure, everyone agrees that battle strategies in the 19th Century – which often featured opposing armies marching shoulder to shoulder directly into close-range rifle and cannon fire – was pretty stupid. But I just can't stand to watch this nonsense. Please, somebody, at least lay down on the ground!

"A hundred of my best men." Things have evolved somewhat in recent years, but it's still not hard to find instances of the bad guy sending his toughest soldiers to make sure the job gets done right, only to have our hero wipe them out in seconds. It's kind of like Iraq's Republican Guard. But just because Errol Flynn was able to pull off this crap time and time again doesn't mean that it's OK for a hobbit who's never held a sword to kill off dozens of super-orcs without getting so much as a scratch.

The machine gun. It's usually right about the time that the civil war soldiers line up or the Romans march into formation that I typically observe that one idiot with an Uzi could end this thing in about 20 seconds.

The buddy system. After the two armies in the typical period battle scene have collided on the open plain and hand-to-hand combat ensues, opposing soldiers always seem to – by some kind of unspoken mutual agreement – pair off to fight their own individual duels. When one defeats another, he then goes on to find someone else who has just defeated his opponent, and so on until, like the NCAA Final Four brackets, the victors emerge. Why do this, when seemingly a single soldier stands to kill so much more of the enemy by merely running around killing everyone he sees in the wrong uniform, most of which will be looking the other way? Of course, the ultimate example of the buddy system problem is when our hero finds the enemy leader in the midst of a chaotic battlefield that extends to the horizon.

Armor all? With very few exceptions, every battle set in the Dark Ages or Middle Ages features knights in suits of armor killing each other with swords, arrows and spears with such frequency that I have to ask what the hell good the armor is doing any of these people. Really, why go to the trouble of wearing 150 pounds of metal if a kid with a stick can still kill you in the first scene?

Anyone got a loudspeaker? We've all watched the scene where our hero stands in front of his army and delivers an inspiring speech that rallies his soldiers to victory in battle. Given that it's outdoors and he is speaking without any amplification, what are the odds that any more than two dozen of his loyal soldiers can hear a word he's saying, or even see him? And yet, they all seem to respond en mass to his best lines and bring their cheering to a crescendo as he finishes. Yeah, I'm talking to you, Braveheart.

Conference call. Many depictions of period conflicts feature a pre-battle conference where the leaders of each army (often the kings) ride out to discuss possible terms prior to the engagement. While these meetings usually feature harsh words, I continue to be surprised that I've never seen one leader take the opportunity to kill the other leader during one of these meetings. Often these battles are just the extension of personal issues between these people anyway, so it just seems like an obvious way to get it all over with.

Extra: The bamboo hut. OK, this isn't all that germane, but I reached a point during the Rambo, Chuck Norris frenzy of the 80s and 90s that I just couldn't bear to watch another "return-to-Vietnam" movie because I just didn't buy the idea that Vietnamese soldiers were still patrolling the jungle and running things from bamboo headquarters in exactly the same way they had done 20 years earlier.

(Sept. 14, 2006)

© Copyright 1999-2006 The Aesthetic