History Channel, is that the best you can do?

It were bad den ?

That it were, arrr.

Sounds... Average?

I'm going to regret this, but... In what way was it so bad...

There's a lot that is known about that battle that the show ignores. The makers gave the impression that they'd read Featherstone and Grant, and maybe skimmed Oman. Uniforms, army composition, units that had long been disbanded, stiff left out, and I think if I'd been told about five-to-one odds once more I'd have thrown my hapless computer across the room. Hmmm....Stop, Kitty. Will you stop, Kitty? I'm afraid. My mind is going. I can feel it.

Watch it if you don't mind grinding some enamel off your molars.  In fact, it could be a good contest for this thread: who can find the most errors and omissions?

If you want to watch it try here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvqJLXXRLA0

Oh dear... so it's a whole based off a game report written on the back of a fag packet and skimming the dust jackets of some books in the second hand shop then 

The 90 secs I've managed to watch look pretty though, and at least it's not Ultimate Warrior.

"Who will win in the contest between... the entire modern US Army, and a peasant with a stick!"

Hmmm....Peasants with simple knives took out the WTC in New York a while ago.

It's potentially a loaded question

And that's simple knives plus years of training and funding by Western intelligence agencies* & the Saudi's, plus several mahoosive flying bombs. Not quite the same thing...

*I don't subscribe to the theory that "our" security services then deliberately set nutters they'd set up to come back and attack their "benefactors" but surely someone should have thought about the likelihood that setting up terrorists leads to terror?!

Quote from: toxicpixie on 15 April 2014, 08:55:51 AM
It's potentially a loaded question

And that's simple knives plus years of training and funding by Western intelligence agencies* & the Saudi's, plus several mahoosive flying bombs. Not quite the same thing...

*I don't subscribe to the theory that "our" security services then deliberately set nutters they'd set up to come back and attack their "benefactors" but surely someone should have thought about the likelihood that setting up terrorists leads to terror?!

Or that marrying princesses to barbarians would lead to descendants who claimed the throne, or that making soldiers personally dependent on their generals for their retirement funds was not a good way to keep power in civilian hands, or that employing huge numbers of mercenaries who know no other trade does not lead to a determination to win wars....The USA is not short of idiots, but it certainly doesn't have a monopoly.

Never ascribe to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity...

That was no direct comment on the USA btw, the system that produced the result and the rule of idiocy is global. And can't be too stupid, it deffo works for its owners!

Easy to stay on top while you have no powerful and aggressive neighbours.

Yeah, when are Canada going to invade and put us out of our misery?

Oot of your misery?