Summary

• Cleopatra's Battle of Actium scene gets a brutal 2/10 rating for historical inaccuracies in naval tactics and ship design.
• Twentieth Century-Fox sacrificed realism for spectacle in the bloated, over-budget epic film starring Elizabeth Taylor.
• Gal Gadot is set to star in a new Cleopatra movie.

Elizabeth Taylor's 1963 historical epic Queen Cleopatra and Mark Antony.

Not only was Cleopatra’s Battle of Actium scene hugely expensive, it also wasn’t very historically accurate, according to one expert. In a breakdown for Insider, historian Michael Taylor describes what he finds incorrect in the scene, taking the film to task for getting the details wrong about 31 BCE naval tactics, ship design and sword-fighting styles, giving the scene a very low 2-out-of-10. Check out his remarks below (around 19:30 of the clip):

Cleopatra has inherited the Ptolemaic fleet. The Ptolemies have traditionally had a fleet of very heavy ships. That’s actually one of the more accurate things they say in the film. Those ships are primarily designed, it seems, to do naval sieges. … where you want big ships that can have a lot of artillery pieces.

This is one of the rare naval battles where it does seem that incendiary devices are useful, possibly because the smaller ships that Octavian are using, they're not going to be able to necessarily effectively ram all of Antony's big ships.

Throwing javelins is not going to stop you from getting rammed. It may prevent you from getting boarded. That could be a consideration if you think that ship is coming alongside you to board you, you're going to want to try to kill as many soldiers on the deck of the enemy ship to prevent boarding.

There are some rams that are fitted above the water line as kind of secondary rams, and those do tend to be a bit narrower. It seems the idea is to cause secondary damage compared to the main ram, the sort of big pointy pencil-like rams above water, not super accurate, although again we do have some narrower above water rams.

You don't do that with a gladius. If you're boarding an enemy ship you're going to have your scutum [shield] and it's going to be messy and nasty and slippery and difficult. But you’re going to fight as best as you can, protecting yourself with your shield. The scene is just overall terrible. I’m going to give it a two [out of ten].

Cleopatra Sacrificed Realism For The Sake Of Spectacle

Twentieth Century-Fox went all-out in producing Cleopatra, hoping Taylor’s fame, and the publicity around her real-life relationship with co-star Richard Burton, would help catapult the epic film to box office riches. Star-power wasn’t enough to save the movie, however, as it went wildly over-budget due to a series of catastrophes, including delays related to Taylor’s health, the resignation of original director Rouben Mamoulian mid-stream, and the expensive decision to suspend production in England and move the whole affair to Italy.

Historical realism was likely one of the furthest things from the studio's mind as they produced Cleopatra, a film meant to play as a lavish widescreen spectacle, and a glittering showcase for Taylor. That could explain why, according to historian Taylor, the film comes up very short in its depiction of the Battle of Actium. A more realistic battle scene might have been difficult to create, given the limitations of 1963-era visual effects. But more attention could have been paid to little details, like how marines did battle on the decks of ships, without adding much more to the film’s already-huge budget.

Gal Gadot is set to star in a new movie about Cleopatra

More realism in the film’s battle scenes would not, however, have saved Cleopatra from the bad publicity that dogged the movie all during its production. Ultimately, the film’s realism – or lack of it – is incidental to why it flopped at the box office, and took on an enduring reputation as one of the biggest bombs in history.

Source: Insider