Thanks for watching, and please consider supporting the channel by buying merch: teespring.com/stores/the-cynical-historian Or by donating to my Patreon: www.patreon.com/CynicalHistorian See following replies for corrections and additional info, but first, here are some related videos to check out: 7:10 - Mary Queen of Scots: ruclips.net/video/2V2RtSr9VrM/видео.html 7:45 - Scholarly vs. Public vs. Pop History: ruclips.net/video/uBh3ID2KcVI/видео.html 9:05 - Braveheart: ruclips.net/video/VhEcfM0-E9M/видео.html 10:20 - Historical Orthodoxy, Revisionism, and Post-Revisionism: ruclips.net/video/xQGs3eYxGRw/видео.html 15:45 - Things Movies Cannot do Accurately: ruclips.net/video/Ek88jgEsXgA/видео.html
*References* Crawford, Robert. _Bannockburns: Scottish Independence and Literary Imagination, 1314-2014._ Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2014. amzn.to/2N5237R Hobsbawm, Eric and Terence Ranger, editors. _The Invention of Tradition._ Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983. amzn.to/2uTH7Fl Mitchison, Rosalind. _A History of Scotland,_ third ed. 1970; London, UK: Routledge Press, 2002. amzn.to/2J1Kd0g Pugh, R.J.M. _Killing Fields of Scotland, AD 83 to 1746._ Barnsley, UK: Pen and Sword Military, 2013. amzn.to/2X1hAdp Young, Alan and Michael J. Stead. _In the Footsteps of Rober Bruce: In Scotland, Northern England, and Ireland,_ new ed. 1999; Stoud, UK: The History Press, 2010. amzn.to/2Y8RPEy Watson, Fiona J. _Under the Hammer: Edward I and Scotland, 1286-1306,_ new ed. (1998; Birlinn Ltd, 2008). amzn.to/2Y85FH2 For a review of equipment used in the film check this out: “Outlaw King, historical analysis review: CRIMES AGAINST MEDIEVAL REALISM,” Shadiversity, RUclips, 13NOV2018, ruclips.net/video/AEoC9G75nwo/видео.html. www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/outlaw-king/
If you make a film or series about history you will not get much from it because it needs to be condensed and after the film is honed to one narrative. Unlike doing research you won't find or learn much "history" in rough out it. It'll be the writers Stance. Dunkirk does an amazing job. Instead of conveying Exactly what happened, they convey the fear and despair to us. The Outlaw King conveys the Bruce's war and what the attitude and circumstances were and he goes about it. Of course though its condensed and it always is.
Can you do a review of the movie "Bad Education" that just came out on HBO. It's a other great cover-up story like the Robert Kennedy movie named after the lake I can't spell. I live in a town bordering Roslyn and I'd love to see your take on the story! Thanks keep up with the great content, Jon
Whatever inaccuracies THE OUTLAW KING might lumber under, it's got two undeniable things going for it: 1) No anachronistic kilts in sight, and 2) Randall Wallace was not allowed within 300 miles of the script.
if accuracy of history is what you want maybe this film is better for you then braveheart, but if you like films with good acting, great soundtrack and a sad story to make grown men cry then braveheart wins hands down.
It's pretty much the same with everywhere that isn't South in England or in North America. In the land of big cinema, they care not to attempt to understand the ethnic, cultural and historical literacy of their movies. But only care for the money, views, and drama, and most are scared of going off from what Hollywood has set in the past, and don't understand there is a huge audience for people wanting to see accurately depicted screen adaptations of historical events :(
it was a great movie, up until the last 5min. Its like the director forgot to finish the script and then remembered that he had to pitch the movie in less than 30min so he scribbled something down. I was so weirded out by the ending, but otherwise i enjoyed the movie. Would have made for a great miniseries of like 3 to 5 parts
My thoughts exactly! So many times, i thought that a 5 part, 45 min long series would have been PERFECT for the pacing. Sadly, i realize the budget would've been streched thin for a series like that. Still, it is fun to imagine a Rome/ GOT style show about De Bruce.
my favourite trivia is that as funny as it appears on screen is that the Sir James "black" Douglas's coat of arms is historically accurate even if it does look like he stole it from captain America
James Douglas is an ancestor of mine (Douglas is my middle name and my Grandmother's maiden name and that's where it comes from). His final pilgrimage to the holy land with the heart of Robert the Bruce was bonkers.
I loved this film, I loved the casting of Stannis as Edward I because Holy Hell, as a Stannis fan, it was like watching how Stannis should have been portrayed, Hell, I even found myself forgiving the casting of Chris Pine....and then the ending happened and I was FURIOUS, can films not resist a "fuck the English" film?
I mean, it is a movie about a *scottish* independence war against England. An England led by a king who was legitimately a bit of a bastard. If it hadn't had some Fuck the English vibes I'd be shocked. I haven't seen the movie, so I'll have to believe you and Cynist for how bad the ending is (From the clips in the video I am further inclined to agree with you) but... yea. Considering the time period and the subject of the film, it would've been honestly confusing if it hadn't had a "Fuck the English" vibe.
Before the Scottish debacle, Edward actually had a reputation in Europe for being a fair middleman. Recently before, he'd stood as a mediator for a treaty between Portugal and Spain, I believe, where both sides felt that they'd gotten a good deal. To the Scottish nobility, he seemed like a good choice. If Scotland wasn't close enough to England for Longshanks to invade, he'd probably have dealt with them fairly, but the opportunity to gain Scottish money and men for his wars against France were just too tempting to pass up.
This is actually one of the better one from Netflix "historical" movies. "The King" is even more smh-ing imo, but to be fair the filmmakers was trying to adapt the Shakespearean story instead of the actual IRL story counterpart.
I loved the movie, I forgave the charge with swords on horse back and fire arrows. The only thing that was really off to me was the release of the King at the end. I know they added him to the battle for nemesis conflict at the end but damn they didnt even attempt to capture him? Lol. I guess it would have been better if he escaped at the last minute but wouldn't have felt as gratifing. Idk good action vs good history. If you are going to add somebody that wasnt even at the battle anyway good action is a better choice even if it pisses off a few of us pedantic history buffs. I really liked the movie I give it a PERFECT 5 out if 7.
I've best heard the story of Robert The Bruce described as "MacBeth with a happy ending". The dude might have been the most terrifying medieval king on a purely physical level. A peerless warrior whose utter ruthlessness very well may have crossed over into evil.
Have you read about what he did at Bannockburn? An English Knight charged Bruce, who was unarmoured and nowhere near ready to fight, and Bruce split the Knights skull in two with an axe, cutting right through his helmet, in one swift move. He must have been an absolute unit to be able to not only split a skull in half but also cut through a steel helmet.
One really cool accuracy you didn't mention was the inclusion of Edward's viewing stand which he had built for the women of the court to watch his siege machines in action. It may not have been at this siege of Stirling in particular but still a nice detail
@@robertkirby8685 they're normally classified by the era of antiquity they study and then lumped in with medievalists overall. for instance, we had a visiting lecturer who was Romanist in our medieval studies program who made a mini conference for the program which included hellenist and egyptologist
Whoah that is massive. Dwarfing ancient history like that is shocking! Where I am from the trinity of Ancient History, Medieval History and Modern History is absolutely holy. All universities have a full blown department for each of the three and the ancient history is usually the biggest because it is usually used to teach new students the trade by having well researched subjects and a limited number of sources. Also Latin. I had no idea. Our professors would rather be dead than being "lumped in" with filthy medievalists who do nothing but read those mindnumbingly boring regesta imperii all the time...
Scot here.. excellent analysis. Feudal warlords vs feudal warlords... it's always been interesting to me to see how the nationalists focus on the exploits of a Anglo/Scots/Norman warlords impressive as they were, which happened 700 flipping years ago, rather than looking at the many many Scottish achievements since then...🙄
I would contest that feudalism and colonialism are strictly separated, because there are some neat examples of early colonialism ranging from Russian eastwards expansion to spanish invasions into southern america that combined things we usually associate with both things. Even later examples such as dutch indonesia had feudalistic attributes integrated into the system such as local feudal vassals. I'd judge the transition to be rather fluent based on my understanding.
Feudalisim Is about agricultural land, Vassalization and more importantly the loss of central rulership as the Lords have a lot of say as the Lands they maintain are theirs and the king needs to keep them in good terms. While Colonializim is about taking land from a weaker civilization for the sake of the state so in my opinion no the invasion of Scotland is like any other war at the time as Colonialisim is about centralizing power over a people that can't fight back in a far less developed state while England taking Scotland as a Vassal is not and is more a consequence of a succesion crisis common in the medieval period as Scoland is far more developed and can fight on more even terms compared to say the Aztecs against Spain also the land of the Aztecs are given to Spain to "maintain" with no ruling possition given to the old ruling class while Scotland would still retain its Lords lands but have to swear fealty to an English King which what broke the camels back as they don't want England to turn them into Vassal state.
I do appreciate this movie for introducing me to Florence Pugh who plays Roberts wife in this movie. With very little material she actually made a compelling character and I liked seeing her relationship with Robert play out, despite the fact that he looks old enough to be her father. It's amazing how quickly Florence career exploded not long after this with Midsommar and Little Women.
The Bruce was ten years older than her, so . . . it's stretch but a tolerable one. (And it's not like massive age gaps were exactly unknown in royal marriages...) You're right that she does a great job with limitd screen time, and that makes up for a lot.
@@richardmalcolm1457 I found this particular relationship interesting cause it's not something you see in alot of historical where the characters marriages are arranged and yet try to work this out and treat each other with genuine respect. It's similar to Ned and Catlyn Stark in game of thrones in that there love slowly was built overtime. Think of this movie as a prequel to that.
Still blows my mind why in these historical Scottish movies, they don't just tell the real story. its 10 x more fascinating and interesting than the Hollywood versions.
Me too. There's a moment during that battle where Robert faced a charging Knight and used his ax to deflect his Lance and buried the ax into his skull.
Aymer de Valence is kind off shown as the leader at the battle of 'Loudoun Hill' but Edward II is there as well, I guess as the leader of the Dragon banner knights.
My big gripe with this film was the treatment of The Bruce as a "reluctant King." I know there's this modern age distaste for people who yearn for power, and we as ordinary people, find more identity with ordinary people in extraordinary situations, this cannot be translated in this situation. Reluctant? There was no-one more bloody minded and ruthless in his ambition to *be* King. It really is a massive unused potential for a TV drama series of blood and guts, sex and desire, murder and betrayal, that audiences love in the wars of independence and the story of Robert the Bruce. He would make Game of Thrones season 1 to 7 look like Game of Thrones season 8. (BTW - I was *in* this movie. I was one of the action extras in the Battle of Bannockburn. In fact, if you pause at 17:09 I'm somewhere in that crowd in the back.)
Edward II was a robust figure, like his father, and physically brave. He suffered from terrible judgement, and was reckless in his pillaging the kingdom for cash.
I heard the original cut was nearly 4 hours. Would love to see Netflix release an extended edition in a series formula. They did a similar thing with the hateful eight.
@@pbh9195 Maybe we could get a Elizabeth The Golden Age scenario where we get a sequel years later focusing on the battle of Bannockburn, only no where near as bad because at least Outlaw King itself is a solid flick that does not mess with the actual history anywhere near as bad.
How arbitrary is the Medievalist/Modernist distinction? I mean both in terms of dividing historians into two groups and in the year that divides them. Also, does this influence which era a historian chooses for a specialty, or is it entirely a matter of being fascinated by a particular time and place? This seems like an idea for another video.
it's very arbitrary, but periodization is kind of inevitable and necessary in the profession. and indeed I have an episode ready to go on the problems of periodization, though it's more broad than this specific distinction (also I can't really speak to the differences, since I really only study from the 19th century onward - a long ways away from the 16th century)
Hey Cypher! Have you done a Based on a True Story review on the Flags of Our Fathers/Letters From Iwo Jima duo? Could make a nice two-part episode! Love your work, congrats from La Paz, Bolivia!
It will be interesting to see how this compares to "Robert the Bruce", which came out at the same time and stars Angus Macfadyen who played the Bruce in Braveheart.
By the declaration of Abroath 1320 Robert the Bruce gave Scotland sovereignty back to the people of Scotland. As long 100 of us remain alive we will never be under English rule it's in truth not for riches or glory which we lay down our lives but for freedom alone.
I always think that the real 'coverup' with Scottish history is that most of these people weren't even originally Scottish. Name like Bruce, Wallace, Stuart - they're all French in origin. Much of the above-par governance/education that made Scotland able to leapfrog over far larger countries was achieved because a lot of high ranking noblemen fled to Scotland and brought skills & capital with them after the freemasons became unpopular in europe, but that's a rabbit hole for a different youtube channel.
Just an FYI, there is no reason William Wallace would have been called on to sign the pledge to loyalty to Longshanks - he just wasn't that important at that time. Also, Wallace did indeed use guerilla tactics and it is though that his tactics are what gave Bruce the idea.
Just an fyi, Berwick is pronounced in a English accent (my own southern twang that consists of a mix of generic London with a touch of RP scattered randomly throughout) as 2 distinct syllables - "Bear" and "ick" with neither syllable being particularly stressed more than the other. I can't (and wouldn't even dare) say how a Scott might pronounce it, as there is such a diverse range of accents that are geographically and sociologically unique to their environments (take Glasgow, big east/west divide in accents - then through in socio-demographical differences).
@@forickgrimaldus8301 Yeah, a little. I would argue it's due to the relevence of the subject to the modern eyes and hears. Specialy if it concerns events wich connection to our times is very tenuos. But, you know, it's interesting to know and shit. And it's never bad to search for this things.
The ending was just so stupid. I couldn't believe that a movie that went to such great lengths to use period appropriate armor and costumes would suddenly throw that silly bit at the end. It makes even less sense from the point of the movie because he is shown as being in love with his wife, who is now being held prisoner. If you take the heir to the throne prisoner.. wouldn't you have an easy way to ransom her? You would think every scottish soldier on the field would jump at him and make sure he couldn't get away.
Why are actual historical narratives more interesting than the events as presented in these "based on a true story" dramatizations? "Outlaw King" lost me at the battle sequence. Did anyone else notice how the Prince of Wales' sword flexed as he was flailing in the mud at the end? How many battles have ended with the two lead generals fighting each other? Other than that a pretty good vid. Horror of war and all that.
I thought the wedding night scene was cringe worthy. Robert not consummating his marriage would cause him a lot of problems if word got out. Also I was just one medieval movie would show English Kings before Henry IV at least speaking with French accents
True but for what it is it's one of the better Medieval movies made period simply for actually attempting to be authentic while also being entertaining which is a hard ass balance to get in film making. I don't even mind the final battle much besides the two kings dueling because most other historical films rush through shit even worse and I personally loved the battle scene itself because it was intense but also had some idea of Medieval tactics. Not perfect but nothing truly is and I feel this one has more pros than cons.
Before I have even seen most of this episode, but having seen the film but not totally familiar of the history, I thought it was a brave effort, reasonable effort made on costume etc. Within the limits of the budget. The one thing they could not fix was the bare hills, this was pre clearances Scotland. Those should have been alive with people. Plot Wise... The Bruce himself, starts as the biggest wet lettuce since Luke Skywalker in the first half what is now episode 4 of Star Wars. His missus was a more active and a compelling character. It would work as part one of a series, where the Bruce learnt to become the leader he needed to be.
Now having watched your episode, I broadly agree, a LOT of stuff messed around with for narrative contrivance, and the end battle was too much like bannackburn to make sense. The not taking the prince at the end, that would have paid an armies wages for a year and more. Otherwise, costume and flavour wise, I still think it is a truly brave effort to swing towards more historical accuracy, have you noticed how the costume almost avoids the seas of browns normally seen in normal medieval set films? The cuts seem to be accurate as well. My poor qualifications, drinking with War of the Roses and Viking re-enactors most of my life, and i am one of those damned larpers.
History is more important as weaving a perennial myth that creates a healthy national pride and spirit than as what “actually happened.” Logistics are for mathematicians, history is supposed to be badass
Bretagne, Poland, Spain, AMERICA, Ottomans, and many others might disagree. But then eh, what is historical accuracy to tired unfunny overused false memes ? You do you i guess
You should critique Angus Macfadden's 'Robert The Bruce' film. That would be entertaining. As a Scot I am aware of my countries history of perpetual civil war, in fighting and back stabbing. A nation state that never had an army. Check out the battle of Rosslyn 1306 where the red comyn and Simon Fraser raised an army of 9000 lowlanders to fight an army from England of 30000 strong many of which where Scot's mercenaries in the pay of the English.
Agree with all the criticism, but it's a movie. I love the costumes, medieval people loved color. Overall a great movie. Agree the ending was bad, the king would have been randsomed. But it's a movie.
I scoured my mind too figure out who i would ask, and then i remembered, WILSON!!! Then i wad like oh yeah cyn would totally know. Soo.. being covid is spreading like ther flu of 1918, and the country was led by Wilson, i wanted to know more. The bestest person to ask. Was thre man whose words echo in my mind. Sorry my comment isn't about this vid. Appreciate what you do. Ty so much your one of my 9 year old nieces faves.
Braveheart is a movie that I’d say is overrated. It’s not the little stuff that bugs me, (cough turkeys cough) it’s the mountain of nonsense the writer shoved into the film. Guess Mel Gibson forgot the French love interest was a CHILD during the rebellion and had nothing to do with Scotland. Or how the battle scenes make no sense logically. Or how Mel uses the version of William Wallace that says he was married. Mind you, the version used was made a couple hundred years after, the event. I could go on and on but if Mel wants to make a movie made in history, he might as well do something like Inglorious Bastards. Because that movie was honest that it was fiction. The death scene of Wallace saying FREEEEEEEEDOOOOM is so cringeworthy. It’s as bad as Darth Vader’s “nooooooo.”
Hey Cynical Historian, great channel and I like your vids. Do you think you can give an accurate and bias/speculation free review of the Last King Of Scotland and the historical accuracy of Idi Amin's presidency? If you think u can, I'd love to see that. Keep up the great work
Yes. They let the English King just walk away? . . . Huh? . . . My GOD, I found that so gratingly story ruining. It’s an entertaining movie, but I just don’t get why they have to mess with the facts, which are as exciting and riveting as any fiction!
Mel Gibsons Braveheart probably pissed off the people of scottland considering how they had Robert the Bruce betray Wallace, and gave the braveheart title to Wallace instead of Robert for some strange reason. It's inaccuracies are just ridiculous, and the movie didn't seem to respect the material at all.
@@pyromania1018 As far as I know, the people he betrayed were basically already enemies. That one guy he killed in the church wasn't exactly his buddy.
It's ok. The title of 'Braveheart' was going begging. Mel Gibson was welcome to it. The notion that it had something to do with Robert I has only emerged after the film came out,
Hey check out this book chapter for an argument on why the term guerrilla warfare isn't applicable to this period: Alastair J. MacDonald, 'Good King Robert's Testament?: Guerrilla Warfare in Later Medieval Scotland', in B. Hughes, F. Robson, (eds.), Unconventional Warfare from Antiquity to the Present Day (2017), pp. 197-217.
How about another Mel Masterpiece - The Patriot? Just kidding....sort of....The movie is beneath contempt, but somebody has to get to the bottom of why Hollywood thinks it can get away with such insulting drivel
Feudalism, is a system, Colonialism, is action. They are not mutually exclusive. It does not matter what the system is, if you send your people to permanently occupy a place, or at least hold positions of authority in that place, and redefine the cultural and political paradigms to suit your own, and your agenda, it is Colonialism. It does not matter if your are Democracy, a Communist Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or a Feudal Monarchy. If you do think that the English assaults on their neighbours were Colonialism, you need to look a little deeper. Look at Language, and Laws regarding its use. Look how Welsh managed to return as an overt language spoken among its own people, simply due to the fact that two of the recipients of the secret Welsh language education, that ran via underground classes, family to family, valley to valley, grew up to be two of the most prominent composers of religious music in Britain in the early 19th century, and composed in Welsh. When the Church of England threw their support behind the men, it finally halted English plans to totally wipe out the language from Wales, which was now 'Anglicised" almost completely, via 400 yrs there about of English rule. THAT determination to erase culture, language, and history in a way, by doing so, by imposing your language, your Church, and your people in positions of power, to impose YOUR laws.... is COLONIALISM. After Henry Plantagenet rose to the throne of England, becoming Henry II, he needed to flex some muscle, to posture and sabre rattle, when he had Thomas Beckett, Bishop of Canterbury killed. The European powers, and the Pope, were nonplussed with this, obviously, I believe it was the German Emperor who threatened to mobilize. So he did not want that, and had to flex, flex without provoking. So certainly would not flex eastward, towards Germany, or the HRE, really, from his Norman lands. Instead, it was impetus for something in his plans anyway, the invasion of Ireland. What do we see from then on? Same thing as in Wales. Except they lapse, after few centuries, in Ireland. The Tudors have to reassert, followed by the Stuarts...in their capacity as ENGLISH KINGS, not Scottish, beginning in the 1500s. After this we see another 18th Century reassertion of power. Lots of similarities. Though the Plantation model seems to be uniquely Irish. We can still see this model's legacy today. We can still the three unique phases of English conquest of Ireland today too. We the 1200s, 1500s, and 1700s in the names of key players in Northern Ireland. Many Unionist peoples, leaders arguing they're British, and they're families have been in Ireland X-100 years and they wont leave and it is British land.....have French surnames, OLD French surnames.... a legacy from the Norman England. Many also have Scottish names, thanks to the Tudor and later, Stuart, dominion of Ireland. How is that not Colonialism? If you think the English did not have the same plans for Scotland, you are naive. In fact, the language suppression and the placing of Anglicised Scots in powerful positions, after the Stuarts inherited England, shows quite clearly what the Plantagenets would have done, though not as much as simply what they did to Wales and Ireland shows they would have done. It was Colonialism. It was the attempt of, at least, and later under another King, would become so. Ireland, Wales and Scotland were just appetizers for English to go on a conquer half the world. Just because they all occupied the same group of Islands, does not make them any less subject to English colonialism.
Oh this has nothing to do with Scotland. It's just another version of the onlyx movie america ever made, the only story it knows. 1. The oppressor 2. Te oppressed 3. A hero 4. Freedoooooooom! Almost every bloody movie that ever came out of America and had any commercial significance at all has that exact same plot.
Calling Berwick upon tweed "occupied territory seriously triggered me! 😂😂😂😂 I just feeds into the notion that England is this imperial power that oppresses the other nations of the UK. That's not true!
That heavily differs on who you ask. A lot of the irish certainly seem to agree, or they wouldn't have fought to separate. The scots frequently seem to agree, I know of welsh people who do. It may not be a ubiquitous sentiment, but it's folly to say it doesn't exist.
I have trouble watching this movie because the title character isn't played by a Scottish actor. Almost every notable Scottish actors and actresses are in this one. They should have made Bruce a real Scotts or English at least. To cast an AMERICAN 😡.
So long as the actor is good enough I wouldn't care but I thought Pine did the best he can even though it's somewhat bland. I do agree that an actual Scott would be preferable, James MacAvoy would have been a great choice.
Thanks for watching, and please consider supporting the channel by buying merch: teespring.com/stores/the-cynical-historian
Or by donating to my Patreon: www.patreon.com/CynicalHistorian
See following replies for corrections and additional info, but first, here are some related videos to check out:
7:10 - Mary Queen of Scots: ruclips.net/video/2V2RtSr9VrM/видео.html
7:45 - Scholarly vs. Public vs. Pop History: ruclips.net/video/uBh3ID2KcVI/видео.html
9:05 - Braveheart: ruclips.net/video/VhEcfM0-E9M/видео.html
10:20 - Historical Orthodoxy, Revisionism, and Post-Revisionism: ruclips.net/video/xQGs3eYxGRw/видео.html
15:45 - Things Movies Cannot do Accurately: ruclips.net/video/Ek88jgEsXgA/видео.html
*[reserved for errata]*
*References*
Crawford, Robert. _Bannockburns: Scottish Independence and Literary Imagination, 1314-2014._ Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2014. amzn.to/2N5237R
Hobsbawm, Eric and Terence Ranger, editors. _The Invention of Tradition._ Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983. amzn.to/2uTH7Fl
Mitchison, Rosalind. _A History of Scotland,_ third ed. 1970; London, UK: Routledge Press, 2002. amzn.to/2J1Kd0g
Pugh, R.J.M. _Killing Fields of Scotland, AD 83 to 1746._ Barnsley, UK: Pen and Sword Military, 2013. amzn.to/2X1hAdp
Young, Alan and Michael J. Stead. _In the Footsteps of Rober Bruce: In Scotland, Northern England, and Ireland,_ new ed. 1999; Stoud, UK: The History Press, 2010. amzn.to/2Y8RPEy
Watson, Fiona J. _Under the Hammer: Edward I and Scotland, 1286-1306,_ new ed. (1998; Birlinn Ltd, 2008). amzn.to/2Y85FH2
For a review of equipment used in the film check this out: “Outlaw King, historical analysis review: CRIMES AGAINST MEDIEVAL REALISM,” Shadiversity, RUclips, 13NOV2018, ruclips.net/video/AEoC9G75nwo/видео.html.
www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/outlaw-king/
It would have been better if this was a series instead of just 1 movie. It was still a lot better than brave heart.
If you make a film or series about history you will not get much from it because it needs to be condensed and after the film is honed to one narrative. Unlike doing research you won't find or learn much "history" in rough out it. It'll be the writers Stance.
Dunkirk does an amazing job. Instead of conveying Exactly what happened, they convey the fear and despair to us. The Outlaw King conveys the Bruce's war and what the attitude and circumstances were and he goes about it.
Of course though its condensed and it always is.
Can you do a review of the movie "Bad Education" that just came out on HBO. It's a other great cover-up story like the Robert Kennedy movie named after the lake I can't spell. I live in a town bordering Roslyn and I'd love to see your take on the story!
Thanks keep up with the great content,
Jon
Whatever inaccuracies THE OUTLAW KING might lumber under, it's got two undeniable things going for it: 1) No anachronistic kilts in sight, and 2) Randall Wallace was not allowed within 300 miles of the script.
There's a problem with the second one: Randall Wallace was not allowed within ONLY 300 miles of the script.
You can take Randall Wallace's scripts, but you'll never take...HIS FREEDOM!
Who's Randall Wallace? Williams descendant?
@@aceq361 Screenwriter and director. He wrote the script for BRAVEHEART.
In other words, the arguably better version of braveheart
*The more historically accurate but also boring version.*
Let’s hope the fan boys don’t come ree ree ree on your comment
if accuracy of history is what you want maybe this film is better for you then braveheart, but if you like films with good acting, great soundtrack and a sad story to make grown men cry then braveheart wins hands down.
@@SuperChalkster naaaaaaaaah
believe me, as an actual Scot, we are somewhat confuddled at why our history is so terribly and inaccurately portrayed in cinema
Not enough rich people care about your history
Between this, Braveheart, and Mary Queen of Scots our history has been buggered so much.
Blame the perfidious Albion
It's pretty much the same with everywhere that isn't South in England or in North America. In the land of big cinema, they care not to attempt to understand the ethnic, cultural and historical literacy of their movies. But only care for the money, views, and drama, and most are scared of going off from what Hollywood has set in the past, and don't understand there is a huge audience for people wanting to see accurately depicted screen adaptations of historical events :(
@@moreston4366 well said my friend. Well said
it was a great movie, up until the last 5min. Its like the director forgot to finish the script and then remembered that he had to pitch the movie in less than 30min so he scribbled something down. I was so weirded out by the ending, but otherwise i enjoyed the movie. Would have made for a great miniseries of like 3 to 5 parts
My thoughts exactly! So many times, i thought that a 5 part, 45 min long series would have been PERFECT for the pacing. Sadly, i realize the budget would've been streched thin for a series like that. Still, it is fun to imagine a Rome/ GOT style show about De Bruce.
my favourite trivia is that as funny as it appears on screen is that the Sir James "black" Douglas's coat of arms is historically accurate even if it does look like he stole it from captain America
"I can do this all day"
- Sir James "black" Douglas
James Douglas is an ancestor of mine (Douglas is my middle name and my Grandmother's maiden name and that's where it comes from). His final pilgrimage to the holy land with the heart of Robert the Bruce was bonkers.
@@markcarey67 Though he died in 'Hispania' The Holy Land was a bust
this was a much better film that most excuses for cinema but the final battle the king wasn't there. there was a cross over of battles and events
7:27
***Classicists silent screams***
I was frozen in shock and horror.
I loved this film, I loved the casting of Stannis as Edward I because Holy Hell, as a Stannis fan, it was like watching how Stannis should have been portrayed, Hell, I even found myself forgiving the casting of Chris Pine....and then the ending happened and I was FURIOUS, can films not resist a "fuck the English" film?
I would have preferred Charles Dance, since Longshanks was the inspiration for Tywin Lannister.
I mean, it is a movie about a *scottish* independence war against England. An England led by a king who was legitimately a bit of a bastard. If it hadn't had some Fuck the English vibes I'd be shocked.
I haven't seen the movie, so I'll have to believe you and Cynist for how bad the ending is (From the clips in the video I am further inclined to agree with you) but... yea. Considering the time period and the subject of the film, it would've been honestly confusing if it hadn't had a "Fuck the English" vibe.
Ooh, we'd like to avoid a fight. Howabout we get Longshanks involved, what could possibly go wrong?
Before the Scottish debacle, Edward actually had a reputation in Europe for being a fair middleman. Recently before, he'd stood as a mediator for a treaty between Portugal and Spain, I believe, where both sides felt that they'd gotten a good deal. To the Scottish nobility, he seemed like a good choice. If Scotland wasn't close enough to England for Longshanks to invade, he'd probably have dealt with them fairly, but the opportunity to gain Scottish money and men for his wars against France were just too tempting to pass up.
This is actually one of the better one from Netflix "historical" movies. "The King" is even more smh-ing imo, but to be fair the filmmakers was trying to adapt the Shakespearean story instead of the actual IRL story counterpart.
Croz Raven honestly it felt like he tried to adapt both at the same time, which kinda left the movie a mess
17:33 Ain't nothing in the world more pedantic than a cat.
I loved the movie, I forgave the charge with swords on horse back and fire arrows. The only thing that was really off to me was the release of the King at the end. I know they added him to the battle for nemesis conflict at the end but damn they didnt even attempt to capture him? Lol. I guess it would have been better if he escaped at the last minute but wouldn't have felt as gratifing. Idk good action vs good history. If you are going to add somebody that wasnt even at the battle anyway good action is a better choice even if it pisses off a few of us pedantic history buffs. I really liked the movie I give it a PERFECT 5 out if 7.
I've best heard the story of Robert The Bruce described as "MacBeth with a happy ending".
The dude might have been the most terrifying medieval king on a purely physical level. A peerless warrior whose utter ruthlessness very well may have crossed over into evil.
Have you read about what he did at Bannockburn? An English Knight charged Bruce, who was unarmoured and nowhere near ready to fight, and Bruce split the Knights skull in two with an axe, cutting right through his helmet, in one swift move. He must have been an absolute unit to be able to not only split a skull in half but also cut through a steel helmet.
One really cool accuracy you didn't mention was the inclusion of Edward's viewing stand which he had built for the women of the court to watch his siege machines in action. It may not have been at this siege of Stirling in particular but still a nice detail
I hear people complain about Irish accents and I just think “have they ever met a scot?”
Sunflower Socialist it’s like Irish accents on expert level.
At least it's not Braveheart.
But with swans
@@kevinclass2010 That really happened... except it was the king who did that, not the prince. Can you imagine Stannis Baratheon doing that?
6:23 is that supposed to be a medieval depiction of Steve Buscemi?
7:26 What about classicists ?
in my university, _classicist_ mostly refers to literature studies, not the history profession
@@CynicalHistorian
What are historians who study ancient history called then?
@@robertkirby8685 they're normally classified by the era of antiquity they study and then lumped in with medievalists overall. for instance, we had a visiting lecturer who was Romanist in our medieval studies program who made a mini conference for the program which included hellenist and egyptologist
@@CynicalHistorian
That's kinda wired considering most people view the ancient/classical era and medieval era as two separate periods.
Whoah that is massive. Dwarfing ancient history like that is shocking! Where I am from the trinity of Ancient History, Medieval History and Modern History is absolutely holy. All universities have a full blown department for each of the three and the ancient history is usually the biggest because it is usually used to teach new students the trade by having well researched subjects and a limited number of sources. Also Latin.
I had no idea. Our professors would rather be dead than being "lumped in" with filthy medievalists who do nothing but read those mindnumbingly boring regesta imperii all the time...
Scot here.. excellent analysis. Feudal warlords vs feudal warlords... it's always been interesting to me to see how the nationalists focus on the exploits of a Anglo/Scots/Norman warlords impressive as they were, which happened 700 flipping years ago, rather than looking at the many many Scottish achievements since then...🙄
I would contest that feudalism and colonialism are strictly separated, because there are some neat examples of early colonialism ranging from Russian eastwards expansion to spanish invasions into southern america that combined things we usually associate with both things. Even later examples such as dutch indonesia had feudalistic attributes integrated into the system such as local feudal vassals. I'd judge the transition to be rather fluent based on my understanding.
Feudalisim Is about agricultural land, Vassalization and more importantly the loss of central rulership as the Lords have a lot of say as the Lands they maintain are theirs and the king needs to keep them in good terms.
While Colonializim is about taking land from a weaker civilization for the sake of the state so in my opinion no the invasion of Scotland is like any other war at the time as Colonialisim is about centralizing power over a people that can't fight back in a far less developed state while England taking Scotland as a Vassal is not and is more a consequence of a succesion crisis common in the medieval period as Scoland is far more developed and can fight on more even terms compared to say the Aztecs against Spain also the land of the Aztecs are given to Spain to "maintain" with no ruling possition given to the old ruling class while Scotland would still retain its Lords lands but have to swear fealty to an English King which what broke the camels back as they don't want England to turn them into Vassal state.
I do appreciate this movie for introducing me to Florence Pugh who plays Roberts wife in this movie. With very little material she actually made a compelling character and I liked seeing her relationship with Robert play out, despite the fact that he looks old enough to be her father.
It's amazing how quickly Florence career exploded not long after this with Midsommar and Little Women.
The Bruce was ten years older than her, so . . . it's stretch but a tolerable one. (And it's not like massive age gaps were exactly unknown in royal marriages...) You're right that she does a great job with limitd screen time, and that makes up for a lot.
@@richardmalcolm1457 I found this particular relationship interesting cause it's not something you see in alot of historical where the characters marriages are arranged and yet try to work this out and treat each other with genuine respect.
It's similar to Ned and Catlyn Stark in game of thrones in that there love slowly was built overtime. Think of this movie as a prequel to that.
Stannis the Mannis Baratheon is in it, I have to see this film now
Still blows my mind why in these historical Scottish movies, they don't just tell the real story. its 10 x more fascinating and interesting than the Hollywood versions.
5:46 was that map created by a specific app or through MS Paint/Photoshop? Thanks
I was puzzled why they showed the Battle of Loudon Hill as the climax and not the Battle of Bannockburn.
Me too. There's a moment during that battle where Robert faced a charging Knight and used his ax to deflect his Lance and buried the ax into his skull.
Aymer de Valence is kind off shown as the leader at the battle of 'Loudoun Hill' but Edward II is there as well, I guess as the leader of the Dragon banner knights.
My big gripe with this film was the treatment of The Bruce as a "reluctant King." I know there's this modern age distaste for people who yearn for power, and we as ordinary people, find more identity with ordinary people in extraordinary situations, this cannot be translated in this situation.
Reluctant? There was no-one more bloody minded and ruthless in his ambition to *be* King. It really is a massive unused potential for a TV drama series of blood and guts, sex and desire, murder and betrayal, that audiences love in the wars of independence and the story of Robert the Bruce. He would make Game of Thrones season 1 to 7 look like Game of Thrones season 8.
(BTW - I was *in* this movie. I was one of the action extras in the Battle of Bannockburn. In fact, if you pause at 17:09 I'm somewhere in that crowd in the back.)
Edward II was a robust figure, like his father, and physically brave. He suffered from terrible judgement, and was reckless in his pillaging the kingdom for cash.
In the outlaw King they combined all of the Bruce's most famous battles into to one
I liked the movie although personally I think the makers could've done a better portrayal if it was a tv series.
I heard the original cut was nearly 4 hours. Would love to see Netflix release an extended edition in a series formula. They did a similar thing with the hateful eight.
@@pbh9195 Maybe we could get a Elizabeth The Golden Age scenario where we get a sequel years later focusing on the battle of Bannockburn, only no where near as bad because at least Outlaw King itself is a solid flick that does not mess with the actual history anywhere near as bad.
Ar-broath not aa-broath was a declaration like the declaration of independence not a treaty.
It confused me in the video because he called it a Declaration of Independence at first, and then later used the same image and called it a treaty.
12:21 who are they?
Just for completeness, it's spelt Berwick but pronounced "be-rick"
beh
-rick
Wait you said the scene with the Trebuchet is right but I do remember that they are using greek fire which seems highly improbable to me
How arbitrary is the Medievalist/Modernist distinction? I mean both in terms of dividing historians into two groups and in the year that divides them. Also, does this influence which era a historian chooses for a specialty, or is it entirely a matter of being fascinated by a particular time and place? This seems like an idea for another video.
it's very arbitrary, but periodization is kind of inevitable and necessary in the profession. and indeed I have an episode ready to go on the problems of periodization, though it's more broad than this specific distinction (also I can't really speak to the differences, since I really only study from the 19th century onward - a long ways away from the 16th century)
Hey Cypher! Have you done a Based on a True Story review on the Flags of Our Fathers/Letters From Iwo Jima duo? Could make a nice two-part episode! Love your work, congrats from La Paz, Bolivia!
I talked a little about them a long time ago, but not in-depth: ruclips.net/video/u8MtKb3vIfI/видео.html
@@CynicalHistorian True, I had forgotten that part. Still... 😊
I loved this movie
I could be wrong, but I don't think Isabella MacDuff was Robert’s sister.
Would you consider watching Robert The Bruce which has Angus Macfayden reprise his role as well Robert the Bruce
It will be interesting to see how this compares to "Robert the Bruce", which came out at the same time and stars Angus Macfadyen who played the Bruce in Braveheart.
Good video, Cynic. What's the name of the flag at 13:05? Thanks.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriflamme
@@CynicalHistorian Thanks
By the declaration of Abroath 1320 Robert the Bruce gave Scotland sovereignty back to the people of Scotland. As long 100 of us remain alive we will never be under English rule it's in truth not for riches or glory which we lay down our lives but for freedom alone.
So,do u recomend this flic ?
yep
I always think that the real 'coverup' with Scottish history is that most of these people weren't even originally Scottish. Name like Bruce, Wallace, Stuart - they're all French in origin. Much of the above-par governance/education that made Scotland able to leapfrog over far larger countries was achieved because a lot of high ranking noblemen fled to Scotland and brought skills & capital with them after the freemasons became unpopular in europe, but that's a rabbit hole for a different youtube channel.
The myth of Bannockburn? Eh?
Just an FYI, there is no reason William Wallace would have been called on to sign the pledge to loyalty to Longshanks - he just wasn't that important at that time. Also, Wallace did indeed use guerilla tactics and it is though that his tactics are what gave Bruce the idea.
Just an fyi, Berwick is pronounced in a English accent (my own southern twang that consists of a mix of generic London with a touch of RP scattered randomly throughout) as 2 distinct syllables - "Bear" and "ick" with neither syllable being particularly stressed more than the other.
I can't (and wouldn't even dare) say how a Scott might pronounce it, as there is such a diverse range of accents that are geographically and sociologically unique to their environments (take Glasgow, big east/west divide in accents - then through in socio-demographical differences).
WOTS MAH FOOKIN NAME???!???🏴🏴🏴
Medieval history is basically a big my grandad your grandad argument where both kids may be correct but no one really knows if it is true
It depends on the period and the amount of available primary sources for the subject in question.
@@mariorebelo1644 yup but generally it has that feeling of old men arrguing.
@@forickgrimaldus8301 Yeah, a little. I would argue it's due to the relevence of the subject to the modern eyes and hears. Specialy if it concerns events wich connection to our times is very tenuos.
But, you know, it's interesting to know and shit. And it's never bad to search for this things.
The ending was just so stupid. I couldn't believe that a movie that went to such great lengths to use period appropriate armor and costumes would suddenly throw that silly bit at the end. It makes even less sense from the point of the movie because he is shown as being in love with his wife, who is now being held prisoner. If you take the heir to the throne prisoner.. wouldn't you have an easy way to ransom her? You would think every scottish soldier on the field would jump at him and make sure he couldn't get away.
Why are actual historical narratives more interesting than the events as presented in these "based on a true story" dramatizations?
"Outlaw King" lost me at the battle sequence. Did anyone else notice how the Prince of Wales' sword flexed as he was flailing in the mud at the end?
How many battles have ended with the two lead generals fighting each other?
Other than that a pretty good vid. Horror of war and all that.
Bringing the king of england was so not machiavellian. Now there was a fourth party involved with new interest in the area.
I thought the wedding night scene was cringe worthy. Robert not consummating his marriage would cause him a lot of problems if word got out. Also I was just one medieval movie would show English Kings before Henry IV at least speaking with French accents
@David McConville Exactly, it's why people would often witness a nobleman's wedding not.
It was a good movie but it still has its problems. If it had been more than one move or instead a tv series it could have been explained better.
True but for what it is it's one of the better Medieval movies made period simply for actually attempting to be authentic while also being entertaining which is a hard ass balance to get in film making. I don't even mind the final battle much besides the two kings dueling because most other historical films rush through shit even worse and I personally loved the battle scene itself because it was intense but also had some idea of Medieval tactics. Not perfect but nothing truly is and I feel this one has more pros than cons.
Before I have even seen most of this episode, but having seen the film but not totally familiar of the history, I thought it was a brave effort, reasonable effort made on costume etc. Within the limits of the budget.
The one thing they could not fix was the bare hills, this was pre clearances Scotland. Those should have been alive with people.
Plot Wise...
The Bruce himself, starts as the biggest wet lettuce since Luke Skywalker in the first half what is now episode 4 of Star Wars.
His missus was a more active and a compelling character.
It would work as part one of a series, where the Bruce learnt to become the leader he needed to be.
Now having watched your episode, I broadly agree, a LOT of stuff messed around with for narrative contrivance, and the end battle was too much like bannackburn to make sense.
The not taking the prince at the end, that would have paid an armies wages for a year and more.
Otherwise, costume and flavour wise, I still think it is a truly brave effort to swing towards more historical accuracy, have you noticed how the costume almost avoids the seas of browns normally seen in normal medieval set films? The cuts seem to be accurate as well.
My poor qualifications, drinking with War of the Roses and Viking re-enactors most of my life, and i am one of those damned larpers.
The shaky cam effect on the pictures earned you a thumbs down. Why would you do that?
History is more important as weaving a perennial myth that creates a healthy national pride and spirit than as what “actually happened.” Logistics are for mathematicians, history is supposed to be badass
First mistake: allying with the French
Bretagne, Poland, Spain, AMERICA, Ottomans, and many others might disagree. But then eh, what is historical accuracy to tired unfunny overused false memes ? You do you i guess
You should critique Angus Macfadden's 'Robert The Bruce' film. That would be entertaining. As a Scot I am aware of my countries history of perpetual civil war, in fighting and back stabbing. A nation state that never had an army. Check out the battle of Rosslyn 1306 where the red comyn and Simon Fraser raised an army of 9000 lowlanders to fight an army from England of 30000 strong many of which where Scot's mercenaries in the pay of the English.
I didn't know everyone knew how to do Greek fire by then. (most countries)
Awww, scottish accents
swing and a miss with some of the pronunciation, but a great video. e.g Comyn is pronounced like common at least in modern day Falkirk ;)
but they all speak funny in Falkirk... (and they eat their young)
Agree with all the criticism, but it's a movie. I love the costumes, medieval people loved color. Overall a great movie. Agree the ending was bad, the king would have been randsomed. But it's a movie.
If you want Scottish historical confusion, then it's just as well they haven't made a film about the Reformation.
INSOLVENT?! You only have enough cash for the next three customers?!!?
I scoured my mind too figure out who i would ask, and then i remembered, WILSON!!! Then i wad like oh yeah cyn would totally know. Soo.. being covid is spreading like ther flu of 1918, and the country was led by Wilson, i wanted to know more. The bestest person to ask. Was thre man whose words echo in my mind. Sorry my comment isn't about this vid. Appreciate what you do. Ty so much your one of my 9 year old nieces faves.
Hey Cynical Historian, I'm a Medievalist at Boise State, you can always hit me up if you wanna talk medieval stuff!
I'm pretty sure The Bruce killed that man while he was praying effectively excommunicating himself
It was killing him in a church that led to his excommunication
Braveheart is a movie that I’d say is overrated. It’s not the little stuff that bugs me, (cough turkeys cough) it’s the mountain of nonsense the writer shoved into the film. Guess Mel Gibson forgot the French love interest was a CHILD during the rebellion and had nothing to do with Scotland. Or how the battle scenes make no sense logically. Or how Mel uses the version of William Wallace that says he was married. Mind you, the version used was made a couple hundred years after, the event. I could go on and on but if Mel wants to make a movie made in history, he might as well do something like Inglorious Bastards. Because that movie was honest that it was fiction.
The death scene of Wallace saying FREEEEEEEEDOOOOM is so cringeworthy. It’s as bad as Darth Vader’s “nooooooo.”
Hey Cynical Historian, great channel and I like your vids. Do you think you can give an accurate and bias/speculation free review of the Last King Of Scotland and the historical accuracy of Idi Amin's presidency? If you think u can, I'd love to see that. Keep up the great work
Dare you to critique Druids
Yes. They let the English King just walk away? . . . Huh? . . . My GOD, I found that so gratingly story ruining. It’s an entertaining movie, but I just don’t get why they have to mess with the facts, which are as exciting and riveting as any fiction!
Yaaas! Its here!
... three months ago.
Im late.
Mel Gibsons Braveheart probably pissed off the people of scottland considering how they had Robert the Bruce betray Wallace, and gave the braveheart title to Wallace instead of Robert for some strange reason. It's inaccuracies are just ridiculous, and the movie didn't seem to respect the material at all.
Gibson was nearly sued for having Robert betray Wallace (to be fair, he betrayed people a lot).
@@pyromania1018 As far as I know, the people he betrayed were basically already enemies. That one guy he killed in the church wasn't exactly his buddy.
It's ok. The title of 'Braveheart' was going begging. Mel Gibson was welcome to it. The notion that it had something to do with Robert I has only emerged after the film came out,
LOL there is even the head of William Wallace being pecked by a crow right on Berwick Bridge XD
That effects my life
Hey check out this book chapter for an argument on why the term guerrilla warfare isn't applicable to this period:
Alastair J. MacDonald, 'Good King Robert's Testament?: Guerrilla Warfare in Later Medieval Scotland', in B. Hughes, F. Robson, (eds.), Unconventional Warfare from Antiquity to the Present Day (2017), pp. 197-217.
Must I do the honors? *clears throat*
Now our time has come to fight!
Scotland must unite
I'm leaving.
That Scottish accent is actually quite weak.
This comment section is so fucking niche
Comparing Zinn to that trash is a joke.
OK Boomer
How about another Mel Masterpiece - The Patriot? Just kidding....sort of....The movie is beneath contempt, but somebody has to get to the bottom of why Hollywood thinks it can get away with such insulting drivel
Feudalism, is a system, Colonialism, is action. They are not mutually exclusive.
It does not matter what the system is, if you send your people to permanently occupy a place, or at least hold positions of authority in that place, and redefine the cultural and political paradigms to suit your own, and your agenda, it is Colonialism. It does not matter if your are Democracy, a Communist Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or a Feudal Monarchy.
If you do think that the English assaults on their neighbours were Colonialism, you need to look a little deeper. Look at Language, and Laws regarding its use.
Look how Welsh managed to return as an overt language spoken among its own people, simply due to the fact that two of the recipients of the secret Welsh language education, that ran via underground classes, family to family, valley to valley, grew up to be two of the most prominent composers of religious music in Britain in the early 19th century, and composed in Welsh. When the Church of England threw their support behind the men, it finally halted English plans to totally wipe out the language from Wales, which was now 'Anglicised" almost completely, via 400 yrs there about of English rule. THAT determination to erase culture, language, and history in a way, by doing so, by imposing your language, your Church, and your people in positions of power, to impose YOUR laws.... is COLONIALISM.
After Henry Plantagenet rose to the throne of England, becoming Henry II, he needed to flex some muscle, to posture and sabre rattle, when he had Thomas Beckett, Bishop of Canterbury killed. The European powers, and the Pope, were nonplussed with this, obviously, I believe it was the German Emperor who threatened to mobilize. So he did not want that, and had to flex, flex without provoking. So certainly would not flex eastward, towards Germany, or the HRE, really, from his Norman lands. Instead, it was impetus for something in his plans anyway, the invasion of Ireland. What do we see from then on? Same thing as in Wales. Except they lapse, after few centuries, in Ireland. The Tudors have to reassert, followed by the Stuarts...in their capacity as ENGLISH KINGS, not Scottish, beginning in the 1500s. After this we see another 18th Century reassertion of power. Lots of similarities. Though the Plantation model seems to be uniquely Irish.
We can still see this model's legacy today. We can still the three unique phases of English conquest of Ireland today too. We the 1200s, 1500s, and 1700s in the names of key players in Northern Ireland. Many Unionist peoples, leaders arguing they're British, and they're families have been in Ireland X-100 years and they wont leave and it is British land.....have French surnames, OLD French surnames.... a legacy from the Norman England. Many also have Scottish names, thanks to the Tudor and later, Stuart, dominion of Ireland. How is that not Colonialism?
If you think the English did not have the same plans for Scotland, you are naive. In fact, the language suppression and the placing of Anglicised Scots in powerful positions, after the Stuarts inherited England, shows quite clearly what the Plantagenets would have done, though not as much as simply what they did to Wales and Ireland shows they would have done.
It was Colonialism. It was the attempt of, at least, and later under another King, would become so.
Ireland, Wales and Scotland were just appetizers for English to go on a conquer half the world. Just because they all occupied the same group of Islands, does not make them any less subject to English colonialism.
Can you pls have a narrator from the uk so they can actually pronounce berwick and arbroath geez
if you're willing to foot the bill, I'd be happy to hire someone to worry about pronunciation
@@CynicalHistorian It really wouldn't take much
stergent is gibberish
Comyn = Common.
TL;DR Blood of Bannockburn by Sabaton is better than outlaw king, and a million times better than braveheart
Oh this has nothing to do with Scotland. It's just another version of the onlyx movie america ever made, the only story it knows.
1. The oppressor
2. Te oppressed
3. A hero
4. Freedoooooooom!
Almost every bloody movie that ever came out of America and had any commercial significance at all has that exact same plot.
Feudalism _is_ colonialism, when conducted on foreign soil.
Spainish Encomienda system.
The American pronouncing certain words here is making my Scottish ears bleed.
Modernism ftw
Calling Berwick upon tweed "occupied territory seriously triggered me! 😂😂😂😂 I just feeds into the notion that England is this imperial power that
oppresses the other nations of the UK. That's not true!
That heavily differs on who you ask. A lot of the irish certainly seem to agree, or they wouldn't have fought to separate. The scots frequently seem to agree, I know of welsh people who do. It may not be a ubiquitous sentiment, but it's folly to say it doesn't exist.
I have trouble watching this movie because the title character isn't played by a Scottish actor. Almost every notable Scottish actors and actresses are in this one. They should have made Bruce a real Scotts or English at least. To cast an AMERICAN 😡.
So long as the actor is good enough I wouldn't care but I thought Pine did the best he can even though it's somewhat bland.
I do agree that an actual Scott would be preferable, James MacAvoy would have been a great choice.
@@pbh9195 i absolutely agree. That man have charisma.
I wish Americans learnt how to speak English !