THE KING - Historically Accurate? BRUTALLY Honest Trailer Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Link to my video about the outlaw king
• OUTLAW KING - WRONG AR...
Link to the video armour vs longbow
• ARROWS vs ARMOUR - Med...
Link to my patreon if you wish to support me :D
/ themetatron
Link to Knyght Errant channel
/ neosonic66
Lately on Netflix we have had a lot of new Medieval movies and tv series. The King looks promising in terms of its actors and the story itself, but is the armour and are the weapons correct? Are the people dressed properly according to the century that is being depicted?
This video is a quick evaluation of what we know so far through the release of this teaser/trailer. Before a properly made evaluation can be made, we'll have to see the whole movie, but this is what we have now and this is what we work with.
Regardless of the length of this trailer, which of course is short, there are already quite a few things we can see and evaluate. We see knights, we see the king both in formal, informal and combat clothing/armour, we see formations and most importantly we see his best men and closest knights.
Are they dressed properly? Is the armour believable?
The film is set in the early XVth century and it's based on the Shakespear's historical play "Henry the V" so of course, while it's not a history documentary, the setting is very specific and I believe history should be repsected atleast to a certain degree.
The early XVth century sees the development of new and more complex armour which makes use of plates of steel to increase the overall protection of knights and men at arms on the field, particularly if compared to previous centuries where the predominant form of protection was, infact, mail.
Mail is a good kind of armour, but against the weapons of this century mail alone, won't cut it.
How does the film represent all that? Will arrows have the typical exagerated power we see in movies where they simply penetrate anything and anyone? Or will Armour, namely plate, do its job and protect from them?
#Netflix #Trailer #Funny
Follow me on my social networks:
/ themetatron
/ metatron_youtube
www.facebook.c...
/ puremetatron
/ realmetatron
Royalty free music by Epidemic Sound:
intro ES_Knights Templar 1 - Johannes Bornlöf
intro 2 ES_Medieval Adventure 01 - Johannes Bornlöf
outro ES_Knights Templar 2 - Johannes Bornlöf
Check out the facebook page of the photographer who works with me, he has lots of fantastic pictures
www.facebook.c...
and his instagram
www.facebook.c...
Check out my friend Salvo's channel
/ @littlesalvo000
Lightly armored English king walks onto the field
French archer: hon hon
The best part of the 2010 Robin Hood movies was that King Richard the Lion Heart got killed by a cook that had used a crossbow while the crossbowmen were eating.
@@MandalorV7 Which is actually pretty accurate, according to the sources.
Pasha Staravoitau It has been a while since I watched the movie. All I remember was that whoever brought the soldiers their food picked up a crossbow and killed the king. Ether way it’s a great moment of someone of high standing being brought down by a servant.
Heavily armoured French mounted knight rides onto the field.
English longbowman: ✌
andsowot ✌🏻this but backwards
I love how you had comedy into your videos..
Don't think the issue of English longbows penetrating armor is as settled as you try to make it sound. With a longbow of accurate draw weight and the correct arrowhead, it seems they could indeed pierce plate
Metatron, slapping this video:
"This bad boy, can fit so many memes!"
Yeah, the memes are strong with this one
Next on netflix: The Outlaw!
next on netflix: The
*DO YOU WANT A TEA FOR THE QUEEN MY NIGGA?*
@@LiveErrors I would watch it
So would The Outlaw be about Robin Hood, or Billy the Kid?
Ted Archer I’m ok with that.
I just watched this movie, and historically accurate or not, it was fking magnificent to me
the battles were pretty gritty and grounded and armour actually worked
Yeah you should update this. The movie shows much more and gives you reasons for what they use.
@@joem7927 Right? Most of the things that Metatron mentions were like that for a reason... also that out of date coif was kinda justified by the backstory (he fought in a crusade, and in the battle of Agincourt he used his old armor)
@@mirohradsky right, but he still wasn't wearing it right. Ill have to watch the movie tho.
I loved it, but they left out Henry V's great speech and made his character a lot more dark than Shakespeare presents him.
A movie did pay reeaectors once in the movie Gettysburg.
And it looked amazing.
And the reeaectors didn't even want to get paid because they just loved the project so much.
They also filmed on the actual battlefield. So yes one of the most on point movies.
_re-en-ac-tors_
They should of edited out the fat ones from the closer shots tho
All I remember from that movie was that there were a lot of morbidly obese soldiers on both sides.
@@irondom holy shit so that's why. I never noticed.
Not gonna lie, that shake spear joke really made laugh. Just kidding it was horrible.
yeah it should be shakes pear
Butt why?
Eh it caught me off guard, I got a laugh.
This comment actually made me laugh. Unlike the Shakespeare joke.
Utterly awfully horrible
Having watched the movie your point at 3:35 is moot as John falstaff puts on a helmet just after that photo with him just wearing the mail coif
Also his point about Henry's armor, as in the movie, whenever he goes into battle he has full plate
Gosh be realistic, they are not going to be in full armour 24/7. The beach landing, the night walk, the camp scenes...dressing down is a given. You armour up for battles not for a stroll onto a beach. That was not D-Day! LOL
Mail on pure skin/head is still a bad idea.
@@gscfishingoutdoors quote/ they are not going to be in full armour 24/7 /unquote - Metatron's in full armour 25/8...
Yeah, strange criticism. It's as if one expects every knight to have on perfectly fitted armor, with a tight coif, and helmet on all the time. I find it strange to be so insistent when there is often wide variety in existing samples from the same period, and those existing examples represent only a small fraction of what would have existed, but with most pieces being lost to time.
Now that the movie is out, you'll know that Falstaff's helmet was in his hands, he wore it during the battle. The King is not in his proper armour because he is not on the battlefield, just watching the catapults. He just wanted to be comfortable, poor kid.
I like this evaluation a lot, but Sir John (The guy with just the mail coif) actually puts on a helmet shortly before battle.
The King already has the best armor - plot armor.
Interesting to see how metatrons videos are by now just drowning in memes, unlike during the early times...
*this is like the progression from partial plate and chainmail to full plate*
Has a sort of Monty Python flavor to it.
I'm going to be 100% honest because I know Metatron can take the criticism. The jokes are not funny and interrupt the flow of the video. I like Metatron, I've been subscribed for years, but I don't come for the memes and jokes I come for well researched historical analysis. That doesn't mean you can't be creative with how you present the information, but interrupting yourself and dwelling on sort of a low wit dad joke really grates on the quality of the video and ends up feeling uncomfortable. I'm not saying stop all the dad jokes, I'm just saying he needs to reign them in a bit. Other than that his editing has been really good and it keeps my attention, and really shows how much his skills have developed. Please don't take it as a personal attack, just an honest opinion from a fan
Thank you for your opinion!
I get why they include romance in these kinds of films, Braveheart, Outlaw King, etc. I just wish they would lay off a bit more on the whole romance aspect. Hope it’s not too prevalent in this upcoming film.
I can see why they might include romance with some of their kings but with Henry V it would be pointless. He’s not known for his romance, he’s known for war.
Yeah I hope there's no forced pointless romance plot or lingering sex scene.
@Revolutionary Communist Boooo. But he didn't even get married until the end of his life (granted he was pretty young). And it was a political marriage!! If they want a sad romance why not do William and Mary? Or Henry 7th? OR Justinian and Theodora?
Don't think so.They have to include the usual stuff: kick ass women, PC good guys, people shouting fire when using arrows, homosexuality, no racism, atheism, heavy metal medieval societies, and lastly the same formula hitting the same plot points complete with very similar music.
She is only in the last 10 minutes
the funny thing is that he is holding his helmet in his hands
I know right
my point exactly
Where is the big scar he got on his face from an arrow at the battle of Shrewsbury? This actor looks too pretty!
Hello metatron, did you watch the movie "Il Primo Re"? matteo rovere movie from 2019 on romulus and remus ..what do you think? interested in talking about it in one of your video reviews? i love the fact that they speak in Proto-Latin/italic
I very enjoyed the film
Is this movie going to be available on Netflix or Amazon Prime?
@Paulo Mendes I hope you mean religious as in Christian in specific, i would be highly suspect of a movie set in the 700s BC with an atheistic undertone.
If you think knights in the 15th century jumped off a boat in full armour, you need to get off your computer.
Knights would only put on full plate before a battle . And a landing party would be full of light Infantrymen. With full male and probably a breast plate if you were rich enough to buy another plate
The whole thing about English long bows was the fact they were hitting the target from much much further and if you ever spend a couple of hours shooting a bow and arrow and you get pretty actuate shooting in the air.
So these guys who were required by law to practice once a week would be like bloody snipers at any distance. .
Just curious, as i remember, in battle of Agincourt english archers were deployed on two sides, that means they had to shoot "in the air" so that arrows would hit fast moving knights who did not directly come to them but at an angle like 45 degree. Heavy cavalry charged with very few columns and between 2 columns, there was a considerable distance. How did english archer train to shoot like that. I guess in 14 -15th century, english invented a machine that simulate a fast moving target traveling from side to side for longbowmen to train?
@Nim Chimpsky I am trying to be sarcastic :))
@Nim Chimpsky My point is there was no way you can shoot "in the air" accurately against a fast moving target, who do not directly charge at you. At least, not without actual training with a real fast moving target. Do you notice that 14th century simulation machine joke i said, dude? :)) You make me explain my own joke.
@@LieutenantMoustache Sorry man, i am a bit over the top in my comment. Of course indirect volley fire was a thing. No one said it wasn't. Should you use it? you should if you really want to harrass enemy from longer distance or you don't have a clear line of sight. Can you really shoot it "accurately" at a moving target moving from side to side? you can in the sense that your whole archers formation can hit enemy formation, not in the sense that you can pick off a chosen target you want it dead, which i assumed that's what the OP meant. Was it really effective? A LOT of shots will not hit anything but in certain situation it can be a good idea. Many already argued that English shoot straight in Agincourt for good reasons.
I'd suggest you watch the whole movie, then review it, not just do a sloppy 'trailer review'.
Umm, he made this video in early September because the trailer was all he had to work with. If you watched the video you'd know he said at the end that he may review the whole movie once it comes out.
@@parthiaball And did it just yesterday
@@sebastianb.3978 Added to watch later, thanks for the heads up! ☺ (just watched the movie last night)
@@parthiaball No problem :-)
I wish you did more movie reviews
It buggs me when things comes before they even existed or the fact that historical persons have modern views on things.
This happens too often, it's really irritating
We all know katanas can cut through plate. Same as dimensions.
A katana can cut through a tank. I've seen it on the internet.
@@Yora21 Yeah, just if you have a katana, you better pray the other guy does not have a Pommel ready. While katanas can cut through space and time, there is one thing they can't do, which a pommel can - end him rightly!
That's why ever Japanese weapon during WW2 had a katana bayonet attachment.Anti-tank purposes.
@Anti-Federalist 1776 Katanas ARE an effective weapon, just not what pop culture makes them out to be. If they weren't effective, the Japanese, who were engaged in numerous wars during the time the katana was in use, would have dropped it in favor of a more effective sword within a few years, rather then the sword lasting for centuries as a sidearm, only falling out of favor with the arrival of small firearms such as the pistol to use as a sidearm.
did someone mention it can also cut time?
concerning hiring Renactors to help cut costs while maintaining historical authenticity: @Netflix. Gettysburg actually did this almost three decades ago and it became a box office smash among moviegoers and history buffs...so...why would it not work in this day and age? In other words im agreeing with metatron on this it wouldn't be that difficult and would be cost effective AND you'd have peeps who know what they are doing lol.
Few reasons i can think off are actor unions, insurance converage and schedules. I think any Hollywood producer would scream if you told him you were just gonna ring up some local hobbyst schmucks to film for an afternoon on company dime.
The subtle music tracks you started playing in the background are an excellent choice for your productions. Looking forward to a realistic and immersive medieval show. I can't bring myself to watch most similar shows, mainly because of Metatron, Shad, Lindybeige and schola gladiatoria have made me conscious to a high degree with their wonderful videos on historical accuracy.
Can't wait for the Agincourt scene!!!
The videos with Dr. Tobias Capwell you can watch here on RUclips will end you rightly...no escape, no unseeing. It was already hard unseeing the historically inaccurate horses and tack. Since I have been researching armour, I have even more difficulties enjoying movies with medieval setting...thanks Knyght Errand.
@@SandraOrtmann1976 excellent, thanks for that. I've put one of his presentations in my watch later
One question metatron who waould win between samurai and spartan i think samurai but a kid keeps bothering me about this he says spartan please make a vid on this your the only guy i know who can answer this
I may provide some arguments for you, so hoplites were trained to fight in a unit their equipment even shows this a single Spartan by himself is almost useless, the samurai would shred him. The hoplites armour is worse, his shield is not good for duels at all, and his sword is short. The samurai is mounted and has a bow or a yari, it's easy samurai win
@@knight.paladin1214 thanks
@@knight.paladin1214 for some reason the guy belived spartans had a God on their side and that they would be able to throw spears and shoot arrows which could kill you from a mile away u belive its samurai to the fulest extent but what i want is to see the comparison of armour army place ment weapons etc
Another thing he always brings up sepaku saying that samurai were "wimps"
That’s not a fair comparison
@@hazzmati yes to some extent but could to tell mw how i think i know but i wanna know what u mean
1:30 "Spear shall be shaken!"
Also, you just can't forgive KCD for having no crossbows, can you? (Why am I even asking?) :D
ABSOLUTELY NAHT
I think that if Warhorse didn’t included crossbows was for the same reason that polearms were not properly implemented (at least, one of the reasons). There is no way to carry it around in the same way as a sword or a shield. It takes the place of another weapon in the body slots and are difficult to carry around without movin or clipping. Perhaps using the horse as a storage in the same way that Red Dead Redemption 2 would have been a good solution, but the studio is still young. Perhaps for KCD 2 it will be implemented.
I mean it would be a lot easier than me trying to snipe a cuman with my bow but my arm starts having a seizure
DEEEATHH !!
Further on the topic of rusted armor: This stuff was quite expensive to buy. So if you got it you maintained it or got someone to do it for you.
Exactly. Rusty armour was for the lazy.
Wiltshire Medieval Society
There was probably one lazy knight but then even he would have someone clean it for them.
@@13thcentury more like: rusted armor was for the soon-to-be-dead pesant militia/levvies... eg: battle of Visby: Local free farmer militia vs. Battle hardened German mercenaries and Danish royal guard elite...
(Hint: There were only insignificant casualties in the Danish Kings army but several mass graves has been excavated)
You should totally do a review on Vinland Saga. It miles better than Vikings TV series when it comes to historical authenticity. Also as a bonus: IT'S AN ANIME!
Shad just did a review of Vinland Saga and he loved it.
In vinland saga you have one viking cutting 5 enemies and the ship’s mast in half in one strike. And in another scene he jumps 10 feet in the air. It’s not authethic
@@hazzmati exaggerated dramatic story is nothing to do with "historical authenticity" itself in this case. It's a different matter altogether if we talk about "historical accuracy." But then again, being historically accurate is almost impossible because of modern biases.
Also, if you considers how songs & sagas told, most of the "heroes/characters" in the tales are told like a demi-gods or with superhuman-like feats, so it kinda make sense in certain perspectives.
Anyway, the series still aim to be entertaining, while still managed to take a proper attentions & respect the historical cultures.
Croz Raven just because historically accurate is imppssible it doesn’t mean you should add dumb anime moments. If I’m watching something which takes place in our past I’m not expecting these dumb superman feats it’s retarded as hell. Not watching that shit
Honestly, while I do agree with you fully on using reenactors, you, me or the people who watch your Channel are not the real target audience for this films. Plus, as someone who is currently working as an art director for a company that makes historical miniatures games sometimes accuracy means nothing to the audience because Hollywood has twisted the broad cultural knowledge of historical figures, events and even fashion and printing technology.
Netflix: *makes two movies about English kings*
RUclipsr: Netflix is on a medieval rampage
> Outlaw King
> Scotland
> Not english king
real question: why does the King look like a rich peasant?
He looks like a waiter
WheediesManchild well to be fair he was a skinny guy
Watch the movie, the character was basically a peasent before becoming king.
The movie looks good I might have to check it out
It’s a movie
@@valennieto9795 I am just restarted, I will go edit it
Darth Tachanka it was honesty pretty good but it’s a slow burn
Watch the movie! It's way more accurate than it appears to be on the trailer!
Falstaff never existed, and Henry wasn't a drunk before he took the throne.
Henry V did not kill Henry Percy at the battle of Shrewsbury, and the duel between them certainly did not decide the outcome of the battle as it never occurred yet the battle did, a complete reversal of what is shown in the film.
The Dauphin was not present at the battle of azincourt, and certainly wasn't killed by an angry mob of mud-men, but most likely died of dysentery not long after he had missed the battle.
The tactic of dismounting knights to fight with the archers had been common practice since at least the battle of crecy 80 years earlier, and certainly would not have caused any upheaval as shown in the film.
The french did not have the advantage of a steep hill, and there was no forward contingent taking the brunt of the french assault.
Henry did not hide in a forest for half the battle, but remained at the centre of his line from start to finish, and finally william gascoigne was not henry V's main advisor, but instead was removed from his posts shortly after henry V took the throne.
I never even noticed the armour discrepancies while watching the film, i was too busy being offended by all the historical inaccuracies.
Other than that sure... accurate...
The battle of agincourt is completely wrong
I meant this comment with context to the video. Not about the happenings, more about what topics were discussed in the video itself.
quirkinator 1 The battle of Agincourt is the one thing that’s actually completely on point, very slightly different but the strategy, units and conditions were practically the same.
Bandit should have been way more archery
Your knowledge of 14th century armour is superlative, unfortunately the same cannot be said of your ability to pronounce Agincourt !
*_Your medieval dad jokes are heresy_*
You can actually give plastic a chrome treatment (or maybe it's silver nitrate sometimes). If I were to make cheap plastic armour for the extras in the wide shot, I'd try and get in touch with a company that can chrome up the plastic armour. That way it will be nearly as reflective as a mirror.
Then I'd weather the chromed surfaces with paint to dull the reflectiveness just a little. That way you'd still get a pretty good illusion of polished steel armour without having to spend the money for real armour.
Or, just buy proper armour. They have the budget.
Wiltshire Medieval Society
Depends on how much people there is. At best about $300-500 for every person.
They could also go with rigid plastics instead of vinyl.
@@13thcentury: No, they really don't.
Outfitting hundreds to thousands of people in proper steel armour will blow through the budget in no time.
Arnoursmithing isn't exactly a quick affair, but labourious and time consuming which ramps up the price significantly.
Armour also needs to be custom tailored for the wearer, which further adds to the price.
Armoursmiths are not exactly common around the world either since it's not a mainstream industry, so due to the rarity of their skills, the price hikes even further.
If you compared that to simply vaccuforming sheets of plastic into pieces or armour, where the material is dirt cheap and no special skills are required to accomplish it, movie producers will opt for this option any day of the week rather than trying to outfit every single extra (many if which might only appear in shots that are less than a second long) with real steel armour.
Open up, this is the anime police: you have violated the allowed number of anime images in a historical educational context
Hot princes you say?
We wuz da Kang
Loved the video, honey!
I'm glad you liked It :D :D
New Metatron video? Yay!
It's a debunking one? Mamma mia!!
It's full of memes, jokes and great editing? ROMA INVICTA!!!
Something that is NEVER considered by producers is the facial scar Henry carried from a (quite severe) arrow wound he recieved in 1403. Always ignored so every portrayal of Henry without that scar (post 1403) is wrong!
You forgot to mention Henry was shot in the face with an arrow when he was 16. Reason enough for him to wear his helmet buttoned up all the time after that.
Edit: After watching the trailer - it seems the filmmakers have no clue about this event. There's no sign of the scar on his face.
George Todorov Beat me to it.
You beat me to it as well! His surgeon had to invent a new instrument in order to extract the bolt and Henry was always represented with a left-sided profile afterwards.
Got a sick ass scar too, really helped the image of a strong martial king.
Wtf?? Ouch! Did he get take the arrow around the cheeckbone?
Yeah. He used to be an adventurer but then he took an arrow to the face and became one of the greatest kings England ever had...
There's a documentary about the event floating about the tubes. Search for Henry V arrowhead removal.
Still no Alchemist, doctor, hand cannon, caltrop or medieval explosives.
Just flaming trebuchets :)
Re: arrows and armour, high quality breastplate in the thickest spot? Of course not. Some cheap-ass wrought iron helmet from the side or a lucky hit directly in the breath hole, maybe arm harness? With a heavy enough bow I'd say it's not implausible.
Not what I expected, but interesting. I was expecting a comparison between the film's version of Agincourt and the actual battle, and perhaps Henry's actual romp through France and the film's 2 battle version, but I suppose it was not possible given that this was based on the trailer.
After watching the film since its debut, I can confirm that your criticism of the mail armor headgear is somewhat nullified by the fact that the same dude - Sir John Falstaff (played by Joel Edgerton) - actually does put on a bascinet helmet with a protective visor over the face. Cleverly, the filmmakers only have him take it off during the battle because a knight on horseback rode by and struck him upside the head, making his ears ring uncontrollably as he becomes disoriented before dying.
I disagree with your criticisms of John Falstaff's armour choice. In the movie, he went into battle with the desire to die: "Either I die out there, or I die back in East End with a bottle in my hand." I do however agree with your criticisms of the King's armour.
You are not talking about the inaccuracy in history, like the description of the French for instance. They modified Shakespeare, who had already modified history because this was already a war propaganda against French
English propaganda as always xD
As an archer myselfe, who saw the move I have to say that i really missed the longbow "Action" this could have looked soo good but insted you only see a few guys with normal bows ( no english warbows not even looking like them) who shoot two times straight up in the air ...but the rest of the movie really was entertaining and i enjoyed watching it anniway :D
@5:14 Oh snap, I've reenacted at that event and know some of those people!
I watched the archer vs. armor video before I came here, and it's striking how twisted the modern archer is to fire his 120lb bow, and then recognize the same twists on the tapestry archers.
Indeed, and on skeletons in medieval mass graves where the English lost a battle...
You made a great point why not Hollywood hire reanactors that already have real armor. With the money they pay the extras they can hire them and actually save money on not spending it fake props
What was the movie you where helping in? I wanna watch it (Ancient Rome - thats why)
I think the armors in movie Jean D'Arc were very authentic, beside the medieval Burgundy and French clothes.
the mail coif guy actually has a badass fvcking helm. until he takes it off in the middle of the battle so we can see his reaction
Yeah, even through the film explaines why he takes it off, I thought it was ridiculus. Yeah, you got hit in the head, feel dizzy and want to remove the helmet. Yeah, sure, but that helmet just saved your life dude.
To be realistic, King Henry should have been weeping over a stove in head with the hole in the shape of a hoof.
I think it would be good to revisit this review now that the movie is out. I'm not sure how accurate it is as I'm no expert. However, the issue you raise in the video regarding the guy without a helmet turns out to be invalid as he does wear one once the fighting begins. Unlike most movies, wrestling around to gain an advantage is commonplace in combat and many people are killed with daggers seeking out weak points in the armor. To my admittedly untrained eye, it seems like many things are right, but it would be nice to get the opinion of someone better versed in this timeframe.
metatron is a hip old man
"What happened? How do these men fight?"
Maaaate... Agincourt was fought in a muddy terrain, and the french knights had to wade through several yards of it ON FOOT before they even reached the English lines, due to the very simple fact that English longbowmen aimed for the horses. Criticizing historical accuracy is fine, but try to remain true to history yourself, and document yourself before you make the video.
Love you metatron, long time subscriber. Please watch the whole movie thoe.
But then, how would shitty movie costume makers make a living?
Noble one, you seem to be a tad low on your sanity points.
.
.
Carry on, its awesome :)
Falstaff was an entirely fictional character of Shakespeares, and he was a baffoon Hal had hung. The ball thing was stolen from the story of Darius sending a polo ball and mallet to Alexander the Great.
So, about the scene where all knights stand in line (with freaking pollaxes yeah!), appart from the shining aspect, what is wrong about that scene. Cause when i watched the trailer, it looked fine too me and I was really excited to see some good portrayal of plates and weapons.
They should wear tabards right?
...
You know what you did...
Even the chaos gods can't condone that kind of heresy...
Probably some more colourful livery wouldn't do harm. Jupons and the like.
Also, not enough period-correct helmet visors, though it's not too horrible. A lot of them are too flat and of the earlier construction.
Some helmets are a few decades from the future too :D
Why do Kings in these movies always have short hair peasant haircuts? Most nobles and monarchs had mid length or long hair.
To be fair his cut looks a lot like king Henrys cut from the portrait
At this point, the Norman cut (which is actually a "Norman revival" hairstyle and different from historical Norman hairstyles) was in fashion. The most commonly cited portrait of Henry V is posthumous ( _long_ afer), but here's a contemporary one:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V_of_England#/media/File:Henry,_Prince_of_Wales,_presenting_this_book_to_John_Mowbray._Thomas_Hoccleve,_Regement_of_Princes,_London,_c._1411-1413,_Arundel_38,_f._37detail.jpg
Also the physical description of him mentions his short cropped hair.
Henry V had short hair. What is your point here?
Liamjm most nobles had longer hair and facial hair. Short haired baby-faced men are a modern thing.
Pelopen3bc ok, Normans are different in that regard, but most depictions of nobility and royalty from the Middle Ages always show them looking like wizards. Just look at the way Robert the Bruce is always drawn. Always a beard. Never clean shaven.
One note:
Kings back than weren’t called “you majesty” but “your grace”.
The term “majesty” was started during the reign of Henry VIII
In between 2:28 and 2:29, I saw that Raff you sneaky bastard :)
No I think it is almost always NO. But if the story is good. It won't matter much.
What frustrated me the most about this film was the role of the archers in the battle. They only release two volleys of arrows the entire battle. Like wtf this battle was literally decided by archers.
That was one factor among many, including the boggy terrain the English chose in which to trap the majority of the French heavily armored cavalry and infantry, while using flanking maneuvers. So no, it wasn't entirely decided by longbows, even if they were one of the decisive elements.
Eric Connor this is true. However the archers also joined in the battle in hand to hand combat. Likely they were not wearing heavy armor thus were able to maneuver in the mud more effectively. The film specifically did not show the archers in this role.
Hah! I knew my new hairdo would become trendy! Even the king has it!
You gotta respect the Norman Bowl Cut 👍
And Dylan Roof
@@kevink1575 why you gotta bring that scumbag up? The fuck bruh
So basically, producers should film most 14th century Europe setting films on Gotland during week 32 (Medieval week festival centered on the Danish invasion)
Henry V lived in the 1400 century. Still a very fun videos! I subscribed.
The battle of Agincourt is 1415, that's fifteenth century :)
I loved this movie . Even if everything in it wasn’t accurate , it’s still awesome !
Let's also clear up the misconception that horses running on all terrains will sound like coconuts hitting each other.
Yeah, on grass, you'd feel the horses through your own feet before you heard the footfalls...
And possibly even have a hard time maintaining secure footing due to vibrations. At least on dewy morning grass trodden into mud by your own regiment deploying into that formation.
We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude.
We forge our spirits in the tradition of our ancestors.
You have our gratitude.
First
thirst.
Some of these I wonder... It's like in 500 years from now someone was judging a film about cars, and saying "In those days, people used to wear seatbelts, so see this one guy not wearing one?" … Great as always Metatron, but I'd assume some medieval people were procrastinators.
I assume you are talking about what was the norm, and not what would have been? To me it just adds to the realism when 5% are not doing what they were supposed to.
I agree. For example, armor was polished...okay, cool. But from contemporary depictions, often armor was black too. But that aside, are we to assume that ALL armor was always polished all the time? Invasions took months or years sometimes, and people died from disease. So is it that hard to imagine a Knight's squires or pages were sick, dead or wounded and couldn't polish the armor all the time? Are we to believe that ALL mail coifs fit snugly around the chin? That the king ALWAYS wore full plate, even when jumping out of a boat onto the beach?
To put it in your context, imagine a film (if there are such things) 500 years from now and it is set in 2019, but we see several of the actors driving toyotas that are from the 1980's. Would it be strictly accurate? Probably not, but it's still mostly accurate and doesn't detract from the story.
Knights with wrist watches and Nike shoes? Yes, that takes me out of the movie. Knights with slightly different armor from known, rare examples in museums? Who cares?
Please do the full movie review!
The dude with the beard puts on a helmet later come on mate
Jesus m8 hold your horses and wait for the full film, looking back on this video most of your points are inaccurate
Watch the scene where the dauphin gets killed. That's the reason why the king and his men went with minimal amour. It was on purpose and part of their tactic.
Thank you ! I've seen so many people simply forget all the exposition that they spent so much time explaining. It rained, they went light, used the mud and less armor to their advantage.
@M.W. I'm aware of this, but that wasn't the point.
@@emmiga Sorry, but that minimal armor crap and tactics is bullshit. In reality, Henry and English knights wore FULL armor in battle just like French, but they were not tired because French had to "advance" a long way through the mud under heavy arrow storm, not because they fought in the mud. The ground was not slippy but it made your feet dig deep into the mud, that's why French army was out of stamina when they reached English lines. If the ground is that slippy like in the film, light equipment will not prevent you from falling.
Right? They have a whole conversation about it when planning the battle. Which I thought was cool, because so often in films, the audience is left to guess the secret tactic until it is deployed: like the Irish allying themselves to the Socts in defiance of Longshanks in Braveheart, or pretending to flee when the good guys were actually hiding in holes in Willow (not really a historical film but you get the point).
@@nguyenanthinh4364 sorry only just seen your reply. Like I've said before, that wasn't the point. I'm aware that this movie isn't purely based on historical facts. I simply pointed out why they were wearing minimal armour in THAT movie. lol
Can you do an update of this lol
the edit of the video was very funny
This has got me thinking, what do you think about Zeffirellis classic medieval movies, Romeo and Juliet (lots of swordplay) and Brother Sun Sister Moon which was pretty trippy at the time. As for our enery I was brought up on Laurence Olivier and all that.
The first historical evidence of full plate armors are after 1420 an are Italian, Agincourt takes place in 1415.
There was no such silver knight like Excalibur movie, back then, there was armor parts like breast plates, helmets gauntlets, but full armor, nope.
If the French Knights had such protections the English archers would never had been that Deadly.
And guess what by the time of Joan Of Arc they were not that decisive anymore.
Because no….NO !
Long Bow arows cannot pierce a plate armor, except if it is empty maybe.
See here ruclips.net/video/DBxdTkddHaE/видео.html
Can you make a video about that recent adaption of "The name of the Rose"? I only saw a trailer and thought it looked rather meh.
Correction 4:00
The guy in the middle (Falstaff) is wearing a full-faced helmet later on the battle scene.
PAYİTAHT THE KİNG
You said you were an PA , here is what I think your suggestion (hiring reenactment groups) is not reasonable: ( I worked as first AD and editor for major productions in my country )
1- consistency : sure, those folks may have legit gears , but everyone else have to look the same too. Everyone bring their own gear and production design is out of whack. Now, you have to make sure other extra have have similar quality kinda armor, that will shoot up the cost. And what if that well geared extra is sick or not available ? Continuity out of whack. Relying way too much on an extra is a big no no in movie production, any AD can tell you that. Sometimes we would even rather pay legit extra instead of getting random folks on the street for free. An extra can ruin a good shot pretty easily.
2- so you choose your shooting location base on the availibity of reenactment group for extra ? Come on man, if you work on a production before, you know there are things that are way higher on the priority list when choosing location : does it look right, how is the weather in that area ? What about logistic ? Permission and cost of renting location ?
Liked for FFT.
I will not stop asking til you do the Excalibur arms/armor critique Metatron, LOL!
Thought it was a fairly middling film. By trying to be a more realistic take on Shakespeare's historical play, it fails as both Shakespeare adaptation and as a historically accurate portrayal. If it wanted to do an accurate historical take, it should've based the script on historical sources rather than taking the plot and fictional characters of the play. It'd be like if someone wanted to make a Mozart movie, but instead of making an entirely new movie they just remake Amadeus with the same fictional Salieri jealousy plot... except make it "grittier." It's silly.
Fantastic work signore. My question is a rhetorical one of sorts. WHO THE HECK DO THEY USE FOR HISTORICAL REFERENCES?????? NOT METATRON< NOT SHADAVERSITY, NOT JASON KINGSLEY FROM MODERN HISTORY TV..... nope, not at all.
3:45 THIS IS THE TRAILER, watch the damn movie???? YES HE HAS HIS HELMET DURING BATTLE!!!! Wtf?????
Among the misses of the movie:
- many English breastplates extend to the beltline, not acurately above the waist (though many do, with faulds)
- many extras wearing cheek hinged armets, and milanese pauldrons, these being late middle 15th c.
- many wearing gorget plates or visor with bare exposed necks beneath, no camail
- more exposed necks and HUGE visor eye-slots than I care to count
- King Henry V has 3 rivet holes on his breast where a V-rib should be. There is otherwise zero purpose to rivers here
- much heraldry is missing. Example of bad heraldry is man standing beside Dauphin wears Duke of ANJOU. Louis 2nd Duke Anjou didn't reach Agincourt.
Anjou is a label gules (red) upon the Valois shield.
The Duke of Orleans WAS present, and captured, being a label argent (white).
- longbowmen and me at arms walk through English camp where stakes are seen! Zero are seen during the battle 🤦♂️
- horse barding is all over the place: missing throat creniers but having back-of-the-neck crenieres, only a FEW with peytrals, many horses with crenieres without chamfrons. French cavalry sporting full plate croupiere in the rear, also not found until the later 15th c.
Lightly armoured King - OOPS!
Longbow arrows piercing plate armour - OOPS!
Shower of arrows - OOPS!
Still, it was a good film and seemingly authentic to the untrained eye (me!).
Great insight, sir! Thanks for sharing your knowledge. ✌️
4:58 d'accordissimo
like it would be amazing to see guys like "adorea" or other reenactment groups that have amazing HISTORICALLY accurate gear
and know the fighting stances, the tactics
etc
Nothing historically correct in this movie..
Except the kings name
Its basically a remake of Shakespeare's Henry V .
Falstaff is a Shakespeare character . As is all the alehouse stuff.
The battle against Hotspur is completely wrong .
The way he got harlfluer is wrong .
The battle of Agincourt is all wrong too.
The movie is a mixture of Shakespeare's play & complete bullshit fantasy