I got no problems with Movies like these because they really try their best to replicate the Event's and just change a few things to make them more Camera friendly i personally hate when movies like 300 basically Mock great historical events
@@OK-yy6qz Got agree with that somewhat, although I love 300 as a movie in and of itself. I haven't seen this movie Alan is refering to here, but from the shots shone they didn't have anywhere near enough extras for the sizes of armies they needed and considering Troy managed to show armies of many thousands years ago they really don't have an excuse I don't think. But yeah, sometimes studios go way to far trying to make a historical moment more ... Hollywood?
@@ukmediawarrior they obviously didn't had enough money for more Extras+ im not sure you can really show 25000 on screen Troy mainly showed the Size of the Army via Ships and yeah a couple changes need to happen to make a movie more Cinematic
@@OK-yy6qz Troys armies were all cgi:) You remember that sweeping shot that flew down the gap between the two armies as they ran together to start the battle and it showed thousands of soldiers? I watched the 'making of ..' documentary of the film and they showed how they just cgi'ed a hundred or so soldiers then copied and pasted them side by side to make thousands. In the edit you can't tell because of the dust, the action and the speed. If they could do that back in 2004 it shouldn't be to cost heavy to do it now I wouldn't have thought
@@ukmediawarrior cgi is very expensive tho. How expensive? Well game of thrones had to scrap having ghost in most episodes of the later seasons lol if one little wolf is too expensive for a show like that, then 25,000 fùckers in a brawl has to be massively costly and P.S sorry if you got a heap of alerts for likes and dislikes lol I was reading these comments on my phone and my fat thumbs kept hitting the thumbs up or down buttons when trying to hit read more lol
While their range was farther, longbowmen typically wouldn't "fire" until their targets were closer to a hundred yards. That high arching shot you see in a lot of movies? Pure fantasy. To take full advantage of the 160 lbs. draw weight of their bows, they shot head on at their targets. Instead of a hail of arrows falling from the sky peppering an area, the french knights rode face first in to a wall of hardened steel arrowheads. Even if the arrows dont punch through the steel plate armor, they still hurt. A lot. With literally hundreds of arrows being fired per volley, even if only 10% got through that still would leave plenty of well known knights and nobles getting an arrow through the eyeslits and joints between plates. Horses shot out from underneath them. Others chargers still alive, but screaming in pain with all four legs kicking as they try to get to their feet. Plunging hard in to the mud, french knights with their tightly packed and organized cavalry charge reduced to loosely coordinated groups slogging through the mud. Some wounded, all exhausted, chain of command thrown in to disarray, and before they even reached the english lines they would've been hit by the second volley at a range of closer to 30 yards. Right as they're about to make contact, even more of their number are wounded or killed. Imagine following behind your lord whose still trying to maintain some unit cohesion, and then seeing a wall of arrows literally knock his fully armored ass in to the mud, now with an arrow sticking out of his face. You may have been told the english were starved and exhausted from the campaign, but as you're finally reaching their line they dont look like it. Especially not in comparison with you and the band of knights that have just been beaten down just trying to cross the field. If movies would just accurately portray that, i would love to see it. Probably multiple times in theaters.
I agree with most of what you say, but Todd's Workshop has a nice video demonstrating that 1. no arrow can penetrate medieval plate armor (and thanks to the arming doublet it will only hurt too much) and 2. it doesn't matter if the arrowheads are hardened. However if you are showered with arrows then a few will get in the gaps of the armor and chain mail is no match for an arrow shot from a war bow.
@ One person's opinion doesn't change the recorded facts throughout history as to WHY the longbow was effective. A crossbow had more power at shorter ranges, but the longbow gave you rate of fire and power at RANGE.
According to John Keegan in his "Face of Battle", the French were so immobile, being tightly packed and being pushed from more troops pushing them from behind, that they couldn't fight and were massacred as they were pushed up over the piles of their own dead into the waiting arms of the free-moving English. This is similar to what happened to the Romans at Cannae before they learned that more flexible formations were spaced for a reason.
Yes, except that the English themselves weren't intermingled with the French. That would lead to their instant loss. Instead, they were picking off the French front-line soldiers who were pushed from behind into the enemy weapons, had heavy armor and couldn't maneuver well in the mud. The portrayal of movie depicting English and French being intermingled goes against realism and historical accuracy.
@@Bahala_Nah Well, whatever young King Henry said about St. Crispin's Day, I glad I wasn't there; kind of like what if they gave a war and nobody showed up... or they forgot to invite you.
Imagine if a bunch of British actors made a film about the American Civil War, starring Graham Norton as Lincoln and Eddie Redmayne as Chamberlain, but none of them do or say any of the things they're supposed to and Gettysburg is a ten-minute scuffle in some random field, in which Thomas Jefferson (Jason Statham) heroically sacrifices himself to blunt the Confederate elephant charge. Yup, still furious.
Having fought in full plate armour. This movie was surprisingly accurate. Less parrying as the armour does it’s job and protects you and a lot of grappling. A shield is also a great weapon as it hurts a lot taking a shield bash to the face.
a friend of mine does the full armored fighting thing, he's in the circuits and stuff, from the video's I've watched of him and the other team's fights devolving into just sheer brute force punches, kicks, grabs, and throws followed by repeated bashings of the front edge of one's shield into an opponents face, I can honestly say Im glad I do not live in that era of war fair, not only did you have to worry about disease, but even warfare was little more than cave men grappling each other to the floor and bashing each other's skulls in with large rocks.
I thought the netflix serises wasnt that accurate. the English beat the army of France at Agincourt because, The french putting to much faith in their new, heavily, fully body covering, armor, was drawn into a trap by fighting them in a mud pie. French with their state of the art medieval, full body armor which would later become the norm of all of Europe, was defeated by mostly LONGBOW while being stuck in the mud pie with their heavy armor. The heavy armor slowed down the French. and they barely showed that in the show. it wasn't bullshyt patriatosim for the crown, it was strategy .
5:28 I object. Combat plate armor only weighed 20 lbs, and properly tailored, it won’t inhibit your motion that much. You can find footage of people in replica armor running, doing gymnastics, and climbing. Tournament armor, for jousting, weighed 40 pounds and did inhibit your movement. Only crazy people would wear tournament armor into actual battle. I know, Stormtrooper a Armor severely inhibits you motion, but I can fight in mine.
You should go watch knight erraynts video on the weight of armor, his particular harness is english so it may be heavier then say other but it’s still a good video to watch
40 lbs is still pretty light. Your standar 5'9 German Knight at the time would have nigh 70lbs of steel on their body in battle. And the weight isn't really problematic, since it's distributed across your entire body. Modern soldiers have easily 70lbs of gear today and travel many miles every day for days and weeks. Just don't try to sprint a quarter mile...
I'm a bit disappointed by the misinformation here. The English themselves weren't intermingled with the French as is depicted in the movie. That would lead to their instant loss of advantage. Instead, they were picking off the French front-line soldiers who were pushed from behind into the enemy weapons, had heavy armor and couldn't maneuver well in the mud. The portrayal of movie depicting English and French being intermingled goes against realism and historical accuracy and frankly, strips the English of their primary advantage.
Well that is how the legend went, but I say the real weapon that won the English that day was the mud. Hell, historians are even arguing that more Frenchmen died from both drowning in the mud and being trampled to death by their own men than who were killed by the English that day. They did an interesting documentary in doing hands on experiments such as replicating the mud and seeing the effects of how armor-clad French knights would literally find themselves suctioned into the mud by their armor, and pointed out how once if you were to fall over in such mud, your armor would’ve made it impossible to get up.
@@dastemplar9681 The mud thing is true, but to say that the longbowmen are a "legend" is itself both intellectually dishonest and blatantly inaccurate.
This was a good movie even though some things were inaccurate but it is still enjoyable to watch. Outlaw King is another great movie to watch too, it's a Netflix movie starring Chris Pine.
Interestingly, Outlaw King is probably more historically accurate than The King is - although I don't understand why they stopped the film after the Battle of Loudoun Hill. It would have made more sense to go through to the Battle of Bannockburn (since it was a significant victory and it actually led to Elizabeth's release), but I guess they were pressing for time, and another 7 years of story would have been too much for one film.
The main thing they left out was the use of Greek fire, homemade gunpowder and modern breaching tactics. Also the eyeglasses and preserved flashbang grenade they found on the sire
Something else they didn't get right : Henry the V had a deep scar on his right cheek - this due to the fact that he was seriously wounded by an arrow at the battle of Shrewsbury twelve years previously...
@@benhutchins5911 Thanks for the info .It must've left a pit as well as a scar : the arrow penetrated his cheek bone to the left of his nose ,it went in six inches deep even going into the base of his skull. A specific extracting tool was designed for the job - and worked ; nonetheless ,the wound was so serious that it put the young prince Henry out of action for a year .After making a recovery ,he resumed in his war against the Welsh in the last war of Welsh independence.
The part that they got wrong worst in my opinion was a charge by mounted knights using swords instead of proper lances. Swords were primarily sidearms in late medieval times, so having a charge using swords would be like having a World War 1 movie where the infantry was charging enemy trenches only armed with revolvers. Of course, Hollywood in general is bad about showing medieval battles because they treat armor like it’s made of tin foil, ignore spears, misuse shields if they even bother to show them, mix radically different periods of armor and weapons together, and generally don’t understand how war bows work.
Neil Lindgren Not to mention the fact that lead characters ALWAYS lose or simply do not wear whatever head protection they would normally require to survive battles where everyone is trying their level best to bash their head in... gotta get the head shot for the kiosk billboard.
Paul B Great point! Also, I was just playing Witcher 3 a few minutes ago, and your statement brought to mind how many video games are bad about helmets and other medieval equipment as well (Geralt doesn’t EVER wear a helmet or use a shield).
There's in fact a scene where English walk out of their camp, stacks of sharpened stakes are readied. Absent from the battle scene. Solely a background prop.
Thank you for Historical information. History helps spare us from repeating the same mistakes over and over again. May you have a nice long nights sleep.
This reminds me of the battle that brought the disavowed Knights Templar to Switzerland. A good mention of said battle is in the beginning of the book The Templar Archive.
The English had already sent their men home that had dysentery. Those that were at the battle were the healthy troops. There is a list of all the names that were sent home.
Healthy no, disease and rot spread throughout the entire English army since the Siege of Harfleur 1415 AD all the way to the battle of Agincourt.. Those who were sent home were little in number and of little use due to disease and rot. while those who remained were promised a little extra and the promise of return after he wins the wars around Calais, which is where he was to regroup. Most Englishmen who stayed were force marched over 426Km treck while being constantly attacked and harrassed by the french, the English were low on fresh food and most were exhausted by the time they got to agincourt and a lot of them still were sick with disease, hence why some archers were claimed to dip their arrows in diahrreah as a last fuck you for this horrible experience to the french.
@@nikolabakich9709 joan of arc was born 2 years before this, didn't become relevant until 1429 died in 1431 - ( if she kicked the english out of France at age 2 then holy shit, but your whole statement rn is irrelevant and gave nothing towards the plot only " oh this random person did something very long after these events occurred "
@@nikolabakich9709 you even mentioning this made complete no sense what so ever, my guess is you either got confused and thought she was there at agincourt, or you're one of the sjw who always have to mention " this woman was important " even when they had no role what so ever in the topic mentioned Joan of arc was an amazing schizophrenia person, she was crazy but she was perfect for the job she did, props to her
Medieval armour DID NOT RESTRICT MOVEMENT, I'm tierd of this misconception. It wasn't heavy that heavy either, you get used to it, especially for trained knights and lords which were taught war from a young age found it second nature, you sprint in it. It got hot in armour obviously, you get tierd too. The aim in fighting people in armour was bash in the joints and armour to stop movement to then get a dagger through the small gaps of armour whilst the guy is on the ground. Also arrows from English long bows could penetrate steel armour it depends on the shape, for example the houndskull helmet was designed so arrows would glide of it. Arrows could also penetrate riveted chainmail.
even something as simple as football pads or a leather motorcycle jacket will restrict movement. Any additional weight even if properly tailored will do this especially if its made out of metal.
Well, French nobles didn't learn much from their previous defeats or the previous king, Charles 5th the Wise (who has no tragedy)... The same tactics give the English the victory at Crecy and Poitiers too. While Charles the Wise almost manage to push the english back to the Guyenne.
A common misconception. Crecy and Poitiers were completely different battles. At Agincourt, the french primarily advanced on foot, not on horse - exactly because they had learned from their mistakes.
@@Breadman-k6d Well, the results were the same. Knights defeated by arrows. But they did learn the use of ranged weapons, which were used with much more success at Castillon-la-bataille...
The French panicked cause the English came close and shot at them. They were planning to wait then about but the fsct the king couldn't discipline all the nobles as he wasn't there, the panic of the arrows caused the French to attack
I had my Bachelors Degree on the 100 years war and when i first watched the movie with a friend i allways was like "now this will happen"...and it didn't. Well the movie was not bad, but ok. But what i do not get is: they use Shakespeares Henry V for the movie and do not use the St. Crispins Day Speech? Are you f***ing kidding me? And a funny thing: when the french Knights went to Battle, they did not fear anything. Like modern car races there was some danger in battle. But noone killed a knight intentionally - one could sell them for a lot of money, so they normally just got caught. But then the englishman killed all the french knights.
Actually the latest research claims that the French had about double the number of combatants than the English. Some of the reports from the battlefield claimed that the mud was knee deep in some places. Also some of the longbow men were placed on the sides in the woods on either side so the arrows were coming from the sides as well as the front. So the claim that the arrows were not able to pierce the armor of the French knights is misleading. There are weak spots in the armor that were exposed from the sides and joints. Remember that the archers of the day could shoot up to 10 arrows a minute and each archer had between 24 and 72 arrows each. The rain of arrows was obviously a factor in the battle with an estimate of 144000 to 432000 arrows shot that day. The terrible muddy conditions also played a major role in exhausting the charging French before they reached the English.
I heard the longbowman had a fun time using the big lead mallets they used to drive the stakes into the ground on the French Knights. It should also be noted the French tunnel visioned on the English nobles in the middle, ignoring the flanks
@@BestMods168 still I would like to know his sources, and there are a couple of discrepancies that I see and would like to know where he acquired his information.
One factor not mentioned was that the battlefield was not only narrow to begin with - it's width narrowed further as it came to the English positions. Since the French had so many guys to begin with - they were spanning the full width of the battle field at the start. This narrowing of the battlefield had the effect of squeezing the French closer together. Here, much as is portrayed in the film - the troops became so compacted that they couldn't raise their arms to defend themselves. The lightly armored English capered through the mud and clambered over the armored French enmeshed with each other - and slaughtered them. If the French had had better command and control - they might have not sent so many men down at once. .
I'm glad someone brought this up cus I was pissed right off watching the king, listening to my boss say how good it was etc, without knowing the real story was hard to listen too, I've read every account written about that campaign and built up this mental picture of the battles and how they played out, why couldn't they just keep to the true history it would have made a better story I'm sure
Chain mail is considered heavy armor, so the soldiers on the flanks are still pretty well armored and armed. Also i really hate all the greyness of the atmosphere, the medieval period was an incredibly colorfull time.
No it was, but their were different qualities of armor. And plate was the best form of heavy armor. Though that depends on what material the armor was made of and how it was made.
No... what i meant was what type of material the mail was made out of, and how it was made. Like what type of metal was used. All metal types aren't the same, some metals are more resistent than others, so it depends on quality of said metal. While the weight of the metal could mean that it is stronger than others of less weight, but not completley sure on that one though. And another big factor. how was the chainmail constructed? There are different smart ways to make mail. There are two different ways (that know of) to fabricating a good mail shirt, for exanple Riveted mail and Butted mail. (Riveted mail rings, are often combined with solid punched rings to save labor, it is highly resistant to both slashing and stabbings). (Butted chainmail has the rings bent together with no mechanical connection holding the ends together. This results in links that come apart relatively easily. And it does offer mild protection against slashes if the rings are heavy enough). This is what meant.
btw: the title "dauphin" for the French king eldest son come from the region "Dauphiné", that joined the Kingdom at one time (by marriage or gift?) and a condition was that to honor the Dauphiné, the eldest son of the French king would be named so
Yes - Agincourt was about flat shooting - And it's the front line that gets cut down, creating a mass of twisting men and animals and a barrier so the archers can then advance for closer body shots on a mass of immobile men - a turkey shoot. Henry chose the ground on that basis - a natural funnel that bunched the french front into a kill zone. The way to deal with Henry's Archer's would have been to surround them or outflank them. The head on attack against a disciplined opponent on ground of their own choosing was suicide. The numerical advantage of the French was lost as it was only the narrow front that Henry needed to deal with at any one time.
the french actually did try to attack their flanks, but the english burried pointy sticks in the ground in front of them, so the horses couldn't charge at them...
Medieval war in Europe consisted mainly of sieges and raids on enemy territory, and its great shame caused the dramatic siege of Harfleur, which in some sense set aside. Big battles such as Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt were not so decisive in the long run.
@@riograndedosulball248 Sorry to burst your bubble ( and this comes from a patriotic Welshman!)😊 But of the 8,000 Archers ,some 500 were Welsh - with 23 Welsh men at arms . You're absolutely right though ,Henry the V was seriously wounded by an arrow that pierced his face by some six inches - leaving a deep scar on his right (?) cheek.This occurred twelve years previously to Agincourt at the battle of Shrewsbury .It was a massive battle involving about 30,000 combatants Henry fought against Harry Hotspur ( Henry Percy ) - who had allied himself with the last Welsh prince of Wales , Owain Glyndwr. So, although the arrow that wounded Henry wasn't Welsh - the sentiment from its messenger was! 🏴☺️
45 years ago you would be among my favorite history teachers Like Mr. Glackin and James Brahony! today though you sit with my favorite History teachers on RUclips.
Buhurt is a pretty good representation of full armored fighting, of course there are no daggers or stabbing allowed because we don't actually want to kill each other, but its still pretty good. No fancy spins or anything just an inelegant violent fight.
"Dauphin" literally *does* mean a rapey aquatic animal. The title being used for the heir apparent to the throne of France comes from Guigues IV who was nicknamed 'the dolphin'.
Every time I hear how ridiculously insane every little thing involved with this battle was- the gap between the #'s of both forces, the massive contingents of French knights/men-at-arms vs the English men-at-arms(the longbowmen more than made up for that lack, no?), the mud, the plowed field, French nobility squabbling amongst themselves (not even surprised, look at what was already going on w Burgundy/Dauphin BS) over the succession, French contingents just ambling on down to Agincout like its no big...English were post Harfleur siege that was a million times worser than Henry planned for but couldn't have predicted- length of siege, rampant morbid illness of his soldiers depleting the #'s, starvation, & after finally recieving Harfluer's submission they then had this march to what I'm sure everyone believed was straight on its way to Hell, more starvation & dying of dysentery, inclement weather soaking everyone, French scouts openly watching them march without attacking- pure psychological mess right there...it goes on & on & on!! HOWEVER, God gave the English side the revered longbowmen, trained from pre-K age, their souls fused with those beautiful ash bow staves, every iota of their craft honed for one purpose. To kill. Animal or man. They deserve every morsel of praise & terror for their skills in battles like Agincourt & Potiers before when Edward III's bowmen gave the French reason to be so terrified they mutilated the archers by cutting their right fingers off so they could never draw a bow again. So yes, I laugh at every aspect of Agincourt because every bit of this slaughter was so ridiculous & kept getting worse...until it was only worse for the arrogant French nobility, dead in that mud, killed by low born longbowmen. Cry God for Harry & St George!!!!
*"But now they were stuck in the mud, on their backs, unable to get back up and now a bunch of pantsless longbow men were running around shanking them." * At Agincourt: French runner: _"Monsieur, les hommes á long pénis nous attaquent. Ils massacrent vos nobles!"_ Charles d'Albret: _"Vous ne parlez pas "des hommes arc long"?"_ Runner: _"En fait, monsieur ... J'ai un sens aux deux. Sans pantalon, ils attaquent. Le peepee anglais ... c'est comme une trompe d'éléphant. De plus, ils sentent le caca."_ *dramatic zoom in* Charles: "MAMA MIA!" You could totally do a comedic Monty Python version of this battle.
The french dialogue need a bit of polish but I can totally see the french knight from Holy Grail saying those lines :) One question: why does Charles speak italian at the end?
@@Torlik11 I wasn't exactly sure how to word it since I don't speak French lol. Going from english to French might not hold the same meaning. Something I learned in Deustch. I did meet a French dude who helped me polish off a few other comments I made pertaining to a French Soldier kicking in the door of an incel's basement to fight him. I just kept writing a comment and he'd polish it for me.
Nowhere near enough arrows in the air - 5 - 7,0000 archers loosing 12-15 arrows per minute (and that based on estimates from modern re-enactment archers, not medieval longbowmen who had been doing it since they were six years old). The French never seemed to learn - Agincourt is only the most famous battle of the 100 Years War. They were slaughtered by archers at Crecy in 1346 and Poitiers in 1356 (where we actually captured the French king, by the way). Regarding the dipping of arrows in fecal matter, as shown in a couple of scenes the English (and Welsh) longbowmen may well have actually suck their arrows in the ground rather than pulling them from quivers/arrowbags. That way, you reach down and knock the arrow. By the time you are back up in an aim, the bow is already at full pull (outstretched Left arm to thumb below right ear) and you can immediately release.
@@robkemp598 And gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
They say that Chivalry died at Agincourt. "You're supposed to take knights and their horses hostage for ransom, not kill them!" "Haha, peasant bow go twang!"
Basically a HUGE chunk of the army had a disease called dysentery. Dysentery is like diarrhea, but like super diarrhea. Dysentery is basically having uncontrollable diarrhea so bad that it can actually kill you from dehydration. You can see why they may have decided to forego pants in that case.
Imagine getting shot with a shit arrow, like bro you're already killing me do you have to throw shit at me too?
4 года назад
The French army at the battle of Agincourt numbered no more than 12,000 men. The French didn't recruit from the whole of France to assemble an army to defeat Henry and his forces. Recruitment was only done in a few provinces in the north of France. The 20,000 strong army is a myth.
My question is why did they need to change it? You had the battle right there, you know what happened so why’d you change it? Did they think it wasn’t epic enough?
the battle of agincourt was taken place in 1415 and most armor shown was used from the mid to late 15th century, which didnt exist during the time of this battle.
I think we all can agree the depiction of Agincourt here is still better than how any Medieval battle was depicted in GoTs... I’m looking at you “Battle of the Bastards”.
@@virari6276no they could not and even if they did they would’ve done minimal damage as knights and men at arms would’ve had chainmail gamberson or padding underneath which also could stop many weapons and projectiles.
@@longbowenjoyer2154 again it's been tested and proven to be a fact that at the distance between the longbowmen and the french knights the arrow tips would have penetrated the armour the typical arrow couldn't penetrate plate but the arrows / arrowtips that were used could do so with ease and since the french were a TON closer than usual battles it made the force of each shot much greater Since I'm sure you know if you shoot an arrow up it loses that momentum and over long distances it loses that power that's why it's a longbow designed to shoot a much more powerful shot over long distances but becomes extra deadly up close but if you shoot an arrow straight at a much closer target that's still 180 pounds of force ripping through plate and leather.
@@longbowenjoyer2154 the longbow and arrows used would only wound the target if they were 400+ yards away while the order to fire was when the french army was about 200 yards away, and with that force and extra momentum each shot could have been deadly I suggest you do more research on the bow / arrowtips / battle in general before you say " oh it was impossible for them to even scrape the plate "
Sir John Falstaff was the commander of the english forces in france during the time of Johanna of Orleans, the reason he is parodied is duo to him losing against her. The majority of the french knights, the Chevaliers engaged on foot with their men at arms, and the english won by retreating into a swamp, where the heavy armored french tried to follow, by now all on foot since riding in the swamp was impossible, but it slowed them down to an extend, that the yeoman, which is what the longbowman were called, could get close and shoot them at point blank in the weakspot. After that they were able to easely scare off the french ranged units due to more range and numbers, better training and higher morale, due to them beeing professional Soldiers and part of a standing Army, while the french ranged were just ranged men at arms. The english still had somewhat of an infantry vanguard, because they aswell were part of the standing Army i just mentioned and thus very well equiped and trained professionals, though no match for a heavy armored Knight, since the everage knight could take on about 30 professional soldiers or merceneries on his own, due to even better training and equipment. Afterall, the armor of a knight on its own is worth more then the entire property of anybody outside the noble class, while the knight has been trained for 15 years before knighting, by somebody who was running through the same process for generations backwards. Another point is that medieval men at arms were no vanguard, but forcefully recruited, poor equiped local militia, that would often fight with improvised weapons like pitchforks or glaives made from Scythes or use cheap weapons or ranged weapons that were originally made for pouching. That leaves the conclusion that the movie was completely bonkers, but a lot of your Informations were wrong aswell.
Nice Vid, But got to tell you that ALL English who were suffering from dysentry were shipped home from Harfleur days previously, and it is thought french only used their horses to charge when they were provoked by the English at the very early stages only(after the English moved foreward), most of the battle was on foot!. oh, and about the hose (pants) without their asses? total fiction, some people said the had dysentary (no), so they had no hose or had holes in back for ease of doing it on the march? again total fiction, no dysentry so no holes!.
Healthy no, disease and rot spread throughout the entire English army since the Siege of Harfleur 1415 AD all the way to the battle of Agincourt.. Those who were sent home were little in number and of little use due to disease and rot. while those who remained were promised a little extra and the promise of return after he wins the wars around Calais, which is where he was to regroup. Most Englishmen who stayed were force marched over 426Km treck while being constantly attacked and harrassed by the french at Peronne and Amiens, the English were low on fresh food and most were exhausted by the time they got to agincourt and a lot of them still were sick with disease, hence why some archers were claimed to dip their arrows in diahrreah as a last fuck you for this horrible experience to the french.
I personally care deeply about history, and whilst I acknowledge the multitude of historical inaccuracies in this film, the film maker was still clearly attempting to be faithful to the actual history which is something that you don’t often get, especially when looking at movies such as Braveheart or Mary Queen of Scots which have no respect for history.
The most sad thing about this movie is the armors, especially the one from Henry V. He doesn't look like a king at all just random knight. They did much better job in Outlaw king. As you mentioned in video the whole Agincourt battle depiction was really badly done, with all the information we have on it. Also i would not take HMB that you showed in clip as an real example of how knights would be fighting. They are wearing double the thickness of protection, have blunt weapons and can not stab. They represent only the unarmed part of knight combat and are more like MMA with full armor.
I completely agree, any one who knows medieval times knows that hema mma is bs solely due to the fact you can’t die! Real medieval fighting had to be a lot more calculated than just beating and rolling around (ofc there was that). There were certainly weak points in plate armor, these egg heads rolling around on the ground doesn’t symbolize the true consistent risk of a medieval fight. One cut and it’s over… that’s all I gotta hear
This is disputed against plate armour. Non-plate...sure. Absolutely. But plate armour was designed to deflect blows and so it would have also been designed to deflect arrows. Tod's Workshop has a video where a longbowman with a 160 lbs draw weight shoot arrows with a variety of heads at reproduction breast plate. The majority of arrows were deflected away. None were able to penetrate. Now, this is by no means a perfect, nor exhaustive experiment but it definitely shows the value of the plate. Historically, did the bodkin arrowhead penetrate plate? Possibly. Did the shear volume of fire mean some of those arrows snuck through weak points in the armour, wounding and removing knights from the fight? Probably. So is the Bodkin capable of piercing French plate armour? Probably. Was it perfectly? No, I think there's enough evidence to dispute that.
I've seen a historical documentary that showed another factor to the French defeat, I'm not going to mock the French with this as many an army has fallen into this trap. Other than being wet and muddy, the French walked down hill into a valley of sorts. There were hills on both sides and the mass of French men at arms walked into this narrow opening and clustered, British archers couldn't miss. Yes, the 2nd attack forced the 1st one to stay in place, but they couldn't go to either side because of the terrain. They were caught in a choke point, bottled necked in and no where to go but forward. So when Henry flanked them it just made it worse. Interesting fact you have the English archers to thank for your favorite hand gesture. Because the middle finger was the same finger long bowmen used to pluck their bow, and French were said to cut the finger off of captured English long bowmen. As after a battle English long bowmen would show the French their middle finger still attached to their hand, their "Pluck" finger. Giving the French the bird.
![The Battle of Agincourt | Unravelling a Most Famous Victory | Hundred Years War [Episode 14]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vnpcd-HX5FE/mqdefault.jpg)
It does baffle me at time why studios insist on changing historical events like this when the facts are just as exciting as the fiction they give us.
I got no problems with Movies like these because they really try their best to replicate the Event's and just change a few things to make them more Camera friendly i personally hate when movies like 300 basically Mock great historical events
@@OK-yy6qz Got agree with that somewhat, although I love 300 as a movie in and of itself. I haven't seen this movie Alan is refering to here, but from the shots shone they didn't have anywhere near enough extras for the sizes of armies they needed and considering Troy managed to show armies of many thousands years ago they really don't have an excuse I don't think. But yeah, sometimes studios go way to far trying to make a historical moment more ... Hollywood?
@@ukmediawarrior they obviously didn't had enough money for more Extras+ im not sure you can really show 25000 on screen Troy mainly showed the Size of the Army via Ships and yeah a couple changes need to happen to make a movie more Cinematic
@@OK-yy6qz Troys armies were all cgi:) You remember that sweeping shot that flew down the gap between the two armies as they ran together to start the battle and it showed thousands of soldiers? I watched the 'making of ..' documentary of the film and they showed how they just cgi'ed a hundred or so soldiers then copied and pasted them side by side to make thousands. In the edit you can't tell because of the dust, the action and the speed. If they could do that back in 2004 it shouldn't be to cost heavy to do it now I wouldn't have thought
@@ukmediawarrior cgi is very expensive tho. How expensive? Well game of thrones had to scrap having ghost in most episodes of the later seasons lol if one little wolf is too expensive for a show like that, then 25,000 fùckers in a brawl has to be massively costly and P.S sorry if you got a heap of alerts for likes and dislikes lol I was reading these comments on my phone and my fat thumbs kept hitting the thumbs up or down buttons when trying to hit read more lol
While their range was farther, longbowmen typically wouldn't "fire" until their targets were closer to a hundred yards. That high arching shot you see in a lot of movies? Pure fantasy. To take full advantage of the 160 lbs. draw weight of their bows, they shot head on at their targets. Instead of a hail of arrows falling from the sky peppering an area, the french knights rode face first in to a wall of hardened steel arrowheads. Even if the arrows dont punch through the steel plate armor, they still hurt. A lot. With literally hundreds of arrows being fired per volley, even if only 10% got through that still would leave plenty of well known knights and nobles getting an arrow through the eyeslits and joints between plates. Horses shot out from underneath them. Others chargers still alive, but screaming in pain with all four legs kicking as they try to get to their feet. Plunging hard in to the mud, french knights with their tightly packed and organized cavalry charge reduced to loosely coordinated groups slogging through the mud. Some wounded, all exhausted, chain of command thrown in to disarray, and before they even reached the english lines they would've been hit by the second volley at a range of closer to 30 yards. Right as they're about to make contact, even more of their number are wounded or killed. Imagine following behind your lord whose still trying to maintain some unit cohesion, and then seeing a wall of arrows literally knock his fully armored ass in to the mud, now with an arrow sticking out of his face. You may have been told the english were starved and exhausted from the campaign, but as you're finally reaching their line they dont look like it. Especially not in comparison with you and the band of knights that have just been beaten down just trying to cross the field.
If movies would just accurately portray that, i would love to see it. Probably multiple times in theaters.
I agree with most of what you say, but Todd's Workshop has a nice video demonstrating that 1. no arrow can penetrate medieval plate armor (and thanks to the arming doublet it will only hurt too much) and 2. it doesn't matter if the arrowheads are hardened. However if you are showered with arrows then a few will get in the gaps of the armor and chain mail is no match for an arrow shot from a war bow.
LOL, bullshit. WHAT was the longbow most feared for? It's fucking RANGE.
@@evanroberts2771 There's a channel called Metatron that will easily prove you wrong
@ One person's opinion doesn't change the recorded facts throughout history as to WHY the longbow was effective.
A crossbow had more power at shorter ranges, but the longbow gave you rate of fire and power at RANGE.
Evan Roberts I’m tending to agree with Sir Evan here and I was there
4:00 French army: "It's over Englishmen! We have the high ground!"
Vous êtes fini Anglais! Nous avons les hauteurs!
Fun fact, there was no (large) hills on the battlefield...
Englishmen: “you underestimate our power!!”
@@the_smoking_patriot3993 You do know Obi Wan is English....so in hind sight.......Only anyone with English blood can rule the High ground.
@@phoenixwyvern355
Technically yes and no. Ewan (Also McDirmid) are scots.
But that does explain why England governed most of the world at one point.
"You underestimate our longbows!"
According to John Keegan in his "Face of Battle", the French were so immobile, being tightly packed and being pushed from more troops pushing them from behind, that they couldn't fight and were massacred as they were pushed up over the piles of their own dead into the waiting arms of the free-moving English. This is similar to what happened to the Romans at Cannae before they learned that more flexible formations were spaced for a reason.
Yes, except that the English themselves weren't intermingled with the French. That would lead to their instant loss. Instead, they were picking off the French front-line soldiers who were pushed from behind into the enemy weapons, had heavy armor and couldn't maneuver well in the mud.
The portrayal of movie depicting English and French being intermingled goes against realism and historical accuracy.
@@enlightenedterrestrial That's basically what I said is it not?
yes, the long bowmen from the sides pushed the flanks of the french army to the center being pushed from the rear and sides
@@Bahala_Nah Well, whatever young King Henry said about St. Crispin's Day, I glad I wasn't there; kind of like what if they gave a war and nobody showed up... or they forgot to invite you.
Imagine if a bunch of British actors made a film about the American Civil War, starring Graham Norton as Lincoln and Eddie Redmayne as Chamberlain, but none of them do or say any of the things they're supposed to and Gettysburg is a ten-minute scuffle in some random field, in which Thomas Jefferson (Jason Statham) heroically sacrifices himself to blunt the Confederate elephant charge.
Yup, still furious.
Having fought in full plate armour. This movie was surprisingly accurate. Less parrying as the armour does it’s job and protects you and a lot of grappling.
A shield is also a great weapon as it hurts a lot taking a shield bash to the face.
You have to watch out for mace's tho
a friend of mine does the full armored fighting thing, he's in the circuits and stuff, from the video's I've watched of him and the other team's fights devolving into just sheer brute force punches, kicks, grabs, and throws followed by repeated bashings of the front edge of one's shield into an opponents face, I can honestly say Im glad I do not live in that era of war fair, not only did you have to worry about disease, but even warfare was little more than cave men grappling each other to the floor and bashing each other's skulls in with large rocks.
A pretty good examination of the realities of Agincourt, especially for the brevity.
Yea, good recap. I liked the finer details that nerds who watch this appreciate.
I thought the netflix serises wasnt that accurate.
the English beat the army of France at Agincourt because, The french putting to much faith in their new, heavily, fully body covering, armor, was drawn into a trap by fighting them in a mud pie.
French with their state of the art medieval, full body armor which would later become the norm of all of Europe, was defeated by mostly LONGBOW while being stuck in the mud pie with their heavy armor.
The heavy armor slowed down the French. and they barely showed that in the show.
it wasn't bullshyt patriatosim for the crown, it was strategy .
5:28 I object. Combat plate armor only weighed 20 lbs, and properly tailored, it won’t inhibit your motion that much. You can find footage of people in replica armor running, doing gymnastics, and climbing. Tournament armor, for jousting, weighed 40 pounds and did inhibit your movement. Only crazy people would wear tournament armor into actual battle. I know, Stormtrooper a Armor severely inhibits you motion, but I can fight in mine.
You should go watch knight erraynts video on the weight of armor, his particular harness is english so it may be heavier then say other but it’s still a good video to watch
logan crump I know it is.
Imperial Shocktrooper his weighted about 60lbs if my memory serves me
40 lbs is still pretty light. Your standar 5'9 German Knight at the time would have nigh 70lbs of steel on their body in battle. And the weight isn't really problematic, since it's distributed across your entire body. Modern soldiers have easily 70lbs of gear today and travel many miles every day for days and weeks. Just don't try to sprint a quarter mile...
Nicolai Veliki I believe those numbers might have been late medieval, when Knights has to deal with projectile weapons.
Pantsless archers running around shanking people... omg ROTFLMAO
Imagine being a french merc and some bloke with his cock flopping around shanks you in the eye slot with a bollock dagger.
Basically East London after 2:00 AM
Roll on the floor laughing my ass off if anybody's curious...
@@artificerdrachen6908 it was a wet autumn day in northern France. Most of the cocks there wouldn't have been doing much flopping.
The English and Welsh did dip their arrows in their own diarrhea first. But yeah.
"A bunch of pantless longbowmen running around shanking people", that made my day
Henry V had a disfiguring scar in his cheek from an arrow that embedded in his face at Shrewsbury. This actor was not sporting a facial scar.
They gave him a little scar on his.
They did give him the scar. I ended up googling when watching the film to see why they did it and then learnt about the arrow injury.
Yeah they did...did you watch the movie lmao
@@guestuser1052 considering he couldn't even name "the actor" probably not
I'm a bit disappointed by the misinformation here.
The English themselves weren't intermingled with the French as is depicted in the movie. That would lead to their instant loss of advantage. Instead, they were picking off the French front-line soldiers who were pushed from behind into the enemy weapons, had heavy armor and couldn't maneuver well in the mud.
The portrayal of movie depicting English and French being intermingled goes against realism and historical accuracy and frankly, strips the English of their primary advantage.
The whole time I was watching the battle, I was “Wait, wasn’t this battle won by the longbowmen? Where are the constant barrages of arrows?”
Well that is how the legend went, but I say the real weapon that won the English that day was the mud. Hell, historians are even arguing that more Frenchmen died from both drowning in the mud and being trampled to death by their own men than who were killed by the English that day. They did an interesting documentary in doing hands on experiments such as replicating the mud and seeing the effects of how armor-clad French knights would literally find themselves suctioned into the mud by their armor, and pointed out how once if you were to fall over in such mud, your armor would’ve made it impossible to get up.
@@dastemplar9681 The mud thing is true, but to say that the longbowmen are a "legend" is itself both intellectually dishonest and blatantly inaccurate.
It makes a VERY refreshing change to watch someone who actually KNOWS what they are talking about. Subscribed
This was a good movie even though some things were inaccurate but it is still enjoyable to watch. Outlaw King is another great movie to watch too, it's a Netflix movie starring Chris Pine.
Yup saw that one to
@@GenerationFilms Are you planning on making a review video of it?
Interestingly, Outlaw King is probably more historically accurate than The King is - although I don't understand why they stopped the film after the Battle of Loudoun Hill. It would have made more sense to go through to the Battle of Bannockburn (since it was a significant victory and it actually led to Elizabeth's release), but I guess they were pressing for time, and another 7 years of story would have been too much for one film.
@@draco84oz I dont think the King was meant to be very historically accurate, whereas outlaw king people put a big effort in doing that
The main thing they left out was the use of Greek fire, homemade gunpowder and modern breaching tactics.
Also the eyeglasses and preserved flashbang grenade they found on the sire
Something else they didn't get right : Henry the V had a deep scar on his right cheek - this due to the fact that he was seriously wounded by an arrow at the battle of Shrewsbury twelve years previously...
They did actually show the scar. I ended up googling after watching the film to find out if it had any significance.
@@benhutchins5911 Thanks for the info .It must've left a pit as well as a scar : the arrow penetrated his cheek bone to the left of his nose ,it went in six inches deep even going into the base of his skull. A specific extracting tool was designed for the job - and worked ; nonetheless ,the wound was so serious that it put the young prince Henry out of action for a year .After making a recovery ,he resumed in his war against the Welsh in the last war of Welsh independence.
@@cymro6537 Shame they didn't put another one into him then.
The part that they got wrong worst in my opinion was a charge by mounted knights using swords instead of proper lances. Swords were primarily sidearms in late medieval times, so having a charge using swords would be like having a World War 1 movie where the infantry was charging enemy trenches only armed with revolvers. Of course, Hollywood in general is bad about showing medieval battles because they treat armor like it’s made of tin foil, ignore spears, misuse shields if they even bother to show them, mix radically different periods of armor and weapons together, and generally don’t understand how war bows work.
Neil Lindgren
Not to mention the fact that lead characters ALWAYS lose or simply do not wear whatever head protection they would normally require to survive battles where everyone is trying their level best to bash their head in... gotta get the head shot for the kiosk billboard.
Paul B Great point! Also, I was just playing Witcher 3 a few minutes ago, and your statement brought to mind how many video games are bad about helmets and other medieval equipment as well (Geralt doesn’t EVER wear a helmet or use a shield).
Gotta say, they missed the opportunity to put some spikes up. The archer and his spikes went down as an icon of the battle.
There's in fact a scene where English walk out of their camp, stacks of sharpened stakes are readied.
Absent from the battle scene.
Solely a background prop.
“Pantless longbowmen were ruining around shanking people” . Good stuff.
“They were on their back in the mud and a bunch of pantless longbowmen were running around shanking people” hahaha
Thank you for Historical information. History helps spare us from repeating the same mistakes over and over again. May you have a nice long nights sleep.
This reminds me of the battle that brought the disavowed Knights Templar to Switzerland. A good mention of said battle is in the beginning of the book The Templar Archive.
The English had already sent their men home that had dysentery. Those that were at the battle were the healthy troops. There is a list of all the names that were sent home.
Healthy no, disease and rot spread throughout the entire English army since the Siege of Harfleur 1415 AD all the way to the battle of Agincourt.. Those who were sent home were little in number and of little use due to disease and rot. while those who remained were promised a little extra and the promise of return after he wins the wars around Calais, which is where he was to regroup.
Most Englishmen who stayed were force marched over 426Km treck while being constantly attacked and harrassed by the french, the English were low on fresh food and most were exhausted by the time they got to agincourt and a lot of them still were sick with disease, hence why some archers were claimed to dip their arrows in diahrreah as a last fuck you for this horrible experience to the french.
@@virari6276 and then joan of arc and the french army kicked the english back to their island?
@@nikolabakich9709 joan of arc was born 2 years before this, didn't become relevant until 1429 died in 1431 - ( if she kicked the english out of France at age 2 then holy shit, but your whole statement rn is irrelevant and gave nothing towards the plot only " oh this random person did something very long after these events occurred "
@@nikolabakich9709 you even mentioning this made complete no sense what so ever, my guess is you either got confused and thought she was there at agincourt, or you're one of the sjw who always have to mention " this woman was important " even when they had no role what so ever in the topic mentioned
Joan of arc was an amazing schizophrenia person, she was crazy but she was perfect for the job she did, props to her
@@virari6276 i know she wasnt there at that time just saying she helped end the 100 years war
Medieval armour DID NOT RESTRICT MOVEMENT, I'm tierd of this misconception. It wasn't heavy that heavy either, you get used to it, especially for trained knights and lords which were taught war from a young age found it second nature, you sprint in it. It got hot in armour obviously, you get tierd too. The aim in fighting people in armour was bash in the joints and armour to stop movement to then get a dagger through the small gaps of armour whilst the guy is on the ground. Also arrows from English long bows could penetrate steel armour it depends on the shape, for example the houndskull helmet was designed so arrows would glide of it. Arrows could also penetrate riveted chainmail.
even something as simple as football pads or a leather motorcycle jacket will restrict movement. Any additional weight even if properly tailored will do this especially if its made out of metal.
Well, French nobles didn't learn much from their previous defeats or the previous king, Charles 5th the Wise (who has no tragedy)... The same tactics give the English the victory at Crecy and Poitiers too. While Charles the Wise almost manage to push the english back to the Guyenne.
A common misconception. Crecy and Poitiers were completely different battles. At Agincourt, the french primarily advanced on foot, not on horse - exactly because they had learned from their mistakes.
@@Breadman-k6d Well, the results were the same. Knights defeated by arrows. But they did learn the use of ranged weapons, which were used with much more success at Castillon-la-bataille...
The French panicked cause the English came close and shot at them. They were planning to wait then about but the fsct the king couldn't discipline all the nobles as he wasn't there, the panic of the arrows caused the French to attack
You guys do know than the french won the war because they adapt themselves faster than the English ? like with gunpowder for exemples.
@@paulriquier9216 That's why I quoted Castillon-la-bataille, where French artillery win over English infantry charges
I had my Bachelors Degree on the 100 years war and when i first watched the movie with a friend i allways was like "now this will happen"...and it didn't. Well the movie was not bad, but ok.
But what i do not get is: they use Shakespeares Henry V for the movie and do not use the St. Crispins Day Speech? Are you f***ing kidding me?
And a funny thing: when the french Knights went to Battle, they did not fear anything. Like modern car races there was some danger in battle. But noone killed a knight intentionally - one could sell them for a lot of money, so they normally just got caught. But then the englishman killed all the french knights.
Actually the latest research claims that the French had about double the number of combatants than the English. Some of the reports from the battlefield claimed that the mud was knee deep in some places. Also some of the longbow men were placed on the sides in the woods on either side so the arrows were coming from the sides as well as the front. So the claim that the arrows were not able to pierce the armor of the French knights is misleading. There are weak spots in the armor that were exposed from the sides and joints. Remember that the archers of the day could shoot up to 10 arrows a minute and each archer had between 24 and 72 arrows each. The rain of arrows was obviously a factor in the battle with an estimate of 144000 to 432000 arrows shot that day. The terrible muddy conditions also played a major role in exhausting the charging French before they reached the English.
I heard the longbowman had a fun time using the big lead mallets they used to drive the stakes into the ground on the French Knights. It should also be noted the French tunnel visioned on the English nobles in the middle, ignoring the flanks
Alan, as a Historian, I am quite interested in what your sources are for this video?
Wiki. Ive read it a few times and his dialogue seem to echo what i read.
@@BestMods168 still I would like to know his sources, and there are a couple of discrepancies that I see and would like to know where he acquired his information.
Inaccuracies aside, the sound design and cinematography of this film was stellar.
One factor not mentioned was that the battlefield was not only narrow to begin with - it's width narrowed further as it came to the English positions. Since the French had so many guys to begin with - they were spanning the full width of the battle field at the start. This narrowing of the battlefield had the effect of squeezing the French closer together. Here, much as is portrayed in the film - the troops became so compacted that they couldn't raise their arms to defend themselves. The lightly armored English capered through the mud and clambered over the armored French enmeshed with each other - and slaughtered them.
If the French had had better command and control - they might have not sent so many men down at once.
.
This is very good work, thank you.
I'm glad someone brought this up cus I was pissed right off watching the king, listening to my boss say how good it was etc, without knowing the real story was hard to listen too, I've read every account written about that campaign and built up this mental picture of the battles and how they played out, why couldn't they just keep to the true history it would have made a better story I'm sure
Chain mail is considered heavy armor, so the soldiers on the flanks are still pretty well armored and armed. Also i really hate all the greyness of the atmosphere, the medieval period was an incredibly colorfull time.
color wasn't invented until around the 1950s
"Chain mail is considered heavy armor" not by that time anymore
No it was, but their were different qualities of armor. And plate was the best form of heavy armor. Though that depends on what material the armor was made of and how it was made.
@@sebastianhovenas272 For the sake of clarification, do you mean it it/was considered heavy armor merely due to it's weight?
No... what i meant was what type of material the mail was made out of, and how it was made. Like what type of metal was used. All metal types aren't the same, some metals are more resistent than others, so it depends on quality of said metal. While the weight of the metal could mean that it is stronger than others of less weight, but not completley sure on that one though. And another big factor. how was the chainmail constructed? There are different smart ways to make mail. There are two different ways (that know of) to fabricating a good mail shirt, for exanple Riveted mail and Butted mail.
(Riveted mail rings, are often combined with solid punched rings to save labor, it is highly resistant to both slashing and stabbings).
(Butted chainmail has the rings bent together with no mechanical connection holding the ends together. This results in links that come apart relatively easily. And it does offer mild protection against slashes if the rings are heavy enough). This is what meant.
Love that you reviewed a medieval movie nice change of pace.
"Life is a movie, and you are the protagonist."
btw: the title "dauphin" for the French king eldest son come from the region "Dauphiné", that joined the Kingdom at one time (by marriage or gift?) and a condition was that to honor the Dauphiné, the eldest son of the French king would be named so
Yep, its there equiv of prince of wales.
Yes - Agincourt was about flat shooting - And it's the front line that gets cut down, creating a mass of twisting men and animals and a barrier so the archers can then advance for closer body shots on a mass of immobile men - a turkey shoot. Henry chose the ground on that basis - a natural funnel that bunched the french front into a kill zone. The way to deal with Henry's Archer's would have been to surround them or outflank them. The head on attack against a disciplined opponent on ground of their own choosing was suicide. The numerical advantage of the French was lost as it was only the narrow front that Henry needed to deal with at any one time.
the french actually did try to attack their flanks, but the english burried pointy sticks in the ground in front of them, so the horses couldn't charge at them...
Medieval war in Europe consisted mainly of sieges and raids on enemy territory, and its great shame caused the dramatic siege of Harfleur, which in some sense set aside. Big battles such as Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt were not so decisive in the long run.
Great info, thank you 👍
Great post Alan! I sincerely hope it gets lots of views as firstly, you are reviewing a film and secondly, it's not Star Wars!
Another fact : Many of the Henry's archers were not English - but Welsh .
Most of them i would say. It is still the Welsh longbow that left Henry marked for life after all
@@riograndedosulball248 Sorry to burst your bubble ( and this comes from a patriotic Welshman!)😊 But of the 8,000 Archers ,some 500 were Welsh - with 23 Welsh men at arms .
You're absolutely right though ,Henry the V was seriously wounded by an arrow that pierced his face by some six inches - leaving a deep scar on his right (?) cheek.This occurred twelve years previously to Agincourt at the battle of Shrewsbury .It was a massive battle involving about 30,000 combatants Henry fought against Harry Hotspur ( Henry Percy ) - who had allied himself with the last Welsh prince of Wales , Owain Glyndwr.
So, although the arrow that wounded Henry wasn't Welsh - the sentiment from its messenger was! 🏴☺️
45 years ago you would be among my favorite history teachers Like Mr. Glackin and James Brahony! today though you sit with my favorite History teachers on RUclips.
looks very much like summer in the film when the battle was in winter and would be grim
Buhurt is a pretty good representation of full armored fighting, of course there are no daggers or stabbing allowed because we don't actually want to kill each other, but its still pretty good. No fancy spins or anything just an inelegant violent fight.
It would be safe to say that at least a few of the French nobles got teabagged in the battle.
Very nice analysis.
Ben Mendleson and Joel Edgeton, two great Aussie actors who were always gonna be big news, even when they were younger in Aussie shows and films.
It would be better to list what the film actually got right but that would be a short video. One of the most remarkable victories in military history.
"Dauphin" literally *does* mean a rapey aquatic animal.
The title being used for the heir apparent to the throne of France comes from Guigues IV who was nicknamed 'the dolphin'.
I died at "it was a terrible time to be alive".
Every time I hear how ridiculously insane every little thing involved with this battle was- the gap between the #'s of both forces, the massive contingents of French knights/men-at-arms vs the English men-at-arms(the longbowmen more than made up for that lack, no?), the mud, the plowed field, French nobility squabbling amongst themselves (not even surprised, look at what was already going on w Burgundy/Dauphin BS) over the succession, French contingents just ambling on down to Agincout like its no big...English were post Harfleur siege that was a million times worser than Henry planned for but couldn't have predicted- length of siege, rampant morbid illness of his soldiers depleting the #'s, starvation, & after finally recieving Harfluer's submission they then had this march to what I'm sure everyone believed was straight on its way to Hell, more starvation & dying of dysentery, inclement weather soaking everyone, French scouts openly watching them march without attacking- pure psychological mess right there...it goes on & on & on!!
HOWEVER, God gave the English side the revered longbowmen, trained from pre-K age, their souls fused with those beautiful ash bow staves, every iota of their craft honed for one purpose. To kill. Animal or man. They deserve every morsel of praise & terror for their skills in battles like Agincourt & Potiers before when Edward III's bowmen gave the French reason to be so terrified they mutilated the archers by cutting their right fingers off so they could never draw a bow again.
So yes, I laugh at every aspect of Agincourt because every bit of this slaughter was so ridiculous & kept getting worse...until it was only worse for the arrogant French nobility, dead in that mud, killed by low born longbowmen. Cry God for Harry & St George!!!!
*"But now they were stuck in the mud, on their backs, unable to get back up and now a bunch of pantsless longbow men were running around shanking them." *
At Agincourt:
French runner: _"Monsieur, les hommes á long pénis nous attaquent. Ils massacrent vos nobles!"_
Charles d'Albret: _"Vous ne parlez pas "des hommes arc long"?"_
Runner: _"En fait, monsieur ... J'ai un sens aux deux. Sans pantalon, ils attaquent. Le peepee anglais ... c'est comme une trompe d'éléphant. De plus, ils sentent le caca."_
*dramatic zoom in*
Charles: "MAMA MIA!"
You could totally do a comedic Monty Python version of this battle.
The french dialogue need a bit of polish but I can totally see the french knight from Holy Grail saying those lines :)
One question: why does Charles speak italian at the end?
@@Torlik11 I wasn't exactly sure how to word it since I don't speak French lol. Going from english to French might not hold the same meaning. Something I learned in Deustch. I did meet a French dude who helped me polish off a few other comments I made pertaining to a French Soldier kicking in the door of an incel's basement to fight him. I just kept writing a comment and he'd polish it for me.
@@Torlik11 Charles speaks Italian at the end because he's French and it would make no sense.
@@Torlik11 Kind of envisioned it in a Mario voice.
Nowhere near enough arrows in the air - 5 - 7,0000 archers loosing 12-15 arrows per minute (and that based on estimates from modern re-enactment archers, not medieval longbowmen who had been doing it since they were six years old).
The French never seemed to learn - Agincourt is only the most famous battle of the 100 Years War. They were slaughtered by archers at Crecy in 1346 and Poitiers in 1356 (where we actually captured the French king, by the way).
Regarding the dipping of arrows in fecal matter, as shown in a couple of scenes the English (and Welsh) longbowmen may well have actually suck their arrows in the ground rather than pulling them from quivers/arrowbags. That way, you reach down and knock the arrow. By the time you are back up in an aim, the bow is already at full pull (outstretched Left arm to thumb below right ear) and you can immediately release.
but finally who won the 100 y war ? the french king of england or the french king of france ?
Hollywood: "historic accuracy? Booooooring..."
This battle has been taking a update in recent years. Is it because of this film?
How did they tell who is who on the battlefield???
"Ah-Shan-Coo-ah"
Asian food court
You forgot the phlegm sound for the "r"
I'm from Yorkshire that sounds like something somebody drunk would shout pal 😆 🤣 😂
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;"
"For whoever sheds his blood with me today shall be my brother."
@@victorbruant389 be he neair so vile this day shall gentle his condition
@@robkemp598 And gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Cool video!
Charles of France....
"Last name, Glass... First name, uhh King."
Great video, definitely subscribed!
Far better than the analysis from Metatron.
Well presented!!
How does it measure up against Kenneth Branagh's version?
They say that Chivalry died at Agincourt.
"You're supposed to take knights and their horses hostage for ransom, not kill them!"
"Haha, peasant bow go twang!"
I didnt get the part of why the archers werent wearing pants, could someody pls explain that again?
Basically a HUGE chunk of the army had a disease called dysentery. Dysentery is like diarrhea, but like super diarrhea. Dysentery is basically having uncontrollable diarrhea so bad that it can actually kill you from dehydration. You can see why they may have decided to forego pants in that case.
@@gregortheoverlander4122 Yeah aight, thanks alot m8
Imagine getting shot with a shit arrow, like bro you're already killing me do you have to throw shit at me too?
The French army at the battle of Agincourt numbered no more than 12,000 men. The French didn't recruit from the whole of France to assemble an army to defeat Henry and his forces. Recruitment was only done in a few provinces in the north of France. The 20,000 strong army is a myth.
Must work Monday. Thx God
We feel we happy few we banded brothers.
what was name of film
Wasn’t this movie based on the play by Shakespeare and not the actual historical event?
What happened to the walking pace of the battle were did these horse beasts come from
My question is why did they need to change it? You had the battle right there, you know what happened so why’d you change it? Did they think it wasn’t epic enough?
how did they manage to tell who is who with both sides' heavy infantry wearing pretty much the same steel plate armor which could be customized??
Msot likely due to budget, but most knights and armoured infantry had insignia crests on them.
What makes me cringe is the battlefield formations and historically inaccurate attire (that includes armour as well).
'' A bunch of pantless longbow men running around shanking people''....Now that sounds like a good party
Great video, I actually partake in Morden Sword Fighting and am very pleased that you mentioned it😁
No - you "take part" in it.
Can someone get this host a comb?
Very well done.
A battle to be remembered and studied for centuries. Though...luck was half of the victory. Thank the rains.
the battle of agincourt was taken place in 1415 and most armor shown was used from the mid to late 15th century, which didnt exist during the time of this battle.
This guy sounds like an educated buffalo bill
his mumbling accent turned me off no end.
I think we all can agree the depiction of Agincourt here is still better than how any Medieval battle was depicted in GoTs...
I’m looking at you “Battle of the Bastards”.
good video but1 mistake, the longbowmen were using the new armour piercing tip
They still couldn’t penetrate plate armour so that didn’t make much of a difference
@@longbowenjoyer2154 the longbow men arrows were made of ash with a pile arrowhead, which could penetrate the plate armour that the french had though.
@@virari6276no they could not and even if they did they would’ve done minimal damage as knights and men at arms would’ve had chainmail gamberson or padding underneath which also could stop many weapons and projectiles.
@@longbowenjoyer2154 again it's been tested and proven to be a fact that at the distance between the longbowmen and the french knights the arrow tips would have penetrated the armour the typical arrow couldn't penetrate plate but the arrows / arrowtips that were used could do so with ease and since the french were a TON closer than usual battles it made the force of each shot much greater
Since I'm sure you know if you shoot an arrow up it loses that momentum and over long distances it loses that power that's why it's a longbow designed to shoot a much more powerful shot over long distances but becomes extra deadly up close but if you shoot an arrow straight at a much closer target that's still 180 pounds of force ripping through plate and leather.
@@longbowenjoyer2154 the longbow and arrows used would only wound the target if they were 400+ yards away while the order to fire was when the french army was about 200 yards away, and with that force and extra momentum each shot could have been deadly
I suggest you do more research on the bow / arrowtips / battle in general before you say " oh it was impossible for them to even scrape the plate "
you just earned a subscriber
Sir John Falstaff was the commander of the english forces in france during the time of Johanna of Orleans, the reason he is parodied is duo to him losing against her. The majority of the french knights, the Chevaliers engaged on foot with their men at arms, and the english won by retreating into a swamp, where the heavy armored french tried to follow, by now all on foot since riding in the swamp was impossible, but it slowed them down to an extend, that the yeoman, which is what the longbowman were called, could get close and shoot them at point blank in the weakspot. After that they were able to easely scare off the french ranged units due to more range and numbers, better training and higher morale, due to them beeing professional Soldiers and part of a standing Army, while the french ranged were just ranged men at arms. The english still had somewhat of an infantry vanguard, because they aswell were part of the standing Army i just mentioned and thus very well equiped and trained professionals, though no match for a heavy armored Knight, since the everage knight could take on about 30 professional soldiers or merceneries on his own, due to even better training and equipment. Afterall, the armor of a knight on its own is worth more then the entire property of anybody outside the noble class, while the knight has been trained for 15 years before knighting, by somebody who was running through the same process for generations backwards. Another point is that medieval men at arms were no vanguard, but forcefully recruited, poor equiped local militia, that would often fight with improvised weapons like pitchforks or glaives made from Scythes or use cheap weapons or ranged weapons that were originally made for pouching. That leaves the conclusion that the movie was completely bonkers, but a lot of your Informations were wrong aswell.
The English long bow, is actually the English War Bow! The long bow is a Victorian invention
It's a Welsh longbow actually....
Nice Vid, But got to tell you that ALL English who were suffering from dysentry were shipped home from Harfleur days previously, and it is thought french only used their horses to charge when they were provoked by the English at the very early stages only(after the English moved foreward), most of the battle was on foot!.
oh, and about the hose (pants) without their asses? total fiction, some people said the had dysentary (no), so they had no hose or had holes in back for ease of doing it on the march? again total fiction, no dysentry so no holes!.
Healthy no, disease and rot spread throughout the entire English army since the Siege of Harfleur 1415 AD all the way to the battle of Agincourt.. Those who were sent home were little in number and of little use due to disease and rot. while those who remained were promised a little extra and the promise of return after he wins the wars around Calais, which is where he was to regroup.
Most Englishmen who stayed were force marched over 426Km treck while being constantly attacked and harrassed by the french at Peronne and Amiens, the English were low on fresh food and most were exhausted by the time they got to agincourt and a lot of them still were sick with disease, hence why some archers were claimed to dip their arrows in diahrreah as a last fuck you for this horrible experience to the french.
I personally care deeply about history, and whilst I acknowledge the multitude of historical inaccuracies in this film, the film maker was still clearly attempting to be faithful to the actual history which is something that you don’t often get, especially when looking at movies such as Braveheart or Mary Queen of Scots which have no respect for history.
The most sad thing about this movie is the armors, especially the one from Henry V. He doesn't look like a king at all just random knight. They did much better job in Outlaw king. As you mentioned in video the whole Agincourt battle depiction was really badly done, with all the information we have on it. Also i would not take HMB that you showed in clip as an real example of how knights would be fighting. They are wearing double the thickness of protection, have blunt weapons and can not stab. They represent only the unarmed part of knight combat and are more like MMA with full armor.
I completely agree, any one who knows medieval times knows that hema mma is bs solely due to the fact you can’t die! Real medieval fighting had to be a lot more calculated than just beating and rolling around (ofc there was that). There were certainly weak points in plate armor, these egg heads rolling around on the ground doesn’t symbolize the true consistent risk of a medieval fight. One cut and it’s over… that’s all I gotta hear
If I wanted to watch a documentary I would watch Kings and generals and armchair Historian. I absolutely love the movie.
Invicta and Bazbattles do a good job as well.
@@marrqi7wini54 invicta is amazing too
The field was Winter ploughed, much deeper to protect the seeds. Hence the deep mud on the day of the battle.
The 'Bodkin' is and was then perfectly capable of piercing French armour.
This is disputed against plate armour. Non-plate...sure. Absolutely. But plate armour was designed to deflect blows and so it would have also been designed to deflect arrows. Tod's Workshop has a video where a longbowman with a 160 lbs draw weight shoot arrows with a variety of heads at reproduction breast plate. The majority of arrows were deflected away. None were able to penetrate. Now, this is by no means a perfect, nor exhaustive experiment but it definitely shows the value of the plate. Historically, did the bodkin arrowhead penetrate plate? Possibly. Did the shear volume of fire mean some of those arrows snuck through weak points in the armour, wounding and removing knights from the fight? Probably. So is the Bodkin capable of piercing French plate armour? Probably. Was it perfectly? No, I think there's enough evidence to dispute that.
I've seen a historical documentary that showed another factor to the French defeat, I'm not going to mock the French with this as many an army has fallen into this trap. Other than being wet and muddy, the French walked down hill into a valley of sorts. There were hills on both sides and the mass of French men at arms walked into this narrow opening and clustered, British archers couldn't miss. Yes, the 2nd attack forced the 1st one to stay in place, but they couldn't go to either side because of the terrain. They were caught in a choke point, bottled necked in and no where to go but forward. So when Henry flanked them it just made it worse.
Interesting fact you have the English archers to thank for your favorite hand gesture. Because the middle finger was the same finger long bowmen used to pluck their bow, and French were said to cut the finger off of captured English long bowmen. As after a battle English long bowmen would show the French their middle finger still attached to their hand, their "Pluck" finger. Giving the French the bird.
I think that's why the american peace sign hand gesture is vulgar in some countries for the same reason..
Thank you - for telling the truth
The English archers had armour piercing arrow heads called Bodkins
Still couldn’t penetrate plate armour
One of my favourite films
Did he actualy say Henray
So war against the Dolphins Means war against the French?
In actually, the constant mind probing of the Dolphins was the root cause of King Charles VI madness.
You son of a bitch, I'm in
It is spelled Dauphin.