Historian Reacts to The King (2019)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Amateur Historian reacts and analyses [Step By Step] the scene depicting the battle of Agincourt in the movie THE KING (2019). What do you think of this scene? What do you think of my analysis? Let me know in the comment section.
Source material:
fr.wikipedia.o...
scottmanning.c...
Battlefield today: Google Maps - Azincourt, at crossroad D104 and D71
Plate Armor
• ARROWS vs ARMOUR - Med...
Medieval Melee
• EPIC BATTLE FIRST PERS...
My book, The Great Veterans Project, www.thehistory...
Connect with me on social media:
► INSTAGRAM: / reelhistory
Tiktok: www.tiktok.com...
------------
#historylegendsanimated #historylegends #history #legends
------------
If you would like to see more HistoryLegends videos, consider supporting me on Patreon:
► www.patreon.com/thehistorylegends
Can you make a reaction about the outlaw king
First time seeing this finally, I'm glad someone called this out because I hated the movie and what they did to actual history. Not only that but they also got Shakespeare's version wrong too!!! The part I think I dislike the most in the end where in the movie he killed his councilor and called out by his new French wife. You were right in their analysis because what they were actually attempting to do was to make it acceptable to modern audiences for... THE MESSAGE!
Nice and funny video. 👍
One point. You forgot that Henry spoke French and so many Kings of England (Richard Coeur du Lion and ect.) And that the majority of the english army was composed by mostly Welsh Longbow archer, which Herny discover they power during the Welsh Uprising.
Not forgeting Norman, Guascon and Basque men at arm, which were the majority of men at arms.
Actually the victory was a sensation, because the english support of Henry was so low, that the english royalty though Henry would have a soundly defeat with his peasants army.
The color and heraldry of the French and English knights was as much about not getting killed as it was about pride. It showed an enemy that the knight was wealthy enough to pay ransom and was therefore too valuable to be killed. It was practical self-interest more than showmanship.
Historically you're very correct on the criticism on most of the material here. Although it was heavily likely and threw some medieval art and the writings medieval knights did get into fist fights and brawls in battles it was very common for them to just pull their daggers out and look for weak spots to kill the enemy from exhaustion.
Yeah but at the same time what's the point of risking getting into close quarters combat breaking formation when you can simply keep yourself alive by using your weapon to keep the enemy at bay while also being protected by you're men to you're flanks. In reality the French were heavily outnumbering the Brits but they the French fell easily do to the fact they were literally trapped by their own men when they ran straight into the mud it's true there was a hill there. But the battle wasn't specifically only on a hill. The battle was fought in many places. The British held their ground for the most part while the French lost organization fell and slipped they then also by the time they saw combat had no idea who was commanding who what was happening or anything. They easily would of been running straight into combat eager stumbling across the ambush set by the Englishmen. The French weren't as exhausted as the British and they outnumbered them yet fell because they had no idea what was happening and they failed to process orders. Basically saying for the French it was a shit show. They barely even made it to the BRITISH before needing to fall back based off that they couldn't organize correctly. Also it's false archers couldn't pierce armor they could easily pierce straight through armor in the battle of court. They had longbows that easily could go right through the most thickest armor around. Also the fact he's talking about how somehow Napoleonic soldiers couldn't hit at all is false. They could easily hit targets it's just more easier for organization and for command purposes that men are lead in formation. Even then they would spread out when seeing combat.
@@GhilieDawg english not british
@@GhilieDawgbodkin arrows from English longbow could not pierce plate armour. Maybe, possibly a lucky hit might hit a side or joint where it is thinnest and get partially through, but you're delusional if you think that the hugely disproven myth that the bodkin arrow could punch through plate.
17:26
this is actually mentionned in the movie, where there is a scene of the english king telling his men to execute the prisonners
The only thing I’d point out is that the terrain in the film is decently accurate, the English set up in the middle of a defile about 700m wide, the French were so packed in during the battle that apparently men in the 3rd rank of the French vanguard couldn’t even use their weapons because of how tight it was, the English also used stakes on either flank at an angle to force the French cavalry into the English infantry in the centre making it even more compact, you had thousands of men in a space 700m wide at most
What does Hollywood/Movies have against heraldry? As you pointed out, it's the only way to tell friend and foe. No banners? How do you know where your king is? Who's where? Is the enemy behind you now?
Medieval warfare doesn't need a gritty reboot.
You are simply the best. Your explanation is so clear, thank you. As a French, I’m really grateful you mentioned the 2000 knights executed. My ancestor sire d’Herlin was one of them with two of his six sons! Arthur Herlin
Tragic story, can't imagine what they have gone through...
France is our greatest frenemie. From England 👍🏴🇲🇫
When i read your ancestor die there, that was quite sad, mostly because i heard those 2000 knights was executed quickly so the English force can fall back to there position when they thought another atk are coming, since they have no time to capture all of those Knights & any spare soldier to guard them either ... but damn, he even die with 2 of his sons ? That was a huge lost for your ancestor family.
@@mr.bluefox3511 Fact is the nobelty wanted to fight on the front because they thought it would be an easy win ... thought wrong.
Skill issue
The arrows were not knocking the knights off the horses. The arrows were striking the horses and the horses were throwing the knights off. Horses are animals and no matter how well trained, if they suffer enough pain they are going to react to that pain. These horses were saying "F*&^ this I am through with this S@#$", because they were taking arrow after arrow and it hurt like hell. The movie should have had far more English emplacements. The English made good use of defensive structures such as spikes and well positioned archers to either side to cancel out the advantage of the French Knights. And I totally agree regarding the need for more color. Its historically inaccurate to have no colors for each side, and its also terribly confusing and boring for a movie audience as well, so it makes no sense to remove the color and heraldry.
I suggest the 1989 Henry V Agincourt battle scene starring Kenneth Branagh.
It's already way better
Kenneth received a Knight's honor for his role!
Absolutely fantastic movie. Rarely have I seen a mixture of Shakespeare and action so well portrayed. The actors were on point and the story wasn't horrifically maimed by modern writers. Kenneth Branagh, is one of the best Shakespearean actors I've ever seen he was great in Much ado about nothing, and Othello, but his role in Henry V is my absolute favorite. My brothers and I would watch this on VHS while playing the King Maker board game.
Laurence Olivier's "Henry V" is much more historically accurate.
@@tubekulose the armor is colorful too.
very good video, Although wrestling was quite common and even trained by the knights, taking down the opponent and finishing him on the ground was something that would normally happen in any fight with a melee weapon.
Another thing is that in the movie the order to kill all the prisoners is shown, I think that just the executions are not shown in the film
Would not it be easier just to say with so few English nobility on the field the French knights turned back, further damaging a soggy field of battle with their horses, rather than risking their horses and personal injury with no means to recoup the cost? The heavy armored French infantry, not knights on foot, was ordered to attack. The muddy ground quickly ended their effectiveness and they were captured & slaughter. Yes, they lost because they were stuck in the mud.
You ever play a game called Kingdom Come: Deliverance? you should for sure check it out. Its set in Medievel Bohemia
i believe they couldn’t get the permits to use the actual battlefield or really a more suitable location, they just had to do it with what they were granted
They forgot to utterly disfigure the eight side of henry's face. His cheekbone was shattered by an arrow at the battle of Shrewsbury 10 years earlier.
A lot of what you say is very questionable especially about the penetration power of the English longbow, it could easily pierce armour and send a knight off its horse I've shot longbows and know exactly what they are capable of, I think you are being quite harsh on the aesthetics of this movie. Also you criticise the battlefield terrain saying it should be cultivated this is false, it is actually fairly accurate. It was a clay like bog due to the rain.
100% this guy is way off on a lot of stuff. But the English longbow thing was crazy. I'm currently reading a history book and just passed a bit where it explained that the English longbow wasn't matched until the invention of the gatling gun, and the arrows shot pieced armour like butter
@@nimajneb6650 yh that's really cool man, the longbow was an incredible weapon.
Bro thinks english bows are gatling gun 🗿
Historylegends is correct.
For those of you who want to learn more about this, see these RUclips videos:
- Scholagladiatoria's interview series with Tobias Capwell, expert on medieval and Renaissance armour and competitive jouster
- ARROWS VS ARMOUR by Tod's Workshop
(Multilple Experiments using a traditional English war bow, wielded by an expert archer, firing at a variety of armour, including plate, on fixed range conditions including point blank.)
- AGINCOURT - Medieval Myth Busting
(Etc.)
As Mr Capwell points out, there is extensive surviving documentation from both sides of Agincourt. We have very good information on what happened there.
English/Welsh longbows did not penetrate plate armour. French knights and men-at-arms used armour through the entirety of the Hundred Years' War - because it works. The English knew this too. Henry V was terribly wounded by an arrow at Shrewsbury (1403), where the English used longbows against each other - but he was wounded in the face, because his armour protected his body. Throughout the Wars of the Roses (1455-1487), the English never stopped wearing armour, despite the fact that both sides had large numbers of longbowmen.
Longbows are very effective against un-armoured or less-armoured troops, and weak spots like joints, but they never made armour obsolete. I grew up reading Bernard Cornwell so I used to think longbows were like a cheat code, but the evidence says otherwise.
Arrow could not pierce plate armor
Look up just about any attempt even with modern steel bodkin, stronger than medieval steel you can't pierce plate armor.
The idea is basically to throw a shit ton of arrows... tens of thousands of arrows. And just keep rolling for critical hits.
They definitely were NOT unsurpassed until the gatling gun.
Don't know where you found that.
The King was one of the best movies made in a while in the philosophical sense of what it is to be a King and lead not historical. It is truly a Legend to learn from, but not historically as you have explained.
Remember Waterloo was filmed in Ukraine but they used good geography to emulate the field.
Hence the actual location of filming Hungary, doesn't worry me but not picking a more accurate field within Hungary is the problem.
I am not that picky about which country filming is done as I think we are asking way too much from the makers.
But it does need to resemble the actual field, size, weather etc
17:47 That would be a hilarious movie to watch 😂😂😂👍🏼
The ending brawl where you couldn’t tell the difference between the French and English had me befuddled
Depending on the range you will aim progressively higher. With the significant amount of arrow flying some will find a gap or a weak spot.
There is armored hand to hand manuals. (Not the right word)
What I did not like about the movie is that I could not tell who is who in the fight scene due to the knights and troops looking almost the same 🤦♂️
Id refer you to Dr Toby Capwell's lectures on Agincourt which are available on youtube and also Tods Workshop RUclips channel which did a comprehensive study of how longbows were actually used and how French armour was specifically designed to defeat armour.
Re wrestling and dagger work: these were taught as combat techniques abd especially the use of rondel daggers which are essentially a spike used to find gaps in the armour.
Weaponry for man at arms/knight would have been:
Primary: spear, poleaxe, bill or other 2 handed pole arm
Secondary: battlefield longsword which typically had a more pointed blade profile and stiffer construction than the one carried for civilian use; or a mace/hammer/axe although these were usually used from horseback
Tertiary: dagger, by 1415 a rondel, a 12 to 14" spike with a triangular or square profile designed to puncture maille or padded linen.
Anyone who cites Tobias Capwell knows wtf is up 💪🏽🫵🏽😤
3:37 - forest was simply cut down throughout the ages, come on 🤦♂
4:03 - didn't they just mention in the movie, that they will be wearing a lighter armour, how could you miss this?
6:49 - but the arrows have the penetration power to cut through the horses unprotected skin; horses also can panic during the battle
10:51 - helmets actually are medieval - just google it - they look pretty accurate for the shown period
right? Like not a single knight was knocked off his horse from an arrow alone. The horses were obviously spooked, and most likely hit with arrows themselves. And even though the plate itself isn't impenetrable, the gaps in the armor were. His points seem nitpicky.
This film definitely had historians but not medieval historians. They got the "idea" of medieval realism but didn't actually execute it properly, as seen. The idea of arcing volleys of arrows, poorly made costume armor that pulls pieces from all over the late medieval to renaissance, and a lot of missing elements from the battle like units of Mercenary crossbowmen, dismounted french knights, etc. Overall a decent movie, but it misses the mark on historical accuracy.
Most of this information is false such as claiming a arrow can't pierce armor claiming Napoleonic soldiers are inaccurate with muskets. Which is completely false. If muskets were so inaccurate they wouldn't be used over arrows. Even then arrows could pierce easily through flesh and steel alike with no issue. specifically arrows were often designed in this period to go straight through armor and straight through shields. Most arrows couldn't pierce specific armor or specific arrow heads couldn't hit properly through but still could harass the enemy. The longbow and other arrows were easily able to go straight through any armor @thehistorysquad does fantastic representations and presentations based off actual evidence proven by himself and other historians. Instead of searching Wikipedia and Reddit.
Don't forget there are no Genoese crossbowmen in the movie. On the French side they use first the Genoese crossbowmen to try defeat the Welsh longbowmen. The French cavalier knights have no patience to wait for the Genoese crossbowmen because they wait a lot of times. They want now attack the Welsh longbowmen to try defeat the longbowmen. The arrows are thousand times faster than the cavalier knights and most of them are killed or captured by the English army. The French knight commanders Charles d'Albret and Jean II Le Maingre doesn't exist in the movie because the movie is based on Shakespeare's pieces. The Dauphin have never fight in the battle of Agincourt. The Dauphin was king under the era of Joan of Arc.
I found your channel over instagram, this is the first video i watched, but tbh its quite good and funny, i think im gonna binge watch your vids rn lol
Welcome aboard! Let me know if there are any movies you want me to react to
@@historylegends hey love your vids. maybe you can react to 1917, dunkirk or saving private ryan?
@@historylegends I know you are a historian but what do you specialize in, if it is medieval history, can you please react to Outlaw King and Robin Hood (2010).
By the way this was a very good video and I cannot stress cavalrymen with lances enough and banners enough.
The entire battle completely ignored the fact that the English did not have to do much coaxing in order to get the French to strike.
The English forces had already lost a significant proportion of its initial invasion force from men returning home to England to gather the seasonal crops, and those remaining a proportion suffering from dysentery due to poor diet and unclean camp conditions. What remained was a disproportionate amount of Archers to both Men at Arms and Knights under Henry V.
The battlefield was a relatively flat battlefield, the wooded areas scarce, but the English WANTED to be seen, not hide on the flanks in the wood to surprise the French with under armored Archers. Henry was also at the Center (to my understanding), not on the flanks, encouraging his men to hold fast as the French Knights closed in. The whole reason for being seen was so that the French would be enticed to underestimate the position and disposition of the foe and attack rather than stand off and fight the patient battle. Henry was banking on the French Knights being over optimistic and charging headlong in a perfectly set killzone.
The Archers, per English period SOP, were always required to have a series of stakes ready to emplace in front of their fighting positions, just for such an occasion. Due to the Stake Positions, the mud churned into a thick wet quagmire of clay like muck, the suppression by English Longbowmen, and the funneling into a very tight and well disciplined formation of English troops at the center, the French eventually gave up the fight and were routed.
The King's battle presentation is far more an action hit piece rather than honest historical representation. Its good for what it is, but to call it historical is just dishonest. The entire concept behind Henry V invading, per the film, was that of conspiracy by one of his advisors and lords on his counsel and staff. When the reality is that Henry V was just pursuing what many previous English Kings, prior, tried to establish, which is their right to the ownership of particular pieces of land due to lineages. The 100 Years' War, in no uncertain terms, was really just a long series of "No, its my land," wars between the French and English over regions like Normandy.
It would be fantastic to have an Agincourt 2 now. Would be fantastic! English might.
THe other Game of Thrones thing they do in this is pointlessly bashing against armour with swords, as if armour were just a kind of T-shirt.
The Battle of the Bastards annoyed me so much - the directors were congratulating themselves so much over it but it made no sense - wildlings charging into battle with only swords, no spears, against armoured knights, and then the self-indulgent wallowing around in the mud. And then there were the Dothraki that everyone was afraid of - most of them armed only with swords, not bows, when the only advantage (or chance of survival) that light horsemen have against armoured knights is to be mounted bowmen (or run away very quickly, which makes them more of a nuisance).
Film and TV makers are obsessed with swords, confuse armour with clothing and have a real prejudice against shields and the spear (including lances) - the favourite and often most effective weapon of humanity since before Homo sapiens existed until a few short generations ago.
It makes me grumpy.
Whilst the battle in the film is not historically accurate and is more a dramatisation of the series of plays by William Shakespeare of Henry V rather than a historical drama and you are right about the lack colours in the French cavalry, I must point out you are wrong about the English longbow and archers. As much as I enjoyed most of the video I’m sorry but you are wrong. The English longbow was not a weapon that was fired straight or where one individual man killed one individual target, it had a 130/190lb draw that was drastically higher than any other European army of the time and most English children from the age of 9 trained for it for decades until they became master bowmen, it was a powerful weapons that required a full draw that requires a man to draw from the ground up and to “put your back into it” . The English longbow was more like a catapult where groups or companies of men numbering up to 200 would fire en masses aiming upwards to cause as much chaos and devastation as possible in one area rather than an individual precision weapon. In Agincourt many of the French knights and their horses were killed by archer fire, which caused the lines behind them to trample those first men, and for men and horses to fall over each other in a downhill slope, resulting in many of the French knights having to dismount and walk into the Wooden steak formations in mud facing the English men at arms whilst under constant archer fire. Secondly
Most historians estimate 35000/40000 arrows per minute were fired by the English and Welsh longbowmen which resulted in the huge French casualties and it was more like a powerful artillery weapon, when the longbowmen ran out
Of arrows they did indeed engage in hand to hand combat most archers were fighting men, many in the English army veterans of the wars against Welsh and Scottish Rebels and were battle hardened fighters rather than conscripted peasants.
No. There was no slope. Also for the horses to fall on top of each other they must literally be charging, but the actual charge only took place towards the last 100 meters. At 100 meters, archers don't shoot in arc but straight at the charging horses. Then you mention 40,000 arrows A MINUTE!? That would mean 2,400,000 arrows per hour... ridiculous number.
@@historylegends Actually it’s not a ridiculous amount, 6000 archers firing 5/6 shots a minute. 4000 English archers with The Duke of Lancaster and duke of Gloucester and 2000 Welsh archers. These men had decades of training and their arrows didn’t bounce off of the French Knights, many of the horses were not fully armoured and were killed by the arrows. 100s of millions of arrow heads were made for the 100 years war in England, it was a powerful weapon that won the battle, as mentioned 130/190lb draw and decades of training, The English nobility knew they did not have the wealth or population of Medieval France to have a large Nobel man heavy/armoured servant heavy force of mounted knights and their pay off was a constant supply of archers firing heavy draw long bows. Even if they fired 2 or 3 shots per
Minute that’s 12000 / 18000/20000 a minute. Not ridiculous or
Outlandish. 5/6 of the English force was made of archers the rest dismounted knights numbering 1000/2000 based on various estimates and 4000/6000 archers.
Ridiculous. Logistically not possible. They actually aimed, because they shot straight at the enemy, so less arrows necessary.
@@historylegends a trained archer could fire up to 12 arrows a minute and up to 1000 per seconds were fired at Agincourt. They did aim but they aimed up wards and also aimed straight at close range. Check the historical sources if you want, nothing I said is made up or impossible or an opinion. 5000/6000 archers firing 6/12 arrows a minute. Not every shot is a single kill but rather successive volleys, deaths of horses and multiple wounds. How did 8000 French die and only 100/300 English die, because of the longbow and the killing points created by the barricades where dismounted, wounded and mud impeded men would have been caught. These or similar are tactics the English used at Crecy in 1346 and were learned when fighting Scottish and Welsh Rebels. Similar tactics were used by the Ottomans when fighting the French. Allowing a smaller archer heavy force to defeat a primarily cavalry based Knight army.
Great video! Re The Outlaw King: My family were “besties” to the Douglases & beholden to Wallace through marriage. I’m typing this as a Mr ‘cos the Edwards were not impressed that we helped Wallace, Douglas & the Bruce - the latter with 60 cavalry I think. Border Reivers. Rutherfords. Three of my kin signed The Ragman’s Roll. Another three were ransomed from the Tower of London.
The idea was weather and terrain would turn slop. The knights sacrificed themselves by selling it through armor. Because of that agreement was to travel light and use speed not get advantage not bogged down. Aesthetic id agree but still great film. Blackhawk down was great this is like the king brave heart version 😊
This "historian" doesn't know archery. Archers do not aim at a specific target at long range, but shoot an area with a barrage of arrows where the enemy is or will be. And by changing the angle and strength of the shot, they can even time the arrival of the shower of arrows, i.e. they can make sure that the arrows fired at different times hit at the same time, and moreover, from different angles, the effect of the shower of arrows is significantly enhanced. A historian dealing with the Middle Ages should know this. Archers shoot an aimed shot at a specific target from a short shooting distance. The advantage of the English longbow is precisely the long shooting distance. The archers were also a team, they didn't fight individually if they didn't have to.
At further distances the archers would have had to aim to the sky for the arrows to reach their target until the infantry or Calvary was close enough to shoot straight on. Also, it would benefit an army to have archers shoot in the air to hit men in the back of the charge as well as the front.
None of the medieval pictures of English longbow men show them aiming up, but more straight towards theirs target. The Longbow was very powerful and could shoot far.
This guy needs to teach history in schools Goddammit
I love how he gets passively angry jajaja
Amazing analysis!
hey history legends, been a fan of your channel for a while now and this is a good video. however i would just like to point out a few details that you made a mistake on:
firstly, in the 15th century, while shields were still used, full plate armored knights didnt usually use them. the reason for this you actually stated in this video, which is that plate armor was so effective at deflecting attacks that the shields werent necessary. the primary weapon of knights of this era were 2 handed pole axes which were incredibly effective against armored targets.
secondly, while a medieval battle wasnt a full on MMA grappling match, the most effective way to defeat a knight was to knock him over and get on top of him and then follow up by trying to stab a dagger into any gaps in his armor. you could also not try to kill him and just subdue him to ransom him back to his family after the battle which you also correctly stated.
i know this videos 2 years old now and im kinda late to the party on this one. still a good watch and you were correct about most of what you said
Film directors/ producers need to grow up and understand reality is far more interesting and entertaining than whatever their empty heads can dream up
Unfortunately for Cinema reality is boring which is far from true
Loved your analogy at the end! LOL
Ngl, having Hitler fall from the sky in a super heavy modified King Tiger on top of Stalin's position, then to end in a battle royale between the two leaders is something that I want to see. The Man of Steel vs The Nightmare of Europe. Fight! (violent combo mashing sounds in Reichstag)
How do you want to shoot an arrow several hundred yards aiming straight ?
I agree completely with this analisis would have much more epic if they had kept it historical
You should do more of these videos.
Yes, he is amateur. But not historian. Archers CAN penetrate armor. Archers must use armor-piercing arrowheads. The armor-piercing type arrowhead concentrates the kinetic energy of the arrow in one point and can penetrate armor. Yes, most arrows bounce off armor. But every fourth or sixth arrow goes through and that's enough. It pays for archers to shoot the knights, even if most of the shots don't damage the knights. This is the reality.
In the movie, henry actually ordered to kill all the french who surrendered
So the bodkin arrow is meaningless? It was created to be armor penitrating to deal with the French armored calvary.
The King was really disappointing. Like they got so much historically wrong. The only thing that got correct was the town life BUT that was the beginning of the film
I wanna see that WWII Movie you mentioned at the end! ;D
Let's start a goFund me page hahaha
They could add: "Was it over, when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour? Hell, no!", as the Dwarves enter the battle of the five armies, and gladly charge the field at Charlottenburg.
Half the points you made ended up being the case in the movie. Yes, they took liberties. But the actual function of the battle was pretty accurate. None of those cav got knocked off their horses by the arrows. If you watch, the horses get hit, throwing the knights, the other ones got hit in weak spots. The muddy ground wouldnt show as muddy if its a fallow field until its churned by their feet and battle. The bait was accurate, however different from the actual type of troops. You say a shieldwall is mostly shields no weapons then proceed to say why bother bringing weapons if their doing "mma". Which one is it? Mud covered men at arms woulddnt be recognizable with or without their colors when its covered in mud. And they be 100 percent wrestling each other to the ground like mma when they're weighed down by their armor in the mud. Watch any real medieval battle competitions, and it'd be clear. Also, im sure the archers were aiming. The initial volleys would've been reasonable as the enemy was far enough away obviously their not going to aim straight if their enemy was that far. Also, theyres plenty of medieval examples of men removing their faceguard in battle to catch breath and to get better peripheral vision, he shouldnt have removed the entire helmet but it gets the point across. On top of that the main attack of the english infanty they were loghtly armoured so??
Again, you made a few good points but that was certainly a fairly accurate representation of battle compared to most movies.
Yeah banners on the soliders makes sense. How can you tell if someone is french or english. Especially when at the time. Armies weren't scattered around Frontline but face off at battles. And so it's even more necessary to distinguish the enemy
Saw the movie and it seemed great but when an expert points out the flaws and the fiction makes the movie look rediculus 😂
Shields:
By 1415 shields had been going out of fashion for a while and were usually a tournament accoutrement by then.
Certainly the more wealthy knights would have had armour that made the sheild redundant especially on foot.
Very few mounted men at Agincourt the bulk of the French knights fought on foot and the English army of the time was an infantry army. Weapons used were spears, cut down lances, poleaxes, bills.. these are all two handed weapons not suitable for sheild use..
The exception is that the archers almost certainly used bucklers and the crossbowmen will have carried pavise shields.
"Wha you doing lil man? Youre going to get your littlr shoes all dirty"😂😂😂
I am ashamed to say that you’re theoretical movie about the battle of Berlin sounds fuckin epic
In the movie Henry does does order the army to be executed. When he's told they won't be able contain them. When the French reinforcements arrive.
Pretty good but they definitely wouldn’t have had shields. Plate armor made them obsolete.
The movie was fantastic in my opinion, and the battles were exciting to watch, but its always great to see more accuracy. I dont know why they didnt keep Henrys original armour, its so much cooler.
The Kenneth Branagh Henry V from the 80’s had a pretty good battle although with the whole arrows in the sky bit❤❤
7:30 in 500 hundred years, will movies show 21st century soldiers shooting up in the sky to hit targets ?
They routinely didn't use shields by this time, the French were very colorful in dress at the battle. Many French knights 'dressed up' for the battle assuming a easy victory, they were very self-conscious of how heroic they would appear in post battle tales, stories and legend. How easy it would be also attracted more knights as the more turned up the more people wanted to join in, everybody wanted to be in on this easy victory. The arrows could penetrate armor, the Bodkin tip, but not the very best Italian plate which was rare and very expensive, they could still hit hard though. Being hit by 3 of these arrows in quick order would hurt whether the amour is penetrated or not...
They did fight on a hill 100 percent . English long bow can penetrate armour they do get stuck in mud in the movie
A knight on a horse is a tank of the middle ages
Fascinating
Yeah, You are right. This is ridiculous how they often make films. But where are the reason for that "grey" convention. I think, they wanted show dark ages as dark. Moreover I find projection of the movie director personal story , or his feelings, on the picture.
Bro posts a video asking where the hill is and then after saying there’s no hill (not realizing that land has 100% changed since that battle) before changing subjects, quite literally shows a massive hill in his last shot lol also if you’ve spent anytime outdoors in farmland it doesn’t need to be some massive hill for water to affect the ground.. also the field isn’t going to be muddy until they start fighting on it.. also a battle lance does not have to look like the ones they use jousting to be considered a lance.. you can see plenty of horse riders and front liners armed with what constituted as a battle lance in this video.. I get trying to be accurate, but your literally just find idiotic things to act mad about for content.. also there are literally numerous horses in this battle scene with colorful attire on over their steel armor, and most knights didn’t dress their horses up as intently during battle like they would during competitions, for the most part during battles it was mostly just steel armor outside certain individuals to either mark units or titles or recognize signals and stand out etc etc not to just simply have every knight do it to look cool.. your videos would be a lot cooler if you were factual and explained why things were done instead of just finding the smallest little inconsistencies possible to get mad about and complain long enough to get a 10-15min video
I love these click bait videos. First and foremost this is a movie, made for entertainment and to appeal to a massive audience. They also have limiting factors such as time and budget constraints. Historical accuracy has to give way to the greater story.
continue to do these
OMG what a great channel did I just found. Saludos desde Argentina!
Absolutely loved the analysis. Thanks for sharing your knowledge brother. Subscribed!
There were a few inaccuracies in this presentation, but I greatly appreciated it.
Firstly, the only two things netflix got right in this film are that there was an English king, Henry V, and he went to war with the French. That's it. The rest is just made up. To say it's based on Shakespeare is only accurate if you haven't read Shakespeare Henry V, as this is based on Gesta the official document of Agincourt campaign. If the fictional Falstaff was removed from the film, the link to Shakespeare would be removed.
It's a real shame that this most anticipated film was so poor as the actual historic events leading up to and the Battle were far more interesting than this version.
In this vlog, he does point out the huge mistakes around armour and fighting. It was very drab, when in fact the English and French knights and men at arms would have been head to toe in mirror shining plate armour and colourful surcoats. The whole Agincourt battle scene is completely wrong and is only trumped by the Battle of Shrewsbury in which Henry duelling with Hotspur was completely made up. Henry commanded the left of the English army and, during the battle, took an arrow in the face that penatrated his skull to the back. He continued to lead and win the battle. He was 16 yrs old.
Henry's succession to the crown was never doubted, and all his brothers survived, and only one of them died in a later campaign. Humphrey fought with him at Agincourt but in this film dies in Wales before being crowned, completely made up.
Henry was a seasoned warrior king and a great commander and tactician. His tactical superiority led him to victory at Agincourt against a far numerical superior French army.
The biggest mistake in the battle was the actual formation and tactics Henry employed that gave him the advantage, he reduced a narrow field even narrow by moving his men to a an area that prevented the french from flanking him. He created an area that slowed the french attack by funnelling them towards him. Stakes were also used as defence. Henry was a medieval military genius, neglected in the film. As for the killing of prisoners, it has been proven that very few were killed before he stopped it. This can be proven by the recorded numbers and names on their arrival in calais.
Henry went on to conquer most of France, achieving more in his 10 Yr reign than had been achieved in 80 yrs previously. He reduced the French to naming him the next king of France. Unfortunately this would never happen as in 1422 he died. His som 9months old became Henry VI of England and France. But lost everything in the years to come and the war.
The film is such a shame, but that should be expected from a netflix production. I wish that something could be produced that could match the quality of Lawrence Olivier 1940 film Henry V
I would hire this guy if I would want to make a period movie cause there are a lot of things that are absent in movies about Medieval Period.
I know it's mainly based on Shakespeare, but cmon. More historical accuracy would be better.
The worst part, at least for me was: king attacked French, with his troops...
This is legendary sir
The "armour" they put on Henry was worse than pathetic. 😂
Dude your amazing❤❤❤
Also the bows were no war bows. Here is how draw of actual war longbow looks and what is the impact: ruclips.net/video/kthIdy9BVwQ/видео.html
The king was lame....
The characters were way too skinny for the armor....
Helmets not medieval? I just saw a hound bassinet there.... actually historic. Other then that I agree with You.
Two things defeated the French, arrows and mud.
There was a great deal to not like about this movie. Most of all is the complete lack of tension that was present in Sir Lawrence Olivier's and Kenneth Branagh's versions on Shakespeare's Henry V. Sure, anyone with a passing knowledge of the 100 Years War know the outcome, but with the afore mentioned movies one actually cares for those taking part.
The knights' horses were also armored. If the armor of the knights was not pierced by the arrowhead, then the armor of the horses was also not pierced by the arrowhead. :-) So it wouldn't have made sense to shoot at the horses of the knights instead to shoot at the knights. ruclips.net/video/0fXYVj5fxus/видео.html
The only time I've heard of armoured horses in battle was at crecy, used by a french , Scottish detachment of 400 knights trying to overwhelm archers on a English flank,, after realising the horses had armoured breastplates the archers simply moved to the flanks and shot into the sides of the horses, decimating the attack
Deberías analizar la batalla que sale en Rey Forajido
I swear they didn’t use shields in this period as they were so heavily armoured?
They did use shields, especially charging cavalrymen.
They might not have kite shields but I think they have small circular shields for blocking opponent lances.
Shield start to be abandoned in 1420's when white harness armor spreads.
man this guy is clueless
The amount of historical inaccuracy is staggering
Nonsense. Its a movie, they took some artistic liberty but folllows the events damn near spot on. one of the best movies to depict medieval warfare.
i suggest battle of loudon hill 1307.
Good idea! Medieval times but 100 years earlier. Will be interesting to analyze.
If an arrow does not go through frickin steel breastplate like a hot knife, the movie has succeded
Your WW2 Movie sounds like a History Channel documentary on "What if the war continued to 1946".
Dude knows every tree in france
I love the shanking scene but sadly it did not happen irl.
Good stuff
Bravo and thank you for your work in providing information on the real History.
OK a movie is not a documentary but up to a certain limit.
Azincourt was a humiliating battle for the French but not worth adding.
This movie is a historical parody and deliberately makes the French look like idiots, cowards and cruel.
I am passionate about history and it hurts me to see how some movies reinterpret it. Why do directors choose a historical fact and then move away from it?
I’m worried about the next Napoleon movie.
It’s hard to ridicule Napoleon, but I’m careful 😉
Let’s be optimistic, the movie may be objective 🤞
In case I look forward to seeing your other videos because I subscribe.
that WW2 movie would be epic
The knights were actually knocked off there horses as the horses were shot and the armor could have been penetrated on the flat and weak of the armor not likely but theres a possibility and french and english men at arms and knights died by being drowned a few reports but not many and the english didnt move there whole army forward they had actually sent a few horse archers to bombard the french to provoke an attack but everything is a great plus that
do waterloo by serguei bondarchuk
Great idea, magnificent battle scenes
Awesome reaction 🤘
The battle was a on hill though 😭
I suggest you to do your reaction on American sniper
Human beings have a tendency to not tell a story the way it happened. You will always have a job😀.