Top 10 Things The King Got Factually Right & Wrong
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- Top 10 Things The King Got Factually Right & Wrong // Subscribe: ruclips.net/user/MsMojo?sub_c...
If you’re looking for a history lesson, keep in mind there are some facts The King got right and wrong. For this list, we’re taking a look at the historical accuracy behind this Netflix drama about Henry V of England. How much is history, how much is Shakespeare, how much is Hollywood? MsMojo ranks the facts The King got right and wrong. Are there any other details The King got right or wrong? Let us know in the comments!
Watch more great fact vs fiction related content here:
Top 10 Things Judy Got Factually Right & Wrong - • Top 10 Things Judy Got...
Top 10 Things Hustlers Got Factually Right & Wrong - • Top 10 Things Hustlers...
Top 10 Facts Fosse/Verdon Got RIGHT - • Top 10 Facts Fosse/Ver...
Suggest a video here: www.watchmojo.com/msmojo/sugg...
MsMojo's Social Media:
Facebook►► / mswatchmojo
Twitter►► / mswatchmojo
Instagram►► / mswatchmojo
Snapchat ►► / mswatchmojo
Get MsMojo Merchandise at www.watchmojo.com/store
Shop: shop.watchmojo.com/collection...
WatchMojo is a leading producer of reference online video content of Top 10 Lists, Origins, Biographies, Commentary and more on Pop Culture, Celebrity, Movies, Music, TV, Film, Video Games, Politics, News, Comics, Superheroes. Your trusted authority on ranking Pop Culture.
#TheKing #Netflix #TimothéeChalamet 
Развлечения
Great movie. I thought it was ironic that a French/American actor played Henry V and an English actor played the Dauphin of France.
Mateo same! As someone in casting, I thought “WHY?”
The irony is delicious.
It’s because of how they look
Age wise it makes sense though
Ya, I noticed that too 😀
You can say that the movie is slow BUT Timmy was really good and the photography is actually amazing
Mafer Castelo slow , more like boring , I just don’t get it? It needed more depth .
*cinematography
@@julietteSoul what's there not to get? The movie might be slow but you must be slower not to understand it
@@adamh7409 cinematography it's motion-picture photography so I think I'm no that wrong :')
@@fercastv no you're wrong
11th thing the King got factually wrong: Thomas (younger brother of Henry) is actually Tommen Baratheon
Matthew Tang HAHAHAHAH
Lmaoo sigh!
''baratheon'' yeah ok sure
@Bilal Khalid So he'd be Tommen Waters.
I knew someone would put GoT reference here cause of the medieval period movie 😂
Its based on works from Shakespeare, like many of his works mixed with fiction and fact. I really enjoyed this movie for what it was...I'm a sucker for a period piece
movie gurl74 yeah the movie was long and slow but I loved every minute of it. Beautifully shot. Well acted. Despite Pattinson’s accent being hilarious. But this was a great movie.
@@cheekypasta55 idk if whether his wig or accent was the height of ridiculousness 😂
It’s not accurate to either Shakespeare and history and doing either one accurately would have resulted in a better film, this was a dissapointment.
Q Ravioli hahaha! His accent was bloody brilliant. He was told to do it that way btw. He was told to make it ridiculous and to be fair he really did. Hahaha
Sara Samaletdin cannot agree more.
Can we just appreciate how Pattinson, pretended perfectly to be a French, speaking English?
Na it sounded like an Englishman doing a french accent
He was beyond creepy, for real....
@@marialewis6432 In the stories and AP history classes I took we were taught that Prince Charles was always kind of a creepy guy who was filled with jealously from his father.
@@benschuster9792 thats what it was
@@royalelite2996 ik
This is basically a movie on the play by Shakespeare with some hollywood added in. It wasn't meant to be historically accurate, though there are many accurate parts in it. It was a great movie overall. I was impressed.
I can believe people think spoiler alerts are necessary for plays over 500 years old.
@sciphynuts lol way to miss the point buddy (Shakes spear angrily) also speaks ignorantly of ignorance
Rodgerina Damn, it must be traumatizing to learn history via comments on RUclips. Lol Btw, everyone already read this play in high school so these aren’t spoilers.
Also (*spoiler alert* in case you haven’t seen The White Queen or read a single book on British history)
Henry the 5th’s son is a total failure as a king which prompts the wars of the roses.
@@faithful_chickie8981 Wow! You're living in an illusion! British i.e. colonizer history has stopped being taught in many schools outside the UK in favor of local/Indigenous history/education! That's why a movie that is made about a little known British king and broadcasted on an international platform like Netflix needs to stop embellishing the truth! If you haven't noticed people, especially students, have stopped reading Shakespeare, because their own cultures have rich literary histories! People born after 1980 have had a totally different approach to history education! They can't be lied to so easily because the internet is available. Therefore, many haven't and won't read the play just like many in the UK won't read US , Chinese or even Kenyan authors! Don't flatter yourself thinking a basic education consists of the entire reading of the Shakespeare's plays! My students are reading Poe, Houghes and Goethe this semester while leaving school every Friday to protest against the environment, to help the homeless or to register voters! This I find more important than learning UK history especially since the UK is leaving the EU! My students are very happy not to read Shakespeare because Shakespeare's values don't bold well with their cultural mentality! In light of Armistice Day, most don't want to have another war in Europe nor read about it! We have more important things to learn about and one is realizing that Shakespeare isn't the final word on English education!
It's not just a play it's actual history.
Not really historically accurate at all. However the movie and acting themselves are great.
It was based off of Shakespeare's play (;
Sam bluer It’s partly based off of and inspired by Shakespeare’s play Henry V. However it isn’t a complete adaption of the play.
@@gummybananna1248 Barely. They maintained Henry's Bacchanalian youth, and some major points, but that's about it. Even Falstaff is a poor imitation of Shakespeare's creation.
Well of course it's not a perfect adaptation, if that's what you're trying to say. I was just saying the reason it's not "historically accurate," is because it was also based off a play
This movie is so far from "historical accuracy" that it may as well be an episode of "Game of thrones".
Ultimately, the movie remembers Armor was meant to protect you. Whenever they fight using armor, they grappled and attacked the places realistically were attacked. The pits, and neck. The most exposed places. Then there's half wording and using pole arms to fight armored opponents. The fights were my favorite part.
They were also using rondel daggers to stab people, which were carried at Agincourt
@@uninterruptedrhythm4104 noice catch
as a fan of historical battles, when she said the english only had 5000 while the french had 30,000-100,000 hurt my head. That statement is false in every account
Sloppy research, are we surprised?
Yeah that annoyed me aswell... ~8000 english and upwards(!) to 20 000 french is what I've been taught.
~8000 vs ~15 000
100 000 ROFL like it would even be possible at that time oO even 400 years later and with conscription Napoleon had just 65 000 men at Austerlitz lol.
Thank you, was scrolling to see if anyone else already posted this.
Its generally believed that the French army outnumbered the English by at least 3:1 so probly around 6000 english 18000 french
Cersei would never let tommen wear an armour. Never. Ever.
Shut Up that armour wouldn’t save him from that hundred foot drop out the window though....
depends on what level armour it is
the armour wasn’t even valaryian. Maybe if Cersei invested a few more coins, she could have gotten it made
@@ThespianPrince13, great pun!
Hahaha. I knew that kid looked familiar.
Pattinson definitely has the inside to play the French Garrison in whatever hypothetical remake of Monty Python and the Holy Grail they come up with.
why do you think i have this outrrrrrrageous accent you silly king!
Leeber Snowy with all seriousness, Pattinson’s accent is spot on with some words he kinda goes english
Zachary Hale Comstock your mother was a hamster and smelled of elderberries.
Actually this movie reminded me of Black Adder.
Most importantly in any depiction of Henry IV: he was horribly scarred in his face. He took an arrow to the kne..., I mean, face at the battle of Shrewsbury. His physician had to develop some sort of screwdiver and pliers in one to extract the arrowhead embedded in his skull next to his nose. It went in as a needle, then a screw was wound expanding the tip to catch the arrowhead.
It left such a scar he never wanted to be depicted from that side or face forward...
It wasn’t his face, more the back of his head
@@valerogarcon9304 Had to look it up since I was sure it was the face.
But entering next to the nose and being wedged 6 inches deep is indeed almost the back of the head. Guy was lucky the brain wasn't hit.
Johannes Liechtenauer I’d love to take an historical tour. Can you book guided tours?
An amazing piece of medical history. The doctor came up with the design after the injury, had it made and successfully used it.
Robert Pattinson owned the screen for his scenes. Can’t wait to see him as a Bond villain !
I'm surprised NO ONE noticed that they gave Timmy a scar on his cheek like how Henry V had. They didn't even mention it in the movie which kind of bugs because they put the effort into having it there.
jediavatarpotter wasn’t his real life scar bigger and uglier? He took an arrow to the face right?
Although it was bad the scar was extremely old so most likely healed and just leaving a small place where the arrow actually cut into him. So pretty accurate on their part.
Johannes Liechtenauer most of the damage was in his skin not actually marking the skin. That’s what arrows did they made a small input point and caused more damage on the inside which wouldn’t really be seen so long after it happened
I noticed!
jediavatarpotter thats what I thought as well
Despite the historical inaccuracies I really enjoyed this film.
Same I loved it!
Same here! That's why I keep going back to Braveheart. I just like the movie.
Are you English ??? Because spoiler alert .... we also have Netflix in France and i wasn't pleased by this movie
Did she just say the French had between 30000-100000 troops at Azincourt ?? Like I know the French outnumbered the English with most estimates being around 30000 but that 100000 figure seems ridiculous! I can't think of any examples back in this time period where an army so big could be assembled. That's some Napoleonic era figures !
Trotsky's Ghost shes wrong... must hve read a typo.. look it up
I was like how did they organize an army of 100,000 in medical Europe. Rome couldn't have organized and army that massive.
@@tomg7913 yeah true man. But even then a lot of them were basically conscripts/volunteers and not professional soldier as that would just be un thinkable. Not trying to down play your comment or anything cause you're completely right just giving other people a bit of context that might stumble across it. But thanks for letting me know about that I had no idea until I read your comment, had tonnes of fun doing a bit of research on it.
So this movie is pretty much just fiction with characters that existed in real life
Yes, pretty much. And also some invented ones.
It’s Shakespeare. So dramatization of a dramatization that was also slightly propagandist. So
the battle was real, crazy how he had like 5000 against 30000 plus and still won
@@chrisdavis94 8000 vs 25000
Chris Davis yea the debate to the size of the french forces still goes on today , but they estimate anywhere between 15-25000 to Henry’s 5-7,500 men , deffo a disadvantage but many historical sources are bias to one side or the other so the numbers are sketchy to say the least
I don't think this movie was meant to be a historically accurate film, it was simply meant to be a really good movie for entertainment purposes. I highly recommend, especially because the acting is GREAT.
What they got Factually Right. His name was Henry. That was about it
Also that he was the FIFTH Henry, so they were also numerically correct.
Noooo wrong num 1 is wrong completely wrong where did you get that from ??
The numbers are:
English 8000 to 8500 (not 5000)
French 20,000 to 23000 (NOT 100,000)
WTF is wrong with you giving extremely wrong information to people like that !!
In all of my research, I’ve come to the conclusion that 5,000 for the English is probably accurate, but more than likely closer to 6,000 but the French certainly had no where near 100,000 as this video is suggesting. I’d argue that realistically they probably had closer to 15,000 but that’s just my speculation based on the numbers they fielded at other battles like Harfleur or Rouen. Glad I’m not the only one who caught her massive miscalculation and misunderstanding of medieval warfare in the 15th century.
The battle in this movie oddly remind me of the battle of the bastards in GOT
It's not odd at all! When we follow Fallstaff, it's the same thing Jon Snow went through. They were both at the frontline and got overwhelmed by soldiers on horseback. We also follow them personally until the moment it's getting very claustrophobic and they have to gasp for air, it's even the same camera shot from above there. The thing I like about the battle in the King is that it's dirty and clumsy. That's what makes it feel real, just like in the movie "The Nice Guys".
@@FooFighter193 the battle of bastards was based on agincourt anyway so yeah that makes sense
So it was boring and ended really fast and was filmed very awkward?
@@FooFighter193 yup noticed that over the top camera shot right away lol
It was filmed before the Battle of the Bastards. Both are brilliant, I think.
It's not a history lesson, just a really good movie
It's really an adaptation of Shakespeare's play
@@badfoody more or less, absolutely
It's still based on historical events and as such there will be those that are interested in the true story.
The question is, why not stay true to the reality, when it's much more interesting that what we see here in the movie?
@Arianatics fever - It's worth it. It's really good!
I like that an English man played the French character while the French guy played the English character
In fact. Henry's grand grandfather was French king, Phillip the Fair:)))))
This video literally just alerted me that this show even existed lol
But it gets thumbs up for having 2 heart throbs in the same show.
Robert Pattinson and Timothee Chalamet 😍😍😍
It’s actually a movie :D
Melanie Plante Oh Really?
Yeah I was so excited I saw the movie right away! I love Timmy!💚🧡💛💜
I give them each A+ for probable excellent skills in the bed chamber.😻
5000 too up to 100 000 you pulled those numbers out your arse.
I really enjoyed this film, already watched it twice. Robert Pattinson and Timmy continue to impress me with their acting talents.
I couldn’t get over how Hal had the same non-expression on his face the whole time.
Even Bella Swan have more facial expression than Hal.
ThisIsViridus Hard disagree. You could clearly see how out of his element Hal was as King. Timothee grounded this age-old English hero into our level.
"All I see is a vain, young boy. So easily riled. So easily beguiled."
ThisIsViridus I think that was supposed to be the idea
That was the point. Once he became King he stopped laughing/smiling. Even tells Falstaff he keeps his feelings to himself & how lonely he's become as King.
@@rosaryinkeanushand4827 That's the problem. There was no legitimate arch. He just went from hot to cold out of nowhere. That's shitty acting.
Well, OF COURSE the film was gonna be a little off: it's based on Shakespeare's play, and in turn, Shakespeare based the play on King Henry IV's official Twitter feed at the time.
good flick, but a confusing mash up of Shakespeare's Henry V and some odd contemporary biopic. Soundtrack kicked arse!
The movie is spectacular! Highly recommend!
Pattison sure nailed that accent. He nailed it in the Lighthouse too. Incredible actor. And Chalamet was no slouch either.... just outstanding acting all the way around.
"...Henry had a disadvantage with only about 5000 men at his side. The French, meanwhile, had somewhere between 30000 and 100000"
Wrong. Most scholars today agree that those numbers were exaggerated by contemporaneous English sources to depict the battle as even more epic. While some current English scholars agree today that the proportion was 7000:20000, some French scholars draw a 9000:12000 proportion. The real number must be in between, but what it is undoubted is that the English were outnumbered.
It's typically an english thing to end a movie with their last major victory of the war, despite the fact that the war is not over and they lose decisives battles at the end (Orleans, Patay, Formigny, Castillon)
Ages wrong: Louis the Dauphin was 18 at the time of his death in 1415 and Henry was 29...in 1415
i thought this movie was brilliantly shot with unreal acting from the entire cast. I also thought the pace was done well for what it was. The script was also very tight and well written. Idk i fucking loved this movie lol
This movie was brilliant i could not stop watching it it seems like game of thrones in a sense
@Nogent hold up wait a min are you saying that a movie was nothing like real life wtf is wrong with them . . . --.--
@Nogent just saying i cant name many movies that handle warfare and combat realistically this at least got some of it right lol try and name any other "credible" battle scenes i bet the list is very short
I genuinely don’t get why this movie is so inaccurate. Historical events seem to have been even more exciting, so I don’t understand why would anyone make a movie based on historical events that’s less exciting than actual events.
Nevertheless, I watched it and didn't expect it to be soo gooood. Enjoyed it!
There was no assasination plot ruse. That was simply Henry fighting in the hundred years war.
As a movie The King was Fantastic!!! amazing cast, acting, the photography is beautiful and so is the soundtrack! this is not supposed to be a History channel documentary!
I JUST, watched this the other day. 🐧💙
Just finished watching this an hour ago, this list came right in time!
the movie was UNIQUE in its own way dont forget that! also timothee my god hes stunning
THANK YOU mojo! For once you’ve been helpful. Been looking for information on this movie for ages.
Besides the fact that not much has been historically accurate you gotta admit that the resemblance of Tim and Henry is enormous. Not to mention the acting. Still a brilliant movie
Do a Top Ten Superstore moments/episodes/running gags! That show is so underrated! Already in its 5th season!
So Henry V married Edward Scissorhand's daughter?
That awkward "Your brother was killed in Wales" near 4:24...
it was never known who sent a ball to king henry V, it was even proven in the movie that they weren't sure who actually did it.
Very very great list I like it a lot
4:36 When your child keeps playing with his food.
Nah, it was about 8000 on the English and 15-20000 on the French side, and they were not all well deployed...
I found the historical inaccuracies funny
Of course this film will not follow the most factual history because this movie is based on Shakespeare play. you just have to google it
This is how Hollywood rewrites history in short
Hollywood didn't rewrite history. Shakespeare rewrote history and this movie was based on his play.
@@Asparagaceae very loosely. The main character was called Henry, that was about it.
@@keithday3658 Along with some other details such as the dauphin sending Henry a ball and Sir John Falstaff existing. But yes, it is very loosely adapted from the play.
@lu lm That's what I said...? My original point was that the movie pulls more from the play than actual history. You're just arguing semantics at this point.
It was still a wonderful drama despite all its historical accuracy being way off. I mean Brave heart was great but wildly inaccurate. This was a really good movie in my opinion.
Just think how different Europes history might have been had Henry V not died (of unknown causes) shortly before he would have been crowned king of France. So much was decided by the whim of Henry's health.
The English had 8000 men. 6500 of which were longbowmen. The french had 15000
Ms. Mojo please do a list on DayBreakers
A series based on a Shakespeare play which was basically propaganda is probably not going to be the most historically accurate.
It was 300 Englishmen w sparkling abs against 1 million French immortals, slaves and other monsters at Agincourt.
The French did not have 100,000 soldiers.. it was actually closer to 13,000. French financial records of the time have often suggested that. Not to mention that 13,000 men was considered a large army of its era. It was also recorded that the battle took place on the morning following a very unpleasant night, with heavy rain. Henry realised very early on that Cavalry was going to be severely hindered in a now boggy quagmire of ploughed fields. The French sustained very heavy casualties at the hands of British Longbowmen.
I studied Henry V in school, and was fascinated by the history of his campaigns.
The most important thing is that : the french at last won the hundred years’ war
Did she actually just say 100,000 soldiers 11:50 , OMG its so easy to just look up on wiki the French had some 15,000 and the English 8,000 . hahaha some difference there
One thing is spot on, casting Robert Pattison as the French King. He is an actor no men like. Should be a Bond villain.
Still, it was a great movie. One of my favorites releases this year.
When referring to French names we usually try to use the French pronunciation, for example the ‘T’ at the end of Agincourt is silent.
“But was a 33 year old man...” “NO!” Ahhhh too good Hahahaha
How about pronouncing the French name of the battle at the heart of the Henry V story (Agincourt) correctly (Agincore) and get the estimates of French soldiers even close. Most scholarly estimates have 30,000 as the upper limit and none get anywhere close to 100,000. “The King” is a gripping semi-fictional drama based on Shakespeare’s semi fictional play. This clip does a good job at separating fact from fiction
Agincourt is neither the actual name of the French locality nor the battle, it's Azincourt. With a Z.
@@Sir77Hill plus isn't the t silent?
@@lorenegross8120 exactly
your estimations of the battle is totally wrong. there were 6000-9000 english vs 12000 - 36000 french men...
William F. Drake If it were even close to 36k Brits wouldn't stand a chance so part of your statement Is horse shit.
Giovanni Love it really isn’t his statement tbh. It’s the estimates given by multiple different historians. He is just following that. So. Can’t really blame anyone. We can only follow what people has said.
surendran9311 sure sure
@@giovannilove419 was no such thing as Brits at that time, we were just English back then
The fact that anyone comes to a RUclips channel named "Ms. MOJO" to find out the historical accuracy of ANY SUBJECT is hilarious
Where does this lady get her information from she really did not do too much investigation into the true numbers of the actual Battle of Agincourt because the French numbers were between 12000 and 30000
I know right, someone that agrees with me.
The number of troops are wrong, the English had around 7,000 to 8,000 men and the french about 15,000 men. Where did you get 30,000 to 100,000 french soldiers from? You saying that french had 30,000 to 100,000 men against 5,000 gives the impression that the French are militarily incompetent. Being a frenchman myself, I had to correct this mistake.
Henry IV did not want a war with France because as an usurping king, he spent most of his reign putting down the rebellions of those still loyal to RIchard II, whom he deposed-and was able to depose when Richard, son of the Black Prince, decided to go and fight in a foreign war in Ireland, leaving his home kingdom vulnerable. Fighting a foreign war for him would mean leaving his home defences against further rebellions in the same vulnerability with which he originally deposed the previous king.
That neither the Dauphin, nor the King of France were present at the battle is one of the things that people blame for the catastrophe of French loosing. IN medieval war, it is necessary for the sovereign to be present on the battlefield, as all of the the army owe their allegiance to him alone, either through their local noble, or directly. Without the sovereign present it creates the situation where several high ranking nobles with who’s voices the appointment of leadership must now compete. And this lack of a clear leader has been blamed for a certain amount of confusion in their attack plan and the cause of disunity-a thing of which the English did not suffer.
The character of Sir John Falstaff from Shakespeare and from the movie, correct, was not real, however, the movie version uses the character of Falstaff to replace a real Welshman by the name of Dafydd ‘Davie’ Gam, who was the king’s personal body guard. He was a giant of a man who was deadly on the battlefield. He died actually protecting the king in the battle, and with a heavy heart, was knighted posthumously on the battlefield by Henry.
As for the English being first to move, this did achieve the aim of goading the French into attacking, which was necessary because the French could well have just stood there and starved the English, who were already without provisions, sick, and hungry; getting weaker by the minute. But the manoeuvre also accomplished an important strategic goal. The battle field, Henry had discovered by sending out scouts during the night, was shaped like an ‘8’, where the middle narrowed. Since his army was the smaller, if he remained in the wider part of the ‘8’ his flanks would be exposed. And so moving up 50 paces to occupy the narrowed part of the field also shored up their flanks. This is the very same reason why the 300 Spartans chose to fight in a narrow pass-so as to use the surrounding natural obstacles to their advantage. Never would the English have intended on not fighting from a defensive position, however. They would not have charged all the way down range if the French decided not to move off their line. But the fact that it would have been considered dishonourable to allow a smaller army of men on foot to attack, where your outnumbering heavy cavalry did not move as well, had the dual effect of causing the very chivalrous French to attack as well. This same sequence of fighting a defensive battle, while the French attacked the English position happened at Crécy, and at Poitiers as well, the only difference being that at Poitiers, the English used their own hidden heavy cavalry unit to provide an ambushed “hammer and anvil” tactic that managed to capture them the French King Jean. A defensive position is necessary because of the archers--they aren’t exactly good at charging into a line of armoured men and horses. Yet they are deadly from a fixed position, and can join in the slaughter once their arrows are done.
Digging into the narrowest part of the field was good because the Marshall Boucicaut on the French side had the original plan of sending cavalry up those wings to scatter the archers (we actually have a primary source diagram of this) -who would have had sharpened stakes in front of them, and yet their exposed flank meant that nimble horses could get around to their flank and rear. Henry was highly intelligent and experienced at war himself, and didn’t need to crack any enemy code to know that the Marshal-as smart as he was- would have most certainly created the plan that in fact he did make. SO at the last minute the Marshall’s plan was foiled, which lead to much confusion, as at that point nobles of higher rank and lower actual war experience than the Marshal of France, decided to take over, fighting amongst themselves over their respective ideas as to how to attack. They should have kept listening to the Marshal of France-who was an admirable combat veteran and an ex-crusader who’d fought in many battles, he was the most highly skilled strategist, though he was actually lower born than many other nobles, so without the presence of the king-who had appointed him to lead the battle (indeed he was the only one who had the legal authority to “Marshall” a royal army, hence his title), nor the Dauphin to speak for his father, he could not resist the protests of the other nobles.
LOL the French likely had between 20,000 and 26,000 men, the English about 8000-6000 of which were archers. 100,000 is laughable and actually factually impossible. Historians have well debunked this.
There was no ambush from the flanking woods, that’s ridiculous. Henry would not have personally been the one running out ahead of his men in to battle. He fought in the battle personally, but was protected by a vanguard of soldiers. His own brother the Duke of York choose to fight in the most dangerous part of the English line-which is in that vanguard- swearing to protect his brother to the death. And sadly, he did just that. There is a medieval painting that shows the King himself slashing away with his sword in an attempt to keep the French from retrieving the dead body of the Duke of York from the battle field, as this would still be worth money to them in the form of ransom. By fight, I do mean that the king made use of his own sword to defend himself and kill people, just that if he was running into battle unprotected he would have been the first person to die--battle over, eh.
There are still many things the movie got wrong, as did Shakespeare, and likely for different reasons. Shakespeare didn't have the benefit of centuries of historical inquest to refer to when trying to understand what actually went on, and I don't think he much cared. Here-say would have been good enough for him, he was more interested in creating a drama of characters than historical accuracy. Producer Brad Pitt and his buddies, however, did, and IMO-although they made some attempts at authenticity that were appreciated, for example, even though the dual at Shrewsbury never happened- if it did, it likely would have looked a lot like the one in the movie, as duals between heavily armoured knights were not too much about finesse as much as they were about being as brutal as one needs to be to kill a man who, due to his armour, is very hard to kill-they should have gone as far as needed to make this movie historically accurate. Not doing so ruins it for anyone who knows the facts, and anyone can eventually learn the facts and come to see a movie they once liked as being based. Time is not on the side of the historical movie that doesn’t go for historical accuracy.
I will lastly say that the biggest thing the movie got wrong was casting Timothée Chalamet as Henry V. It is true there are some portraits of Henry V where he sort of looks like Tomothée, and the ages of the two were probably similar. But the maturity and wisdom gained from experience that Henry possessed even though young, was a thing that I don't think Timothée could possibly have conveyed, not having any similar or transferable experience himself. Someone with deeper life experience to put into their performance would have been better, IMO, no offence to Timothée.
The title should've been 10 things The King got wrong... 🤷🏻♀️
Lmao the dauphin of france was so sick that he could not move from his bed and this was a shy guy,really respectful,some parts are also false like the battle where the french had not the high ground,it was the english and the way of how the king is show is funny because he actually kill the french prisonners after the battle lol
Number of oposing forces at Agincourt are so wrong, you can make another episode MsMojo about True and False in MSMojo "The King".
Your numbers at Agincourt are WAAAAY off. Henry had roughly 8-9k troops, and the French had between 18-25k. The French did not have 30-100k soldiers, and you should really check the source (or trash it) which gave you this ridiculous number.
Lol imagine a midieval nation that could field 100,000 soldiers
Theyd be gods
While I doubt France had time to muster an army of 100,000, they did have one of the largest populations in Europe at the time. Prior to the Black Death the population was around 20 million, after it was reduced to something like 11 million. England on the other hand had a population between 2-3 million, so the romanticised numbers of the armies are accurate to the differences in population size. Medieval armies were generally kept quite small so they could be more easily supplied, and to limit disease, so realistically the French army numbered 30,000 at most, though it was probably much smaller.
@Luke Coultard nope. Mongols rarely ever fought with nore than 30k. They just moved so fast that everyone thought they had multiple armies.
@@Jacob-sb3su China would be the only nation that comes to mind, they had a huge population even then
Holy Roman Empire, Poland-Lithuania, Hungary could field such armies
One fertile young daughter could gain you more than an entire 100,000 man army back then. So many medieval conflicts were actually resolved through marriage.
Almost no single Medieval army could realistically muster 100,000 fighting men. This type of gross exaggeration is something Medieval writers liked to do to make feats seem grander, victories more heroic and losses less embarrassing. Robert the Monk’s History of the First Crusade is an example of a primary text that exaggerates numbers beyond belief, even claiming that some Muslim armies encountered by the Crusaders numbered more than 300,000 which was pretty much impossible at the time. The numbers at Agincourt were more likely 4,000-6,000 for the English, with about 1,000 being men-at-arms or knights and the rest being longbowmen, and 10,000-15,000 men comprising the French army. Any more than 5,000-10,000 men (which was about an average army, though the majority were probably on the lower end,) on one side would have been considered a massive and terrifying army in the 15th century.
Oh, I hated Hal for basically abandoning and betraying Falstaff in the Shakespeare play (which was represented again in My Own Private Idaho, with Keanu Reeves playing the Hal character!). I was surprised to see, then, that in this version Hal doesn't betray Falstaff. I know it's not historically accurate, but it makes for some great drama, in both cases.
I still like Tom Hiddleston’s portrayal of Henry V better.
Stacey Vermilyea nah nah Kenneth Branagh for sure
How did anyone 'see' this film? I had to crank up the brightness of my screen, and turn off all the lights in my room, and yet I saw only shadows talking!
Not sure where you got your info but the French never had 30k-100k troops during that time. If they had 30k fighting troops, there was no way that Henry could have won that battle at all.
The French had roughly about 15k fighting men, the rest were servants.
Seems like these changes were mostly good scriptwriting decisions.
I wish this show is a TV series instead of just a movie so bad this King sounds amazing, he was only in power for nine or 10 years and left such an amazing mark on British history that he still thought of one of the best British Kings to have ever lived pretty impressive considering he wasn't even supposed to be king.
It had me laughing when you wrong someone existence
I knew it was more of a Shakespearean version of henrys life but some of the inaccuracies do disappoint me. Nevertheless still one of my favourite films
Loved the movie kinda find it weird how they did Agincourt they kept half of the strategy of English for some weird reason. They eliminated both the stakes in front of the archers and the surrounding maneuver. Additionally showing the slaughter of the French prisoners forcing the last of the French army to retreat in fear would have been nice.
Thomas was duke of Clarence and the 2nd eldest of 4 brothers .
Henry IV's sons in age order and by title during their father's reign are
Henry, Prince of Wales( Henry V),Earl of Chester, Duke of Gascony
Thomas, Duke of Clarence.
John, Duke of Bedford
Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester
Tennis ball 😂 it was just a normal playing ball for kids, tennis hadn't even been invented during Henry V reign
Tennis was well established before Henry V. Louis X of France who died in 1316 played tennis.
I don't want to spoil anyone's experience if they haven't yet watched, but in NOV., 2019, I ow that PATTINSON is BEYOND creepy in this....amazing !!!
As much as the film was solid, I think a more faithful interpretation of Shakespeare could have been better.
Another reason the French were defeated was the age and experience of their cavalry. Previous battles had depleted the ranks of France's knights so young knights in training were inducted. Many of the armored cavaliers used by the French in this battle were between 14 and 16 years of age and poorly fitted to their armor.
The battle of angicourt marked the abandonment of chivalry combat rules, as the english use more cheeky and brute strategies to win the battle such as pulling frech men from their horse and stabbing them while they were at the groud. The did also used long bow archers behind wooden stakes which was a sucessful strategy, not propertly protraied in the film
How many channels does this girl have
Yeah idk bout those french numbers at the battle chief the english initially had 12,000 at the start of the campaign but by the time of agincourt they had around 8,000 while the french had about 30,000 men
100,000 French men? I think someone added another zero by mistake..
“Where is the monster!”
after Hotspur died there did emerge a story that Hal had killed him a concrete that Shakespeare played on in his play Henry IV pt1 Shakespeare furthers this concrete by reducing Hotsupr's age to be closer to to that of Hal at Shoosbery Hotspur was around 33 years old where as Hal was about 17
100 000 men is a completely fictional number too. It would simply not have been possible at this time to have such a huge army in a western European country.
Historians put the actual numbers of the French between 12 and 20 000 men, probably 14 000. The English had 7000.