Historian Reviews Best Medieval Battle Scenes In Movies
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 ноя 2022
- In this video Matt Lewis, medieval historian and co-host of the Gone Medieval podcast reviews battle scenes in several well-known movies for historical accuracy.
First, Matt rates the course of events and weapons used during the siege of Orléans from 'The Messenger' (1999).
Next up, he reviews the disappointing lack of bridges in the Battle of Stirling Bridge as shown in 'Braveheart' (1995). The iconic passion project of Mel Gibson which features him as the Scottish knight, William Wallace.
The rivalry between Chinggis Khan and Jamukha in ‘Mongol’ (2007) is up next, where the Mongols are praised for both their archery and horse riding skills.
Lastly, the final scene of the fictional battle in ‘Robin Hood’ (2010) is reviewed, where Robin Longstride was memorably played by Russel Crowe.
#historyhit #medieval #moviereview
Sign up to History Hit TV now and get 14 days free: access.historyhit.com/checkout
And remember, as RUclips subscribers, you can sign up to History Hit TV today with code RUclips and enjoy 50% off your first 3 months!
For more history content, subscribe to our History Hit newsletters: www.historyhit.com/sign-up-to...
I love the story about the local at Stirling who asked Gibson why the bridge wasn't shown in the scene depicting the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Gibson said the bridge got in the way, and the local replied, "Aye, that's what the English found."
That battle being filmed at the Curragh of Kildare also caused a problem as its flatland with no Scottish bridges 😂
God I hope that’s a true story that’s hilarious
Did they ask Gibson about the kilts that are 300-400 years too early and the blue warpaint that's about 1500 years too late?
I was so ignorant of British history when I watched Brave Heart. There is a reason why it's called the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Brave heart is the very worse of history based films but a good action flick.
@@VinnieG-I'd rather ask him about the time travelling Spaniards in Apocalypto.
"May he forgive your accent as well." 🤣
I laughed right out loud when he said that!! 😂
Jovovich as Jeanne was supposed to have a french accent but she doesn't have any accent recognizable. Remember in the fifth element she was mute . Anyway good burn.
@@paulbismuth10 she wasn't mute, just shy "mooltipass"
I'm surprised the French had French accents. In Les Misersbles, the Count of Monte Cristo as well as countless other movies, they had English accents.
@@georgeemil3618 because there were french actors playing the french
Robin Hood making an impossible shot, is pretty much a key trait of any Robin Hood story.
That is the point of Robin Hood. Also the point of the Archer D&D character.
Impossible is an understatement. No one, EVER, is making that shot with a wet bowstring in medieval times. The string would come apart.
@@criollitoification Movies are not true? 🤦♂🤣
THANKS HISTORY HIT!
it just reminds me of when Russell walked out of an interview because they were mocking his accent in Robin Hood. Hilarious.
@@purefoldnz3070 Kostner? Oh they remade this again with Russell Crowe?
I honestly haven't seem it done better than Errol Flynn in 1938 There was a British TV show that I liked from the 60's that Monty Python parodied the show and theme music for their Dennis Moore Skits.
Wikepedia tells me there have been 20 full length movie versions of the Robin Hood story including four ($!!) attempts since Kevin Kostner's EPIC FAIL Prince of Thieves. Put a cork in it, throw it in the ocean and never look at this as a movie idea again. Every now and then trot out the disnet hour and a quarter cartoon fox version. It covers all the high points.
Don't make this movie again It has most surely and completely been done.
Having faced a charge of heavy horse (as an extra in a channel 4 documentary) I can tell you it is absolutely terrifying, the ground shakes beneath your feet.
That sounds like an amazing experience though, especially since you know that you're safe and can just focus on the experience without actually needing to get yourself to safety :P
@@MerelvandenHurk ive had a similar experience doing an amassed infantry charge into entrenched cannons with infantry support a few years back in a reenactment club...knowing all is well helps but knowing whats about to happen to you and what happened to men whom faced it is an awesomely terrifying experience
@michaeldavie-leonard3004 I can imagine! That must've been both fascinating and heartbreaking. Often I feel like people are too unaware of what the horrors of war are really like, or they are unable to really put themselves in the shoes and minds of those who lived through it or died for it, and they think too lightly of it. Sometimes I wonder if there would've been as many wars if the people who start wars (the country leaders etc.) had all been on the frontlines experiencing it as well. Maybe they would've thought twice about putting their citizens through it.
How did the people you were with respond? Were there others who stopped to think about the people who had actually been through that in real life?
@@MerelvandenHurk many of us who participated all had that butt pucker moment as we could see when the cannons were about to fire blank rounds (just a wad of black powder no ball) granted we had to be at the minimum safety distance. it still made us all freak for a moment. some people really did break and run. when it was over many of us laughed at the situation ( mostly out of nerves) but we walked away and reflected that had it been real most of us would have not walked away. its sobering and puts it into perspective.
@michaeldavie-leonard3004 Thank you for sharing your experience ^^ I wish more people could experience something like that. Maybe the world would be a better place if we could find ways like that to instill that kind of reflection and empathy in people.
The English shouting insults at Joan of Arc reminds me of that great documentary, ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’.
Love your work 👍
If only they didn't arrest the film crew at the end. I hate when they try to Censor History
It's doubted whether Joan existed
@@jammysmears4077 Yea, it was a bit jarring that Joan of Arc sounded more English than the Englishman.
Thumbs up for calling it a documentary.
@@jammysmears4077 Well it was a bit of an outrageous accent
"Like English people don't do this in Ibiza all the time..." is the best take on the mooning in Braveheart.
Filmmakers just really want to make their Saving Private Ryan / D-Day style battle scene work even in their medieval movie lol.
For real though. They did something similar in the movie Troy. If you have a massive army, you're not going to land on a beach that has a cliff face less than 100 meters away. Makes for good movie moments I guess?
@@shipwrecker37 Troy is stupid from a historical standpoint. But hey it is a brilliant fantasy movie with personal heroism, I would take it. If you want realism, you might just come to the wrong place. Documentaries are for that purpose.
@@shipwrecker37You say that but that literally exactly what the allies did during D-Day.
@@mvmusic8467 They did that at D-Day because they had to, or so they thought. The Ranger's that scaled Pont du Hoc did so because there was a gun on top of that cliff that would have absolutely laid waste to the beaches. Of course the Germans had moved it away, so once the Rangers got atop the cliff they found empty emplacements, but they did later find and destroy the guns soon after. Point being they did that because there was an objective in doing so and nothing more. In the Robin Hood movie there is no reason to attack along that cliff face knowing they would be facing longbows that were essentially not threatened by any weapon the french possessed.
@@frankxu4795 ???so films cant have realism
The fact that there is no bridge in the Battle of Stirling for Braveheart still annoys the hell out of me.
Braveheart is a dumpster fire of a historic movie.
Braveheart itself annoys the hell out of me.
It is an oversight, especially as they included the historically accurate Vauxhall Cavalier in the background
@@garethbattersby they now teach Vauxhall Bridge, (rainbow coloured).
It annoys me more because the actual strategy of that battle would surely have made for a much better battle sequence. I think the budget probably restricted them a lot for the battle
The Mongol "Suicide" horse-charge was actually done by prisoners condemned to death, and by being allowed to charge into war was given a great honor.
Soooooource
@@ContradictoryNature I don't think RUclips allows links to other websides.
@@playnochat so, they could describe the source so it can be found easily. title, author, place of publication. easily googled with that.
see thats a great idea. they're already gunna die might as well use em one last time lol
Prisoners in the sense that there from mongol rule or POWs? Cos they'd just kill POWs wouldn't even torture them
As for running towards enemies:
When an enemy Runs towards you, calmly walk backwards. Makes it longer for the bugger to run.
Maybe moonwalk and get style points as well?
@@laurilehtiaho9618 Ah yes, it confuses the enemy as well. Its like they were hit by smooth criminals
@@KamiRecca Fight or flight. Y’all could just beat it.
@@feliscorax ouch, what are you, a smooth criminal?
@@KamiRecca Nah, man… I’m just bad at puns - but it isn’t a black or white issue, it’s just human nature, so I guess it doesn’t matter if things get a little bit dangerous.
The leaders of the english army in 'Braveheart' look like they belong in 'Blackadder' rather than on a medieval battlefield.
Ironically Blackadder had pretty decent costuming for the most part.
What's Blackadder
@@douggaudiosi14 Old BBC comedy show with Rowan Atkinson. We're talking about the not-so-good first season.
@@hjorturerlend The first series is great, its just different.
@@skepticalbadger even Rowen Atkinson thinks the 1st series is bad
Giving Braveheart a 5 is being incredibly generous.
I think his reasoning was very fair… historically Braveheart is extremely inaccurate hence the 1…. But it’s a terrifically powerful film and a great watch hence the 10 resulting in a overall 5.
@@TheJimNorth Ditto...so watchable.
One of the most inaccurate films ever inflicted on an unsuspecting audience Should be banned because of its general awfulness.
@@alecblunden8615 bit harsh but I understand your point
@@rooroo8767 And here was me thinking how restrained I was.
That massive two handed sword in Braveheart is nearly a century to early for the time. Also that supposed "Wallace sword" at the museum has been thoroughly examined and is KNOWN to be three different blades from different time periods forge welded together with a far later era hilt attached. That sword is really nothing more than a "semi" openly admitted "tourist attraction". There is like a .5% chance that a small piece of that sword came from something Wallace actually used.
Wallace more than likely carried the typical single hand Norman sword (Oakeshott type Xa) or possibly a XII which is a similar sword but with a mix of Scottish and Scandinavian influence. (look up the Albion Caithness sword to get an idea of the style). Also since the Scots and Scandinavians had a bit of trade and culture exchange it's entirely possible that the axe would have been used a fair amount. Axes are also easier to make, cheaper to buy, and still do heavy blunt force trauma to people wearing maille (and heavy targets like HORSES).
Glad this was pointed out in the comments.
Don't want to start an argument, but Oakeshott mentions in the Appendix of the 1994 edition of "The Sword in the Age of Chivalry" that early examples of the XIIIa date around 1150.
Robert the Bruce was said to have an affinity for axes.
@@AnimalMotha The Wallace Sword is still a fraud though - reforged and reassembled at a later date. Perhaps a part of it was from Wallace's sword, perhaps not.
Wrong.
He used nun chucks
There has never been a traditional bow made, Mongol or otherwise, that shot an arrow 800 meters. Half that distance would be a significant achievement.
Yeah, crazy statement by him. You'd struggle to get a Mongol bow to fire an arrow 400 yards let alone 800 metres.
I mean perhaps maybe somebody could uncle Rico an arrow in a general area at hundreds of meters, but 800 meters easily????? Modern rifles can go 800 meters but definitely not easy depending on the shooter and the rifle.
@@parkerpugh4572 I think he is just mesmerized by mystique Mongolian steps. It is rather similar to some people's fascination with Spartan warriors or samurai. Thus, he is exaggerating the Mongolian bow.
"The earliest surviving piece of Mongolian writing is a stone inscription set up in 1226, which records a 335-fathom (about 575 yards) bow shot made by CHINGGIS KHAN’s nephew Yisüngge. " I m very sceptical even that 335 fathom distance
@@Internettrolloftheyear yes and as a historian, we call it “propaganda” and “romanticism”. Being a historian isn’t about making it sound cool, it’s about portraying actual events.
I love the ridiculous continuity errors in the Braveheart charge scene. William Wallace switches between 3 different weapons and barehanded at a full sprint. This movie won awards for editing...
People didn't like hitting their swords against armor because not only it didn't do anything (except for the blunt force trauma, which isn't a lot because armor tended to be well-fitted), but also because it blunted the sword.
Yet they still did it. See Matt Easton's video.
Yes, one can't just simply cut through plate armor ( like walk into Mordor )
but well fitting isn't so effective, if you mean that helmets wasn't loose in that times.
Fencing masks absorb force, not because there are many, many layers of cloth, but because they are loose.
Once I was hit with a sword made of foam, with my mask on by a guy who was striking really powerful ( too powerful tbh) and it did hurt. And with a knight who trained all his life... and a metal sword... oh my Thor! It would be devastating.
I would say that one would need maybe around 3-5 layers of cloth armor such as gambeson ( or leather armor ) not to get hurt when stroke with a sword in the head with helmet on.
Regarding Braveheart, yes way too early for kilts and way too late for Celtic war paint on their faces. That seems more like something the Romans would have encountered centuries before but not by this time. I suspect Scots & English alike would have worn similar chain mail and helmets etc. I suppose the filmmakers had to distinguish the appearance of the two armies for the sake of the audience.
It was probably to distinguish the two,bit you can't have am underdog film without one side clearly being "inferior"
They would also both have been commanded by an elite, inter-married nobility of French-speakers
That's exactly why kilts were used in the film. Though an acronym, Kilts are iconically Scottish, making them easily identifiable for an audience, especially in the battle scenes. Besides, it's entertainment and not a documentary. People sacrifice enjoying a little suspension of disbelief in pursuit for historical accuracy kills the entertainment.
Flags and heraldry would have solved that problem? Watch Outlaw King. That is, afar superior movie to Brave Heart.
"Why didn't they dig a ditch? we need more ditches!!!" Roel Konijnendijk, best EXPERT in every way :D
He completely destroyed braveheart and robin hood. This guy on the other hand: "that's about right"😂
Everytime I watch Robin Hood, I always wince at this battle scene. Archers holding at full draw, medieval Higgins boats and making the impossible shot with a bow that's been fully immersed in salt water. I'd rather watch the Disney version. Ooh-de-lally!
Looks like they took the beach landing scene from saving private ryan and recreated it in medieval-ish times
I enjoy this movie right up until that final scene. I can forgive some of the "hollywood" moments in the battle - but yeah, I can't get past the Higgins boats either. I saw this in theatre and groaned loud enough at their appearance that my date asked me about it after we got out!
I am surprised that he did not criticize Maryanne wearing a 15th century sallet.
@@mercarryn2042 Not so surprised. He didn't comment on the sh1t armour in "Braveheart".
I can personally hold a long bow at full draw for a while probably be able to let of 10 arrows doing it time after time. 100lb draw that is, i know they go higher but I haven’t practised my whole life, archers would and more than likely wouldn’t fire a huge amount of arrows they would often switch to swords etc.
And there’s a guy at warick castle in the uk that can shoot though the eye holes of a helmet at about 50 metres Iv personally seen him shoot accurate up to around 100 metres, and does it as a job/passion these guys would put any modern age man to shame.
The modern day man wouldn’t be able to carry their armour + equipment modern day soldiers carry 110 pounds which is double romans, chain mail alone is around 70lbs.
It honestly looked like that battle in Robin Hood was going for "what if we did Saving Private Ryan.... but medieval?"
Some more notes:
1. The Messenger: cannons were used extensively by both sides at the real Siege of Orleans, but the Messenger ignores them, even including a scene with a Trebuchet instead, just because it's more stereotypically medieval.
2. Braveheart: The English soldiers are wearing some very strange looking armor. In the 19th century Meyrick would refer to this as "tegulated mail," but there probably wasn't anything like it in William Wallace's day. As for the claim about longbows, my understanding is that at Stirling Bridge, the English were relying heavily on their heavy cavalry, and the crushing defeat they had at the Battle of Stirling Bridge led to a paradigm shift. King Edward had been learning about the power of the longbows from his Welsh campaigns, and the next time he fought the Scots at the Battle of Falkirk, the army was revamped to have lots of longbowmen. The Scots are shown making a formation with their pikes known as a schiltron, which was a real tactic by the Scots.
3. Robin Hood: Some of the armor is anachronistic. 24:15 What plate armor? It's meant to be about 1200, so chain mail is pretty much the best armor at the time. Robin's warhammer was designed for dealing with plate armor, thus there was no need to use them on the battlefield at this time. Marion's helmet has a visor, which was also most likely not being used at the time.
At Sterling Bridge the archers got separated from the infantry and cavalry. Archers only worked well when part of a combined arms battle.
1 the schiltron tactic wasn't used in the Stirling bridge battle
2 that frontal cavalry charge makes zero sense whatsoever and the magical disappearing and reappearing "pikes" make even less sense. Also even if they had magical "pikes" the knights would have just slowed down and stopped to go back and keep hitting them with arrows, at least in a world where the English are not portrayed as completely brain-dead.
What I loved in The Messenger is that they weren't shy about including Gilles de Rais and showing him fully there by the side of Joan of Arc, as the companion or hers and future Marechal de France that he was. He wasn't some cameo either, he was played by Vincent Cassel, a very big name in french cinema (and Monica Bellucci's husband at the time).
Yes, that Gilles de Rais.
The child molester serial killer was a great warrior too, eh?
@@FlyingTigersKMT de Rais was made Maréchal de France by Charles VII himself on the day of his coronation at Reims, in 1429. He wasn't a serial killer at that time, he became one only a few years after Joan of Arc was burned at the stake.
9:20 I'm going to disagree a bit with Matt's assertion that "medieval war horses were pony sized". Yes, that is certainly true for the period around the Norman conquest, however, William Wallace lived 200 years later.
While you'll often hear that statement, the study which experts cite wasn't able to differentiate between destriers and other horses which served the military...an extremely important distinction. Here's an except from the research paper itself:
"Although it is realistic to assume that the majority of horse bones recovered from archaeological excavations are not from warhorses, there remains a lack of evidence for what types of morphology and conformation to expect from a warhorse, meaning that the positive identification of warhorses has remained elusive from a zooarchaeological perspective."
In other words..."We examined a ton of bones from horses with dates ranging from 300AD to 1650AD, but we have no idea if they were being used to carry pots and pans, or arrows and food, or knights during the charge." By the "Late medieval period (when William Wallace of "Braveheart" lived) there were bones found indicating some horses over 15 hands (a "horse" is 14 hands 2 inches).
For anyone interested, here is the study itself entitled "In search of the ‘great horse’: A zooarchaeological assessment of horses from England (AD 300-1650)": onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.3038
The notion that Medieval war horses were pony sized was never true, even in the Norman conquest. That's ridiculous
I'm surprised he didn't comment on the frankly ridiculous fantasy armour of the English in Braveheart - metal plates sparsely glued (by the looks of it) to fabric making it look like sad Halloween costumes.
it looks like the costume designer read the term "Coat of Plates" and did no more research than that
Well that armor is definitely real they did a terrible job of portraying it the plates were sewn into the inside of the shirt and typically a gambison or similar padded shirt was worn under
Worst costume design ever. Cheap LARPers look more authentic than that.
At least they’re not covered in shit and have relatively colorful heraldry
"We loose the entire effectiveness of the Battle of Stirling bridge by not having a bridge"
The stupidity of Braveheart summed up in one sentence.
Great movie
Lose*
The situation: you've just destroyed the English heavy cavalry, you're tightly packed in organized ranks with spears. The enemy starts sprinting towards your position from 200 yards. Do you A) regroup your ranks and ready your spears to deal with the tired English who've spread out as they ran? Or do you B) disorganize your own ranks, leave your spears behind, and cut the distance your enemy has to run in half while getting shot at by archers? The correct answer is B of course.
Looky 'ere lads, he be one of them brain users, higher cognitive faculties and the like.
LMFAO! That's awesome.
Giving braveheart a 5 is being extremely generous, especially as and from a Historian point of view.
@JZ's BFF how so
@JZ's BFF so? Lol
This guy's sense of humor is pretty hilarious: "that's the benefit of the kilt." "May he forgive your accent."
One thing the historian missed was the feathers on the arrows when wet are basically useless and makes your accuracy really much more difficult
He did not fail to mention that. He said "Just as you've come out of the water." he doesn't need to focus on every single part that would be wet to get the point across.
The issue isn't really the feathers, but rather the bowstring. Once the bowstring is wet, forget about shooting it. It'll lose power and could break on you.
@@joost1120 I think we all agree the bow coming out of the water is worthless
I loved the relationship among the French knights in "The Messenger": a gang of friends having basically a good time.
I love that this guy actually explains what actually happened and not just “that’s not history “ great stuff
I love the modern landing craft for the beach landing in Robin Hood
Excellent commentary. Observations spot on. Thanks
Thrilled to find this channel. Great content and narration. I will spread the word.
LOVED THIS! It's also so crazy to actually SEE Matt because I listen to his voice on Gone Medieval all the time. LOVE GONE MEDIEVAL! And loved this video as well! Love this review series!
Saving Private Ryan's beachhead landing was probably the greatest battle depicted on film ever, sure you can nitpick some parts like the tank traps being the wrong direction or how liberal the German were with ammo, but still its a masterpiece.
So of course everyone wanted to copy it, and thats why you end up with some very weird beach battles like in Troy and Robin Hood.
The problem with that scene is that the movie is designed to give you the impression that the whole operation of D-Day was like that. It wasn't. Actually, there were five main landing points of which only at Omaha and perhaps Utah was any resistance of consideration at all, and that even in the early morning. The total percentage of casualties was less than in a Napoleonic era battle. As such, the whole scene is a travesty
@@fernandorolandelli4800 American unwillingness to use Hobert's Funnies was a contributing factor in the high American casualty rates: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart%27s_Funnies
Where is Monty Python and The Holy Grail? the greatest medieval movie of all time!
Andrew Murray wasn't in Braveheart because he was training to become a pro tennis player at that time.
Thank you and god bless 🙏
Haha I got a lol from that one. "Mouray" is the guys real name though. Besides, Andrew Murray is Scottish though so maybe. I bet he's pretty good after 600 years of practice.
Great explanations, learned lots explained so sipmly. Many thanks.
There are a few assertions in here that make me question whether this guy is the right man to review battle scenes.
Example?
@@douggaudiosi14 Armored combatants wouldn’t use swords, war horses were all pony sized, mongol bows could throw arrows 800 yards.
@@JimmyTownmouse Yeah I'm with you - though do realize, he said that you wouldn't typically use a sword AGAINST armored knights because they're not as effective as crushing weapons like warhammers or maces or piercing weapons like a polaxe or lance or something like that. Horses were smaller at that time, but pony sized seems a bit of a stretch. And Mongol bows 700-800 meters?! That has to be a mistake. The modern longbow record is only around 480 yards....so there is no way 800 is even remotely correct.
I love how at 18:10 the guys on horses just ride in the battle arms up and out to the sides and never ever swing their own swords.
It's a new level of stupid :D
According to the account of Henry the Minstrel, Wallace's favorite weapon was an iron/steel pole. Also, Wallace recruited a local wright to sabotage the bridge and had him hide on a board under the bridge waiting to pull the pin so it would collapse when the English were halfway across when he gave the signal via his horn.
Do you do naval battles? There's a Korean movie about Admiral Yi Sun Shin, who defeated the Japanese armada with a few turtle ships and fishing boats by taking advantage of the currents. Yi Sun Shin was the GOAT.
Was really nervous this would be the version of Gengis Khan played by John Wayne.
Loved Matt’s historical perspective, but I wish he had commented more about anachronisms in the armor, weapons, use of weapons, and battle tactics. Y’all should get in touch with Matt Easton of Scholagladiatoria, he can fill in all of those gaps.
'May God forgive you your accent, too.' Excellent! It's good, this.
26:03 Not even the best archer ever could make that shot. There is a reason that people keep their bowstrings dry.
And no mention the Mongol archers aren't using thumb rings and release either...
Reupload?
That explains the constant sense of deja vu I had throughout the video...
That is ABSOLUTELY THE GREATEST LINE EVER SAID....."...I wouldn't want to be running and meet an armored knight at the end and I wouldn't want to be running in the heavy armor to meet at the end a crazy scotts person!"
Mongul is an exquisite movie. So glad you included this one.
This dual-wielding "sabre" on horseback scene in the Mongol movie looks like complete fantasy can someone give more feedback? At least he addressed it in the end.
In re Braveheart, a local asked why the Battle of Stirling Bridge was filmed on an open plain, Gibson answered that "the bridge got in the way." "Aye," the local answered. "That's what the English found."
The story goes that the historical adviser said that
This was a brilliant video!
I really like this historian. He is objective, educational, and respectful. He doesn't condemn the movies, but he provides evidence that shows that this or would not be accurate and other things would be.
As for female warriors, there was The Order of the Hatchet a female honorific order supposedly founded in 1149, bestowed upon the women of the town of Tortosa, in Catalonia (Spain). So titled as knights for the defense of their town from the Moors by dressing up as men and using any implement, including hatchets to succesfully defend the town. That is the closest I have been able to find to an actual female knight. During the time of King John and Robin Hood. The Sheriff of Lincoln was Nicola de la Haie.
... although Nicola is also a man's name 🤔
Regarding Robin Hood, where did the French find the LCP s? They certainly did not exist for almost a thousand years unless the French "borrowed" a time machine .
I'm French and can confirm we had LCPs a thousand years before everyone else.
LCPs?
Of all the expert reviewing films videos that I have seen, this is so far my favorite. He really provides alot of interesting insight.
Great history lesson, thank you!
Can't believe you didn't mention the landing craft, complete with front ramp.
However, the arrows weren't those twigs. War arrows were really thick (and barrelled)
The arrow killing man on horse is spot on...They just didn't show archer with black board and chalk working out speed of horse and arrow, wind speed ,humidity etc etc.
As a military historian myself there was a one key note for me about the horses. He has noted and commented on that the western tactic is to go for the horses while in the Mongol part he also noticed they would go for the men instead of horses. I'm pretty sure he knows something about this but still suprised he failed to mention that why Mongols would go for the men instead of horses, well at least in the film. Well that's because even though horse is culturaly critical to Mongols and all Turkic in general, it is a custom to have a 1/7 or even 1/9 horse to a man ratio in war times unlike a western war horse whic could cost someone a fortune. Also one being a cavalry battle while the other was simply cavalry vs. infantry. Again, with the Turkic/Mongol style the men on horse will hurt you from afar or through pikes up close while they have rather heavly armed sort of tanks on the other hand.
Also a side note: As he mentions in the video a classic longbow in the west and composite bows of Mongols and Turks/Turkic are very different and composite bows are able to take shots much further since their purpose is to take shots like that. Actual records of a furthest shot belongs to the Ottomans for that matter and there are many recorded shots well above 750+ meters. The record belongs to a guy named Tozkoparan iskender and it is 846 meters. Though have to say the arrow makes a huge diff. So war headed arrows certainly wouldnt go that far.
Would love the hear your toughts about the battles in Ironclad :)
Come on! Where is Outlaw King and Kingdom of Heaven?
They left out the best ones
Kingdom of heaven is terrible
That Englishman hurling insults at Joan of Arc was getting even for that brutal French taunting in Monty Python lol
One thing never mentioned was that Wallace would normally target the nobles in a battle because whenever a lord was killed, the men forced to fight for him would immediately disperse and head back to their farms since there wasn't anyone left to compel them to fight. At least not until the next lord gathered them up.
"Yeah, let's moon the enemy. The English suitable disgusted, like they don't do this in Ibiza all the time". Hilarious. xD
Braveheart is indeed a great movie if we don't think about the historical inaccuracies, like Matt mentioned. He didn't even mentioned how Mel Gibson's William Wallace is nowhere near what the historical figure was. The real William Wallace was from a noble family from Scotland and fought in armor. He wasn't a poor farmer that wore a kilt to battle.
For a historian to say that the English army of the period of the battle of Stirling to be made of farm hands is disgraceful. Trained mercenaries bought up by scutage instead of feudalism as people think of it.
Since the reign of Henry III all freemen in England were, by law, required to practice archery at the butts every Sunday after church so many of the archers would be farmhands, yeomen farmers, tradesmen answering feudal duty.
"Unite the Mongol Tribes.... that makes them a pretty devastating force", and that is still a huge understatement.
Love the podcast it and the ancients are great podcasts to listen to.
Guy: He'd never take that shot.
Me fighting my dad instincts but failing: "You miss every shot that you never take."
Well that sounds cool. But that's like video game strategy. I'm almost certain if you are the intelligent fellow I know you are. Your Daddy instinct would be telling you something completely different were you living and dying behind that bow. With a limited amount of arrows.🤣
Giving Braveheart a 5 makes a mockery of the concept of history as an attempt to understand the past. It is so bizarrely inaccurate in so many ways that is may as well be classed as a fantasy film like LotR.
In ancient India (Mahabharata), to place an arrow at the enemy commanders feet was to salute, honor and introduce one's self. To challenge and potentially open the battle.
An honourable declaration of war. A salute to one's Guru. A display of prowess and where individual arrow identification was used, saying 'hello, it's me'. Acknowledges the fame and authority of the recipient
Hi History hits. I couldn't have put it better myself. I've got loads of history books and I do a lot of research as well no matter what it is. I luv history. Can't help it I'm hooked. You and your team do such a wonderful job in tell the real facts and story's. Of days of old, As most people get it completely wrong. And I hate that. Good Job history hits. From UK 🇬🇧👍 👍 b Safe take care where ever you are. PEACE ☮️🕊️🕊️ an old cockney gal.
Try a little more English so you can construct a paragraph that doesn't read like an eight year old wrote it?
I dont believe for a second that any mongol could fire an arrow 600 or 700 metres, and this guy is not much of a historian if he is happy to accept that.
I really hate this cinematic insistence on having people hold a sword in reverse grip!
Quite aside from lacking ANY power in the very few strikes you're able to perform, you also have no reach!! So, very few strikes, no power and no reach. But it looks cool, so they foist it upon us... If they had been holding their swords like grown-ups, they would have had an extra foot in reach for each sword. They would have had a far, FAR greater array of strikes they could unleash and they could do so with far greater power. If there were ONE cinematic trend I could delete and so never have to ever see it again, in any movie, ever, it would be twits holding their sword in reverse grip. OR, I'd like to see films where the person holding their sword in reverse grip is easily cut to shreds by their opponent!
'May God forgive your accent' was one of my favorite parts of this video😆😂
Robin Hood: Those French guys kneeling at 24:47, if they are experienced soldiers shouldn't be separated like that. I would think they would form some sort of shield wall.
15:38 0/10
The mongol composite is shot with a thumb draw and a thumb ring because at an average of 50" trying to shoot it with anything more (like the ENGLISH draw shown) results in finger pinch and messes up your release and our gallant expert completely missed that basic fact of the matter.
As well, resulting from a thumb draw the arrow would be loaded with the index fletch away from the Archer and rest on the thumb of the bow hand
A historian wouldn't necessarily know every detail about every weapon used throughout the entire history... Most historians specially in certain areas.
This guy knew about Andrew Morey but not the scottish schiltrons? He attributed a "bristle of spikes" to french tactics rather than the scottish reinvention of the phalanx? For sure Braveheart didn't execute it properly, but I thought it was a reference to schiltrons.
The Scot’s popularised the chiltron. Which was a tactic where spearmen would group in circles to combat heavy cavalry.
"high volley or flat fire arrows". As Todd of Todd's workshop says; "They had less technology, but they had the same brains", they would have been able to figure out pretty quickly which was more effective. If you consider defences with shields; they can either block high, or block forward. And so taking that into consideration for the question of whether they'd fire arrows high or low, I say: Why not both?
I wanna see your guys take on The Northman by Robert Eggers
Brutal movie.
Hold on, if we're already doing an arrow storm in braveheart, why would they not send the arrows in advance of the cavalry charge to disrupt the enemy formation before the charge hits? (And then the English infantry armed with pikes just give up any kind of formation and run at the enemy?)
I've never seen the movie and honestly, I don't think I missed much either.
Yeahhh it’s not the most l accurate but If ur more into the drama and just an emotional story then it’s 10/10
those tactics were not yet fully developed. Especially the pikes: English infantry never adopted pikes. they used to great effect a polearm called "bill", shorter and with a kind of axe-head
@@fernandorolandelli4800 basic infantry formations/spear formations had been in use since before the Greeks.
You don't run at the enemy in a disordered fashion. You maintain formation and either advance or hold position depending on the situation at hand.
It doesn't matter what polearm you are using, this is the exact same for all of them.
Another record that bears out the tactic of creating a known convention of surrender being completely respected but not surrendering bring total annihilation upon you is the pirate Bartholomew Roberts. Richard Sanders has a book where he examines the trial records for 'black bart' and it shows that he took 200 ships, and only the original mutiny involved a violent battle. His tactics were to employ a larger and more formidable set-up than most pirates and then give victims the aforementioned choice. He then took, if memory serves, 99% of the 200 ships through immediately peaceful surrender. The existence of modern insurance probably helped. Great book "If a pirate I must be"
Mongol: I just quickly noticed the archers used the finger draw instead of the thumb draw.
Well we don't go to the cinema for a history lesson I guess, we've got History Hit for that, but I do think all these films are tremendous fun.. Great assessment, pretty much spot on. Nice one team! 🌟👍
If you think history hit passes for historical education ,I have an exciting business opportunity for you involving a certain bridge for sale in Brooklyn,NY
Emoji
@@jacqueslandry2319 so why are you here?
For objectivity,fair and unbiased scientific process..you know,,that crazy stuff
“I wouldn’t want to fight the English with all that armor they have on and weapons.”
“I wouldn’t want to fight the scots cause they’re crazy.”
“Do like a good warrior monk.”
Hell yeah haha
Merry Gratitude-Offering Time
As a medieval expert on battles and weaponry I’m surprised you said a bowman “ fired “ his arrow, a common mistake as no fire is involved and this term is used all too often. It should be ‘SHOOT, or ‘loose. Not fire.
My single biggest pet peeve in period pieces and low-fantasy has to be amour that's only marginally more effective than tissue paper. Seriously, if wearing 60 pounds of steel meant someone could still gut you like a fish as if you were in your shirtsleeves, why bother with the added weight?
Outlaw king about Robert the Bruce is the best medieval battle scene I’ve ever seen by a mile.
Lol I just noticed at 3:21 there's no one under that drawbridge, in the next shot it's full of people. 🤣
Loved this
Correct me if I am wrong, but the "hedgehog" mentioned in the Braveheart section as being French was just the productions depiction of the Scholtron which was a Scottish invention at least in that form but...iirc from the sources would have been circular but ya know, with no bridge, not sure they cared too much about historical accuracy.
Have you seen braveheart? Cause I can tell you they did not care too much about historical accuracy. Best example off the top of my head is the battle of Stirling bridge that completely lacks stirling bridge.
@@parkerpugh4572 to which production said “well the bridge would have been in the way” allegedly…kinda yeah what the English found out too lol
@@jthomp72 I swear to god, braveheart is the go to example of “historical” films that are basically fantasy.
@@parkerpugh4572 well gladiator isn’t much better lol…given that they give them anachronistic armor and several other problems
@@jthomp72 oh god yea gladiator is rough. The whole plot line of Marcus Aurelius not wanting commodus to be emperor and for Rome to be a republic is just straight lies. Or the fact that commodus dies in the arena, something that can very easily be researched. Honestly, Ridley Scott is imo second only to Mel Gibson and Micheal bay in making the worst historical movies.
Those suicide horsemen were prisoners given the honour of fighting as fodder with their families taken care of after death.
Good show guys 👍
Stewart Lee's Braveheart review is well worth a watch.