Відео

Good point. The lack of cuirassiers being killed does suggest that matchlock muskets were more inaccurate and ineffective than they actually were.

I'm currently having a break from making UA-cam videos because of school but I might make a part 2 some time in the future if that's something you think would be interesting.

The majority of the population hated the Catholic autocrat James and usurped him. They invited William and Mary to take his place, who were Protestants and much better suited to rule over a majority Protestant country than the Catholic Stuarts.

@@Weasel-vp8zk it was an invasion by the FolX of the two rivers and the Netherlands

Unfortunately, songs have been used as a tool for spreading propaganda and romanticising various "lost causes" (Jacobites, Confederates etc)...

@@Weasel-vp8zk confederates? Ok now I'm wondering if you trust historians

@@CountBeetle Please explain what you mean by this?

@@Weasel-vp8zk it's up above

@@CountBeetle I was comparing the idiotic Confederate "Lost Cause Myth" in the Southern USA to the romanticism and mythologising of the Jacobite cause in modern-day Scotland. I hope this makes sense?

Thank you!

Perhaps, although I do appreciate the lack of CGI. For a good portrayal of 'push of pike', watch the Battle of Rocroi scene from Alatriste.

@@moosey62 I hope that’s true but am not sure…

All I know are quite educated

@@moosey62 Well that's good. I'm glad to hear the Jacobite myth isn't too widespread then...

Jacobites do some decent fresh food places these days.

@@moosey62 When I was up in Scotland I saw a lot of 'Jaco-Bite' restaurants.

Interesting. I didn't have the in-depth knowledge of cavalry trumpet/bugle calls to comment on that! So, thanks for commenting.

Yes, it certainly wouldn't be as exciting to show the Parliamentarian cavalry trotting along in close formation and stopping to fire pistols...

Even if the targes weren't invincible, I suppose some protection is better than none. It would definitely provide protection against pistol balls and maybe it could deflect or absorb a musket ball fired at long range if you were lucky. Whether the bullet is deflected or not also probably has a lot to do with the angle at which it hits the targe. Thanks for commenting!

@@Weasel-vp8zk Definitely better than nothing especially if at longer range!

I'm afraid you are wrong. This film calls itself a 'docu-drama' and is attempting to portray a real historical event. Therefore, it must stay true to the actual history and attempt to be as objective as possible to prevent spreading misinformation and propaganda to the general public.

I'm afraid the portrayal of real historical events in movies does matter because it can give the general public perceptions of history that may be wrong or misleading. In the case of my commentary for this video, it was mostly just nitpicking small things that aren't very significant. However, it still makes for an entertaining and informative video. Also, note that when I say a movie or battle scene is "historically inaccurate" (because it is), I am not also saying it is objectively bad. Something could be a good spectacle or exciting to watch even if aspects of it are factually incorrect.

EX-cellent point!

It's the taking part that counts!!

great actor - and very underrated 007.

I must say that I did enjoy the cinematic element of this scene. So much better with no CGI.

This scene doesn’t show us the intricate tactics of the specific historical battle but instead gives us more of a broad feeling for what pike and shot warfare was like.

Agreed, but I'd still like to have seen it.

@@Pip818 Yes, it would've been a nice detail...

Yup! I wonder if there were many cases of wet gunpowder and muskets misfiring due to the weather conditions? Probably.

Yes, well spotted. However, because of the difficulty (especially back in 1970) of showing a bouncing cannonball cutting off horses' legs, I can forgive the movie for this... Much easier to show exploding shells.

@@Weasel-vp8zk Well, this isn't the only flick. According to studios, solid cannonballs are a myth and the exploding shell was invented 1 day and 3 minutes after the stone arrow head.

@@mikearmstrong8483 Well, according to Gladiator, the Romans used napalm on the Germanic tribes. 🤣 I've addressed the exploding shells thing in my review of the Edeghill scene so thanks for bringing it up.

I haven't watched the whole movie so didn't know about any of the inaccuracies outside of the battle scenes. Thanks for commenting.

Reminds me of a line by Broomhilda, the green-faced witch of American comic strips, quoth whom: "History's kinda like a mixed drink; ya just keep addin' stuff to it til you get it th'way ya want it." 'T'was ever thus, going back to Herodotus, Father of Lies . . . .

That's a good way of putting it 🤣

my grandad was in the LDV that became the Home Guard. He said certain aspects of it {Dads' Army} were more like a documentary.

Thanks for watching and sharing your connection with the Civil War. I agree, it is a fascinating era of British history. Please consider subscribing as I hope to upload a few more videos on the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, especially in Scotland.

Didn't the Scots change sides during the Civil War? hence the 3rd verse of the National Anthem - never sung now referring to "the Scottish Knavish tricks"? How many wars has man instigated for religious reasons, continuing to this very day and tomorrow, and the day after that... and the day after that... History is indeed fascinating. Pity that we never learn from it Richard.

@@a.jamesstretton3813 Yes, the Scots did change sides... well, it's more complicated than that. The Scottish "Covenanters" did switch sides, breaking their allegiance with the English Parliamentarians. However, there were Scottish Royalists led by the Marquess of Montrose who had always been fighting for King Charles. I believe that verse, which also includes the line 'rebellious Scots to crush', harks back to the Jacobite Rising of 1745, not the Civil War. The line is ironic considering that Prince Charles Edward Stuart (leader of the Jacobite rebels) had more Scots in arms against him than for him. Yes, religion is lamentably responsible for many wars and conflicts to this day.

Thanks for commenting.

I inserted 'of England' in the first line of this comment thread. I inserted the parenthetical and bracketed notes. I unintentionally omitted a bracket at the very end of said comment.

​@@ieatoutoften872 Oh and yes, Kingdom of England at the time included Wales. I think that is why there's no Welsh things on the Union Jack.

@@Weasel-vp8zk I just confirmed there are no exclusive "Welsh things" on the Union Jack (flag of the U.K.). 3 sentences from encyclopedia: The design of the Union Jack dates back to the Act of Union 1801, which united the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland (previously in personal union) to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The flag consists of the red cross of Saint George (patron saint of England, which also represents Wales), edged in white, superimposed on the saltire of Saint Patrick (patron saint of Ireland), also edged in white, which are superimposed on the saltire of Saint Andrew (patron saint of Scotland). Wales is not represented in the Union Flag by Wales's patron saint, Saint David, because the flag was designed whilst Wales was part of the Kingdom of England.

@@ieatoutoften872 Yes, thought so. Do consider subscribing if you are interested in more 17th-18th century British history.

Thanks for commenting.

I found the names of the oldest British (or rather English) protectorates. Notice that they predate "The Protectorate" known as the Commonwealth of England (1653 to 25 May 1659). They happen to be in the Americas: • Barbados (1627-1652) (as a proprietary colony under William Courteen, followed by James Hay I) • Mosquito Coast (1638-1860) (over Central America's Miskito Indian nation).

A protectorate is different from a colony as it has local rulers, is not directly possessed, and rarely experiences colonization by the suzerain state.

@@ieatoutoften872 Interesting.

Thanks for commenting.

@@Weasel-vp8zk I copy-pasted from an online encyclopedia, and would have provided the source were it not for the fact that I knew this social media system would have automatically deleted the comment.

@@ieatoutoften872 The more comments the better! Spout encyclopaedias all you want...

The regicide genocide Cromwell.

Not to mention a religious bigot and mass murderer

Thank you!

Never heard of that battle so I'll look into it. The image came up when I searched into google 'early clan battle' and because there aren't any depictions of the Battle of the Shirts, I just decided to use it. From a quick google search I can see that the Battle of North Inch happened in 1396, so the painting isn't terribly accurate as it shows the Highlanders wearing plaids/kilts, which weren't worn until the late 1500s. Thanks for watching!

Also the picture of the fellow in the leine with the javelin is Irish.

@@eddiemccabe4585 Yes and I also used an image of Irish gallowglasses somewhere in this video. 16th century Highland warriors probably looked quite similar.

Colquhoun here...great explanation

@@dougsmonsters4866 Glad to hear you liked it! And was I pronouncing your clan name at all correctly?

U sound like ur either English....or just very disappointed 😅😅😅😅

@@josefsterling5462 I'm English and part Scot. Disappointed in what?

I'm glad you're glad to hear true history 😅

Thanks for subscribing. It's much appreciated.

Yes, if the enemy was horrifically wounded, it could be seen as a merciful act. However, the lack of quarter shown to captured and retreating Jacobites implies the government troops weren't using their bayonets on the wounded out of kindness... In addition to this, a wounded man can still pose a threat to an advancing army, as they may still be able to scythe at people's legs with a sword or fire a pistol. Likewise, the Jacobites often showed little mercy to wounded and retreating government troops... Killiecrankie for example.

I seem to recall reading that many of the British soldiery at Prestonpans were slaughtered by the Jacobites even as they tried to surrender, in spite of Charles pleading for mercy. Charles didn't speak Gaelic so the Highlanders couldn't understand him. However, I now can't find where I read that so I apologise if that turns out to be a load of rubbish. Perhaps a better example of Jacobite brutality would have been Killiecrankie (1689), where fleeing government troops were slaughtered or drowned in the River Garry. The battle itself only lasted 15 minutes, but the killing went on for hours into the night. I'm not saying this made the Jacobites particularly monstrous.... cutting down routing armies was normal at the time. However, because this docu-drama wants to demonise the Redcoats or at least portray the Highlanders in a more favourable light, it never mentions Jacobite atrocities or ruthlessness. Likewise, the government reprisals following Culloden are shocking to a modern audience. However, that sort of pillaging and revenge-taking on innocent civilian populaces was a common occurrence in clan feuds. At the Battle of the Spoiling Dyke, MacDonald clansmen set fire to a church full of MacLeods. The church was burned as revenge for a previous atrocity committed by the MacLeods on the MacDonalds. Sometime soon, I will make a video on the most brutal clan battles.

I have just now found an account written by James Johnstone, a Jacobite officer, describing the slaughter at Prestonpans: '[those British soldiers which] threw down their arms, and begged for quarter upon their knees, were cut inhumanely.... such who fled into the enclosures were pursued and murdered...'

Glad you enjoyed it. Yes, a Mel Gibson Hollywood movie about Culloden and the Jacobites might actually make me have a fit!

@@loyalpiper I’m sorry that you are now aware of the existence of this monstrosity…

Yes, the Jacobite Risings and the Battle of Culloden were by no means Scotland vs England. On the Jacobite side there were Highlanders, Lowlanders, Irish and even a handful of Northern English. On the Government side there were English and Scottish Lowlanders, along with a significant number of Highlanders (including the most powerful Highland clan, the Campbells). I think there may have also been some Dutch and Hanoverians.

That’s interesting... I didn’t know religion also played a part in the conflict within the Jacobite command. All round, a very divided army!

I suppose it’s better than him having a strong Scottish accent…