Callum Whitehouse Lord of the Rings, in Kingdom of Heaven it lasts for about a day. Not that it did not happen, but usually in movies they always storm the castle, while many times it took longer in real life
Nothing, because in reality, Harfleur was a port town/city, and the English used primarily early type of siege guns (like bombards), a total of 12 pieces. I am much more curious about what it might be like in the Late Middle Ages, when cities, towns, castles, forts, etc. were fired by such primitive gunpowder weapons. :D
@senseo "But I think these must be very rare cases then?" I know it's surprising, but it's a fact: Not that rare cases it were. We have more comtemporary depictions about gunpowder weapons than trebuchet 's from the 15th centruy men! :P :D Go check it! "And using guns in the 14th century seems even more absurd. " They used them because it were much more effectice than any type of siege weapon. Have you ever heard of the Czech Hussites for example? Or the Black Army of Hungary? Or the French or Burgundian Compagnie d'ordonnance? These militaries used relatively large numbers of gunpowder weapons in the 15th century and they were famous. Many people are surprised by the use of gunpowder weapons in the Late Middle Ages. And the English longbow was not the strongest handweapon of that era because it was the hand cannon (primitive handgun). The heavy crossbow were also strong weapon. BUT the longbow or any crossbow clearly didn’t break through the good quality thick plate armor (only at the gaps), no matter how strong that bow was. Even with bodkin head (armour-piercing type of arrowhead) too, no way. However, the hand cannons pierced any armor at close range. That's why the bows were pushed out by the firearms. It is true that by the 16th century firearms had become widespread, and by the early/mid of the 15th century, gunpowder weapons used mainly in siege's, static places (walls, towers, warwagons, etc.) and so on. But as they knew, as they could, they used gunpowder weapons. BUT from the end of the 15th century, technology evolved and their use in open battles became more widespread. Arquebus (matchlock weapons), rifling, explosive projectile, and even breach-loading weapons have been used!!!
Alexander T Keith I suppose it’s because they are beautifully designed engines, in perfect mathematical and physical balance. The rope mechanism purrs when in use. Just a shame it was the destruction of fellow men that led to such a thing......we are truly fallen creatures with a divine spark.
Love it. So fresh and insightful. Really reminds you that without the intense noise and silly music we're used to in conjunction with depictions of medieval seige warfare, it was a somewhat eerie and solemn affair to a bystander. Days turning into weeks maintaining and provisioning a camp, slow and steady operation of seige engines, low voices, changing weather. Realism like this is so much more investing and entertaining.
The decision to not show the besieged's point of view was genius too. Like the men operating the trebuchet on the field, its just left up to your imagination
@@hoarder1919 The music or noise isn't silly. It's tense and somber. I think they mean there's not a high paced, action packed soundtrack to this scene. The music is cold and distant, ominous and filled with doubt. More fitting for what a siege was usually like.
this is the most beautiful scene from any film that i've ever seen. the way they showed the progression of the construction of the trebuchets during the day, then, at dawn, the firing of them, 1, 2, 3. The way the soldiers lit up upon firing, with the darkness engulfing them again, contrasting their silhouettes against the night sky. The booms land, 1, 2, 3. So incredible. I truly felt as if I were there.
Nice, but in reality, they used primary siege guns (12 bombards) and mining also happened. The trebuchet was secondary siege weapon at that siege. By the way, Harfleur is a port town, not a castle...
@@whisky8651 You wrong... You watch too many movies. Gunpowder weapons were already used in the Late Middle Ages in Europe. Yes they used primarily primitive guns (bombards) at this acutal siege too ... There are contemporary sources that clearly support this fact, Henry's army used primarily guns instead of trebuchéts and Harfleur suffered severe damage. Sources: blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/baptism-fire-steel-stone-henry-vs-army-siege-harfleur/ www.futurelearn.com/courses/agincourt/0/steps/8857 Guns used as early as the middle of the 14th century, there is a source that the city of Calais was also flogged by the English with siege guns (bombards-primitive canons) in 1346-47 (Source: David Nicolle, Crécy 1346: Triumph of the longbow, Osprey Publishing; June 25, 2000;). Contemporary depcitions about gunpowder weapons from the Late Middle Ages (15th century): lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/CsFpSpuJsg3lYNnHj2aY0RQjatbO6nMPqE0mFwfFwhodaT-BJoGiqpFSH5ZQHnxEqtNLEGi2cBQBAYsT8G_03XFD84vNNsxW www.stoplusjednicka.cz/sites/default/files/obrazky/2019/10/siege_orleans.jpg Medieval "super siege gun" (heavy bombard) from the early 15th century: Pumhart von Steyr (Holy Roman Empire) upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/HGM_Pumhart_von_Steyr.jpg/1024px-HGM_Pumhart_von_Steyr.jpg
@@whisky8651 By the way have you any evidence that I am wrong and you are right? Because all you wrote was "not at that time", but you didn’t support that with any scientific, contemporary, etc. evidence...
Why not? I mean, besides nearly constant warfare, blights, dysentery, open sewage, fleas, plague, rampant illiteracy, smallpox, no refrigeration, corrupt authoritarians, no religious freedom, and extremely limited opportunities, name ONE THING that's bad about the period.
Because the Early Modern Ages was much better (probably a little bit, yes, but not that much)? There is a lot of stereotypes about the Middle Ages. Obviously it was a bit harder to live at that time, but some people today still overdo it in some cases. Do not be informed by a movie! Movie is movie, and this movie is historical inaccurate in many ways... Not bad overall, that's it.
@@kev3d I see the sarcasm in your comment, but what you describe is not only true (and they are not quite true anyway ) for the Middle Ages, but also partly for the Early Modern Ages, and even for the Ancient Ages and NOWADAYS too (for example corrupt authoritarians, etc.)! Discard your stereotypes!
1:17 Something tells me that we'll never see a scene as real as that ever again in a historical picture. The sound of the impact seems SO real. I think this is as close as ill get to witnessing a medieval siege in real life... from a safe distance, of course.
@@darthjamula Kingdom Of Heaven, Riddley scott, wathc the directors cut one, about 3 hours. This siege nothing compare to that movie. U can't barely see anything in this scene.
Oh of course yeah I love Kingdom of Heaven I actually have a replica of the sword of Ibelin on my wall. Excellent film, though I just feel this film captures the atmosphere of a siege better than any other film at least from a distance. Kingdom of Heavens siege of Jerusalem is still fantastic though.
@@g0679 in the middle ages? What are you suggesting they do? They can't take that massive thing with them when they leave, it would be a huge investment in wealth and manpower to maintain and guard the thing for any length of time plus its made out of wood and rope so it will deteriorate quickly if left alone. It's a use it or lose it situation and they didn't spend months undertaking this herculean engineering effort just to let it rot in a field. Even if the garrison tried to surrender might as well make the point before moving on.
This scene is amazing. There's no glory or gilding what's going on. Everyone is moving slowly, deliberately - there's no rush. The men packing the trebuchet, the kids weaving baskets from straw, the goats rounded up in the pen. The music is the cap stone of this. It is somber and full of doubt just like the besiegers. Sure the movie isn't ONE HUNDRED percent historically accurate but is any historical movie, really? They got as close as they could with the production budget and locations they had available and delivered far more than anyone could have hoped. Favorite film of all time.
Lancer And that is exactly what I have done haven’t watched a superhero movie like in 2 years I’m tired of that shit why do u think kids are so ignorant today they know jack shit about history
Clone Commando Hi, I’m 14 and this is one of my favourite movies! We actually learn historh as a subject on school, so we do know a bit about the past and you can also choose to continue the subject throughout the entirety of high school, which is something I plan to do. I somewhat agree with you that superhero movies tend to be painfully bad and predictable, but there are exceptions like Wonder Woman, Black Panther, Spider-Man into the spider verse (which is a cinematic masterpiece through and through) and Dr. Strange. I would totally recommend you check out these movies as they really shouldn’t be grouped with other superhero movies. Have a great day!
Amen! I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you this but on the chance you haven’t already, check out Outlaw King (I’m Scottish so I’m slightly biased) It’s a phenomenal film with director David Mackenzie. I was lucky enough to grab a ticket and watch it on the big screen which made it 100% more enjoyable and it felt like you were in the middle with every battle.
the sense of weight in this film whether it is the armour or rocks hitting is truly amazing, specially the sound. It makes sense when they fight the last battle!!
While I love this scene and the music, the actual siege of Harfleur saw the English use early cannon against them. Henry V didn’t want to completely destroy the walls, but he needed to quickly force the people to surrender, and ordered the cannons to continue firing day and night to not only weaken the defences enough for the English to possibly storm it, but also the constant sound of the cannons would incite fear into the townspeople. Although it took about 6 weeks for the surrender to occur, the cannons were a large reason why the people had given up, the constant demoralisation, plus the fact that the French army wasn’t even close to marching in order to relieve Harfleur.
It's a great scene, but what it misses is the historical accuracy as King Henry actually used cannons during this particular siege, making it the first practical use of cannons in English history.
The music did its job in this scene. It makes me cry every time. Especially knowing what you know by the end of the movie. War is bloody, and soulless...
The sound design is haunting. The mechanical turning of the trebuchets in action, the sound of the projectiles sailing through the air, the distant but heavy thud of them crashing into the walls of the fortress. All backed by a quiet yet constant hum and choir. Almost as if to say what's happening borders the line of right and wrong. Just a task at hand noone takes pleasure in .
Advice guy: sire, this siege isn’t working Advice guy 2: we need to pull back Advice guy 3: supplies, french massing Advice guy: it’s all looking really bad let’s retreat to sea french: surrenderz king: kewl
Found this scene so interesting, so weird to see castles actually being used for their intended purpose, and sieges actually feel like real warfare tactics
Freaking loved this segment so much! The fact that we never see inside the castle really puts you into the shoes of the besiegers whom had no idea how their foe was faring, how long the siege would last.
For machines of war, they sure are graceful and oddly hypnotizing. I enjoyed this scene immensely when I saw it the first time. I simply couldn't look away.
I love how there's no romanticising about it. It is what it is and everyone just seems to be doing their job like they did back then. Sieges were apart of life. Nothing more.
As awful as war is, I wish I had a time machine, so I could see, hear, feel these machines at work, the snap of the rope sound is intoxicating, stunning work on the sound effects and the film was a solid 10/10 for me...
The sound the wood metal and machinations of the trebuchet make♥️....thats a sound thats not been heard since when they were really used...gets you sort of close to the times and people
My only complaint about Attila is the artillery. For one, it totally ignores orders and prefers to shoot into your own guys in a melee even if you target it elsewhere. And also in the early-medieval expansion... NO TREBUCHETS?! NOT EVEN TRACTION VARIETY?
The sad part about this is in the actual siege King Henry used 12 cannons with Bavarian engineers who took heavy losses due to having to get close to the walls to set the cannons up. They also stormed the castle anyway and managed to capture the gatehouse but that was it. so in the movie not very accurate to real life events, but still a great shot cinematically
starfish junky this is a weird hill you chose to die on The distance between the trebuchet and the castle makes it almost negligible. Either way, if you bothered to pay attention you’ll notice that the sound engineer actually did put a very slight delay between the stone hitting the wall and the thud, so I have no idea why you’re being so particular about this
this scene is beautiful but the real siege was on a port area and also Henry used 15th century bombard cannons. Im sure he also used trebuchets and archers too!
Henry V also brought cannon. The Siege of Harfleur cost Henry dearly. Between 1/3 and 1/2 of his forces had to be sent home due to illness or simply died in the muddy camp. Harfleur is a coastal town and was not perched on a hill. This scene looks good on film but is not very realistic. Henry's brother Thomas, arguably the most ferocious commander the English had, led forces to help surround the city and keep it from being resupplied. In the film, for reasons unknown, they have Thomas being naive and dying in Wales, total fiction. The siege was successful but was a pyrrhic victory for Henry who had badly miscalculated the time and expense required to take the town.
To date this has to be the best movie depiction of a trebuchet. Days and days of burning rocks smacking into a castle of solid rock. Just emotionless and relentless machinery
I always wondered why they didn't try to include them. Perhaps it was for budgeting reasons or something like that, but it would have been a great bit of history to share with the wider public, and would have looked gangster as fie, too!
There is an elementary error here: in the real world you would see the impact and then the sound would arrive after a brief interval, because light travels faster than sound.
Can i ask why? Personally i think if it were any other movie it woulda ended at agincourt, with some text to describe Henrys further exploits in France, but they went the extra mile and took us back to England and revealed a massive conspiracy plot, then the ending, “KING HENRY! KING HENRY!” just chills
The reason I loved this siege scene is because there's no "battle". It's just bombarding a castle until the people inside it either starved to death or gives up. My problem with Siege battles in movies is they show us this big spectacle of armies charging to walls and climbing it with ladders while artillery miraculously not hit their own allies in the walls. Yes this does happen irl but not as common as movies say, because it's simply too costly for the attacker. But this time it's different, we're actually shown the helplessness of the people inside the castle as trebuchets bombards their castle and have no way of fighting back, relying on their food storages, and hoping that someday reinforcements arrives somewhere somehow. Battles can be sieges, but not all sieges are battles, this Scene actually showed that for once.
This scene is so stupid!!! One partie firing at the other one, but why they dont defense themself? Where is the counterattack??? Some bull#hit movie scene.
I watch this randomly all the time, this was a great film however I don’t like how they changed the details of agincourt at the end the battle was already fascinating so don’t change it
This scene beautifully show that the terror of threbuchets are not about rate of fire but rather a never ending barrage that goes on forever. The main damage is not structural. Its a relentless assault on the defenders sleep cycle. 3 weeks from now the castle will still be relative intact but the defending soldiers will be too sleep deprived to fight back, let alone stand up straight.
whenever a movie depicts sieges or battles lasting very long time is depicted. Viewers just have to try to find flaws In a fucking movie by saying it needs cannon and what not....So what If its not historically accurate but at least they depicts the sieges properly. Viewers are just soo hard to please these days.
It's because now any people who watch the show have a whole bunch of misconceptions about history and walk into it with false beliefs for no better reason then that the shows producers were too lazy to make the show historically accurate
@@stevyjobs8436 You wrong... And the movie is wrong too... Evidence: ACT III PROLOGUE Enter Chorus "Work, work your thoughts, and therein see a siege; Behold the ordnance on their carriages, With fatal mouths gaping on girded Harfleur." Ordnance on their carrieges means guns, canons...
Finally a movie in which trebuchets are not modern day artillery and sieges actually last and don't end up in one hour
Cant remember a movie where it shows sieges lasting only an hour?
Callum Whitehouse Lord of the Rings, in Kingdom of Heaven it lasts for about a day. Not that it did not happen, but usually in movies they always storm the castle, while many times it took longer in real life
@@TBStudios91 last I checked a day wasnt an hour. Sieges can last for only a day
@@callumw1597 you did not get my point
@@callumw1597 no sieges can take for up to months or years cause castles are that hard to be attacked hence why castles are so used during that era
What I love is that it's always on their perspective and leaves the viewer to wonder what the people are experiencing in that castle
Nothing, because in reality, Harfleur was a port town/city, and the English used primarily early type of siege guns (like bombards), a total of 12 pieces.
I am much more curious about what it might be like in the Late Middle Ages, when cities, towns, castles, forts, etc. were fired by such primitive gunpowder weapons. :D
@senseo I hope, you will like my evidences! :P :D What's your opninon about them?
@senseo I agree.
@senseo "But I think these must be very rare cases then?" I know it's surprising, but it's a fact: Not that rare cases it were. We have more comtemporary depictions about gunpowder weapons than trebuchet
's from the 15th centruy men! :P :D Go check it! "And using guns in the 14th century seems even more absurd. " They used them because it were much more effectice than any type of siege weapon. Have you ever heard of the Czech Hussites for example? Or the Black Army of Hungary? Or the French or Burgundian Compagnie d'ordonnance? These militaries used relatively large numbers of gunpowder weapons in the 15th century and they were famous. Many people are surprised by the use of gunpowder weapons in the Late Middle Ages. And the English longbow was not the strongest handweapon of that era because it was the hand cannon (primitive handgun). The heavy crossbow were also strong weapon. BUT the longbow or any crossbow clearly didn’t break through the good quality thick plate armor (only at the gaps), no matter how strong that bow was. Even with bodkin head (armour-piercing type of arrowhead) too, no way. However, the hand cannons pierced any armor at close range. That's why the bows were pushed out by the firearms.
It is true that by the 16th century firearms had become widespread, and by the early/mid of the 15th century, gunpowder weapons used mainly in siege's, static places (walls, towers, warwagons, etc.) and so on. But as they knew, as they could, they used gunpowder weapons.
BUT from the end of the 15th century, technology evolved and their use in open battles became more widespread. Arquebus
(matchlock weapons), rifling, explosive projectile, and even breach-loading weapons have been used!!!
senseo I thought the Chinese invented them first.
the sound design is crazyyyy
sound of the impact is sooooo satisfying lol
The rope whipping sound at the end
The historical accuracy was too. Like literally.
It's like they recorded them being used!
@@catwearingshades in reality the sound would be delayed, youd see it impact and hear it some time later.
Wood: 200 Gold: 200
aoe2 defnitive edition is amazing!
Never leave your trebs unattended, that shit's expensive.
Stronghold: "Not enough wood, sire."
Wololoooooo
Lumberjack
Robin Hood
How does Netflix crank out terrible film after terrible show and then all of sudden release this absolute gem of a movie
Well, what you said about Netflix, and terrible films is debatable, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Maybe people just need some kind of show and it can be absolutely senseless but funny. People need rest from endless problems.
@@rob3791 Really:-)
They buthered Agincourt pretty bad, but the movie had its moments
@@rob3791 was just thinking about broken clock and u said it
I don't know why I find these Trebuchet so aesthetically pleasing
I would have been much more pleased if They had used siege guns in the movie (as was the case in the real siege), but anyway. Movie is movie.
because those fire balls = 3D?
Because they're trebuchets. They apologize for their own existance. They're just aweaome.
Alexander T Keith I suppose it’s because they are beautifully designed engines, in perfect mathematical and physical balance. The rope mechanism purrs when in use. Just a shame it was the destruction of fellow men that led to such a thing......we are truly fallen creatures with a divine spark.
Catapults are better. Fight me.
Great movie! So was the music. They should make more medieval films
I agree, but they have to be good.
And realistic
Agreed. I've always enjoyed period dramas/shows more than modern/contemporary shows.
I concur
Well it's not realistic but a24 is coming out with a film adaptation of the Green Knight
"Sieges are dull" - Blackfish
As long as I’m still standing the war is **not** over
@@Oakland510 I was born in this castle, and I'm ready to die in it
YUH R MUH QUEEN
because GoT apparently didnt have siege weapons aside from the slavers and the giant fucking antidragon ballistas
for reasons
I'm still pissed off with how they treated blackfish at the end :(
Love it. So fresh and insightful. Really reminds you that without the intense noise and silly music we're used to in conjunction with depictions of medieval seige warfare, it was a somewhat eerie and solemn affair to a bystander. Days turning into weeks maintaining and provisioning a camp, slow and steady operation of seige engines, low voices, changing weather. Realism like this is so much more investing and entertaining.
The decision to not show the besieged's point of view was genius too. Like the men operating the trebuchet on the field, its just left up to your imagination
there's literally intense noise and silly music in this scene lmao
Drop the intense noise and silly music.
I wanna hear musicians piping for the thousands marching into a Bronze Age matchup.
@@hoarder1919 The music or noise isn't silly. It's tense and somber. I think they mean there's not a high paced, action packed soundtrack to this scene. The music is cold and distant, ominous and filled with doubt. More fitting for what a siege was usually like.
@@hoarder1919 its not intense. its very toned down compared to most movies
this is the most beautiful scene from any film that i've ever seen. the way they showed the progression of the construction of the trebuchets during the day, then, at dawn, the firing of them, 1, 2, 3. The way the soldiers lit up upon firing, with the darkness engulfing them again, contrasting their silhouettes against the night sky. The booms land, 1, 2, 3. So incredible. I truly felt as if I were there.
Nice, but in reality, they used primary siege guns (12 bombards) and mining also happened.
The trebuchet was secondary siege weapon at that siege. By the way, Harfleur is a port town, not a castle...
I agree. Beatifull scene
@@kristofantal8801"they used primary siege guns (12 bombards)" not at that time...
@@whisky8651 You wrong... You watch too many movies. Gunpowder weapons were already used in the Late Middle Ages in Europe.
Yes they used primarily primitive guns (bombards) at this acutal siege too ... There are contemporary sources that clearly support this fact, Henry's army used primarily guns instead of trebuchéts and Harfleur suffered severe damage.
Sources:
blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/baptism-fire-steel-stone-henry-vs-army-siege-harfleur/
www.futurelearn.com/courses/agincourt/0/steps/8857
Guns used as early as the middle of the 14th century, there is a source that the city of Calais was also flogged by the English with siege guns (bombards-primitive canons) in 1346-47 (Source: David Nicolle, Crécy 1346: Triumph of the longbow, Osprey Publishing; June 25, 2000;).
Contemporary depcitions about gunpowder weapons from the Late Middle Ages (15th century):
lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/CsFpSpuJsg3lYNnHj2aY0RQjatbO6nMPqE0mFwfFwhodaT-BJoGiqpFSH5ZQHnxEqtNLEGi2cBQBAYsT8G_03XFD84vNNsxW
www.stoplusjednicka.cz/sites/default/files/obrazky/2019/10/siege_orleans.jpg
Medieval "super siege gun" (heavy bombard) from the early 15th century: Pumhart von Steyr (Holy Roman Empire)
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/HGM_Pumhart_von_Steyr.jpg/1024px-HGM_Pumhart_von_Steyr.jpg
@@whisky8651 By the way have you any evidence that I am wrong and you are right?
Because all you wrote was "not at that time", but you didn’t support that with any scientific, contemporary, etc. evidence...
Watched this last night. Great movie. The battle of agincourt at the end was crazy. Im so glad I didn't have to live in the middle ages.
Scarymoe well look at the bright side. If you did live during the Middle Ages you wouldn’t have lived very long!
Why not? I mean, besides nearly constant warfare, blights, dysentery, open sewage, fleas, plague, rampant illiteracy, smallpox, no refrigeration, corrupt authoritarians, no religious freedom, and extremely limited opportunities, name ONE THING that's bad about the period.
Fall of Constantinople
Because the Early Modern Ages was much better (probably a little bit, yes, but not that much)? There is a lot of stereotypes about the Middle Ages. Obviously it was a bit harder to live at that time, but some people today still overdo it in some cases. Do not be informed by a movie! Movie is movie, and this movie is historical inaccurate in many ways... Not bad overall, that's it.
@@kev3d I see the sarcasm in your comment, but what you describe is not only true (and they are not quite true anyway
) for the Middle Ages, but also partly for the Early Modern Ages, and even for the Ancient Ages and NOWADAYS too (for example corrupt authoritarians, etc.)! Discard your stereotypes!
1:17 Something tells me that we'll never see a scene as real as that ever again in a historical picture. The sound of the impact seems SO real. I think this is as close as ill get to witnessing a medieval siege in real life... from a safe distance, of course.
Lol, watch KOH kid!this is shit compared to that movie
@@Beraksekebon21 ok whats KOH? Always open to more historical movies so I'm happy to hear any recommendations
@@darthjamula Kingdom Of Heaven, Riddley scott, wathc the directors cut one, about 3 hours. This siege nothing compare to that movie. U can't barely see anything in this scene.
Oh of course yeah I love Kingdom of Heaven I actually have a replica of the sword of Ibelin on my wall. Excellent film, though I just feel this film captures the atmosphere of a siege better than any other film at least from a distance. Kingdom of Heavens siege of Jerusalem is still fantastic though.
And yes, the directors cut is the superior film by every means.
We built this bloody thing and by god we are going to use it
No consideration of its deterrence value?
The significance of Mutually Assured Destruction has gone out the window.
@@g0679 in the middle ages? What are you suggesting they do? They can't take that massive thing with them when they leave, it would be a huge investment in wealth and manpower to maintain and guard the thing for any length of time plus its made out of wood and rope so it will deteriorate quickly if left alone.
It's a use it or lose it situation and they didn't spend months undertaking this herculean engineering effort just to let it rot in a field. Even if the garrison tried to surrender might as well make the point before moving on.
This scene is amazing. There's no glory or gilding what's going on. Everyone is moving slowly, deliberately - there's no rush. The men packing the trebuchet, the kids weaving baskets from straw, the goats rounded up in the pen. The music is the cap stone of this. It is somber and full of doubt just like the besiegers.
Sure the movie isn't ONE HUNDRED percent historically accurate but is any historical movie, really? They got as close as they could with the production budget and locations they had available and delivered far more than anyone could have hoped. Favorite film of all time.
I love how there's only a few. It just makes it more impactful than like 200 CGI trebuchet blobs.
My favorite scene of this movie! The sound effects are amazing too
But the historical accuracy is complete garbage though.
@@planetkc I mean it's based on Shakespeare not on history
Let's take a moment to appreciate that etheral score. Strongest scene in the whole movie for me !
‘We must storm that castle!’
This was a awesome movie we need more shows and movies of these eras I’m tired of all these super hero movies
You don’t have to watch them if you don’t want to
Lancer And that is exactly what I have done haven’t watched a superhero movie like in 2 years I’m tired of that shit why do u think kids are so ignorant today they know jack shit about history
Clone Commando Hi, I’m 14 and this is one of my favourite movies! We actually learn historh as a subject on school, so we do know a bit about the past and you can also choose to continue the subject throughout the entirety of high school, which is something I plan to do. I somewhat agree with you that superhero movies tend to be painfully bad and predictable, but there are exceptions like Wonder Woman, Black Panther, Spider-Man into the spider verse (which is a cinematic masterpiece through and through) and Dr. Strange. I would totally recommend you check out these movies as they really shouldn’t be grouped with other superhero movies. Have a great day!
Amen! I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you this but on the chance you haven’t already, check out Outlaw King (I’m Scottish so I’m slightly biased) It’s a phenomenal film with director David Mackenzie. I was lucky enough to grab a ticket and watch it on the big screen which made it 100% more enjoyable and it felt like you were in the middle with every battle.
A.R I did see that movie as well and it was very good
the sense of weight in this film whether it is the armour or rocks hitting is truly amazing, specially the sound. It makes sense when they fight the last battle!!
While I love this scene and the music, the actual siege of Harfleur saw the English use early cannon against them. Henry V didn’t want to completely destroy the walls, but he needed to quickly force the people to surrender, and ordered the cannons to continue firing day and night to not only weaken the defences enough for the English to possibly storm it, but also the constant sound of the cannons would incite fear into the townspeople.
Although it took about 6 weeks for the surrender to occur, the cannons were a large reason why the people had given up, the constant demoralisation, plus the fact that the French army wasn’t even close to marching in order to relieve Harfleur.
It's a great scene, but what it misses is the historical accuracy as King Henry actually used cannons during this particular siege, making it the first practical use of cannons in English history.
and that the battle of agincourt is mostly wrong
He actually used cannons? Damn
Isn't the film actually based on Shakespeare's play, though? Itself historically inaccurate?
@@matthewjerome3496 Pretty realistic-feeling Shakespeare adaptation.
Cannons ewwww
Simple, glorious, horrifying..
The music did its job in this scene. It makes me cry every time. Especially knowing what you know by the end of the movie. War is bloody, and soulless...
The soundtrack is so haunting in the background. The movie was amazing.
This scene is superb. They really nailed the mood in this movie.
I wish they nailed the historical accuracy aswell
@@haaxeu6501 based on a play by William Shakespeare, Henriad. That’s why it’s not 100% accurate
The sound design is haunting. The mechanical turning of the trebuchets in action, the sound of the projectiles sailing through the air, the distant but heavy thud of them crashing into the walls of the fortress. All backed by a quiet yet constant hum and choir. Almost as if to say what's happening borders the line of right and wrong. Just a task at hand noone takes pleasure in .
The sound of the pieces hitting the castle are so satisfying
The cinematography for this movie was nothing short of beautiful
Absolutely obsessed about the score of this movie. I just love it
Advice guy: sire, this siege isn’t working
Advice guy 2: we need to pull back
Advice guy 3: supplies, french massing
Advice guy: it’s all looking really bad let’s retreat to sea
french: surrenderz
king: kewl
Found this scene so interesting, so weird to see castles actually being used for their intended purpose, and sieges actually feel like real warfare tactics
I've seen this movie probably 5 times now and this scenes music continues to be my favorite... Love it.
Freaking loved this segment so much! The fact that we never see inside the castle really puts you into the shoes of the besiegers whom had no idea how their foe was faring, how long the siege would last.
The cinematography in this movie is so good
For machines of war, they sure are graceful and oddly hypnotizing. I enjoyed this scene immensely when I saw it the first time. I simply couldn't look away.
The cinematic direction was flawless.
I love how there's no romanticising about it. It is what it is and everyone just seems to be doing their job like they did back then. Sieges were apart of life. Nothing more.
The cinematography especially when the sun goes down is absolutely stunning although simple
I'm triggered!!! They cut out the trailer scene where Hal's face gets lightened up from the trebuchets at night
I was waiting for that too!
I came here for that moment.
Anyone else suddenly remembered that we were taught this briefly in History class? Suddenly it makes sense with this masterpiece.
As awful as war is, I wish I had a time machine, so I could see, hear, feel these machines at work, the snap of the rope sound is intoxicating, stunning work on the sound effects and the film was a solid 10/10 for me...
The sound the wood metal and machinations of the trebuchet make♥️....thats a sound thats not been heard since when they were really used...gets you sort of close to the times and people
1:15 That's a rather substantial naval fleet for this period in history.
This takes me back to playing Medieval II Total War, the sounds of the trebuchets was awesome in that game.
My only complaint about Attila is the artillery. For one, it totally ignores orders and prefers to shoot into your own guys in a melee even if you target it elsewhere. And also in the early-medieval expansion... NO TREBUCHETS?! NOT EVEN TRACTION VARIETY?
The sad part about this is in the actual siege King Henry used 12 cannons with Bavarian engineers who took heavy losses due to having to get close to the walls to set the cannons up. They also stormed the castle anyway and managed to capture the gatehouse but that was it. so in the movie not very accurate to real life events, but still a great shot cinematically
The medieval version of the blitz. Absolutely beautiful
0:44 I like the contrast between the sounds of the first two shots hitting stone and the third one hitting a wooden roof.
It's unreallistic because the sound would need time to travel this far. It is not possible to hear the sound instantly from that distance.
starfish junky these aren’t modern artillery rounds landing 5km away bro
@@constantinexi6489 You still wouldn't hear it instantly.
I'm sorry, I didn't make the rules but that's just how it is.
starfish junky this is a weird hill you chose to die on
The distance between the trebuchet and the castle makes it almost negligible. Either way, if you bothered to pay attention you’ll notice that the sound engineer actually did put a very slight delay between the stone hitting the wall and the thud, so I have no idea why you’re being so particular about this
@@starfishjunky lol you dont, pay attention there is a slight delay, that is intentional
Watching this was an experience, an excellent bit of film.
I didn't know I can feel eyegasm because of trebuchets.
I like the looks of trebuchet and its action and sounds.
The sound of those impacts could’ve been delayed a second longer... Still Boss
One of my favorite Netflix Movies.
Im sure he used some trebuchets but he actually used early cannons to bombard the settlement port also using archers bowmen to skirmish.
This clip made me watch the movie. Thanks.
this scene is beautiful but the real siege was on a port area and also Henry used 15th century bombard cannons. Im sure he also used trebuchets and archers too!
also they dug tunnels and such really interesting siege.
I could watch this scene over and over again...
Henry V also brought cannon. The Siege of Harfleur cost Henry dearly. Between 1/3 and 1/2 of his forces had to be sent home due to illness or simply died in the muddy camp. Harfleur is a coastal town and was not perched on a hill. This scene looks good on film but is not very realistic. Henry's brother Thomas, arguably the most ferocious commander the English had, led forces to help surround the city and keep it from being resupplied. In the film, for reasons unknown, they have Thomas being naive and dying in Wales, total fiction. The siege was successful but was a pyrrhic victory for Henry who had badly miscalculated the time and expense required to take the town.
So, as stated a hundred times in every "The King" comments section, the movie is based on the Shakespearean play not historical events.
I didnt know they had cannons in the 15th century
The sound of the impact is amazing
Once more unto the breach, indeed.
To date this has to be the best movie depiction of a trebuchet. Days and days of burning rocks smacking into a castle of solid rock. Just emotionless and relentless machinery
Am I the only one that finds the scene satisfying for some reason? 😂
Beautifully shot.
IRL Henry actually had cannons
I always wondered why they didn't try to include them. Perhaps it was for budgeting reasons or something like that, but it would have been a great bit of history to share with the wider public, and would have looked gangster as fie, too!
Imagine the chaos happening inside that castle.
It’s better that they didn’t show it. Leave the viewer to imagine
There is an elementary error here: in the real world you would see the impact and then the sound would arrive after a brief interval, because light travels faster than sound.
But the projectile isn't made of light?
No it isn't made of light, but you see the projectile by the light reflected from it.
LogikEngine No.
Nah bruh the castle is only like 500m away it’s accurate
@@curie5312 then there should be like 1,5 sec delay cuz speed travels at 300m/s
The sound design team really snapped on this
I really didn’t like this movie but this scene is sublime. Just incredibly well done. So visceral.
Can i ask why? Personally i think if it were any other movie it woulda ended at agincourt, with some text to describe Henrys further exploits in France, but they went the extra mile and took us back to England and revealed a massive conspiracy plot, then the ending, “KING HENRY! KING HENRY!” just chills
Highly underrated film, well worth watching
The circle thing alongside the trebuchet are called treadwheels. You have to have a person running inside the wheel to make it work.
Thanks I always wondered how they brought the arm down.
sound effects are magnificent ♥️
Pity that (along with all movies) it didn't incorporate the speed of sound: the dull thud of impact only being heard seconds after the impact is seen
In reality, Henry’s army actually did assault Harfleur. They just didn’t include the assault for budgetary reasons.
No they didn't. An assault was planned but did not occur as Harfleur agreed terms via parley then surrendered.
This is the best siege scene I’ve seen, second only to ironclad 2011
The reason I loved this siege scene is because there's no "battle". It's just bombarding a castle until the people inside it either starved to death or gives up. My problem with Siege battles in movies is they show us this big spectacle of armies charging to walls and climbing it with ladders while artillery miraculously not hit their own allies in the walls. Yes this does happen irl but not as common as movies say, because it's simply too costly for the attacker. But this time it's different, we're actually shown the helplessness of the people inside the castle as trebuchets bombards their castle and have no way of fighting back, relying on their food storages, and hoping that someday reinforcements arrives somewhere somehow. Battles can be sieges, but not all sieges are battles, this Scene actually showed that for once.
This scene is so stupid!!!
One partie firing at the other one, but why they dont defense themself?
Where is the counterattack???
Some bull#hit movie scene.
The music made this movie so good
I thought this was a beautiful scene. Medieval life in war time portrayed like never before.
I watch this randomly all the time, this was a great film however I don’t like how they changed the details of agincourt at the end the battle was already fascinating so don’t change it
Pretty terrifying being on the business end of one of those shots.
This movie and Gladiator must be my two favourite films
I want to play The AOE2.
WOLOLO
nothing beats this sequnce, true kino
Imagine if the climactic battle in GoT would have been like this.
Sieges dont seem to be very exciting affair
This film is a masterclass in atmosphere
It’s weird but this scene reminds me of when I was a kid and saw the footage of “shock and awe” in Iraq shortly after 9/11
Same
What? The one where they announced "the war is officialy started" and showed the artillery and infantry going at it nighttime?
This scene beautifully show that the terror of threbuchets are not about rate of fire but rather a never ending barrage that goes on forever. The main damage is not structural. Its a relentless assault on the defenders sleep cycle. 3 weeks from now the castle will still be relative intact but the defending soldiers will be too sleep deprived to fight back, let alone stand up straight.
The little “thwip”at 1:27 🥴
Netflix has the coolest trebuchet scenes
This movie is a masterpiece.
This and the Warwolf scene from Outlaw King beat are just too good
Why my ears automatically expect to hear a "fetchez la vache" order?
Fechez la vache? Mier!
The sound, music 🎼 is great
Reminds me of Stronghold.
Such a great scene. Wonderfully understated.
whenever a movie depicts sieges or battles lasting very long time is depicted. Viewers just have to try to find flaws In a fucking movie by saying it needs cannon and what not....So what If its not historically accurate but at least they depicts the sieges properly. Viewers are just soo hard to please these days.
Even battles shown in History Channels were being Shit on. seriously, were the commenters born in those time period? of course not.
It's because now any people who watch the show have a whole bunch of misconceptions about history and walk into it with false beliefs for no better reason then that the shows producers were too lazy to make the show historically accurate
@@calvinhuddleston576 you’re too lazy to realise it’s a film based on Shakespeare’s play Henriad NOT history books.
This movie had fantastic sound design in it
And where are the bombard, he used canons during the siege of Harfleur did he not?
everyone's gangsta until the trebuchets come in
The English also had several cannons during this siege, they should've included that detail in the movie.
It would just ruin the dynamic
@@theonlywalltostareat5808 no
it's because people are dumb and they insist that cannons didn't exist during this time
Novacki or maybe because it’s not based on real events but rather on Shakespeare’s play.
@@stevyjobs8436 You wrong... And the movie is wrong too...
Evidence:
ACT III PROLOGUE
Enter Chorus
"Work, work your thoughts, and therein see a siege;
Behold the ordnance on their carriages,
With fatal mouths gaping on girded Harfleur."
Ordnance on their carrieges means guns, canons...
@@kristofantal8801 why am I wrong. All you've done is throw some quote at me?
0:41 in the trailer there was a similar scene but only with Chalamet. It was a beautiful scene, I wish they kept it.
To the medieval mind it must have looked like the wrath of god again falling down as balls of fire
Anyone else think that this scene is kind of beautiful?
yes