Castle Warfare Expert Rates 8 Fortress Defenses In Movies And TV | How Real Is It? | Insider
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 вер 2024
- Medieval-fortification expert Michael Fulton looks at nine fortress defense scenes from popular TV shows and movies and rates them based on realism.
He looks at "Outlaw King" (2018), "Vikings" S3E8 (2015), "The Great Battle" (2018), "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" (2003), "Ironclad" (2011), "Robin Hood" (2010), "Game of Thrones" S2E9 (2012), and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1975).
Fulton is an assistant professor of medieval history at Western University in Ontario, Canada. He's published many papers on siege tactics and defenses and is the author of "Artillery in the Era of the Crusades." Fulton is currently working on the books "Crusader Castle: The Desert Fortress of Kerak" and "The Contest for Egypt."
For more information, visit: westernu.acade...
Fulton's books can be found here: www.pen-and-sw...
WATCH MORE HOW REAL IS IT VIDEOS:
Ancient-Warfare Expert Rates 10 More Battle Tactics In Movies And TV
• Ancient-Warfare Expert...
Medieval Weapons Expert Rates 7 More Weapons Scenes In Movies And TV
• Medieval Weapons Exper...
Sword Master Rates 10 More Sword Fights In Movies And TV
• Sword Master Rates 10 ...
------------------------------------------------------
#CastleWarfare #HowRealIsIt #Insider
Insider is great journalism about what passionate people actually want to know. That’s everything from news to food, celebrity to science, politics to sports and all the rest. It’s smart. It’s fearless. It’s fun. We push the boundaries of digital storytelling. Our mission is to inform and inspire.
Subscribe to our channel and visit us at: www.insider.com
Insider on Facebook: / insider
Insider on Instagram: / insider
Insider on Twitter: / thisisinsider
Insider on Snapchat: / 4020934530
Movies Insider on Snapchat: / 9616609930
Insider on TikTok: / insider
Castle Warfare Expert Rates 8 Castle And Fortress Scenes In Movies And TV | How Real Is It?
You can hear the collective heart-rate of the fans of this series increase to max as soon as he mentions ditches, throwing rocks and how stupid it is to use fire arrows.
When you finish the ditch make a second ditch
They need to bring ditch dude back for a 3rd episode!
Literally just here for the ditches
"Just use rocks. They cost you nothing, you throw them at people and they get hurt. It's great."
When he said that they wouldn't dig a ditch as it was already on a hill. Hands are getting thrown my friends...
I feel like a good addition to these videos would be ending it with a depiction that the expert actually likes or thinks is a good representation. It would give a the viewer something to contrast the bad examples with.
Bump this comment.
Great suggestion!
bump
Yes, 100%
Yeah, like they showed the siege in LotR return of the king, I'm sure they could have used the siege in LotR Two Towers and give maybe a 6.
This guy: where's the ditch?
Every siege in movie history: *sweats nervously*
ah! somone who also watches SortedFOOD
Vinland saga comes to the rescue though. 10/10 anime.
immagine if in lord of the ring the humans actualy stopped for 1 second, and started digging like dwarfs.
it would be called " lord of the ditch " now .
@@unknow11712 oh damn. You should have told osgileath before they got overrun. At least they got the memo at minus morghul and the moot so I guess it's just Gondor being silly.
@@MrKaiyooo Dammit Denethor you incompetent excuse of a Steward.
I appreciate how seriously he's evaluating the historical accuracy of a Monty Python movie
Them coconuts!
I doubt he’s even heard of Python.
I can't believe he evaluates Monty Python, but not The Messenger, Joan of Arc. Now THAT was an epic battle.
There's more accuracy to that movie than a lot of people initially assume (Terry Jones was a medieval historian, and I've heard from several medieval historians that some aspects are pretty accurate because of what Jones knew).
In the disc commentary Cleese points out that people’s teeth back then weren’t always as bad-looking - they didn’t have nearly as much sugared foodstuffs or refined sugar like we have today. Scurvy was a factor but not everyone walked around with rotted or missing teeth.
The big problem with sieges in movies is they are far too exciting. The most successful sieges were the ones where the attackers just surrounded the castle, cut off all the supply lines to the castle, and wait until they starve or are forced to surrender. Sieges would last weeks, months, years, in some rare cases over a decade, and obviously it’s hard to make that visually exciting and engaging while also maintaining some degree of historical accuracy.
the Rise of Ottomans: Siege of Constantinople did that just fine. Then again that’s straight up the events of what went down.
Padmavat did it best showing months of time passing and was getting gradually weak
The siege of Candia last for 21 years for example. Imagine making a movie about that.
See? Even he knows how important ditches are! Loads and loads of ditches, and when you're done digging them, dig another one.
He did forget about the rocks though.
They cost you nothing they take no preparation… You just throw them at people and they get hurt. It’s great.
@@generalerica4123 He said the rock thing at the GoT part
my man
Previous expert said that very same thing.
@@doomrider7 welcome to the joke
Ditches, you say? Ancient Warfare Expert no doubt approves of Castle Warfare Expert.
We need a video with the two of them together! Would be great to see what they agree/disagree on.
The master has thouth him well
There is only one Lord of the ditch, and he does not share showel
@@Cool231 nah. Original ditch guy is all you need. This ditch guy is half as charismatic
"Why aren't they digging ditches?"
Can we just take a moment to appreciate that this man is a certified castle warfare expert??? My man is winning in life
He's totally covered even if civilization fails and we go back to the middle ages. Now that's career security, folks
My irony-detector doesnt give me a precise feedback on your comment ...
You know that that you cant just get a certificat for things like this?
... there is no such thing as a "certified castle expert"
@@antoniousai1989 But he called the trebuchet, a catapult
@@deathslayer3492 A trebuchet is a specific type of catapult. Catapult is the generic set of war engines that throw things at people. Trebuchets can be torsion activated (called mangonel) or counterweight activated, like the one in the Lord of the Rings.
An Onager is a type of Roman catapult that has a bucket at the end, instead of a sling and it is what we most visually associate with the term catapult.
When he mentioned the ditch it warmed my heart 🤣
Lord of the rings is obviously 10/10 100% realistic for middle earth sieges
All problems with the defences of Minas Tirith can ve explained by numenorean engeniering
@@tomsmith247genuinely what i was thinking XD
It's true. Aragorn is my uncle.
csmith1@ really? Me to
” why wouldn’t you just build on top of the cliff?”
“ because they’re numenoreans, they are infamously hubristic”
The 70% of this that actually had audio was pretty fascinating.
I think we can all agree that he gets 1/10 for not giving monty python 10/10. Lancelot's attack strategy of multiple false advances and indiscriminate violence was both sophisticated and sublime
yeah, i was expecting a 10/10 on monty python
Lol
And that wasn't a market in the courtyard, it was a reception for the family of the singing prince's betrothed.
Let's be honest: he didn't like the coconuts.
As the clip was taken largely out of context, I wonder if this guy approved that fifty quid ever got you a descent castle defender. Should've covered the final scene and how common was it to have a castle charge interrupted by the cops.
I had really high hopes that "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" was going to end up with the highest score.
It really shows accurately what would happen if a psychopath attacked a medieval castle during a wedding celebration. Like a school shooting in Arthurian times. 9/10.
It seems the guy doesn't know Monty Python.
@@IntyMichael Indeed. Very disturbing. His credibility is shot. What kind of castle warfare expert doesn't geek out over Holy Grail?
I've watched it three times and STILL don't know what's going on lol
@@katieheys8564 the scene or the whole movie?
He should have reviewed Home Alone too. I would like to hear about tactics Kevin used to defend his house
LOL. Good point. You win the interwebz for the week
😂😂😂😂
It was his house. He had to defend it.
"House is Baroque but the tactics used are surely Medieval, 3/10"
My home is my castle. So I agree.
0:26 Scene from "Outlaw King" (2018) 2/10
2:40 Scene from "Robin Hood" (2010) 5/10
5:03 Scene from "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" (2003) 1/10
7:16 Scene from "Game of Thrones" S2E9 (2012) 3/10
9:41 Scene from "Ironclad" (2011) 4/10
11:16 Scene from "Vikings" S3E8 (2015) 3/10
13:21 Scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (1975) 1/10
15:18 Scene from "The Great Battle" (2018) 4/10
Those in the end are your ratings for the movie
Wish he did kingdom of heaven!
"-It took place more often when you had two groups facing off from diff-" Cut. Insider has the BEST Editor ever...
Seriously! It is so extremely annoying.
Insider, we need a special episode featuring Fulton, Konijnendijk, Capwell, and Rawlings. It can be 20 minutes; it can be 90 minutes, heck it can be its own series: I would watch it and I'm sure there are others with me.
Yes. We need to get these guys together! 😁 I'd listen to them talk about ditches for hours.
It can be a whole 12 hours and I'd still watch it
However long, I'd click on it sooner than you can say "Where is your ditch?!"
Oh yes! I’d watch all of them for hours - and I’m a girl!
@@Pflaumensuess Same!!! 🙏
i'm surprised that one LOTR siege he didnt talk about was the siege at Helm's Deep. combined usage of battering rams, siege ladders, and explosives, plus attackers using shields to protect an entire rank that was using said battering ram.
They need to bring him back for a part 2 for this scene too!
It is potentially the closest thing to undermining I've seen in a major Hollywood film, though I'd love to be proved wrong
As much as I love those movies. The fortress of Helm's Deep is utter rubbish from a design point of view. Shadiversity has done an interesting video about it.
GROND GROND GROND
@@kylewilliams8114 There's at least 2 american civil war movies that cover a siege where they tunneled under the walls of a fort and blew the wall up.
At least the trebuchets were BEHIND the bloody wall in Lord of the Rings, would love to see his reaction to the Battle of Winterfell in Game of Thrones season 8.
God! My spine is trying to escape from my skeleton just thinking about that episode.
What season? You know there is only 7 right?
He also called the catapults
@@matthewstone7706 Trebuchets are catapults. A catapult is any kind of large pre-gunpowder machine that lobs something at an target including trebs, sprigalds, ballistas, onagers and mangonels.
@@EmperorSigismund I think we can all agree that a trebuchet is a little more specific than just saying catapult yes?
Did anyone tell him that the castle siege in The Holy Grail actually takes place in modern times? :D
Not how it happens in Monty Python though
@@DrownInLysergic It's exactly how it happens in the Holy Grail :D
@@ramflight it is true because there are modern policemen who arrest lancelot later.
@@askthepizzaguy it's why I love this absurdist comedy and will always find it funny :D
@@askthepizzaguy Yeah, its a cop-out
He's that lecturer that awards no marks for creativity and effort
Like the Spanish Inquisition, nobody expected the Monty Python's Castle warfare.
Is it really warfare if it's just one guy though? :P
@@Shade01982ahah fair. he's a one guy army who storm effectively a castle whereas Arthur fail twice against the French and cant stop a police patrol
they missed troyan badger from the same movie, and cow launch
Ok, my mind is officially and irrecoverably boggled. This guy is a castle and siege expert, and he actually covered a Monty Python scene? I'm guessing he hasn't actually seen the whole movie.
And he's gay
I give you Castle Anthrax.
The spanking and the oral sex.
Been looking for that castle my entire life 😂
Monty Python and the Holy Grail was filmed at Doune Castle in Scotland. The gift shop sells coconut shells and the audio tour is by Terry Jones.
Pull the other one! Where do they get coconuts in Scotland?
@@Uppernorwood976 At the shop selling discount horses
@@Uppernorwood976 Swallows bring it there
@@koveristvan5500 An African or European swallow?
@@Uppernorwood976 They're brought by Swedish mööse caravans.
I need a video with this guy, ditches guy and the weapons guy all together
Yeah, there's also a cool medieval historian on history hit channel. Really engaging and funny.
Jesus Christ died for your sins please repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand 6637834577635499684
@@Kamila_Koziol gonna tease us like this and not send a link!? :(
I love that he was so harsh. I hope he comes back. Any movie he gives a 7 or more is going straight into my watch list.
TBH grades don't mean a good movie. The other expert praised the accuracy of the battle in Alexander, but admitted that the rest of the film is bad.
the two movies he gave a 1 are the best ones though lol
I think that this is a good critic for lying down and avoiding
It’s about time…so many experts say how bad and ridiculous a scene is and then give it 7/10
I feel like he been overly harsh to compensate for a lack of knowledge. he never really went into details or tryed to understand and more like throw some simple personal opinions around
There is an interesting story about a castle ruin close to where i was born. It's from around 1200 AD if i am not mistaken. The castle is on a small hill and when an army attacked all the folks from around gathered there.
The story goes that the castle was besieged when the Duke and the King Conrad the 3rd had a falling out. The king was furious how long their defense held and threaten to burn the entire city and kill everyone in it, if they don't surrender by next sunrise.
That's when the women in the castle pleaded to leave at sunrise with their children and everything they could carry on their back. They king chose to accept this since he already granted the women and children free passage anyway. The next morning the gates opened and out stepped the women followed by their children, what they didn't suspect is that the woman were carrying their husbands and the unmarried ones their brothers or fathers.
The king was astonished at what he saw and his soldiers were outraged demanding to kill all of them, but the king said he gave his "royal word" that they could take whatever they could carry and a king always keeps his word. Thus the women were allowed save passage and saved their husbands, brothers and fathers.
Since then the castle is know as Burg Weibertreu or The Castle of the Faithful Wives.
For the Game of Thrones one they should have shown him more. You see stones being dropped over the walls onto the defenders. You see a ram being brought up to break down the weakest gate there is. You also see them go up the walls on ladders. They do almost everything he described just a bit later in the scene. So it'd probably have gotten a higher mark.
Yeah, I was about to say. If you watch a little further you see the dude next to Stannis get dropped by a rock and you see the Baratheon force rise their shields to protect themselves. And then they pull up the ladders.
This bugged me. I was like dude cmon literally 1 more second you’d probably be more informed on the situation and the way he was talking he’s never seen GOT
@@leviwisuri8255 There's just no way you make it out of life alive as a "Castle Warfare Expert" and not view the Seige of King's Landing. He's probably talked with colleagues and laymen a ridiculous amount about this particular episode or anything battle related. Gotta make that degree relevant.
@@Nosliw837 the way he talked he hasn’t seen the episode. I’m 100% sure of it he was wondering why that group busted through the door after, like he just doesn’t kno
And then you have... the battle of Winterfell. The stupidest keep defense tactics in the history of TV.
Hilarious that monty python was even evaluated
He even kept a straight face lmao
@@Gurchen He said they were trying, which they werent, which makes me wonder if he even reaslied its a comedy.
@@dorianleakey To be fair to the guy, if he only saw this clip, he may have mistaken them for trying to make it look real. But if they really HAD tried, they would have succeeded. Terry Jones in particular, knew his stuff.
@@mroldnewbie ikr
I’ve never been so disappointed. He had a once in a lifetime chance to say, “He’s getting a bit carried away there” as sir Lancelot slaughtered everyone in the courtyard but he didn’t say it. Python fans would’ve exalted.
That or "He got caught up in his idiom".
Honestly, I don't think he has seen that movie before. And that's ... wow.
He did throw in a thatched roof cottages reference, or so I choose to believe, earlier.
I dont think he knew what the movie was honestly
8:10 "Unless you're trying to set a thatched-roof cottage on fire" like Trogdor the Burninator
This guy is much more harsher in his grading then almost any of the other experts in this series. But he is much better at explaining the whys of his grades. Moreover he uses his dry humor very effectively. The best of the series so far!
The low grades, the despise for flaming arrows, the love for ditches... My heart is warm and filled with childlike joy, brother!
I'd really like to see a conversation between this guy and the ''Dig a Ditch'' guy after reviewing these scenes
It has long been known that if you want your film to be realistic, you need to call a specialist who understands this issue, so that he or she would advise you!
Problem is almost all of the films probably paid someone who was knowledgeable about the subject, the writers/director just ignore them
@@harlequingnoll5 Yeah this happens all the time in pretty much every department when making a historical inspired film or show, especially when it comes to the costuming department.
@@harlequingnoll5 Cose often the facts wont be as exciting as flaming balls and giant war-machines.
Bring back the ditch guy for Ep.3
What usually happens is they do get advice from an expert, but that advice is balanced against artistic vision, practicality, the story, and what looks good on screen. Realism is rarely the primary concern for filmmakers.
I loved that he didnt just laughed off the Holy Grail but actually straight talked about the shown strategy. haha
Props to this guy for keeping a straight face and trying to find teachable moments of siege warfare in SftHG :)
Gotta love how he gives a straight faced review on a Monty Python's scene that is not in anyway trying to be taken seriously.
Also, you gotta love how NO scene gets it even remotely right. Blimey, the best grade is 5/10 which means it is failing class.
yeah, because siege warfare was super boring. you would be seen from afar and everyone would be ready. No surprises, no excitement. unless you get in via a wooden horse.
To be fair, all these gentlemen are forgetting that armies tried to avoid getting into prolonged sieges. And for a number of reasons.
A) Armies did not have logistics like we do today. Back then, these armies relied on what provisions they could take (none of them nonperishable), and whatever they could forage. We also see this up until the 20th Century when food preservatives become a more widely industrialized means of logistics for food production (which is why WW1 and WW2 are such long drawn out conflicts with IMMENSE armies numbering in the millions across vast swaths of operational areas and even separate, individual fronts). This also pertains to wood and to water as well. Eventually, an army at this stage of warfare is going to run out of their own provisions and will need to rely on the land around them to survive, which means taking the local populace's crops and hunting for local game.
B) All armies, excepting the Roman Army of their time for many various reasons, were made up of a small core of dedicated troops, like knights and squires and the like, then a slightly larger retinue of men at arms and trained infantry, then a majority of the army is conscripts called to the fight or volunteers with the promise of decent pay and three hot meals a day. But even then, these conscripts and volunteers are predominantly the peasantry, so campaigns need to be short and reach their goals within a timely manner, before the winter sets in. Most of these peasants come from their respective small townships and those townships rely heavily on the skills and skillsets of the farmers and laborers that make it thrive. Being gone for even a year can be disastrous for crop yield and trade for a town if a significant number of the working aged men are gone on campaign for their Lord or King. Which is why, for example, the Hundred Years War is not 100 years of continuous warfare, but periods of inactivity broken by spring and summer time campaigns.
C) Which leads to a siege. A siege relies heavily on the surrounding terrain. Battering rams, siege towers, catapults and trebuchets need locally sourced wood for the engineers to build. You need clean water and local food to forage for the army besieging the fortified location. And you need the means to ensure that you can properly prevent illness from spreading through the encampment.
D) More importantly, most sieges are a waiting game. These armies don't have fresh troops waiting to come into the fight. What any Lord or King has brought, is what he has to work with. To lay siege is often just a prolonged game of waiting to see who runs out of provisions first. And whether or not an allied estate with sufficient force can come to the aid of the besieged city (like the Siege of Vienna, and the arrival of the Winged Hussars turning the tide of the battle at the last moment). So to portray a genuine siege of a fortified settlement or city, is often a several month, to even several year, endeavor. But that Lord or King has to be absolutely confident that they properly encircled the place, ensured no messengers can break through the picket lines to give news of the siege to allied forces, and have sufficient supplies to ensure the siege can be maintained without fear of going hungry themselves, while starving out the defenders.
Most castles and fortified locations fell because they ran out of food and surrendered the city rather than starve. There are notable instances that often pop out where a fortified location is besieged and assaulted (because that's more exciting than hearing about a 2 year siege that ended because the defenders had run out of food), but few of them end up actually falling to the besieging force. And the cost of taking said location is often heavy for the toll, because often a location taken by force will also see its women and children and the elderly get caught up in the violence (we often see this with cultural enemies, like that of the Crusaders and the Jihadists). And equally so with regards to the attackers (3 to 1 odds necessary to take any defensive position), because the defenders aren't just protecting a wall. They're protecting the people within, many, if not all, of these men having families within said walls. And considering Sun Tzu's the Art of War, a fighting force put into a position where there is no escape, knowing they will die, will fight like animals to survive and throw back the besieging force.
This guy and ditch daddy seem to have roughly the same opinion on movie sieges, but if my experience with academics has taught me anything, in reality they would vehemently disagree with each other and have long-winded, impossible-to-follow discussions about it.
10/10 would still watch that discussion between this guy and the original ditch guy.
The "ditch guy" said on Twitter that he recommanded this expert to Insider.
"Ditch Daddy."
Genius
I worked as a technical support at math conference. You should have heard those impossible-to-follow discussions
D I T C H D A D D Y
This guy is giving GOOD reviews. A lot of the others cater too much. We can love these movies and find they aren’t perfect for the real world but that’s why we love ‘em. The reviewers should grade hard but fair like this guy
It feels too nitpicky when he just gives them 1s or 3s because of a couple of things they got "wrong" when they movie was not aiming for historical realism.
@@tomasxfranco Last time I checked, the series is called "How Real Is It?" not "Did It Accomplish What It's Aiming For?"
He gives Minas Tirith a score of 1 which got 7 levels you got to conquer to take the castle. There is a bunch missing in all the reviews which we can't blame him for but it still makes it a bad video.
@John Doe historical realism/accuracy isn't the same as realism/verosimilitud. You should try to make things make sense in the context that they are in (verosimilitud), I'm not saying otherwise.
He judged aspects of a fantasy world/story not on the merit in that world but with how well they fit historically in relation to some arbitrary point of our European history.
Not to mention some of his points would have been addressed just by rolling the tape forward 10 seconds...
@@TheSparker96 Why does Minas Tirith having 7 levels of redundancy disprove his thesis on the realism of the defenses themselves? Now you just have 7 more layers of the same not realistic defenses.
This is one of the best series on YT. Thank you
Damn He did lord of the rings dirty. In the siege that he is rating there was depictions of them having to capture surrounding areas to be able to get their forces over the water. There was use of attempts to bombard, and demoralize the defenders before the siege itself takes place. There was use of large siege towers and battering rams. There was use of flying units trying to break apart their catapults, which would be the equivalent of the modern day bombing of artillery. There was use of armored trolls to use shock and awe to break the front defensive lines behind the gate, before the weaker units can enter. These are all strategies that people would use given they lived in a world where things like trolls existed.
He himself mentioned the using of heads to demoralize being a historically accurate thing, yet none of that was even considered, because he didn't like some catapults placement and couldn't understand perceptive to the point where he figured that deserves a 1/10. The projectile only looked bigger than the catapult because it was closer to the view of the audience. That's how perspective works.
I can say as someone who is extremely familiar with accurate battle simulations, and who has experimented extensively with creating catapults, that his idea of putting the catapult behind a wall may be useful in specific cases, but not this one. First of all his assertion of the height being a detriment, is completely wrong when dealing with heights like that. The main concern that I would have as an engineer building defenses in a place like that would be that the catapults would have a problem with shooting to far. This could be remedied by not putting as much force into the shot, or launching a larger projectile, or building a catapult with these problems in mind. It's clear that they went the second option, which is the best one in my opinion. Although those chunks of buildings were to big for a catapult of that size to launch, it would be a great type of projectile to launch, if you can actually apply the launched force to it property with its odd shape, because the bricks would realistically come apart and possibly work like grape shot.
One of the advantages that they would have from that height, is that depending on the type of catapult it is difficult to impossible to shoot at a very upwards arc while maintaining much power in the launch. If anything it's the fact that the orcs were able to fire back effectively, that was the most inaccurate part. That also makes his point about the building having to be round also null, because there is no way they would be able to effectively hit the higher tiers at the height they were built. In fact from experimentation, We leaned that there is an optimal height that catapults tend to hit depending on the size and type of the catapult, that can be fortified a certain way to make catapults really weak against it. That would be below the height of the first wall, for that type of catapult, even if the orc catapults were placed at the optimal distance. The rest of the buildings weren't really at risk.
He didn't even mention it, but just in case, Yes the city didn't have a moat, it didn't need it that much considering the lowest wall could be abandoned and the lower level could serve as a sort of moat since the lowest level appeared to be within bow range of the level above, but a moat would have been better.
I would give it a little negative because the lack of moat, and the depictions of catapults not being completely right, but for the reasons that i mentioned. The tactics were actually pretty good and it depicted a prolonged siege and capture of the surrounding territories as being important which would be a huge positive on a rating. The main negative that I could see, is that even though they had access to an ancient powerful general, The witch king of Agmar, they still made the mistake of attacking immediately a few hours before the whole of their army was assembled, and were taken completely surprised by a massive Rohirrim army moving at forced march. That is especially problematic considering said general had access to flying units, that should have been able to see them from miles away. That all considered, a much more apt rating would be a 7/10.
They forgot to add the "0" after the "1" he gave Monty Python. 10/10, would highly recommend.
thought he'd mention, it always bothered me how the minas tirith wall crumbles when the orc rocks hit it. i get they wanted to make it dramatic, but it looks like a boulder hitting an unmortared stacked pile of bricks
Turns out that they're bad at building stuff I guess
Think it was more the artistic vision over-ruling the logic and reality.
I've also been bugged by how it seems like an old 3D simulation, but alas.
Well it's technically not the wall, but a civilian house. The lower walls are the only ones said to be of "unbreakable dark stone", while the rest were white in the books.
@Ulfang999 Agreed, Minas Tirith is all about the last ride of the Rohirrim, which is still ridiculous in it's own right if one actually stops to think about it, but it's still awesome.
It's an extra shame, because the walls of Minas Tirith in the books were essentially indestructible, much like the walls of Orthanc. Minas Tirith was one of the few remaining Numenorean structures left, and those blokes were the guys that literally stormed the beaches of heaven, and God Himself stepped in and wiped them off the face of the earth for that transgression. They sure knew how to build stuff, though.
But the movie made it crumble like a Jenga tower. The book stated that when the defenders of Minas Tirith saw the forces of Mordor building the siege engines, they "laughed and did not fear such devices". The problem was that those siege engines weren't for the walls--they threw incendiary munitions _over_ the walls and lit the entire first circle on fire, which was well portrayed in the movie (along with the severed heads, too). But the walls were essentially unbreakable, which was poorly represented.
LMFAO! This dude held no punches, straight savage with his ratings. I love it!
Yup. Most Hollywood sieges are much too simplistic and short compared to reality. Mostly this is because people don't want to die. It is much more likely that you wont get killed by simply surrounding the castle and waiting until their food ran out than trying to storm the place.
@@chuckhoyle1211 Oh it makes complete sense. I don't know why so many people watch movies (not documentaries) and think they are somehow historically accurate! They are meant for entertainment value! I compare it to people thinking when a comedian tells a story that the entire story itself is true. Sure PARTS are true, PARTS may be accurate. Overall though it is created for entertainment value. Cheers!
Strange that no mention was made of the defences the attackers would face if they did break through the gate - these were often a death trap for anyone who came through the gate. Consequently, attacks were often focused on repeatedly hurling projectiles at a few specific points of the wall, gradually weakening it. Once it collapsed, attackers had a much easier route inside than going through the gate.
Pre gun powder it was very difficult to use projectiles to knock a hole in a wall. They were often hurled over them to try to harass and injure the defenders.
Battle of Minas tiriith has some great points. To give it one is sad. The way they stacked up bodies at the gate was awesome. I was ok with the trebuchets.
Jesus Christ died for your sins please repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand 6637834577635499684
This guy knows his stuff - I hope studios hire him to provide more accurate direction. I also love that he didn't pull any punches and ranked everything accurately rather than some who like to give everything seven or eight. Good job!
With the way Hollywood makes these kinds of movies you could just get some random dude to say they need to have a ditch, stop lighting arrows on fire, use ladders and throw stones plus some made up dates and most everyone watching the video wouldn't know that they were a fake.
Most movies are made with a team of consultants. Problem is reality interferes with drama, so it's a literal trope that directors ignore experts
I kind of like when the experts are brutally honest on the 'big picture' but still can give props to smaller details that are accurate in movies. In my opinion he could have been more generous without being sycophantic.
Rankings are almost never about the number, but the relation to the other numbers.
Actually he doesn’t. The battle at Rochester Castle was real and he flub it
Although, I can’t possibly see how he didn’t rate The Holy Grail a 10. They should have shown the seen of Arthur attacking the French since clearly heavily accented name calling is an effective defensive tactic.
Would have loved to hear his opinion of a French castle in England.
Taunting the enemy mercilessly, the pinnacle of psychological warfare.
The French broke a siege with nothing but livestock, despite initially being fooled by the Trojan Bunny. Then after securing the grail, they had only mud and insults to hurl and were again victorious.
Monty Python gets 0 just because King Arthur isn't a girl and Gawain doesn't shout EXCALIBUR GELATINE when setting your team on fire.
That game of thrones clip with the battle of blackwater could have been slightly longer. Like he said, the defenders threw down rocks a few moments later and one of them smashes the head of the guy next to Stannis.
Yes, also missing the part where they use ladders to scale the walls...
Another thing is, he commented on the attacking force not being large enough. Due to budget restrictions on the show. Large scale battles were not a thing in the early seasons. Stannis had 30-40 thousand men at his command in this battle in the book
@@mattiasandersson8693 yeah, those scenes screamed: "we dont have enough money, pls refer to the book and your imagination lads!"
@@pbrgm they did pretty well anyway though. I prefer the early ones to the shitstorm that comes later
@@mattiasandersson8693 Also the fact that most of the attacking forces were decimated before reaching landfall, due to the bay being set alight and ships destroyed. The men who made it to the wall were actually survivors of the initial wave and there were supposed to be more.
8:17 if you had spent just like 5 more seconds watching that scene, you would have noticed that before the "any man dies with a clean sword" line is given the episode actually does very clearly show soldiers on top of the ramparts dropping large rocks onto the attacking enemies below. They even show 1 dude's head explode as a large rock crushes it, and the other soldiers immediately hold their shields above their heads to avoid the same fate.
I feel like this guy could see actual footage of the fall of Constantinople and he'd give it a 4/10 for realism.
"Those canons of the Ottomans where made actually in 1636"
When he mentioned the ditch it warmed my heart 🤣
“For him to go around killing people indiscriminately, that actually makes sense.”
*Psychiatry expert enters the chat
I rate this expert at 1/1000 for questioning the historical accuracy of a Monty Python movie.
Of all the films to pick from, why the heck did they pick that?
She turned me into a newt!
agreed, he obviously has not seen this movie, if he did he'd know there wasn't a "market" in the castle but that they were wedding preparations. how can he call himself an expert when he hasn't seen this movie?
@@lunatickgeo agreed
@@lunatickgeo If they had called a sparrow expert, it would be more useful.
1. It wasn't a market inside the Monty Python castle, it was a wedding feast.
2. It was covered in flowers because of said wedding.
5. He was not capturing the castle, he was saving the princess because.. well.. he's lancelot.
Despite the fact that it was not even trying to be serious, it was still more accurate than most other clips in this countdown 😂😂😂😂
Outlaw King sneaking into castles. The historical record tells us that Bruce's men used this technique to capture several castles including jamming a cart under the portcullis of at least one (I think this was Roxburghe I would need to check) and also scaled the Castle Rock to take Edinburgh through 14th C 'special ops' ..😉
Indeed. This guy doesn't know how Bruce and his Lieutenants captured castles. Thomas Randolph took Edinburgh by scaling the rock with a dozen men. Might be Roxburgh where they slowly creeped up in tbe dark in disguise as cattle 🤭
I don’t care how many degrees he has. The Battle of the Pelennor Fields was perfect
Nothing is perfect. Personally it was enjoyable but I would’ve changed some things.
Jesus Christ died for your sins please repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand 6637834577635499684
@@jack6126 no
You have an expert on any subject.
P.S. The Lord of the Rings is an all-time classic!
The pulling the ladders up with the hocks fired from the blisters was a let down. It did look good in the movie but was never done in our history ever. instead of pulling ladders up they would use teams of horses/men to rip blocks of stone off the top of the walls. block by block until they breach the walls.
@@benmayne6159 Well to be fair Lord Of The Rings is not in this world. Magical rings of power, Godlike spiders, Elves, Balrogs and underground capital cities are also unheard of in our world.
@samuelloification yes it’s not set in this world, but in fantasy land. But as a tactic why don’t the defenders see them setting up these ladders 🪜 earlier and sabotage them??, what is holding the base of the ladders 🪜 from being pull against the wall when being pulled up. wood pegs and rope i guess, how do the defenders not see/hear them doing this? and just simply drop a man down on a rope to sabotage them.
@samuelloification It did look cool but to over think it i would have to include, 1: large army close to a castle 🏰 without the defenders knowing (magic fog of not seeing or hearing) 2: huge trees growing near a castle 🏰 that burns 🔥 lots of fire wood and required a huge amount of large wooden timber’s in its construction in the first place.
@samuelloification castle 🏰 siege tactics are the same in reality as in fantasy land(middle earth). For a fantasy movies the “lord of the rings trilogy” was quite good over all. yeh the trees in the movie could move, but they couldn’t walk. only the “tree men” could walk in the movies. If the trees in the movies could of walked, they would of all walked very far away for every castle 🏰 close to them and from anyone trying to chop them down…hahahahaha
Damn, the Monthy Python Siege should‘ve been a 10/10. very legit, much accurate
I’m glad he mentioned the starvation tactics when discussing Ironclad. Especially because that was actually how King John WON that siege in actual history. The film portrays the Siege Of Rochester as taking many months and then King John being defeated and forced on the run with the arrival of Prince Louis of France. In actual history, though, the siege only lasted about seven weeks (there were also WAY more defenders of the castle than are shown in the film. It was actually about 150 men (95 knights and at least 45 men at arms) instead of only about 20 people as the film depicts), and the castle fell because the defenders surrendered out of hunger. So Prince Louis is arriving WAY earlier than he actually did, and the film is kind of portraying a bit of an alternate history in that regard.
Taking Monty Python absolutely seriously makes it even funnier
Ditches, rocks, and stupid fire arrows? An instant fan-favorite! Please bring him back again!
Thank the heavens for you guys.. Because of your reviews, movie makers now go an extra mile to make things more historically accurate and interesting at the same time.. Thumbs up!
Another is Roel Konijnendijk (he has 2 reaction videos here in UA-cam). Fun to watch 😁
Castles don't necessarily have a lot of men. A few men could defend against a large force, that's the point of castles. And a castle could only be occupied by a skeleton crew of a handful of men.
Agreed. If actually assaulting a castle or other major fortification, it was common to need a 10:1 advantage. Extremely difficult to do successfully. Even if walls could be compromised, needing 3:1 was typical. Sieges of this era were usually about successfully isolating the place until hunger and disease overcame it.
@@TheFranchiseCA Azov-Steel needed like 100 russians to 1 human defender and they STILL couldn't breach it. Spent more firepower than Hiroshima bomb on that mill alone and our boys only surrendered to... Turkey.
@@TheFranchiseCA sieges of this era weren't about isolating the place until hunger or disease overcame it, they were about negotiating a the terms of surrender because the defenders know they're never winning this (unless they're just trying to stall long enough for an allied force to arrive) and the attackers know there is little point in destroying a perfectly good castle, when taking it without a fight is an option.
Regarding his assessment of Lord of the Rings, especially the trebuchets. He brings up the point that they weren't behind the walls. I would contend that they are a subtle hint to the engineering expertise of Gondor, in that the trebuchets are placed on strategic anchor towers designed to hold the weight. I cannot tell from photos, but I believe the tower placement is meant to convey that the catapults can rotate, increasing their degree of effectiveness. Supposedly the trebuchets on the upper levels would be untouchable by enemy artillery, which explains the effectiveness of the flying nazghul.
Another note from the book, the first wall of Minas Tirith was actually supposed to be made of the same black stone the tower of Isengard was made from, which was unbreakable.
...the trebuchets and people running them aren't unbreakable. Behind the wall is better.
Lack of audio for LOTR really undermined the quality of this. Appreciate they didn’t have the rights to use it
Oh come on! How can he not burst into laughter at monty python scene. That attack deserved 11 out of 10.
Apparently being a castle expert means you have to lose your sense of humor.
@@russellfrancis813 agree
I'm surprised Kingdom of Heaven didn't make the cut here. There are several different siege tactics depicted in that film.
They put this one the ditch's guy video
@@CaiusAureliusCotta who the heck is the ditch guy
@@joshberkin5567 An ancient warfare specialist this channel invited before. He got famous in the comments by his phrases about digging ditches and throw in rocks.
We need a part two with Michael that includes the battle of Helms Deep from LOTR and the siege of Jerusalem from Kingdom of Heaven!
Yeah, i was waiting for "Kingdom of Heaven". It was one of the better ones, comparatively. "Joan Of Arc" also had some good siege stuff. A more realistic trebuchet for example.
I was also waiting for kingdom of heaven, helms deep would be good too!
He had me when he said they were throwing heads at each other. Im sold.
2:51 Dr. Roel shouts in excitement. "YES, DITCHES!!! THEY SHOULD HAVE LOTS AND LOTS OF DITCHES." 😆🤣
I see a historian with great knowledge and understanding. I'm much interested in the subject and digging in it for many years, so I can tell. I want to add, that those spiky devices in the last scene are showing real historical thing, they are called wolf's tooth and have been used for example in siege of Kaifeng in XII century. I appreciate he admitted he is no expert in the field of fortifications of Far East. Some of his marks seems a bit harsh andweird to me, maybe because of editing? Also there is no consideration about fantasy and cinematographic factors, which were included by other experts from this series, a bit of a pity. But in general, it's nice and fun to watch.
thank god they don't make these videos just for you!
@@Fattony6666 Yeah, I agree, I'm happy those fun videos are for everyone :)
totally agree with you. i aswell thought he was kinda harsh with his ratings and lacked "consideration about fantasy and cinematographic factors, which were included by other experts from this series" as you said it so well :)
I would say he knows more details about these things than me, yet teaches less than i would. He manages to name the castle they are recreating the capture of in outlaw king, without saying sneaking in was the exact tactic they used, he even says its a real tactic, without saying "and this is what the scots did in this war". Very odd.
I suspect that with Ironclad he was commenting on scenes we didnt see, because his comment makes no sense, as both in real life and the film the castle wasnt taken through force, by undermining, though in the movie they burn live pigs as the combustable materials, which seems unlikely to work compared to their lard.
His comment on Monty Python is baffling, its like he hasnt even realised he is watching a comedy, he thinks its trying to be historically accurate, he praises it or trying? Bonkers.
@@dorianleakey Yes, that's why I have impression there might be some issue with editing. Or even broader, what they tell him what they want, etc.
Next time: Real lawyer examine scenes of judges in movies and series
already exists basically. Legaleagle's channel
There are two things he didn't mention that annoy me quite a bit in most movies:
1) We Europeans were very capable at carpentry, thus crude palisades would only be for makeshift encampments. Real castles would have well cut and fitted wooden parts and they would be in all likelihood be at least painted, if not plastered to protect them from the elements. The latter also prevents draft and impeding fires.
2) The stereotypical castle with a keep, a surrounding wall with 4 towers and a gatehouse, and a few shops, is actually a rare type of castle. Most European castles were actually made completely out of wood and just as many were mostly made of wood with just the main building being made of stone. This obviously changed over time, especially when castles were improved upon during the generations of use, or if a location became rich. Now, the thing that really annoys me: this example of a medium-sized stone castle requires much more manpower than usually depicted! Living conditions were very cramped and poor even for a lot of the nobility! This obviously got a hundred times worse during sieges, when the surrounding villagers seek shelter. Now consider that it takes dozens of soldiers per shift to man such a castle and during combat, you need to change shifts frequently, or you gas out fast. However, for every soldier, there must be a lot of non-combat personnel that support them during peacetime and every single one of the soldiers and servants/peasants has a family, and families were big! This means that one such _small_ castle must be supported by multiple villages! Yet in movies, castles are in the middle of wastelands most of the time making me wonder how they get supplied...
Yup, this guy might have a cool title but really lacks in expertise in his field.
I've been to a lot of castles in Europe, and they were all made of stone. If anything, I've seen the other way around, with the other parts of stone and inner buildings partly of wood.
@@Shade01982 Have you seen a single motte and bailey castle? I guess not. It's the same with later castles. They're mostly gone. Basing your assumptions on what's left behind is called survivor bias. Just think about it: what's likely to be preserved to this day? A pitiful wooden castle and the crude and battlescarred sword of an absolute noname noble, or the stone castle of royalty and the sword that was used to knight people even after swords fell out of use?
Don't forget that for every city there was pretty much a castle and yet most cities have no castle today. At times, it even hits really impressive castles such as Freiburg of which not a single stone remained.
Even small countries had thousands of castles and today less than 10% are remaining as ruins.
BTW: in German we say instead of filthy rich, rich as stone. It referred to the ability of the rich to build stone mansions and castles.
@edi What you're claiming is just conjecture. That style was only popular for what, 2 centuries maybe? Before stone already started to become more popular. What you're claiming would only be right if you used a very broad definition of castle and also included everything up to Roman forts...
The definition of castle includes wooden ones. Not to mention earthwork castles or combined wood/earth castles like gords or burgwalls (funny you castle experts didn't even mention them since they're literally the most common type of castle). Still, he wasn't just talking about castles but specifically the ones in these movies. None were wood so why would he talk about wood castles?
You guys think you know more than the Ph.D. guy in the video and it makes me laugh. Dunning-Kruger on full display. He is rating movies for veracity not talking about medieval fortifications for five hours (which I'm sure he can do). If you've watched any of these vids you'd know that they keep them around 20 minutes or so. Most of these experts could probably go on for days but get cut and edited.
I love that this guy doesn't feel pressure to grade on the curve!!
The one flaw in this is that Minas Tirith isn’t a castle or a fortress. It’s a city. It was mostly stripped of usefull military stuff when it was rebuilt from a fortress into a city so the catapults probably have not place to be put now. They are makeshift weapons and not designed to be placed where they are.
Tolkien mentions there being no weapons in the city capable of disrupting the orcs building trenches.
LOVE that he broke down the Monty Python scene 😂
Jesus Christ died for your sins please repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand 6637834577635499684
Will there be a lot of talk about ditches?
One of the most instructive presentations I've seen on this program. A very entertaining program. They are all above average. Thanks-- keep them coming!
I love how he rated things, my only issue was his comment on Volley Firing arrows. it was a tactic used. the Battle of Agincourt is one place where it was used to success
The Monty Python one deserves a higher rating, if for no other reason than because Terry Jones was in fact a medieval historian, and many aspects of the movie are surprisingly accurate.
Now we need this guy and the ditch guy to have a good talk!
One talks about how he would command his army to attack his castle, the other talks about how he would command his army to defend his castle.
13:20 when I first watched this scene I completely lost it. I laughed so hard that i cried and my stomach hurt. I really needed 10 - 15 minutes to cool down a bit XD
This scene is gold 10/10
Thank you for the time stamp. Now I can watch again and laugh some more.
I use to work with this guy at a clothing store in our early 20's. Unexpected surprise
The scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail was taking place during a wedding. That wasn't a market but a stage for performers.
I like that they all agree on having ditches.
Monty Python fared much better than I would have expected . I am heartbroken that you didn't cover the cow throwing or the taunting scenes.
These videos is the thing we need
There's this Dutch professor who I think would LOVE to have a conversation with you about ditches.
Monty gets a 1/10
Monty: Well done chaps we did it!
On a date: "so, what do you do for a living?" "oh, I'm a castle warfare expert!... where your clothes at?"
Props to Monty Python for their historical accuracy.
I was really hoping Monty Python would get at least a 5! :)
Obviously this guy hasnt seen Monty Python and/or doesnt have a sense of humour
Yeah, and they should have shown them trying to take the castle from the taunting Frenchman.
The Monty Python one is actually quite realistic:
1) The 'hippie' floral design of the castle interior and all that market-y stuff (even tho it should be outside) is actually more appropriate than the 'gothic ruin' kind of design created by the romanticism movement in art (19th century) or muddy shithole villages from modern grimdark fantasy. Middle ages were colorful.
2) Straight up murdering literally everyone once you're inside the city walls is VERY historically accurate.
The fact that they just sort of watch disinterested while individuals are mowed down by a man loudly acting with boyish enthusiasm as though he's fencing a skilled enemy is what gets me. Obviously for humor, but it really does show how bullshit cheap life was for certain people, guards and people doing nothing get their guts spilled while the bowlcut dork born to inherit the castle gets the utmost respect
@John Doe what i wrote doesnt contradict what he said
Jesus Christ died for your sins please repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand 6637834577635499684
@@skibobshipoddlypop It isn't so simple from what I can gather. Even Vikings didin't just wipe out everyone, but capture and take as slaves. In towns and cities there were laws and guardsmen, wich had to prevent people from killing each other. Murder was considered a crime that deserved punishment even in ancient times. Nobody normal wants to sleep in one house with a psyhopath.
A human life was a lot more precious back then, because there wasn't so many of us. Depending on the period and place in a village could live less than 100 people. And know? Even 2 000 people.
@@krzysztofmatych909 They didn't say that it happened all the time, just that it was historically accurate. I think the Crusaders slaughter a ton of muslims after capturing Jerusalem, and Mongols were into slaughtering people big time, although they weren't that big on sieges, at least later on when fortifications became more common in Poland and Hungary.
If this guy were to go into a time machine and watched a real siege from medieval times, he would be like:
Eh, it's heard to say... Maybe a 6 or 7 out of 10? Apart from some obvious stuff, they tried.
To be fair, the full context on the siege of kings landing was not shown - They did throw rocks and the attackers did use ladders. They didn't just hang out at the bottom.
Something tells me that he did not see the entire battle of the Blackwater, otherwise he would have understood several things (when the Lannisters go out the door to attack the Baratheon is because they are about to break the doors in several sectors, since there are 7, and also show how they come with the ladders to the walls of kingslanding).
Regarding the starvation tactic - there's a legend surrounding the siege of Lisbon, that lasted about 4 months, in which both the Portuguese inside the city and the Castilians sieging the city were facing starvation since the Castilian's supply lines were constantly being raided in the Portuguese countryside. When Lisbon was on the brink, they did a last act of defiance - they threw loaves of bread into the Spanish, thus tricking them into believing they were able to out endure them. According to legend, it worked and the Castillian army retrieted.
That's an interesting legend! Thank you for telling that. I am not siege- starvation expert but that doesn't sound impossible trick. When enemy thinks you are still strong and their own men can't fight due to lack of food, the only change is to leave (and maybe think "we have to live today to fight tomorrow" but "tomorrow" may never come) 🤔
@@leas7830 Thank you for your kind words
There's a somewhat similar account about the Siege of Malta how a town supposedly fired their cannons en masse toward invading Ottomans tricking them into believing the town was well supplied.
Those were some brutal reviews 😂
The siege of Minas Tirith from Return of the KIng represents the siege of Constantinople in 1453 in Tolkien's reimagining of medieval Europe
Person: " _I ditched my gf_ "
Him: " _FINALLY SOME ACTION_ "