Ironclad: part five - tactics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Where the film Ironclad went wrong with tactics. Film makers seem to think that men were in a great hurry to die.
Again, I don't like the tone of my voice in this one. When I'm talking to a camera I'm a bit more mellow and tolerant-sounding than the strident and haughty voice you'll hear here. I have to work on my voice-over voice.
I should admit to a couple of minor cheats in this one. The shot of the men standing in safety outside the gate is I think from a different part of the film, and the charge across the river is semi-explained in the film, as there is a shot of some men running past what looks like the edge of a pond, but (a) the River Medway was not a pond, and (b) this means that they started charging one side of a pond, then when they reached it they carried on charging around it and then on to the castle, which is even dafter than the length of charge I'm complaining about.
Spanish subtitles kindly contributed by Pablo Monjas.
www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
Any Age of Empires player knows that striking a castle, a wall, a building, a tower, a ship or farmland with a sword, an axe, a polearm or shovel will set it on fire.
+Janne Aalto Even an alligator or crocodile could destroy a massive barracks, if they bite it for about 7 minutes. Age of Empires taught us that anything can be turned to burning rubble by simply hitting it with objects enough times; as long as there are no pesky villagers counteracting you by striking it with hammers, which, as we all know, instantly fixes buildings and puts out fires.
On Warcraft 3, a Water Elemental can start a building on fire if it throws enough water on it!
That's just stupid
However, you also have to keep in mind that hitting that same wall with a hammer will quickly repair the damage. All peasants are armed with the magic repair hammer featured in the film "Wreck-It-Ralph".
Aber Häuser können nicht brennen??
Well, the charge scared away the river, so I suppose they figured it would work on the castle, too. Can't fault them for that, right?
I thought they had some dude name Moses :/
@@ScrappyXFL That's why they were running, Moses couldn't hold the river off for very long.
I bet Chuck Norris was in the front line of attackers.
@@Indyday The castle was Chuck Norris, that's why it didn't run away.
_"Castles don't run away. This is a fact I know about castles, and now you know it too."_ - Lindybeige's cadence on this quote makes it about the best 18 words I've heard in quite some time.
You have to hand it to him: Lindybeige manages to get everything across in a very entertaining way, and is, at the same time, educational/content-laden. :o)
he's wrong you know . Howl's castle was very adept at running around .
LOL!
HOW DID YOU GET ITALICS ON UA-cam???! i'M ASKING BECAUSE I never WANT TO HAVE TO USE CAPS FOR EMPHASIS ever! :)
EmpiricalPragmatist With * on either side, you can make it bold.
well since the attackers have all the time in the world to prepare they obviously used this time to drain the water from the river so they didn't have to go around it.
to be honest diverting the river by building a dam would actually be pretty smart considering that you could cut off the city's main source of water.
PsylomeAlpha Your comment piqued my curiosity, so I took a look on Google Maps. The river Medway is one of the biggest in England, diverting it would have been an incredible feat at the time. It was likely easier to just take the castle in this case, but I'm sure moving a river has been used in other sieges.
PsylomeAlpha wouldn't all castles have their own wells?
skoda10
Not all, if there is no water under your castle then there is simply no water under your castle, can't invent an aquifer. This one would because of its proximity to water, but the water in the well probably came from the river by way of a trench, that was quite common.
Wunel surely the first thing you checked before building a castle would have been if there was water there? what would be the point of a castle if all you had to do to take it was to surround it for a week until everybody died :p or to plug up a trench or throw dead animals in it, and why would you want it.
2:32 To quote captain Blackadder: "The guns have stopped because we're about to attack. Not even our generals are mad enough to shell their own men. They think it's far more sporting to let the Germans do it."
That was the saddest and most real episode in the series...
The saddest scene in entire history of tv, I wasn't expecting it and it made me cry
@@pladimir_vutin it was one of the most humorous and exciting shows on tv
2:20 Well obviously they had Moses leading the charge.
Underrated comment
I've learned from playing Age of Empires 2 that attacking a castle with swordsmen is a viable tactic, it will take a very long time, and you'll lose quite a few of those swordsmen by castle defenders, but it does work, each swordsman doing 1 point of damage every few seconds adds up after a while!
So yes, charging a castle with swordsmen is not so farfetched!
Based on... a game? Obvious troll is obvious.
Psychosmurf43 You're a real sharp one aren't you? Be careful you don't cut yourself!
+CarrowMind With what? I don't sharpen my fingernails, dumbass. SMH.
+Psychosmurf43 It was just a joke. In that same game, 20 swordsmen hacking at the base of a stone castle caused the building to burst into flames a minute later. A stone building, set on fire, by swords. Yes.
+Cavarus of Thrace Well obviously that's because the metal of the swords striking against the stone of the castle caused sparks which then of course sets the swordsmen on fire with ease because it worked so well on those pigs and then huzzah, castle on fire because of swords!
WAIT CASTLES DON'T RUN AWAY?!??!
MY WHOLE LIFE IS A LIE
+Aerunn Allado to be fair, the castle gate does appear to be screaming in terror. So it's not like it doesn't want to run away.
+Aerunn Allado ofcourse not, everyone knows castles fly away into the sky when they get scared
Dantick09
Well there's this one castle I heard about that just sank into the swamp. So the lord built a second one ... and it sank into the swamp.
+Florid Ferret LOL
+Aerunn Allado Terran "Castles" do. They lift off and fly over the next cliff so you cant reach them... then they land near the next mineral circle.
You push the castle over with your shield wall.
Ahh, but you forget, the trebuchets weren't hurling stones to knock the walls down.
They were throwing massive, exploding, petroleum-filled fireballs.
If charging the castle won't work, try a giant wooden rabbit.
Samuli Hirvonen That only works against French castles, though.
maybe a badger...
"We're not French!" (Part 3 of this series)
Oh thank god you explained this to me. Fucking hell, I have been trying to find ways to scare castles into running away and wondered why they are so good at staying still. Now that I know that castles don't run away, I can sleep easy tonight.
1:38 Oh yeah? Let's see proof! We need to get you on video charging a castle, and see if actually stands its ground. Everyone knows Castles dash back to their warrens with all but a loud shout.
Every internet person ever
I really want to run an rpg session where the castle containing the quest item (tm) turns out to be a transmogrified dragon with anxiety issues, who does run away when charged.
On the other hand, gazebos can be quite vicious and will chase you down and eat you.
They are also impervious to arrows.
You forget that they stopped castles from doing that as they tripped and caught fire while running away.
ua-cam.com/video/yICU1pQ8fkM/v-deo.html
I'm absolutely loving your Ironclad series. Perhaps even more so than your "A point about" series, astonishingly.
I have not seen this film and after watching all of these I don't think I missed anything.
+Toothygrin it was actually pretty good just dont expect a lot of realism
you have to remember he disses on Lord of the rings and the kingdom of heaven as well
Both of which in my mind anyway were amazing films
@@CaptainGameGuru Your taste seems suspect lol.
You know, it is AMAZING how much you can learn about medieval battles from real people in video games. (Mount and Blade multiplayer) if you have six people, and they have six people, and everyone splits up into 1v1 battles and they are roughly equally matched, only one man would live, at the end, statistically. But that is suicide. And any logical person with something to lose (Such as being out of the action for a minute or two.), would do their best to stay out of suicidal engagements. The person, at least in Medieval battles, with more sticks to flay at the enemy, is gunna win. (There are exceptions, it is a good general rule to follow.) If you watch a major Melee battle, in Mount and Blade, people stay in groups. If they get separated and go into a 1v1 it usually ends with 1 person wounded.(sometimes dead) They back off from each other and wait for a better time to attack, and often (If it is a large battle) never face each other again, moving off into different points in the battle. If two major groups come into immediate and sudden contact with each other, they almost never immediately fight, they often back off, and kinda get an idea if they want to attack. ( Generally that ends when one guy from a side makes the first move and the battle snowballs from there.) People do not want to die. Either in a game, or real life. People will do the thing that has the best chance of keeping them alive. If they get into a battle that might not go their way, they will do their best to disengage and look for a better opportunity. They don't rush into certain death but will do what they think will keep them alive or is in their best interest. Routs can be a major problem in these Mount and blade battles. If the players decide that "I might die if I stay here, very soon." They are going to run. Find a better position and hopefully regroup, in the process dooming those that stayed to fight. Even 3-4 guys routing out of 15-20 will be the end of days for the troops that stay. The enemy realizes that they are gone and push the attack, attacking flanks or charging through, until they are engulfed by the enemy. It's kind of sad. That what armies might have been able to win, if only the few didn't rout, screwing over the many.
I ramble, so, good day to you all.
+Colton Byrd So much truth. I think MnB might be an unintentional but accurate medieval battlefield simulator.
+NavidIsANoob What do you think about "Chivalry"? I've never played MnB, so I can't really compare the "realism" factor, but Chivalry has a pretty solid melee combat simulation... although often the teams don't make any formations and pair off into duels, much like Lloyd mentioned here.
Is MnB more about *laaarge* scale battles? If I remember correctly, the maximum players in Chivalry was 32 per team, for a total of 64 players in a match. I'd call it more of a "large skirmish" or "raid" simulation than an actual all-out battlefield simulation.
B DeWit I have played Chivalry, and no, it's not really as realistic. The combat mechanics are somewhat accurate, for a game at least. The thing with Chivalry is that's its basically COD with medieval weapony. What I mean is you have a map, two teams in a deathmatch, all troops are evenly balanced as well, so it's just a matter of who's the fastest. There is no point to NOT prematurely end a fight with an opponent because there isn't much to lose.
In a MnB battle, from the moment you leave your team and head towards the enemy alone, your chances of survival are severely reduced. Not all unit types are balanced against eachother either, for instance as a swordman, your chance of winning a duel against a horseman are lower than if you were a spearman. It's always better to stay with a group of other players, who protect your flanks. If you see an opponent, and you feel like it's an unfair fight, you're not as hesitant to go fight that opponent, and back up to your team. Because of this, team play and formations are naturally encouraged in MnB, and not so much in Chivalry. (That doesn't mean that intentional formation play isn't possible)
And yes indeed, MnB is centered around large scale battles, both in singleplayer and multiplayer. (a busy match has 200+ people playing on a map)
NavidIsANoob
Ahh I see. While I don't think it's totally fair to say Chivalry is "COD in a Dark Age setting", I do understand what you mean- instead of a "run-n-gun" type of first person game, it's a "run-n-stab/slash/whack" game. I do feel like they did a good job of emulating one-on-one combat; the stamina, recovery, and parry system blend well with the various weapon choices and multitude of strikes from different angles, speeds, and power. And while teamwork certainly wins matches in Chivalry, you make it sound like in MnB, teamwork is the *only* way to move forward and get the W.
I appreciate Chivalry for what it is; from what I've read and what you've told me, Chivalry seems like a watered-down version of MnB which focuses more on the individual's skill, where MnB places a little less emphasis on the super-complex 1v1 type fighting and more on working in units to defeat the enemy. They both seem to have their merits.
Have you played both games extensively? I get the impression you enjoy MnB more, overall, is that correct? And do you have any specific reasons? I'm actually considering buying it, your opinion may sway me here.
B DeWit
I have only a couple of hours on Chivalry, for me, dueling is a lot of fun, and its combat mechanics are more sophisticated than MnB, but I didn't really stick around for open multiplayer games.
I have a long mileage on MnB, lol. It is a truly unique game that no other franchise matches to this day. It's a strategy RPG, if such a thing exists. I mean, the multiplayer is fun, but the game really shines in its singleplayer sandbox. You start off as a single character, you create a warband, and you build your way up to a conquerer, a king, a great merchant... The game open ended and offers a lot of freedom. The large scale battles are very fun imo, it's like a first person Total War battle. The modding scene for this game is HUGE, and it's engine allows for complete overhauls, with mods spanning the Viking conquest all the way to the Great War.
The (vanilla) graphics are a little dated, but a sequel (Mount and Blade II: Bannerlord) has been in the works for a long time now, and they're going to show a long demo for it in March. Definitely worth checking out.
I'd say definitely get the game, with the Napoleonic Warfare DLC, because it has a very active multiplayer community, as opposed to the native game, which has shrunk a bit. It's a purchase you won't regret.
Well obiously they had to charche because if they didnt the river might come back and block the way to the castle. 😐
Wait, castles don't run away? But isn't an incoming army charging blindly right at you very intimidating?
Zomg Lloyd is inconsistent with his claims!!!
Yes, castles run away. This is worth joking about! CASTLE MECHS hurrah.
A Jim Fan: Howl’s Fleeing Castle?
Not true, I once met a man so ugly, that he looked in a castle's general direction, and it ran away crying.
...And that man, was me.
The holes are called murder holes, whilst they did use rocks, boulders, or whatever solid objects were available, they were mostly used to pour boiling oil.
The things he pointed out were machicolations for dropping stones out. Murder holes are found inside gates and were used for pouring boiling liquids out.
Boiling oil? Oil was pretty hard to come by back then and had far more profitable uses than pouring on people, such as roofing and various types of waterproofing. I think boiling water is more likely.
I mean if boiling oil was poured down, we'd see much more oil residue but that's so rare.
Murder holes are usually inside the outer gate. Boiling water was much cheaper. The fancy term is, as Lamnaa said, 'machicolations'.
Treblaine I think your right. Heated sand was another popular one. But I think in a siege if the attackers were managing to reach the castle walls. The defenders would be so panicked that they would be chucking anything they could find on the enemy whatever the expense. Be it oil, anvils, rubbish, scrap metal, dead animals, nails, flaming torches and burning wood etc
Patrick Pienne Yeah, bearing in mind that they'd've probably spent a good couple of months being starved out. At that point, I'd imagine water would be a lot more valuable than oil. If they repelled the assault, but used up all of their water supply in doing so, it'd be even easier for the attackers to just wait them out.
Sure, oil's useful, but it's not much use if you've all died of dehydration.
Jus' a thought.
Dueling in 'historic' films is my bugbear. I couldn't take Gladiator seriously when they portrayed the Romans fighting Germans in one-on-one combat!! Yes, let's completely nullify the strength of the Roman legion by having them break off to pick individual fights against German tribesmen! Even 300 (half-fantasy, true) after the initial shieldwall engagement shows Spartans with spears seeking out one-on-ones...They are the tip of the iceberg. Lindybeige, I share your pain of modern filmmaking of wars. If only some director would have the balls to forgo 'dueling drama' and show a historic battle for what it really was...a block of men hacking at another block of men, in formation, until one breaks and runs.
Leode Siefast The final battle in “King Arthur” was the same. No way either Britons or Germans would be breaking ranks.
Not unless they’re Captain America or Alan Rufus rescuing a friend from the midst of an enemy onslaught. The Bayeux Tapestry depicts Alan doing exactly that to save Duke William. Alan’s prowess was crazy good.
Empress Maud got herself surrounded once and Alan’s nephew Geoffrey Boterel II and a mate did the same. What an amazing military family!
BBC: ROME.
Battles were forbidden from Friday sunset until Monday morning by the order of the Church. Also almost nothing was done during the night. Night for medieval people was time to sleep. No battle took part during the night during that times...I could watch even 100 parts of that great comedy/drama series:) Thanks Lindybage!
Lets be honest though, who would watch a film about a historically accurate siege?
*Sits around*
*throws some stones*
*sits around a bit more*
*6 months have passed and the defenders give up*
Me? I know quite a lot of people interested in a realistic no nonsense representation of medieval warfare.
I think you could actually make a great TV show set inside a castle during a siege. It could show the everyday struggle of the people living in the castle - essentially a drama but set during a siege.
Why throw stones if it wasn't going to work and you had to wait another six months? :/
'Cause it gives your troops something to do, and demoralises the defenders. I, personally, would become much more inclined to surrender if I woke up one morning and saw dirty great boulders flying towards my house.
Matthew Emmett It's like the Walking Dead but instead of zombies, large stones fall out of the sky and Darrell would still die.
0:52 the maximum horizontal range of any ballistic weapon is achieved by launching the missile at exactly 45o. in this clip, the missile is launched at ca. 70o and will only achieve about 75% of the horizontal distance as one launched at 45o. The calculation is easy: The velocity vector of the missile leaving the weapon is the same magnitude in both case but oriented differently in space. to find out how far the missile will travel, one has to deconvolute the initial velocity into its horizontal (x) and vertical (y) components. the horizontal component is proportional to the cos of the angle, while the vertical component is proportional to the sin of the angle. in order to maximize the distance travelled by the missile, one has to maximize the size of both vectors in the x and y directions. at 45o, the x vector is proportional to cos(45) = 0.70, and the y vector is proportional to sin(45), also = 0.70. a missile launched at 70o will have a larger y velocity (therefore spending more time in flight) because sin (70) = 0.93, but a much lower x velocity because cos(70) = 0.35. Now look at the sum of the x and y vector: at 45o, the sum is 1.4 and at 70o the sum is 1.3. that indicates that a missile launched at 45o will make use of the maximum velocity in both direction and therefore maximize the time of flight (i.e. sin45) and the horizontal travel (i.e cos45) QED!
Would be great to hear a commentary on the 2010 Robin Hood movie. Thanks for the clip and commentary.
havent you played age of empires ? castles get burned down quickly if you hit them enough times with your pitchfork .
xD
Also, trebuchets can knock down entire castles to their foundations. :o
Usammity
so do wooden pitchforks.
I prefer smacking them with my torches (tarkans), huns don't take no shit
Don't forget the catapults with no crew.
I have found your channel while doing some research for a book, you Sir have entertained me with your videos for far longer then the time I had spare. Well done Sir, well done. Your Sir get a polite golfers clap, ready? Here it comes... *clap* there you go, well earned.
Gettysburg(1993), Glory(1989), and Gods and Generals(2001) are all historical war movies set some time before 1900(They're all in the American Civil War--the pre-1900 mark is to disqualify films about WW1, 2, Vietnam and other 20th century wars, all of which happened recently and in many cases had movies about them made as they occured, so it was and is easy to make them accurate.) that do an excellent job of portraying not only realistic scenarios but real events, doing things like using period tactics, authentic equipment, and having extras go down and /scream/, flailing and bleeding instead of quietly and politely lying down for a nap. And not everyone is dead by the end--someone retreats. I could go on, but if you haven't seen them, you've missed out.
The reason I think this is is several fold--one, all the extras were veteran re-enactors who served as a group of thousands of experienced historical advisors /who the film people listened to/. Two, the events were more recent and better-documented, so it was easier to know what was right and what wasn't. Three, two of the three (Gods and Generals and Gettysburg) were base on books written by the Shaara father-son duo, who did extensive research. In fact, there's on one character in either movie who isn't real, and that's Sergeant Kilrain, who serves as the old soldier and the de facto mentor to Chamberlain, one of the main characters.
Gettysburg and Glory both received critical acclaim, despite almost complete historical accuracy. Gods and Generals only failed(I suspect) because audiences are getting dumber, not because it was lower quality.
Also because movie critics are idiots that only get it right every ten tries or so.
Maybe someone should look into that. I mean, everyone claims that you can't make a good movie while paying any mind to Historical accuracy--yet there are three movies that prove that's far from true.
I want to see a movie where the "rookie" character dies first instead of surviving to the end.
Predator?
I love this guys voice, accent and inflection. It reminds me of the movie Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
3:32 MACHICULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"it has holes in it like these..." at 3:30. Hm, can't remember what they were called. Maybe I'll ask Shadiversity
Good points all around
Why not - do a video on what medieval movies that get things right? Or at least get certain things right?
Are there any XD?
*"Why not - do a video on what medieval movies that get things right?"*
There are none, to my knowledge.
HamsterPants522
I don't know about that. from what I've seen lindy saying monty python and the holy grail was more accurate than most.
They sometimes get the names right.
charging must have scared the river away.. what sorcery is this?! O_O
I actually much prefer when films have men fighting in groups with proper tactics. I find it much more entertaining to see how smart their ways of fighting were than seeing random people flailing weapons at each other.
Can you do this kind of review for other movies? Kingdom of Heaven, and Henry V as you've already mentioned. Master and Commander would be great too. Also, as to the point about group fighting, as I recall El Cid (1961), in the final fight scene it was pretty group heavy fighting.
I've heard that Master and Commander actually tried to be fairly accurate - but perhaps that's only compared to the likes of Pirates of the Caribbean?
I'd like to see him do something over Flesh and Blood
haha I love El CId. The costumes are hilarious. El Cid has a rapier and plate armour in 11th century spain... still- it's a very pretty production visually.
I love your videos in which you show the bad research and logic of historical movies. please make more like those :) very entertaining and most of all I learn a lot!
Well, Lindybeige, if you watch "Risen," you'll be happy to see in the opening of the film, a Roman cohort fights against some Jewish rebels. They keep their shields in front of them, they fight in formation, use the testudo formation to get close, and only break ranks when the rebels break and start to run away.
I always start my sieges by charging the castle and yelling "SURRENDER CASTLE!"
One of these days a castle is going to just outright surrender to me.
I hope you intend to do more films when you've picked Ironclad clean. This series is brilliant.
I would love to see your take on the 2004 Troy. It made me and my friends question a ton of tactical marvellousness that the movie has like: 1) Troyans using fire arrows on myrmidons instead of the ship they're using 2) Troyans standing in front of the gate instead of defending from castle 3) Greeks plan of taking Troy without any siege weapons. Maybe they haven't seen this video and thought that castles/cities will run away. These are just a drop in the ocean, though, I'm sure
great job Lloyd, my son was in this film as an extra, buried under a pile of dead bodies, hardly Rada stuff lol. The set was set here in Wales near Bridgend in Dragon studios opened by Dicky Attenborough, this was to be the answer to all our unemployment woes and became known as valley wood. Now you would be lucky to get a glimpse in Casualty. Strangely I used to live near Rochester at one time, spooky or what. LOL.
The Vikings actually speak Hungarian in this movie. No joke.
Stephanus Tavilrond: there were Breton, Scottish, Irish and Russian Vikings, so why not Magyar ones?
Even though you sound like an angry History professor, I still enjoyed the video. Honestly, the bitter contempt audible in your voice really works with this video.
I fuckin love these. You should do one on every "Epic" that has come out when you have time.
Damn I laughed so hard "Why would anyone charge a castle!" :D
That one with "what mistake are they doing? Wearing helmets!" is just hilarius. It shows quite nicelly the "hero/villain doesn't wear a helmet cliche, like its in hector vs achilles or tons of other movies.
Here is a question about storming the castle - Fruassar often mentions that attacker got to the wall, covered their heads with shields and "made a breech in the wall with crowbars and swords"; from context it is not clear if he is talking about a wood wall or a stone wall, but I would like to see a video from you about that anyway!
Agree with everything, but the siege part I am not as sure. The furthest you can launch an object is at a 45 degree angle, depending on the exact distance and trajectory it could hit at many various degrees of impact.
45 degrees - correct if on a flat planet with no atmosphere. Incorrect for a round planet with air. But yes, my animation showed a very steep angle. I couldn't do the top of the curve, so I had to show the stone go out of sight and then re-enter. Basic point is that to batter a wall you get close.
Lindybeige
Alright cool. That said, I don't think a trebuchet shoots far enough for the curvature of the earth to matter, nor should wind resistance matter much when you are talking about a good sized rock. But I was talking mostly about that animation, and I understand why you made it like that now.
+EthanJM Air, not wind, resistance matters a lot regardless of what you're shooting and increases the angle projectile lands at dramatically, especially at long ranges.
Reminds me of one the battles that took place in my grand campaign on Empire Total War. One of my key forts got attacked by Poland-Lithuania and they heavily outnumbered me (They has about three armies which came to about 3000 men while I had about 1000) The problem the computer send in cavalry first and they couldn't climb the walls and as a result most of the Poles were massacred as they milled around the base of the fort and the remaining Polish foot soldiers has no support when they tried to storm the walls. My best victory to date.
I watched Vikings the other night for the first time (season 2, episode 1), and near the beginning there was a small battle forming between two clans of about 100 men on each side. I was looking forward to a good shield wall battle when to my surprise someone each each side actually yelled "shield wall", and they were neatly formed. I was excited. They marched towards each other slowly for a few paces and my excitement grew, but then sadly they all broke formation and charged at each other like every other movie battle (i.e. Braveheart). Immediately most of the main characters broke off into 1 on 1 duels and I sighed and changed the channel. Oh well...
Man, shield wall fighting is boring asf, the average viewer just wants to see blood and swords clashing, they don't care about realism or accuracy in these types of shows, if you want accuracy/realism go and watch a documentary.
Alexander Nevsky's good for showing actual tactics and formations, if you can get past the anachronisms (like the Teutonic infantry wearing sallets in the 13th century because they looked like WW2 Stahlhelms). As in the actual Battle on the Ice, the Novgorodian force holds to tie down the Teutonic assault for a pincer attack to encircle them, and the remaining knights form a sort of shield wall cum pike block, which the Novgorodians need to break through with a wedge formation charge. And when Nevsky calls out the Grand Master, they both keep their helmets on for the dramatic duel, and his victory mainly serves to hearten the rest of the army so they can smash through the Teutonic ranks and rout them so the cavalry can chase them onto thinner ice so they all drown
I love how crossed you get when talking about films. It is quite entertaining to see the mistakes of movies and hear what would be actually done in reality. I kinda wish though that your videos were a bit longer, but that would probably mean you'd get less money per video minute...Which is understandable.
3:30
Lloyd: It has holes in it like this...
(Shows a picture)
Me: MACHICULATIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONSAH!
I vaguely recall having watched Ironclad a few years ago. Don't remember much about it though, I even forgot about the women and pigs and half-naked fighting. It struck me as a "historical fantasy", where some attention was made to being sort of accurate to the period but the real point was to have the hero save the day. I forget if he did.
We all know that when you charge a castle, you get halfway there and a bunch of bobbies pull up and arrest you. (Thank you for that tidbit, MP!)
If you want to see really ridiculous depictions of medieval battles and sieges look for some really old movies like Joan the Woman (1916) or Ivanhoe (1952). Those who rattle their sticks fiercest win (Swords? Hitting anyone? Preposterous idea). And a proper siege is shooting lots of arrows against the castle walls with a silly rattling sound effects as far away from the defenders as possible (OK, at the time those arrows were real and not CGI, so safety first. But they did a far better job with trick archers in The Crusades(1935), which is otherwise pretty silly too).
A British telly version of Ivanhoe once showed peasants running up to the main gate and bashing it open with their shoulders.
Lindybeige
if the king or nobleman within the castle survived somehow that gate's engineer would probably have been put to death for designing something that flimsy.
+PsylomeAlpha Ahahaah, if I was the king of that castle, the moment I heard the gate was bashed down by a bunch of lowly peasants with their bloody *shoulders*, I'd put all that "battle" business aside just long enough to locate the engineers who worked on the gate, round them all up, and have them killed with the splintered pieces of the gate. Then maybe I'd get back to that whole "leading a castle/nation" thing.
I'd make an awesome king.
+Lindybeige in two worlds the rpg videogame peasants are a force not to be messed with........
Agent: maybe if they’re Breton peasants. Obelix!
Only just discovered Lindy.... I’m loving “ironclad”. “Stop and have a picnic”
Sir, you are a gem. Keep up your exemplary work; and I thank you.
This series was hilarious, Lloyd. Now for evaluation of all such nonsensical so-called historical films.
PS- The Hollywood castle seiges were definitely inspired by Clash of Clans, where horrendous barbarians collapse walls using Swords.
Strident and haughty seems appropriate for this wreck.
Stumbled on this by accident - great stuff!
"do They expect to bash the castle over when they get Thier" IM DEAD LMAO 🤣🤣🤣
Oh please. Intimitating rivers with a charge in order to make them run away is pretty basic. Alexander did it so often in Persia and Egypt that the lands are desolated today.
They charged so fast the river dryed out ^^
Also it's hilarious that the film being ranted on is advertised right next to it xD
Regarding that Kingdom of Heaven mention - why _wouldn't_ you use trebuchets at night? You already set them up during the day, you aren't striving for pinpoint accuracy and the castles are notorious for being stationary and hard to miss, plus the defenders morale is going to be severely damaged by night bombardment. That doesn't justify the range problem, but if something can hit a castle during the day it makes little sense not to do the same at night, IMO.
Today I learned that castles don't run away.
Bahaha. You need to do more of these! They're hilarious!
Hey Lindybeige, been watching for quite some time and something you said about choreographers needing to use formations jingled with some things you've said in other videos: namely on the "tortoise" formation and the use and effectiveness of heavy armor and weapons.
All of this led me to look up a few early scenes from the movie 'The Eagle'. I know the film dives way into fantasy later on (though it seemingly takes great pains in reproducing a feel: the Seal People extras all speak a dead language and most of the filming was actually in Scotland), but the battle where the legionaries sally forth to rescue their captured comrades looks to me to be a means of offensively employing the "tortoise" formation. This, alongside a main character and his men fighting in formation, really impressed me. It wasn't just Magic Mike beating the faces off some dirty northern brits (all while winning your heart).
So after altogether too much typing, my question: do you think this scene presents a valid use of the formation, and does this scene separate itself (on the basis of realism) from most fight scene depictions of ancient or medieval warfare? For the sake of argument let's ignore the question of if Magic Mike should have led his men out of a fortified position in the first place.
Home run on this series Mr Lloyd.
In the game stronghold 2 my favorite thing was defending Wartburg because the enemy would invariably send their whole army up ladders on the first wall as they fire their catapults at them. Usually 2/3 of the attackers were dead before they even reached me, as I usually evacuated my wall defenders from the first to the second wall.
I hope you'll do more movie analyses like this in the future, they're both very funny and educating.
These really make me want to see a realistic representation of a battle, 0 drama included!
I watched this 5 part and was hoping you had done a whole series like this on various films, hope you do more!
Filmmakers didn´t ever hear about anything called tactics. Their view of reality is kinda warped because of "art". That´s why their films aren´t watchable.
Loving the rant, makes me feel sorry for my wife. She has to listen to me pull apart crap movies like this too.
Keep up the good work!
There's a reason why castles are often situated on hilltops, small islands, narrow peninsulas and other hard to reach places.
This is where they all have run to after being first located in more open spaces and being attacked there by an enemy.
The more casualties, the more glorious the battle. If most happen to be on the enemy side, that's just a bonus.
Also, you clearly haven't played enough AoE2 if you don't even know such elementary things about warfare like that siege weapons don't cause friendly fire or that if you hit a stone gatehouse or castle with a sword enough it will catch on fire and if you keep hitting it will eventually collapse. *smug*
AoE2 siege weapons definitely cause friendly fire, its just that Trebuchets have no splash damage.
Fire some cannons or onager at your own men or a melee and try telling me that it only hurts the enemy.
Elephants, monks converting elephants.
Landgraft
Oh I never noticed that. Not that it matters, I can just train new ones and the melee line is just to protect my cavalry archers anyway.
gonavygonavy
It's more about convincing the rider they have are risking damation, originally there was a rider on top but since it was too troublesome to have a guy on top...
But AOE3 actually clears things up, your men whip out torches.
@@CityofLight11 Trebuchets actually can cause splash damage if you are playing the hd version Britons.
At the beginning of the video I believe the trebuchet animation is a bit decieving. The max range they can get is if they fire the projectile at an angle of 45° above the ground so it wouldn't necessarily at such a harsh angle up and then down if they were at their max range.
Please do this analysis on more medieval era films! I'm Loving the breakdowns, thank you!
I would actually propose that, in this particular situation, storming the castle right at the beginning would be a completely viable tactic. You made the point that the besiegers have all the time in the world. However, unless I'm mistaken, John's ultimate goal was not Rochester. Which means that weeks spent besieging a castle that ultimately is not your target, results in the enemy having weeks to gather supplies, strengthen their fortresses, and recruit more men. If there were only 30 or so men in the castle, and your men already have ladders, AND the enemy has had almost no time to prepare for an attack, then surely a sudden assault could stand a significant chance of success. Why would you spend weeks trying to take this under garrisoned, under supplied castle, when you have a very good chance of taking it in a couple of hours? Just a thought.
I. I. Literally dropped to the floor laughing. Everything here is fucking gold. 14/10.
Another series on 'Historical' films being ripped apart, please? :3 You have no idea how these discussions are helping me with my ideas for a fantasy setting, and how best to get a bit more 'real' combat to go with the fantasy bits.
The easiest change for FRPG's? Have enemies run away when in danger. How many fights with bandits/Orcs/Kobolds/Goblins end with the party killing every last one of them? A believable opponent would see some of their comrades go down and promptly leg it. Then have them return with more forces seeking revenge...
MGBait well, I'm somewhat deviating from the typical 'hero sent to random dungeon' sorta deal, as the tale is more along the lines of 'religious nutbar enemies attempt to take over and oppress demihuman populace of entire kingdom', thus why I'm so interested in Lindy's tactics vids especially for those scenes of army vs army. But you bring up a good point as well, yes.
MGBait
To be fair, Orc/Kobolds/Goblins have no sense of Self Preservation.
MrAsaqe usually don't, would be a fairer way to put it. I know a lot of settings have kobolds and goblins nothing more but dumb brutes looking for flesh, or orcs so much of berserkers or honor-bound to never flee, but I do agree that in some situations even those gits would start to realize the fireballs flailing at them from the good guys may need a tactical withdrawl.
Gratuitous Lurking The first fireball that shows up should cause a bunch of 1HD mooks to wet themselves and run away screaming. That's like having a bunch of light infantry (sans AT) run into armour and decide to 'get stuck in'.
Awesome channel!
thank you , so glad i watched this offering ,through your eye , do more movies , pleeze ,
I would not want to waste all the work of building a trebuchet, by placing it so close that it can be spiked with fire arrows.
At 45° it should have highest range and the angle of impact is far less than depicted.
Firing above 45° makes only sense, when you want to hurl something over the wall.
The point is you don't want to hurl something over the wall, you want to hurl it at it. You'd use siege engines to create a breach or opening so as to storm it. You'd only want to throw over if you want to send something inside that would cause further damage, ie, fire pots, plague ridden corpses. Fire arrows aren't as much a problem, since there would be operators nearby that could douse any flame that takes hold. Additionally, the trebuchet would likely be placed behind a barricade to begin with. Even then, it would likely be outside the effective range of archers.
It is exceedingly unlikely that a fire arrow would both reach it and harm it. Yes, my animation is primitive. My editing programme doesn't do parabolae - only straight lines.
Lindybeige
Exactly...A Trebuchet isn't supposed to be built from kerosine soaked TNT, and likely some of the Men operating it might have an Eye on it, trying to extinguish any Fire that should happen to start.
s1ay3r44
The range of the common trebuchet was rather limited and usually shorter than that of the archers on top of the walls. Its purpose was to launch heavy objects over short distances with great force in a parabola (while Roman catapults used light ones over longer distances with a far flatter trajectory).
I guess the Casualty Rates were rather low. Sieges throughout the Ages lasted Weeks, Months even. They were Matters of slow and painfull Attrition of both Sides, a Game of Chicken, a Staringcontest which side would blink First.
I imagine that fight choreographers do the duels thing because they struggle to imagine what a front line would be like without guns or modern weapons of war.
They must have drunk the whole riven, then charge to the castle's bathroom.
There's a perfectly valid explanation for everything.
Did I just hear Safety Sammy from CatDog say "Owie" at 0:59? Sounds a lot like him and of course he would say that if a rock landed on him from a trebuchet.
Can you please do one for the history show, "Vikings"? I believe it is very historical in the battles, though not completely. I would love to see your thoughts on it.
I read a a article on the websait for the norwegian equivalent of BBC where a historian commented the first parts off season one, he said that what hi saw was quite historical correct. The only big thing was that his family situation isn't realistic. Basically a person off Ragnar's status wouldn't live in a "modern family" with no slaves etc. And the norse where actual really hygienic compared the rest off europe, they had a bath every saturday (while in england they had a bath 1-2 times each year), the word we stil use for saturday in norwegian (lørdag) is old norse for cleaning day.
Other than that it was just some minor details that even could be debated if they where wrong.
Her in Norway the show is considered to be the first foreign film that takes the vikings serious whit out making it to look like the "popcultur vikings".
Meg Deg Ahm quite some things were not realistic - to be honest vikings does a much better job on realism than most movies / series BUT it aint really correct.
1. Ragnar Lodbrok did exist but was totally different from the one we see who seems to be a combined mix of various great vikings with some eric the red to some harald hadradr.
2. Shieldwall is SORT OF well done BUT i miss the spears in the second and third row.
3. Armor...well the guys who in realioty fought with 2 handed weapons were the best armored of all because...iof you dont use a shield you will want to wear good armor. Now vikings had the best armor of their era but seemingly no single viking except the "king" had decent armor. And those using 2 handed weapons or dual wielding (dual wielding was basicly never done on a battlefield and if it occured it was either a form of art or for duels between civilians who did not have access to shields) are even without clothing. No sane person would use a 2 handed weapon without armor. Also the viking helmets were indeed far ahead their time and...no single viking uses them. Hm...
4. The whole setup. The temple in Episode 8 is shown to be on a mountain...if you visit the real one you will see it is...very flat. There is forest but its flat. And similiar mistakes happen some times.
5. The hierarchy. Well before the vikings turned christians there were no kings. There were elected leaders for war or peace but those were ELECTED - you cant just kill one and become the next - and they could be unelected as well. So if someone behaved like the jarl of season 1 you can bet he would have been replaced by someone else very quickly. Also the average northmen was a free man - FREE man - no one could tell him what to do. If a leader wanted followers he needed to convince them to his cause, pay them and keep them happy or else he would be a leader without men. So actual leaders made a huge effort in making their followers happy - basicly you were leader as long as you made the lives of people better and were dumped once you didnt do that anymore.
6. Female fighters. Yes a woman COULD become a warrior but that was extremely and very very rare. First of all, fighting was something most people even in the viking era and area, wanted to avoid because no sane human would like to risk his life all the time.
So women were usually rather happy that they did not have to fight in first place. Actually women were often the ones provoking feuds and fights because they did not have to worry about physical harm and in reality the men were usually those trying to keep peace.
Also women are physically simply inferior to men and in viking era men were trained in weapons in childhood women were not so they also had inferior experience. Also women were statused as "weak" same as children and old people and therefore no honorable warrior of the northmen would actually fight a woman - sagas tell that women who fought were usually just disarmed or knocked unconscious but not seriously fought and did not pose a real threat.
In vikins there are quite a lot female fighters shown and...uhm...they are far too good. Besides that they were not taken along in raiding because well...a boat of 60 men travveling for weeks. And then you take 2 or 3 women on board? guess what happens. So alone for that reason no one would take his wife with him on a raid.
7. The slave argument - well not all vikings were fond of slaves so it is unlikely that a man of Ragnars status had no slaves it is possible and legit.
8. The england thing...as said various periods clash here - however, england did have professional army (and the fyrd) and Ragnar poses a threat with just 4 or so boats? really? I am sorry but any english king would be able to dispatch of those vikings pretty easily - once their camp is found they would vastly outnumber and kill them without too many problems.
9. VIKINGS...."living in the bay (vik - ing) were criminals and outcasts of the north society. The old norse culture was quite peacefull and they were great artists, craftsmen and traders - the raiders were criminals in their own society and hunted down. So no Jarl would raid...(season 1) season 2 can be seen as a fuill scale war and that was legitimate.
Vikings were highly cultivated and civilised and closest to modern people of all people of their time. In vikings they are portrayed as savagaes barely educated at all - actually vikings were very educated almost everyone could read and write, and unlike shown in season 1, they DID know of england and "countries to the west" and england was no discovery - iceland and america were but england was already known long before the raid on lindisfarne.
10. outfits...ya ahm,...no. No viking would wear his hair like Lagatha or Ragnar and the clothing overall is...meh.
could say more but i doubt anyone will read it so...
One more thing as you mentioned hygiene - from historical documents of ibn fadlan we know, that vikings seemingly even washed daily - he said "The northmen must be the filthiest creatures on allahs earth, as they need to wash themselves on a daily basis"
Oh and just to back things a bit up - some numbers. The viking army that actually tried to conquer PARTS of england had about 8000 warriors while the english army consisted of 12.000. The viking army that actually managed to conquer ONE english kingdom had 6000 men. So...about 100 vikings threating several english kingdoms? Nope...not gonna happen.
From Sagas we know about 10 Women in all viking history that actually participated in battles - archeologically so far only 5 have been found. In vikings a single raidgroup has actually more female fighters than seemingly ever existed in the whole viking era.
Addition to the slave thing - actually in season 2 Ragnar owns some slaves that run the household and if you count Athelstein, which would be correct, he already had a slave in season 1. Its not like vikings treated slaves badly - in iceland a slave could become a equal member of society with all rights the born vikings had and that status was usually granted after some years of service.
What i do miss in the series is pretty mich the northmen stuff - artists and traders mainly - i mean the vikings traded goods from china to america - they had the biggest trade system in the whole history (before the modern era) they even surpassed rome in this - and that really should be mentioned.
If you go for history there are 3 things vikings were really remarkable and surpassed most other cultures of history
1 - Trade. As said, from north africa to china to america...
2 - Learning. Almost every single viking was able to read, write and had some basic education in geography and later on latin. 700 years before school became obligatory vikings already were well educated.
3 - Aritsts. Just look at north amulets, ulfberth swords, ships, architecture...the level of artistry was by far unmatched by cultures of that time. Ok the renessaince and the romans did better but really the vikings were great artists.
4 - seatravel. Vikings had boats able to travel the seas and rivers at the same time with speeds that are barely matched by modern sailing ships. You could say vikings were 1000 years ahead of their time.
5. Warfare, Actually vikings did not only have the best weapons and armor of their time, they also invented some extremely effective maneuvers and, numbers aside, had the best armies in the world (of their time)
6 - Society. Actually sort of close to our modern time - disputes were settled by discussion and arguments infront of a judge, backed up by witnesses etc. They had sort of gender equality - women were not allowed to vote in the thing but basicly had the same rights as men, including divorce, get a job etc.
They even had tolerance for homosexuals - yes homosexuality in viking era was known and tolerated - you could expect to be made fun of in some ways, but it was not forbidden or looked down at..
hygiene - the vikings spent a lot of time each day for cleaning themselves - brushing hair, washing themselves in some areas even brushing teeth (chewing wood, washing mouth)
democracy. Ok the vikings did not invent it - likely the very first people that had democracy were the ancient germanic tribes (which are basicly the same as the viking tribes just 2000 years difference in time) while the greeks actually were the first to write it down, the thing was the first democracy of mankind (as far as we know...who knows what cavemen actually did)
And so on. Vikings were awesome in many ways and usually....most of them are never hinted at in any movie or series
Orkar Isber The Vikings traded with America ? wasn't America discovered by people way after the vikings
Its was proved beyond any doubt in the 60th by the norwegian archaeologists Helge and Anne Stine Ingstad that there was a norse settlement on the coast of Newfoundland. Later both american and canadian archaeologist have found more profes that that vikings lived in america for 2-400 years.
The sages told us about a viking named Leif Erikson that discovered a land west off Greenland but noone took that serious. But as I said it was proved beyond doubt about 50 years ago that Vikings discovered america around year 1000.
Love the yawn at the end.
Very cool series (also love the "points about"). Thanks for all your effort.
This begs the question of why? Why do they need to take the castle? What's the point, what is the objective of their military action?
Is the region's grain-store inside the castle? Is it a position where attacks could be mounted from? Is there a person of political importance like an heir to land or wealth?
I don't see why, they are just acting out castle-raiding clichés but I don't see the point in what they are doing without a clear goal.
Because the script said so, obviously.
Also, because historically they also besieged the castle. Nevermind that historically the castle wasn't in the middle of countryside in the uglier end of nowhere and the makers failed to study up on apparently anything.
It was a a wealthy city of strategic importance. It was the backbone of the King's reign in southern England if you were to believe the plot.
Luciffrit That's not really an explanation, "the point in military terms" is the same as "the strategic importance". And again, wealthy city, take the city, leave the castle. It won't be a very wealthy castle when you destroy its walls.
How was it a "backbone" they were trapped inside while the attackers seemed to have everything of any worth.
I'm not talking about the movie, I'm talking about what it was based on. Why take a castle? How do they WORK, strategically.
I understand things like battleships and aircraft carriers, they can project destructive force, but a castle just seems to sit there getting pummelled and starved at huge expense.
Treblaine One main tactical advantage of a castle, is that you can sit in it and choose exactly when and where to counter attack. If you're besieging a castle, you know that any second a group of guys could come charging out of the gates, hurt some people and run back in. You have to man a counter defence as well. The people in the castle also have a tower with which they can get very accurate information about the layout of attackers and easily communicate.
They are also of strategic importance, not just tactical. They give you time to reinforce an area. The 7 weeks the castle lasted would have been more than enough time to bring in reinforcements. In that whole 7 weeks, the attackers need to feed care for and pay for their army, while the defenders were sitting at home. Castles also do a great job discouraging attacks in the first place. Siege engines are expensive, and logistically difficult. It's easy to forget how many wars have been entirely prevented because the people you hate have a really nice castle and taking them out is going to cost too much.
Castles also last a really long time. If you're a lord or king trying to create a dynasty, you could train some peasants to protect your lands. They will last 30 years if you're lucky. But if you build a castle, it will protect your great great grandson.
Oatcutter One thing I did hear was about the "end" of castles (or at least huge decline in use) was from widespread adoption of cannon, made it far too easy to demolish castle walls.
I always wondered what makes castles so valuable in the first place, I think you've summed it up quite well. Long term investment and being impregnable to all but the most persistent and overwhelming attacks.
THERE are the trebuchet I asked about in Part 1! Thank you!
I saw a movie where the evil lord used 'night arrows' - special arrows that didn't have flaming ends and couldn't be seen!
Oh please please do more of these kinds of movie critique thingys!
Please tear apart Braveheart!
Ironclad was five videos. Braveheart would be thirty eight.
Lindybeige
You mean "38 to the half-hour", right? :D
Lindybeige
You will never take mel gibson's FREEDOOOOOOOOOM
Lindybeige Worth it
MURDER HOLES!
I always quite liked that moniker, even though they really are just holes to drop heavy stuff through...
...You are probably going to tell me they where never called that in the first place, aren't you? XD
Lindybeige: "You're hitting your own men you twerps!!"
Edward Longshanks [insufferably]: "Yeeess... but we'll hit theirs as well!"
John Snow: We can't loose the arrows now, we'll hit our men.
Ramsey Bolton: LOOSE!
Makes you wonder what on earth William the Conqueror was thinking, abandoning his bodyguard with orders to prosecute the siege of Sainte Suzanne (take a glance at that on the web) on their own - for three or four years!
200 men on the plain against 300 in a castle on a very steep hill, for starters.
And then all the boldest knights of France from Burgundy to Aquitaine thought, “those are famous men attacking that impregnable castle. They’ll be stuck outside its walls for ages, or out foraging, so let’s go at them for glory”.
Where in the blazes were you and your main army all those years, King William?
Point of fact: William de Warenne charged two castles: at Sainte Suzanne he was shot and badly injured, but he recovered. At Pevensey he was shot and mortally wounded.
Well, to make the river disappear was a pretty good tactic.