My college professor who taught British history would say Braveheart was correct in 2 aspects, there is a place called Scotland and there was a man named William Wallace. Still cracks me up years later.
We all know what hollywood movies are about, some stories are good some stories are bad, some stories are true, some stories are not. The business is not about teaching history to the audience, it is about bringing a compelling piece of cinema that entertains people. So go to the movies have some fun, and if you are interested there are plenty of books/websites/papers that you can research about the topics in question. From my point of view there is really not much to discuss or get so upset about. It is what it is.
“Braveheart. Oscar winning film, hard to believe.” This tickled me. Braveheart opens with the line “I shall tell you of William Wallace. Historians from England will say I am a liar…”. The film then proceeds to tell a tissue of whoppers about William Wallace.
“Historians from England will tell you I am a liar…” Proceeds to immediately show the wrong date for the death of the Scottish king, which a quick google search would’ve immediately told you
Very generous rating on the costumes for Braveheart. The English might have looked ok, but they made the scottish Lords and commons look like rag tag barbarians.
I completely agree. Same for the Last Kingdom. I feel like he has a general idea of what it looked like but it's definitely not his specialty or subject. Arms and armour is quite a separate field.
Even the English armour looked terrible. They’re depicted in brave heart as wearing a single “uniform” among each other. In reality (as I’m sure you know) heraldry was the way in which an English knight or man at arms was dressed. Each person would be wearing a surcoat depicting the coat of arms of whichever fiefdom he was fighting under. And normal English infantry wouldn’t even have a surcoat; they would most likely be wearing normal clothes with a helmet and maybe maille.
You could say that about the last kingdom or vikings... I get that they had to sexy up the vikings or northman but there were no real differences between both the saxons later English and the Danes
oh man i listened to this guy whos wrote several books on the subject i thought it was probabally correct but i had to just scroll down to the comments and thanks internet experts for your insights (not) 🤣
absolutely obsessed with this man’s dry distain for Ironclad. “King John’s employing vikings who’ve been hiding in the north sea for the last four centuries”
“This story has been improved by suggesting they came out of 9th century Scandinavia” made me laugh out love. Man I wish I could have a few dinners with Mr. Morris
He was very, very generous with the costumes in Braveheart. They're the equivalent of the ramps going down on the boats in Saving Private Ryan and a mix of Revolutionary War, Civil War and Native American tribes running towards the Germans who are firing catapults at them.
Braveheart is so full of inaccuracies. It indicates that William Wallace was the real father of Edward III, which is pretty hard to believe, considering Edward III was born 7 years after Wallace's death. Also, at the time of Wallace's execution, Isabella of France would have been about 10 years old. The movie also makes a point about Isabella speaking French and Edward II speaking English, when in reality they both had French as their mother tongue. French was the main language spoken by English nobility from the mid 11th century to the late 14th century.
I smiled when he said 'probably do quite well that chap', GOT has been always praised for its accurate depiction of middle ages even when it's a fantasy drama
Everyone knows the Middle Ages were full of random mist and smoke, were always gloomy and overcast, and everybody, including the nobles, had random smears of grime and dirt on their faces and generally looked like extras from one of the more fanciful 80s MTV videos. And yet curiously, they all also have Hollywood-level hair styling requiring hours every day to achieve. Who knew there was so much hair mousse and gel in the MA?
@@LOCATIONREDACTED It's also weird how these films depict the buildings and the surroundings as being super old as they appear now. I'm sure back then some of them were new. (As being recently built their time.)
It gets many details wrong, but it gets some of the basics right. Wallace rebelled against the English which later inspired Robert the Bruce to win independence from England. Also, most of history is not accurate. History is always written with a bias. I am sure we would all be stunned if we knew the real history of events of the past. How many villians were heroes and vice versa?
@@arishokqunari1290 I could write you an essay but I'll summarise the best I can. The main protagonist is based on the real life Francis Marion who rather than being a heroic figure used to hunt and kill Indians with his friends for sport. He also used to rape his female slaves. It's depiction of his militia as being mixed race is also blatantly untrue. The main antagonist is based on Banastre Tarleton, a British Lt Colonel who was known as "Bloody Ban" because his men went berserk and massacred rebels after they tried to kill him while under a flag of truce. Something which was regarded as a serious breach of the rules of war at the time. The film also depicted him as a broke aristocrat when in fact he was neither as he came from a wealthy merchant family in the north of England. He wasn't killed during the revolutionary war either. He lived to be promoted to the rank of general and became a prominent British politician. The worst and most offensive inaccuracy in the film is the depiction of British troops locking the entire population of a town in a church and setting fire to it. This did not happen and it totally disregards the fact that those troops would have regarded Americans as fellow Brits at the time. Even their accents would have sounded familiar as they were similar to that of an English west country accent. The film's makers later admitted that they based the scene on the massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane which was carried out by the SS in France during WW2. There is plenty more I could point out about this piece of disgusting anti British propaganda but this is long winded already.
The Red Wedding was based on two events in Scottish history: The Black Dinner in 1440 and the Massacre of Glencoe in 1691. The former involved a dinner wherein two young boys were put on trial for high treason, found guilty and executed all because the chancellor thought their clan was getting too powerful and might pose a threat to the then 10 year old king (with whom they apparently got along quite well during the dinner). The latter involved members of one clan seeking shelter with a rival clan. They stayed for two weeks before attempting to murder everyone under 70. Since they were guests of the clan they were supposed to hold to certain hospitality rituals which included not massacring your hosts. Their breaking of that trust was considered a pretty serious offense. So yeah, all in all pretty accurate.
The massacre of Glencoe had nothing to do with the "one clan taking shelter with another clan". That is just another thread in the web spun by romanticists who like to imagine Highlanders as heroic stalwarts of honour and friendship so beloved of novelists, especially today with shows like "Outlander" who not so much wipe their arse with Highland history as stamp on it then grind it into the dust screaming "be grateful I made you popular". The only prominent clan member of the British army battalion sent into Glencoe was its commander Robert Campbell of Glenyon. Most of his battalion was actually made up of lowland families. They already KNEW their orders. And never be conned into thinking the Massacre was another inglorious chapter of "Campbell vs MacDonald." It was actually a determined attempt by the Whig aristocracy of Scotland who had been the main cheerleaders of William of Orange's ascension to the throne of Britain to break the independence of the Jacobite clans of the North and force them into abandoning Jacobitism. The real perpetrator of the Massacre was The Master of Stair. He was the one who thought it up, he was the one who came up with the idea of making the clan chiefs sign the oath to William, he was the one who convinced William that the MacDonalds of Glencoe were to be made an example of, he was the one who passed the buck to John Campbell of Breadalbane as he was Glenlyon's chief, he was also the one who gave the orders to assist the regiment to John Hill, the garrison commander at Fort William. The very essence of the Massacre was the Lowland's desire to finally be rid of the Highlanders, who by themselves did themselves no favours by treating the Lowlanders around their borders as simple targets to steal cattle from and charge "taxes" to leave them alone. And if they weren't fighting lowlanders they were fighting themselves. MacIan of Glencoe had made himself more enemies from surrounding clans than Campbell, purely because of his passion for stealing cattle from other clans or picking bloodied feuds with them. By 1692 MacIan had made enemies of the Camerons, the Macleans, the Frasers, the Stewarts of Appins, the Ogilvies of GlenIsla and the Campbells of Argyll and Breadalbane. The only thing that enraged the other clans was that the Campbells had been seen to violate the ancient Scottish custom of hospitality and a fear that they would be next. In the end all that happened was the Scottish parliament had it's last moments before it sold itself to the Parliament of England by holding an enquiry to which the findings were met with a resounding "oh aye?" from the Lowlanders and an even bigger "oh well" from William.
I would also suggest King Etzel´s (Attila´s) wedding as a source, as portrayed in the Nibelungen Saga, or thidreks Saga, can´t remember, but there was a party, guests and wholesale slaughter involved.
No-one ever mentions the biggest, most glaring inaccuracy: the title, Braveheart. William Wallace was _not_ the Braveheart. Robert the Bruce was the Braveheart. According to legend, after his death his heart was removed from his corpse and carried on a crusade to the Holy Land in a wooden casket. His wish was that it was to be thrown toward the enemy and lead his men into battle. But, apparently, it never got as far as Spain.
Been waiting for the "official" Ironclad roasting from Marc for years, lol! When I met him in 2012 at Rochester Castle for a EH tour (company I now work for) - I asked him about Ironclad and he told me his thoughts. Now he has told the world via this great video. MR
I was at a medieval recreation thing at Castle Rising in 2012 and I asked someone there about Ironclad. He thought it was wonderful, but he was an armourer ;-) he also liked Kingdom of Heaven, probably for the same reasons
@@slome815 well I’m sure most real battles are a lot bigger or more epic in scope. Even top of the line movies use cgi or have inaccuracies. I’m speaking on the film being enjoyable and just cinematically/thematically well done
I've always wondered what historians think about castles in movies. The walls are always dingy, moss covered, broken down, and dirty. I notice the stairs a lot in movies where they're inside castles. The stone stairs always have low spots in them, worn smooth from hundreds of years of people using them. I just saw The Last Duel and most of the stone buildings in that movie look like what it is. A film crew set up inside a building that's hundreds of years old. But I imagine castles would have looked new; the stone pristine, clean and sharp. Inside the rooms would have, lots of color, paint, woodwork, and tapestry. Because that's how time works. The filmmakers can't exactly power wash and completely refurbish them before filming, though. But our idea of what the castles looked like when people lived in them is probably completely wrong because of that. It's the same idea with any old structures. The pyramids of Giza come to mind. You have to film them as they are now even though their current state is shambles compared to how they looked after they were built. So, if your film is about ancient Egyptians, you have to either CGI, build partial replicas on a sound stage, or just film them as is.
Loved this video, but I was a bit surprised to hear the costumes in Braveheart rated so highly. Isn't one of the big fallacies (among many) of the film the idea that the Scottish were so far behind the English in their mode of armour and warfare? The two armies would have been visually indistinguishable except by their heraldry.
Indeed. They were not wearing kilts and dreadlocks. They would have, by and large, been indistinguishable from their English counterparts. What's so hilarious is that a statue of Wallace was erected in Stirling after this film which has him dressed like that. I believe Alex Salmond has a shrine nearby.
I'm a bit confused by that as well. Kilts weren't a thing until about the 16th century and they didn't wear blue face paint due to not wanting to be associated with their pagan Pict ancestors. Outlaw King does a far better representation of what the Scottish army looked like
As bad as the scots were depicted, the english were pretty much on par with reality and that's what he's saying. And I'm glad there's someone who ignores the typical rant about the depiction of the scottish, because people who do this normally don't say a single word about the depiction of the english. In the end, the production was pretty deliberate with how they depicted the scottish to make them look different from the english, something they deemed necessary to show that the scots were the underdogs in the movie, fighting against a much more advanced enemy. If you compare that with different movies, this is a quite common trope to visualize the underdog - just give them more traditional clothing and weapons rather than armor or advanced weaponry and even the most uneducated viewer can instantly see who the underdog or the "savage" of the story is.
@Billy Bones Very true. They had so few cavalry that the Scottish infantry was formed into schiltrons as a very hard counter to the (many) English heavy cavalry. It was such an effective tactic the English completely changed theirs which had the knock-on effect of helping them achieve victories against the French 30 years later.
In the Last Kingdom's defense on the "no mercy" shouts, they had the Vikings shout that because the Saxons chanted that at the start of the battle (in the scene of course) so kind of a "you asked for this, you got it now" moment. But I also remember thinking, why are all the helpless people out on the clear ground where its as easy as could be for the horses... like why are they that close to the battlefield and virtually unprotected in the most vulnerable position?
The last Kingdom had quite a few social and religious massive inaccuracies, but the overall story was gripping and very accurate. The "diplomacy" too, was pretty accurate. I too am a Mediaevalist, but my expertise lies in Medieval Church History, so a very narrow expertise.
With Braveheart, I'm surprised that he doesn't mention about the clip itself (i.e. prior to the battle of Stirling Bridge)... Firstly, there is no Bridge whatsoever in the battle in the movie...there isn't even a river nearby. Also, prior to the battle, some English monks went to the Scottish camp to negotiate with Wallace, he never rode up to the English commander to "pick a fight"
I think the best things about Ironclad was that you had Paul Giamatti playing King John, 3 years after he played John Adams in the miniseries of the same name. Not to mention that Giamatti could literally chew on scenery like a rabid dog and it would be worth watching, the man is just so damned good (I need a show that has Paul Giamatti and David Hewlett in it as main cast.... I don't care what it is, it would be fun so long as it had halfway decent writing. James Purefoy being one of the main cast is never a bad thing either since he is an excellent character actor, playing everything from Blackbeard to Mark Antony to Edward of Woodstock to King George VI.
He is being very generous when speaking of the costumes in Braveheart. The English armour may have been fairly accurate but the Scots was about 300 years off. No kilts, no Woad {blue facepaint", no big pointy sticks. Ole Mel took so many diabolical liberties with history, and the problem is that half of Scotland believes him.
The most shocking part of this video, was finding out that this guy was a teenager, when Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves was released. I was 11 when it was released. So that means, this guy is less than 10 years older than me... Kind of puts things in perspective.
I’ve read everyone of this dudes book. His Book on King John really made me see the king in a different light. Not nearly as inept as he was always made out to be. Definitely cruel though
I always thought that King John was underrated. He was left an awful mess by his brother, which required severe taxing to recover. He was an excellent administrator, leaving some of the first detailed records available, and while he lost a lot of territory, he avoided unnecessary conflict and expense. His "ruthlessness" was quite modern in some ways. He did sleep with other people's wives though.
@@rolfmiezitis1391 it’s so refreshing to have a reply that is from someone intelligent and not Arguing and calling names. Fuck, thank you, sir, I appreciate it. I believe his cruelty was a bit more cruel than the typical western ruler. Starving a woman and her child locked in a room isn’t the norm I’d say. But I agree, he was capable, and pretty fucking unlucky too. Have you read his book on John? Are you old enough to remember “Robin Hood-Men in Tights”?
@@JessCausey it’s funny you mention Dan. I’ve read Magna Carta and Plantagenets (Plantagenets is one of my all time favorites) but I just started Summer of Blood this morning. About the peasants revolt under Richard II
Short kilts, long hair, blue face, the love interest was three years old at the time and living in France, Wallace was only ever in two major battles, he wasn't in charge at Stirling bridge with no reason to give him the credit, he fled leaving men on the field at Falkirk, what were the 5 points for? not to mention Wallace wasn't 'Braveheart'.
I will defend Last Kingdom a bit. The "no mercy," cry was being thrown back at the saxons that were considered too weak by the danes. It was a story thing and Iseult knew her path with Uhtred was ending so she wanted to stay nearby
@@frankenstein974 "Never attack innocent women & people" LMAO where did you come to that conclusion? They are literally famous for their raids on villages & monasteries. I suppose villagers & monks don't count as innocent people in your eyes?
Wasn’t Robert the Bruce the one really called Braveheart? I feel the movie did him wrong. And Wallace wasn’t even a Highlander. He was a Lowland nobleman, so his clothes would probably be similar to what the English noblemen were wearing
My rule of thumb for looking at any period in history is did the population go up or down (allowing for terrible diseases). And, of course, generally they go up, which is why we are where we are, number wise. So, as you sort of say at the end, for most people, these fights are on the edge of their world. Their daily fight is with the rain or the weeds or anything else messing up their veggie patch! Even with the Danes, their warriors, those that went off being thoroughly Viking, might have been truly vicious, but most of their people were farmers and hunters, far more interested in growing things, weaving, and everything else that goes with just being a people.
I absolutely adore The Last Kingdom. I had already read Cornwell's Saxon Stories, so was delighted when they created the TV series, and it didn't disappoint. Glad to see you give it such a high rating for the visuals.
The Scottish horses, in modern terms would have to be 14.2 hands, otherwise they are ponies. That's not to take anything away from a sturdy pony with good legs. It eats less, breaks down a lot less often and is good enough for what you need it for. Probably better for the sort of war you are going to fight over the kind of terrain you will be in. You need a mount that can tolerate poor food, mud and cold. Something that can slip down a slope or plow through a bog without you having to worry about it getting hurt. My great grandfather, 18 removed put an axe into a well mounted knight in 1314, mounted on a smart pony and he was the king of Scotland so I imagine he could have picked something big and impressive. He was a war leader and chose the best mount for what he needed.
"Mel Gibson: Woad Warrior." That had me laughing way too hard. I wonder how many viewers even get it. 🤣🤣🤣 As a student of British history and writer of medieval lore, I loved the commentary, and I'm so glad you were gentle on "Prince of Thieves." That was my first introduction to the amazing Alan Rickman, he was hilarious and made me love the bad guy, and the movie never tried to be perfectly accurate. It was an adventure, a fantasy. ("Unlike some OTHER Robins, I can speak with an English accent!")
In a land with no clocks.. Sherriff beckons to 1st woman, "I'll see you @10:30." beckons to 2nd woman, "you at 10:45," turns to walk away, then turns back, "and bring a friend."
You know its bad when the expert pauses 5 times in a 45 second period. On the topic of Braveheart, the blue body paint may not be accurate. Wode doesn't bind to proteins, it only bonds to cellulose based materials. So wode paint would have sat on the skin and dripped off with the base amount of perspiration. It's actually most likely the subject was given a semipermanent tattoo using copper that either oxidized before application or oxidized in the skin. Most of our understanding of these practices weren't document by the tribes that used them. Most of our written accounts of the real lives of Celtic and Gaelic people come from the Romans. After that, it's largely oral tradition and information from enemy empires.
I watched the whole video thinking I should read one of your books and In the final seconds realised you’d written the Anglo Saxons, which I finished last week. Mad
What pisses me off is that Vikings and Saxons look completely different, with the Vikings looking more like some sort of outlaw biker gang. In fact they looked pretty similar. I suppose you've got to distinguish between the two sides somehow but I find it annoying. Plus they tend to go into battle without helmets often. I guess producers and actors do like their characters faces to be seen, but it's also annoying.
@@ivorbiggun710 yeah that's a complaint that often gets mentioned in ww2 movies as well. I think in Band of Brothers reviews I watched it mentioned one of the veterans (can't remember which one sorry) saying that the only problem they had with the series is that people keep walking or standing around the front lines without their helmet on, no soldier would have done that. As you say though, from a TV perspective, the average viewer needs a quick way to identify characters and which team they're on. Hence the old fashioned black hat / white hat in westerns.
Short hair vs long hair the main tell for the last kingdom seems funny to me because the books I have suggested Anglo Saxons have long hair and beards when the Norman show up
Agree with Marc so much about day-to-day life in the Middle Ages. It's like depictions of the Wild West in movies, I've heard it was much more mundane than that.
"not very chivalrous, these vikings." "Mel Gibson, woad warrior" Not only was this video informative but Mr Morris was quite funny when discussing the inaccuracies. I'd give this video a 10/10 😉
All the costumes in these movies are very bad. Braveheart is the worst... Nothing is correct in the costumes. How can an historian rate it so high on that point?
I can only conclude because he isn’t a fashion historian and it’s impossible to be an expert on all things medieval because that’s like 1000 years of history and most classically trained historians don’t focus on/pay attention/are even taught about clothes. May I direct your attention to the growing number of fashion historians for a better take on medieval costumes like “the welsh Viking” or Abby Cox or Nichole Ruffin or Morgan Donner for some A class videos on the subject.
One issue - Braveheart did not start in 1097. Edward the first did not even become King until 1272. Wallace was thought to be born in 1270. It starts roughly around 1280 and ends with the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Braveheart gets loads of history wrong. However, its an incredibly well done movie that is quite entertaining. It actually got me into Scottish history when I was much younger and saw it for the first time. Love him or hate him, Gibson is a fantastic story teller.
Correct. A more accurate costume analysis is here. The costumes in this film aren't even worth a passing nod to the time period. ua-cam.com/video/5uNZpoBoKFM/v-deo.html
It is. Clearly his works are not focused on this period especially in relation to warfare. How does anyone look at this garbage at 16:23 and think "oh wow, 9/10 14th century armor" is beyond me
@@stevovimy No no no my friend, you're thinking of a SHORT kilt, which yes was invented in the 1700-1800s. The great kilt or belted plaid however has its history going all the way back to the 1500s, with the first official mention being 1594. That being said, kilts would not have been worn by Wallace and his men. Something close to the great plaid would have. This would have been tied at the knees for movement but would have been a long caftan like garment.
I really like Marc Morris, but I think he was being a little too kind to Braveheart, especially r.e. the costumes. Like the film gets the English soldiers about right, but it depicts the Scottish soldiers clad in first century AD ancient British woad and eighteenth century highland clansmen's kilts, when in fact they'd have been dressed in the same armour as their English counterparts, just with different heraldry.
Re: Game Of Thrones... The reaction to Red Wedding certainly is realistic based on what Morris says. Even in-universe, it's considered an unprecedented act of treachery that makes Freys, Boltons and Lannisters even more hated than they ever were.
16:30 ...did this guy just say that Braveheart's costumes are 9 or 10/10?!! As in costumes involving 13th century woad and belted plaid about 300 years too early, with all the Scots dressed like Iron Age hunter gatherers?!!
For the show Vikings, it gets some major bonus points for finally murdering the old horned helmet viking image... or at least bashing in both of its kneecaps with a baseball bat. A few years before that show came out I remember a history professor stating explicitly that he didn't think that old, horribly flawed visual was going to go away anytime soon. But around 5-6 years later this show came out and revamped how people (at least in America) view vikings. Whether or not this is for the better overall.... yes, god I hate the horned helmet crap unless we are shouting in the ancient language of dragons and stealing everything that isn't nailed to the floor..... is it any more accurate?.... I would argue for "not really, but its still an improvement". Kenneth W. Harl was the one who I heard say that, so to be fair, this is a man who specializes in antiquity, in particular Anatolia and specializing in coins of that time and teaches classical and Byzantine history, so not someone directly on top of Norse history, but between the Byzantine and Crusader history he does teach there is a lot of relevant knowledge, plus the man is far from ignorant. So take that as you will.
But it replaced it with leather biker gang costumes and weird haircuts. Real early medieval viking clothes and armor is cool enough. We don't need al this black leather.
@@slome815 Still, that horned helmet crap was so set in stone that it looked like it was here to stay. Points for actually making the trope change at all.
Braveheart was definitely my favourite historical fantasy comedy when I was a kid. Stephen: I didn't like him anyway. *leans in* Stephen: He wasn't right, in the head! *slaps William's back, grabs his sword and buggers off. Cue Gibson's bemused face*
Slightly disappointed they didn't get him to react to the depiction of the Battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart, where they were so keen to have a thousand extras charge at each other in kilts and armour that they *didn't bother having a bridge*.
The Red Wedding (along with pretty much everything else GRRM wrote for ASOIF and GoT) was inspired by the Black Dinner in Scotland. Also, the war of the 5 kings in Game Of Thrones was inspired by the war of the roses, even naming the families in a similar manner (Starks/Yorks and Lannisters/Lancasters). It's a fantasy show/book series first and foremost, but I'd say a good 75%+ of it was ripped straight from our history books.
A wonderfully lucid set of reviews, accompanied occasionally by perfectly -timed inserts of sand - dry humour. Superb stuff. One thing I would dearly enjoy seeing is Mr Morris’ review of the ‘ Sword Dane ‘ s first appearance in TLK, particularly the fascinating, very ‘ tinsel ‘ - looking structures, almost comically coloured garb of the Cornish king and his retinue…
You know what you “a historian” failed to mention during your critique of Braveheart? Let me make a little bit of a list. -The armor of the Scotts -the treatment of how the Scotts are portrayed -the fact that quite a few important characters are absent from the film and some characters are not the correct age. -the fact that the Scotts are wearing kilts -the incorrect locations of several important battles -the incorrect approach to the English and what they where doing. -the fact that the Scottish Claymore used by Wallace wasn’t actually a weapon yet. Oh and that massive axe wasn’t a thing yet either and that axe would be incredibly heavy and tiring to use over long periods of time. Braveheart gets an 8/10 for viewing pleasure, but a 1/10 for historical accuracy.
A generalised plaid pattern is a very ancient weaving technique, which was used in Scotland. A "real kilt " is at least 8 yards long, and needs a leather belt and cloak pin.
"Mel Gibson: Woad Warrior." Holy crap, that's amazing. This man needs a raise, I don't care what he does or who has to cover it, but he needs a raise!!
This is how you do it. I know this bloke from his King John book which I picked up after reading Robin Hood and Crusaded tales for the 100th time. HE IS VERY GOOD. THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT THE RIGHT WAY
I hope this doesn’t sound inconsiderate or insulting in anyway; I was about 28 when that Robin Hood movie came out, and I looked at this and guess you were close to my age. I was surprised to hear you were a teenager. Congratulations on your books, this is a wonderful presentation.
The reason why Scottland and England got along so well between 1200-1296 was because of all the Civil Wars in England, if you're fighting yourself you're not fighting other people.
I wish you'd make a quick comment on the misuse of the word 'decimated' used in the narration of Ironclad. Minor point, I know. But it's misuse has gotten so bad over the decades (mainly by journalists who think it sounds cool) that even the revered OED has tweaked the definition. It may be too late to save that word but, if we take a stand now, perhaps we can save: too vs to; your and you're; there, their and they're from the language hell of the stupid. Speaking of language, I recall when the Costner Robin Hood film came out that people were obsessed with accents etc. "How dare an American play an Englishman?...". Then I read a great article by an historian who bluntly stated that since nobody would actually be speaking English as we would recognize it, who cares? In fact Locksley and the toffs would mostly be speaking French and likely would be unable to even communicate with the 'merry men'.
So my question is why don't these medieval movies, why don't some of them hire you for historical accuracy? They literally have to have someone like this for their movies. Like I read, Gene Wilder met his last wife when he wrote See No Evil, Hear no Evil because he wanted to talk to a real teacher who taught Deaf people before he played a deaf person.
16:56 yes to this complaint and clarification. for whatever reason, our middle-ages films are relentlessly bloody, brutal and everyone is just constantly bashing and beheading everyone else. He's right, as far as my memories of history class can confirm: Depending when and where, much of the time in the UK you'd have fairly peaceful people carrying on fairly murderless lives. As far as we can see, they liked to party, they liked fun, festivals and he keenly points out like an expert - they had a pretty damn good sense of humor. I wish we saw much more of that life depicted in the period piece films and series. Who might have captured it best? Blackadder. No, Im not joking. I mean, put costume accuracy aside, in the context of this discussion, Blackadder *middle ages period has them carrying on with nonsense, petty squabbles, ridiculous plans, the banality of existence, custom codpieces and so on. Ok, yes, the odd bludgeoning of servants.
Dear video producers… this guy is pretty interesting. LET HIM TALK!! There’s no need for the terrible music in the background! Trust me only people that like history will watch these type of videos
Outlaw King shows a much better representation of the "Brave heart" period. Like he talked about here they show how the war was such a tragedy as they had been getting along really well for a century.
PLEASE take a look at a game, Kingdom Come Deliverance. They made real efforts for accuracy, and so many of his complaints are corrected in this game. Colorful clothes and castles, humour, etc. The carrots arent even orange because orange carrots didn't exist in 1403. I would love to see his take on it.
Fantastic game, although that even gets a few things wrong such as the lack of pointed shoes (crackows or poulaines) and sabatons when they were at the height of their popularity (Blackadder got it right with the pointy shoes :)) ).
@@voodoochild1975az honestly, it's a masterpiece, and I've never been this genuinely excited by the prospects of a sequel for any other game, I'm with you there!
For Game of Thrones first part: Machiavelli's The Prince provides two clear examples of noble-titled individuals inviting their former rivals to dinner and peace, only to have them all eliminated that very same night. Cesare Borgia himself is actually commended for the swift, timely execution of his enemies when they were actually offered the banner of peace. I know this is in the Renaissance Era and not the Medieval Era, but as one era died and the next entered, this sort of stuff did become a little more commonplace than one might care to consider.
My college professor who taught British history would say Braveheart was correct in 2 aspects, there is a place called Scotland and there was a man named William Wallace. Still cracks me up years later.
We all know what hollywood movies are about, some stories are good some stories are bad, some stories are true, some stories are not. The business is not about teaching history to the audience, it is about bringing a compelling piece of cinema that entertains people. So go to the movies have some fun, and if you are interested there are plenty of books/websites/papers that you can research about the topics in question. From my point of view there is really not much to discuss or get so upset about. It is what it is.
@@rhysioeren3203Nobody's upset dude
“Braveheart. Oscar winning film, hard to believe.”
This tickled me. Braveheart opens with the line “I shall tell you of William Wallace. Historians from England will say I am a liar…”. The film then proceeds to tell a tissue of whoppers about William Wallace.
Nothing in the film about him being a great center forward and a Lisbon Lion.
Listen, Mel Gibson just hates the English for some reason. See Braveheart and the Patriot
“Historians from England will tell you I am a liar…”
Proceeds to immediately show the wrong date for the death of the Scottish king, which a quick google search would’ve immediately told you
@@jordinagel1184 to be fair they didn't have google back then haha.
Showing your age a bit
It is as true as any Robin Hood or King Arthur English nonsense eh.
Very generous rating on the costumes for Braveheart. The English might have looked ok, but they made the scottish Lords and commons look like rag tag barbarians.
I completely agree. Same for the Last Kingdom. I feel like he has a general idea of what it looked like but it's definitely not his specialty or subject. Arms and armour is quite a separate field.
Even the English armour looked terrible. They’re depicted in brave heart as wearing a single “uniform” among each other. In reality (as I’m sure you know) heraldry was the way in which an English knight or man at arms was dressed. Each person would be wearing a surcoat depicting the coat of arms of whichever fiefdom he was fighting under. And normal English infantry wouldn’t even have a surcoat; they would most likely be wearing normal clothes with a helmet and maybe maille.
You could say that about the last kingdom or vikings... I get that they had to sexy up the vikings or northman but there were no real differences between both the saxons later English and the Danes
The Medieval Historian should talk to the Ancient Warfare Expert!
oh man i listened to this guy whos wrote several books on the subject i thought it was probabally correct but i had to just scroll down to the comments and thanks internet experts for your insights (not) 🤣
Marc's humour is so dry and subtle that you'd be forgiven for thinking he's giving higher praise on some of these than he is. This was hilarious.
He looks a lot like Robert Fripp... In every possible way...
very enjoyable to watch. most tines these experts are quite serious so his humor was appreciated
"What have they done" with a totally flat affect. Hilarious. But I grew up with BBC humor.
A truely british sense of humor. Oh im sorry
*HUMOUR* sorry to my british brethren.
Or lower...
absolutely obsessed with this man’s dry distain for Ironclad. “King John’s employing vikings who’ve been hiding in the north sea for the last four centuries”
Yeah, that was really funny. I expected the same disdain for Braveheart though, but that sadly didn't come...
He had me with "the late, great, irreplaceable Alan Rickman".
The ONLY reason I watch that Robin Hood. The rusty spoon references have long been my favorite.
Bring a friend lol
“This story has been improved by suggesting they came out of 9th century Scandinavia” made me laugh out love. Man I wish I could have a few dinners with Mr. Morris
I am still laughing at this, it's so so good.
Loud?
Marc Morris is a legend, although was a little generous with some of the marks here. His Anglo Saxons and Norman Conquest books are excellent.
I agree... everything shown was trash
Read his Norman Conquest book as well as his Edward 1 book; both were great reads. I'd highly recommend both if you're interested in the time period.
Particularly with Braveheart, which is a piece of crap.
@@ivorbiggun710 yeah but the music in that film is amazing
He was very, very generous with the costumes in Braveheart.
They're the equivalent of the ramps going down on the boats in Saving Private Ryan and a mix of Revolutionary War, Civil War and Native American tribes running towards the Germans who are firing catapults at them.
Braveheart is so full of inaccuracies. It indicates that William Wallace was the real father of Edward III, which is pretty hard to believe, considering Edward III was born 7 years after Wallace's death. Also, at the time of Wallace's execution, Isabella of France would have been about 10 years old.
The movie also makes a point about Isabella speaking French and Edward II speaking English, when in reality they both had French as their mother tongue. French was the main language spoken by English nobility from the mid 11th century to the late 14th century.
French was the language spoken by a good chunk of the Scottish nobility as well at the time.
Interesting…thank you.
Absolutely true. Braveheart is a woeful film for a history buff. Despise it.
@@CountScarlioni indeed, Robert the Bruce'a family was Norman French in origin.
Artistic... FREEEEDOOOOOOOOM
"We should have done this before lunch" had me laughing way harder than it should have
I smiled when he said 'probably do quite well that chap', GOT has been always praised for its accurate depiction of middle ages even when it's a fantasy drama
Everyone knows the Middle Ages were full of random mist and smoke, were always gloomy and overcast, and everybody, including the nobles, had random smears of grime and dirt on their faces and generally looked like extras from one of the more fanciful 80s MTV videos. And yet curiously, they all also have Hollywood-level hair styling requiring hours every day to achieve. Who knew there was so much hair mousse and gel in the MA?
Medieval society was divided into those who rule, those who pray, those who toil, and those who style.
@@AF-tv6uf LOL!
Also, no plasterers, the castles look like dilapidated ruins and everything else looks rickety, rather than built to last by highly skilful people.
@@LOCATIONREDACTED It's also weird how these films depict the buildings and the surroundings as being super old as they appear now. I'm sure back then some of them were new. (As being recently built their time.)
there are mentions that vikings were obsessed with hygiene. probably something with gods and showimg gods that you care about your life and b ody
"Mel Gibson: Woad warrior"
I laughed out loud
I came here to make the same comment. Funniest thing I've heard in a while.
Braveheart is basically a fantasy movie.
Problem is that is presented as history.
Same thing with the patriot.
And, sadly, lots of people think it is all true.
@@ivorbiggun710 Well, SNP and IRA supporters do anyway.
It gets many details wrong, but it gets some of the basics right. Wallace rebelled against the English which later inspired Robert the Bruce to win independence from England. Also, most of history is not accurate. History is always written with a bias. I am sure we would all be stunned if we knew the real history of events of the past. How many villians were heroes and vice versa?
could you please say what was inacurrate about the Patriot? I'm interested in history of the 18th century
@@arishokqunari1290 I could write you an essay but I'll summarise the best I can.
The main protagonist is based on the real life Francis Marion who rather than being a heroic figure used to hunt and kill Indians with his friends for sport. He also used to rape his female slaves. It's depiction of his militia as being mixed race is also blatantly untrue.
The main antagonist is based on Banastre Tarleton, a British Lt Colonel who was known as "Bloody Ban" because his men went berserk and massacred rebels after they tried to kill him while under a flag of truce. Something which was regarded as a serious breach of the rules of war at the time.
The film also depicted him as a broke aristocrat when in fact he was neither as he came from a wealthy merchant family in the north of England. He wasn't killed during the revolutionary war either. He lived to be promoted to the rank of general and became a prominent British politician.
The worst and most offensive inaccuracy in the film is the depiction of British troops locking the entire population of a town in a church and setting fire to it. This did not happen and it totally disregards the fact that those troops would have regarded Americans as fellow Brits at the time. Even their accents would have sounded familiar as they were similar to that of an English west country accent.
The film's makers later admitted that they based the scene on the massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane which was carried out by the SS in France during WW2.
There is plenty more I could point out about this piece of disgusting anti British propaganda but this is long winded already.
The Red Wedding was based on two events in Scottish history: The Black Dinner in 1440 and the Massacre of Glencoe in 1691.
The former involved a dinner wherein two young boys were put on trial for high treason, found guilty and executed all because the chancellor thought their clan was getting too powerful and might pose a threat to the then 10 year old king (with whom they apparently got along quite well during the dinner).
The latter involved members of one clan seeking shelter with a rival clan. They stayed for two weeks before attempting to murder everyone under 70. Since they were guests of the clan they were supposed to hold to certain hospitality rituals which included not massacring your hosts. Their breaking of that trust was considered a pretty serious offense.
So yeah, all in all pretty accurate.
"...hospitality rules, including not attacking your hosts..."
That damn Knigge, always ruining your fun with manslaughter! 😄
William de Broase also killed three Welsh princes in Abergavenny in 1175…at a Christmas feast no less…the 💩
The massacre of Glencoe had nothing to do with the "one clan taking shelter with another clan". That is just another thread in the web spun by romanticists who like to imagine Highlanders as heroic stalwarts of honour and friendship so beloved of novelists, especially today with shows like "Outlander" who not so much wipe their arse with Highland history as stamp on it then grind it into the dust screaming "be grateful I made you popular". The only prominent clan member of the British army battalion sent into Glencoe was its commander Robert Campbell of Glenyon. Most of his battalion was actually made up of lowland families. They already KNEW their orders. And never be conned into thinking the Massacre was another inglorious chapter of "Campbell vs MacDonald." It was actually a determined attempt by the Whig aristocracy of Scotland who had been the main cheerleaders of William of Orange's ascension to the throne of Britain to break the independence of the Jacobite clans of the North and force them into abandoning Jacobitism. The real perpetrator of the Massacre was The Master of Stair. He was the one who thought it up, he was the one who came up with the idea of making the clan chiefs sign the oath to William, he was the one who convinced William that the MacDonalds of Glencoe were to be made an example of, he was the one who passed the buck to John Campbell of Breadalbane as he was Glenlyon's chief, he was also the one who gave the orders to assist the regiment to John Hill, the garrison commander at Fort William. The very essence of the Massacre was the Lowland's desire to finally be rid of the Highlanders, who by themselves did themselves no favours by treating the Lowlanders around their borders as simple targets to steal cattle from and charge "taxes" to leave them alone. And if they weren't fighting lowlanders they were fighting themselves. MacIan of Glencoe had made himself more enemies from surrounding clans than Campbell, purely because of his passion for stealing cattle from other clans or picking bloodied feuds with them. By 1692 MacIan had made enemies of the Camerons, the Macleans, the Frasers, the Stewarts of Appins, the Ogilvies of GlenIsla and the Campbells of Argyll and Breadalbane. The only thing that enraged the other clans was that the Campbells had been seen to violate the ancient Scottish custom of hospitality and a fear that they would be next. In the end all that happened was the Scottish parliament had it's last moments before it sold itself to the Parliament of England by holding an enquiry to which the findings were met with a resounding "oh aye?" from the Lowlanders and an even bigger "oh well" from William.
I would also suggest King Etzel´s (Attila´s) wedding as a source, as portrayed in the Nibelungen Saga, or thidreks Saga, can´t remember, but there was a party, guests and wholesale slaughter involved.
No-one ever mentions the biggest, most glaring inaccuracy: the title, Braveheart.
William Wallace was _not_ the Braveheart. Robert the Bruce was the Braveheart.
According to legend, after his death his heart was removed from his corpse and carried on a crusade to the Holy Land in a wooden casket. His wish was that it was to be thrown toward the enemy and lead his men into battle. But, apparently, it never got as far as Spain.
Yeah, the guy who carried his heart on a crusade to the Holy Land was my ancestor James Douglas.
Maybe it was his story, in a roundabout way
It did get as far as Spain, but only as far as that.
What happened in Spain? Did somebody lose it or..?
@@FattyMcButterPants6 It got brought back to Scotland and was buried in Melrose Abbey. It's still there if you're ever in the area...
Can I just say how much I love the phrase "old school Anglo Saxon" about an upcoming massacre over dinner. Perfection.
Been waiting for the "official" Ironclad roasting from Marc for years, lol! When I met him in 2012 at Rochester Castle for a EH tour (company I now work for) - I asked him about Ironclad and he told me his thoughts. Now he has told the world via this great video.
MR
I was at a medieval recreation thing at Castle Rising in 2012 and I asked someone there about Ironclad. He thought it was wonderful, but he was an armourer ;-) he also liked Kingdom of Heaven, probably for the same reasons
Bro, Penguin liked your comment. That's a win.
sigh Would people sto pputting official in scare quotes?
"Braveheart! Oscar winning film… hard to believe" - and I’m spitting out my tea, laughing too hard
I mean it’s not hard to believe. Absolutely amazing movie. Historically accurate? No, not even close. One of the best films ever made? Yep
@@sharebear421 Is it though? The real battle of stirling bridge was a lot more interesting and epic then the dull one in the movie.
@@slome815 well I’m sure most real battles are a lot bigger or more epic in scope. Even top of the line movies use cgi or have inaccuracies. I’m speaking on the film being enjoyable and just cinematically/thematically well done
He forgot Monty Python and The Holy Grail. 10/10 men being turned into newts by a witch, but getting better.
I can't express my love enough for this comment.
As long as he got the buoyancy of ducks correct, that's all that really matters.
..and to "bring out yer dead bring out yer dead!!
I've always wondered what historians think about castles in movies. The walls are always dingy, moss covered, broken down, and dirty. I notice the stairs a lot in movies where they're inside castles. The stone stairs always have low spots in them, worn smooth from hundreds of years of people using them. I just saw The Last Duel and most of the stone buildings in that movie look like what it is. A film crew set up inside a building that's hundreds of years old. But I imagine castles would have looked new; the stone pristine, clean and sharp. Inside the rooms would have, lots of color, paint, woodwork, and tapestry. Because that's how time works. The filmmakers can't exactly power wash and completely refurbish them before filming, though. But our idea of what the castles looked like when people lived in them is probably completely wrong because of that. It's the same idea with any old structures. The pyramids of Giza come to mind. You have to film them as they are now even though their current state is shambles compared to how they looked after they were built. So, if your film is about ancient Egyptians, you have to either CGI, build partial replicas on a sound stage, or just film them as is.
Loved this video, but I was a bit surprised to hear the costumes in Braveheart rated so highly. Isn't one of the big fallacies (among many) of the film the idea that the Scottish were so far behind the English in their mode of armour and warfare? The two armies would have been visually indistinguishable except by their heraldry.
Indeed. They were not wearing kilts and dreadlocks. They would have, by and large, been indistinguishable from their English counterparts. What's so hilarious is that a statue of Wallace was erected in Stirling after this film which has him dressed like that. I believe Alex Salmond has a shrine nearby.
I'm a bit confused by that as well. Kilts weren't a thing until about the 16th century and they didn't wear blue face paint due to not wanting to be associated with their pagan Pict ancestors. Outlaw King does a far better representation of what the Scottish army looked like
As bad as the scots were depicted, the english were pretty much on par with reality and that's what he's saying.
And I'm glad there's someone who ignores the typical rant about the depiction of the scottish, because people who do this normally don't say a single word about the depiction of the english.
In the end, the production was pretty deliberate with how they depicted the scottish to make them look different from the english, something they deemed necessary to show that the scots were the underdogs in the movie, fighting against a much more advanced enemy. If you compare that with different movies, this is a quite common trope to visualize the underdog - just give them more traditional clothing and weapons rather than armor or advanced weaponry and even the most uneducated viewer can instantly see who the underdog or the "savage" of the story is.
@Billy Bones Very true. They had so few cavalry that the Scottish infantry was formed into schiltrons as a very hard counter to the (many) English heavy cavalry. It was such an effective tactic the English completely changed theirs which had the knock-on effect of helping them achieve victories against the French 30 years later.
@Billy Bones Yeah, turns out schiltrons, while effective against cavalry-heavy armies, are not so good against massed archers...
Now I need a format where they get multiple experts together and they discuss each scene
Insider dropped a video six days ago about 7 Duels that has two experts on it. Experts in different fields mind you.
In the Last Kingdom's defense on the "no mercy" shouts, they had the Vikings shout that because the Saxons chanted that at the start of the battle (in the scene of course) so kind of a "you asked for this, you got it now" moment. But I also remember thinking, why are all the helpless people out on the clear ground where its as easy as could be for the horses... like why are they that close to the battlefield and virtually unprotected in the most vulnerable position?
That's part of the story that the Lord of Mercia is not a good battle commander
The last Kingdom had quite a few social and religious massive inaccuracies, but the overall story was gripping and very accurate. The "diplomacy" too, was pretty accurate. I too am a Mediaevalist, but my expertise lies in Medieval Church History, so a very narrow expertise.
Great commentary. Marc Morris's no nonsense sarcasm is one good way to approach cinematic representations of history.
this man will historically serve you on british history 100% of the time
9:02 Morris raising eyebrows towards the camera: "So they are forming a shield wall..."
--> You just gotta love his humor, lol😆
Marc's latest book on the Anglo-Saxons was fantastic
With Braveheart, I'm surprised that he doesn't mention about the clip itself (i.e. prior to the battle of Stirling Bridge)...
Firstly, there is no Bridge whatsoever in the battle in the movie...there isn't even a river nearby.
Also, prior to the battle, some English monks went to the Scottish camp to negotiate with Wallace, he never rode up to the English commander to "pick a fight"
He is an Englisman. Perhaps he does not want to remember such things.
I think the best things about Ironclad was that you had Paul Giamatti playing King John, 3 years after he played John Adams in the miniseries of the same name. Not to mention that Giamatti could literally chew on scenery like a rabid dog and it would be worth watching, the man is just so damned good (I need a show that has Paul Giamatti and David Hewlett in it as main cast.... I don't care what it is, it would be fun so long as it had halfway decent writing.
James Purefoy being one of the main cast is never a bad thing either since he is an excellent character actor, playing everything from Blackbeard to Mark Antony to Edward of Woodstock to King George VI.
The red wedding was actually based on the black dinner that took place in scotland in 1440
The cook out calamity?
He is being very generous when speaking of the costumes in Braveheart. The English armour may have been fairly accurate but the Scots was about 300 years off. No kilts, no Woad {blue facepaint", no big pointy sticks. Ole Mel took so many diabolical liberties with history, and the problem is that half of Scotland believes him.
Armour expert gave this movie like 1/10 for the costumes xD Not even close to reality.
The most shocking part of this video, was finding out that this guy was a teenager, when Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves was released. I was 11 when it was released. So that means, this guy is less than 10 years older than me... Kind of puts things in perspective.
Yep, he's my age, bloody hell!
I’ve read everyone of this dudes book. His Book on King John really made me see the king in a different light. Not nearly as inept as he was always made out to be. Definitely cruel though
I always thought that King John was underrated. He was left an awful mess by his brother, which required severe taxing to recover. He was an excellent administrator, leaving some of the first detailed records available, and while he lost a lot of territory, he avoided unnecessary conflict and expense. His "ruthlessness" was quite modern in some ways. He did sleep with other people's wives though.
@@rolfmiezitis1391 it’s so refreshing to have a reply that is from someone intelligent and not Arguing and calling names. Fuck, thank you, sir, I appreciate it.
I believe his cruelty was a bit more cruel than the typical western ruler. Starving a woman and her child locked in a room isn’t the norm I’d say. But I agree, he was capable, and pretty fucking unlucky too.
Have you read his book on John? Are you old enough to remember “Robin Hood-Men in Tights”?
Dan Jones has a couple of books dealing with the Magna Carta and King John.
@@JessCausey it’s funny you mention Dan. I’ve read Magna Carta and Plantagenets (Plantagenets is one of my all time favorites) but I just started Summer of Blood this morning. About the peasants revolt under Richard II
@@rolfmiezitis1391 Try reading Mr Morris' excellent book on King John, he really had a gift for getting things wrong!
I've read everything Marc Morris has every written. I love him!
You are a real delight! Smart and witty. Your remarks are spot on!
Would've loved to have this guys as a teacher, his sarcasm with knowledge is awesome
Short kilts, long hair, blue face, the love interest was three years old at the time and living in France, Wallace was only ever in two major battles, he wasn't in charge at Stirling bridge with no reason to give him the credit, he fled leaving men on the field at Falkirk, what were the 5 points for? not to mention Wallace wasn't 'Braveheart'.
The 5 points were for the english armor I think.
@@koalabrownie You'll have to expand on that.
I watch these videos purely in hopes of historians talking about the last kingdom, so I am delighted 😊
I will defend Last Kingdom a bit. The "no mercy," cry was being thrown back at the saxons that were considered too weak by the danes. It was a story thing and Iseult knew her path with Uhtred was ending so she wanted to stay nearby
Okay ,but the Vikings weren't REALLY savages.They were noble warriors who respected women,they would never attack innocent women and people.
@@frankenstein974 What a weird mind you have to believe that nonsense, seek help
@@frankenstein974 "Never attack innocent women & people" LMAO where did you come to that conclusion? They are literally famous for their raids on villages & monasteries. I suppose villagers & monks don't count as innocent people in your eyes?
Calling Mel Gibson Woad Warrior was easily the best part of this video LOL, didn't expect a dad joke XD
This guy is so funny! Really dry humour. More medieval reviews from him asap.
This guy is really down to earth and comes across very interesting. I hope we see more of him! (Especially being an Alan Rickman fan! 👌🏻)
Yeah Rickman was a huge loss
Wasn’t Robert the Bruce the one really called Braveheart? I feel the movie did him wrong.
And Wallace wasn’t even a Highlander. He was a Lowland nobleman, so his clothes would probably be similar to what the English noblemen were wearing
That movie did a LOT wrong.
@@Shade01982 at least they made a sequel just about Robert
@@artembentsionov I will take The Outlaw King over Braveheart any day.
@@GravesLilDarkAngel The problem is is that to my understanding, neither one is accurate. They're *both* wrong.
I love these kinds of videos with the historians. Please keep them up!
My rule of thumb for looking at any period in history is did the population go up or down (allowing for terrible diseases). And, of course, generally they go up, which is why we are where we are, number wise. So, as you sort of say at the end, for most people, these fights are on the edge of their world. Their daily fight is with the rain or the weeds or anything else messing up their veggie patch! Even with the Danes, their warriors, those that went off being thoroughly Viking, might have been truly vicious, but most of their people were farmers and hunters, far more interested in growing things, weaving, and everything else that goes with just being a people.
After the Black Death of 1349, it took Britain 200 years to recover to the original pre-black death population level.
Viking: “Your queen!!!” (Holds up head)
Marc: “Ah. That’ll do it.”
I absolutely adore The Last Kingdom. I had already read Cornwell's Saxon Stories, so was delighted when they created the TV series, and it didn't disappoint. Glad to see you give it such a high rating for the visuals.
The other thing with The Last Kingdom and Vikings is that their horses would've seemed like ponies compared to modern thoroughbreds.
The Scottish horses, in modern terms would have to be 14.2 hands, otherwise they are ponies. That's not to take anything away from a sturdy pony with good legs. It eats less, breaks down a lot less often and is good enough for what you need it for. Probably better for the sort of war you are going to fight over the kind of terrain you will be in. You need a mount that can tolerate poor food, mud and cold. Something that can slip down a slope or plow through a bog without you having to worry about it getting hurt.
My great grandfather, 18 removed put an axe into a well mounted knight in 1314, mounted on a smart pony and he was the king of Scotland so I imagine he could have picked something big and impressive. He was a war leader and chose the best mount for what he needed.
@@davidian7787 Youre a few cents short of a dollar.
I have a couple of Marc's books, including the one on Longshanks. Magnificent writer.
One one of the biggest mistakes in Braveheart is the title itself - Robert the Bruce was Braveheart, not William Wallace!
"Mel Gibson: Woad Warrior." That had me laughing way too hard. I wonder how many viewers even get it. 🤣🤣🤣
As a student of British history and writer of medieval lore, I loved the commentary, and I'm so glad you were gentle on "Prince of Thieves." That was my first introduction to the amazing Alan Rickman, he was hilarious and made me love the bad guy, and the movie never tried to be perfectly accurate. It was an adventure, a fantasy. ("Unlike some OTHER Robins, I can speak with an English accent!")
In reality, if he'd ground up some woad and applied it to his face, he'd be running to a dermatologist about now. It's an irritant.
In a land with no clocks..
Sherriff beckons to 1st woman, "I'll see you @10:30." beckons to 2nd woman, "you at 10:45," turns to walk away, then turns back, "and bring a friend."
that last line is from men in tights.
I learn more about Europe medieval history from this video more than all of my classes in school. Love to hear more from him
You know its bad when the expert pauses 5 times in a 45 second period. On the topic of Braveheart, the blue body paint may not be accurate. Wode doesn't bind to proteins, it only bonds to cellulose based materials. So wode paint would have sat on the skin and dripped off with the base amount of perspiration. It's actually most likely the subject was given a semipermanent tattoo using copper that either oxidized before application or oxidized in the skin. Most of our understanding of these practices weren't document by the tribes that used them. Most of our written accounts of the real lives of Celtic and Gaelic people come from the Romans. After that, it's largely oral tradition and information from enemy empires.
I watched the whole video thinking I should read one of your books and In the final seconds realised you’d written the Anglo Saxons, which I finished last week. Mad
What pisses me off is that Vikings and Saxons look completely different, with the Vikings looking more like some sort of outlaw biker gang. In fact they looked pretty similar. I suppose you've got to distinguish between the two sides somehow but I find it annoying. Plus they tend to go into battle without helmets often. I guess producers and actors do like their characters faces to be seen, but it's also annoying.
I remember one critic saying how annoyed he was that the actors in The Battle of Britain film were wearing oxygen masks. Er......
@@ivorbiggun710 yeah that's a complaint that often gets mentioned in ww2 movies as well. I think in Band of Brothers reviews I watched it mentioned one of the veterans (can't remember which one sorry) saying that the only problem they had with the series is that people keep walking or standing around the front lines without their helmet on, no soldier would have done that.
As you say though, from a TV perspective, the average viewer needs a quick way to identify characters and which team they're on. Hence the old fashioned black hat / white hat in westerns.
Short hair vs long hair the main tell for the last kingdom seems funny to me because the books I have suggested Anglo Saxons have long hair and beards when the Norman show up
@@sounsure9108 I'm sure I've read that Harold Godwinson had shoulder length Blonde hair, with a massive handle bar moustache? Lol.
The only real difference between Anglo Saxons and Vikings is that Anglo Saxons had converted to Christianity.
I’d love to hear Marc talk for hours about whatever Medieval subject he wants to. Also a dash of the irreplaceable Alan Rickman.
Agree with Marc so much about day-to-day life in the Middle Ages. It's like depictions of the Wild West in movies, I've heard it was much more mundane than that.
P’hraps they should have thrown Jabberwock in.
"not very chivalrous, these vikings."
"Mel Gibson, woad warrior"
Not only was this video informative but Mr Morris was quite funny when discussing the inaccuracies. I'd give this video a 10/10 😉
All the costumes in these movies are very bad. Braveheart is the worst... Nothing is correct in the costumes. How can an historian rate it so high on that point?
I can only conclude because he isn’t a fashion historian and it’s impossible to be an expert on all things medieval because that’s like 1000 years of history and most classically trained historians don’t focus on/pay attention/are even taught about clothes. May I direct your attention to the growing number of fashion historians for a better take on medieval costumes like “the welsh Viking” or Abby Cox or Nichole Ruffin or Morgan Donner for some A class videos on the subject.
Bernard Cornwell’s, “Last Kingdom,” and “Warlord Trilogy,” are my favorite medieval historical fiction.
His Sharpe series are also great fun.
great video! it would also be nice to see the women and queens of all this period dramas evaluated
I want Marc Morris to do full length commentaries just roasting Ironclad and Braveheart.
One issue - Braveheart did not start in 1097. Edward the first did not even become King until 1272. Wallace was thought to be born in 1270. It starts roughly around 1280 and ends with the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Braveheart gets loads of history wrong. However, its an incredibly well done movie that is quite entertaining. It actually got me into Scottish history when I was much younger and saw it for the first time. Love him or hate him, Gibson is a fantastic story teller.
he made a slip up, he meant to say 1297, when battle of Sterling bridge took place.
Even as a history buff, I find Braveheart one of the best films I ever saw. It has everything!
Marc knows so much--Have this guy back!
George RR Martin said that the Red Wedding episode was inspired by the Glen Coe Massacre
11:28 “they’re not being very chivalrous, these Vikings”
Love it
I always heard the Scottish costumes were really inaccurate in Braveheart. That the kilts were anachronistic as well as the woad
Kilts were invented in the 1800's by the English lol, and tartan or checkered patterns were used in Britain for millenia.
Correct. A more accurate costume analysis is here. The costumes in this film aren't even worth a passing nod to the time period. ua-cam.com/video/5uNZpoBoKFM/v-deo.html
It is. Clearly his works are not focused on this period especially in relation to warfare. How does anyone look at this garbage at 16:23 and think "oh wow, 9/10 14th century armor" is beyond me
@@stevovimy No no no my friend, you're thinking of a SHORT kilt, which yes was invented in the 1700-1800s. The great kilt or belted plaid however has its history going all the way back to the 1500s, with the first official mention being 1594. That being said, kilts would not have been worn by Wallace and his men. Something close to the great plaid would have. This would have been tied at the knees for movement but would have been a long caftan like garment.
Nicely balance commentary. Thanks Marc!
I really like Marc Morris, but I think he was being a little too kind to Braveheart, especially r.e. the costumes. Like the film gets the English soldiers about right, but it depicts the Scottish soldiers clad in first century AD ancient British woad and eighteenth century highland clansmen's kilts, when in fact they'd have been dressed in the same armour as their English counterparts, just with different heraldry.
Re: Game Of Thrones... The reaction to Red Wedding certainly is realistic based on what Morris says. Even in-universe, it's considered an unprecedented act of treachery that makes Freys, Boltons and Lannisters even more hated than they ever were.
It would be very interesting to see the opinions on "Outlaw king" (2018) and "The King" (2019)
16:30 ...did this guy just say that Braveheart's costumes are 9 or 10/10?!! As in costumes involving 13th century woad and belted plaid about 300 years too early, with all the Scots dressed like Iron Age hunter gatherers?!!
For the show Vikings, it gets some major bonus points for finally murdering the old horned helmet viking image... or at least bashing in both of its kneecaps with a baseball bat. A few years before that show came out I remember a history professor stating explicitly that he didn't think that old, horribly flawed visual was going to go away anytime soon. But around 5-6 years later this show came out and revamped how people (at least in America) view vikings.
Whether or not this is for the better overall.... yes, god I hate the horned helmet crap unless we are shouting in the ancient language of dragons and stealing everything that isn't nailed to the floor..... is it any more accurate?.... I would argue for "not really, but its still an improvement".
Kenneth W. Harl was the one who I heard say that, so to be fair, this is a man who specializes in antiquity, in particular Anatolia and specializing in coins of that time and teaches classical and Byzantine history, so not someone directly on top of Norse history, but between the Byzantine and Crusader history he does teach there is a lot of relevant knowledge, plus the man is far from ignorant. So take that as you will.
But it replaced it with leather biker gang costumes and weird haircuts. Real early medieval viking clothes and armor is cool enough. We don't need al this black leather.
@@slome815 Still, that horned helmet crap was so set in stone that it looked like it was here to stay. Points for actually making the trope change at all.
"So they're forming a shield wall." I FELL OUT OF MY CHAIR
Came here to say this!!
Braveheart was definitely my favourite historical fantasy comedy when I was a kid.
Stephen: I didn't like him anyway.
*leans in*
Stephen: He wasn't right, in the head!
*slaps William's back, grabs his sword and buggers off. Cue Gibson's bemused face*
Slightly disappointed they didn't get him to react to the depiction of the Battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart, where they were so keen to have a thousand extras charge at each other in kilts and armour that they *didn't bother having a bridge*.
this guy is amazing, have him back please! the way he was roasting vikings was too funny.
Watching this has made me want to read his books 📚
The Red Wedding (along with pretty much everything else GRRM wrote for ASOIF and GoT) was inspired by the Black Dinner in Scotland. Also, the war of the 5 kings in Game Of Thrones was inspired by the war of the roses, even naming the families in a similar manner (Starks/Yorks and Lannisters/Lancasters). It's a fantasy show/book series first and foremost, but I'd say a good 75%+ of it was ripped straight from our history books.
The real rose wars lasted over many years and were a whole lot more complicated. It is if anything very losely inspired.
"As if anyone would anticipate mercy from Vikings". 😄 I love the dry humour.
A wonderfully lucid set of reviews, accompanied occasionally by perfectly -timed inserts of sand - dry humour. Superb stuff. One thing I would dearly enjoy seeing is Mr Morris’ review of the ‘ Sword Dane ‘ s first appearance in TLK, particularly the fascinating, very ‘ tinsel ‘ - looking structures, almost comically coloured garb of the Cornish king and his retinue…
I'm also happy living in the early 21st century, thank you very much!
You know what you “a historian” failed to mention during your critique of Braveheart? Let me make a little bit of a list.
-The armor of the Scotts
-the treatment of how the Scotts are portrayed
-the fact that quite a few important characters are absent from the film and some characters are not the correct age.
-the fact that the Scotts are wearing kilts
-the incorrect locations of several important battles
-the incorrect approach to the English and what they where doing.
-the fact that the Scottish Claymore used by Wallace wasn’t actually a weapon yet. Oh and that massive axe wasn’t a thing yet either and that axe would be incredibly heavy and tiring to use over long periods of time.
Braveheart gets an 8/10 for viewing pleasure, but a 1/10 for historical accuracy.
Who are these ''Scotts'' you keep referring to?
A generalised plaid pattern is a very ancient weaving technique, which was used in Scotland. A "real kilt " is at least 8 yards long, and needs a leather belt and cloak pin.
"Mel Gibson: Woad Warrior."
Holy crap, that's amazing. This man needs a raise, I don't care what he does or who has to cover it, but he needs a raise!!
that bit on the Vikings not being very chivalrous was absolute gold😂😂
This is how you do it. I know this bloke from his King John book which I picked up after reading Robin Hood and Crusaded tales for the 100th time. HE IS VERY GOOD. THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT THE RIGHT WAY
I hope this doesn’t sound inconsiderate or insulting in anyway; I was about 28 when that Robin Hood movie came out, and I looked at this and guess you were close to my age. I was surprised to hear you were a teenager. Congratulations on your books, this is a wonderful presentation.
The guy is 48. He doesn't look like the youngest 48 but people age at different rates.
The reason why Scottland and England got along so well between 1200-1296 was because of all the Civil Wars in England, if you're fighting yourself you're not fighting other people.
I wish you'd make a quick comment on the misuse of the word 'decimated' used in the narration of Ironclad. Minor point, I know. But it's misuse has gotten so bad over the decades (mainly by journalists who think it sounds cool) that even the revered OED has tweaked the definition. It may be too late to save that word but, if we take a stand now, perhaps we can save: too vs to; your and you're; there, their and they're from the language hell of the stupid.
Speaking of language, I recall when the Costner Robin Hood film came out that people were obsessed with accents etc. "How dare an American play an Englishman?...". Then I read a great article by an historian who bluntly stated that since nobody would actually be speaking English as we would recognize it, who cares? In fact Locksley and the toffs would mostly be speaking French and likely would be unable to even communicate with the 'merry men'.
So my question is why don't these medieval movies, why don't some of them hire you for historical accuracy? They literally have to have someone like this for their movies. Like I read, Gene Wilder met his last wife when he wrote See No Evil, Hear no Evil because he wanted to talk to a real teacher who taught Deaf people before he played a deaf person.
16:56 yes to this complaint and clarification. for whatever reason, our middle-ages films are relentlessly bloody, brutal and everyone is just constantly bashing and beheading everyone else. He's right, as far as my memories of history class can confirm: Depending when and where, much of the time in the UK you'd have fairly peaceful people carrying on fairly murderless lives. As far as we can see, they liked to party, they liked fun, festivals and he keenly points out like an expert - they had a pretty damn good sense of humor. I wish we saw much more of that life depicted in the period piece films and series. Who might have captured it best? Blackadder. No, Im not joking. I mean, put costume accuracy aside, in the context of this discussion, Blackadder *middle ages period has them carrying on with nonsense, petty squabbles, ridiculous plans, the banality of existence, custom codpieces and so on. Ok, yes, the odd bludgeoning of servants.
One of my favourite historians. Loved his Castles documentary etc. And NO LETTING DOWN with this. As always.... Very informative and enjoyable.
Dear video producers… this guy is pretty interesting. LET HIM TALK!! There’s no need for the terrible music in the background! Trust me only people that like history will watch these type of videos
Outlaw King shows a much better representation of the "Brave heart" period. Like he talked about here they show how the war was such a tragedy as they had been getting along really well for a century.
PLEASE take a look at a game, Kingdom Come Deliverance. They made real efforts for accuracy, and so many of his complaints are corrected in this game. Colorful clothes and castles, humour, etc. The carrots arent even orange because orange carrots didn't exist in 1403.
I would love to see his take on it.
Fantastic game, although that even gets a few things wrong such as the lack of pointed shoes (crackows or poulaines) and sabatons when they were at the height of their popularity (Blackadder got it right with the pointy shoes :)) ).
@@oliverheppell1703 not perfect, but they put FAR more effort into being accurate than most.
@@voodoochild1975az honestly, it's a masterpiece, and I've never been this genuinely excited by the prospects of a sequel for any other game, I'm with you there!
The Knights Templar connection to King John is from Ivanhoe where you have the Templars as allies of the crown.
"That'll do it"
this guy is a laugh riot 😂
08:06 that line cracked me up for some reason.
Very generous rating on the costumes, almost to the point of being on the edge with credibility.
For Game of Thrones first part:
Machiavelli's The Prince provides two clear examples of noble-titled individuals inviting their former rivals to dinner and peace, only to have them all eliminated that very same night. Cesare Borgia himself is actually commended for the swift, timely execution of his enemies when they were actually offered the banner of peace. I know this is in the Renaissance Era and not the Medieval Era, but as one era died and the next entered, this sort of stuff did become a little more commonplace than one might care to consider.