Hello to Britttany living in California!!! I hope you’re enjoying it here but I know that in California is expensive because I lived out there in the late 80s and I know it’s much higher now. I love this history channel and I’m working on my graduate and history.
@@utubefreshie I’m East Coast USA also living in southern Virginia but I’m 60% English and 10% college so I like to watch anything history but totally fascinated by British history and probably one of my favorite kings of all is Edward 3,
one of the best history podcasts Ive ever had the pleasure to listen to, by far. They make every subject gripping. These lads truly have a magic to them.
I also owned the Ladybird book on Henry V. Along with many others in that series, it helped nurture a life long love of history. Years later got a degree in the subject and then spent 24 years teaching A Level history and Classical Studies. Now own a bookshop where I sell quite anumber of history books - including titles by both the presenters on this podcast!
Impressive! History teachers have a truly hard job -- but so vital. Do you know of the organisation Facing History, Facing Ourselves? You might find it interesting.
Having Shakespeare write a play about you would ensure you would be very well known through the ages. As I was reading about queen Zenobia of Palmyra the author noted that she should be a household name like Cleopatra - the only problem being that Shakespeare never wrote a play about her!
Oh boy! This is my first premiere here. So far I've listened only to past podcasts and never had to fear the word cliffhanger. Now I have to spend a full week in agony until the next installment... O! for a muse of fire...
He was only the greatest for one day , But its a day that is at the very corner stone of what it became to be English an immortal day in the history of England
As a yank I never cared to learn much of the medieval monarchy. After seeing the movie The King a few years back I have since become obsessed and have read every book I can. Just found your channel and am looking forward to your content. Thanks from New England 😊
I like the Charles VI "believed he was made of glass" story. Princess Alexandra of Bavaria believed that she had swallowed a glass piano when young. Toff problems.
Anne Curry was a member of the Reading University History Department when I was an undergraduate 40 years ago. I didn't take the subjects she taught so I am an idiot - imagine being taught History by a herald 😮
The longbowmen were not just archers they were quite capable of taking on men at arms or even knights , They were feared not just because of their archery skills but their ruthless melee tactics of overpowering armoured enemies and using their hammers , long knives , and axes in weak points of the armour they also had no notion of honour many a noble were killed in cold blood regardless of how much they were were worth in ransom in essence they were cold blooded killers.
Not one on one surely? There is a difference in training and equipment between an archer and a man at arms/knight which gives the knight a huge advantage. Two on one however, with one guy jabbing with a spear and one guy smacking the knight in the hip or thigh with maul...
This podcast is one that I’ve recently discovered. Brilliant beyond words. I hang on every word and delight in the conversation between two fonts of knowledge. Thank you !!!!!!!
I remember reading that Henry V was a ward to Richard II, probably as a means for Richard to keep his father in check, and was very well treated by Richard. I've wondered, in regards to Henry V re-burying Richard, if maybe Henry learned this very self assured view of the divine right of kings from Richard, and if attitudes he may have learned from Richard, and possible admiration of Richard, may have been a point of contention between Henry IV and V.
why does it take so long for video to be uploaded on youtube?? ive been waiting ages for this!!! didnt wanna listen on spotify wanted to enjoy this series properly, absolutely love the show btw :)
Can you two give a talk about the personal relationship between Henry II and Becket. How did they meet, did they socialize together as buddies (as we say today). What made Henry trust Becket so much to raise Becket so high.
I'm going to honest and I'm kind of ashamed to admit it, but the brief description of the incident involving the French Lords setting themselves on fire reminds me of the Gasoline Fight scene from "Zoolander"...
I am an avid listener to your pod. It's usually very entertaining as I feel you've done really good research about the topics you are talking. In this case however there are a few things I feel you seem a bit boyish romantic about. You mention how the vast majority of Henry's army were made up of archers and that it was a huge gamble - as if archers at the time wore no armour and no close range weapons at all. In fact, archaeology and modern historians studies of tapestries and contemporary books all indicate that archers at the time were required to wear certain types of protection as well as close range weapons. With that they weren't exactly defenceless. Furthermore, experimental archaeology has had modern day archers practiced with heavy bows similar in draw weight as those used by Henry's archers shoot at various types of armour. Through the experiments they have, among other things, concluded that it would have been impossible for an archer to shoot more than just a handful of arrows with precision before he would have needed rest. Therefore 12 000 archers standing on a single line and lobbing arrows at the enemy in unison for an extended period is a teenagers dream. It's more probable that they worked in shifts where each archer shot a few arrows and then rested his arm and shoulder while the next archer took over. So if the total number of archers in the army were 12 000 the probable numer of "active" archers at any one time wouldn't be more than say 3000 tops. I don't wish to plug other youtube channels here but there are some very good videos out there of such experiments I would recommend that you watch :)
can you do a video about prince, king louis of the english 1216 to 1217,, & princess queen blanca, blanche of castille and france... grandaughter of HENRY II & duchess ,queen conosort eleanor of aquitaine,... were they really invited by the barons to england, was henry III crowned twice... was william marshall the regent for the 3rd and final time?
This is probably the best history channel on UA-cam. (Beau Dade is absolutely great, but he doesn't upload much) How the hell are this few subscribers? Do some marketing fellas. Invest in yourselves.
@26:03 The American annual "journalist thing" where people make speeches, jokes, laugh and roast each other is the White House Correspondent's Dinner (aka "Nerd Prom"). That reference was on point!
Despite Poitiers, Crecy and Agincourt being famous in England they were just battleship a long war that ended in defeat. England only really started winning after the Union Of The Crowns in 1603.
If WW1 and WW2 were taught the same way as the hundred years war, everyone will think the germans won both wars. Wars between england and france is also misleading because the wars in medieval era were rather england+france loyal to the king of england who was also duke in france vs france loyal to the king of france so the wars in medieval era (at least until 1453) souldn't be viewed as england vs france stricto sensu. There's also the slight difference between winning a battle and winning the war (for the example, Crécy and Azincourt were among the most overrated battles because unlike Poitiers, their consequencies were rather minimals if you think about how they are talk about).
If you haven't done it, go listen to their JFK episodes. If they get as juch wrong in other episodes as they did in that one, then these lads are 100% full of it.
More to the present mind, but Henry V is still known almost subliminally because Shakespeare is part of the language. 'We happy few, band of brothers,' 'once more into the breach, dear friends, once more.' Also he is impressed upon the reading or literary crowd because of the awesomeness of the old play.
During this time when U S politics seem too insane to be believable, i have found that listening to The Rest Is History calms my nerves. These podcasts also reinforce my belief that politics is based on power and acquisition of wealth. History keeps repeating itself. We should all pay attention.
@billythedog-309 Beginning of the end for English Imperialism in France. It's the last battle that counts in the case of the 100 years war Castillon where artillery was the important factor not the Welsh long bow, which hung on until 16th century
@@Wee_Langside l know that and l also know that Bauge, a skirmish that causes you to wet your pants, was a far smaller battle than either Cravant and Verneuil.
William the conqueror, Henry the 8th, Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth, & Alfred The Great are all more well known than Henry V. King George III is more well known in the states dies to the revolution.
Sorry but longbowmen are not such a killing machine, just look at the battle of Towton. But this aside I like very much your work which very informative and presented in and absolutely funny and captivative way!
He might be overrated because his successor,his son was an absolute disaster and after Agincourt the English won no decisive battles. And eventually they were driven out of France entirely (except Calais) so Henry V comes across as " the good old days".
Well he did go on to conquer the whole of Normandy after Agincourt don't forget.And established that as a more or less separate entity from france until it was reabsorbed by Charles in coming decades.
The English won several major battles after Agincourt. In 1417 they began the conquest of Normandy which they completed and consolidated at the battles of Cravant in 1423 and Verneuil in 1424. The later in particular was a major victory. They were in the ascendant all through the 1420s. The tide turned in 1429 at Orleans.
@@paulharper6464 The tide definitely turned at Arras in 1435 but Orleans was just when england lost the upper hand and the war had a stalemate until 1435. For Cravant and Verneuil, they were crucial because Charles 7 had some victories between 1421 and 1423 with Baugé (where Thomas of Clarence died), Bernay and La Brossiniere with the help of scotish soldiers but everything fall apart once again with Cravant and Verneuil, which indirecty proved that Henry 5 death was not as damaging as what people think. Between Azincourt in 1415 and Baugé in 1421, there was only 2 battles with Chef-de-caux in 1415 and Valmont in 1416, the former was an english victory, the latter was inconclusive .
The Obama mocking how Trump would never be president at the White House Correspondents Dinner analogy was delicious! So true. That Trump curse has struck a great many people over the years. One I recall that I enjoy a lot is the German UN diplomats literally laughing at Trump warning them about their foolishness in allowing Putin to control their country’s oil supply and pipeline- not laughing now, are we, Germany?
Is "Dauphin" a word most people watching this video would know? [the eldest son of the monarch of France] I'm fine with a higher level of expectations for your audience... but lets not get carried away. 🙂
After bingeing on 60+ episodes in the last two months, I finally have my one and only criticism of this otherwise immensely entertaining podcast: Mr. Holland’s deployment of “ask” as a noun. The storm clouds of grammatical war are building, the tinder of jargon is close to ignition, and the camel’s back of improvident usage is nearly breaking….
Gonna nitpick; neither Edward III nor Henry V had any claim to France. Loi Salique meant that no one of the female line could claim the throne by virtue of succession. It had always been this way in France (for almost 1000 years by that time). If one wants to argue they had claims by virtue of election, sure makes sense. But by pure succession non. Arguably the French Kings still had a claim to the English Crown, as they had been recognized as the legitime royal line of England in the Barons' War against John, and that claim was never entirely put out or set aside. So arguably, Philippe VI should have been Philippe IV of England. The thing about justifying Henry's claim is that it has no solid earth to stand upon, and it is pretty insulting to us French. Especially when one considers the crimes that Edward III and his son Edward inflicted in their parts of the 100 Years War, which included their devastating Chevauchés, in which they'd clear-cut small localities the sack of Limoges is another noteworthy atrocity. The moment someone engages in a campaign of murder across another country, they lose all claims to it. And this is what the Edwards and Henry V did. To ignore this golden rule is to extend Hitler legitimacy over England, France, Eastern Europe, or even Stalin legitimacy over much of the world, including England, or to recognize Mao's claim to Tibet, or eastern Russia, or to recognize Genghis Khan's claims to half the world.
Oh man, I’m gonna regret engaging in this debate, but I can’t pass up the chance to direct someone to the Archbishop’s incredibly pedantic (and disingenuous?) speech in Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2. 😂 “Then doth it well appear the Salic law Was not devisèd for the realm of France, Nor did the French possess the Salic land Until four hundred one and twenty years After defunction of King Pharamond, Idly supposed the founder of this law” That being said, Salic law was clearly a MacGuffin for both sides, and moreover I’m pretty sure Tom and Dominic were being intentionally cheeky when they made that declaration. Moving on from Salic to Godwin’s law (lol), and bypassing the immediate escalation to Hitler: if we accept your premise, the Armagnacs and Burgundians had also engaged in campaigns of murder across the country, so did they also lose all claim to it?
It was desired by the French nobility that Louis X’s daughter, Joan II of Navarre, renounce her claim to the French throne. So that tends to imply that her contemporaries, as much as they refused the direct succession of a woman, thought that she had a claim to renounce. Kind of like the monarchy having precedent for being electoral in the early phase of the Capetian dynasty but functionally working on agnatic primogeniture because of the practice of crowning one’s minor son co-ruler, it may be that the Salic Law was not considered to be firmly settled as having contemporary application until it was holding an invader at bay. Though that bit about not acknowledging rulers as having a legitimate claim who are doing damage… right of conquest has always been a thing which people acknowledge because they must, for as long as they must or until time and precedent wear off all the rust. But a ruler who derives his right from legitimate succession or election but brutalizes a population he claims to rule has always been a thornier issue. One might depose a tyrannical king or one enacting unwanted policies but install his brother or his son, the next claimant, to replace him - which implies that even if his actions nullify his personal claim it might not be considered to nullify the /basis/ of that claim, or the claim of the family or dynasty. Elected rulers are subject to other conditions. On a purely French basis, the brutality of the Albigensian Crusade was breathtaking and Philip Augustus authorized the participation of his barons, and so how does that affect the claim of the French kings to the Languedoc? Louis VI made war against his vassals because they would not do as he willed - many of them were also villains, but he surely did damage in the process of enforcing his authority - he is legitimized in his actions by his claim to be able to tell them what to do - and also by their lawlessness, but one could claim that their behavior was exaggerated by the chroniclers who served the king’s interests.
@@221BGB The weak point about the salic law being irrelevant is that Edward 3 wasn't Charles 4's heir nevertheless in 1328. Since the early 10th century, the next king had always been the current king's eldest son or his oldest younger brother if the king has no sons. When the succession was between the king's eldest child who was a woman and the king's younger brother in 1316, the younger brother became the new king which means women couldn't became reigning queen but consort only but the possibility than they could give their right to the succession at their sons wasn't there yet. When Charles 4 died in 1328, there was 3 main candidates : -Philippe 6 who was Charles 4's cousin by the male line -Edward 3 who was Charles 4's nephew by his younger sister (Isabelle) -Philippe of burgundy who was Charles 4's grandnephew by his older brother (Philippe 5) If the salic law was relevant (only male by male line), Philippe 6 was the obvious heir. If the salic law was irrelevant, Philippe of burgundy was the obvious heir because he was the descendant in female line from both Charles 4's older brother and father while Edward 3 was the descendant in female line from Charles 4's father only. For Henry 5, it was even more obvious that he had no legitimate claim from the throne because if men from female line could inherited (and if Philippe of burgundy never lived), then the legitimate heir from Edward 3 in england and france was Edmund mortimer while the lancaster dynasty was just a bunch of usurpers so Henry 5 as king of england (the lancasters were the eldest male line from Edward 3 but not the eldest line from Edward 3). Even the treaty of Troyes was a joke because Charles 6 had one son, three nephews and 2 grandons (by his eldest daughter) while Henry 5 only married Charles 6's youngest daughter. The only way Henry 5 could be legitimate king of france was by conquering the kingdom (he only managed to conquered Normandy which was only 5-10% of france) but it's true that Louis 8 also didn't have any legitimate claim to be king of england and could only be the king if he conquered all england. For the amragnacs and burgundians, none of them tried to claim the throne but after 1419, they inarguably supported their own candidate with Charles 7 for the armagnacs and Henry 5 then later Henry 6 for the burgundians.
@@EllenACook For Jeanne of Navarre, one of the issue was that she could likely be a bastard (the nesle tower affair). There's also the difference between a woman becoming reigning queen and a woman giving his inheritance rights to his own son(s), but the 1316 succession made impossible for women to become reigning queen while the 1328 succession was about men being heir by their mother line (Jeanne was sonless in 1328 so she didn't matter in 1328).
If I were French, I might be inclined to think of Henry as a warmonger/war criminal. I can't help sympathising with the poor French peasants and townspeople who involuntarily got caught up in the hostilities....and for what exactly? Some guy's rather dodgy claim to the French throne?
Welcome to the Middle Ages. When monarchs and lords throughout Europe were like Mafia bosses. When you secured your position by slaughtering your rivals, even little princes in towers, and warfare was mostly about laying waste to your opponent's lands - and their inhabitants if they got in the way.
@@welshman8954 At least for the normans case, most of the nobility in france and the king himself didn't support William's invasion because it means that one of their rivals will become even more powerfull.
@@philipbrackpool-bk1bm If you think about it, the 100 years war's coverage is 70% about Azincourt, 25% about Crécy or Poitiers and 5% about everything else so it's hard to know true history when historians and history channels don't make completely their job because it's like the coverga about WW1 or WW2 was about 3 german victories. Accurately, history is about all big events that happened with all sides being covered.
Henry V might be overrated, but not those longbows! Why didn't Brits keep those guys? Sniper accuracy at 20+ shots a minute beats tf out of muskets that came later. Shakespeare immortalized Henry V, Bernard Cornwell immortalized the long bowman.
Because of the training burden. The longbowmen skeletons found on the Mary Rose show how overdeveloped their musculature was. This was a result of having to pull 200 lb with two fingers. Repeatedly. That’s like doing multiple pull-ups with 2 fingers. Much easier to issue crossbows. And then muskets.
@bob_the_bomb4508 Lol, you left out the years of training. Still, the training burden might have been worth it? A fast musket is 3 shots a minute, not very accurate. Crossbows are even slower.
@@Andre_Louis_Moreau the term ‘training burden’ includes the time required. No other state decided the longbow was worth it. Even Edward III is said to have had to ban people playing football in order to ensure they had time to spend at the butts. Also the archer was very vulnerable to injury. If men had to start training as children then they couldn’t be replaced by another adult who hadn’t been trained. Yes the rate of fire of crossbows and muskets was less. But a crossbow man could be deployed after a few minutes of training.
@@Andre_Louis_Moreau you’re missing the point. The longbow was an evolutionary dead end. For the same expenditures of resources it was possible to field a much more sustainable force of crossbow men. As a famous general once said, war is about “getting there fastest with the mostest”. If the longbow was a Tiger I, the crossbow was a T-34. And I’m ex military myself.
No its not over yet. Just waiting for the superpowers to die, which they are both working on, some with more success than the others. Then its Boats, bows, swords and "Last man in Toulouse is a pussy."
Anyone else “like” these podcasts before even listening, because you just know how good it will be! 😂👍
Oh, yes!
I just clicked "Like" about 3 seconds in.
Yep!
Thank you!!! Now please click the subscribe button so UA-cam likes us more.
@@restishistorypodDone.
ex pat brit living in California here and love listening to these if only to help me maintain a reasonable level of Britishness in my speech
Lol. East Coast American here who loves everything British. I feel you! Especially if you're out there in California. lol
Is this Harry ?
Have you gone back to the full Patrick?
Hello to Britttany living in California!!! I hope you’re enjoying it here but I know that in California is expensive because I lived out there in the late 80s and I know it’s much higher now. I love this history channel and I’m working on my graduate and history.
@@utubefreshie I’m East Coast USA also living in southern Virginia but I’m 60% English and 10% college so I like to watch anything history but totally fascinated by British history and probably one of my favorite kings of all is Edward 3,
one of the best history podcasts Ive ever had the pleasure to listen to, by far. They make every subject gripping. These lads truly have a magic to them.
I also owned the Ladybird book on Henry V. Along with many others in that series, it helped nurture a life long love of history. Years later got a degree in the subject and then spent 24 years teaching A Level history and Classical Studies. Now own a bookshop where I sell quite anumber of history books - including titles by both the presenters on this podcast!
😢😊
Thank you
Me too. Still got my Ladbybird books valued treasures, very sentimental. 🤗.
Impressive! History teachers have a truly hard job -- but so vital. Do you know of the organisation Facing History, Facing Ourselves? You might find it interesting.
I listen to them at least 3 hours a day.
Me too
@@judithglasser3072 Nah...4 hours I listen😜
this is the best channel ever
I love these guys and can’t get enough! Fascinating! I appreciate you both! Thank you!! ❤❤❤
Fighting is a young mans thing. In an age of limited longevity i think Henry felt he should invade while he was a strong young man
My Ancestor Sir Piers Legh fought in Henry’s Army at these Battles. He was wounded at Agincourt
My ancestor died at Waterloo. Platform
8 I think it was..??
Regularly listen to you guys while I work and sleep.. great show, great content… keep it up guys.
I've SOOOO looked forward to this episode on YT to see the interactions. Listened to the podcast like ten times. AWESOME SHOW!!
Ditto!
Top quality content, love all the episodes
Having Shakespeare write a play about you would ensure you would be very well known through the ages. As I was reading about queen Zenobia of Palmyra the author noted that she should be a household name like Cleopatra - the only problem being that Shakespeare never wrote a play about her!
New to this channel. Listening from Ireland 🇮🇪, loving it 🥰
The timing is impeccable! I have just read this section in Sumption's Cursed Kings!
Sooooo fascinating! A lot of new details emerging on a story that I thought I already new reasonably well. Thanks! Or rather, merci & au revoir.
Oh boy! This is my first premiere here. So far I've listened only to past podcasts and never had to fear the word cliffhanger. Now I have to spend a full week in agony until the next installment... O! for a muse of fire...
Join The Rest is History club and get them all straight away! Well worth it to be able to binge these long-form series!
He was only the greatest for one day , But its a day that is at the very corner stone of what it became to be English an immortal day in the history of England
I love when Tom gets hyped talking about English long-bows. You can feel his pride.
As a yank I never cared to learn much of the medieval monarchy. After seeing the movie The King a few years back I have since become obsessed and have read every book I can. Just found your channel and am looking forward to your content. Thanks from New England 😊
I like the Charles VI "believed he was made of glass" story. Princess Alexandra of Bavaria believed that she had swallowed a glass piano when young. Toff problems.
Anne Curry was a member of the Reading University History Department when I was an undergraduate 40 years ago. I didn't take the subjects she taught so I am an idiot - imagine being taught History by a herald 😮
These pidcasts are superlative not just because of rhe content but also the chemistry between the presenters .
as always gentlemen
fleshing out, history
Absolutely stunning !!
Thank you !
The longbowmen were not just archers they were quite capable of taking on men at arms or even knights , They were feared not just because of their archery skills but their ruthless melee tactics of overpowering armoured enemies and using their hammers , long knives , and axes in weak points of the armour they also had no notion of honour many a noble were killed in cold blood regardless of how much they were were worth in ransom in essence they were cold blooded killers.
Crikey.
England's first soldiers since the Romans. The early and since were Warriors.
Not one on one surely? There is a difference in training and equipment between an archer and a man at arms/knight which gives the knight a huge advantage. Two on one however, with one guy jabbing with a spear and one guy smacking the knight in the hip or thigh with maul...
This podcast is one that I’ve recently discovered. Brilliant beyond words. I hang on every word and delight in the conversation between two fonts of knowledge. Thank you !!!!!!!
Loved the Lion-Zebra Tom turnaround!
"...It's like blaming a lion for eating a zebra." Tom has become Nietzsche!!
I remember reading that Henry V was a ward to Richard II, probably as a means for Richard to keep his father in check, and was very well treated by Richard. I've wondered, in regards to Henry V re-burying Richard, if maybe Henry learned this very self assured view of the divine right of kings from Richard, and if attitudes he may have learned from Richard, and possible admiration of Richard, may have been a point of contention between Henry IV and V.
brilliant delivery both of you, Im a history academic but not an English expert . Well done.
Tennis Ball diplomacy, Tennis Court Oath, Roland Garros ... the peculiar role of tennis in French history
why does it take so long for video to be uploaded on youtube?? ive been waiting ages for this!!! didnt wanna listen on spotify wanted to enjoy this series properly, absolutely love the show btw :)
Brilliant, gripping. Love you guys.
Can you two give a talk about the personal relationship between Henry II and Becket. How did they meet, did they socialize together as buddies (as we say today). What made Henry trust Becket so much to raise Becket so high.
I see what you did there Dominic..... "what a cliff-hanger"
I'm going to honest and I'm kind of ashamed to admit it, but the brief description of the incident involving the French Lords setting themselves on fire reminds me of the Gasoline Fight scene from "Zoolander"...
This channel is god tier
Just finished “Blood Royal” and it has a great take on Henry V from a French standpoint.
John the fearless might need his own episode someday
I am an avid listener to your pod. It's usually very entertaining as I feel you've done really good research about the topics you are talking. In this case however there are a few things I feel you seem a bit boyish romantic about. You mention how the vast majority of Henry's army were made up of archers and that it was a huge gamble - as if archers at the time wore no armour and no close range weapons at all. In fact, archaeology and modern historians studies of tapestries and contemporary books all indicate that archers at the time were required to wear certain types of protection as well as close range weapons. With that they weren't exactly defenceless. Furthermore, experimental archaeology has had modern day archers practiced with heavy bows similar in draw weight as those used by Henry's archers shoot at various types of armour. Through the experiments they have, among other things, concluded that it would have been impossible for an archer to shoot more than just a handful of arrows with precision before he would have needed rest. Therefore 12 000 archers standing on a single line and lobbing arrows at the enemy in unison for an extended period is a teenagers dream. It's more probable that they worked in shifts where each archer shot a few arrows and then rested his arm and shoulder while the next archer took over. So if the total number of archers in the army were 12 000 the probable numer of "active" archers at any one time wouldn't be more than say 3000 tops.
I don't wish to plug other youtube channels here but there are some very good videos out there of such experiments I would recommend that you watch :)
Glad to hear Tom has changed his opinion on Henry V
Henry V didn’t lose the Hundred Years’ War, his descendants did.
All the Henry’s! next can you tell the sad story of the Henry who got walled into a tunnel! Some might say it’s fiction but he’s very real to me 💚🚂
Ah, Henry the incompetent mason.
"The flies have captured the flypaper."
John Steinbeck, "The Moon is Down"
my what a lovely an intense story. this is why i love history
A boyish account in the extreme. One misses the lead soldiers on the playroom floor.
can you do a video about prince, king louis of the english 1216 to 1217,, & princess queen blanca, blanche of castille and france... grandaughter of HENRY II & duchess ,queen conosort eleanor of aquitaine,...
were they really invited by the barons to england,
was henry III crowned twice...
was william marshall the regent for the 3rd and final time?
That change in the thumbnail hasn’t gone unnoticed lol
🤣
I fell in love with Kenneth Branagh when I heard his beautiful soliloquy prior to the battle of Agincourt.
Yes ! Who knew that he could write so well ??
@@2msvalkyrie529Thanks for that laugh.x
this dropped just the day after I've watched the movie, lol
This is probably the best history channel on UA-cam. (Beau Dade is absolutely great, but he doesn't upload much)
How the hell are this few subscribers?
Do some marketing fellas. Invest in yourselves.
This is actually a reject Radio 4 comedy show . The historical content is facile and
completely vacuous....
Can you guys talk about the Victual Brothers?
@26:03 The American annual "journalist thing" where people make speeches, jokes, laugh and roast each other is the White House Correspondent's Dinner (aka "Nerd Prom"). That reference was on point!
8:00 doesnt sound like an accident to me
Never heard so much back info anywhere.
Why would the Earl of Oxford adore Henry V so much???😊
When i did a search on wars between England and Franch between 1109 and 1805 i found shock horror that France won 24 england 11 and 6 were a tie.
Despite Poitiers, Crecy and Agincourt being famous in England they were just battleship a long war that ended in defeat.
England only really started winning after the Union Of The Crowns in 1603.
😱
Some wars are bigger than others, Wayne.
@@Boric78 Sadly
If WW1 and WW2 were taught the same way as the hundred years war, everyone will think the germans won both wars.
Wars between england and france is also misleading because the wars in medieval era were rather england+france loyal to the king of england who was also duke in france vs france loyal to the king of france so the wars in medieval era (at least until 1453) souldn't be viewed as england vs france stricto sensu.
There's also the slight difference between winning a battle and winning the war (for the example, Crécy and Azincourt were among the most overrated battles because unlike Poitiers, their consequencies were rather minimals if you think about how they are talk about).
Is that where the saying "put the kibosh on that" came from?
That’s thumbnail made my day
Edaward black prince achieved more.
Henry is much improved by his eyeglasses! 🤓
While the King was off being mad😂😂
10:20
20:50
21:45
28:50
If you haven't done it, go listen to their JFK episodes. If they get as juch wrong in other episodes as they did in that one, then these lads are 100% full of it.
Surprising
Growing up in England, I would say that the Elizabeths, Henry VIII, and Victoria are more commonly known then Henry V.
More to the present mind, but Henry V is still known almost subliminally because Shakespeare is part of the language. 'We happy few, band of brothers,' 'once more into the breach, dear friends, once more.' Also he is impressed upon the reading or literary crowd because of the awesomeness of the old play.
@@ishmaelforester9825 I'm rather young so I'm sure you're right, thanks for replying!
I'd love for you guys to talk about netflix's bridgerton/queen charlotte
I didn't realize that Edgar Allen Poe"s story "Hop-frog" was based on a true incident. i.e. men covered in tar and set aflame.
What a thumbnail 😁
During this time when U S politics seem too insane to be believable, i have found that listening to The Rest Is History calms my nerves. These podcasts also reinforce my belief that politics is based on power and acquisition of wealth. History keeps repeating itself. We should all pay attention.
It's hardly something Henry VI was nuts. What was Henry thinking marrying into a family like that!😮.
Gonna turn “ you are betrayed” clip into a meme
just woke up tom?
When you do the math Henry still had a better claim to the french throne than the Dauphin
Very good you are near...... Joan d'Arc 🙏
And the Battle of Baugé and the death of Clarence.
Jeanne d'Arc or Joan of Arc, depending upon which language you're speaking. (Sorry to be pedantic, but you might be interested.)
@@Wee_Langside Another small battle we're supposed to be bothered about. We are also near Cravant and Verneuil where the Scots came a right cropper.
@billythedog-309 Beginning of the end for English Imperialism in France. It's the last battle that counts in the case of the 100 years war Castillon where artillery was the important factor not the Welsh long bow, which hung on until 16th century
@@Wee_Langside l know that and l also know that Bauge, a skirmish that causes you to wet your pants, was a far smaller battle than either Cravant and Verneuil.
William the conqueror, Henry the 8th, Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth, & Alfred The Great are all more well known than Henry V. King George III is more well known in the states dies to the revolution.
I did European political history 1392-1760 for my A level history (decades ago) and an abiding memory is of Charles with his 'glass bottom' 😅
Let's have a discussion on the murderous feud between Brunhild and Fredegund.
Let's not.
That is an odd way to spell Richard I.
He was a bit of a Dick....?
Charles VI had porphyria.
Sorry but longbowmen are not such a killing machine, just look at the battle of Towton. But this aside I like very much your work which very informative and presented in and absolutely funny and captivative way!
See: Crécy, Poitiers.
@@cg98243 at Towton there were 10.000+ longbowmen on each side. The battle was decided by infantry combat and the arrival of the contingent of Norfolk
@ulaanbataar4479 So that seems to say that the advantage was balanced or nullified, not absent. Again. Crécy, Poitiers.
@@cg98243 and the French won the war without longbowmen
@@ulaanbataar4479 Not exactly an assessment of their tactical utility, really.
What's the difference between a cad, bounder and all the other descriptions of morally questionable people. I need a glossary or matrix.
Are you aware of the number of puns going on here?!!
A Pundred Year’s War Worth?
He might be overrated because his successor,his son was an absolute disaster and after Agincourt the English won no decisive battles. And eventually they were driven out of France entirely (except Calais) so Henry V comes across as " the good old days".
Well he did go on to conquer the whole of Normandy after Agincourt don't forget.And established that as a more or less separate entity from france until it was reabsorbed by Charles in coming decades.
The English won several major battles after Agincourt. In 1417 they began the conquest of Normandy which they completed and consolidated at the battles of Cravant in 1423 and Verneuil in 1424. The later in particular was a major victory. They were in the ascendant all through the 1420s. The tide turned in 1429 at Orleans.
@@paulharper6464 The tide definitely turned at Arras in 1435 but Orleans was just when england lost the upper hand and the war had a stalemate until 1435.
For Cravant and Verneuil, they were crucial because Charles 7 had some victories between 1421 and 1423 with Baugé (where Thomas of Clarence died), Bernay and La Brossiniere with the help of scotish soldiers but everything fall apart once again with Cravant and Verneuil, which indirecty proved that Henry 5 death was not as damaging as what people think.
Between Azincourt in 1415 and Baugé in 1421, there was only 2 battles with Chef-de-caux in 1415 and Valmont in 1416, the former was an english victory, the latter was inconclusive .
Never provoke your enemies
The Obama mocking how Trump would never be president at the White House Correspondents Dinner analogy was delicious! So true. That Trump curse has struck a great many people over the years. One I recall that I enjoy a lot is the German UN diplomats literally laughing at Trump warning them about their foolishness in allowing Putin to control their country’s oil supply and pipeline- not laughing now, are we, Germany?
👏👏👏
Is "Dauphin" a word most people watching this video would know? [the eldest son of the monarch of France] I'm fine with a higher level of expectations for your audience... but lets not get carried away. 🙂
hereditary title of the ruler of the Dauphiné of Viennois
@@iMertin Of course! As we all know.
I wrote my dissertation on this back in 2000. 🤓
Doesn't the sending of 'balls' allude to the fact that his claim to the French throne is through the female line...
After bingeing on 60+ episodes in the last two months, I finally have my one and only criticism of this otherwise immensely entertaining podcast: Mr. Holland’s deployment of “ask” as a noun. The storm clouds of grammatical war are building, the tinder of jargon is close to ignition, and the camel’s back of improvident usage is nearly breaking….
Gonna nitpick; neither Edward III nor Henry V had any claim to France. Loi Salique meant that no one of the female line could claim the throne by virtue of succession. It had always been this way in France (for almost 1000 years by that time). If one wants to argue they had claims by virtue of election, sure makes sense. But by pure succession non.
Arguably the French Kings still had a claim to the English Crown, as they had been recognized as the legitime royal line of England in the Barons' War against John, and that claim was never entirely put out or set aside. So arguably, Philippe VI should have been Philippe IV of England.
The thing about justifying Henry's claim is that it has no solid earth to stand upon, and it is pretty insulting to us French. Especially when one considers the crimes that Edward III and his son Edward inflicted in their parts of the 100 Years War, which included their devastating Chevauchés, in which they'd clear-cut small localities the sack of Limoges is another noteworthy atrocity.
The moment someone engages in a campaign of murder across another country, they lose all claims to it. And this is what the Edwards and Henry V did. To ignore this golden rule is to extend Hitler legitimacy over England, France, Eastern Europe, or even Stalin legitimacy over much of the world, including England, or to recognize Mao's claim to Tibet, or eastern Russia, or to recognize Genghis Khan's claims to half the world.
Oh man, I’m gonna regret engaging in this debate, but I can’t pass up the chance to direct someone to the Archbishop’s incredibly pedantic (and disingenuous?) speech in Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2. 😂
“Then doth it well appear the Salic law Was not devisèd for the realm of France, Nor did the French possess the Salic land Until four hundred one and twenty years
After defunction of King Pharamond, Idly supposed the founder of this law”
That being said, Salic law was clearly a MacGuffin for both sides, and moreover I’m pretty sure Tom and Dominic were being intentionally cheeky when they made that declaration.
Moving on from Salic to Godwin’s law (lol), and bypassing the immediate escalation to Hitler: if we accept your premise, the Armagnacs and Burgundians had also engaged in campaigns of murder across the country, so did they also lose all claim to it?
It was desired by the French nobility that Louis X’s daughter, Joan II of Navarre, renounce her claim to the French throne. So that tends to imply that her contemporaries, as much as they refused the direct succession of a woman, thought that she had a claim to renounce. Kind of like the monarchy having precedent for being electoral in the early phase of the Capetian dynasty but functionally working on agnatic primogeniture because of the practice of crowning one’s minor son co-ruler, it may be that the Salic Law was not considered to be firmly settled as having contemporary application until it was holding an invader at bay.
Though that bit about not acknowledging rulers as having a legitimate claim who are doing damage… right of conquest has always been a thing which people acknowledge because they must, for as long as they must or until time and precedent wear off all the rust. But a ruler who derives his right from legitimate succession or election but brutalizes a population he claims to rule has always been a thornier issue. One might depose a tyrannical king or one enacting unwanted policies but install his brother or his son, the next claimant, to replace him - which implies that even if his actions nullify his personal claim it might not be considered to nullify the /basis/ of that claim, or the claim of the family or dynasty. Elected rulers are subject to other conditions. On a purely French basis, the brutality of the Albigensian Crusade was breathtaking and Philip Augustus authorized the participation of his barons, and so how does that affect the claim of the French kings to the Languedoc? Louis VI made war against his vassals because they would not do as he willed - many of them were also villains, but he surely did damage in the process of enforcing his authority - he is legitimized in his actions by his claim to be able to tell them what to do - and also by their lawlessness, but one could claim that their behavior was exaggerated by the chroniclers who served the king’s interests.
@@221BGB The weak point about the salic law being irrelevant is that Edward 3 wasn't Charles 4's heir nevertheless in 1328.
Since the early 10th century, the next king had always been the current king's eldest son or his oldest younger brother if the king has no sons.
When the succession was between the king's eldest child who was a woman and the king's younger brother in 1316, the younger brother became the new king which means women couldn't became reigning queen but consort only but the possibility than they could give their right to the succession at their sons wasn't there yet.
When Charles 4 died in 1328, there was 3 main candidates :
-Philippe 6 who was Charles 4's cousin by the male line
-Edward 3 who was Charles 4's nephew by his younger sister (Isabelle)
-Philippe of burgundy who was Charles 4's grandnephew by his older brother (Philippe 5)
If the salic law was relevant (only male by male line), Philippe 6 was the obvious heir.
If the salic law was irrelevant, Philippe of burgundy was the obvious heir because he was the descendant in female line from both Charles 4's older brother and father while Edward 3 was the descendant in female line from Charles 4's father only.
For Henry 5, it was even more obvious that he had no legitimate claim from the throne because if men from female line could inherited (and if Philippe of burgundy never lived), then the legitimate heir from Edward 3 in england and france was Edmund mortimer while the lancaster dynasty was just a bunch of usurpers so Henry 5 as king of england (the lancasters were the eldest male line from Edward 3 but not the eldest line from Edward 3).
Even the treaty of Troyes was a joke because Charles 6 had one son, three nephews and 2 grandons (by his eldest daughter) while Henry 5 only married Charles 6's youngest daughter.
The only way Henry 5 could be legitimate king of france was by conquering the kingdom (he only managed to conquered Normandy which was only 5-10% of france) but it's true that Louis 8 also didn't have any legitimate claim to be king of england and could only be the king if he conquered all england.
For the amragnacs and burgundians, none of them tried to claim the throne but after 1419, they inarguably supported their own candidate with Charles 7 for the armagnacs and Henry 5 then later Henry 6 for the burgundians.
@@EllenACook For Jeanne of Navarre, one of the issue was that she could likely be a bastard (the nesle tower affair).
There's also the difference between a woman becoming reigning queen and a woman giving his inheritance rights to his own son(s), but the 1316 succession made impossible for women to become reigning queen while the 1328 succession was about men being heir by their mother line (Jeanne was sonless in 1328 so she didn't matter in 1328).
"Henry the smith is embedded in the nationasl imagination"
9 out of ten English men have no nothing about him....
If I were French, I might be inclined to think of Henry as a warmonger/war criminal. I can't help sympathising with the poor French peasants and townspeople who involuntarily got caught up in the hostilities....and for what exactly? Some guy's rather dodgy claim to the French throne?
Welcome to the Middle Ages. When monarchs and lords throughout Europe were like Mafia bosses. When you secured your position by slaughtering your rivals, even little princes in towers, and warfare was mostly about laying waste to your opponent's lands - and their inhabitants if they got in the way.
Nothing that the Normans didn't do to the English and the welsh after 1066
@@welshman8954 At least for the normans case, most of the nobility in france and the king himself didn't support William's invasion because it means that one of their rivals will become even more powerfull.
That’s why it’s important to know the true history of what happened and not some bastardised version that’s been pushed for modern sensibilities.
@@philipbrackpool-bk1bm If you think about it, the 100 years war's coverage is 70% about Azincourt, 25% about Crécy or Poitiers and 5% about everything else so it's hard to know true history when historians and history channels don't make completely their job because it's like the coverga about WW1 or WW2 was about 3 german victories.
Accurately, history is about all big events that happened with all sides being covered.
That thumbnail 🤣
Bro what is this thumbnail, my god. Also it's different on my other account
You saw the secret one 🤣
Henry V might be overrated, but not those longbows! Why didn't Brits keep those guys? Sniper accuracy at 20+ shots a minute beats tf out of muskets that came later.
Shakespeare immortalized Henry V, Bernard Cornwell immortalized the long bowman.
Because of the training burden. The longbowmen skeletons found on the Mary Rose show how overdeveloped their musculature was. This was a result of having to pull 200 lb with two fingers. Repeatedly. That’s like doing multiple pull-ups with 2 fingers.
Much easier to issue crossbows. And then muskets.
@bob_the_bomb4508 Lol, you left out the years of training. Still, the training burden might have been worth it? A fast musket is 3 shots a minute, not very accurate. Crossbows are even slower.
@@Andre_Louis_Moreau the term ‘training burden’ includes the time required.
No other state decided the longbow was worth it. Even Edward III is said to have had to ban people playing football in order to ensure they had time to spend at the butts.
Also the archer was very vulnerable to injury. If men had to start training as children then they couldn’t be replaced by another adult who hadn’t been trained.
Yes the rate of fire of crossbows and muskets was less. But a crossbow man could be deployed after a few minutes of training.
@@bob_the_bomb4508 Yet they did it. Training has always been a part of elite military, still is.
@@Andre_Louis_Moreau you’re missing the point.
The longbow was an evolutionary dead end.
For the same expenditures of resources it was possible to field a much more sustainable force of crossbow men.
As a famous general once said, war is about “getting there fastest with the mostest”.
If the longbow was a Tiger I, the crossbow was a T-34.
And I’m ex military myself.
didn't the English lose the hundred year war
No its not over yet. Just waiting for the superpowers to die, which they are both working on, some with more success than the others. Then its Boats, bows, swords and "Last man in Toulouse is a pussy."
Why do you hate St. Crispin’s Day? 😂