@@flaviusbelisarius932 it was a modern line for the movie (written by one of the two guys who ruined Game of Thrones): but you’re right. Carolus Rex (and many others) would shut D&D right up
The Chinese invented gun powder and were the first to use it as a propelent. Then it was introduced to Europe. Interesting that the anti arms crowd, are typically also anti-white and vis versa. From music to rocketry...warfare to industrial machines, and better ways of saving people, it has been primarily white men at the forefront of such endeavours.
I do love seeing a well executed 'good guys' flank attack, and proper use of archers. How the Battle of the Bastards in GoT *could* have gone, had ShowJon or Show Davos (read D and D) had a brain between them...!
Honestly this scene just shows that war back then was an organised mess, you didn't kill I guy with a sword strike to the chest like other movies, you had to get right in the weak spots with a blade. It was just blood and mud and i'd say that's one of the reasons this series did so well with battles, It was real and gritty which I absolutely LOVE!
I fully agree with your opinion, i have nothing much to say about it. The only think i don't like about this scene was how this battle presented itself: It bass of Shakespeare version of the Battle of Agincourt, not the historical version. (and also not accurated to Shakespeare writting version as well) The fight in the video is real and ophentic, but the movie could have give us a better representation of this Historical moment, because it actually was a very interesting battle itself. ( It's just my opinion, at least )
@@KageRyu1000 it was "The King", in Netflix. But i don't recommended this movie to be honest. The movie overall is just bad, from a filmmakers point of view and historical as well. You can checkout out this video "Crimes against Medieval realism analysis: The King" from Shadiversity to know why this movie is not good. It was a long video, but it should be.
Holy Hell Ive never heard of of this movie. I was expecting generic medieval combat but this was pretty damn accurate fighting. I need to watch this now!
@@LeRoiDesCrapos-LRDC It shows the battle of Agincourt. Which was a decisive defeat for the French. So as far as it goes its pretty accurate considering it literally fucked the French up. Unless if you want to go a bit forward in history where again, the French got fucked up. So its not really French bashing, just a good tidbit of history centered around the frightening odds the British faced and overcame. Its also pretty ironically accurate considering it took the French hundreds of years to kick the British out. Who were five times less populated than the French and should have been outnumbered most of the time.
@@sergeantskrtskrt9594 I let you learn more about the context and history of this period. On the big lines we agree that French lost, that's not the question, a victory is a victory, a defeat is a defeat. But that's more about all the details. For example french weren't highly elevated like in the movie. In reality, the English were elevated and French weren't able to see the totality of their troops because of it. Another thing, the French Dauphin litteraly NEVER took place in the battle. He was weak and sick in reality. The film is showing an horrible personnage that everybody must hate, look how detestable french are. But this person never existed. All along the film, everything is made for people to hate French and think English were so good and brave people. But one more time that's a lie, Henry V is shown as a Saint but in reality he was more like a fucking psychopath, menacing his own troops to cut their ears and fingers, killing all the French prisoners (I think it's not necessary to remind you chivalry codes). It also shows Henry never wanted war and he was OBLIGED to do so... :'( but that's ooooone more time super wrong. He always wanted to come to France to conquer and fight, he was thirsty of blood. Samely you see French heading off children but I don't think British took children from GB to France to fight to the death lol. Nothing mentions presence of children in English lines and French cuting their heads off. One more time that's made for people to hate French in the movie. I can continue hours like that but I think you will have understood that nothing in this film looked like the fucking reality if you know a minimum the history and not only the "big lines" of it. 😊
@@LeRoiDesCrapos-LRDC So here's the funny thing about this. The end of the movie bashes you with the information that the French never actually did anything. So clearly either you haven't watched the entire movie. Or you very neatly decided to ignore it. Have you heard of a 'Perspective' in a movie? Because we're clearly looking not at the French perspective and what a neutral player would want us to see. But at a very straight forward perspective at what the justification of Henry was. For the matter no, the English are not made out to be a brave people. Neither are the French. It actually heavily disses both traditions from what I saw. While the French were more languished and better overall, the English were less so and more dirty scrapers. Nothing about that really makes you think its elevating the English does it? Not to mention you can subtly tell that the real story is the advisors work not the Kings. It gets pretty obvious as you get closer to the war arc of the movie that the entire thing was fabricated. And then, everything the French did and said clicks. As for a few of the scenes you mentioned. Where the FUCK did we see children being beheaded!? When the Film shows us the French of course it is meant to make us despise them. It's called bringing out the emotional side of a human being, but through that manipulation they break your misconception entirely. Because the French are actually fucking absolved of Guilt. And guess through who? Through their own damn hands. Half of the shit you said seems to make you believe this movie has it out for the French when to neutral bystanders it really doesn't look anything of the sort.
the whole last battle gave me chills in the chest... Like damn, it was piss, mud, and blood. I'm sort of glad those ways of fighting are behind us... Relatively.
I imagine a lot of those frontline soldiers were green and had no idea what was coming. Vets probably either get into a mode to get through it or go insane
@@fuzzysleeves6886 straight up... Veterans were often far behind greenhorn lines, but alas combat like army v army wasn't necessarily like this - it was columns and columns of pikemen/spearmen poking and jabbing at eachother until a break could be made... Throwing soldiers at eachother directly is just a bad way to start fights.
This movie was not accurate to the battle at Agincourt but whoever imagined this scene was probably inspired from the brutality of historical last stands or even when unorganized combat.
I think the world would be much better off if we were still as primitive when killing each other since this takes a lot of guts and people generally die one at a time with each critical strike and generally not with just one hit. These days even a little kid can aim a gun and pull the trigger and not exactly the brightest people are sometimes in control of nuclear bombs and the ability to fire rockets far away from any danger not really caring for the value of life. I for one can't imagine what bravery it took to be in the front line when an army of hundreds or thousands was advancing towards the lines, those were brave men
I'm pretty sure it was Einstein who said "If people did not have guns, they would use bows and arrows. If they did not have these, they would use rocks and stones" It's all part of the human condition.........to love, but then to hate and kill. The duality of man.
yes but as the effectiveness of a weapon goes down it will be much harder to kill, its a pretty simple concept. a bow cannot be as effective as a modern firearm a large majority of the time.
The quote is "the first world war was fought in the trenches. The second was fought in the air. I don't know how the third will be fought, but the fourth will be fought with clubs and stones". We will destroy our own civilization and undo all of our progress. It's just a matter of time. According to Einstein anyway.
The English force was mostly made up of archers-and they may have won them the battle. Of the roughly 8,000 troops Henry had at Agincourt, only around 1,000 to 2,000 were men-at-arms and knights with heavy plate armor.
Tbh the men at arms/knights won the battle on the most part. The archers did work but that was mostly against the heavy cavalry as longbows can not penetrate plate armour. Knowing this the french advanced mainly on foot across a sodden field which tired them quickly. The arrows did also hurt A LOT despite wearing armour. Once the french arrived at the English line they got slaughtered as they shortened their weapons because they thought that I would be a close quarters fight, but the English had pole arms and easily thrusted into the groins and armpits etc. It was brutal and many drowned, the french rear also pushed the front into the meat grinder making the battle even more disastrous. And the nail in the coffin was the archers flanking the french and absolutely slaughtering the tired french men at arms without problem.
@@longbowenjoyer2154 shrapnel from a broken arrow or deflected one can still end up below the face or the throat of the one that got hit or the person on the side, also the sides of the armor can be penetraded by arrows...well depends on the arrow, but the armor is thicker on the front, also shrapnel hitting below the head or the throat depends on the armor, some armors had this V design on them where it would protrude forward to catch a piece of shrapnel to defelct it once more or just stop its trajectory
4000 eram arqueiros a maioria estava nos flancos e foram eles que ganharam a guerra a infantaria eos cavaleiros estavam protegidos pelas barricadas e as estacas de madeira juntamente com o terreno lamaçento , que não era tão lamaçento assim, a infantaria EA cavaleiria só terminaram o serviço visto que o exército estava com uma epidemia de peste bubônica, e atacar diretamente não era uma boa opção, resumindo: os ingleses apenas fizeram chuvas de flechas dos lados até enfraquecer o inimigo e depois avançaram , foi essa a estratégia de Agincourt 👍
To be honest, this battle was totally unhistorical. All of the Knights would need to wear colours and coat of arms visible, so that they could see who is friend or foe. If just wearing the armour without any colours or symbols of your lord in such a close combat situation, you wouldnt know who is on your side. Looks good in a movie, but totally unhistorical and unrealistic.
Who gives a fuck if it’s not historically accurate, the battle was filmed amazing and that’s part of Hollywood that you’re gonna have to just deal with, go film it yourself and do a better job
That’s true, but this battle is based on Shakespeare’s version of events rather than the historical battle itself. That’s also why close combat fighting and shiny harnesses are so prominent in this battle, since that’s how Shakespeare portrayed it in his script.
@@edwarddunphy5276 historical accuracy is quite literally a million times better than any Hollywood rendition. It's meant to actually teach you something on top of being flashy or well choreographed. Why else would you fucking watch a period piece on medieval England if it wasn't going to actually reflect the history its picturing. Go watch Star Wars or some other gay ass Marvel SCI-FI if you want to watch 'amazing battles' that require no critical thinking or IQ to enjoy.
@@oleksandr2234 Car il s’agit d’un film de propagande anglaise qui a pour but de montrer l’héroïsme et la bravoure des soldats anglais face aux méchants et stupides Français et que pour cela le film n’hésite pas à modifier la véritable l’histoire de la bataille d’Azincourt. (Par exemple, lors de la bataille d’Azincourt, ce sont les Anglais qui étaient postés sur la colline, cachés derrière toute une rangée de piques et non les Français comme le montre ce film de merde)
This is exactly my reaction to a lot of the scenes in GoT. Head on cavalry charges, not utilising Walls even though massively outnumbered, Onagers in FRONT of the line?!?
I really like the guy who got knocked down, it's historically accurate that guys would drown in the mud, die in the crush as everyone tries and fails to swing their weapons.
In close quarter battle, a war hammer and a dirk would be more useful for the preservation of energy; wielding a hand and half or bastard sword takes room and if your'e in plate on muddy ground, it saps your energy pretty quickly, even if you've trained like a Man-at-Arms, using double weighted practice weapons and brigandines. You used the point on any bladed weapon, looking for gaps in your opponents array[throat, armpit, knee, crotch]to end it as quickly as possible.
you would be unlikely to find a weakness in the neck area, it is typically one of the most protected parts of any well make suit of armor because of how fatal a neck wound can be.
Não cara 😢 o exército inglês estava doente naquela batalha estavam com uma epidemia de peste bubônica e atacar uma cavalaria pesada francesa desse jeito e suicídio!!!, Ainda mais com soldados doentes aí e brincadeira 😅😅😅😅😅
Конница без копий, пехота тоже... Стрельба из луков прямо косит кавалерию... И все без сюрко или других опознавательных знаков... Кавалерийская "лава" не смела 3-4 ряда пехоты, это как вообще?!! И т д и т п У меня у одного кровь из глаз от этой сцены?)))
Да там все прекрасно... пехота идет против конницы, спускающейся с горы... без копий... верная смерть... лучники ничего этой коннице сделать не могут... они могут убить лошадей, это в лучшем случае... по факту это не работает, так как кавалерия слишком быстро доезжает до лучников
@@vladimirhome8051 Но красиво снято , что мешает у нас снять ? Сценариев история оставила на миллион сериалов , денег на дворцы и яхты хватает , может актёров и режиссёров поменять ? Получается как в футболе ...... .
@@spartstar45 people sold armors almost everywhere. Probably due to same religion there were commerce. Also it was Fashion to stand out if money allowed.
I wouldn't say it's accurate. Rather, it is a mixed authenticity. For example, I saw in it a 16th century closed helmet and a late 15th century German sallet helmet. Most of the English and French used mostly bascinet helmets in the early 15th century... Tobias Capwell rated the armors of this movie in this video and was not thrilled with it... 7:37 ua-cam.com/video/5uwWlamONqs/v-deo.html
People don’t comprehend how peaceful the world they live in is today despite remote conflicts like in Yemen and Africa. A peaceful Europe would be incomprehensible back then. Europe was in a constant state of war from the fall of the Roman Empire to 1945. Europeans today are like, “nope, we’re done with war”.
This is some realistic war movie the fact that the Knights didn't run from miles away with armors to charge their enemy is the most realistic thing they did in this movie
Сцена отвратительна с исторической точки зрения. Рыцари без копий? Спешеные рыцари без полевых укреплений? Они не были идиотами.., но в фильме и те и те конченые идиоты.
Oki, so just for history : -English was on high ground -They was thousand of Knights -The Bowmen was hide on forest -The French cavalery has been shoot by side, and killed by hiden pikes -The French Infantry have charge at her help, make ENgland Knights go back, bu have been traped by bowmen charge in their back. -The " Lion from the North" have executed all of French soldiers. SO... The real Lion was dead on the ground. Sorry, but i love history, and show this is propagand, Henry 5 is who search the war.
According to a logic the battle in this movie is very accurate. In the same time histroric records provide very different versions of the battle and sometimes they are real examples of propaganda. "Bowmen were in the forest" - try to use a long bow in any forest and you will see why hunter bows are so short. If they should be deep inside a forest to make a trap then it means that they could not fire. So either they were not bowmen or they were not in the forest. It is very hard to shot from long bow in a forest - even if you shot into "that way". Even make a line of bowmen is a very hard task because of trees.
@@sergiilolin1 well, you know, at Azincourt its not deep wood, thats just a little bit of tree, only the provocation of Henry 5 has made the king of France charge, so the "hiden" bowmen can shot, because of few trees
You are right, and these are not the only issues of the movie. However, the "Lion from the North" is Gustavus Adolphus, Swedish king during the early XVII. Henry the Vth is not even worthy to be mistaken for a Lion
@@shrek13241 yes, but in this scene, where were these Genoese mercs? 3000 men was not so insignificant that you wouldn't show in a historical inspired movie.
Las batallas eran generalmente en la antigüedad una carnicería, no podías desconcentrarse, descansar o retroceder para tomar aliento, una vez enfrascado en el combate, el caos imperaba y tú tenías que matar para sobrevivir y esperar que termine pronto esa pesadilla o caso contrarió alguien acabe con tu vida, antes que caer prisionero del enemigo...
@@kgfalcon9394 This is a movie... It was not a typical thing, because soldiers fought in units and formations in reality. The massive "friendly fire" would have broken the army psychologically in a short time and that army was flee. ua-cam.com/video/5fw4IdVa_5w/v-deo.html
The most inaccurate of this battle are just three things. First the positions were other way around the english had the elevated positions while the french had to charge slightly uphill. Second is that the english forces were heavily entrenched with stakes and ditches covering their flanks which were comprised mainly buy longbowmen. And third and final their only heavily armored knights and men at arms didnt moved forward from their fortified position until the french cavalry charge was pinned down and be in a disarray. Thats all i have to say zero tactics used in the movie xD
Moreover this was 5 years before plate armor was invented, let alone widespread. The equipment of all knights is completely anachronistic and furthermore, if they were to be armed that way it would have stopped 99% of longbow arrows.
@@Scipionyxsam no plate armor already existed, just not full body plate armor, and longbow arrows can penetrate armor on the sides where it is thinest, and the archers were...yeah on the sides, by the flanks of the army, so French knights got pelted from the sides, getting hit on the sides, arrows breaking on impact too and shrapnel flying everywhere at high speeds with some landing in gaps of armor, so arrows in volleys are quite dangerous to a group of knights or tightly packed army of them
Okay, How can One Tell Whose Who? They’re all Wearing Armor and I can’t see any Identification Anywhere Can someone please Explain to me How You can Tell Friend From Foe in this?
Thinking back, the battle itself and the campaign in France is insignificant to the story. That was my interest going in but the focus on internal power struggle and the souring of king Henry over time is gripping and well done. Watching it again I still think the final shocking blow at the end is what the whole movie builds up to, not agincourt.
In such close quarters combat, how could they tell who was friend and who was foe? They didn't have uniforms. Were there distinctive French and English styles of armor?
Sabaton can sing a song about chopping down a tree, stage diving, or a beach ball and it would be fucking amazing. And the videos would be sweet as well.
@@jimmytuplano3843 not really they had heraldry and such to distinguish each other like the st george flag and many other variants of the nobles heraldry.
Чего?)) Это какой-то позор. Сцена отвратительна с исторической точки зрения. Рыцари без копий? Спешеные рыцари без полевых укреплений? Они не были идиотами.., но в фильме и те и те конченые идиоты.
I bet watching tens of thousands of french heavy cav charging down a slope towards you would have had quite a few sphincters puckering up , especially if you are in the front row receiving the charge.
@@vladimirnaydenov1239 well if this was supposed to be tramecourt (agincourt) the cavalry were actually charging uphill across a huge expanse of mud, not downhill and only mud at the bottom.
Yep in the real Agincourt Henry V was pretty smart, he forced the french cavalry to charge uphill through a field of thick mud. Eventually the horses got stuck and when the knights fell off and into the mud the English longbow took them out and if that didn't the mace to the head came, if you were really unlucky you drowned in the mud.
Para aqueles que acham que uma guerra tem alguma gloria esta ai mortes e mais mortes, na guerra não há nada de belo ou glorioso, somente tristeza e dor. For those who think that a war has some glory there is death and more death, in war there is nothing beautiful or glorious, only sadness and pain.
yes, and the heroes always take their helmets off in battle.. just as modern soldiers today always take off their ballistic armor when a firefight begins :).
If I were one of the knights, I'd probably have killed some of my comrades for mistaken identity. It's almost impossible to tell which is the enemy because they're wearing identical armors.
Historically their armours had colours of their house/kingdom and feathers on them. Medieval costumes and armor were almost always colorful. Also they fought on formations, and not always the armies clashed like in the movies
This is based off of the battle of Agincourt, although I believe it follows Shakespeare more than actual history. I suggest reading about it, it is very interesting as many historical battles are. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
@@josephpeck8723 only in the fifth of the castle of hell but in gondor it wasnt good , the point on calvary is strike while the enemy dont notice you and they in gondor they waited till the enemy notices them and got into formation , if it was accuarate all that calvary would have died cause there was a lot of pikemens
@@Raddosseuss Well you're right about them waiting there to be noticed which is not the best idea. But it should be noted that the front orcs broke rank and panicked, which led to a successful cavalry charge. With the rear units retreating in disarray. Should be further noted that orcs are tortured and mutilated elves which doesn't exactly make them the best fighters. They're also pretty animalistic and almost mindless without a leader orc (and their leaders panicked too).
In real life a lot of them would have had colourful outer garments with coats of arms on and such to tell each other apart. I guess they leave it out in films like this to exaggerate the chaos and confusion. And to limit the budget of course haha
@@BrandydocMeriabuck even with the coat of arms, I doubt everybody knew by heart all the family crests of thousands of people. Back then there were no uniforms either .
@@oreste8570 Oh yeah definitely not, just the more important ones I reckon. But it would have been a little bit easier than it would’ve been had it been like in the clip. I mean you couldn’t even tell who the king was
@@oreste8570 Your confusion stems from the bad movie making. In real medieval battles the battle lines had to be hold at all times. The side that broke first would be utterly slaughtered. Not only because you couldn't recognize friend and foe without a solid line, but also because the guys left and right to you defend your personal flanks. Without that protection you are as good as dead. Even with heavy armor. The saving grace for that movie battle is that they actually showed how to kill a fully armored soldier: Dagger to the weak spots like visors or arm pits or by driving a pointy but heavy steel object through the plate armor (like a war hammer or a Mace). No slashing sword blows. To my knowledge this is the first movie ever correctly depicting the use of a mace. 1:49 the pointy ends of the mace bind and transfer all the kinetic energy to the target. The Armor gets _pierced_ rather than crushed.
@@3gunslingers imagine the cardio these guys have to be in heavy armor and give blows like that without rest for hours. Thanks for the previous explanation.
Essa foi uma das mais incríveis batalhas da história sangue lama e glória a derrota não é questão para o exército somente a Vitória e a Glória importan uma batalha épica os negros podiam estar em menor número mas tinha a vantagem dos arqueiros com os temidos arcos longos e a vantagem do terreno alagado a cavalaria não deu bons resultados e os franceses que estavam com armaduras de praca completa ficaram com sérios problemas com a Lama
Two things One sabaton could sing about taking a shit and still inspire my to fight an army. Two this series what is it it’s portrayal of medieval fighting is amazing and I must watch it.
Никак. Это тупое современное представление средневекового сражения. Более того, не только в античные времена, но и в средние века пытались держать строй какой никакой, но также использовали и щиты. Здесь же мы видим полное дуболомство. Толпа идиотов на толпу идиотов, одетых в полную броню, в которой нифига не видно!
@@farruhoyev6173 Пробивали, если вы не в курсе. Дело в том, что далеко не все рыцарские доспехи обладали нужным качеством. Качественно сделанные доспехи пробить стрела не могла. Не хватало скорости и массы. Зато например римский полибол или скорпион запросто мог вынести любого рыцаря и при том НАСКВОЗЬ!
Agincourt one of the most brilliant battles of all times the English where outnumber more than 2 to 1 plus that the had almost no Calvary , of course the command in the French army and their personal diferences helped into the masacre they led to their man , but hell Henry the 5 was a master tactic and a insanely brave man to manage wining this impossible battle
Sacrificing your Men at arms was risky, Peasants were expendable they rarely brought any advantage save In numbers and possesed low quality armor and weaponry
@@luckyrue4871 Yep and Agincourt the Defenders kicked some serious ass Hence why Calvary on a defensive formations is not sound. Woodlands, Swamps, Castles, Mountians, and Uphill assault not sound. Calvary charging downward picture perfect Infantry marching up while in full Plate armor not sound
Actually, in the "real" old times, marking of colours was veeeery important ;) So this battle is not completly accurate - heraldy, banners, and all kind of markings was used to ensure that your fellow mate didnt smack you in the gob with his club :P
@@nielssmed2388 no, this battle was very accurate on how it played out. The English purposely used the mud riddled field to have the French knights at a massive disadvantage, the fight literally turned into a massive bloody brawl when the English had their lightly armored archers swarm into the melee to literally pull down French knights and kill them in the mud. In this fight the English didn't give a damn about fighting with honor or being fair, they fought to survive against a larger and superior force.
Typically with brightly colored banners/tabards and shields with your factions crest on them. Still confusing as hell in the middle of a melee though. Armor variations also play a part.
@@Baldeagle-tw2nv I don't think that you read what Niels said. He was talking about the innacuracy of not using heraldry and colours and you respond by saying that the battle was accurate in how it played out. You completely missed his point. And even then the battle was not portrayed realistically. For Hollywood it was good but still not as accurate as you make it seem.
@@Luka-mu7ei yes. Back in those time, colours are really important to determine friend or foe. The colour of their armours must be the same with their banners. But sometime there are so many colours in the same army because there must be other lords squadrons who come to reinforce for some reason and their enemies wear different armour designs. In this battle, we don't know who is fighting to whom. May be friendly fire started from this. xD
My one personal complaint about the movie was that it shows the men without full plate armor being the hero’s of the battle when in reality the battle of Agincourt was saved by there overwhelming archers. The French cavalry was so eager to fight the English they even killed the Genovese* archers that were in front of them. It was the English longbow that won that battle. But other than that GREAT MOVIE. Not very historically accurate tho for many reasons
Wrong battle mate you’re talking about crècy this is agincourt and yes the longbowmen were devastating but in reality the men at arms did most of the killing as arrows could not penetrate plate.
Different armor design, plus tabards worn over the armor with the lord's colors. Plus trained armies would stay in formation as long as possible. Just rushing in with no order only happens in undisciplined mobs and in the movies.
@@Cergiossik Блин я не специалист в этом вопросе, но смотрится очень странно. Тяжеловооруженные рыцари, с виду робокопы воплоти. Как они там оказались? Как они биться будут в такой броне?
![Sabaton Ruina Imperii - For Honor [GMV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JeeQxqTnpmE/mqdefault.jpg)
"Imagine a King who fights his own battles,that would be quite a spectacle."-Achilles
I mean I can think of a few examples
1. He never said that.
2. Almost all of kings fought their own battles till gunpowder was discovered. An era you could kill the king from miles away.
Someone needs desperately to open a book or two
@@flaviusbelisarius932 it was a modern line for the movie (written by one of the two guys who ruined Game of Thrones): but you’re right. Carolus Rex (and many others) would shut D&D right up
Movie didn't do him justice he was in the front center battle no waiting watch Henry V 1993 way better Agincourt as far as accuracy goes
knights with polearms and daggers, fking finally I see this depicted in movies, how did I miss this one
that part is well depicted, unfortunately the actual events as shown are rather innaccurate.
``Only if there were no guns in the world people wouldnt kill eachother.``
People without guns:
Espada go WHOOSH
The Chinese invented gun powder and were the first to use it as a propelent.
Then it was introduced to Europe.
Interesting that the anti arms crowd, are typically also anti-white and vis versa.
From music to rocketry...warfare to industrial machines, and better ways of saving people, it has been primarily white men at the forefront of such endeavours.
Nobody has ever said that in he history of guns
@@27Killermike liberals say that all the time
No they would not shoot each other, only chop and stab each other with swords. Guns are not the problem, people are the problem.
3:31 When you're playing MnB Warband and you order the peasant infantry you've been protecting to charge
I love it how Falstaff just gets yeeted
I do love seeing a well executed 'good guys' flank attack, and proper use of archers.
How the Battle of the Bastards in GoT *could* have gone, had ShowJon or Show Davos (read D and D) had a brain between them...!
Honestly this scene just shows that war back then was an organised mess, you didn't kill I guy with a sword strike to the chest like other movies, you had to get right in the weak spots with a blade. It was just blood and mud and i'd say that's one of the reasons this series did so well with battles, It was real and gritty which I absolutely LOVE!
It ain’t Batman
I fully agree with your opinion, i have nothing much to say about it.
The only think i don't like about this scene was how this battle presented itself: It bass of Shakespeare version of the Battle of Agincourt, not the historical version. (and also not accurated to Shakespeare writting version as well)
The fight in the video is real and ophentic, but the movie could have give us a better representation of this Historical moment, because it actually was a very interesting battle itself.
( It's just my opinion, at least )
What movie is this?
@@KageRyu1000 it was "The King", in Netflix. But i don't recommended this movie to be honest. The movie overall is just bad, from a filmmakers point of view and historical as well.
You can checkout out this video "Crimes against Medieval realism analysis: The King" from Shadiversity to know why this movie is not good. It was a long video, but it should be.
That's why they used axes, maces and flails instead.
I remember watching this movie and rewinding and getting up out of my seat because the battle scene got me so hype
Ah... so this is what its looks like when Crusader Kings 3 says that light infantry has advantage against armoured infantry. It all makes sense now
Holy Hell Ive never heard of of this movie. I was expecting generic medieval combat but this was pretty damn accurate fighting. I need to watch this now!
Based on an actual history during the 100 year war with France.
This film is just pure french bashing. French lost the battle but nothing in the film shows what really happened in history. That's pure shit
@@LeRoiDesCrapos-LRDC It shows the battle of Agincourt. Which was a decisive defeat for the French. So as far as it goes its pretty accurate considering it literally fucked the French up. Unless if you want to go a bit forward in history where again, the French got fucked up. So its not really French bashing, just a good tidbit of history centered around the frightening odds the British faced and overcame.
Its also pretty ironically accurate considering it took the French hundreds of years to kick the British out. Who were five times less populated than the French and should have been outnumbered most of the time.
@@sergeantskrtskrt9594 I let you learn more about the context and history of this period. On the big lines we agree that French lost, that's not the question, a victory is a victory, a defeat is a defeat. But that's more about all the details.
For example french weren't highly elevated like in the movie. In reality, the English were elevated and French weren't able to see the totality of their troops because of it.
Another thing, the French Dauphin litteraly NEVER took place in the battle. He was weak and sick in reality. The film is showing an horrible personnage that everybody must hate, look how detestable french are. But this person never existed.
All along the film, everything is made for people to hate French and think English were so good and brave people.
But one more time that's a lie, Henry V is shown as a Saint but in reality he was more like a fucking psychopath, menacing his own troops to cut their ears and fingers, killing all the French prisoners (I think it's not necessary to remind you chivalry codes). It also shows Henry never wanted war and he was OBLIGED to do so... :'( but that's ooooone more time super wrong. He always wanted to come to France to conquer and fight, he was thirsty of blood.
Samely you see French heading off children but I don't think British took children from GB to France to fight to the death lol. Nothing mentions presence of children in English lines and French cuting their heads off. One more time that's made for people to hate French in the movie.
I can continue hours like that but I think you will have understood that nothing in this film looked like the fucking reality if you know a minimum the history and not only the "big lines" of it. 😊
@@LeRoiDesCrapos-LRDC So here's the funny thing about this. The end of the movie bashes you with the information that the French never actually did anything. So clearly either you haven't watched the entire movie. Or you very neatly decided to ignore it.
Have you heard of a 'Perspective' in a movie? Because we're clearly looking not at the French perspective and what a neutral player would want us to see. But at a very straight forward perspective at what the justification of Henry was.
For the matter no, the English are not made out to be a brave people. Neither are the French. It actually heavily disses both traditions from what I saw. While the French were more languished and better overall, the English were less so and more dirty scrapers.
Nothing about that really makes you think its elevating the English does it? Not to mention you can subtly tell that the real story is the advisors work not the Kings. It gets pretty obvious as you get closer to the war arc of the movie that the entire thing was fabricated.
And then, everything the French did and said clicks. As for a few of the scenes you mentioned. Where the FUCK did we see children being beheaded!?
When the Film shows us the French of course it is meant to make us despise them. It's called bringing out the emotional side of a human being, but through that manipulation they break your misconception entirely.
Because the French are actually fucking absolved of Guilt. And guess through who? Through their own damn hands. Half of the shit you said seems to make you believe this movie has it out for the French when to neutral bystanders it really doesn't look anything of the sort.
the whole last battle gave me chills in the chest... Like damn, it was piss, mud, and blood. I'm sort of glad those ways of fighting are behind us... Relatively.
I imagine a lot of those frontline soldiers were green and had no idea what was coming. Vets probably either get into a mode to get through it or go insane
@@fuzzysleeves6886 straight up... Veterans were often far behind greenhorn lines, but alas combat like army v army wasn't necessarily like this - it was columns and columns of pikemen/spearmen poking and jabbing at eachother until a break could be made... Throwing soldiers at eachother directly is just a bad way to start fights.
This movie was not accurate to the battle at Agincourt but whoever imagined this scene was probably inspired from the brutality of historical last stands or even when unorganized combat.
I think the world would be much better off if we were still as primitive when killing each other since this takes a lot of guts and people generally die one at a time with each critical strike and generally not with just one hit. These days even a little kid can aim a gun and pull the trigger and not exactly the brightest people are sometimes in control of nuclear bombs and the ability to fire rockets far away from any danger not really caring for the value of life. I for one can't imagine what bravery it took to be in the front line when an army of hundreds or thousands was advancing towards the lines, those were brave men
@@fuzzysleeves6886 I doubt rookies would have fancy armour like that.
Not a single smartphone in sight. Just people living in the moment.
I'm pretty sure it was Einstein who said "If people did not have guns, they would use bows and arrows. If they did not have these, they would use rocks and stones" It's all part of the human condition.........to love, but then to hate and kill. The duality of man.
yes but as the effectiveness of a weapon goes down it will be much harder to kill, its a pretty simple concept. a bow cannot be as effective as a modern firearm a large majority of the time.
The quote is "the first world war was fought in the trenches. The second was fought in the air. I don't know how the third will be fought, but the fourth will be fought with clubs and stones". We will destroy our own civilization and undo all of our progress. It's just a matter of time. According to Einstein anyway.
The English force was mostly made up of archers-and they may have won them the battle. Of the roughly 8,000 troops Henry had at Agincourt, only around 1,000 to 2,000 were men-at-arms and knights with heavy plate armor.
Tbh the men at arms/knights won the battle on the most part. The archers did work but that was mostly against the heavy cavalry as longbows can not penetrate plate armour. Knowing this the french advanced mainly on foot across a sodden field which tired them quickly. The arrows did also hurt A LOT despite wearing armour. Once the french arrived at the English line they got slaughtered as they shortened their weapons because they thought that I would be a close quarters fight, but the English had pole arms and easily thrusted into the groins and armpits etc. It was brutal and many drowned, the french rear also pushed the front into the meat grinder making the battle even more disastrous. And the nail in the coffin was the archers flanking the french and absolutely slaughtering the tired french men at arms without problem.
@@longbowenjoyer2154 shrapnel from a broken arrow or deflected one can still end up below the face or the throat of the one that got hit or the person on the side, also the sides of the armor can be penetraded by arrows...well depends on the arrow, but the armor is thicker on the front, also shrapnel hitting below the head or the throat depends on the armor, some armors had this V design on them where it would protrude forward to catch a piece of shrapnel to defelct it once more or just stop its trajectory
@@BringDHouseDown that is true indeed
4000 eram arqueiros a maioria estava nos flancos e foram eles que ganharam a guerra a infantaria eos cavaleiros estavam protegidos pelas barricadas e as estacas de madeira juntamente com o terreno lamaçento , que não era tão lamaçento assim, a infantaria EA cavaleiria só terminaram o serviço visto que o exército estava com uma epidemia de peste bubônica, e atacar diretamente não era uma boa opção, resumindo: os ingleses apenas fizeram chuvas de flechas dos lados até enfraquecer o inimigo e depois avançaram , foi essa a estratégia de Agincourt 👍
bowmen were fighting like litteral soldiers bashing bows and firing quite close
Swedish band sing about one of their greatest kings. Now that patriots song I can get behind.
Aye agreed ! 🤘🏻 cheers from Denmark
@Antivaxxer Ccp hater Yeah, i agree !
To be honest, this battle was totally unhistorical. All of the Knights would need to wear colours and coat of arms visible, so that they could see who is friend or foe. If just wearing the armour without any colours or symbols of your lord in such a close combat situation, you wouldnt know who is on your side.
Looks good in a movie, but totally unhistorical and unrealistic.
Who gives a fuck if it’s not historically accurate, the battle was filmed amazing and that’s part of Hollywood that you’re gonna have to just deal with, go film it yourself and do a better job
@@edwarddunphy5276 you know what?
That’s true, but this battle is based on Shakespeare’s version of events rather than the historical battle itself. That’s also why close combat fighting and shiny harnesses are so prominent in this battle, since that’s how Shakespeare portrayed it in his script.
@@edwarddunphy5276 historical accuracy is quite literally a million times better than any Hollywood rendition. It's meant to actually teach you something on top of being flashy or well choreographed. Why else would you fucking watch a period piece on medieval England if it wasn't going to actually reflect the history its picturing. Go watch Star Wars or some other gay ass Marvel SCI-FI if you want to watch 'amazing battles' that require no critical thinking or IQ to enjoy.
@@germanenkreis4476 чувак, я вижу что хоть кто то в Европе знает базовые скрепы в кино индустрии 🤝🤝🤝🤝🤝🤝
1:17 bravest stand i see against cavalry in medieval battle
And stupidest knight heavy cavalry I ever seen...why didn't they use their main weapon - lances???
@@oleksandr2234 Car il s’agit d’un film de propagande anglaise qui a pour but de montrer l’héroïsme et la bravoure des soldats anglais face aux méchants et stupides Français et que pour cela le film n’hésite pas à modifier la véritable l’histoire de la bataille d’Azincourt.
(Par exemple, lors de la bataille d’Azincourt, ce sont les Anglais qui étaient postés sur la colline, cachés derrière toute une rangée de piques et non les Français comme le montre ce film de merde)
Anyone who's played Medieval Total War knows Chivalric Foot Knights make mince meat of armored cavalry!
Basically every strategic game has thatp
Example bfme, bfme2
Pikeman ruin cavalry
@@daniloperisic6119 I’d rather say that bfme is a rts rather than a strategy game total war is where it’s at
@@longbowenjoyer2154 i mean yeah you're right bfme just came first to mind
And even further back all you needed was a tight space and exactly one unit of Militia hoplites in order to stop whole armies of Cataphracts
@@masterninjaize Cataphracts of all cavalry were not a force you'd wanted to mess with even with spear formations.
Hmmm, let me charge cavalry into heavily armored pikemen! No no, not in a flanking maneuver! Head on is fine, ha ha!!
...Bro, do you even Total War?!
This is exactly my reaction to a lot of the scenes in GoT. Head on cavalry charges, not utilising Walls even though massively outnumbered, Onagers in FRONT of the line?!?
I really like the guy who got knocked down, it's historically accurate that guys would drown in the mud, die in the crush as everyone tries and fails to swing their weapons.
🏒🏅🪴🍁😿🍁🪴l😹l save me soome of the action !!! l😂l great #reactment lo💘ve yall amen🥈🥈🥉⚽🥅⚽🏈🏀🛰🚀🛰🌎🌍🌏🛰🚀🛰🌚🛰🚀🛰🔴
Thanks & Many More!! (Please See Below!) I am very-flattered!!
In close quarter battle, a war hammer and a dirk would be more useful for the preservation of energy; wielding a hand and half or bastard sword takes room and if your'e in plate on muddy ground, it saps your energy pretty quickly, even if you've trained like a Man-at-Arms, using double weighted practice weapons and brigandines. You used the point on any bladed weapon, looking for gaps in your opponents array[throat, armpit, knee, crotch]to end it as quickly as possible.
you would be unlikely to find a weakness in the neck area, it is typically one of the most protected parts of any well make suit of armor because of how fatal a neck wound can be.
Não cara 😢 o exército inglês estava doente naquela batalha estavam com uma epidemia de peste bubônica e atacar uma cavalaria pesada francesa desse jeito e suicídio!!!, Ainda mais com soldados doentes aí e brincadeira 😅😅😅😅😅
First movie I've seen where swords don't slice through plate.
i know right? finally
Конница без копий, пехота тоже... Стрельба из луков прямо косит кавалерию... И все без сюрко или других опознавательных знаков...
Кавалерийская "лава" не смела 3-4 ряда пехоты, это как вообще?!! И т д и т п
У меня у одного кровь из глаз от этой сцены?)))
*Вы не понимаете, там как в играх, над противником красный крестик а над своим синий кружочек*
Нет, не у одного, я тоже охренел от того как рыцарей в латах косят стрелами пущеными навесом....
Кони вымуштрованы остановиться перед препятствием , сейчас других не найти .
Да там все прекрасно... пехота идет против конницы, спускающейся с горы... без копий... верная смерть... лучники ничего этой коннице сделать не могут... они могут убить лошадей, это в лучшем случае... по факту это не работает, так как кавалерия слишком быстро доезжает до лучников
@@vladimirhome8051 Но красиво снято , что мешает у нас снять ? Сценариев история оставила на миллион сериалов , денег на дворцы и яхты хватает , может актёров и режиссёров поменять ? Получается как в футболе ...... .
Finally some accurate armors, love the venetian bascinet.
It isn't completely accurate but it got more things right then most movies N series set in medieval times so it's a win 👍
Venetian bacinet in the nord part of France...ok..
@@spartstar45 people sold armors almost everywhere. Probably due to same religion there were commerce. Also it was Fashion to stand out if money allowed.
@@zoichikanoe6242 nothing in this video can be regarded as accurate.
I wouldn't say it's accurate. Rather, it is a mixed authenticity. For example, I saw in it a 16th century closed helmet and a late 15th century German sallet helmet. Most of the English and French used mostly bascinet helmets in the early 15th century... Tobias Capwell rated the armors of this movie in this video and was not thrilled with it...
7:37
ua-cam.com/video/5uwWlamONqs/v-deo.html
1:50 I love a man,
but I don't even know your name.
People don’t comprehend how peaceful the world they live in is today despite remote conflicts like in Yemen and Africa. A peaceful Europe would be incomprehensible back then. Europe was in a constant state of war from the fall of the Roman Empire to 1945. Europeans today are like, “nope, we’re done with war”.
+ 100 Agressive Expansion
you are absolutely right and shooting arrows at 45° against men in full plate is like shooting peanuts at a leather coat.
This is some realistic war movie the fact that the Knights didn't run from miles away with armors to charge their enemy is the most realistic thing they did in this movie
Yep, battle really very realistic.
But that film isn't historical.
@@nebular2286 battle is far from being historical : instead of French cavalry on the hill French troops were charging sownhill English troops uphill
@@pierrecluzeaud4845 Why? In 100 year war that situation are usual
@@pierrecluzeaud4845The big Chevauchée of the Black Prince is proof of this
in fact this battle looks like a little more adveaced in time,,,, arms are like during the war of roses but NVM its great show
I believe it's Agincourt, 1415.
Love the scene and the battle but the lion of the north is Gustaf Augustus
Yep. No relation. I watched the film and heard this tempo..
Correction: Gustavus Adolphus
Сцена отвратительна с исторической точки зрения. Рыцари без копий? Спешеные рыцари без полевых укреплений? Они не были идиотами.., но в фильме и те и те конченые идиоты.
Amazing video, synced everything in the movie with the music really well, so much respect🙏
Да ты шутишь? Это днище не имеет отношения ни к истории, ни к логике.
Oki, so just for history :
-English was on high ground
-They was thousand of Knights
-The Bowmen was hide on forest
-The French cavalery has been shoot by side, and killed by hiden pikes
-The French Infantry have charge at her help, make ENgland Knights go back, bu have been traped by bowmen charge in their back.
-The " Lion from the North" have executed all of French soldiers.
SO... The real Lion was dead on the ground.
Sorry, but i love history, and show this is propagand, Henry 5 is who search the war.
The movie is based on Shakespeare which itself is not historic. I do get your point though that the warped perspective is highly insulting to some.
According to a logic the battle in this movie is very accurate. In the same time histroric records provide very different versions of the battle and sometimes they are real examples of propaganda.
"Bowmen were in the forest" - try to use a long bow in any forest and you will see why hunter bows are so short. If they should be deep inside a forest to make a trap then it means that they could not fire. So either they were not bowmen or they were not in the forest. It is very hard to shot from long bow in a forest - even if you shot into "that way". Even make a line of bowmen is a very hard task because of trees.
@@sergiilolin1 well, you know, at Azincourt its not deep wood, thats just a little bit of tree, only the provocation of Henry 5 has made the king of France charge, so the "hiden" bowmen can shot, because of few trees
You are right, and these are not the only issues of the movie. However, the "Lion from the North" is Gustavus Adolphus, Swedish king during the early XVII. Henry the Vth is not even worthy to be mistaken for a Lion
Amazing song and movie ❤
To think France had no skirmishes against the long bow. Where were the 3000 Genoese merc crossbow men?
Crossbows didn't reach as far as a longbow and they took longer to load.
@@shrek13241 yes, but in this scene, where were these Genoese mercs? 3000 men was not so insignificant that you wouldn't show in a historical inspired movie.
@@teudaan This is a movie...
Любая песня- по сути- шедевр!!! Они узнаваемы, добро пожаловать в Санкт-Петербург !!!
Las batallas eran generalmente en la antigüedad una carnicería, no podías desconcentrarse, descansar o retroceder para tomar aliento, una vez enfrascado en el combate, el caos imperaba y tú tenías que matar para sobrevivir y esperar que termine pronto esa pesadilla o caso contrarió alguien acabe con tu vida, antes que caer prisionero del enemigo...
This is what Mordau could be in 2120. - The music comes from the bard.
nice video
Everyone in comments: “how no friendly hit?!?!?!?”
Me: “tabards and tassets were used irl” remember Hollywood fucks it all up every single time
Im sure there was plenty of friendly fire....especially when mud and adrenaline come into play
@@kgfalcon9394 This is a movie... It was not a typical thing, because soldiers fought in units and formations in reality. The massive "friendly fire" would have broken the army psychologically in a short time and that army was flee.
ua-cam.com/video/5fw4IdVa_5w/v-deo.html
Good,, nice maey frend👍👍👍
Not a cell phone in sight, just everyone enjoying the moment.
This is pretty much chivarley 2 team objective mode
The most inaccurate of this battle are just three things.
First the positions were other way around the english had the elevated positions while the french had to charge slightly uphill.
Second is that the english forces were heavily entrenched with stakes and ditches covering their flanks which were comprised mainly buy longbowmen.
And third and final their only heavily armored knights and men at arms didnt moved forward from their fortified position until the french cavalry charge was pinned down and be in a disarray.
Thats all i have to say zero tactics used in the movie xD
Moreover this was 5 years before plate armor was invented, let alone widespread. The equipment of all knights is completely anachronistic and furthermore, if they were to be armed that way it would have stopped 99% of longbow arrows.
@@Scipionyxsam no plate armor already existed, just not full body plate armor, and longbow arrows can penetrate armor on the sides where it is thinest, and the archers were...yeah on the sides, by the flanks of the army, so French knights got pelted from the sides, getting hit on the sides, arrows breaking on impact too and shrapnel flying everywhere at high speeds with some landing in gaps of armor, so arrows in volleys are quite dangerous to a group of knights or tightly packed army of them
Okay, How can One Tell Whose Who? They’re all Wearing Armor and I can’t see any Identification Anywhere
Can someone please Explain to me How You can Tell Friend From Foe in this?
The English can see the French in their eyes and vice versa
@@fuzzysleeves6886
That has got to be one of the Most Important Things to Train For and/or Memorize so they Didn’t accidentally Attack Each other
I love the part when the song lapses into the digital 8-bit thing, reminds me of my old NES system :-)
This might be the most realistic movie I've ever watched.
Indeed good sir. One of my favorite movies to watch and rewatch on Netflix
I saw the movie it was quite good.
Was a really good movie except I wish they were more accurate with the battle
Thinking back, the battle itself and the campaign in France is insignificant to the story. That was my interest going in but the focus on internal power struggle and the souring of king Henry over time is gripping and well done. Watching it again I still think the final shocking blow at the end is what the whole movie builds up to, not agincourt.
What's the movie name
@@ebinj5881 king henry on netflix.
@@Immortalis7771 no just "the king"
This is my army in mountain and blade warband
No
Indeed
Weird choice for a video of a song about Gustavus Adolphus, who became famous in the early 1600's- the armor and weapons of the video look about 1400.
bo to mi wygląda na bitwę pod Azincourt 25 października 1415 :)
yeah and this movie is shitty
In such close quarters combat, how could they tell who was friend and who was foe? They didn't have uniforms. Were there distinctive French and English styles of armor?
Sabaton can sing a song about chopping down a tree, stage diving, or a beach ball and it would be fucking amazing.
And the videos would be sweet as well.
I just see "metalheads" everywhere.
And they raise their fists into the air.. they are warriors of the world 😂
😂👍
Hence the song, i guess
Underrated :)
A lot of the knights look identical. How did they distinguish who is English and who id French
You don't
Except they will put like red for English blue for French
@@jimmytuplano3843 not really they had heraldry and such to distinguish each other like the st george flag and many other variants of the nobles heraldry.
Love the soundtrack.
When you see the movie and only after watch this is totaly other thing
amazing film!
Чего?)) Это какой-то позор. Сцена отвратительна с исторической точки зрения. Рыцари без копий? Спешеные рыцари без полевых укреплений? Они не были идиотами.., но в фильме и те и те конченые идиоты.
I bet watching tens of thousands of french heavy cav charging down a slope towards you would have had quite a few sphincters puckering up , especially if you are in the front row receiving the charge.
Even so
English stand the frenchman charge
Then slaughtered them
@@vladimirnaydenov1239 well if this was supposed to be tramecourt (agincourt) the cavalry were actually charging uphill across a huge expanse of mud, not downhill and only mud at the bottom.
Yep in the real Agincourt Henry V was pretty smart, he forced the french cavalry to charge uphill through a field of thick mud. Eventually the horses got stuck and when the knights fell off and into the mud the English longbow took them out and if that didn't the mace to the head came, if you were really unlucky you drowned in the mud.
Para aqueles que acham que uma guerra tem alguma gloria esta ai mortes e mais mortes, na guerra não há nada de belo ou glorioso, somente tristeza e dor.
For those who think that a war has some glory there is death and more death, in war there is nothing beautiful or glorious, only sadness and pain.
My school while we were doing the final semester test belike:
Im from Harfleur 🇨🇵
Let me guess before watching...armor is not working.
Actually did in this movie amazingly
yes, and the heroes always take their helmets off in battle.. just as modern soldiers today always take off their ballistic armor when a firefight begins :).
@@mortenovergaard7397 hahahahahahaha
@@mortenovergaard7397 because they want us to see their actors and actress acting in movies.
armour worked just fine, not so much when on the ground or charging onto a pike
🛡⚔️
If I were one of the knights, I'd probably have killed some of my comrades for mistaken identity. It's almost impossible to tell which is the enemy because they're wearing identical armors.
thats why asian had the flags behind _)
Historically their armours had colours of their house/kingdom and feathers on them. Medieval costumes and armor were almost always colorful. Also they fought on formations, and not always the armies clashed like in the movies
@@elmanco6885 Well they did clash like this, check your history.
@@magnacarta7889 "Not always" read
It's fucking amazing no one died during the filming of this awesome battle
In real life a downhill heavy cavalry charge would be devastating
This is based off of the battle of Agincourt, although I believe it follows Shakespeare more than actual history. I suggest reading about it, it is very interesting as many historical battles are. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
I'm no expert but I would think that in that kind of situation it is more or less the expected outcome
Very cool
I love this song and the knights fighting makes me wanna fight too it's hyping me up
Dont play sabaton(or similar) behind the wheel
This was an early covid fave...
someone please teach movie directors of how to make good use of the calvary , this was really....
Watch Lord of the Rings, the use of cavalry was excellent!
@@josephpeck8723 only in the fifth of the castle of hell but in gondor it wasnt good , the point on calvary is strike while the enemy dont notice you and they in gondor they waited till the enemy notices them and got into formation , if it was accuarate all that calvary would have died cause there was a lot of pikemens
@@Raddosseuss Well you're right about them waiting there to be noticed which is not the best idea. But it should be noted that the front orcs broke rank and panicked, which led to a successful cavalry charge. With the rear units retreating in disarray. Should be further noted that orcs are tortured and mutilated elves which doesn't exactly make them the best fighters. They're also pretty animalistic and almost mindless without a leader orc (and their leaders panicked too).
I know who the FUCK charges his knights into a pike formation.
How could they tell each other appart is a mystery
In real life a lot of them would have had colourful outer garments with coats of arms on and such to tell each other apart. I guess they leave it out in films like this to exaggerate the chaos and confusion. And to limit the budget of course haha
@@BrandydocMeriabuck even with the coat of arms, I doubt everybody knew by heart all the family crests of thousands of people. Back then there were no uniforms either .
@@oreste8570 Oh yeah definitely not, just the more important ones I reckon. But it would have been a little bit easier than it would’ve been had it been like in the clip. I mean you couldn’t even tell who the king was
@@oreste8570
Your confusion stems from the bad movie making.
In real medieval battles the battle lines had to be hold at all times. The side that broke first would be utterly slaughtered. Not only because you couldn't recognize friend and foe without a solid line, but also because the guys left and right to you defend your personal flanks. Without that protection you are as good as dead. Even with heavy armor.
The saving grace for that movie battle is that they actually showed how to kill a fully armored soldier: Dagger to the weak spots like visors or arm pits or by driving a pointy but heavy steel object through the plate armor (like a war hammer or a Mace). No slashing sword blows.
To my knowledge this is the first movie ever correctly depicting the use of a mace. 1:49 the pointy ends of the mace bind and transfer all the kinetic energy to the target. The Armor gets _pierced_ rather than crushed.
@@3gunslingers imagine the cardio these guys have to be in heavy armor and give blows like that without rest for hours. Thanks for the previous explanation.
Essa foi uma das mais incríveis batalhas da história sangue lama e glória a derrota não é questão para o exército somente a Vitória e a Glória importan uma batalha épica os negros podiam estar em menor número mas tinha a vantagem dos arqueiros com os temidos arcos longos e a vantagem do terreno alagado a cavalaria não deu bons resultados e os franceses que estavam com armaduras de praca completa ficaram com sérios problemas com a Lama
a very unrated movie, classic yea oldie film, and i love the music \m/
Two things One sabaton could sing about taking a shit and still inspire my to fight an army. Two this series what is it it’s portrayal of medieval fighting is amazing and I must watch it.
Filmar eso debió ser muy divertido😄
Как они отличали союзников от врага?
Same daubts 😉
Никак. Это тупое современное представление средневекового сражения. Более того, не только в античные времена, но и в средние века пытались держать строй какой никакой, но также использовали и щиты. Здесь же мы видим полное дуболомство. Толпа идиотов на толпу идиотов, одетых в полную броню, в которой нифига не видно!
@@РусьИзначальная-ч9ш вас не удивило что стрелы пробивают рыцарские доспехи в то время как даже сейчас не каждый из пистолетов на это способны )
@@farruhoyev6173 Пробивали, если вы не в курсе. Дело в том, что далеко не все рыцарские доспехи обладали нужным качеством. Качественно сделанные доспехи пробить стрела не могла. Не хватало скорости и массы. Зато например римский полибол или скорпион запросто мог вынести любого рыцаря и при том НАСКВОЗЬ!
Nice movie!!!
Как они друг друга различают?
По запаху.
Watching from PALAWAN Philippines 🇵🇭
how do you know which one is an enemy or an allie in this mess
They had to have the shield or colours of their lords
They would stamp heraldry on tabards, shields and whatnot. Colour was EVERYWHERE.
This is absolutely not historical...the battle was on a flat ground
Agincourt one of the most brilliant battles of all times the English where outnumber more than 2 to 1 plus that the had almost no Calvary , of course the command in the French army and their personal diferences helped into the masacre they led to their man , but hell Henry the 5 was a master tactic and a insanely brave man to manage wining this impossible battle
Yeah only a fool would face a calvary on any open terrain
those "fools" were obviously bait tho seeing that those guys were the only ones wearing heavy armor.
Sacrificing your Men at arms was risky, Peasants were expendable they rarely brought any advantage save In numbers and possesed low quality armor and weaponry
You can search battle of Agincourt, the movie is based on that, and no they are not fools for facing that cavalry in the open battle.
@@luckyrue4871
Yep and Agincourt the Defenders kicked some serious ass
Hence why Calvary on a defensive formations is not sound.
Woodlands, Swamps, Castles, Mountians, and Uphill assault not sound.
Calvary charging downward picture perfect Infantry marching up while in full Plate armor not sound
Are you sure you didn't kill your friends in battle ?
They used lines
Tak walczy się za króla Ryszarda lwie serce i ruszyliśmy na spotkanie śmierci i chwaly
Which lion does this song talk about th
how they different between enemy and friend with just same colour chain mail protector?
They had tabards over the armour, kinda like uniforms. Think of the crusader's white cloth with a cross. Oh, and flags.
How on earth would you distinguish friend from for, with all the mud and blood,is that why football shirts were invented !?
Actually, in the "real" old times, marking of colours was veeeery important ;) So this battle is not completly accurate - heraldy, banners, and all kind of markings was used to ensure that your fellow mate didnt smack you in the gob with his club :P
@@nielssmed2388 no, this battle was very accurate on how it played out. The English purposely used the mud riddled field to have the French knights at a massive disadvantage, the fight literally turned into a massive bloody brawl when the English had their lightly armored archers swarm into the melee to literally pull down French knights and kill them in the mud. In this fight the English didn't give a damn about fighting with honor or being fair, they fought to survive against a larger and superior force.
Typically with brightly colored banners/tabards and shields with your factions crest on them. Still confusing as hell in the middle of a melee though. Armor variations also play a part.
@@Baldeagle-tw2nv I don't think that you read what Niels said. He was talking about the innacuracy of not using heraldry and colours and you respond by saying that the battle was accurate in how it played out. You completely missed his point. And even then the battle was not portrayed realistically. For Hollywood it was good but still not as accurate as you make it seem.
@@Luka-mu7ei yes. Back in those time, colours are really important to determine friend or foe. The colour of their armours must be the same with their banners. But sometime there are so many colours in the same army because there must be other lords squadrons who come to reinforce for some reason and their enemies wear different armour designs. In this battle, we don't know who is fighting to whom. May be friendly fire started from this. xD
If this music was playing at the battle they would of all died of a fucking pointless headache
My one personal complaint about the movie was that it shows the men without full plate armor being the hero’s of the battle when in reality the battle of Agincourt was saved by there overwhelming archers. The French cavalry was so eager to fight the English they even killed the Genovese* archers that were in front of them. It was the English longbow that won that battle. But other than that GREAT MOVIE. Not very historically accurate tho for many reasons
Wrong battle mate you’re talking about crècy this is agincourt and yes the longbowmen were devastating but in reality the men at arms did most of the killing as arrows could not penetrate plate.
How do you distinguish between friends and foes? It is so chaotic that you are probably fighting your own people.
Robert Pattinson was cool here
Very-Well-Done!
All this violence is clearly caused by videogames...
yes, totaly, 100%. (i am being sarcastic but this disclaimer only matters to someone with less than 3 braincells)
What is the name of background music
Wait in the heat of the battle how would you know who the enemy is?
in such a cluster fuck as seen in the video I'm sure there was plenty of friendly fire.
Different armor design, plus tabards worn over the armor with the lord's colors. Plus trained armies would stay in formation as long as possible. Just rushing in with no order only happens in undisciplined mobs and in the movies.
You have a point ! In all that turmoil and mud it would be hard.
I think in the end you fight everybody who attacks you.
simple... you don't
If he curse in french for sure he is not an english.
1:39 - 2:30 How can you possibly know who is and who isn't your enemy in there?
You don't. That's why they didn't fight like that.
Battle lines had to be hold at all times. If one line broke, the flight was over.
I wonder how they will know if the knight they're facing is an ally or an enemy?
There is a slight difference in the armour, and most of the time the enemy was lined up face to face in a tight formation.
The ferocity of wolf alpha. Свирепости волк алфа. The courage of a lion. Храбрость льва.
Пехота в яме против конницы , тактика огонь. Месиво не понятно кто где
Кто снял этот бред точно в армии не служил. Да и книжек не читал.
Так ведь так раньше и воевали. Битва при Креси один из примеров где пехота разваливает лица коннице. И тут это довольно не плохо показано.
@@Cergiossik Тяжеловооруженные рыцари пешком? Или легкая пехота?
@@MiZantTroP совокупность усилий. Помимо ещё и обстрела из длинных английских луков (Longbow)
@@Cergiossik Блин я не специалист в этом вопросе, но смотрится очень странно. Тяжеловооруженные рыцари, с виду робокопы воплоти. Как они там оказались? Как они биться будут в такой броне?