How to recognize main characters in war films: 1 no helmet; 2 they talk during battles; 3 they have a good killestreak; 4 if they are wounded or killed you must watch the entire sequence of them suffering.
Honestly for something meant to be historically accurate, they're often so historically inaccurate. Also, why the hell did they not send a scouting party ahead of the main army so they know beforehand that they have been outflanked 😂
@@LizardYup Spot on. Nobody on any medieval battlefield would be without a helmet - it was the first and most vital piece of armour. And no commander would ever ride at the very front of his force - its asking to lose the leader through an ambush. There would always be scouts riding ahead and out to the flanks.
Well, I was convinced from the moment the entire army rode across a very modern-looking broad and open meadow with no trees, fences, hedges or livestock, in full sight of the enemy camp without being noticed. Then I was completely hooked from the moment the wide and obviously deep river became more like a wetland, shallow enough to wade through - and without being audible to the sentries. Oh, and the shout of "With stealth!" - that helped; if you're going to advise stealth, always do so loudly enough to be heard clearly. My only disappointment is that after they had nocked their arrows and drawn their obviously low-poundage gift shop bows for several seconds without struggling to hold the tension, the commander didn't shout,"Fire!" However, credibility was soon restored when a falling arrow, having lost most of its energy to aerodynamic drag, pierced a shield and a breastplate with sufficient force to kill a man instantly. Full respect to the army of researchers who made this documentary possible!
Come on, man. It's a movie . Where would you find authentic English longbows made of compound yew with 120 lb drawweights? And where would you hire extras who are trained archers since childhood who have developed the special musculature needed to draw these heavy bowstrings all the way back to their ear? Chill out, man. It's a MOVIE.!
That longbow's arrow that penetrated the shield, then the plate, then mail, then the gambeson, then the ribcage and finally come out on the backside through another 3 layers... Truly legendary penetration power... I'm flabbergashted....
Arrows are not like most movies or shows, when someone gets hit by an arrow it doesn't go a few inches and stop, it goes straight through like a bullet. Not only for long bows, but modern compact bows are even more deadlier.
@@silastengler3467depends I’d say you need a combination of all types of Protection, I have no doubts an arrow could easily pierce a single chest plate
@@silastengler3467 You are not compleatly inncorrect but guns were inventet becouse the training with a Arcebus was only a few Weeks insted of Years with a Bow 😉. Sorry for my English 😆
+Matthew Gallagher or because perhaps shields...worked...and plate armour worked....historically speaking a well made harness could resist arrows from even the most powerful of bows ...as in the arrows would bounce or glance off.
+ The imperial Inquisition i don't know if someone would wear mail, plate and gambeson...that's too much weight and you would overheat in it..But yea you would have mail and plate if you're rich...and a cotton shirt too.
Why did anyone bother to wear armor?? In movies like this, it seems that if someone touches you with a sword, you fall down instantly dead. One begins to think that either armor served no purpose at all, or that filmmakers are totally clueless.
+Torrey Holmes If they actually did that then the whole flow of the movie would be slow and turn boring, seeing most other knights get hit and continue to fight, in a film you want to see fast paced motion actions cause its more enjoyable to a audience in whole.
+Ewan Smith Ah yes, because making a fight look hard and grueling totally saps all the enjoyment out of watching it. Yes, we'd all rather watch battles where the good guys win effortlessly every time. That explains why shows like "Vikings" and movies like "Saving Private Ryan" are so unpopular.
Noo, I mean towards the fact you dont want to see the protagonist fighting 10 people in a row all in 4 minute long fights doing this will interrupt the flow of the movie and make it boring cause of how long it takes. And any person who would want to see this is not the average film viewer.
Ewan Smith Four minutes is too long even for most climactic finale fights... you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. There's a difference between "hard fought" and "long." Any good protagonist in a medieval war movie (or fantasy movie) is a great fighter. Great fighters try to end a fight in as few efficient moves as possible. But, and this is the important part, it's not interesting to see the hero swing his sword once per fight if he does this many times in rapid succession (different matter altogether if ONE fight is concluded with a single thrust/slash, because that can be dramatic and, done right, is very plausible). A hero who has to work for his kills is more heroic. And "work" can be as simple as needing to attack twice. The "bad guys" should at least try to defend themselves. If your bad guys aren't competent at all, then there's no tension, nobody believes the hero is in danger, and no amount of frantic camerawork can save that. Even Batman gets punched from time to time (and in armor, the Hero can be "punched" many times and not be hurt at all).
Common sense really. it's like no one went down to the edge of the river in the morning and no one noticed the dead guards. Then mailed cavalry charge across that river? Plus the arrows that instantly kill - no chance unless it hit somewhere vital like the heart, or eye. Come on - really?
@@jimmycakes7158 No. Every film should've made the armor protect them from said death in the first place. It takes time to take down a heavily armored opponent.
@@f1r3hunt3rz5 +bows aren't like crossbows, Crossbows were invanted exactly because they are slow but they can penetrate armor, menwhile bows can't do it that easly, bows were used for rapid fire? against light armor and such. So for this scene it have sense they use bow because they are taking the enemy by surprise and they know that they had no armor, but that men with SHILD+ARMOR he Had to survive.
I love how the englishmen just completely slaughter the french soldiers without a casualty, but when they fight peasants armed with shovels and pitchforks...they are ckmpletely ineffective.
+Sai's Afflicted In England, every boy/man from the age of 10 was required to train in archery by law. This meant that every man was an expert archer. This is why the longbowmen were so good at battles like Agincourt. Most of the English army were just peasants anyway. Only the Men at Arms and Knights actually had any real training in martial arts. They only made up a small part of the English armies - most of the armies were just peasants with cheap armour, a buckler, a bow, and a long knife, or a sword if you could afford one but they were surprisingly expensive. Additionally, it was a siege. It is easier for the defender because the attacker is funnelled down narrow streets which can be barricaded. Additionally, the peasants were fighting for their lives. They were dead men walking. They were going to be massacred. Sun Tzu - the guy who literally wrote the book on military strategy - said something along the lines of that if you corner someone, they'll fight like tigers. When they have nothing to lose, they fight even harder. This is also why the English army achieved great victories against numerically superior French armies, such as at Agincourt. The English were trapped with nowhere to go. It was their last stand so to speak. Think of it like the Spartans at Thermopylae.
+Luke of Lancs Historically, yes, most English soldiers were peasants. But if you watch the video, which my comment was about, you see mailed soldiers with swords and axes being slaughtered by peasants armed with shovels and sharpened sticks. Also, my comment addressed the disparity between the combat effectiveness when fighting the French army and their complete failure to take out a small band of all but unarmed peasants. But, I also understand that this is fiction, and in modern society we always root for the unarmed peasants because we see them as underdogs suffering oppression.
The two famous victories Edward the third commanded in were Poitiers and Crecy. This i would imagine was a watered down version of one of the two. History on a budget
***** Swords were expensive to make. They require a specialist tradesman - a smith. Swords also take a long time to make. It requires a lot of skill to make a good quality sword. To buy a sword is expensive. 15th C England basically went like this: you had "li, s, d" or "pounds, shillings, and pence". 12 pence in a shilling and 20 shillings, or 240 pence, in a pound. The average sword was a pound and the average person made 2 pence a day; so that is 120 days of labour for a sword. However, this is unrealistic as the person has to spend this money to sustain himself and his wife and children too. First, the discussions around money and its availability looking at the period 1150 to 1350 and taking the upper end figures for currency in circulation £200,000 we get 48,000,000 pennies in circulation with a population of 5,000,000 that's 9.6 pennies each. So the likelihood of our average peasant amassing sufficient money to buy a sword is zero. There is a problem with this it is more likely that currency was in the region of £100,000 to £125,000 or 4.8 to 6 pennies per person in actual circulation therefore even less likely our peasant has a sword. Second the documentary records point clearly to peasants trying to resist the move to money because it undermined some of their old rights. Paying the lord in produce was tied to the harvest so any believe that our average peasant earned X inflated claim in money needs to be resisted. The monetary value is a tax assessment not an income in cash which led to a lot of resentment. Third, the concept that a man who struggles from year to year at the whim of the seasons would hoard away an otherwise (to him) useless piece of metal which he could sell to buy a pig/goat/cow and therefore increase the productivity of his land is fanciful. The concept of a hide of land appears here, a hide varied in size depending on the quality of the land but for good land a 'knights fee' rose from 3 to 5.5 hides your peasant was lucky if he had a hundredth of a hide or maybe an acre. The trade in second hand weapons and armour that made some merchants rich also shows that as wars finished in one area the weapons dealers then as now would move the surplus to more profitable areas. Second hand weapons were still out of reach for most ordinary people. A sword was a luxury item...
What you learn from movies: Slitting someones throat is an instant death. A dagger can go through mail, a body, and the mail on the other side. Arrows can go right through a shield and a metal chest plate. Fully armored enemies die from one swing. etc etc... I wish movies were more realistic in this regard.
Elite Muppet Depends on the bow & its, the arrow head used and the range at which is is shot + the quality of the armour and what the shield was made of. So, improbable, but not impossible. The use of archers shooting blind into a dispersed enemy is the biggest improbability in the clip, unless you also question the uncoordinated charge across the river using mixed cavalry & infantry. Hitting a man in plate won't drop him, but a poleaxe or war hammer will. Yes, men don't die instantly, yes they would twitch and kick and flop around, but it did shew a lot of the brutality of medieval warfare.
Not to mention the citizens of the Town building up barricades and entirely ignoring the fact that they have walls which they could use to defend themselves... why even bother to build a wall if they don´t use it?
@@danielwolfgang8234 The wall isn't any good when the English were able to break down the gate with a ram. Besides most of them looked like they were peasants not professional soldiers so they probably didn't know how to station the wall properly and use it to their advantage.
@@barbiquearea Mhhh you have a point, but still the prospect of at least using it to shoot the attacking force with bows and crossbows would have had some effect. Don´t get me wrong, the barricades are a good idea as second line defense. But leaving the walls completely unmanned, that´s just unrealistic to me.
pieter fischer well made wooden shields can definitely stop an arrow... That shield also seemed to have had a leather finish on the surface, so I highly doubt it would be able to go ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
you are right, just watched 1917 again and apart from ten minutes or so of two leads wading thru the filth and obscenity of WW1 no mans land ... everything else was cleanish uniforms and a bit of mud. !!!! none of the poor bastards waist deep in mud water and filth, corpses literally by the thousands , rotting bodies buried into the sides of trench works and millions of rats feeding on the dead. they should read some history and i mean real history
I speak Slovak because I am Slovak. You speak English because you are..... Ou! I forgot, that you murican guys don't really have have our own language, do you? What a shame!
Idk, he probably expected them to spend the night cowering in fear and saying their prayers. The most of a defense he expected was probably having to ram the gate. That would have been just a fun warm up exercise for his troops.
When he told the civilians they were all going to be killed I was like “good job dumbass. You just motivated the whole population of that city to resist you and fight to the death.”
It doesn't even look real! It's like one of the plastic costume swords I bought when I was a snot-nosed kid! It's so laughably bad I'm brought to tears!
And the even funnier thing is, the guy waving the flag is wearing a perfectly real looking sword. Who says all kings have to carry an ornate sword? Are they afraid no one will know who he is, otherwise? HE'S WEARING A CROWN! HE'S A KING!!!
bert lyte Shot or loosed, never fired (came in with musketry). It can be done, but I am concerned at the range and the fact that the archers were shooting blind at a dispersed target. A marksman at reasonable range using a 175lb + bow could possibly achieve the kill..
Your telling me a longbow weighs more than a 13 year old boy? And as far as range goes, maybe if the archer was 5 feet away but as far as I know, especially during the hundreds year war when armor was beginning to be perfected, I don't think it likely.
bert lyte Err: you don't know much about archery do you Bert. the poundage is the draw weight of a bow, not how much the bow physically weighs. To draw a 175lb bow (physical weight about 5-10lb) you would need to push about 45lb of efforts and draw(on 2 or 3 fingers) the balance of 135lb. So, your very over weight 13 year old boy (unless you are an American, in which case slim 13 year old boy) would have you holding his head and shoulders in your left fist and the rest of his body on 2 or 3 fingers. Will a war bow with a short bodkin head punctures plate armour? Yes, lots of tests done, including some I have taken part in. It all depends on quality of armour, shape of armour, arrow head shape, whether it had hardened steel edges, draw weight of bow, strength of archer, range etc, etc.
I'm having serious trouble following the tactics of this scene, especially the opening 6 minutes. I haven't seen the actual series so perhaps there's dialogue here that clarifies matters, but it seems to me this is the rough timeline of events: 1) Small unit crosses the river to kill... guards? Somehow literally nobody manages a scream to alert their comrades despite many of the kills being stabs to the chest and other areas where someone could still manage a brief shout 2) Some man notifies his forces on the other side of the river by... waving a fucking torch? And somehow literally none of the enemies on his side of the river see it? They clearly didn't kill *all* the enemy forces, just a few night watchmen. How on Earth could they count on that torch not to alert anyone of what must be hundreds of men? 3) Larger force crosses the river, and hides on the opposite embankment... until morning? Somehow the "enemy" forces (French, presumably?) notice neither the hundred or so guys in bright red cloth literally a dozen feet from them, or the fact that a bunch of their night guards have died (I saw no one hiding bodies the night before)? 4) The force on the French side of the river decides to attack, and everyone stands up... and still none of those Frenchmen notice a hundred+ archers standing not 50 feet from them, for over 30 seconds, until some English guy gives the command to fire? This is seriously nonsensical. I've never watched a scene in a movie/TV show that has roughly jerked me out of believing it so many times in a row. The entire opening to the battle is just one big, impossible farce. Did they have literally zero decent historical consultants on this show, or were there some and they were just ignored?
+MadMac2236 I think the filmmaker's obvious mental problem derives from those notoriously stupid WW2 movies of the last 70 years where a GI or a Brit kills 10 dull Germans with each shot. It simply isn't meant to inform but rather to entertain. And would you feel entertained to learn that in fact the Western Allies took higher casualties on the French and Italian Front than their German counterparts? No. So why disturb people with reality?
"So we were in war with Rodohok , nord and sarranid, the Marshall come to me, Count Despin, we go siege Shariz menwhile wait reinforcment from Praven, we started buil the siege tower and guess what *clap on the table* the king throw 7 days of feast,*laughing* the butterlord"
Well Technically it pierced a single walled shield that did not seem to have a frame or outer finish, 2 layers of chain mail (the front of the forearm and rear of forearm) AND then 1 layer of plate chest armor and then what looked like 1 more of chain mail that he wore under the plate... I also assume it pierced some sort of wool or cotton layer that he wore underneath that mail too. 6 Layers in all.
die Langbogen waren aus mehrfach verleimte Eiben Hölzer, nachbauten und test Schiessen durch die Profesoren der Oxford University of history haben bewiesen das die Pfeile auf einer Distanz von 300 Meter mühelos Schilde und Rüstungen durschlagen, desweiteren haben Analysen an Gebeinen ergeben das die Spannkraft so gross war das bei vielen die Wirbelsäule durch das "Training" verformt wurden. Das V von Winston Churchill 1940 war darauf zurück zu führen das Langbogen Schützen die Spann Finger abgeschnitten wurden so gross war die Furcht vor die Schlag Kraft dieser Soldaten, die entgegen der Legende keine Bauern waren sondern die absolute Waffe der Engländer darstellten. Wer zweifelt sollte die Französichen Geschichts Bücher lesen. Pure Angst.
4:32 Watchman - "Yeah, I'm gonna pretend I didn't notice the bows, pikes, and enemy soldiers which I can clearly see hiding in that trench." Also, shout out to that guy trying to split wood @ 5:20 like a guy who doesn't know how to split wood.
The short lived fiasco of the cardboard shields 😁. I also love the way any nobody trying to attack the hero, one wave of his sword in their general direction seems to kill them instantly, you know who the super bad guy is by the duration of the fight and how gruesome the bad guys death is.
+VelmiVelkiZrut If anything they are understated. The ones used by historians are pathetic 60lb bows. Nothing like a 150lb plus warbow. It's TV regardless. In a Roman shows arrows went through testudo shields. A gondorian soldier got killed by an arrow from a low poundage bow straight through his breastplate. In reality people usually wouldn't die from one cut of a sword. Certainly not if wearing plate. Athleticism often won out in plate armour battles. But that would be boring. I'm yet to see films with correct attire too. Like Braveheart usuing lamella plate for knights and kilts and woad for the scots.
okay as a guy who has read up on history weapons and the battles they were used in yes the English Longbow is overrated in certain aspects. At the battle of Crecy as show above it was the key weapon that helped turn the tide of battle for the English, however coupled with the fact that it was a sneak attack at the crack of dawn with the English ready to kill anyone who got in their way of going home was also a big factor as well. Now onto the biggest misinterpretation of a victory ever Agincourt. While the long bow was used and slightly effective at harassing the French knights and killing their crossbowmen the real killer were the Man At Arms who used every weapon at their disposal while the French were trudging through the mud slowed down by their armor and funneled into a kill zone that prevented their knights from using their horses effectively. that is how the battle was won not because of some magical bow but by smartly using the terrain, drilled men who were good at close combat, and holding their position so they could let the enemy get murdered on their turf. Also one final note the French Steel Crossbow was the death of the English Longbow. This was because the crossbow is easier to aim and train people to use, where the longbow takes years of training to perfect the use of. This along with the fact that quantity beat quality, in this case at least, the old bow and arrow was fazed out for the crossbow and later the Musket and Archebus.
VelmiVelkiZrut: You hit the nail sir, We all know Brits love boast, they talk big and act small. If their longbow was really useful, how did the Frenchmen kicked them out of mainland?
Gunjiro X And then there's Arn the Knight Templar... Yeah, it's not perfect, but compared to this shit? It's amazing. Also, the fucking horse is the saddest tbing ever. Seriously, fuck you Swedish miniseries-makers. Chamsiin actually made me cry. I do not cry. Ever. It just doesn't happen. Oh, and I want that sword.
@@MrChoffe93 "England is the worst shit country ever"- Says a person who is communicating in the language that originally evolved in England. Stop being anglophobic. England and the UK, my native country, has had a huge impact on the world and its history. Also, how can you say that England is full of dumb and ignorant people when this country has sired geniuses like Stephen Hawking and Isaac Newton? What's so bad about England anyway?
@@matthewbradley1609 Well one could argue that the French language was the 'world language' at the time up until roughly the 18th century, that the French, or Normand at the time, ruled England by beating them badly at Hastings, resulting in 1/3 of the English language being French words or slight changed ones. And other stuff. But hey, we're still talking to each others in English. And he has a point, England is far from being a wonderful "country" especially compared to Sweden.
I am 36 years old and I served in the Marine Corps in Iraq in 2003 for nine months. I was an infantry rifleman and saw combat but it was mostly just suppressing fire and nothing up close. The worst I saw was a fellow Marine get shot and killed. That being said, I could not imagine fighting a war with swords and nothing but a wooden shield and chain mail armor to protect you. The soldiers of the past had to literally use their physical strength to kill the enemy by driving a piece of metal through their bodies up close and personal. I think about this a lot at night before I sleep because my experience was aiming my M16 A4 at distant targets at least 100+ yards away. That does not even come close to what these poor bastards had to go through.
Actually, in battles prior to popularisation of gunpowder weapons, you were less likely to die when fighting and more likely to die of hunger, sickness, and toppling and being cut down by enemy when routing. Or after the battle when the winning side eradicated the wounded
It always made me laugh when in medieval historical or fantasy films, the infantry starts to charge against the enemy in a completely disorganized way without any kind of strategy or attack formation. 😂😂
that's because the French used witchery to win and are ashamed of it, even though they are to be lauded for burning that witch, Joan of Arc, at the stake.
wow that's some crafty revisionism right there. you should be a fiction book writer... we need better stuff than 50 shades of grey and twilight. First of all, Joan is a saint recognized by catholic church. So I don't know what butt fuck religion or faith you belong to. Second, we all know the English are still sore at the loss, and you must be english too from your dumb comment :)
Wow. What a dumb comment. Besides what has correctly been said by Perfecttrunks2000 above: It was the burgundians - englands allies - who murdered St. Jehanne.
+Alpha6499 lol England fucking kickstarted these countries and after ww2 gave them independence, now give England some slack they were once the great empire who gave independence to the greatest countries of today like the USA, India, someparts of south africa, Australia and Canada, without England these countries wont exist today
2:10 can no-one on the other side of the river hear all that splashing or see all those people crossing? 3:05 do any of the people killed have peripheral vision or hearing? People just run straight past them without attacking for some reason, and they don't even notice. 4:35 those guards are useless if they didn't notice all those men on that ridge, with their bows sticking out like a sore thumb, their helmets would also reflect light, making them even more noticable.
No dogs on the french camp, no birds being disturbed, all sentinels either stupid and well visible or sleeping during the ward but their friends are quite noisy talking and drinking (hey, let's pick the most tired guys for taking care of the rest of us while we party!), no fake fires, no nothing. To compensate, they die in a silent manner because they're polite people and don't make any noise while falling dead.
I can highly recommend you read the Plantagenets by Dan Jones , its an epic history of the Plantagenet Kings of England and France , a history book you can get your head around .
well actually, Breastplates were made to be somewhat resistant to arrows, Chainmail was worthless, and had to essentially hit at an angle to glance off, thats why the english developed the bodkin tip, it pierced mail easily, and could penetrate plate armor somewhat well (not fatally however). then they developed crossbows, the bolts were larger and the metal was thin and thick, plus they could have it hold more power for punching armor. Granted yes shields dont have to and could stop an arrow, the arrow during those times would almost never have enough punch to go through a wooden shield and into a breastplate.
@Wulfheort you are very wrong. Look up Tods Workshop on TH-cam. He shows that a 200lb English longbow can punch through a shield/chainmail, and the gambeson. A well made breast plate was the only thing that stopped the longbow
@Wulfheort I am on mobile so I cant figure out how to send a link, but the name of the video is: "Lockdown Longbow - do shields stop arrows". The video is made by Tods Workshop. He does a few similar videos
@Wulfheort oh I totally agree, the arrows wouldnt kill, but I do believe it would punch through the shield and chain mail. I will check out Skallagrim, thanks for the suggestion
@@Viper0hr not trolling. You did exactly what you complained about. You came in here with no credibility and made a statement. Its just funny that you arent self aware. Hopefully you dont get angry at this and acctually self reflect. I dont have any credibility either, but at least im not complaining about armchair historians like you and I
The English army beat the French knights and men at arms, but they had no chance against a bunch of peasants and a woman armed with shovels, rakes and pitch forks. Ha ha ha.
They underestimated a bunch of peasants. Also they literally told them that every single person including the women and children would die. So they are going to give it their 100%
+Peter Häusler Exactly! That reminds me of what Mark Twain wrote in his "The Innocents Abroad" about the River Arno in Florence. "They call it a river and even build bridges across it, and I suppose it would be a plausible river if they'd pump some water into it."
Those 14th and 15th century English longbowmen were deadly and greatly effective, quite possibly the most elite and formidable professional soldiers on the planet back then (and some of the most feared). Also, those superb and highly disciplined English archers were probably better and more accurate shots than the Mongols had been a century before (granted the Mongols shot their arrows from riding horses, thus proving this more difficult task). Yes, those outstanding English archers were THIS FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH, unbelievably calm, cool, collected, steadfast, and brilliantly---invariably---precision guided (another reason that the English were able to beat the Scots in battle on many occasions, all throughout the 1300's, 1400's and 1500's, as they deployed their spectacular archers so as to unleash deadly volley after deadly volley after deadly volley and rain down hellacious death upon thousands of ferocious and die hard Scottish warriors, most of whom had to be killed to be defeated).
+Taylor Ahern English knights, along with the chain mail clad Scottish/Irish Gallowglass mercenaries, WERE A PRETTY FEARSOME AND PHENOMENALLY TOUGH BUNCH, AND UTTERLY EXPERT AT HAND TO HAND COMBAT (as both groups were quite possibly the Western European equivalent of the Japanese Samurai). Few other nations in history have bred and yielded up warriors as hardy, stout, capable, fierce, skilled, die hard, intrepid, powerful, inspired and as ferociously resolute as the British Isles have (England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales). Those old school, late Medieval warriors who were born, raised, trained and prepared for battle in the British Isles eventually acquired the reputation as that of being Europe's premier warrior race (and I would rank British, Scottish and Irish warriors of that time higher than the Swiss halberd and pikemen, in terms of ferocity, courage in battle, toughness and skill at arms).
And yes, the German Doppelsoldners were fearsome bad-asses, super tough, super strong and renowned for their outstanding and brilliant swordsmanship. Also, weren't those die hard and fearless swordsmen often in the vanguard of any approaching Landsknechte pike formation? I believe those fiercely sword slashing, havoc and mayhem wreaking swordsmen were, as they were that good, deadly, tenacious, ferocious and highly skilled (while often dressed in flamboyant and garish colors). FEROCIOUS indeed, as those German doppelsoldners were right up there with all those legendary and formidable English knights, and savage, bloodthirsty and ULTRA FEARSOME Scottish/Irish Gallowglass mercenaries. What warriors, what bad ass professionals, and what warrior societies that produced them!
+Taylor Ahern May I ask candidly how it is, if the British are such great warriors, that they never conquered the world, that the overall conclusion of the Hundred Years War was they got stuffed (loosing half of France is kind of a big deal), that for the most part, they got stuffed all the way to the 19th century by every possible people in Europe and only kept their independance because they are an isle? What would you say about the people who fought the whole continent for almost 25 years straight, and winning 90% of engagements. What would you say about the fact that, even though war is big money, the greatest mercenaries were, depending on the precise period, italian, swiss, german or spanish (or scot, allegedly). What would you say about the Poles, who won a battle with a numerical disatvantage of 50:1? The samurai of Europe? The great english gentry was french (I hear the Lionheart barely ever step foot on his isle kingdom), at least frankish. If anything the samurai of Europe were frankish knight (descendents of Charlemagne knights) who ruled over the continent were riches are found for half a millenium. Not saying of course the Longbowmen were bad troops, but they were never as effective as you seem to picture yourself (I would like to point to Matt Easton's Schola Gladiatoria here).
Interesting point my man. I shall role it over in my mind, and consider what you just wrote. Very interesting. It's rolling over in my mind now as I type these words. Rolling, rolling, rolling😊😊😉
+warbossgrotsmasha23 I would rather say it´s weird Tv logic, the man shot is seen wearing chainmail, a Gambeson (I think) and a steel cuirass/breastplate. On top of that he is protecting himself with a shield that when strucked sounds to me like it would be made of metal. All that and the arrow still penetrate and even exist his body. Pure magic in that arrow.
"studded leather" ... NO. A steel cuirass with/without mail + shield would certainly stop a bodkin arrow. And on the possibility it may, it will certainly not kill him. And what sort of soldier would, especially one with authority, not be completely dressed in his armour in time of war knowing they're close to their enemy?
"World Without End" is the sequel to "Pillars Of The Earth", another great mini series, all written by Ken Follett. There is a third book now, which is the final sequel, "A Column of Fire" .
I don't think anyone realises that this entire battle was based on historical events... this actually happened and these were the actual tactics... sure its unrealistic in some aspects but the entire gyst of the fight is true to life
The actual battle didn't happen as absurdly as in the movie. enemy search party They avoided it and approached several kilometers away, and as soon as the sun rose, they made a surprise advance. That is the Operational surprise attacks of this age. It didn't happen that the troops were hiding right in front of the enemy's encampment like Rambo did.
They won 100 years later. And Edward III lost his French lands because of the Black Death that killed a lot of Englands population. England couldnt afford to wage war in France anymore
The hundred years war lasted 116 years and although the last battle was in 1453, it did not end totally until 1481. The English did hold Calais for much longer.@@JJaqn05
Doingt, it was not a battle. Henry got ahead of the French Army by half a dy and managed to shore up the causeways (two of them) and safely crossed hsi small army without hindrance.
This is me playing total war, when i have to deal with "the peaseants" that revolted and made me send a huge army so the "auto resolve" dont screw me over.
Wow I love shows around the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses. So epic and dramatic! The real historical Game of Thrones! The part about the slaughter of the innocence in that city....I knew that was never an order given by the King.
Everyone must remember this is just a reenactment and armor did protect a lot of those nights but I'm going to tell you some of those bow and arrows could shoot some of that damn armor that's when is 125 lb coil with a piece of metal in it on the end of it if half-truths and half lies it's just a movie but all in all they done a pretty good job
+Clay Ronso LOL!!!! Yep, think of all that time we wasted reading and studying Chaucer in Middle English. Who knew they sounded just like us now? Oh, woe is me.
7:07 behold, the most terrible depiction of armor effectiveness ive seen....I mean cmon ive had a 9mm pistole shot at a steel 2.5-2mm cuirass and even that protected nicely...they wore armor and used sheilds for a reason, THEY WORKED
![Medieval Movie Battles [PT 3] - 1200th Century](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/F2VzShIJGBU/mqdefault.jpg)
![Medieval Movie Battles [PT 3] - 1200th Century](/img/tr.png)
How to recognize main characters in war films:
1 no helmet;
2 they talk during battles;
3 they have a good killestreak;
4 if they are wounded or killed you must watch the entire sequence of them suffering.
Honestly for something meant to be historically accurate, they're often so historically inaccurate. Also, why the hell did they not send a scouting party ahead of the main army so they know beforehand that they have been outflanked 😂
Who needs a helmet when you have plot armor?
@@LizardYup Spot on. Nobody on any medieval battlefield would be without a helmet - it was the first and most vital piece of armour. And no commander would ever ride at the very front of his force - its asking to lose the leader through an ambush. There would always be scouts riding ahead and out to the flanks.
That they are not wearing helmets is dumb af
Hounskull yes Heeheheh🤣
Well, I was convinced from the moment the entire army rode across a very modern-looking broad and open meadow with no trees, fences, hedges or livestock, in full sight of the enemy camp without being noticed. Then I was completely hooked from the moment the wide and obviously deep river became more like a wetland, shallow enough to wade through - and without being audible to the sentries. Oh, and the shout of "With stealth!" - that helped; if you're going to advise stealth, always do so loudly enough to be heard clearly. My only disappointment is that after they had nocked their arrows and drawn their obviously low-poundage gift shop bows for several seconds without struggling to hold the tension, the commander didn't shout,"Fire!" However, credibility was soon restored when a falling arrow, having lost most of its energy to aerodynamic drag, pierced a shield and a breastplate with sufficient force to kill a man instantly. Full respect to the army of researchers who made this documentary possible!
Haha best comment here 🤣
This comment made me very happy. Almost as happy as the super realistic historical accuracy, but not quite.
How dare you to critisize such a historic accurate first class movie? ;-) Best comment, nails it to the point. This rubbish is beyond trash!!
Браво, ты реалист😑
Come on, man. It's a movie . Where would you find authentic English longbows made of compound yew with 120 lb drawweights?
And where would you hire extras who are trained archers since childhood who have developed the special musculature needed to draw these heavy bowstrings all the way back to their ear?
Chill out, man. It's a MOVIE.!
That longbow's arrow that penetrated the shield, then the plate, then mail, then the gambeson, then the ribcage and finally come out on the backside through another 3 layers... Truly legendary penetration power... I'm flabbergashted....
Arrows are not like most movies or shows, when someone gets hit by an arrow it doesn't go a few inches and stop, it goes straight through like a bullet. Not only for long bows, but modern compact bows are even more deadlier.
@@rocksjoshua Not if you have plate armor on. Even chainmaill and a gambeson is good protection against arrows.
@@silastengler3467depends I’d say you need a combination of all types of Protection, I have no doubts an arrow could easily pierce a single chest plate
@@jimparis5073 it depends on the quality of the breastplate. No arrow in going through a good breastplate. Why do you think guns were invented🤓
@@silastengler3467 You are not compleatly inncorrect but guns were inventet becouse the training with a Arcebus was only a few Weeks insted of Years with a Bow 😉. Sorry for my English 😆
No cellphones in sights, just people enjoying the moment.
@Kingston Julien One you dont have a girlfriend let's be honest. Two, that's fucking weird either way.
@@cleshsesh6155 its a bot milo
@@tannerthepanman9202 I hate it I want it gone ahaha
This comment is in every medieval battle scene.
@Kingston Julien shut up bot scam
An arrow can punch through the shield and the plate armor?
Then why would they use it!?
And under The plate You have chainmail and a gambeson
it's a film it is not realistic
a warbow cant even pucture gambison (one of the lightest armor they carry) and like gary the storm trooper said they ahve other armor layers too.
+Matthew Gallagher or because perhaps shields...worked...and plate armour worked....historically speaking a well made harness could resist arrows from even the most powerful of bows ...as in the arrows would bounce or glance off.
+ The imperial Inquisition i don't know if someone would wear mail, plate and gambeson...that's too much weight and you would overheat in it..But yea you would have mail and plate if you're rich...and a cotton shirt too.
Why did anyone bother to wear armor?? In movies like this, it seems that if someone touches you with a sword, you fall down instantly dead. One begins to think that either armor served no purpose at all, or that filmmakers are totally clueless.
Probably the latter.
+Torrey Holmes If they actually did that then the whole flow of the movie would be slow and turn boring, seeing most other knights get hit and continue to fight, in a film you want to see fast paced motion actions cause its more enjoyable to a audience in whole.
+Ewan Smith Ah yes, because making a fight look hard and grueling totally saps all the enjoyment out of watching it. Yes, we'd all rather watch battles where the good guys win effortlessly every time. That explains why shows like "Vikings" and movies like "Saving Private Ryan" are so unpopular.
Noo, I mean towards the fact you dont want to see the protagonist fighting 10 people in a row all in 4 minute long fights doing this will interrupt the flow of the movie and make it boring cause of how long it takes. And any person who would want to see this is not the average film viewer.
Ewan Smith
Four minutes is too long even for most climactic finale fights... you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.
There's a difference between "hard fought" and "long." Any good protagonist in a medieval war movie (or fantasy movie) is a great fighter. Great fighters try to end a fight in as few efficient moves as possible. But, and this is the important part, it's not interesting to see the hero swing his sword once per fight if he does this many times in rapid succession (different matter altogether if ONE fight is concluded with a single thrust/slash, because that can be dramatic and, done right, is very plausible). A hero who has to work for his kills is more heroic. And "work" can be as simple as needing to attack twice.
The "bad guys" should at least try to defend themselves. If your bad guys aren't competent at all, then there's no tension, nobody believes the hero is in danger, and no amount of frantic camerawork can save that. Even Batman gets punched from time to time (and in armor, the Hero can be "punched" many times and not be hurt at all).
At least they didn't shout "FIRE!".
it means exactly the same
ОГОНЬ!!!
Louis Robert I think they shouted “fire” when gunpowder came along.
@@louisrobert3631
Nope. Before guns, they said “loose.”
As i have heard they said "Unleash Hell"
0:55 when your scouting party is 15 meters ahead of your army.
lol true
And suddenly there were thousands of medieval armor experts tearing these scenes apart.
Common sense really. it's like no one went down to the edge of the river in the morning and no one noticed the dead guards. Then mailed cavalry charge across that river? Plus the arrows that instantly kill - no chance unless it hit somewhere vital like the heart, or eye. Come on - really?
@@endtimesvoyager726 yes, every film should have slow agonizing death scenes for each soldier
@@jimmycakes7158 No. Every film should've made the armor protect them from said death in the first place. It takes time to take down a heavily armored opponent.
@@f1r3hunt3rz5 +bows aren't like crossbows, Crossbows were invanted exactly because they are slow but they can penetrate armor, menwhile bows can't do it that easly, bows were used for rapid fire? against light armor and such. So for this scene it have sense they use bow because they are taking the enemy by surprise and they know that they had no armor, but that men with SHILD+ARMOR he Had to survive.
@@robfus Crossbows cannot pierce plate armor, and also struggle piercing mail.
our men are running from the battlefield "shamefur dispray"!
Total War: Shogun 2
Medieval 2 Total War*
+TheBetito123 they don't say "Shamefur dispray" in Medevil 2
Aye that's from Shogun 2 I have that game
Colts796
I love how the englishmen just completely slaughter the french soldiers without a casualty, but when they fight peasants armed with shovels and pitchforks...they are ckmpletely ineffective.
+OfficialBCGaming Maybe asymmetrical warfare just isn't there thing ;)
But seriously I did notice that too
+Sai's Afflicted In England, every boy/man from the age of 10 was required to train in archery by law. This meant that every man was an expert archer. This is why the longbowmen were so good at battles like Agincourt. Most of the English army were just peasants anyway. Only the Men at Arms and Knights actually had any real training in martial arts. They only made up a small part of the English armies - most of the armies were just peasants with cheap armour, a buckler, a bow, and a long knife, or a sword if you could afford one but they were surprisingly expensive.
Additionally, it was a siege. It is easier for the defender because the attacker is funnelled down narrow streets which can be barricaded. Additionally, the peasants were fighting for their lives. They were dead men walking. They were going to be massacred. Sun Tzu - the guy who literally wrote the book on military strategy - said something along the lines of that if you corner someone, they'll fight like tigers. When they have nothing to lose, they fight even harder. This is also why the English army achieved great victories against numerically superior French armies, such as at Agincourt. The English were trapped with nowhere to go. It was their last stand so to speak. Think of it like the Spartans at Thermopylae.
+Luke of Lancs Historically, yes, most English soldiers were peasants. But if you watch the video, which my comment was about, you see mailed soldiers with swords and axes being slaughtered by peasants armed with shovels and sharpened sticks. Also, my comment addressed the disparity between the combat effectiveness when fighting the French army and their complete failure to take out a small band of all but unarmed peasants. But, I also understand that this is fiction, and in modern society we always root for the unarmed peasants because we see them as underdogs suffering oppression.
The two famous victories Edward the third commanded in were Poitiers and Crecy. This i would imagine was a watered down version of one of the two. History on a budget
***** Swords were expensive to make. They require a specialist tradesman - a smith. Swords also take a long time to make. It requires a lot of skill to make a good quality sword. To buy a sword is expensive.
15th C England basically went like this: you had "li, s, d" or "pounds, shillings, and pence". 12 pence in a shilling and 20 shillings, or 240 pence, in a pound. The average sword was a pound and the average person made 2 pence a day; so that is 120 days of labour for a sword. However, this is unrealistic as the person has to spend this money to sustain himself and his wife and children too.
First, the discussions around money and its availability looking at the period 1150 to 1350 and taking the upper end figures for currency in circulation £200,000 we get 48,000,000 pennies in circulation with a population of 5,000,000 that's 9.6 pennies each. So the likelihood of our average peasant amassing sufficient money to buy a sword is zero. There is a problem with this it is more likely that currency was in the region of £100,000 to £125,000 or 4.8 to 6 pennies per person in actual circulation therefore even less likely our peasant has a sword.
Second the documentary records point clearly to peasants trying to resist the move to money because it undermined some of their old rights. Paying the lord in produce was tied to the harvest so any believe that our average peasant earned X inflated claim in money needs to be resisted. The monetary value is a tax assessment not an income in cash which led to a lot of resentment.
Third, the concept that a man who struggles from year to year at the whim of the seasons would hoard away an otherwise (to him) useless piece of metal which he could sell to buy a pig/goat/cow and therefore increase the productivity of his land is fanciful. The concept of a hide of land appears here, a hide varied in size depending on the quality of the land but for good land a 'knights fee' rose from 3 to 5.5 hides your peasant was lucky if he had a hundredth of a hide or maybe an acre.
The trade in second hand weapons and armour that made some merchants rich also shows that as wars finished in one area the weapons dealers then as now would move the surplus to more profitable areas. Second hand weapons were still out of reach for most ordinary people.
A sword was a luxury item...
What you learn from movies:
Slitting someones throat is an instant death.
A dagger can go through mail, a body, and the mail on the other side.
Arrows can go right through a shield and a metal chest plate.
Fully armored enemies die from one swing.
etc etc...
I wish movies were more realistic in this regard.
Elite Muppet Depends on the bow & its, the arrow head used and the range at which is is shot + the quality of the armour and what the shield was made of. So, improbable, but not impossible. The use of archers shooting blind into a dispersed enemy is the biggest improbability in the clip, unless you also question the uncoordinated charge across the river using mixed cavalry & infantry. Hitting a man in plate won't drop him, but a poleaxe or war hammer will. Yes, men don't die instantly, yes they would twitch and kick and flop around, but it did shew a lot of the brutality of medieval warfare.
Geoff Boxell no just no
Not to mention the citizens of the Town building up barricades and entirely ignoring the fact that they have walls which they could use to defend themselves...
why even bother to build a wall if they don´t use it?
@@danielwolfgang8234 The wall isn't any good when the English were able to break down the gate with a ram. Besides most of them looked like they were peasants not professional soldiers so they probably didn't know how to station the wall properly and use it to their advantage.
@@barbiquearea Mhhh you have a point, but still the prospect of at least using it to shoot the attacking force with bows and crossbows would have had some effect. Don´t get me wrong, the barricades are a good idea as second line defense. But leaving the walls completely unmanned, that´s just unrealistic to me.
Well that shield was remarkably useless...
Well thats true.
All Heavy Armors and Sheilds during the ahindred Years War were useless becaude Longbow is noe invented
The shield was made of wood... his chest plate should have saved him though.
😂😂😂😂😝😅
It was made in China. Cheap plastic.
pieter fischer well made wooden shields can definitely stop an arrow... That shield also seemed to have had a leather finish on the surface, so I highly doubt it would be able to go ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
7:06 ..... and this is why I simply can't appreciate battles in "historical" movies anymore .....
I mean that’s what happens when you make your armor and shield out of aluminum
you are right, just watched 1917 again and apart from ten minutes or so of two leads wading thru the filth and obscenity of WW1 no mans land ... everything else was cleanish uniforms and a bit of mud. !!!! none of the poor bastards waist deep in mud water and filth, corpses literally by the thousands , rotting bodies buried into the sides of trench works and millions of rats feeding on the dead. they should read some history and i mean real history
@@sgtgewartsmith7992 so was it good?
So this is how Brexit looked like in medieval times.
There is one little error. Back then you guys got kicked out of France.
Britains: Mimimi....France: Mimimi! XD.
I speak Slovak because I am Slovak. You speak English because you are..... Ou! I forgot, that you murican guys don't really have have our own language, do you? What a shame!
+Rokulda my lord calm your self
You are just a sad little troll,arent'ya ? fuck of bich ;)
7:09 Probably that shield Made in China
100%
@Nein_Nein_Fegelein lololol😂
😂👍
Guys, the best way into a town is to tell them you're gonna attack them....and then wait till they erected some barricades. Foolproof.
also its funny, the horseman said they would attack at dawn, and then immediately attacked....smh
Idk, he probably expected them to spend the night cowering in fear and saying their prayers. The most of a defense he expected was probably having to ram the gate. That would have been just a fun warm up exercise for his troops.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😏
When he told the civilians they were all going to be killed I was like “good job dumbass. You just motivated the whole population of that city to resist you and fight to the death.”
Duh bro what do you think we are idiots? Stop stating the obvious
The guy chopping wood at 5:19 about sums up the effort of realism in this hahaha. I liked it tho!
That shield was actually cardboard, and his steel breastplate was just foam.
that sword is....... really stupid
6:27
0=l:::::::::::::::::::::::>
+1 quite stupid
It doesn't even look real! It's like one of the plastic costume swords I bought when I was a snot-nosed kid! It's so laughably bad I'm brought to tears!
IKR how can they call this a 14 century battle
And the even funnier thing is, the guy waving the flag is wearing a perfectly real looking sword. Who says all kings have to carry an ornate sword? Are they afraid no one will know who he is, otherwise? HE'S WEARING A CROWN! HE'S A KING!!!
10:13 so is that ram...
So the arrow killed the french lord when it was fired from a distance and it pierced the wood shield AND his iron breastplate. Fuck off Hollywood
bert lyte Shot or loosed, never fired (came in with musketry). It can be done, but I am concerned at the range and the fact that the archers were shooting blind at a dispersed target. A marksman at reasonable range using a 175lb + bow could possibly achieve the kill..
Your telling me a longbow weighs more than a 13 year old boy? And as far as range goes, maybe if the archer was 5 feet away but as far as I know, especially during the hundreds year war when armor was beginning to be perfected, I don't think it likely.
bert lyte Err: you don't know much about archery do you Bert. the poundage is the draw weight of a bow, not how much the bow physically weighs. To draw a 175lb bow (physical weight about 5-10lb) you would need to push about 45lb of efforts and draw(on 2 or 3 fingers) the balance of 135lb. So, your very over weight 13 year old boy (unless you are an American, in which case slim 13 year old boy) would have you holding his head and shoulders in your left fist and the rest of his body on 2 or 3 fingers. Will a war bow with a short bodkin head punctures plate armour? Yes, lots of tests done, including some I have taken part in. It all depends on quality of armour, shape of armour, arrow head shape, whether it had hardened steel edges, draw weight of bow, strength of archer, range etc, etc.
Well ,ill take your word for it, but is the latter a certain possibility or would you say more rare.
bert lyte no idiot. The Draw WEIGHT of the bow
I'm having serious trouble following the tactics of this scene, especially the opening 6 minutes. I haven't seen the actual series so perhaps there's dialogue here that clarifies matters, but it seems to me this is the rough timeline of events:
1) Small unit crosses the river to kill... guards? Somehow literally nobody manages a scream to alert their comrades despite many of the kills being stabs to the chest and other areas where someone could still manage a brief shout
2) Some man notifies his forces on the other side of the river by... waving a fucking torch? And somehow literally none of the enemies on his side of the river see it? They clearly didn't kill *all* the enemy forces, just a few night watchmen. How on Earth could they count on that torch not to alert anyone of what must be hundreds of men?
3) Larger force crosses the river, and hides on the opposite embankment... until morning? Somehow the "enemy" forces (French, presumably?) notice neither the hundred or so guys in bright red cloth literally a dozen feet from them, or the fact that a bunch of their night guards have died (I saw no one hiding bodies the night before)?
4) The force on the French side of the river decides to attack, and everyone stands up... and still none of those Frenchmen notice a hundred+ archers standing not 50 feet from them, for over 30 seconds, until some English guy gives the command to fire?
This is seriously nonsensical. I've never watched a scene in a movie/TV show that has roughly jerked me out of believing it so many times in a row. The entire opening to the battle is just one big, impossible farce. Did they have literally zero decent historical consultants on this show, or were there some and they were just ignored?
+MadMac2236
I think the filmmaker's obvious mental problem derives from those notoriously stupid WW2 movies of the last 70 years where a GI or a Brit kills 10 dull Germans with each shot. It simply isn't meant to inform but rather to entertain. And would you feel entertained to learn that in fact the Western Allies took higher casualties on the French and Italian Front than their German counterparts? No. So why disturb people with reality?
+SnakeTheFox
Tactics? In a movie???
+SnakeTheFox this movie is fucked up armors and weapons not working how they should and exactly what you said
+Maxim Kretsch I think that would be great frankly, could make for some good narrative.
SnakeTheFox Yeahand the danish flag at 11:09 which doesnt make sence as the danes didnt participate in the 100 years war
Filmmakers: “Absolute, perfection”
Literally everyone else: “As long as your blind.”
King harlaus is eager to make peace, as he is fighting on too many fronts.
marley o' sullivan how goes the war?
More like how goes the butter industry
marley Cummins ah the butter lord at it again
King has summoned us for a feast
"So we were in war with Rodohok , nord and sarranid, the Marshall come to me, Count Despin, we go siege Shariz menwhile wait reinforcment from Praven, we started buil the siege tower and guess what *clap on the table* the king throw 7 days of feast,*laughing* the butterlord"
7:08 level 1 shield and armor vs level 99 bow lol
DANK crusade Lmao
Maybe its why the French lost at the battle of Agincourt and Crecy
@Sean Rooney Even in ancient history they had stronger armour than that that one is made of butter xD
A freaking cuirass pierced by an arrow. Damn, real cuirasses can protect the wearer from early guns!
Can a bodkin arrow pierce through a shield and armor?
LOL, did an arrow just pierce through a shield, plate armor, a man and then plate armor again?
That is the power of British engineering
Well Technically it pierced a single walled shield that did not seem to have a frame or outer finish, 2 layers of chain mail (the front of the forearm and rear of forearm) AND then 1 layer of plate chest armor and then what looked like 1 more of chain mail that he wore under the plate... I also assume it pierced some sort of wool or cotton layer that he wore underneath that mail too. 6 Layers in all.
Never like this of cause. But it’s a movie
@@lpc3109 He had the same 3 layers on his back, making it 9 layers
die Langbogen waren aus mehrfach verleimte Eiben Hölzer, nachbauten und test Schiessen durch die Profesoren der Oxford University of history haben bewiesen das die Pfeile auf einer Distanz von 300 Meter mühelos Schilde und Rüstungen durschlagen, desweiteren haben Analysen an Gebeinen ergeben das die Spannkraft so gross war das bei vielen die Wirbelsäule durch das "Training" verformt wurden. Das V von Winston Churchill 1940 war darauf zurück zu führen das Langbogen Schützen die Spann Finger abgeschnitten wurden so gross war die Furcht vor die Schlag Kraft dieser Soldaten, die entgegen der Legende keine Bauern waren sondern die absolute Waffe der Engländer darstellten. Wer zweifelt sollte die Französichen Geschichts Bücher lesen. Pure Angst.
4:32 Watchman - "Yeah, I'm gonna pretend I didn't notice the bows, pikes, and enemy soldiers which I can clearly see hiding in that trench."
Also, shout out to that guy trying to split wood @ 5:20 like a guy who doesn't know how to split wood.
The short lived fiasco of the cardboard shields 😁.
I also love the way any nobody trying to attack the hero, one wave of his sword in their general direction seems to kill them instantly, you know who the super bad guy is by the duration of the fight and how gruesome the bad guys death is.
whats this movie called??? so I don't have to watch it never in the future if someone asks me to..
That Depleted Uranium tipped arrow from that English Longbow sure skewered that
French Knight’s Shield+Front Plate+frenchmeats+BackPlate+ground huh.
Now I have a strong urge to play play mount &a blade warband.....
+Mint Mo my comment was made 4 month ago so I already have and now I'm sick of it
_____ mount and blade ps4 brought me here lol
_____ Its almost harvesting season.
@@mastercheif878 u bought new mb? Haha
And the myth of the English longbowman goes rolling on. Faster than a modern rifle, with more armor-piercing power than a jacketed round.
+VelmiVelkiZrut If anything they are understated. The ones used by historians are pathetic 60lb bows. Nothing like a 150lb plus warbow. It's TV regardless. In a Roman shows arrows went through testudo shields. A gondorian soldier got killed by an arrow from a low poundage bow straight through his breastplate. In reality people usually wouldn't die from one cut of a sword. Certainly not if wearing plate. Athleticism often won out in plate armour battles. But that would be boring. I'm yet to see films with correct attire too. Like Braveheart usuing lamella plate for knights and kilts and woad for the scots.
okay as a guy who has read up on history weapons and the battles they were used in yes the English Longbow is overrated in certain aspects. At the battle of Crecy as show above it was the key weapon that helped turn the tide of battle for the English, however coupled with the fact that it was a sneak attack at the crack of dawn with the English ready to kill anyone who got in their way of going home was also a big factor as well.
Now onto the biggest misinterpretation of a victory ever Agincourt. While the long bow was used and slightly effective at harassing the French knights and killing their crossbowmen the real killer were the Man At Arms who used every weapon at their disposal while the French were trudging through the mud slowed down by their armor and funneled into a kill zone that prevented their knights from using their horses effectively. that is how the battle was won not because of some magical bow but by smartly using the terrain, drilled men who were good at close combat, and holding their position so they could let the enemy get murdered on their turf.
Also one final note the French Steel Crossbow was the death of the English Longbow. This was because the crossbow is easier to aim and train people to use, where the longbow takes years of training to perfect the use of. This along with the fact that quantity beat quality, in this case at least, the old bow and arrow was fazed out for the crossbow and later the Musket and Archebus.
Valrock Mograth
yes?
VelmiVelkiZrut: You hit the nail sir, We all know Brits love boast, they talk big and act small. If their longbow was really useful, how did the Frenchmen kicked them out of mainland?
thats all so...unrealistic
Gunjiro X
And then there's Arn the Knight Templar...
Yeah, it's not perfect, but compared to this shit? It's amazing.
Also, the fucking horse is the saddest tbing ever. Seriously, fuck you Swedish miniseries-makers. Chamsiin actually made me cry. I do not cry. Ever. It just doesn't happen. Oh, and I want that sword.
You mean... this magic mirror is not a view into the past?!?!?!
I am shocked, shocked I say!
@@MrChoffe93 "England is the worst shit country ever"- Says a person who is communicating in the language that originally evolved in England. Stop being anglophobic. England and the UK, my native country, has had a huge impact on the world and its history. Also, how can you say that England is full of dumb and ignorant people when this country has sired geniuses like Stephen Hawking and Isaac Newton? What's so bad about England anyway?
Yeah they need fix their AI... Seems they can't see sh*t and hear sh*t.
Watching this video make me think that they are in video game or something...
@@matthewbradley1609 Well one could argue that the French language was the 'world language' at the time up until roughly the 18th century, that the French, or Normand at the time, ruled England by beating them badly at Hastings, resulting in 1/3 of the English language being French words or slight changed ones. And other stuff. But hey, we're still talking to each others in English. And he has a point, England is far from being a wonderful "country" especially compared to Sweden.
PS. Thank You for sharing the video! Best Regards from Poland! ;)
You're telling me that an arrow went through a shield a metal cuirass and a gambesson ?
Maybe it was a secret weapon. ⚔⚔
4:35... seriously?
Yep.
James Huggins There was like a fucking smoke comming out if that trench 2 meters away from the camp!
I am 36 years old and I served in the Marine Corps in Iraq in 2003 for nine months. I was an infantry rifleman and saw combat but it was mostly just suppressing fire and nothing up close. The worst I saw was a fellow Marine get shot and killed. That being said, I could not imagine fighting a war with swords and nothing but a wooden shield and chain mail armor to protect you. The soldiers of the past had to literally use their physical strength to kill the enemy by driving a piece of metal through their bodies up close and personal. I think about this a lot at night before I sleep because my experience was aiming my M16 A4 at distant targets at least 100+ yards away. That does not even come close to what these poor bastards had to go through.
This is a movie... And it is inaccurate.
Says Your Mom
@@kristofantal8801 That has nothing to do with the comment though. Or are you suggesting that soldiers in the past didn't have to fight up close?
Actually, in battles prior to popularisation of gunpowder weapons, you were less likely to die when fighting and more likely to die of hunger, sickness, and toppling and being cut down by enemy when routing. Or after the battle when the winning side eradicated the wounded
SFMF
It always made me laugh when in medieval historical or fantasy films, the infantry starts to charge against the enemy in a completely disorganized way without any kind of strategy or attack formation. 😂😂
Apparently they learned it from Warband
@@omarsener8491 In warband it actually works because the enemy is dumb
f1 + f3
What was the name of this series?
7:07 Damn, someone must've swapped the signs on the armor and shield made of steel, and the signs on the armor and shield made of styrofoam and cheese
Good one lol
Funny that English victories during the 100 Years War are all over TH-cam and nearly nothing of the French victories .
that's because the French used witchery to win and are ashamed of it, even though they are to be lauded for burning that witch, Joan of Arc, at the stake.
wow that's some crafty revisionism right there. you should be a fiction book writer... we need better stuff than 50 shades of grey and twilight.
First of all, Joan is a saint recognized by catholic church. So I don't know what butt fuck religion or faith you belong to. Second, we all know the English are still sore at the loss, and you must be english too from your dumb comment :)
Wow. What a dumb comment. Besides what has correctly been said by Perfecttrunks2000 above:
It was the burgundians - englands allies - who murdered St. Jehanne.
nobby roberts
i am american...just that i know more about history than my countrymen.
+Alpha6499 lol England fucking kickstarted these countries and after ww2 gave them independence, now give England some slack they were once the great empire who gave independence to the greatest countries of today like the USA, India, someparts of south africa, Australia and Canada, without England these countries wont exist today
Battering ram.....one hit KOed a thick barred gate.....damn........was the wood made of Sakura? Rotten?
Cheap Chinese plywood.
Please come back and make part 2, its been 8 years...
What a huge production!!!! Massively realistic.
Sorry to tell you but it isn't realistic
Easy to kill the French but difficult to kill peasants yeah sounds realistic
2:10 can no-one on the other side of the river hear all that splashing or see all those people crossing?
3:05 do any of the people killed have peripheral vision or hearing? People just run straight past them without attacking for some reason, and they don't even notice.
4:35 those guards are useless if they didn't notice all those men on that ridge, with their bows sticking out like a sore thumb, their helmets would also reflect light, making them even more noticable.
They should be demoted
1300s warfare with 12th century nasal helms and not a single closed or visored helmet, so accurate!
No dogs on the french camp, no birds being disturbed, all sentinels either stupid and well visible or sleeping during the ward but their friends are quite noisy talking and drinking (hey, let's pick the most tired guys for taking care of the rest of us while we party!), no fake fires, no nothing. To compensate, they die in a silent manner because they're polite people and don't make any noise while falling dead.
Maybe they were new recruits with no experience. Or am I just talking out of my ass here?
@@youtubecreators384 Of course...
I can almost see the pixels. 🙂👍
13:30
Is that the same actor that played King Edward's son in Braveheart ?
7:07 When you buy your shield from the Silk Road
Criminally underrated comment.
Fun Fact: English nobility spoke French as their common language up until the 15th century.
7:07 I'd want my money back.
Sorry, that's what you get when you buy a shield made in China.
Jmej
Imagine if an army actually had arrows this powerful. Would have easily taken over the world.
@@cassanderrr you wouldnt need them we have guns that are way more effective.
@@tannerthepanman9202 I meant back then.
Simply amazing how being hit with one arrow makes you instantly fall down dead
Even bullets don’t instantly kill people
6:34 so you are telling me the enemy wouldn't have heard that guy screaming and be alerted? xD
They were listening to their Ipods.
One has to remember that armor was merely a cosmetic choice back then.
I can highly recommend you read the Plantagenets by Dan Jones , its an epic history of the Plantagenet Kings of England and France , a history book you can get your head around .
*Grabs a shield* The arrow pierce throught both shield and breastplate. What the fuck!?
Brestplates don't stop arrows, shields can but don't have to.
Sure, sure ;)
well actually, Breastplates were made to be somewhat resistant to arrows, Chainmail was worthless, and had to essentially hit at an angle to glance off, thats why the english developed the bodkin tip, it pierced mail easily, and could penetrate plate armor somewhat well (not fatally however). then they developed crossbows, the bolts were larger and the metal was thin and thick, plus they could have it hold more power for punching armor. Granted yes shields dont have to and could stop an arrow, the arrow during those times would almost never have enough punch to go through a wooden shield and into a breastplate.
direct hits but this was shot in the air so every shield and every armour alone would stop it.....this would stop it twice ^^
Its the power of the Longbow :)
What’s this movie called? Lol I feel like I’ve seen it before lol. Especially the scene where it depicts the guy chopping wood half assed.
Movie names plss i wannna watch them all❤
Unrealiistic how a spear falls trough a shield like that
155mm English Longbow: it goes through armor like a hot knife through warm butter!
@Wulfheort you are very wrong. Look up Tods Workshop on TH-cam. He shows that a 200lb English longbow can punch through a shield/chainmail, and the gambeson. A well made breast plate was the only thing that stopped the longbow
@Wulfheort I am on mobile so I cant figure out how to send a link, but the name of the video is: "Lockdown Longbow - do shields stop arrows". The video is made by Tods Workshop. He does a few similar videos
@Wulfheort oh I totally agree, the arrows wouldnt kill, but I do believe it would punch through the shield and chain mail. I will check out Skallagrim, thanks for the suggestion
@@Viper0hr im guessing you consider yourself an armchair historian as well? Because you just armchaired pretty hard
@@Viper0hr not trolling. You did exactly what you complained about. You came in here with no credibility and made a statement. Its just funny that you arent self aware. Hopefully you dont get angry at this and acctually self reflect. I dont have any credibility either, but at least im not complaining about armchair historians like you and I
The English army beat the French knights and men at arms, but they had no chance against a bunch of peasants and a woman armed with shovels, rakes and pitch forks. Ha ha ha.
It gets really tough to beat certain enemies if they have main characters in their group.
Ulol
They underestimated a bunch of peasants. Also they literally told them that every single person including the women and children would die. So they are going to give it their 100%
Clearly you don't appreciate the stopping power of the body odour of 13th century peasants
Are you did all centrueis or just 14th?
8:36 The angry gaze after killing the solider is so masculine.
"For England !!!" stay back on his horse screaming his lungs out :))))
6:05 And that, ladies and gentlemen..... is how you do the perfect pose.
All that was left was for an eagle to stand on his hand.
This is not realistic at all lol
+Creterix agreed
+Creterix very much agreed
+Dylan Fontaine very very agreed
I don't think it's supposed to be. it's just entertaining and that's it.
Doctor Thrax not even!
Why are they just walking through the river, like it was a childrens pool?
+Peter Häusler Exactly! That reminds me of what Mark Twain wrote in his "The Innocents Abroad" about the River Arno in Florence. "They call it a river and even build bridges across it, and I suppose it would be a plausible river if they'd pump some water into it."
So they could hear the arrows whizzing towards them but they didn't hear the guys yelling "knock, draw, loose!"?
Those 14th and 15th century English longbowmen were deadly and greatly effective, quite possibly the most elite and formidable professional soldiers on the planet back then (and some of the most feared).
Also, those superb and highly disciplined English archers were probably better and more accurate shots than the Mongols had been a century before (granted the Mongols shot their arrows from riding horses, thus proving this more difficult task).
Yes, those outstanding English archers were THIS FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH, unbelievably calm, cool, collected, steadfast, and brilliantly---invariably---precision guided (another reason that the English were able to beat the Scots in battle on many occasions, all throughout the 1300's, 1400's and 1500's, as they deployed their spectacular archers so as to unleash deadly volley after deadly volley after deadly volley and rain down hellacious death upon thousands of ferocious and die hard Scottish warriors, most of whom had to be killed to be defeated).
+Taylor Ahern English knights, along with the chain mail clad Scottish/Irish Gallowglass mercenaries, WERE A PRETTY FEARSOME AND PHENOMENALLY TOUGH BUNCH, AND UTTERLY EXPERT AT HAND TO HAND COMBAT (as both groups were quite possibly the Western European equivalent of the Japanese Samurai).
Few other nations in history have bred and yielded up warriors as hardy, stout, capable, fierce, skilled, die hard, intrepid, powerful, inspired and as ferociously resolute as the British Isles have (England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales).
Those old school, late Medieval warriors who were born, raised, trained and prepared for battle in the British Isles eventually acquired the reputation as that of being Europe's premier warrior race (and I would rank British, Scottish and Irish warriors of that time higher than the Swiss halberd and pikemen, in terms of ferocity, courage in battle, toughness and skill at arms).
Yes, those guys as well, hard as coffin nails, powerful and thoroughly well skilled. Great fighters!
And yes, the German Doppelsoldners were fearsome bad-asses, super tough, super strong and renowned for their outstanding and brilliant swordsmanship.
Also, weren't those die hard and fearless swordsmen often in the vanguard of any approaching Landsknechte pike formation? I believe those fiercely sword slashing, havoc and mayhem wreaking swordsmen were, as they were that good, deadly, tenacious, ferocious and highly skilled (while often dressed in flamboyant and garish colors).
FEROCIOUS indeed, as those German doppelsoldners were right up there with all those legendary and formidable English knights, and savage, bloodthirsty and ULTRA FEARSOME Scottish/Irish Gallowglass mercenaries. What warriors, what bad ass professionals, and what warrior societies that produced them!
+Taylor Ahern May I ask candidly how it is, if the British are such great warriors, that they never conquered the world, that the overall conclusion of the Hundred Years War was they got stuffed (loosing half of France is kind of a big deal), that for the most part, they got stuffed all the way to the 19th century by every possible people in Europe and only kept their independance because they are an isle? What would you say about the people who fought the whole continent for almost 25 years straight, and winning 90% of engagements. What would you say about the fact that, even though war is big money, the greatest mercenaries were, depending on the precise period, italian, swiss, german or spanish (or scot, allegedly). What would you say about the Poles, who won a battle with a numerical disatvantage of 50:1?
The samurai of Europe? The great english gentry was french (I hear the Lionheart barely ever step foot on his isle kingdom), at least frankish. If anything the samurai of Europe were frankish knight (descendents of Charlemagne knights) who ruled over the continent were riches are found for half a millenium.
Not saying of course the Longbowmen were bad troops, but they were never as effective as you seem to picture yourself (I would like to point to Matt Easton's Schola Gladiatoria here).
Interesting point my man. I shall role it over in my mind, and consider what you just wrote. Very interesting. It's rolling over in my mind now as I type these words. Rolling, rolling, rolling😊😊😉
This was so ridiculously unrealistic. LOL.
Not a single one of these archers could hold a 100lb+ draw bow this long. This is so ridiculous...
What is this movie called? I want to see it
영화 제목이 먼가요?
lol that must have been a balista shot to go through a shield and both sides of a plate armor
not possible to happen in anyway no arrow could do that
... except there weren't any that I could see.
7:08 .... Lol, wut?
+BobSamson147 weak shield
+warbossgrotsmasha23 I would rather say it´s weird Tv logic, the man shot is seen wearing chainmail, a Gambeson (I think) and a steel cuirass/breastplate.
On top of that he is protecting himself with a shield that when strucked sounds to me like it would be made of metal.
All that and the arrow still penetrate and even exist his body.
Pure magic in that arrow.
+Sebastian Säterdal Its not magic just craftmanship and gravity and bodkin
"studded leather" ... NO.
A steel cuirass with/without mail + shield would certainly stop a bodkin arrow.
And on the possibility it may, it will certainly not kill him.
And what sort of soldier would, especially one with authority, not be completely dressed in his armour in time of war knowing they're close to their enemy?
+Didgeridoo Kangaroo God wills it !!!! 😲
"World Without End" is the sequel to "Pillars Of The Earth", another great mini series, all written by Ken Follett.
There is a third book now, which is the final sequel, "A Column of Fire" .
Me look at the Thumnail : Shad dies in medieval movie.. *sad
I don't think anyone realises that this entire battle was based on historical events... this actually happened and these were the actual tactics... sure its unrealistic in some aspects but the entire gyst of the fight is true to life
The actual battle didn't happen as absurdly as in the movie. enemy search party
They avoided it and approached several kilometers away, and as soon as the sun rose, they made a surprise advance. That is the Operational surprise attacks of this age. It didn't happen that the troops were hiding right in front of the enemy's encampment like Rambo did.
7:57 this man goes on a 6-streak of just 1-sword slash per enemy kill. Totally unrealistic
What name of this film? And where I can look this film?
The bowman would never leave any useable arrows behind. Same as they'd strip the camp bare.
7:08 Longbow cant go trough the shield and plate armor!
Nope.
@@bcgroiSENSE it can
But ... The french won Hundred year's war at all
Rather English loose for their internal conflict
They won 100 years later. And Edward III lost his French lands because of the Black Death that killed a lot of Englands population. England couldnt afford to wage war in France anymore
The hundred years war lasted 116 years and although the last battle was in 1453, it did not end totally until 1481. The English did hold Calais for much longer.@@JJaqn05
my question is, WHAT BATTLE is this? at this point we all know this is unrealistic but i'm interested in the time period
battle of Agincourt, English vs french
...wut? agincourt wasn't like that atall
that was Henry V about 40 yrs later
1300s, more specific (the reign of Edward III)
Doingt, it was not a battle. Henry got ahead of the French Army by half a dy and managed to shore up the causeways (two of them) and safely crossed hsi small army without hindrance.
Do you know the name of this battle ?
How did we get from here to discussing online
This is me playing total war, when i have to deal with "the peaseants" that revolted and made me send a huge army so the "auto resolve" dont screw me over.
8:23 How I look when I slaughter my opponents in Age of Empires 2.
Hah, you won't even make it to Castle Age when my Eagles swarm your town
That army looks powerful 0:10
Was that standard? For arrows to go straight through shields?
I love when they give an unknown character a line like “surely not the women and children”, you know what’s next….
Yes!? 😮 it’s gonna be massacre
Wtf. There is a danish flag in the start of the video but the soldiers are brits😂
Mikkel borch Timm it’s a faction.
Its a guild
English not Brits. The English were putting the Welsh, Scottish and Irish to the Sword around the same time as this is meant to be.
Wow I love shows around the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses. So epic and dramatic! The real historical Game of Thrones!
The part about the slaughter of the innocence in that city....I knew that was never an order given by the King.
French= Temerians and English= Redenians ?
+Νίκος Κ. (Nikkon) Redania is Poland
+Νίκος Κ. (Nikkon) and Nilfagrad is germany
+Νίκος Κ. (Nikkon) and Skelige are Nordic countries
+Νίκος Κ. (Nikkon) Zerrikania is propably some south-east country
+Νίκος Κ. (Nikkon) Aedirn is Holand/Belgium/Luxemburg
Que pelicula es esta...
Is that Jordan Shlansky from Conan at 9:31 ?
Everyone must remember this is just a reenactment and armor did protect a lot of those nights but I'm going to tell you some of those bow and arrows could shoot some of that damn armor that's when is 125 lb coil with a piece of metal in it on the end of it if half-truths and half lies it's just a movie but all in all they done a pretty good job
Amazing that I can instantly understand Middle English.
+Clay Ronso LOL!!!! Yep, think of all that time we wasted reading and studying Chaucer in Middle English. Who knew they sounded just like us now? Oh, woe is me.
That’s how Middle English peasants sounded like
7:07 behold, the most terrible depiction of armor effectiveness ive seen....I mean cmon ive had a 9mm pistole shot at a steel 2.5-2mm cuirass and even that protected nicely...they wore armor and used sheilds for a reason, THEY WORKED