I was an extra on 1917 and got to participate in the battle scene at the end. I just wanted to note that the films historical adviser (really nice guy called Andrew Robertshaw) actually organised us into platoons for the battle charge, and at boot camp we even drilled in how a British platoon would attack in 1917 (bombers, skirmishers, mopper uppers etc). But ultimately this was trumped by Sam Mendes for the sake of spectacle. Its undoubtedly an impressive scene and I get that a film needs a bit of spectacle, but it was a missed opportunity to see British WW1 soldiers act like decently trained and competent fighters, as opposed to a disorganised rabble.
How difficult is it to be an extra in a film? Would you need an agent or could you just sign up for an audition? Any info would be nice, I live in Miami so their aren't big films like that one. It must've been amazing to be there and see the whole sequence in person. I know that that scene in particular was really hard to make because it was a continuous shot
Great information! I love hearing behind the scenes stories of how advisers attempt to maintain accuracy and immersion but are dismissed. The early Fast and Furious movies were this way and that's how we ended up with "danger to manifold" instead of something reasonable.
@@davidzshit Well from my limited experience its not like an acting role so I didnt need an agent. Dunno if it works the same in the US but in the UK you can sign up to background artist agencies that will put you forward to production companies for work. Maybe have a Google round and see if there's any near you? The one that put me up for 1917 was free to sign up but they did take a commission from the money I earned, but I still got enough to make it worth doing. And yeah like you said being part of a film like that is really cool, and pretty much a reward enough in itself :)
This seems to be a HUGE issue. Films will hire historical advisors just to have the name of someone to point at and say "hey, we hired a guy." But in the end they don't listen to the advisor. It is amazing that they actually went as far as to have him drill extras. Most just ask a question or two and then ignore the expert.
Wish these videos were even longer. I seriously love listening to this man break down all these tiny details that you never think about from older wars/battles. It's endlessly fascinating and he is obviously extremely knowledgeable.
Paths of Glory really need its own WWI-operations analysis video, because Kubrick went with such incredible and faithful detail for the time and resources he had. I would have loved to hear Professor Watson's take on General Mireau ordering the artillery to shell his own men. That actually happened with General Réveilhac during the Souain Corporals Affair, which was the events that inspired Paths of Glory. General Réveilhac ordered the artillery to shell 21st company because they refused to go over the top after seeing the first wave cut down both from accidental shelling and German machine guns. The artillery communication officer on the other side of the line flatly refused to execute the order without having it in writing. The order was never issued, but Réveilhac instead went at it by having 24 of the men picked at random and court-martialed for cowardice. 20 got their execution stayed, but 4 corporals were executed as an example.
I do also love that you can see and hear how much he likes it when it is done right. When the minor little detail is spot on, he is absolutely loving it
You mean the things that they probably would have been shooting at? I didn't know about the 7 machine guns per 3,000 infantry part, but I did immediately notice they were all grouped together, which is ridiculous for good overlapping fields of fire.
I’m fairly certain it was meant as a metaphor, maybe don’t quote me on that, but I think I heard that it was meant to show a sense of how many lives just got snuffed out in ww1 with charges like this. Again, could very well be wrong, but I’m fairly certain it was an artistic choice
And impressive how the rider-less horses just keep running towards these terrifyingly loud machineguns instead of bolting back to safety where they came from.
The reason "Paths of Glory" was so accurate: Stanley Kubrick was insanely dedicated to detail, and in 1957 there were still thousands of WWI veterans (many only in their late 50's and early 60's) around to advise.
Very much so. The art director, Ludwig Reiber, was born in 1904 in Munich. He was only 10 when the war began, but 10 is old enough to remember, and 14 years old at the war's end is definitely old enough to remember anything the survivors said to or around him.
What the scene in the Blizzard of Souls shows really well is that you don't need artificial drama to make a WW action scene dramatic. All you need to do is sit down and do your research, think about what happened, why it happened the way it did and how the human element would have acted and why and how to present this. If you've got this down, then the scene has already written itself with all the dramatic effect you could have wanted.
Exactly, I don't get this film makers fetish to make things more dramatic by adding unrealistic scenes... How is freaking WW1 not dramatic enough by its reality alone??
I have seen something similar to real sword fights. No overly dramatic moves but very deliberate moves. The reality is so tense that it makes you sit on the tip of your chair. This scene is similar. Without all the dramatic effects, it's a really tense and incredible scene.
I think the reason the Blizzard of souls scene was so good is because it's a faithful representation of a book of the same name by Aleskandrs Grīns, who himself was a latvian rifleman and who participated in the battle that was being portrayed.
Your mistake is assuming most people like to think - the majority just like to see shiny things and/or big explosions in order to be entertained. Case and point, why we have so many sequels to Transformers, Fast & Furious, etc.
I'd love to see him react to a clip from the original 1930 adaptation of All Quiet on the West Front. That movie actually had a lot of real WW1 veterans in it who provided the director with a lot of feedback and input on how things should look.
I love that you can tell when a scene is accurate just by how animated he's getting as he's describing the scene/historical events. Love to see people passionate about their field.
I was so excited when is saw that our own Latvian film got reviewed and got a ten. Thank the expert and thank you Insider,for providing this episode for world to see! Film Blizzard of Souls was most viewed film in Latvia for a long time and a great one!
@@williamrobert9898 This guy is no people pleaser, he’s the harshest with the scores so for him to give 10/10 is like being knighted by the king of Britain
Im so proud to be a part of blizzard of souls and have a such high rating. I was one of actors in that particular scene. It was such an adrenaline. When i jumped of from that wooden wall, i even broke my leg. ... The movie had a lot of historians, so it's very historicaly acurate!
Answering late but this kind of small yet debilitating injury is ironically very accurate especially in a cold frozen climate tripping and breaking bones was common even more so during the pandemonium of artillery and explosions. Honestly we rarely see these small yet dramatic slip up that are so banal yet so deadly in war movies.
I'm glad they gave him the opportunity to point out the historical silliness of War Horse. Cavalry still wasn't completely obsolete at the beginning of WWII, let alone throughout WWI.
Ummm…I don’t know where you got that, but I’m pretty sure it’s wrong. By the end of World War 1, for a number of reasons cavalry WAS obsolete, and machine guns were one of those reasons (I forget the others, except for trenches and razor wire). The fact that they still used it some doesn’t mean it wasn’t.
That's why the stage production is preferred over the film. Plus, the stage production for War Horse is a masterclass in puppetry (for the horse itself).
@@Shadowkey392 I did my MA thesis at Royal Military College about WW1 British Cavalry (particularly the development of their combined arms doctrine), and they were far from obsolete. What the cavalry could do was that in mobile warfare it was a fast moving force that could screen a marching army (basically, prevent enemy scouts from finding it), and properly exploit a breakthrough (and they were the only force in the field in WW1 fast enough to do that). The problem was that the trench deadlock on the Western Front was such that breaking into the enemy lines was fairly easy, but breaking through was a physical impossibility until late 1917/early 1918 (and that was mainly a technological problem). So, most of the British cavalry units got transferred to other fronts where they could be used (like Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc.). And what this in turn meant was that when the war became mobile again on the Western Front in 1918, there just weren't enough cavalry units left in the line to make a difference. But, as far as the role of breakthrough exploitation goes, armour doesn't reach the point of being fast enough to do the job until the 1930s, and even then it's limited by terrain. So, you get Russian cavalry units in the Red Army still being used and quite useful.
@@Garwulf1 Similarly, during the Polish-Soviet war in 1918-21, cavalry saw a lot of use on both sides. And during the invasion of Poland in '39, the Polish cavalry was also notorious for bringing mayhem to the German units wherever it went.
I did my MA thesis on WW1 British Cavalry, and War Horse drove me nuts. For those who are wondering, this is how the British Cavalry of 1914 would have actually handled that German position: 1. One or two of the squadrons present would have dismounted, gotten behind cover, and started putting the camp under rifle and machine gun fire, with one or two squadrons in reserve. 2. While this was happening, they would have called in horse artillery support to soften up the position. 3. Once the position had been softened up with artillery and small arms fire, the squadron(s) in reserve would launch a mounted shock charge from the flank to clear the position. So, what's in the movie is utter nonsense. For reference, see Cavalry Training 1915, Chapter X.
@@jamescerini6993 I'm not sure what makes you so certain, but they absolutely did. Every British cavalryman was armed with a rifle and trained with one. At the start of the war, every division of cavalry was issued with 24 Vickers machine guns, which they would carry into battle. Later in the war, the Vickers would be replaced by Hotchkiss light machine guns.
@@tinyprinceBritish cavalry were not all armed with rifles. I suggest you go and look at the different types of calvary and their function. If you don';t understand the difference between a dragoon and a lancer or what their functions were then I suggest you do some more research. I've looked up that book Cavalry Training 1915, and it is not well regarded or writen. The claimed way that camp would have been attacked is hardly what wouold have actually occurred and the guy who wrote that is using knowledge from a training manual from a time when calvalry were a part of history. The last mass mounted charge in modern warfare was undertaken by Australian Lighthorse at Beersheba. (Dragoons). The Germans and Turkish defending the town knew the Lighthorse would never actually charge because they ALWAYS dismount to use their rifles and fight on foot. In this case they did charge and they took the town and the precious water in the deep wells. Look on TH-cam for The Charge At Beersheba and you will see the German officer loudly claiming that they are lighthorse and they will not charge.
@@jamescerini6993 hate to break it to you but all British Cavalry, whether dragoons or lancers carried firearms - be they carbines or full sized rifles. I assume you’re going to claim the bandoliers all WWI lancers can be seen carrying are simply for decoration. It’s always painful when an armchair historian thinks they know better than those of who who have literally spent years on the subject and were weighed and measured academically.
I’m glad they took a look at Paths of Glory, which is my favorite Kubrick film out of all his amazing movies. It is one of the most emotionally powerful war films ever made, and the fact that it got such a high rating from a historian is testament I think to the idea that you don’t have to sacrifice authenticity for the sake of storytelling.
For those of you who haven't read it, Ring of Steel is a masterpiece. It does an excellent job of explaining the war from the German/Austro-Hungarian perspective. The Fortress is narrower in scope, but does an excellent job of describing a battle mostly ignored in the West that ended up having world historical implications. So if Alexander Watson says it, I'm very much inclined to believe it.
Old movies, while maybe sometimes being less visually stunning and lacking visual effects, they often get historical moments more accurately, that's why I love comparing modern adaptation of old movies with the original one
Ah yes the old movies with pale Bri'ish looking pharaohs whipping the poor slaves building pyramids under the cracking whip... also Ancient Greece with white marble statues from 19th century... and Othello in blackface. I mean, modern movies have lots of inaccuracies, often inherited from just copying mistakes done by old films, but let's not pretend historical movies were very accurate at any point in time. There were stand out movies that did the setting justice, notably France Zeffirelli for Shakespeare and Kubrick's stuff like Full Metal Jacket for Vietnam war, and that one weirdo's Alexander had a good battle scene (and wrong everything else). But those are exceptions not the rule.
@@KasumiRINA I think he means old movies about more recent history. There were still a lot of WWI vets to talk to for the earlier movies about it. Nowadays, we have excellent historical understanding but the unrelenting whip of the studio executives wanting looks over realism.
@@KasumiRINA Ancient subject matter compared to movies made with help from people who were alive and active in the time and subject in which the movie is based.
Prof Alexander and Prof "dig more ditches" Roel are probably two of my most favourite historians from thus channel. Wish they had more content starring them
"Paths of Glory": Kubrick's technical advisor (and he always listened to them) was a German veteran of the Great War. The troops were cadets from a police academy in Munich. The first rehearsal had the cadets bounding across the field like football players. Then the Herr Major explained to them that if they'd tried that in 1916 they wouldn't have gone ten yards.
I really like Alexander Watson's assessments and discussions around the historical context of these WWI movies. He offers great explanations and plausible logic as a real historian would provide. I give him a 10/10 as a historian!
Excellent video and great guest! Really enjoyed seeing the scene from “Blizzard of Souls”, as often times our perception of the First World War is incredibly western front centric. Keep up the good work!
I know absolutely nothing about the Eastern Front, which I honestly find terrible-considering it was the direction the entire conflict was coming from to begin with.
Alright the WW1 guy is back. I love the way he breaks down the scenes. Its always so simple but detailed and easy to follow. And you can literally hear the excitment in his voice when the movie gets even the smallest details right like the officer checking his watch before the battle. Hope he comes back for another review. Also the trenches, man oh man the trenches. The ditch historian guy would be in heaven seeing all those trenches. Think of all the rocks he could throw at the enemy. 😂
Cavalry in the US Civil War was similarly used. They could fight on horse back, but often they were dismounted infantry, scouting, and could get to a location faster than the infantry so they could set up an initial line of defense such as as Gettysburg, holding off the ANV until the bulk of the Union forces could come up.
Cavalry didn't really hold off anyone at Gettysburg. That was put in books after the fact but the first day at Gettysburg you had engagements all over the place at the same time. You had entire infantry corps fighting so a small cavalry action didn't mean a whole lot by July 1st. They were only engaged for about an hour or so.
and it was that cavalry action that led to the positions being taken by either side which led to the battle being as it was…cavalry unintentionally won the battle for the Union
Another AMAZING video. This guy is the real deal, and presents it in a very simple way to teach non-historians about a subject without being pretentious.
What got me in 1917 during "that scene" also was that simple question: "Why would they allow that lone, unequipped soldier they don't know anything about to run around, and in and out of a trench, without one of NCOs immediately concluding he must be possible deserter or a spy and shoot him on the spot?" Also, if he is really a runner bringing important information... why don't they direct him immediately to the back through the communication trench lines, which lead directly to unit command, rather than allow him to mill about like a crazed, panicking soldier?
"Why would they allow that lone, unequipped soldier they don't know anything about to run around, and in and out of a trench, without one of NCOs immediately concluding he must be possible deserter or a spy and shoot him on the spot?"" Because they had their men accounted for, and if he wasn't one of theirs, given they had an attack to go on in less than 3 minutes, he wasn't their immediate problem. "why don't they direct him immediately to the back through the communication trench lines, which lead directly to unit command, rather than allow him to mill about like a crazed, panicking soldier?" 6:34 Expert: This is a temporary trench. Given that it's temporary, I'm betting they haven't yet dug any communications trench lines. Remember that in the movie, they are far out in front of the rest of the Allied forces.
@@truthseeker308 On top of that, they had directed him to the trench minutes earlier when he said he was trying to reach Colonel Mackenzie. Schofield said he was under orders to deliver the letter directly to the Colonel from Command. The troops knew better than to run the risk of getting chewed out by command for stopping a "suspected deserter" if he actually was a messenger.
My thoughts exactly when I saw this in the theater. No helmet, no rifle, no dispatch runners' bag. Just running in a panicked headlong rush perpendicular to the advancing line of soldiers. He'd have likely been shot or at least an effort to detain him. And don't get me started on the exposition at the beginning of the movie, explaining the mission to the runner. Not very likely. "Here's your bag, here's your orders, get it to this unit". That should be it. Why would you provide a runner with detailed information risking him to be captured and have it tortured out of him ?
Because then you would not have this epic final scene. This run scene has become iconic for the movie. A final desperate run risking his own life to save others. Unrealistic, but very cool and awesome.
In the War Horse clip, I always wondered how ANY horses made it into the woods uninjured but without a rider, much less the vast number of horses that made it into the woods uninjured and riderless. It's not like machine guns are exactly accurate weapons, how did so many horses get through unscathed? It's an evocative image, but in reality all them horses would've been ground meat at Tesco.
Exactly... When you're shooting at someone who's riding a horse straight at you, you're probably going to hit the horse before you hit the person riding it. Matter of fact, most cavalry injuries in the first world war stemmed from their horses being shot/blown up/etc and the horses falling onto the men, breaking bones and pinning them under the horse.
The movie was BS but for the record: horses (especially well trained war horses) could actually keep running even after suffering a mortal gunshot wound. Running horse generates so much power with its muscles that their blood keeps circulating, keeping the horse moving further even if their heart was shot and would only fall dead after reaching whatever target they were charging. Most notably the horses used by the (now memefied) Polish winged hussars were trained to just keep running no matter what, which earned them a myth of being completely bulletproof, because horses that were shot dead on and essentially killed outright would keep going forwards for long enough to reach the enemy battle line.
Spielberg made that exact same scene with Humvees on fire coming back for no reason after aliens blew them up in War of the Worlds. He avoids showing deaths even when it causes non-sense scenes like that.
@@sapphyrus avoiding animal deaths on screen is conscious choice by filmmakers, another option is making extremely fake CGI ones. Reasons are many from animal rights advocates to viewers not wanting to see animals hurt to rating boards getting nervous to most animals (even trained ones), being unable to be directed to act like they're dying. And nobody wants to injure them or get injured by a hoof to your face trying to get them to do something they don't understand. It's one of those suspension of disbelief scenes that you kinda learn to accept if you enjoy the media.
It’s very interesting seeing the depiction of an attack in the 1957 film (before the whole Lions Led By Donkeys trope gained popularity in the 60s) versus depictions after the 1960s where men are shown mindlessly charging enemy lines
hate to break it to you, but the film was one of those films: the whole premise is that officer defending guys about to be hanged for cowardice as scapegoats for incompetent generals…
@@bostonrailfan2427 My thoughts exactly. This film (which is fantastic) portrayed the French high command (and the military generally) in such a bad light that it wasn't shown in France until 1975. It was also banned on US military establishments and in Franco's Spain for the same reason. Even Switzerland banned it, to avoid offending France.
@@Oxtocoatl13 it was based on a novel that was itself based on real events but twisted into being French instead of British. the movie intentionally left out that the soldiers were guilty of cowardice but tried to claim that it was terrible leadership that was responsible for the failures rather than facing a better equipped, heavily entrenched, and better positioned enemy
I was just WAITING to much for “Dvēseļu Puteņa” scene, especially the Tireplis Purva stroming, i was just very excited for your rating, thanks for making by day!! I recommend watching all of “Dvēseļu Putenis” ( Blizzard of Souls ), best WW1 movie ever made.
Path of glory is probably the best and most realistic movie about WWI I have ever seen. Not only the attack, but the moment before, with the soldiers in the trenches and the shells passing over their head is a classic.
I like this breakdown. We seem to think of even our recent ancestors as primitive. But we forget that humans have been very creative in providing unhealth care to each other for a long time. Movies often show people from pre ww2 times just charging pointlessly into battle trying to stop bullets with their face, no one fights wars like that.
Ikr, for me its so hard to think of them as equals to us now, but the more i learn about history I realise they are exactly like us, especially this recent in the 1900's
Having finished up my fkrst year in a phd history program, I can confirm that historians LOVE watching movies and LOVE talking about movies and I cannot wait to one day have the opportunity to sit in a chair and nerd out about period dramas and historical epics like the history nerd I was born to become~
Great guy/expert, please have him do more of these! Never heard of him before (I will check out his book now though) and appreciate that he only cares about historical/realistic aspect, not the "entertainment value". We've had plenty of those kind of experts.
Really great analysis of the details in these films, I'm a bit of an amateur WWI historian (I have a history degree but none of it really focused on that conflict as my interest in it developed later) and Professor Watson clearly knows his stuff. I'd gladly watch a lot more of him, especially breaking down the tiny details like how and why helmets looked the way they did, how important watches were to combined arms offensives before reliable radios, etc, it's endlessly fascinating. Bravo, more please! I happened to be looking at Ring of Steel in a bookshop the other day and almost bought it but didn't - rest assured I'll be picking up a copy at the earliest opportunity now.
I wish education systems around the world just instruct teachers to teach history like this. I got almost perfect score in my history lessons back in the high school, yet most of those information are just wiped out of memory. A 16-minute video not just to teach history but also life lessons. These are few that I learned, and appreciate if others share theirs too: When you face a danger or a challenge in your life, don't go directly at it; be smart, go around it. A teamwork is safer and more resultful than solo. Use your assets efficiently, otherwise you may loose them all.
If you haven't read them yet, I highly suggest Sun Tzu's art of war (it's incredibly short) and Miyamoto Musashi's Book of Five Rings. They are NOT boring tactics manuals or ANYTHING resembling "chivalrous ancient combat", they actually reveal how pragmating combat (group or individual is). For example in 5 rings, the most famous samurai in history tells you to pick the battlefield so the sun shines in your opponent's eyes, and he suggests holding sword with one hand so the other can be used to throw sand, grapple or punch. See, "Bushido" bullcrap wasn't invented yet. While Art of War talks about pretty obvious stuff that's applicable to everything.
At 12:28 my grandfather was a machine gunner in France WWI and he vividly described massive German assaults in 1918, the machine guns firing in predetermined traverses, and mowing down Germans in sequence in just that manner. He said once he hit a line of Germans just as they were running across a dip in the ground, thus shooting them through the necks which was exceptionally gruesome.
One of the worsts tropes that movies love to use is that of waves of soldiers just charging aimlessly into the enemy, every man for himself, just to get more chaotic and cinematic scenes.
There have been battles like that, usually due to grossly incompetent “leadership”, but the actual soldiers doing the running aren’t mindless cannon fodder.
My great grandfather was at the 2nd Battle of Ypres on the British side and had a head injury from artillery. I don't know if he had a helmet. The medics were going to leave him for dead, and one of his buddies lied to the medics and told them he was supposed to be taken to the hospital. He lived with a metal plate in his head for the rest of his life, had many children, great, and great greats all the way up to 4 generations now.
I served in the US Army as a combat engineer and didn’t know much about it. After training and doing research I very quickly realized how dangerous the job was. That’s why we pride ourselves on our motto “engineers clear the way, all the way” because in cases like the frozen front, you can’t do anything unless someone clears the way. Love the authenticity and realism in that film, respect to all those who have served and thank you.
So nice to see "Blizzard Of Souls" here as a Latvian. It's really an amazing movie showing the journey of how war was here in Latvia. I remember when it came out I didn't think anything of it since not many Latvian movies are well produced but this one blew my mind when I saw it. Such a great movie!
I think Sam Mendes was just trying to improve on General Melchett's brilliant tactical plan to win victory in the field. Captain Edmund Blackadder: "Would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking very slowly towards the enemy?"
Fantastic video, I especially loved the part with the Latvian rifles! However, I do wonder about the scene from 1917, they do go through the trouble of showing an officer checking the time, as was even noted, isn't it then a little harsh to criticise that they don't also show an officer during the charge later? They've shown they're aware of the officer but can perhaps not have one in every frame? I'm also wondering if it isn't possible one is present but just not shown very clearly? Or, and maybe I misunderstand here, I haven't seen the film yet, but isn't the charge spontaneously caused by the main character leaving the trench, causing the charge itself to be very disorganized and perhaps leaving the officer to try and rally elements still preparing on the trench? Again, great video, I found it very entertaining and enlightening
WWI gets it’s fair share of spotlight in the history classes and cinema and I still feel like we as a society only give it a fraction of the consideration it deserves. Not only is it fascinating but it set the stage for the world we see today maybe more than any other event in history.
Not 'maybe more', defintely more. Our entire modern world is derived from WW1. We already know that Germany's defeat in WW1 led to the economic and policitcal crisis in Germany in the 1920's and 30' which is the catalyst for WW2 - on the whole. But WW1 was also the catalyst for the rise of world wide Communism when the Germans smuggled Lenin and Co into Russia from exile Switzerland in order to ferment revolution in Russia to force them out of the war - and it worked ... to well! This alone led to the cold war after WW2, with communism spreading around the world. The Korean and Vietnam Wars were the direct results of this. The Iron Curtain and all that sufefring in Eastern Europe for 50 years. Countless wars around the world with arms and equipment flooding into them with the US and USSR backing sides. During the Gallipoli Campaign a Turkish Officer deserted/was captured by the Australians at Hill 60. He happily told his captors that the Arabs fighting in the Ottoman Armies would gladly pick up arms to fight the Turks if given the opportunity. This information eventually filtered back to British Intelligence in Egypt and would lead to Lawrence of Arabia stiring up the Arab Revolt. In return for rising up the Arab leaders would be given land and Kingdoms in 'the Holy Lands' - but the British and French shafted them after the war and drew arbitrary lines on the maps and kept huge chunks for themselves. This directly lead to the ongoing violence between Jews and Palestinians from the 1930's onwards, distrust of the West and all the violence and terrorism out of that region since - including Islamic Terror, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan etc We could also go on about the Japanese feeling betrayed and 'ripped off' in the peace agreements dealing with the Pacific theatre and failing to get racial equality clauses approved in the League of Nations - leading to their move to a more militaristic outlook to resolve their issues ... We would see how that would turn out form 1936 onwards. And this is just scratching the surface! To me, WW1 has always been far mroe influential than most peopel realise. It's not 'forgotten' or in the shadow of WW2, it just never got the Hollywood publicity, because the US missed most of it despite reaping the greatest rewards from it.
One of my fave things is seeing people get rlly excited about things they love/are interested in & this man is no exception! I love how animated & giddy he gets when scenes are portrayed accurately. You can so clearly tell he loves history rather than it just being a job!! 🥰💙
A lot of people seem to think ww1 was literally just men running into machine gun fire with absolutely no strategy. I mean, really dumbed down that is sort of what happened, but in reality it was much more complex than that. They weren't all idiots, these were the strategies, the only ones that you could use. Defensive warfare way outpaced offensive capabilities until the tank entered regular use. The Tank made trench warfare redundent - it just took a while for that to really sink in to the military planning mindset.
"The Tank made trench warfare redundent - it just took a while for that to really sink in to the military planning mindset." It REALLY didn't. Kursk was a WW1-style trench battle, and the Ukraine is right now a trench war, tanks notwithstanding.
@@Garwulf1 Considering we can destroy tanks and radars that cost millions with consumer drones that cost a few thousands, and russians lost over 2000 tanks in one year to the point they had ONE tank left for a parade, tanks hardly made anything redundant. In fact people make claims that tanks are obsolete, but they are wrong too. For offensive campaigns, tanks supported by IFVs are indispensable. We just need more of them.
@@KasumiRINA And that's a very important point. One should be VERY cautious before declaring anything in warfare obsolete. The latest cavalry charge in military history that I know of took place in Afghanistan in 2001. Anybody who thinks that tanks are obsolete because they can be destroyed needs to read more military history - they have always been vulnerable to things like artillery and infantry. But, they're also needed to win, and can do things that only tanks can do. (One of the ironies is that the man who poisoned the English-language historiography of WW1, Basil Liddell Hart, did so in part because by 1929 he had become convinced that tanks had made infantry obsolete - they hadn't - and the British army wouldn't just replace the infantry with tanks like he wanted...leading to the charge of them being traditionalist idiots.)
I was recommended this film recently and it is without reservation one of the best films I've ever seen. Not sure why this Kubrick film is not talked about more often.
Would love to see a video by Alexander explaining how combat changed throughout the duration of the war. What tactics changed, what new weapons were introduced, etc.
My brother in-law was in the scene for "Blizzard of Souls" (2019) on the attack side :) and My sister with my nephew is also in the movie in the different scene :) really good movie highly recommend :D
Love this review, especially because he talks about how tactics were and why, between line warfare in the 18th and 19th centuries and WW1 I feel like there is a lot of bigotry from history classes "that's just how it was done and everyone involve were absolute imbeciles" without real discussion of the realities and tactics. ALSO would really love to have the lost battalion (2001) reviewed.
It's a similar situation with linear warfare of the 18th and 19th century. "Haha. Such idiots for marching out in the open in colourful uniforms." No, people back then weren't suicidal loons. They were working with the technological limitations of their time and marching in massed blocks made sense in that context due to the threat of cavalry and communication and morale purposes. But, it's easier to mock them, I suppose.
It’s not bigotry so much as ignorance. Most people don’t really understand why things happen the way they do in any war, let alone a dreadful, often stagnating one like WWI. The Dunning-Kruger effect is rampant in armchair historians who read a few articles and watched a few History Channel shows ten years ago and think knowing about the dumb parts makes them smarter than everyone who lived it and/or dedicated years of passionate, professional research to it.
There's something very appealing to most people about the idea that all this was down to foolish generals who mindlessly threw men into machine gun fire. It's an easy explanation with a convenient set of scapegoats. I listened to a lecture series recently that put forward an interesting argument suggesting that the way common soldiers came to characterize the war during its later years as this pointless waste led by cruel elites was partly a way of obscuring the general desire for war that pervaded across social classes in 1914. People really underestimate just how much entire countries were behind the conflict at first.
I really hope there are more depiction of the Eastern Front in WWI. We always get stuck with the idea of Trench warfare for WWI but that is the exception not the norm for the war, where in other fronts of the war both calvary and huge troop movement still exists.
All the other fronts of the Great War are drastically underrepresented, just as WW1 itself is drastically underrepresented. I would kill for a good movie about the mountain fighting between Italians and Austrians, or about the East African theater. Very few people even among history buff circles can even name a battle on the Eastern Front.
I think its a bit unfair to pick that scene from 1917. The introduction scene of the front line is perhaps the best war scene I ve ever seen. From the tension, to the historical accuracy to the music...simply outstanding!
Its fascinating how World War 1 is finally getting the attention it truly deserves, For the longest time historians, writers and movie makers pretty much forgot the Great War and focused on the Second World War, We need to remember that World War One laid the foundations for the war that came after it and indeed were it not for it the Second World War would not have happened.
Schofield went over the parapet because it was a shortcut rather than just following the trench line, particularly along the parados. He needed to reach Colonel Mackenzie ASAP and the fastest way to do that was to cut across the ground in front of the trench line. I thought they established this moments prior to the scene.
Seeing the historians rate these movies and talk about how it really was is so interesting. I can’t get enough of these videos lol. I hated history in school but I find it so fascinating now. There’s a book called The Face Maker about a surgeon that reconstructed the faces of injured wwI troops that’s really really interesting. The things these men went through is horrific.
Head fatalities went down, but injuries actually increased when helmets were adopted. What would have killed them was reduced to an injury by the helmet.
Isn't that called survivor bias. Like when WW2 planes returned with bullet holes in the structure so they thought they should armor the structure but found out the ones that were shot in the engines didn't come back. So there was a bias
@@logank444 It's different : we're comparing the actual casualities here, which was the opposite problem with the "bullet bias" as we're talking about what killed soldiers in the first place, not the injuries of thoses who could be treated after a battle. It was a fact that many losses happened because of a shrapnels hitting the head of soldiers who had just a cap at the very begining of the war. It's also one of the reasons why russian casualities were high as the Tsar forbid the use of steel helmets as caps made men look more "manly".
@@comraderowen2434 lmao russians and having ridiculous casualty rate because being smart is gay or something, name a better duo. Bakhmut has several towns worth of russian soldiers fertilizing it. And they just charge over the corpses. Killing fields.
I read one of Watson's books-- 'Enduring the Great War'-- which is excellent. One of the best books about military morale / basic soldier psychology I could find, along with 'The Life of Johnny Reb' and 'The Life of Billy Yank' by Bell Wiley.
As an Australian - the 2015 mini series was utter garbage. Go watch the 1980's series the Anzacs. While it has a couple of issues its 100% better than that garbage dished up in 2015 for the Centenary. Even the 1980 Gallipoli Movie is a lot better, and it has some major flaws that still haunt Australian Military History discussions to this day ...
7:25 There is a very simple reason why he doesnt climb over the Parados- It is a near vertical wall topped with soft, loose chalk. Climbing that would be virtually impossible unaided.
I was in Riga last month…Latvians are tough tough people. Their history is stained with so much blood of fallen brothers (often fighting themselves due to imperial occupation.) The Latvian Riflemen have an enormous monument dedicated to them in the old town.
After seeing the poor representation of cavalry in ‘War horse’ I would like to see him react to ‘The Lighthorsemen’ (1987). Which is about one of Australias lesser know (globally) but successful battles during WW1. Where the Australian light horse unit was involved in Sinai and Palestine Campaign's 1917 Battle of Beersheeba.
I loved the big offensive in the second example, because it wasn't just a wave of men sprinting across no-man's land. They were moving carefully and trying to maintain a semblance of order. Weird that an older film does this so much better.
You should do Dancer rates clips from movies/tv shows! As a dancer, I find it interesting to watch how Hollywood (and other) portrays certain stereotypes and ideas of what dance is and what dancers do - some of it is correct, some of it is incorrect, and some of it is wayyyyyy incorrect. Just an idea! 😊
Side note from a french guy. I used to be a volunteer firefighter during the 90's. We were still wearing this Adrian helmet, nickeled models ones , for commemorations and ceremonies. November the 11th and so. A real pain at making it shining like brand new.
In 1917 I'm not sure I understand why he left the trench at all, considering he seems to be running parallel to it the whole time. One other thing about that movie is the intro clip, where their rear camp is pristine countryside, but no man's land is only about 100m away. Also I'd disagree that a single 8in shell from the German cruiser would cripple the Russian destroyer. In WW2 we saw multiple times destroyers being hit by 5, 6, 8, and even 14in shells and continue fighting.
Because he needs to get to the commanding officer to stop the attack. The plot of the movie is the battalion that we see in this clip is walking into a trap, but they don't know it. He leaves the trench because there are too many soldiers in the way of his end goal, the command tent, and he needs to attack to end as soon as possible. I assume he goes the way does because it's closer, and he's afraid the officers will try to stop him if he goes the other way.
it was a mistake though it wasn't meant to happen they can't redo the scene because too much money and its all in take. This was unfair take by this historian he should looked at something else
I was an extra on 1917 and got to participate in the battle scene at the end. I just wanted to note that the films historical adviser (really nice guy called Andrew Robertshaw) actually organised us into platoons for the battle charge, and at boot camp we even drilled in how a British platoon would attack in 1917 (bombers, skirmishers, mopper uppers etc).
But ultimately this was trumped by Sam Mendes for the sake of spectacle. Its undoubtedly an impressive scene and I get that a film needs a bit of spectacle, but it was a missed opportunity to see British WW1 soldiers act like decently trained and competent fighters, as opposed to a disorganised rabble.
Film directors are just the worst people.
How difficult is it to be an extra in a film? Would you need an agent or could you just sign up for an audition? Any info would be nice, I live in Miami so their aren't big films like that one. It must've been amazing to be there and see the whole sequence in person. I know that that scene in particular was really hard to make because it was a continuous shot
Great information! I love hearing behind the scenes stories of how advisers attempt to maintain accuracy and immersion but are dismissed.
The early Fast and Furious movies were this way and that's how we ended up with "danger to manifold" instead of something reasonable.
@@davidzshit Well from my limited experience its not like an acting role so I didnt need an agent. Dunno if it works the same in the US but in the UK you can sign up to background artist agencies that will put you forward to production companies for work. Maybe have a Google round and see if there's any near you? The one that put me up for 1917 was free to sign up but they did take a commission from the money I earned, but I still got enough to make it worth doing. And yeah like you said being part of a film like that is really cool, and pretty much a reward enough in itself :)
This seems to be a HUGE issue. Films will hire historical advisors just to have the name of someone to point at and say "hey, we hired a guy." But in the end they don't listen to the advisor. It is amazing that they actually went as far as to have him drill extras. Most just ask a question or two and then ignore the expert.
Wish these videos were even longer. I seriously love listening to this man break down all these tiny details that you never think about from older wars/battles. It's endlessly fascinating and he is obviously extremely knowledgeable.
Paths of Glory really need its own WWI-operations analysis video, because Kubrick went with such incredible and faithful detail for the time and resources he had. I would have loved to hear Professor Watson's take on General Mireau ordering the artillery to shell his own men.
That actually happened with General Réveilhac during the Souain Corporals Affair, which was the events that inspired Paths of Glory. General Réveilhac ordered the artillery to shell 21st company because they refused to go over the top after seeing the first wave cut down both from accidental shelling and German machine guns. The artillery communication officer on the other side of the line flatly refused to execute the order without having it in writing. The order was never issued, but Réveilhac instead went at it by having 24 of the men picked at random and court-martialed for cowardice. 20 got their execution stayed, but 4 corporals were executed as an example.
I do also love that you can see and hear how much he likes it when it is done right. When the minor little detail is spot on, he is absolutely loving it
Yes he’s great
Yeah, I kind of wish they'd release the full, unedited interview.
Go take his course lol 😂 well one of them
I think the most impressive part about the War Horse charge scene was how the Germans managed to avoid even injuring a single horse.
You mean the things that they probably would have been shooting at? I didn't know about the 7 machine guns per 3,000 infantry part, but I did immediately notice they were all grouped together, which is ridiculous for good overlapping fields of fire.
They must have gotten their machine guns from the same factory that makes imperial stormtrooper blasters.
@@evilsharkey8954damn that's a good one 😂
I’m fairly certain it was meant as a metaphor, maybe don’t quote me on that, but I think I heard that it was meant to show a sense of how many lives just got snuffed out in ww1 with charges like this. Again, could very well be wrong, but I’m fairly certain it was an artistic choice
And impressive how the rider-less horses just keep running towards these terrifyingly loud machineguns instead of bolting back to safety where they came from.
The reason "Paths of Glory" was so accurate: Stanley Kubrick was insanely dedicated to detail, and in 1957 there were still thousands of WWI veterans (many only in their late 50's and early 60's) around to advise.
Very much so. The art director, Ludwig Reiber, was born in 1904 in Munich. He was only 10 when the war began, but 10 is old enough to remember, and 14 years old at the war's end is definitely old enough to remember anything the survivors said to or around him.
Still the very best WW1 movie.
It was a WW1 film not WW2.
Hollywood is way too obsessed with war it’s so weird. There are documentaries out there for a reason
Stanley Kubrick is so good. He’s a perfectionist. Barry Lyndon is also a great historical movie.
What the scene in the Blizzard of Souls shows really well is that you don't need artificial drama to make a WW action scene dramatic. All you need to do is sit down and do your research, think about what happened, why it happened the way it did and how the human element would have acted and why and how to present this.
If you've got this down, then the scene has already written itself with all the dramatic effect you could have wanted.
Indeed. I want to go watch it now.
Exactly, I don't get this film makers fetish to make things more dramatic by adding unrealistic scenes... How is freaking WW1 not dramatic enough by its reality alone??
I have seen something similar to real sword fights. No overly dramatic moves but very deliberate moves. The reality is so tense that it makes you sit on the tip of your chair. This scene is similar. Without all the dramatic effects, it's a really tense and incredible scene.
I think the reason the Blizzard of souls scene was so good is because it's a faithful representation of a book of the same name by Aleskandrs Grīns, who himself was a latvian rifleman and who participated in the battle that was being portrayed.
Your mistake is assuming most people like to think - the majority just like to see shiny things and/or big explosions in order to be entertained. Case and point, why we have so many sequels to Transformers, Fast & Furious, etc.
I'd love to see him react to a clip from the original 1930 adaptation of All Quiet on the West Front. That movie actually had a lot of real WW1 veterans in it who provided the director with a lot of feedback and input on how things should look.
Yes we all saw that TH-cam video 😂
@@johndowe7003 he is just saying bruh
The 1979 All Quiet is also amazing. My favorite movie of all time.
"Everyone was wearing period appropriate uniforms with authentic battle damage, 10/10"
@@arbiter11171should've just filmed the actual war.
I love that you can tell when a scene is accurate just by how animated he's getting as he's describing the scene/historical events. Love to see people passionate about their field.
conversely you can see when something is so wildly inaccurate it’s troubling him. i love this guy
0:20 War Horse
2:50 Paths of Glory
5:29 1917
9:35 Blizzard of Souls
13:38 Admiral
Thanks
There should be all quiet on the western front
I was so excited when is saw that our own Latvian film got reviewed and got a ten.
Thank the expert and thank you Insider,for providing this episode for world to see!
Film Blizzard of Souls was most viewed film in Latvia for a long time and a great one!
I think this is the first time I’ve seen an expert give a solid 10/10 on an Insider video.
@@evilsharkey8954 Bro we have seen the sword fighting expert give 12 😂
@@evilsharkey8954 some did, but it's even more surprising from this one as he was probably the hardest one to please and hardly went over 4 or 5
@@williamrobert9898 This guy is no people pleaser, he’s the harshest with the scores so for him to give 10/10 is like being knighted by the king of Britain
Blizzard of Souls is the only Latvian film I've seen and it's one of my favourite war movies. Incredibly well made.
Im so proud to be a part of blizzard of souls and have a such high rating. I was one of actors in that particular scene. It was such an adrenaline. When i jumped of from that wooden wall, i even broke my leg.
... The movie had a lot of historians, so it's very historicaly acurate!
Answering late but this kind of small yet debilitating injury is ironically very accurate especially in a cold frozen climate tripping and breaking bones was common even more so during the pandemonium of artillery and explosions. Honestly we rarely see these small yet dramatic slip up that are so banal yet so deadly in war movies.
Just watched this movie because of this comment, and saw your username in the credits!
Your leg is now an Hero for the Freedom of Latvia!
I'm glad they gave him the opportunity to point out the historical silliness of War Horse. Cavalry still wasn't completely obsolete at the beginning of WWII, let alone throughout WWI.
Ummm…I don’t know where you got that, but I’m pretty sure it’s wrong. By the end of World War 1, for a number of reasons cavalry WAS obsolete, and machine guns were one of those reasons (I forget the others, except for trenches and razor wire). The fact that they still used it some doesn’t mean it wasn’t.
That's why the stage production is preferred over the film. Plus, the stage production for War Horse is a masterclass in puppetry (for the horse itself).
@@Shadowkey392 I did my MA thesis at Royal Military College about WW1 British Cavalry (particularly the development of their combined arms doctrine), and they were far from obsolete. What the cavalry could do was that in mobile warfare it was a fast moving force that could screen a marching army (basically, prevent enemy scouts from finding it), and properly exploit a breakthrough (and they were the only force in the field in WW1 fast enough to do that). The problem was that the trench deadlock on the Western Front was such that breaking into the enemy lines was fairly easy, but breaking through was a physical impossibility until late 1917/early 1918 (and that was mainly a technological problem). So, most of the British cavalry units got transferred to other fronts where they could be used (like Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc.).
And what this in turn meant was that when the war became mobile again on the Western Front in 1918, there just weren't enough cavalry units left in the line to make a difference.
But, as far as the role of breakthrough exploitation goes, armour doesn't reach the point of being fast enough to do the job until the 1930s, and even then it's limited by terrain. So, you get Russian cavalry units in the Red Army still being used and quite useful.
@@Garwulf1 Similarly, during the Polish-Soviet war in 1918-21, cavalry saw a lot of use on both sides.
And during the invasion of Poland in '39, the Polish cavalry was also notorious for bringing mayhem to the German units wherever it went.
@Shadowkey392 the Germans used horse cavalry in WWII.
I did my MA thesis on WW1 British Cavalry, and War Horse drove me nuts. For those who are wondering, this is how the British Cavalry of 1914 would have actually handled that German position:
1. One or two of the squadrons present would have dismounted, gotten behind cover, and started putting the camp under rifle and machine gun fire, with one or two squadrons in reserve.
2. While this was happening, they would have called in horse artillery support to soften up the position.
3. Once the position had been softened up with artillery and small arms fire, the squadron(s) in reserve would launch a mounted shock charge from the flank to clear the position.
So, what's in the movie is utter nonsense. For reference, see Cavalry Training 1915, Chapter X.
Calvary didn't have rifles or machine guns in WW1. Your MA thesis must have sucked.
@@jamescerini6993 I'm not sure what makes you so certain, but they absolutely did.
Every British cavalryman was armed with a rifle and trained with one. At the start of the war, every division of cavalry was issued with 24 Vickers machine guns, which they would carry into battle. Later in the war, the Vickers would be replaced by Hotchkiss light machine guns.
@@tinyprinceBritish cavalry were not all armed with rifles. I suggest you go and look at the different types of calvary and their function. If you don';t understand the difference between a dragoon and a lancer or what their functions were then I suggest you do some more research. I've looked up that book Cavalry Training 1915, and it is not well regarded or writen. The claimed way that camp would have been attacked is hardly what wouold have actually occurred and the guy who wrote that is using knowledge from a training manual from a time when calvalry were a part of history. The last mass mounted charge in modern warfare was undertaken by Australian Lighthorse at Beersheba. (Dragoons). The Germans and Turkish defending the town knew the Lighthorse would never actually charge because they ALWAYS dismount to use their rifles and fight on foot. In this case they did charge and they took the town and the precious water in the deep wells. Look on TH-cam for The Charge At Beersheba and you will see the German officer loudly claiming that they are lighthorse and they will not charge.
Ah a fellow military historian thanks for the source to read
@@jamescerini6993 hate to break it to you but all British Cavalry, whether dragoons or lancers carried firearms - be they carbines or full sized rifles. I assume you’re going to claim the bandoliers all WWI lancers can be seen carrying are simply for decoration. It’s always painful when an armchair historian thinks they know better than those of who who have literally spent years on the subject and were weighed and measured academically.
I’m glad they took a look at Paths of Glory, which is my favorite Kubrick film out of all his amazing movies. It is one of the most emotionally powerful war films ever made, and the fact that it got such a high rating from a historian is testament I think to the idea that you don’t have to sacrifice authenticity for the sake of storytelling.
Agreed. It was a VERY good film.
Masterpiece.
You beat me to it with your comment. 100% agree! The man always did his homework and got the details right. I'm a Kubrick fanatic.
Due to when it was made there were still loads of ww1 veterans around
For those of you who haven't read it, Ring of Steel is a masterpiece. It does an excellent job of explaining the war from the German/Austro-Hungarian perspective. The Fortress is narrower in scope, but does an excellent job of describing a battle mostly ignored in the West that ended up having world historical implications. So if Alexander Watson says it, I'm very much inclined to believe it.
Old movies, while maybe sometimes being less visually stunning and lacking visual effects, they often get historical moments more accurately, that's why I love comparing modern adaptation of old movies with the original one
Ah yes the old movies with pale Bri'ish looking pharaohs whipping the poor slaves building pyramids under the cracking whip... also Ancient Greece with white marble statues from 19th century... and Othello in blackface.
I mean, modern movies have lots of inaccuracies, often inherited from just copying mistakes done by old films, but let's not pretend historical movies were very accurate at any point in time.
There were stand out movies that did the setting justice, notably France Zeffirelli for Shakespeare and Kubrick's stuff like Full Metal Jacket for Vietnam war, and that one weirdo's Alexander had a good battle scene (and wrong everything else). But those are exceptions not the rule.
@@KasumiRINA I think he means old movies about more recent history. There were still a lot of WWI vets to talk to for the earlier movies about it.
Nowadays, we have excellent historical understanding but the unrelenting whip of the studio executives wanting looks over realism.
@@KasumiRINA Ancient subject matter compared to movies made with help from people who were alive and active in the time and subject in which the movie is based.
Paths of Glory is hardly "less visually stunning" in my opinion.
It also doesn't hurt when the old movie in question is directed by Kubrick...
Prof Alexander and Prof "dig more ditches" Roel are probably two of my most favourite historians from thus channel. Wish they had more content starring them
"Paths of Glory": Kubrick's technical advisor (and he always listened to them) was a German veteran of the Great War. The troops were cadets from a police academy in Munich. The first rehearsal had the cadets bounding across the field like football players. Then the Herr Major explained to them that if they'd tried that in 1916 they wouldn't have gone ten yards.
i am an aspiring history professor and i just love how excited this expert gets when a film is historically accurate! it truly is so important.
@@yakb.7690WWI was over 100 years ago.
Happy to see that Paths of Glory and Blizzard of Souls gain good reception from this historian.
I really like Alexander Watson's assessments and discussions around the historical context of these WWI movies. He offers great explanations and plausible logic as a real historian would provide. I give him a 10/10 as a historian!
Excellent video and great guest! Really enjoyed seeing the scene from “Blizzard of Souls”, as often times our perception of the First World War is incredibly western front centric. Keep up the good work!
I know absolutely nothing about the Eastern Front, which I honestly find terrible-considering it was the direction the entire conflict was coming from to begin with.
I could listen to Alexander Watson all day everyday! He's amazing. Please publish more videos like this!
As a Latvian, seeing you commenting on Latvian film and history made me smile!
Alright the WW1 guy is back. I love the way he breaks down the scenes. Its always so simple but detailed and easy to follow. And you can literally hear the excitment in his voice when the movie gets even the smallest details right like the officer checking his watch before the battle. Hope he comes back for another review.
Also the trenches, man oh man the trenches. The ditch historian guy would be in heaven seeing all those trenches. Think of all the rocks he could throw at the enemy. 😂
Cavalry in the US Civil War was similarly used. They could fight on horse back, but often they were dismounted infantry, scouting, and could get to a location faster than the infantry so they could set up an initial line of defense such as as Gettysburg, holding off the ANV until the bulk of the Union forces could come up.
Same for WW2 cavalry as well.
@@alexanderbenkendorf688 And for the vast majority of cavalry throughout history.
@@JohnyG29 800 BC to 1600 AD
Cavalry didn't really hold off anyone at Gettysburg. That was put in books after the fact but the first day at Gettysburg you had engagements all over the place at the same time. You had entire infantry corps fighting so a small cavalry action didn't mean a whole lot by July 1st. They were only engaged for about an hour or so.
and it was that cavalry action that led to the positions being taken by either side which led to the battle being as it was…cavalry unintentionally won the battle for the Union
Another AMAZING video. This guy is the real deal, and presents it in a very simple way to teach non-historians about a subject without being pretentious.
What got me in 1917 during "that scene" also was that simple question: "Why would they allow that lone, unequipped soldier they don't know anything about to run around, and in and out of a trench, without one of NCOs immediately concluding he must be possible deserter or a spy and shoot him on the spot?"
Also, if he is really a runner bringing important information... why don't they direct him immediately to the back through the communication trench lines, which lead directly to unit command, rather than allow him to mill about like a crazed, panicking soldier?
"Why would they allow that lone, unequipped soldier they don't know anything about to run around, and in and out of a trench, without one of NCOs immediately concluding he must be possible deserter or a spy and shoot him on the spot?""
Because they had their men accounted for, and if he wasn't one of theirs, given they had an attack to go on in less than 3 minutes, he wasn't their immediate problem.
"why don't they direct him immediately to the back through the communication trench lines, which lead directly to unit command, rather than allow him to mill about like a crazed, panicking soldier?"
6:34 Expert: This is a temporary trench.
Given that it's temporary, I'm betting they haven't yet dug any communications trench lines. Remember that in the movie, they are far out in front of the rest of the Allied forces.
@@truthseeker308
On top of that, they had directed him to the trench minutes earlier when he said he was trying to reach Colonel Mackenzie. Schofield said he was under orders to deliver the letter directly to the Colonel from Command. The troops knew better than to run the risk of getting chewed out by command for stopping a "suspected deserter" if he actually was a messenger.
My thoughts exactly when I saw this in the theater. No helmet, no rifle, no dispatch runners' bag. Just running in a panicked headlong rush perpendicular to the advancing line of soldiers. He'd have likely been shot or at least an effort to detain him. And don't get me started on the exposition at the beginning of the movie, explaining the mission to the runner. Not very likely. "Here's your bag, here's your orders, get it to this unit". That should be it. Why would you provide a runner with detailed information risking him to be captured and have it tortured out of him ?
lmao he the spy/deserter take is quite silly dude
Because then you would not have this epic final scene. This run scene has become iconic for the movie. A final desperate run risking his own life to save others. Unrealistic, but very cool and awesome.
I’ve never thought about the use and design of helmets in war that’s so interesting
Sure is.
In the War Horse clip, I always wondered how ANY horses made it into the woods uninjured but without a rider, much less the vast number of horses that made it into the woods uninjured and riderless. It's not like machine guns are exactly accurate weapons, how did so many horses get through unscathed? It's an evocative image, but in reality all them horses would've been ground meat at Tesco.
Exactly... When you're shooting at someone who's riding a horse straight at you, you're probably going to hit the horse before you hit the person riding it. Matter of fact, most cavalry injuries in the first world war stemmed from their horses being shot/blown up/etc and the horses falling onto the men, breaking bones and pinning them under the horse.
The movie was BS but for the record: horses (especially well trained war horses) could actually keep running even after suffering a mortal gunshot wound.
Running horse generates so much power with its muscles that their blood keeps circulating, keeping the horse moving further even if their heart was shot and would only fall dead after reaching whatever target they were charging.
Most notably the horses used by the (now memefied) Polish winged hussars were trained to just keep running no matter what, which earned them a myth of being completely bulletproof, because horses that were shot dead on and essentially killed outright would keep going forwards for long enough to reach the enemy battle line.
@@ahriman935
The movie's ridiculousness is probably why many people prefer the original stage version with a life-size puppet horse.
Spielberg made that exact same scene with Humvees on fire coming back for no reason after aliens blew them up in War of the Worlds. He avoids showing deaths even when it causes non-sense scenes like that.
@@sapphyrus avoiding animal deaths on screen is conscious choice by filmmakers, another option is making extremely fake CGI ones. Reasons are many from animal rights advocates to viewers not wanting to see animals hurt to rating boards getting nervous to most animals (even trained ones), being unable to be directed to act like they're dying. And nobody wants to injure them or get injured by a hoof to your face trying to get them to do something they don't understand. It's one of those suspension of disbelief scenes that you kinda learn to accept if you enjoy the media.
It’s very interesting seeing the depiction of an attack in the 1957 film (before the whole Lions Led By Donkeys trope gained popularity in the 60s) versus depictions after the 1960s where men are shown mindlessly charging enemy lines
hate to break it to you, but the film was one of those films: the whole premise is that officer defending guys about to be hanged for cowardice as scapegoats for incompetent generals…
@@bostonrailfan2427 My thoughts exactly. This film (which is fantastic) portrayed the French high command (and the military generally) in such a bad light that it wasn't shown in France until 1975. It was also banned on US military establishments and in Franco's Spain for the same reason. Even Switzerland banned it, to avoid offending France.
@@Oxtocoatl13 it was based on a novel that was itself based on real events but twisted into being French instead of British. the movie intentionally left out that the soldiers were guilty of cowardice but tried to claim that it was terrible leadership that was responsible for the failures rather than facing a better equipped, heavily entrenched, and better positioned enemy
I was just WAITING to much for “Dvēseļu Puteņa” scene, especially the Tireplis Purva stroming, i was just very excited for your rating, thanks for making by day!!
I recommend watching all of “Dvēseļu Putenis” ( Blizzard of Souls ), best WW1 movie ever made.
Path of glory is probably the best and most realistic movie about WWI I have ever seen. Not only the attack, but the moment before, with the soldiers in the trenches and the shells passing over their head is a classic.
I like this breakdown. We seem to think of even our recent ancestors as primitive. But we forget that humans have been very creative in providing unhealth care to each other for a long time.
Movies often show people from pre ww2 times just charging pointlessly into battle trying to stop bullets with their face, no one fights wars like that.
“Providing unhealth care” I love that. Well, I don’t love the actual thing, but I do love the way you phrased it
Ikr, for me its so hard to think of them as equals to us now, but the more i learn about history I realise they are exactly like us, especially this recent in the 1900's
11/10 to the historian for knowing what made the Adrian helmet the best of the war.
thank you insider for including our movie ! 🇱🇻
great video he's a great explainer of how the war went
Oh it is good to see my countries movie on here and getting such high score. Yeah "Dvēseļu putenis" or "Blizzard of Souls" is awesome.
As a WW1 history need and having read his book Ring of Steel. Having Alexander Watson on is such a treat!
Having finished up my fkrst year in a phd history program, I can confirm that historians LOVE watching movies and LOVE talking about movies and I cannot wait to one day have the opportunity to sit in a chair and nerd out about period dramas and historical epics like the history nerd I was born to become~
Never heard of the one blizzard of souls. Love to see how accurate he thought it was
Great guy/expert, please have him do more of these!
Never heard of him before (I will check out his book now though) and appreciate that he only cares about historical/realistic aspect, not the "entertainment value".
We've had plenty of those kind of experts.
Really great analysis of the details in these films, I'm a bit of an amateur WWI historian (I have a history degree but none of it really focused on that conflict as my interest in it developed later) and Professor Watson clearly knows his stuff. I'd gladly watch a lot more of him, especially breaking down the tiny details like how and why helmets looked the way they did, how important watches were to combined arms offensives before reliable radios, etc, it's endlessly fascinating. Bravo, more please!
I happened to be looking at Ring of Steel in a bookshop the other day and almost bought it but didn't - rest assured I'll be picking up a copy at the earliest opportunity now.
I really need to check out this 'Blizzard of Souls' movie.
I wish education systems around the world just instruct teachers to teach history like this. I got almost perfect score in my history lessons back in the high school, yet most of those information are just wiped out of memory.
A 16-minute video not just to teach history but also life lessons. These are few that I learned, and appreciate if others share theirs too:
When you face a danger or a challenge in your life, don't go directly at it; be smart, go around it.
A teamwork is safer and more resultful than solo.
Use your assets efficiently, otherwise you may loose them all.
If you haven't read them yet, I highly suggest Sun Tzu's art of war (it's incredibly short) and Miyamoto Musashi's Book of Five Rings. They are NOT boring tactics manuals or ANYTHING resembling "chivalrous ancient combat", they actually reveal how pragmating combat (group or individual is). For example in 5 rings, the most famous samurai in history tells you to pick the battlefield so the sun shines in your opponent's eyes, and he suggests holding sword with one hand so the other can be used to throw sand, grapple or punch. See, "Bushido" bullcrap wasn't invented yet. While Art of War talks about pretty obvious stuff that's applicable to everything.
Schools in the US have to teach to the stupid standardized tests.
@@evilsharkey8954 and Canada who modelled their school sysyrm mostly off the Americans.
At 12:28 my grandfather was a machine gunner in France WWI and he vividly described massive German assaults in 1918, the machine guns firing in predetermined traverses, and mowing down Germans in sequence in just that manner. He said once he hit a line of Germans just as they were running across a dip in the ground, thus shooting them through the necks which was exceptionally gruesome.
I would love to see Professor Watson discuss (rate for accuracy, give historical context, etc) the WWI episodes of Downton Abbey.
One of the worsts tropes that movies love to use is that of waves of soldiers just charging aimlessly into the enemy, every man for himself, just to get more chaotic and cinematic scenes.
There have been battles like that, usually due to grossly incompetent “leadership”, but the actual soldiers doing the running aren’t mindless cannon fodder.
i need more videos of Alexander Watson's i love his enthusiasm when something is made rigth. great video 10/10
He's awesome
In War Horse the cavalry do have rifles, they are holstered on the side of the horse. You can see multiple times (most at 0:33)
ye guy is just blind xD
My great grandfather was at the 2nd Battle of Ypres on the British side and had a head injury from artillery. I don't know if he had a helmet. The medics were going to leave him for dead, and one of his buddies lied to the medics and told them he was supposed to be taken to the hospital. He lived with a metal plate in his head for the rest of his life, had many children, great, and great greats all the way up to 4 generations now.
Read that particular battle was… harrowing to say the least… he served with distinction
If it was 2nd Ypres he probably wouldn't have had a helmet, they hadn't been widely issued at that point.
I served in the US Army as a combat engineer and didn’t know much about it. After training and doing research I very quickly realized how dangerous the job was. That’s why we pride ourselves on our motto “engineers clear the way, all the way” because in cases like the frozen front, you can’t do anything unless someone clears the way. Love the authenticity and realism in that film, respect to all those who have served and thank you.
So nice to see "Blizzard Of Souls" here as a Latvian. It's really an amazing movie showing the journey of how war was here in Latvia. I remember when it came out I didn't think anything of it since not many Latvian movies are well produced but this one blew my mind when I saw it. Such a great movie!
I think Sam Mendes was just trying to improve on General Melchett's brilliant tactical plan to win victory in the field. Captain Edmund Blackadder: "Would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking very slowly towards the enemy?"
Would love to see the professor do Blackadder: Goes forth.
Fantastic video, I especially loved the part with the Latvian rifles! However, I do wonder about the scene from 1917, they do go through the trouble of showing an officer checking the time, as was even noted, isn't it then a little harsh to criticise that they don't also show an officer during the charge later? They've shown they're aware of the officer but can perhaps not have one in every frame? I'm also wondering if it isn't possible one is present but just not shown very clearly? Or, and maybe I misunderstand here, I haven't seen the film yet, but isn't the charge spontaneously caused by the main character leaving the trench, causing the charge itself to be very disorganized and perhaps leaving the officer to try and rally elements still preparing on the trench? Again, great video, I found it very entertaining and enlightening
So much respect for looking at Blizzard of Souls..
WWI gets it’s fair share of spotlight in the history classes and cinema and I still feel like we as a society only give it a fraction of the consideration it deserves. Not only is it fascinating but it set the stage for the world we see today maybe more than any other event in history.
Absolutely! The pivotal event of the 20th century. The world we live in today is the result of WWI.
Not 'maybe more', defintely more. Our entire modern world is derived from WW1. We already know that Germany's defeat in WW1 led to the economic and policitcal crisis in Germany in the 1920's and 30' which is the catalyst for WW2 - on the whole. But WW1 was also the catalyst for the rise of world wide Communism when the Germans smuggled Lenin and Co into Russia from exile Switzerland in order to ferment revolution in Russia to force them out of the war - and it worked ... to well! This alone led to the cold war after WW2, with communism spreading around the world. The Korean and Vietnam Wars were the direct results of this. The Iron Curtain and all that sufefring in Eastern Europe for 50 years. Countless wars around the world with arms and equipment flooding into them with the US and USSR backing sides. During the Gallipoli Campaign a Turkish Officer deserted/was captured by the Australians at Hill 60. He happily told his captors that the Arabs fighting in the Ottoman Armies would gladly pick up arms to fight the Turks if given the opportunity. This information eventually filtered back to British Intelligence in Egypt and would lead to Lawrence of Arabia stiring up the Arab Revolt. In return for rising up the Arab leaders would be given land and Kingdoms in 'the Holy Lands' - but the British and French shafted them after the war and drew arbitrary lines on the maps and kept huge chunks for themselves. This directly lead to the ongoing violence between Jews and Palestinians from the 1930's onwards, distrust of the West and all the violence and terrorism out of that region since - including Islamic Terror, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan etc
We could also go on about the Japanese feeling betrayed and 'ripped off' in the peace agreements dealing with the Pacific theatre and failing to get racial equality clauses approved in the League of Nations - leading to their move to a more militaristic outlook to resolve their issues ... We would see how that would turn out form 1936 onwards.
And this is just scratching the surface! To me, WW1 has always been far mroe influential than most peopel realise. It's not 'forgotten' or in the shadow of WW2, it just never got the Hollywood publicity, because the US missed most of it despite reaping the greatest rewards from it.
One of my fave things is seeing people get rlly excited about things they love/are interested in & this man is no exception! I love how animated & giddy he gets when scenes are portrayed accurately. You can so clearly tell he loves history rather than it just being a job!! 🥰💙
A lot of people seem to think ww1 was literally just men running into machine gun fire with absolutely no strategy. I mean, really dumbed down that is sort of what happened, but in reality it was much more complex than that. They weren't all idiots, these were the strategies, the only ones that you could use. Defensive warfare way outpaced offensive capabilities until the tank entered regular use. The Tank made trench warfare redundent - it just took a while for that to really sink in to the military planning mindset.
Absolutely loved this video.
"The Tank made trench warfare redundent - it just took a while for that to really sink in to the military planning mindset." It REALLY didn't. Kursk was a WW1-style trench battle, and the Ukraine is right now a trench war, tanks notwithstanding.
@@Garwulf1 Considering we can destroy tanks and radars that cost millions with consumer drones that cost a few thousands, and russians lost over 2000 tanks in one year to the point they had ONE tank left for a parade, tanks hardly made anything redundant. In fact people make claims that tanks are obsolete, but they are wrong too. For offensive campaigns, tanks supported by IFVs are indispensable. We just need more of them.
@@KasumiRINA And that's a very important point. One should be VERY cautious before declaring anything in warfare obsolete. The latest cavalry charge in military history that I know of took place in Afghanistan in 2001.
Anybody who thinks that tanks are obsolete because they can be destroyed needs to read more military history - they have always been vulnerable to things like artillery and infantry. But, they're also needed to win, and can do things that only tanks can do.
(One of the ironies is that the man who poisoned the English-language historiography of WW1, Basil Liddell Hart, did so in part because by 1929 he had become convinced that tanks had made infantry obsolete - they hadn't - and the British army wouldn't just replace the infantry with tanks like he wanted...leading to the charge of them being traditionalist idiots.)
@@l_W7 Please stop deleting and reposting your comments. You're cluttering up my feed.
It's intriguing that the most accurate movie is the one a never heard of. And all the blockbusters are 4 at best
Paths of Glory is such a great film. I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn’t seen it.
I was recommended this film recently and it is without reservation one of the best films I've ever seen. Not sure why this Kubrick film is not talked about more often.
Would love to see a video by Alexander explaining how combat changed throughout the duration of the war. What tactics changed, what new weapons were introduced, etc.
My brother in-law was in the scene for "Blizzard of Souls" (2019) on the attack side :) and My sister with my nephew is also in the movie in the different scene :) really good movie highly recommend :D
*Kubrick* is a God Among Men - 'Paths of Glory' is fantastic
Love this review, especially because he talks about how tactics were and why, between line warfare in the 18th and 19th centuries and WW1 I feel like there is a lot of bigotry from history classes "that's just how it was done and everyone involve were absolute imbeciles" without real discussion of the realities and tactics. ALSO would really love to have the lost battalion (2001) reviewed.
It's a similar situation with linear warfare of the 18th and 19th century. "Haha. Such idiots for marching out in the open in colourful uniforms." No, people back then weren't suicidal loons. They were working with the technological limitations of their time and marching in massed blocks made sense in that context due to the threat of cavalry and communication and morale purposes. But, it's easier to mock them, I suppose.
It’s not bigotry so much as ignorance. Most people don’t really understand why things happen the way they do in any war, let alone a dreadful, often stagnating one like WWI. The Dunning-Kruger effect is rampant in armchair historians who read a few articles and watched a few History Channel shows ten years ago and think knowing about the dumb parts makes them smarter than everyone who lived it and/or dedicated years of passionate, professional research to it.
There's something very appealing to most people about the idea that all this was down to foolish generals who mindlessly threw men into machine gun fire. It's an easy explanation with a convenient set of scapegoats. I listened to a lecture series recently that put forward an interesting argument suggesting that the way common soldiers came to characterize the war during its later years as this pointless waste led by cruel elites was partly a way of obscuring the general desire for war that pervaded across social classes in 1914. People really underestimate just how much entire countries were behind the conflict at first.
I really hope there are more depiction of the Eastern Front in WWI. We always get stuck with the idea of Trench warfare for WWI but that is the exception not the norm for the war, where in other fronts of the war both calvary and huge troop movement still exists.
Trench warfare was the norm on the Western Front.
All the other fronts of the Great War are drastically underrepresented, just as WW1 itself is drastically underrepresented. I would kill for a good movie about the mountain fighting between Italians and Austrians, or about the East African theater. Very few people even among history buff circles can even name a battle on the Eastern Front.
I think its a bit unfair to pick that scene from 1917. The introduction scene of the front line is perhaps the best war scene I ve ever seen. From the tension, to the historical accuracy to the music...simply outstanding!
Ja
Its fascinating how World War 1 is finally getting the attention it truly deserves, For the longest time historians, writers and movie makers pretty much forgot the Great War and focused on the Second World War, We need to remember that World War One laid the foundations for the war that came after it and indeed were it not for it the Second World War would not have happened.
I agree!
We need more WW1 movies just so we get another video with this man
I honestly loved that you water-labeled the academic book materials that have been used as sources. Well done.
Schofield went over the parapet because it was a shortcut rather than just following the trench line, particularly along the parados. He needed to reach Colonel Mackenzie ASAP and the fastest way to do that was to cut across the ground in front of the trench line. I thought they established this moments prior to the scene.
He also missed that the back was steeper and more straight up. As in trying to struggle up the back part that as he admitted was taller.
Love when historians point out details most of us wouldn't catch
Seeing the historians rate these movies and talk about how it really was is so interesting. I can’t get enough of these videos lol. I hated history in school but I find it so fascinating now. There’s a book called The Face Maker about a surgeon that reconstructed the faces of injured wwI troops that’s really really interesting. The things these men went through is horrific.
That's always good to hear from people
Paths of Glory is an excellent movie. Every now and again I catch it on TCM
Head fatalities went down, but injuries actually increased when helmets were adopted. What would have killed them was reduced to an injury by the helmet.
Isn't that called survivor bias. Like when WW2 planes returned with bullet holes in the structure so they thought they should armor the structure but found out the ones that were shot in the engines didn't come back. So there was a bias
An injury means the soldier may still come back to the lines after a recovery; a fatality means the soldier is never coming back.
@@logank444 It's different : we're comparing the actual casualities here, which was the opposite problem with the "bullet bias" as we're talking about what killed soldiers in the first place, not the injuries of thoses who could be treated after a battle. It was a fact that many losses happened because of a shrapnels hitting the head of soldiers who had just a cap at the very begining of the war. It's also one of the reasons why russian casualities were high as the Tsar forbid the use of steel helmets as caps made men look more "manly".
@@comraderowen2434 lmao russians and having ridiculous casualty rate because being smart is gay or something, name a better duo. Bakhmut has several towns worth of russian soldiers fertilizing it. And they just charge over the corpses. Killing fields.
@@nm7358 bingo…concussed or cut is better than blown apart.
1:30 The backbone of the German blitzkrieg in WWII was horse based cavalry.
Would love to see him look at some Canadian WWI movies, Passchendaele and Vimy Ridge for examples
‘Paths Of Glory’ is a fantastic and overlooked early Kubrick film. Highly recommended…
You can feel the passion this guy still has for this historical period.
I could listen to this nice gentleman teach me about WW1 all day
I read one of Watson's books-- 'Enduring the Great War'-- which is excellent. One of the best books about military morale / basic soldier psychology I could find, along with 'The Life of Johnny Reb' and 'The Life of Billy Yank' by Bell Wiley.
Just get this dude to talk about all war scenes, no need to rate stuff even. Just so interesting to listen
As an Australian I'd be interested to see him take a look at Gallipoli (2015) a miniseries created and filmed in Australia.
Another would be The Lighthorsemen
Or the original movie which is simply phenomenal
As an Australian - the 2015 mini series was utter garbage. Go watch the 1980's series the Anzacs. While it has a couple of issues its 100% better than that garbage dished up in 2015 for the Centenary. Even the 1980 Gallipoli Movie is a lot better, and it has some major flaws that still haunt Australian Military History discussions to this day ...
- 00:30 3/10 "War Horse" (2011)
- 02:51 8/10 "Paths of Glory" (1957)
- 05:29 4/10 "1917" (2019)
- 09:36 10/10 "Blizzard of Souls" (2019)
- 13:38 2/10 "Admiral" (2008)
What I want to see is the full clip of everything he said. Pure gold. You folks cut too much out.
7:25 There is a very simple reason why he doesnt climb over the Parados- It is a near vertical wall topped with soft, loose chalk. Climbing that would be virtually impossible unaided.
Couldn't he climb over it from a communication trench? Just spitballing.
I was in Riga last month…Latvians are tough tough people. Their history is stained with so much blood of fallen brothers (often fighting themselves due to imperial occupation.) The Latvian Riflemen have an enormous monument dedicated to them in the old town.
This applies to the whole Bloodlands spanning the Baltics, East Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine.
Lmfao
I LOVE this guy!! Im so glad you brought him back!! Please bring him on more! And please have him talk about kings man!
After seeing the poor representation of cavalry in ‘War horse’ I would like to see him react to ‘The Lighthorsemen’ (1987). Which is about one of Australias lesser know (globally) but successful battles during WW1. Where the Australian light horse unit was involved in Sinai and Palestine Campaign's 1917 Battle of Beersheeba.
Turns out that the best one is still a 1957 movie. Thank you Stanley!❤
You should show him "Joyeux Noël" I'm sure he can give us some advice on that 😊
With bulletproof clocks, of course !
My favorite guy on the channel. If you bring him back, can you guys do All Quiet On The Western Fronts 1930 and 1973 version?
I miss the ditch-guy, I think he would like WWI
The "ditch guy"
I loved the big offensive in the second example, because it wasn't just a wave of men sprinting across no-man's land. They were moving carefully and trying to maintain a semblance of order. Weird that an older film does this so much better.
You should do Dancer rates clips from movies/tv shows! As a dancer, I find it interesting to watch how Hollywood (and other) portrays certain stereotypes and ideas of what dance is and what dancers do - some of it is correct, some of it is incorrect, and some of it is wayyyyyy incorrect. Just an idea! 😊
Side note from a french guy.
I used to be a volunteer firefighter during the 90's.
We were still wearing this Adrian helmet, nickeled models ones , for commemorations and ceremonies. November the 11th and so.
A real pain at making it shining like brand new.
You mean to tell me that a movie made by Disney got the history and facts wrong? I'm shocked! Well, not that shocked.
I do love the subject-matter expert series! This is a great example - thank you!
5:35 it’s incredible to see what attention to detail he has, noticing so much as an officer checking a watch
In 1917 I'm not sure I understand why he left the trench at all, considering he seems to be running parallel to it the whole time. One other thing about that movie is the intro clip, where their rear camp is pristine countryside, but no man's land is only about 100m away.
Also I'd disagree that a single 8in shell from the German cruiser would cripple the Russian destroyer. In WW2 we saw multiple times destroyers being hit by 5, 6, 8, and even 14in shells and continue fighting.
Because he needs to get to the commanding officer to stop the attack. The plot of the movie is the battalion that we see in this clip is walking into a trap, but they don't know it. He leaves the trench because there are too many soldiers in the way of his end goal, the command tent, and he needs to attack to end as soon as possible. I assume he goes the way does because it's closer, and he's afraid the officers will try to stop him if he goes the other way.
Yes the trenches would have been cluttered but also zig-zag
it was a mistake though it wasn't meant to happen they can't redo the scene because too much money and its all in take. This was unfair take by this historian he should looked at something else
this not all CGI its 1 mile set SOOO unfair to pick on 1917. Also the camp were outside trenches lot in WW1 even near no man lands since its protected
As a viewer it is so much more entertaining to see someone struggle to get over ice than 6 machine guns shooting epic horses