To be fair, a lot it glossed over. It's never really clear (from memory) why the two beheadings are significant or why they were behind the Southampton Plot. It just skips to "beheadings" to progress the overall plot of the film and it always left me a little confused.
They skipped the entire battle of Shrewsbury and replaced it with a single duel. The duel was quite good, and I love the actor who played Henry Hotspur but it was one of those many moments in historical movies where the truth would have been more interesting than fiction.
As someone whose address is Upper Battlefield Shrewsbury, I can say, the landscape looks very realistic, I couldn't swear for certain that it wasn't filmed on my neighbours farm.
Blew my mind what Catherine did. As soon as you said she married a Welsh commoner I knew you were gonna say Tudor. I’m currently working my way through the biographies of the monarchs of England & the UK, up to Edward III. I love history and loving this channel.
The only thing I take issue with is the thing I always take issue with: the description of Owain ap Tudwr as a commoner. You hear him called a servant, a butler, a nobody. He was Catherine's steward. Royalty always had nobility as their stewards. Owain was a top member of old Welsh nobility, a cousin of Owain Glyndwr with a strong claim after that family's death to the native princedom of Wales. He wasn't a commoner. People want to make it sound like Catherine ran off with a kitchen boy.
@@cyclofeedubox8332 Oh of course, but the movie itself, which is Shakespeare's story, says not one word about Owain Tudor. It's the historians "interesting sidenote" description of him I object to. That has nothing to do with Shakespeare.
I understand the film did not adhere to history but it was a terrific movie. It spurred my interest in Henry IV and Henry V (I’m an American). Thanks for your analysis.
@@VolcanoGroupie Ignore him, he only joined YT back in April last year, so he is probably just another one of those objectionable trolls! I would heartily recommend reading, "Agincourt: The King, the Campaign, the Battle", by Juliet Barker; ISBN 139780349119182; ISBN 10034911918X; Sku GOR001355669. 😉👍
That’s what I love about historical fiction, whether it’s a movie or TV or books - if you go into it carrying a grain of salt, knowing there will absolutely be inaccuracies, they really do spur an interest in the real thing. Something about dramatizing and humanizing it. It makes you want to learn more about the real history - and from there it becomes even more interesting to loop back around, see how many different historical fiction representations interpret the same people or events in different ways.
I remember seeing this movie when It came out and thinking "Hotspur was very well played, hopefully we get to see more of that Guy." Wasn't dissapointed.
I think you’re missing on the John Falstaff death scene. It seems as though Henry is losing the only person he trusted. He’s losing a part of his life that he can never go back to. He asked his friend to join a cause, even though John didn’t necessarily want to.
This was very enjoyable. I liked hearing your breakdown of the actual history. I'm constantly wishing that we could get more media that focus on this time period that *isn't* just another Shakespeare adaptation. I'd like to see someone take a stab at being actually historically accurate! I think the one point that my thoughts diverged significantly from yours was about Henry's speech before the battle of Agincourt. I think it not being particularly rousing, especially compared to Shakespeare's St. Crispin Day speech, is very much the point. This movie is very anti-war, and I think the intention throughout was to undercut what Shakespeare originally presented as glorious or glamorous acts of arms and show all of the violence as futile and vainglorious. So instead of a rousing speech that stirs our hearts we get one that's sort of awkward and depressing. I think it fits the tone and message of the movie very well.
That’d be awesome, but we don’t need to keep comparing it to Braveheart like we’ve got something to prove. I’d say Braveheart is actually more entertaining, which is fine because it’s a fairy tale. It’s shot very realistically, but it’s really just a fairy tale for adults. I don’t think it ought to be held to the same standards as Outlaw King, because they’re just two different types of films. It’s not like apples to apples. I personally love both.
@@Liam_Mellon yeah Braveheart is more or less based on an folktale version of the history written well after the events and we can look at it like that. Having said that still inexcusable to not have a bridge at the battle of stirling bridge imo
32:55 Even though Henry V was King in England, he also was a vassal of the King of France as Duke of Aquitaine. While the French Kings had renounced since Edward III to request the hommage lige to the English King, the latter had to give the French King the hommage simple for their domains in Aquitaine. So the Dauphin being seated in front of him would make perfect sense because even at war, Henry remains a vassal of the French crown on French soil and it is a deliberate slight to the so-called superiority of his crown of England.
Well that's kind of how the 100 years war happened isn't it. The English and French kings could always feel more important than each other, at the same time.
@@robert-surcoufWilliam the conqueror is Norman and was more French than anyone. Hell he was more interested in Frenchifying England and making castles. Not his fault his descendants later decided to go back to France in a big way and re-enact the Viking age, but this time on horses instead of boats and bows instead of axes.
@@magniwalterbutnotwaltermag1479 As long as the kings of england were also dukes in France, there will always be some feud there, especially with the kings of france just like when the normans or the plantagenets were only dukes before the conquest. Unlike England, France in middle ages just like the holy roman empire was feudalism at his peak with a kingdom or an empire very decentralized and some vassals stronger than the king himself. In France especially, the king's power weakened quickly after the Verdun in 843 while the nobility's power grow stronger, which was helped by the short reigns of many carolingians monarchs after Charles 2's death in 877 (11 monarchs from 3 different houses ruled between 877 and 987). When the carolingians dynasty finally ended, the capetians took the throne but even if they controlled the kingdom in theory, their power only applied in the royal domain (basically Paris and the neighbourhood) until the late 12th century. That means for roughly 300 years (between 900 and 1200), the dukes of Normandy or the counts of Anjou always had a conflictual relationship with the carolingians and the capetians rather than a genuine relationship between a liege and his vassal. The fall of the plantagenet empire didn't end the conflict as the kings of england kept their title of duke of Aquitaine/Guyenne until the 100YW finally happened and the loss of all their duchies/counties in France for the kings of england besides Calais which forced the kings of england to finally focus more on England rather than France.
Apparently Princess Catherine said she couldn't eat in Henry's presence because the sight of him made her sick... not sure if it was the gross facial scar or the whole taking over her country thing...
Given some of the possibilities that his arrow wound to the face might have created, like basically losing half his face, and effectively being just a partly bare jawbones chewing away, it was likely just that it was revolting watching him eat. The taking over her country thing? He wasn't really a foreigner, the English royal family was a branch on the same tree as the French royal family. Henry likely spoke French more than English even at home, and he certainly considered himself as French. England was the lesser kingdom of the two, just ask Richard lionhearted...
Thank you for this! I like that Lewis acknowledges the historian inaccuracies without being like 'this movie sucks'. I do find it odd that even though they based the film on the play, they ended up deviating from it so much. I enjoyed the film but my specialty is indigenous history in the americas, so it was really nice to hear the opinion of a historian whose actually specialized in this.
Excellent critique of the film. I particularly like your detailed commentary and think King Henry should have used the Bard's speech on the eve of battle. I enjoyed every minute of this presentation.
@@thecenter3642 I am actually (for one) being serious here. I am certail there will come a time, when the exact details of ww1 and ww2 will start to be confused by audiences and producers alike. It will start with details. Wrong helmets or wrong guns perhaps. And nobody apart from a few nerds will notice. Compare: if a french regiment at waterloo is shown with peninsular greatcoats instead of the proper 100days gear, will anybody notice today? And it's only 200 years...
Its armour is more historically authentic. Some pieces are out of place but that is a bag stretch of time you just pointed out. Here the lay person won't even notice and many historians don't. And it's much easier to excuse the older bits of gear present too.
I knew watching this that it wasn't historically accurate, but I still enjoyed it. Thank you for all the background and insight. One thing i found ironic about this movie is that Henry V is played by Timotheé Chalamet, who is part French and can speak the language, while the Dauphin is played by English actor Robert Pattison.
In fairness Shakespeare was writing some 170 years later than the reign of Henry V, so verbal history, stories passed down by word of mouth could realistically have been around for Shakespear to pick up on and build the character of Prince Hal - I'm not saying thats what happened but it's possible the Prince Hal was part of the story of Henry V, don't you think?
While it was likely that there was an oral tradition of passing on tales of Agincourt, Shakespeare mainly used the chronicles of Raphael Holinshed and Edward Hall. Sometimes lifting the text verbatim in small chunks. However, these histories were never primarily concerned with accuracy so much as passing on moral lessons for future generations. Also, while historical accuracy in cinema is important to some extent: Henry pulling up to the battle in a Range Rover breaks the forth wall. Having a knight fight with his visor up does not. Ultimately, cinema is about entertainment and taking the viewer on an emotional journey, and on this score I think the film does very well.
I love this movie - being an adaptation of Shakespeare rather than claiming to be a historical film (it gets a bit muddy there, but still) means I can forgive its inaccuracies. It’s just masterfully done IMO. This and Outlaw King are a fun double-feature for a medieval romp night.
What frustrates me about this film is that it's almost as if someone wanted to make a movie about Henry V but didn't like his character so they changed it to suit what they wanted.
Whilst the speech may not be quite on a par with the words Shakespeare put into Henry’s mouth, the way in which this young actor conveys the message is outstanding. I love how this film gives a more realistic sense of medieval royalty overall too, a stark contrast to the almost comically “evil” depiction of English monarchy in say, Braveheart. There is far more nuance, far more danger, far more uncertainty etc
The King is a fantastic film that I keep going back to again and again. I know that sounds really cliché, but it's the absolute truth. I love films set in historical time periods - can never have enough of those.
yea its not an "historical" film in the sense of respecting history but more a medieval drama based on Shakepeare. And is the best thing i ever watch on netflix and probably it will remain being it for as long as netflix exist xd
@@DarthPepis in the entertainment industry, when you shoot a period film with period costumes, period locations, period music, Makeup, it's considered an "historical film."
@@Amoranda1066 ya, ya, i was just pointing the irony of calling "historical film" this things that play tetris with historical facts. How you would call a film based in ancient Rome that show Rome exactly as it was well ofc we will call it "historical film" So, its the same thing this acurate film and Braveheart? well, ofc not. But we dont have the acurate ones cuz hollywood thinks that people wouldn't pay to watch it and can only be entertained by "play tetris with history" films But we would call both things the same if we had both things and people would be literate enougth to differenciate one from another?
@@DarthPepis Yup. We have historical films and historical documentaries. Would be great if people understood the difference. :) I do love them both, though.
I enjoyed this movie more than I thought I would. Like most historical dramas, it's not 100% accurate but it tells a good and grounded story all the same
I’m from the US but love learning about all things in the Viking, Medieval & Tudor time periods. Until u explained @ the end about how Catherine de Valois marries Owen Tudor, I never quite put the pieces together for where King Henry VII fit in. Most of the documentaries I’ve seen say King Henry VII was only “loosely” related to be a true heir in order to discredit his rein. For someone like myself not having learned the history of England in school, it can get a bit confusing @ times. Thank u so much for explaining it as u did. It makes complete sense now.
It's surprising how confusing it gets.But the fact that Henry Tudor's grandmother was the former Queen Catherine was prestigious but not relevant to his claim to the throne as she had no right to the throne herself. Henry's mother, Margaret Beaufort was the last heir of the Dukes of Beaufort, descended from the 4th son of Edward III (John of Gaunt) as were Henry V and Henry VI. His royal claim was not as strong as the Yorkist line, which was descended from the 5th son of Edward III in the male line but also in the (only surviving) female line of the 2nd son of Edward III. This was the main reason why Henry marrried the princess Elizabeth of York after he got the throne. She was the senior heir to the throne as her brothers and their children were dead and she was the eldest daughter of Edward IV, who had had the best overall claim. Thanks to those connections, nobody ever disputed the Tudors as monarchs.
Glad someone else noticed this. Cannons were extensively used at Harfleur. Seems like even expert historians forget that there was a huge overlap between the age of longbows and the age of gunpowder. And it blows my mind that small guns, mortars and cannons had already been deployed at Crecy almost 70 years earlier!
Thank you! Great video and just what I needed actually! I'm currently listening to a podcast that delves into the 100 years war and Henry's invasion of France so the timing couldn't be better. I was even watching clips of this movie last week haha.
this movie caused quite a outcry when it came out in france cause it really pull every string possible to do french bashing and reinvent history in favor of the english, glad to finally see a english speaking channel calling out the rewritting of history. its certainly very pretty but got almost nothing of historical about it.
@@charlesparr1611 so it’s the play but not really cause they changed it… right, so it’s not the play then isn’t it, and if it was the case why did they market it as a “historical movie” ? In that case they still reinvent history, in the same matter that Ridley Scott make a movie about Napoleon and make up so many stuff so obviously false to sell his movie. It’s fine to take freedom with history but don’t brand it “historical movie”.
@@charlesparr1611 i did, thats the section the movie was on netflix when the movies was distribute, it was clearly marketed as a close as possible to history, netflix put out video clearly selling it as such look for yourself and you will see.
@@charlesparr1611 i did, thats the section the movie was marketed on netflix when the movies was distribute, it was clearly marketed as a close as possible to history, netflix put out video clearly selling it as such look for yourself and you will see. lot of production are very close to history accurate, it can be done, there is plenty of very historical accurate movie because hollywood are constantly making garbage pseudo historical piece doesnt mean they shouldnt be called out, they did the same recently with cleopatra being black in a netflix production and egyptian were really upset understandably so. if you took churchill and made a garbage film about it you would have the right to called them up.thats the thing when you take on such historical event or icon such as napoleon or cleopatra, because they are important people from a different culture you have to respect them a minimum. anyway if you happy watching your hollywood-pseudo historical fiction good on you, i really couldnt care less mate. go enjoy the last ridley scott they put shark in the colliseum im sure you will enjoy that lol.
The armors in this movie are not good. They're acceptable because the average viewers wouldn't know anything about it, but looking at the various styles and the extras in the background you can notice either non existent armor designs or armor/protector designs from different centuries all mixed together. Not to mention that chainmail is visibly not sized correctly to the actors.
Indeed. Take a look at 10:58. Pieces of metal and mail lumped together. Nothing fits. Especially the big gap under the chin looks ridiculous. And that's supposed to be the armour of a king?
@@evanhughes7609 I did. If you wear a hanging piece of mail shirt, it defeats the purpose of having it and it's more uncomfortable if it hangs too much. Obviously it doesn't stretch so it can't be too tight fitting but it's not as loose as you see in movies, including this one
Matt, this was much more entertaining than the movie! It´s funny that Henry is always so handsome in movies while he had to be quite ugly, half of his face almost not being there. And surely Henry was very muscular, training to fight since his childhood. He was bloodthirsty individual and useless king. Shakespeare made villain a hero and hero a villain (you know who i'm talking about 😉).
What's also funny is that Chalamet was closer to Louis's age (24 vs 18) while Pattinson was closer to Henry's age (33 vs 29). Basically, they could switch Chalamet and Pattinson's role and both characters will be far more accurate.
@@robert-surcouf yep. Seeing Patterson play the role was funny. At least Lily Rose Depp is half-French. He played a creepy role in Devil all the time that same year.
Interesting analysis. I didn't see the movie but when I started to watch this breakdown and it started with Henry Hotspur Percy I got really invested. Going through genealogy there's a tie back in my family tree to him so I really got interested from the start. Thanks for this breakdown!
Also id love to see a series on the plantagenets....all the mystery and mysticism at the beginning of that line is truly interesting in my humble opinion
I really enjoy your historical analysis and the comparison between films and reality. It isn't necessary to include strange, silly sarcasm in order to make things interesting.
I appreciate your comments on this film. Though I liked the look of the film, a lot of it pissed me off. It would have been so much more interesting if it had been more historically accurate - a missed opportunity. I didn’t like that Henry is portrayed as a sort of peace-loving flower child, when he most certainly wasn’t. Too much of the film was a lie in one way or other.
Very good breakdown. Personally I get goosebumps every time Henry gives his final speech before the battle. It's a movie I must have seen over 10 times and have recommended to anyone who wants and doesnt want to hear it :) I like this film that much.
10:35 “The Catholic Church taught it was a sin to spill other Christian’s blood”…. Unless it’s a big battle where lots of people die, then it’s fine, but 1 on 1. Well that’s a sin.
Great video but couldn’t disagree more when it comes to the part about the speech being lackluster. That speech gave me chills when I watched it the first time. 37:20
Thankyou for this. I've always thought Henry was more like his father. Accounts of his manner depict him as austere, driven, with a high morals. love this film Henry does show emotion many times in the film before Falstaff's death.
the last bit of Matt telling us about Catherine and Owen Tudor is completely blowing my mind rn. So you're telling me that the Tudor dynasty in England was started by a French princess and a Welshman? No tabloid news or reality tv is as fascinating as history
You didn't know that😅. That's probably bc no-one wants to hear about the real influence of bedchamber diplomacy. She effectively ended the Plantagenet dynasty through the backdoor first by bringing her father's madness into the line and then by her sneaky marriage policy. Bosworth was the end, but in H V marriage to the daughter of Charles le Fou the downfall began
I've been listening to the Gone Medieval podcast for about a year and a half and I've listened to every episode up until February 23, 2023 and I've never seen what Matt Lewis looked like until now. I assumed he was a bit older.
Fun fact Thomas brother of Henry the V was killed at the battle of Bauge and when killed a distant kinsman of mine who struck the lethal blow, Sir Maurice Buchanan, lifted the ducal crown in the air as a trophy and ever since that day that has been the symbol of my clan, clan Buchanan’s battle prowess
Interesting, his brother John the Duke of Bedford repaid the death of Thomas later in the battle of Vernuil where sir Maurice Buchanan was killed in battle fighting the english. Almost poetic.
Crazy to hear the original origin story of the Tudors involving the widowed queen, I knew the Tudors came from lower nobility, if any at all, but I had no idea the other bit.
Matt Lewis, splendid job. Having a MA in Medieval History, I a,m really happy to see an accurate exposition of reality vs Hollywood's attempt to play to drama, in an effort to create a movie drama, at the cost of fact and reality and known history.
For me, the value of films like this is that they get me curious to dig deeper into a subject. Sometimes I am disappointed to find out how wrong the film is and other times I'm motivated to take an even deeper look. If it still stands up as a piece of art...inaccuracies not withstanding...win win.😊
My biggest gripe with the movie is the lack of focus on the archers and cavalry and more focus on brutal melee combat. The whole battle was only a few minutes as in typical Hollywood fashion. As someone who has been studying reinactment and historical armour and combat, I will say that the armour that they used in this film is much better than most medieval movies. Thankfully there is finally no leather armour. Or not much of it. No lamellar armour like in Braveheart for mounted knights. Nor the jousting lances. I do love that they wore helmets in combat. Hollywood normally hates it when the main characters cover their faces.
Very nice work. Though I wont see the film it was fascinating to hear you go through the actual history in comparison. I notice in the photographic framing of Hal's return to England to confront the conspiritor that the silhouette of his face mirrors that of the original portrait. So there are some nods to real history.
The reality of the coronation gift of a tennis ball (or in some versions crate of tennis balls) aside, it was always an interesting detail to me, because you could take it either way: is it a calculated insult about his age or a reminder of a time he was beaten, or is it like when Walter White got his billionaire friend who has everything a packet of ramen as a nostalgic reminder of a simpler, friendlier time?
I thought turning around the “Southampton Plot” to a French assassination was really cool, another great video, oh and btw you got it right as far as I can tell Thanks Matthew
Given the latent civil war between the Orléans-Armagnac faction and the Duke of Burgundy at the time in France for the control of mad Charles VI and his council, the last thing Charles VI or his regency council wanted was to provoke a war with England. So the idea that France would have a plot to assassinate Henry V is a ridiculous idea, and Henry would know that because as Duke of Aquitaine, his seneschals would keep him abreast of everything happening inside the Kingdom.
I really enjoyed the movie and thank you for your expertise analysing it. I've followed your work for a while now and I really enjoyed hearing your take on the movie. The one thing I've never been able to stomach, is Shakespeare and his distortion of historical facts and people taking it as gospel. It makes me really angry and I know my view on Shakespeare is highly controversial but it's my opinion! I saw in another persons comment that they'd like you to do an analysis on the film Outlaw King, I'd like to second that please! 😊
It's very interesting to find out what's historically incorrect about this movie, although I haven't seen it. I'm learning a lot about the history of Henry IV and Vth from this ! Thank you Matt Lewis!!
Yeah the Battle of Agincourt in this movie agitated me; the archers were in the woodlines perpendicular to the field and Henry V was right front and center to taunt the French. The French Infantry was ignored by their own commanders- who insisted on charging headlong at Henry and getting torn to shreds by the archers before they reached the English Infantry. 🤦♂️
I was waiting for you to mention the artillery choice. I understand that in this time period cannons were just starting to be used, but it wasn’t chosen for the film because it would look out of place. But that technology existed.
I'm new to that channel and I don't know if Mr. Lewis told us in the video so don't shatter my question please. My question is about the battle of agincourt, especially the colors of the knight's plate armour, and the picture that is shown at 40:45. How could anyone of the france cavalry (when they left their horses) and the english knights know who to fight, after the mudy and bloody melee started? Is it just for the sake of tension to show two rampaging groups of knights in thick grey plate armor without any precaution to recognize friend from foe? The picture at 40:45 clearly displays different plate armor colors. Or this just made up by the artist who painted the picture? So which depiction is actually accurate? Cheers
The French and English nights would all have worn heraldic garments over their armour, called Jupons, or surcoats, basically tunics but not a uniform. A knight would wear their own heraldry, men at arms might wear the colours of their lord, or a 'badge' which was a symbol of the their commander, but yes, before uniforms became a thing, it was an issue.. That said, it was still hard to tell enemy from friend, which is why commanders worked very hard to keep such dog piles from happening. In the actual battle of agincouurt, the English didn't really engage, they let the French get 'stuck' and then poked and shot them from ten feet away.
I thought the pre battle speech was good and fit well with the younger, more hot headed Henry V in the movie. The Shakespeare speech is still a better speech and would probably work better to motivate a medieval soldier. The points about “Make it England!” feels a bit like a modern form of nationalism that English soldiers probably wouldn’t care about.
Thanks for a solid historical analysis of the film. I only add the typical Hollywood imposition of English dialogue, this time between Henry and Charles VI (the one with the Dauphin being fake to begin with). English kings, and the English court, were French-speaking right up to the Tudors, so the conversation would have been in French.
Really wish they would have included his injury and recovery. Kind of iconic. Looks like they included a tiny scar, but never explain it.
To be fair, a lot it glossed over. It's never really clear (from memory) why the two beheadings are significant or why they were behind the Southampton Plot. It just skips to "beheadings" to progress the overall plot of the film and it always left me a little confused.
Honestly it’d make him look like a tough fucker. Dude fought and won with an arrow in his face
They skipped the entire battle of Shrewsbury and replaced it with a single duel. The duel was quite good, and I love the actor who played Henry Hotspur but it was one of those many moments in historical movies where the truth would have been more interesting than fiction.
I know why wouldn’t they?
As someone whose address is Upper Battlefield Shrewsbury, I can say, the landscape looks very realistic, I couldn't swear for certain that it wasn't filmed on my neighbours farm.
Just up the road from me in Nantwich
Usually go watch the battle of Shrewsbury reenactment brilliant to watch
That is so majestic wowee
Blew my mind what Catherine did. As soon as you said she married a Welsh commoner I knew you were gonna say Tudor. I’m currently working my way through the biographies of the monarchs of England & the UK, up to Edward III. I love history and loving this channel.
The new biography about Henry V by Dan Jones is worth reading. It was published recently. I believe after this video was posted.
She really revenged her father😂 Brought the madness into the line and finally ended it through her second marriage😉
The only thing I take issue with is the thing I always take issue with: the description of Owain ap Tudwr as a commoner. You hear him called a servant, a butler, a nobody. He was Catherine's steward. Royalty always had nobility as their stewards. Owain was a top member of old Welsh nobility, a cousin of Owain Glyndwr with a strong claim after that family's death to the native princedom of Wales. He wasn't a commoner. People want to make it sound like Catherine ran off with a kitchen boy.
Whilst true, this isn’t history but a Shakespearean play and the belittling of Owain from Henry’s point of view makes sense tbf
@@cyclofeedubox8332 Oh of course, but the movie itself, which is Shakespeare's story, says not one word about Owain Tudor. It's the historians "interesting sidenote" description of him I object to. That has nothing to do with Shakespeare.
These videos have become an addiction
I understand the film did not adhere to history but it was a terrific movie. It spurred my interest in Henry IV and Henry V (I’m an American). Thanks for your analysis.
average American comment mixed with a hearty dose of typical millenial cringe 😭😭😭
@@latteyujin wow, what a lovely comment. I’m 66 years old 😂
@@latteyujin Wow! How rude! 😡
@@VolcanoGroupie Ignore him, he only joined YT back in April last year, so he is probably just another one of those objectionable trolls!
I would heartily recommend reading, "Agincourt: The King, the Campaign, the Battle", by Juliet Barker; ISBN 139780349119182; ISBN 10034911918X; Sku GOR001355669. 😉👍
That’s what I love about historical fiction, whether it’s a movie or TV or books - if you go into it carrying a grain of salt, knowing there will absolutely be inaccuracies, they really do spur an interest in the real thing. Something about dramatizing and humanizing it. It makes you want to learn more about the real history - and from there it becomes even more interesting to loop back around, see how many different historical fiction representations interpret the same people or events in different ways.
How stereotypical French can you make the Dauphin?
Pattinson: Yes.
I didn't realise it was him. He was so "beautiful"😂. Much more handsome than he should have been as the vampire😅
How insultingly offensive can you make the French Dauphin and the French in general?
Hollywood : yes.
(fixed it for you 😉)
@@hule1152 He was french so of course he was handsome.
I just realized Thomas is Tommen Baratheon from GOT and Hotspur is King Aegon from HOTD. 😂
Ok! I thought that was Tommen, but the darker hair threw me!
YO!! Right you are.
Yeah, and Ben Mendelsohn did a stellar job in his role, but you could edit in Paddy Considine's later scenes as a replacement pretty seamlessly.
I remember seeing this movie when It came out and thinking "Hotspur was very well played, hopefully we get to see more of that Guy."
Wasn't dissapointed.
Henry Percy is also played by Aegon from the house of the dragon
I think you’re missing on the John Falstaff death scene. It seems as though Henry is losing the only person he trusted. He’s losing a part of his life that he can never go back to. He asked his friend to join a cause, even though John didn’t necessarily want to.
I knew it wasn't historically correct but it looked great and was a fun watch.
We are glad you are easily amused.
@@ccptube3468🤡
I live for these movies and despite trying 2x I couldn’t finish this flick. It was just so bland to me… idk
@@ccptube3468miserable
@@ccptube3468 We are glad you are so quick to show your bitterness.
This was very enjoyable. I liked hearing your breakdown of the actual history. I'm constantly wishing that we could get more media that focus on this time period that *isn't* just another Shakespeare adaptation. I'd like to see someone take a stab at being actually historically accurate! I think the one point that my thoughts diverged significantly from yours was about Henry's speech before the battle of Agincourt. I think it not being particularly rousing, especially compared to Shakespeare's St. Crispin Day speech, is very much the point. This movie is very anti-war, and I think the intention throughout was to undercut what Shakespeare originally presented as glorious or glamorous acts of arms and show all of the violence as futile and vainglorious. So instead of a rousing speech that stirs our hearts we get one that's sort of awkward and depressing. I think it fits the tone and message of the movie very well.
Was lucky enough to meet matt at one of his Richard 3rd talks, an absolute gem in the medieval historical community
I love that movie, despite the inaccuracies its such a good example of how to make a movie. Also that soundtrack is so on point
Matt should break down Outlaw King. The better Braveheart
That’d be awesome, but we don’t need to keep comparing it to Braveheart like we’ve got something to prove. I’d say Braveheart is actually more entertaining, which is fine because it’s a fairy tale. It’s shot very realistically, but it’s really just a fairy tale for adults. I don’t think it ought to be held to the same standards as Outlaw King, because they’re just two different types of films. It’s not like apples to apples. I personally love both.
@@Liam_Mellon
Agreed! I've Not Yet Seen Outlaw King.... I Agree With Your Points! Have A Wonderful Day!😊
History Buffs does a video on Outlaw King, its pretty good
@@Liam_Mellon yeah Braveheart is more or less based on an folktale version of the history written well after the events and we can look at it like that. Having said that still inexcusable to not have a bridge at the battle of stirling bridge imo
Well it’s actually what happens after Braveheart but I get the sentiment.
Thanks, Matthew! I try to see anything you do. You're the best.
32:55 Even though Henry V was King in England, he also was a vassal of the King of France as Duke of Aquitaine. While the French Kings had renounced since Edward III to request the hommage lige to the English King, the latter had to give the French King the hommage simple for their domains in Aquitaine. So the Dauphin being seated in front of him would make perfect sense because even at war, Henry remains a vassal of the French crown on French soil and it is a deliberate slight to the so-called superiority of his crown of England.
Well that's kind of how the 100 years war happened isn't it.
The English and French kings could always feel more important than each other, at the same time.
@@luckyspurs William 1 is the one to blame for bringing 400 years of conflict between two kingdoms which had peaceful relationship previously.
I’d never heard of various types of Homage, ie simple vs homage liege… super interesting
@@robert-surcoufWilliam the conqueror is Norman and was more French than anyone. Hell he was more interested in Frenchifying England and making castles.
Not his fault his descendants later decided to go back to France in a big way and re-enact the Viking age, but this time on horses instead of boats and bows instead of axes.
@@magniwalterbutnotwaltermag1479 As long as the kings of england were also dukes in France, there will always be some feud there, especially with the kings of france just like when the normans or the plantagenets were only dukes before the conquest.
Unlike England, France in middle ages just like the holy roman empire was feudalism at his peak with a kingdom or an empire very decentralized and some vassals stronger than the king himself.
In France especially, the king's power weakened quickly after the Verdun in 843 while the nobility's power grow stronger, which was helped by the short reigns of many carolingians monarchs after Charles 2's death in 877 (11 monarchs from 3 different houses ruled between 877 and 987).
When the carolingians dynasty finally ended, the capetians took the throne but even if they controlled the kingdom in theory, their power only applied in the royal domain (basically Paris and the neighbourhood) until the late 12th century.
That means for roughly 300 years (between 900 and 1200), the dukes of Normandy or the counts of Anjou always had a conflictual relationship with the carolingians and the capetians rather than a genuine relationship between a liege and his vassal.
The fall of the plantagenet empire didn't end the conflict as the kings of england kept their title of duke of Aquitaine/Guyenne until the 100YW finally happened and the loss of all their duchies/counties in France for the kings of england besides Calais which forced the kings of england to finally focus more on England rather than France.
The actor portraying Gascoigne has such a distinctive voice-I always know it’s him before I even see him!
I know him from The Borgias. In my head he is always Micheletto
This was really fantastic. It really cleared up a lot of questions I had as there are so many Henry’s!.
Apparently Princess Catherine said she couldn't eat in Henry's presence because the sight of him made her sick... not sure if it was the gross facial scar or the whole taking over her country thing...
Poor Catherine, I understand her.
Well, if she's anything like me, then it was probably because he chewed with his mouth opened.
Probably a mixture of both
Either way, sick burn to have etched into history
Given some of the possibilities that his arrow wound to the face might have created, like basically losing half his face, and effectively being just a partly bare jawbones chewing away, it was likely just that it was revolting watching him eat.
The taking over her country thing? He wasn't really a foreigner, the English royal family was a branch on the same tree as the French royal family. Henry likely spoke French more than English even at home, and he certainly considered himself as French. England was the lesser kingdom of the two, just ask Richard lionhearted...
this is quite eerie, as I was watching this movie earlier today and I was just thinking "what would Matt Lewis make of this?"
😂😂😂😂 I saw he came out with this and I couldn't wait to watch.
Thank you for this! I like that Lewis acknowledges the historian inaccuracies without being like 'this movie sucks'. I do find it odd that even though they based the film on the play, they ended up deviating from it so much. I enjoyed the film but my specialty is indigenous history in the americas, so it was really nice to hear the opinion of a historian whose actually specialized in this.
I actually really love this movie.
Excellent critique of the film. I particularly like your detailed commentary and think King Henry should have used the Bard's speech on the eve of battle. I enjoyed every minute of this presentation.
Whoever does the video chapters, I love you
The armour is all over the place historically. It's equivalent to a US Civil War movie with some soldiers dressed like WW2 GIs.
Which will happen in time.
@@Zemlod you guys are literally all talk. You won't do anything because you can't do anything.
@@thecenter3642 I am actually (for one) being serious here. I am certail there will come a time, when the exact details of ww1 and ww2 will start to be confused by audiences and producers alike. It will start with details. Wrong helmets or wrong guns perhaps. And nobody apart from a few nerds will notice. Compare: if a french regiment at waterloo is shown with peninsular greatcoats instead of the proper 100days gear, will anybody notice today? And it's only 200 years...
Its armour is more historically authentic. Some pieces are out of place but that is a bag stretch of time you just pointed out.
Here the lay person won't even notice and many historians don't. And it's much easier to excuse the older bits of gear present too.
The armors looks like cardboard.
Love these videos
I knew watching this that it wasn't historically accurate, but I still enjoyed it. Thank you for all the background and insight. One thing i found ironic about this movie is that Henry V is played by Timotheé Chalamet, who is part French and can speak the language, while the Dauphin is played by English actor Robert Pattison.
In fairness Shakespeare was writing some 170 years later than the reign of Henry V, so verbal history, stories passed down by word of mouth could realistically have been around for Shakespear to pick up on and build the character of Prince Hal - I'm not saying thats what happened but it's possible the Prince Hal was part of the story of Henry V, don't you think?
I agree!
Sure it's possible but a historian has to focus on the availible evidence.
@@vashsunglasses Real historians do, Hollywood film makers needn't bother apparently.
While it was likely that there was an oral tradition of passing on tales of Agincourt, Shakespeare mainly used the chronicles of Raphael Holinshed and Edward Hall. Sometimes lifting the text verbatim in small chunks. However, these histories were never primarily concerned with accuracy so much as passing on moral lessons for future generations.
Also, while historical accuracy in cinema is important to some extent: Henry pulling up to the battle in a Range Rover breaks the forth wall. Having a knight fight with his visor up does not. Ultimately, cinema is about entertainment and taking the viewer on an emotional journey, and on this score I think the film does very well.
don't forget old Will would have to be fully aware of current political scenarios as well
11:15 Unfortunately, visors down scenes are also based on filming convenience: they're used for combat scenes with obvious stunt doubles.
They also wouldn’t be down in closed quarters combat for the lack of the ability to see and breath
Great video as always
I really appreciate this approach of analyzing popular culture depictions of history to teach the actual history.
In my opinion, nothing could approach Kenneth Branagh's Henry V.
There's always Laurence Oliver's, he did it first and better imo.
Not even Thor 1?
I suggest you watch Laurence Oliviers version of Henry V
@@karlmeredith5134 I said exactly the same thing but my comment was taken down - weird!
Hiddlestons Henry was pretty bloody good
Loved this film...Chalamet did a good job. All the actors did.
For me the music was 50% of the movie greatness, really good movie indeed.
@@mahwardy6918 that's because it was Nicholas Britell (Sucession) who did the score
I love this movie - being an adaptation of Shakespeare rather than claiming to be a historical film (it gets a bit muddy there, but still) means I can forgive its inaccuracies. It’s just masterfully done IMO. This and Outlaw King are a fun double-feature for a medieval romp night.
What frustrates me about this film is that it's almost as if someone wanted to make a movie about Henry V but didn't like his character so they changed it to suit what they wanted.
Whilst the speech may not be quite on a par with the words Shakespeare put into Henry’s mouth, the way in which this young actor conveys the message is outstanding. I love how this film gives a more realistic sense of medieval royalty overall too, a stark contrast to the almost comically “evil” depiction of English monarchy in say, Braveheart. There is far more nuance, far more danger, far more uncertainty etc
The King is a fantastic film that I keep going back to again and again. I know that sounds really cliché, but it's the absolute truth. I love films set in historical time periods - can never have enough of those.
yea its not an "historical" film in the sense of respecting history but more a medieval drama based on Shakepeare.
And is the best thing i ever watch on netflix and probably it will remain being it for as long as netflix exist xd
@@DarthPepis in the entertainment industry, when you shoot a period film with period costumes, period locations, period music, Makeup, it's considered an "historical film."
@@Amoranda1066 ya, ya, i was just pointing the irony of calling "historical film" this things that play tetris with historical facts.
How you would call a film based in ancient Rome that show Rome exactly as it was
well ofc we will call it "historical film"
So, its the same thing this acurate film and Braveheart?
well, ofc not. But we dont have the acurate ones cuz hollywood thinks that people wouldn't pay to watch it and can only be entertained by "play tetris with history" films
But we would call both things the same if we had both things and people would be literate enougth to differenciate one from another?
@@DarthPepislol I like the Tetris analogy
@@DarthPepis Yup. We have historical films and historical documentaries. Would be great if people understood the difference. :) I do love them both, though.
I enjoyed this movie more than I thought I would. Like most historical dramas, it's not 100% accurate but it tells a good and grounded story all the same
I’m from the US but love learning about all things in the Viking, Medieval & Tudor time periods. Until u explained @ the end about how Catherine de Valois marries Owen Tudor, I never quite put the pieces together for where King Henry VII fit in. Most of the documentaries I’ve seen say King Henry VII was only “loosely” related to be a true heir in order to discredit his rein. For someone like myself not having learned the history of England in school, it can get a bit confusing @ times. Thank u so much for explaining it as u did. It makes complete sense now.
I remember having the same a-ha moment 😂 English royal lineage tree is a hot mess
@@SklLLLYNo doubt, especially Wars of the Roses & earlier 😂. But I still can’t get enough of it 😊.
It's surprising how confusing it gets.But the fact that Henry Tudor's grandmother was the former Queen Catherine was prestigious but not relevant to his claim to the throne as she had no right to the throne herself. Henry's mother, Margaret Beaufort was the last heir of the Dukes of Beaufort, descended from the 4th son of Edward III (John of Gaunt) as were Henry V and Henry VI. His royal claim was not as strong as the Yorkist line, which was descended from the 5th son of Edward III in the male line but also in the (only surviving) female line of the 2nd son of Edward III. This was the main reason why Henry marrried the princess Elizabeth of York after he got the throne. She was the senior heir to the throne as her brothers and their children were dead and she was the eldest daughter of Edward IV, who had had the best overall claim. Thanks to those connections, nobody ever disputed the Tudors as monarchs.
Same here! 😊
@@sarfcowstthank u so much for explaining!!! It makes sense😊
Loved this breakdown, Matt. Thank you!
This video was great! You guys should do one about the movie Outlaw King, would love to see that.
One thing missed by this historian is that cannon were used at Harfleur.
Glad someone else noticed this. Cannons were extensively used at Harfleur. Seems like even expert historians forget that there was a huge overlap between the age of longbows and the age of gunpowder. And it blows my mind that small guns, mortars and cannons had already been deployed at Crecy almost 70 years earlier!
Thank you! Great video and just what I needed actually! I'm currently listening to a podcast that delves into the 100 years war and Henry's invasion of France so the timing couldn't be better. I was even watching clips of this movie last week haha.
Which pod, any good?
@@SklLLLY The Rest Is History.
this movie caused quite a outcry when it came out in france cause it really pull every string possible to do french bashing and reinvent history in favor of the english, glad to finally see a english speaking channel calling out the rewritting of history. its certainly very pretty but got almost nothing of historical about it.
It's pretty obviously just the Shakespeare play, with the dialogue re-written. If that's gonna hurt French feelings, that's got to be on them.
@@charlesparr1611 so it’s the play but not really cause they changed it… right, so it’s not the play then isn’t it, and if it was the case why did they market it as a “historical movie” ? In that case they still reinvent history, in the same matter that Ridley Scott make a movie about Napoleon and make up so many stuff so obviously false to sell his movie. It’s fine to take freedom with history but don’t brand it “historical movie”.
@@raphaelperrin18 I never saw it marketed as a history lesson, mate, it's Hollywood, they tell stories.If you want history, look into documentaries.
@@charlesparr1611 i did, thats the section the movie was on netflix when the movies was distribute, it was clearly marketed as a close as possible to history, netflix put out video clearly selling it as such look for yourself and you will see.
@@charlesparr1611 i did, thats the section the movie was marketed on netflix when the movies was distribute, it was clearly marketed as a close as possible to history, netflix put out video clearly selling it as such look for yourself and you will see. lot of production are very close to history accurate, it can be done, there is plenty of very historical accurate movie because hollywood are constantly making garbage pseudo historical piece doesnt mean they shouldnt be called out, they did the same recently with cleopatra being black in a netflix production and egyptian were really upset understandably so. if you took churchill and made a garbage film about it you would have the right to called them up.thats the thing when you take on such historical event or icon such as napoleon or cleopatra, because they are important people from a different culture you have to respect them a minimum. anyway if you happy watching your hollywood-pseudo historical fiction good on you, i really couldnt care less mate. go enjoy the last ridley scott they put shark in the colliseum im sure you will enjoy that lol.
I was not aware that the Tudor line has come from that marriage. Talk about things going full circle.
Not sure the shape is a circle/that the usurper’s son’s widow is any kind of starting point lol🤔
Great video!
Even though this was historically inaccurate, as Hollywood often is, I loved this movie.
I hope you guys do the Outlaw King next.
The armors in this movie are not good. They're acceptable because the average viewers wouldn't know anything about it, but looking at the various styles and the extras in the background you can notice either non existent armor designs or armor/protector designs from different centuries all mixed together. Not to mention that chainmail is visibly not sized correctly to the actors.
Indeed. Take a look at 10:58. Pieces of metal and mail lumped together. Nothing fits. Especially the big gap under the chin looks ridiculous. And that's supposed to be the armour of a king?
Looks to me like Henry VIII era armor rather than the plate and chainmale worn in Medieval England. Monty Python got it right in Holy Grail 😂
Ever worn mail? It's not form-fitting. If it were, you wouldn't be able to fight!
@@evanhughes7609 I did. If you wear a hanging piece of mail shirt, it defeats the purpose of having it and it's more uncomfortable if it hangs too much.
Obviously it doesn't stretch so it can't be too tight fitting but it's not as loose as you see in movies, including this one
The armors looks like cardboard.
This was super interesting, I would love to see this guy in more videos!
Matt, this was much more entertaining than the movie! It´s funny that Henry is always so handsome in movies while he had to be quite ugly, half of his face almost not being there. And surely Henry was very muscular, training to fight since his childhood. He was bloodthirsty individual and useless king. Shakespeare made villain a hero and hero a villain (you know who i'm talking about 😉).
King Henry’s speech before the final battle might be one of my favorite monologues ever! Haha had to skip him laughing at it
I think it was funny the French-American actor played the English king and the English actor played the French Prince.
What's also funny is that Chalamet was closer to Louis's age (24 vs 18) while Pattinson was closer to Henry's age (33 vs 29).
Basically, they could switch Chalamet and Pattinson's role and both characters will be far more accurate.
@@robert-surcouf yep. Seeing Patterson play the role was funny. At least Lily Rose Depp is half-French. He played a creepy role in Devil all the time that same year.
Matt Lewis being very polite about a cluster-fuck of horrific inaccuracies that make the film pointless
As a person in the military his speech in this movie hits harder than a freight train at full speed
Agree, completely disagree about what he said about the speech
Interesting analysis. I didn't see the movie but when I started to watch this breakdown and it started with Henry Hotspur Percy I got really invested. Going through genealogy there's a tie back in my family tree to him so I really got interested from the start.
Thanks for this breakdown!
49:39 😂 at the Kill Bill siren 🚨
Also id love to see a series on the plantagenets....all the mystery and mysticism at the beginning of that line is truly interesting in my humble opinion
I really enjoyed the movie. It was after seeing this that I knew how good Timothee Chalamet would be as Paul Atreides in Dune.
you know what this movie needed? a good ditch
Go home Roel, you're drunk....
;)
I really enjoy your historical analysis and the comparison between films and reality. It isn't necessary to include strange, silly sarcasm in order to make things interesting.
I appreciate your comments on this film. Though I liked the look of the film, a lot of it pissed me off. It would have been so much more interesting if it had been more historically accurate - a missed opportunity. I didn’t like that Henry is portrayed as a sort of peace-loving flower child, when he most certainly wasn’t. Too much of the film was a lie in one way or other.
Matt Lewis should do The White Queen for a giggle!
I’d love to see you guys cover “A Plague Tale Innocence & Requiem”!!
Very good breakdown. Personally I get goosebumps every time Henry gives his final speech before the battle. It's a movie I must have seen over 10 times and have recommended to anyone who wants and doesnt want to hear it :) I like this film that much.
Thank you. Really enjoyed that.
10:35 “The Catholic Church taught it was a sin to spill other Christian’s blood”…. Unless it’s a big battle where lots of people die, then it’s fine, but 1 on 1. Well that’s a sin.
They got over that one by burning them at the stake - look -no blood spilt!
This was brilliant. Thankyou. 😺
Great video but couldn’t disagree more when it comes to the part about the speech being lackluster. That speech gave me chills when I watched it the first time. 37:20
Could that have something to do with the speech rather than the actor delivering it? See Shakespeare Henry V.
Thought exact same.
He kept fighting for half an hour after an arrow in the face....hardcore man.
32:59 literally every French person would expect you to speak French then speak to you in English because you did it wrong
Terrific work
Thankyou for this. I've always thought Henry was more like his father. Accounts of his manner depict him as austere, driven, with a high morals.
love this film Henry does show emotion many times in the film before Falstaff's death.
the last bit of Matt telling us about Catherine and Owen Tudor is completely blowing my mind rn. So you're telling me that the Tudor dynasty in England was started by a French princess and a Welshman? No tabloid news or reality tv is as fascinating as history
You didn't know that😅. That's probably bc no-one wants to hear about the real influence of bedchamber diplomacy. She effectively ended the Plantagenet dynasty through the backdoor first by bringing her father's madness into the line and then by her sneaky marriage policy. Bosworth was the end, but in H V marriage to the daughter of Charles le Fou the downfall began
England has been a French colony since 1066 😉
I knew i had seen Paul Atredies somewhere earlier
I've been listening to the Gone Medieval podcast for about a year and a half and I've listened to every episode up until February 23, 2023 and I've never seen what Matt Lewis looked like until now. I assumed he was a bit older.
Fun fact Thomas brother of Henry the V was killed at the battle of Bauge and when killed a distant kinsman of mine who struck the lethal blow, Sir Maurice Buchanan, lifted the ducal crown in the air as a trophy and ever since that day that has been the symbol of my clan, clan Buchanan’s battle prowess
Interesting, his brother John the Duke of Bedford repaid the death of Thomas later in the battle of Vernuil where sir Maurice Buchanan was killed in battle fighting the english. Almost poetic.
@@longbowenjoyer2154 yeah
Crazy to hear the original origin story of the Tudors involving the widowed queen, I knew the Tudors came from lower nobility, if any at all, but I had no idea the other bit.
Loved this!
Matt Lewis, splendid job. Having a MA in Medieval History, I a,m really happy to see an accurate exposition of reality vs Hollywood's attempt to play to drama, in an effort to create a
movie drama, at the cost of fact and reality and known history.
For me, the value of films like this is that they get me curious to dig deeper into a subject. Sometimes I am disappointed to find out how wrong the film is and other times I'm motivated to take an even deeper look. If it still stands up as a piece of art...inaccuracies not withstanding...win win.😊
My biggest gripe with the movie is the lack of focus on the archers and cavalry and more focus on brutal melee combat. The whole battle was only a few minutes as in typical Hollywood fashion. As someone who has been studying reinactment and historical armour and combat, I will say that the armour that they used in this film is much better than most medieval movies. Thankfully there is finally no leather armour. Or not much of it. No lamellar armour like in Braveheart for mounted knights. Nor the jousting lances. I do love that they wore helmets in combat. Hollywood normally hates it when the main characters cover their faces.
Matt love this story hate how Henry iv is represented. Great film. Be good to get a podcast on Henry iv on gone medieval
Very nice work. Though I wont see the film it was fascinating to hear you go through the actual history in comparison. I notice in the photographic framing of Hal's return to England to confront the conspiritor that the silhouette of his face mirrors that of the original portrait. So there are some nods to real history.
Thank You!😊
Love your accent when you say "battle "
I’m a fan, regardless of any errors.
The reality of the coronation gift of a tennis ball (or in some versions crate of tennis balls) aside, it was always an interesting detail to me, because you could take it either way: is it a calculated insult about his age or a reminder of a time he was beaten, or is it like when Walter White got his billionaire friend who has everything a packet of ramen as a nostalgic reminder of a simpler, friendlier time?
I thought turning around the “Southampton Plot” to a French assassination was really cool, another great video, oh and btw you got it right as far as I can tell Thanks Matthew
Given the latent civil war between the Orléans-Armagnac faction and the Duke of Burgundy at the time in France for the control of mad Charles VI and his council, the last thing Charles VI or his regency council wanted was to provoke a war with England. So the idea that France would have a plot to assassinate Henry V is a ridiculous idea, and Henry would know that because as Duke of Aquitaine, his seneschals would keep him abreast of everything happening inside the Kingdom.
In the movie it's William that hires the french assassin to blame the french
Love this film and listening to Matt Lewis
I quite enjoyed the film. I don't think we've had a decent Netflix medieval historical film since this one.
Been waiting for ths
Will you please do a similar video on Henry V 1989?
I really enjoyed the movie and thank you for your expertise analysing it. I've followed your work for a while now and I really enjoyed hearing your take on the movie. The one thing I've never been able to stomach, is Shakespeare and his distortion of historical facts and people taking it as gospel. It makes me really angry and I know my view on Shakespeare is highly controversial but it's my opinion!
I saw in another persons comment that they'd like you to do an analysis on the film Outlaw King, I'd like to second that please! 😊
It's very interesting to find out what's historically incorrect about this movie, although I haven't seen it. I'm learning a lot about the history of Henry IV and Vth from this ! Thank you Matt Lewis!!
This was one of my favorite movies of the past few years. For a historicalish war movie, it has so many top tier funny performances.
Yeah the Battle of Agincourt in this movie agitated me; the archers were in the woodlines perpendicular to the field and Henry V was right front and center to taunt the French. The French Infantry was ignored by their own commanders- who insisted on charging headlong at Henry and getting torn to shreds by the archers before they reached the English Infantry. 🤦♂️
I was waiting for you to mention the artillery choice. I understand that in this time period cannons were just starting to be used, but it wasn’t chosen for the film because it would look out of place. But that technology existed.
I'm new to that channel and I don't know if Mr. Lewis told us in the video so don't shatter my question please.
My question is about the battle of agincourt, especially the colors of the knight's plate armour, and the picture that is shown at 40:45. How could anyone of the france cavalry (when they left their horses) and the english knights know who to fight, after the mudy and bloody melee started? Is it just for the sake of tension to show two rampaging groups of knights in thick grey plate armor without any precaution to recognize friend from foe? The picture at 40:45 clearly displays different plate armor colors. Or this just made up by the artist who painted the picture?
So which depiction is actually accurate?
Cheers
The French and English nights would all have worn heraldic garments over their armour, called Jupons, or surcoats, basically tunics but not a uniform. A knight would wear their own heraldry, men at arms might wear the colours of their lord, or a 'badge' which was a symbol of the their commander, but yes, before uniforms became a thing, it was an issue.. That said, it was still hard to tell enemy from friend, which is why commanders worked very hard to keep such dog piles from happening. In the actual battle of agincouurt, the English didn't really engage, they let the French get 'stuck' and then poked and shot them from ten feet away.
I thought the pre battle speech was good and fit well with the younger, more hot headed Henry V in the movie.
The Shakespeare speech is still a better speech and would probably work better to motivate a medieval soldier. The points about “Make it England!” feels a bit like a modern form of nationalism that English soldiers probably wouldn’t care about.
Thanks for a solid historical analysis of the film. I only add the typical Hollywood imposition of English dialogue, this time between Henry and Charles VI (the one with the Dauphin being fake to begin with). English kings, and the English court, were French-speaking right up to the Tudors, so the conversation would have been in French.