I appreciate your hypothesis, but it has been medical practice since Hippocrates to describe pathologies from the patient's perspective. Any well learned surgeon (as he was) would follow this basic tenet. Also, in his own writing, Bradmore states that the wound is "near the nose on the left side of his face" when describing the Prince. More likely that the artist just didn't include the scar (the portrait is hardly photorealistic afterall).
Hi, I agree with your analysis of this, but I should point out that it's not my hypothesis. Rather, it seems that the theory is first mentioned by the historian Ian Mortimer in his 'Fears of Henry IV'. Regardless, I'm going to pin your comment because I think it is a good explanation of why the theory is unlikely.
The portrait wasn't done until the 1500's. It is likely an artists interpretation based off Henry's effigy, or perhaps a seal, coin etc. I trust in Brademore's account. As to what Henry V looked like, who knows? He has been described as tall 6ft+, athletic build, with a long face and most likely the same hair in the painting perhaps, as Henry was known for trying to present himself as pious. Either way, no one knows for sure. Not sure if his skull still exists for study to recreate a 3D model. I'm not sure if I buy into the procedure anyways, if you saw the reproduction of Robert the Bruce he looked like a Neanderthal apparently.
After reading about this young lads injury and what he went through in order to remove the bodkin from his face. I can only conclude that people of his time, and up till the use anaesthesia. The pain threshold must have been off the scale by todays standards. I spent 15 years in the army and for 3 of those years I was with a special defence group as a combat medic and saw some nasty wounds in that time, some were real screamers til you hit them with the morphine and it really was like hitting the mute button, so back then god knows how they just sucked it up. I'm not just thinking about the first hour's of the injury but also the first night then the days, weeks or even months of recovery time, without any painkillers to help with the speed of recovery. Hard arse people without a doubt.
We have no record of its use in the case of Henry V, but there was a very dangerous concoction called dwale in the medieval era that I talk about in this video: th-cam.com/video/wH6jdmmT6Ik/w-d-xo.html Here's a journal article that talks about it as well: Anthony J Carter, Dwale: An Anaesthetic From Old England, BMJ 319.7225 (1999) 1623-1626 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127089/
The account we have from the Philomena says that the wound was 'next to his nose on the left side'. The question is whether Bradmore meant Henry's left or his own left. On one side of the debate it is argued that Bradmore may have simply been describing the wound from his own perspective. The other side argues he is talking about Henry's left. You have to make your own mind up as to what you think because we can't know for certain. Personally, I think that it is questionable whether the painter would choose to paint one side of his face rather than the other because of scarring instead of just not painting the scar.
@@CulturalOrigins I can see where ur coming from but when it comes to cars and talking with mechanics, the left side of the vehicle is always the left side as the car sits. This is also the same when talking about a house with a builder. It’s hard to believe that the doctor would have said the left side of the face from his point of view and not the Princes’ side.
@@davidlee8115 i meant the wording of the source is open to interpretation not the fact that it was the left. I really want to believe this theory is true but it's probably not since any scar would probably just not have been included in the portrait.
@@LordInquisitor701he had the respect and admiration of his fellow Englishman, and he wouldn’t have to send the order to execute anyone who made satire of him when the local townsman would do it for free
All of his portraits showed his left side and that was the side the arrow hit him in the face. While one could argue that the doctor described the left side of the face from his point of view and not the patient so it wasn’t on the side of the portrait. However, having a portrait done could have easily of hid the cut just like people who take pictures now use airbrushing to hide blemishes and defects.
Can you imagine undergoing all this treatment without modern anesthesia? I always thought the reason for the angle was that he might have been cross-eyed.
You're probably right, depending on the force of the arrow going in. As it hit him after being deflected off someone else's armour it may have lacked the propulsion to do that.
@@CulturalOrigins We do know for certain it was deep enough that it could not be removed with normal tongs. People get their zygomatic bone detached from just a punch to the face, and the wound was open for some time before it healed, while various surgeons probed the entry wound. It seems probable that his youthful excess was connected to using alcohol as pain management. Pain also has an affect on personality, like irritability and aggression. This might have influenced his decision to massacre the prisoners at Agincourt.
@@Derna1804 It's been a long time since I've read up on this subject, but what you say certainly seems like a sound theory. I've always seen his massacre of prisoners at Agincourt as somewhat ruthless pragmatism, but you may well be right. In terms of his youthful excess, it would be easy enough to see by comparing what he was like before the wound to what he was like after. Even if he wasn't in pain, his proximity to death may well have led him to excess in the aftermath. I didn't know about the zygomatic bone getting detached from just being punched in the face. I'm wondering though, because of the type of blow, a penetrating rather than blunt blow, if the bone would have been displaced or just pierced. Of course, both is also a possibility. The arrow was clearly stopped by the bone meaning it may well have been knocked out of place. It's a shame it's difficult, now, to know. Although I suppose we could always exhume him and check if we get really curious.
Its also possible that the reason why all his portrait we done on the left side is specifically to show the site of the wound and his miraculous recovery. Consider that its a time where faith is a large part of life and the fact that he is religious, its possible that he see is right side as symbolising vanity and the left as humility since that is the side of his face where he was disfigured and come closest to death. The reason there is no scar is that there was none (or not noticeable enough for the painter to draw it, since portraits of royals are usually beautified or idealised instead true to appearance) since it has perfectly recovered with the only thing left is his broken cheek bone. Its a reminder for him and others of what have happened and a show of piety (as can be seen by the gesture of his hand which is reminiscent of praying).
Just for the Truth : John Bradmore, the surgeon who removed the arrowhead from Prince Henry's face- left posterity with a remarkable document [ hansomely-& even beautifully*written in Latin* ] detailing step by step not only 'Exactly' where the wound was, but the extremely* intricate procedure he devised & followed { with a most fine & excellent picture of the instrument,which he made*} to remove the arrowhead. He specifically states; near the nose on the left side of his* face. ( he was speaking of the Prince"s face ) . As this document reveals the surgeon to be highly intelligent, thoughtful, ingenious and highly skilled man,written in Latin, One can safely conclude, in view of the above points ***** that he knew the difference between his left hand & his right. !
While struggling to free the arrowhead, Bradmore cursed: 'Damn, this arrowheads a pain in the arse!' Young Henry smiled...'Kind Sir, do you mind? The arrowheads in my face!'
THAT BRADMORE WAS A GENIUS, AND MUST HAVE UNDERSTOOD DISINFECTION, AND INCREDIBLE GENIUS OPERATION..WHAT A HERO REALLY. HE SEEMS TO BE THE FIRST DOCTOR IN ENGLAND WITH A BRAIN. GOOD ON HIM. I DO LIKE THE WAY ENGLISH ROYALTY ALWAYS REWARDED GENEROUSLY TO THEIR SAVIOURS, AND ALLIES. MY COMMENTS ARE MY BELIEF ONLY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. HENRY V, KEEPS EXHIBITING INCREDIBLE INTELLIGENCE, AND DETERMINATION.
It wasn't that he was only trying to hide the scar from the arrow wound. He didn't have bone on that part of his head, he had an indentation on that side of his head.
That Netflix film was neither Shakespearean nor historically accurate. The part of Henry lining up men at arms on a green, gentle valley during a sunny day to blunt the charge of the French knights was just plain stupid and would have racked English casualties to the thousands instead of the hundreds like the real battle of Agincourt. Branagh’s Henry V might have been full of Shakespearean soliloquies, but its rendition of a battle in rainy, muddy fields that bogged down the French knights while they were shot at by arrows was still far more accurate. Coming from a streaming service that released that black Cleopatra travesty, am not surprised
I'm actually curious why Henry had that haircut? Does it have to do with Catholicism and being a monarch? Or was it for military purposes for helmets and hygiene? Xcetera
I surmise the latter - as well as to maintain a clear visual difference between himself and other/previous monarchs, implying himself as both more martial and more self-disciplined.
It was nothing more than a fashion trend. One of Henry's enemies, *Owain Glyndwr* ( the last Welsh Prince of Wales) had fairly long hair and also a forked beard, this is depicted on the great seal of Owain Glyndwr from 1404. Owain Glyndwr would have been in his mid forties at the time whilst the young 'prince Hal' was in his teens.
I appreciate your hypothesis, but it has been medical practice since Hippocrates to describe pathologies from the patient's perspective. Any well learned surgeon (as he was) would follow this basic tenet. Also, in his own writing, Bradmore states that the wound is "near the nose on the left side of his face" when describing the Prince. More likely that the artist just didn't include the scar (the portrait is hardly photorealistic afterall).
Hi, I agree with your analysis of this, but I should point out that it's not my hypothesis. Rather, it seems that the theory is first mentioned by the historian Ian Mortimer in his 'Fears of Henry IV'. Regardless, I'm going to pin your comment because I think it is a good explanation of why the theory is unlikely.
The portrait wasn't done until the 1500's. It is likely an artists interpretation based off Henry's effigy, or perhaps a seal, coin etc. I trust in Brademore's account. As to what Henry V looked like, who knows? He has been described as tall 6ft+, athletic build, with a long face and most likely the same hair in the painting perhaps, as Henry was known for trying to present himself as pious.
Either way, no one knows for sure. Not sure if his skull still exists for study to recreate a 3D model. I'm not sure if I buy into the procedure anyways, if you saw the reproduction of Robert the Bruce he looked like a Neanderthal apparently.
After reading about this young lads injury and what he went through in order to remove the bodkin from his face. I can only conclude that people of his time, and up till the use anaesthesia. The pain threshold must have been off the scale by todays standards. I spent 15 years in the army and for 3 of those years I was with a special defence group as a combat medic and saw some nasty wounds in that time, some were real screamers til you hit them with the morphine and it really was like hitting the mute button, so back then god knows how they just sucked it up. I'm not just thinking about the first hour's of the injury but also the first night then the days, weeks or even months of recovery time, without any painkillers to help with the speed of recovery. Hard arse people without a doubt.
We have no record of its use in the case of Henry V, but there was a very dangerous concoction called dwale in the medieval era that I talk about in this video: th-cam.com/video/wH6jdmmT6Ik/w-d-xo.html
Here's a journal article that talks about it as well:
Anthony J Carter, Dwale: An Anaesthetic From Old England, BMJ 319.7225 (1999) 1623-1626
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127089/
Thanks for the heads up, I will definitely give that a read.
All very well but the arrow apparently went through the left hand side of his face
The account we have from the Philomena says that the wound was 'next to his nose on the left side'. The question is whether Bradmore meant Henry's left or his own left. On one side of the debate it is argued that Bradmore may have simply been describing the wound from his own perspective. The other side argues he is talking about Henry's left. You have to make your own mind up as to what you think because we can't know for certain. Personally, I think that it is questionable whether the painter would choose to paint one side of his face rather than the other because of scarring instead of just not painting the scar.
@@CulturalOrigins I can see where ur coming from but when it comes to cars and talking with mechanics, the left side of the vehicle is always the left side as the car sits. This is also the same when talking about a house with a builder. It’s hard to believe that the doctor would have said the left side of the face from his point of view and not the Princes’ side.
it can be interpreted either way, but I was always lead to believe it was the kings right
Grace Bob.......it is not open for interpretation. All respected historians agree....its the left side.
@@davidlee8115 i meant the wording of the source is open to interpretation not the fact that it was the left. I really want to believe this theory is true but it's probably not since any scar would probably just not have been included in the portrait.
As a result of that arrow wound, nobody had the balls to make fun of his hair
It’s kind a hard to make fun of a king when his words basically law and he can have you executed
@@LordInquisitor701he had the respect and admiration of his fellow Englishman, and he wouldn’t have to send the order to execute anyone who made satire of him when the local townsman would do it for free
All of his portraits showed his left side and that was the side the arrow hit him in the face. While one could argue that the doctor described the left side of the face from his point of view and not the patient so it wasn’t on the side of the portrait. However, having a portrait done could have easily of hid the cut just like people who take pictures now use airbrushing to hide blemishes and defects.
Can you imagine undergoing all this treatment without modern anesthesia?
I always thought the reason for the angle was that he might have been cross-eyed.
Bradmore might have had access to opium poppies. I hope so.
It was deadly, if me or you will had experienced this kind of injury
We should be dead
God Plans Are Always Almighty
@@susankerr9521 no, at this time opium was only available in China
We must wait until the late 1700
@@nygellabelle2193 Can you imagine??? Worse than going to the dentist, which is almost intolerable!
@@glittermama yes of course, I still don't get It, how do they manage to restrain Him
I doubt the arrow simply left a scar. The damage to the cheekbone probably disfigured the shape of that side of the face.
You're probably right, depending on the force of the arrow going in. As it hit him after being deflected off someone else's armour it may have lacked the propulsion to do that.
@@CulturalOrigins We do know for certain it was deep enough that it could not be removed with normal tongs. People get their zygomatic bone detached from just a punch to the face, and the wound was open for some time before it healed, while various surgeons probed the entry wound.
It seems probable that his youthful excess was connected to using alcohol as pain management. Pain also has an affect on personality, like irritability and aggression. This might have influenced his decision to massacre the prisoners at Agincourt.
@@Derna1804 It's been a long time since I've read up on this subject, but what you say certainly seems like a sound theory. I've always seen his massacre of prisoners at Agincourt as somewhat ruthless pragmatism, but you may well be right. In terms of his youthful excess, it would be easy enough to see by comparing what he was like before the wound to what he was like after. Even if he wasn't in pain, his proximity to death may well have led him to excess in the aftermath.
I didn't know about the zygomatic bone getting detached from just being punched in the face. I'm wondering though, because of the type of blow, a penetrating rather than blunt blow, if the bone would have been displaced or just pierced. Of course, both is also a possibility. The arrow was clearly stopped by the bone meaning it may well have been knocked out of place. It's a shame it's difficult, now, to know. Although I suppose we could always exhume him and check if we get really curious.
Does his hand sign mean anything in the painting. Just wondering...
Its also possible that the reason why all his portrait we done on the left side is specifically to show the site of the wound and his miraculous recovery. Consider that its a time where faith is a large part of life and the fact that he is religious, its possible that he see is right side as symbolising vanity and the left as humility since that is the side of his face where he was disfigured and come closest to death. The reason there is no scar is that there was none (or not noticeable enough for the painter to draw it, since portraits of royals are usually beautified or idealised instead true to appearance) since it has perfectly recovered with the only thing left is his broken cheek bone. Its a reminder for him and others of what have happened and a show of piety (as can be seen by the gesture of his hand which is reminiscent of praying).
Just for the Truth : John Bradmore, the surgeon who removed the arrowhead from Prince Henry's face- left posterity with a remarkable document [ hansomely-& even beautifully*written in Latin* ] detailing step by step not only 'Exactly' where the wound was, but the extremely* intricate procedure he devised & followed { with a most fine & excellent picture of the instrument,which he made*} to remove the arrowhead.
He specifically states; near the nose on the left side of his* face. ( he was speaking of the Prince"s face ) . As this document reveals the surgeon to be highly intelligent, thoughtful, ingenious and highly skilled man,written in Latin, One can safely conclude, in view of the above points ***** that he knew the difference between his left hand & his right. !
While struggling to free the arrowhead, Bradmore cursed: 'Damn, this arrowheads a pain in the arse!'
Young Henry smiled...'Kind Sir, do you mind? The arrowheads in my face!'
THAT BRADMORE WAS A GENIUS, AND MUST HAVE UNDERSTOOD DISINFECTION, AND INCREDIBLE GENIUS OPERATION..WHAT A HERO REALLY. HE SEEMS TO BE THE FIRST DOCTOR IN ENGLAND WITH A BRAIN. GOOD ON
HIM. I DO LIKE THE WAY ENGLISH ROYALTY ALWAYS REWARDED GENEROUSLY TO THEIR SAVIOURS, AND ALLIES.
MY COMMENTS ARE MY BELIEF ONLY WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
HENRY V, KEEPS EXHIBITING INCREDIBLE INTELLIGENCE, AND DETERMINATION.
It wasn't that he was only trying to hide the scar from the arrow wound. He didn't have bone on that part of his head, he had an indentation on that side of his head.
It definitely did go through left side
It's was due of the arrow metal head removal injury by Surgeon John Bradmore
Except he was hit on the left side of his face, not his right side!!!
Was he hit on the Right or Left side of his Face ?
That Netflix film was neither Shakespearean nor historically accurate. The part of Henry lining up men at arms on a green, gentle valley during a sunny day to blunt the charge of the French knights was just plain stupid and would have racked English casualties to the thousands instead of the hundreds like the real battle of Agincourt. Branagh’s Henry V might have been full of Shakespearean soliloquies, but its rendition of a battle in rainy, muddy fields that bogged down the French knights while they were shot at by arrows was still far more accurate. Coming from a streaming service that released that black Cleopatra travesty, am not surprised
Maybe his left side was so bad he could only imagine what it would look like before the arrow wound(scar). So he could of been obsessed with it.
Because he has the scar on his face that he received from the battle when he was young
have you ever rammed a icepick right into you face an then TWISTED the handle to make the best possible SCAR TISSUE ?... WELL HE GOT IT WORSE...
I'm actually curious why Henry had that haircut? Does it have to do with Catholicism and being a monarch? Or was it for military purposes for helmets and hygiene? Xcetera
I want to know that too.
I surmise the latter - as well as to maintain a clear visual difference between himself and other/previous monarchs, implying himself as both more martial and more self-disciplined.
It was nothing more than a fashion trend. One of Henry's enemies, *Owain Glyndwr* ( the last Welsh Prince of Wales) had fairly long hair and also a forked beard, this is depicted on the great seal of Owain Glyndwr from 1404. Owain Glyndwr would have been in his mid forties at the time whilst the young 'prince Hal' was in his teens.
It's a painting......why would it matter
Yeah but the arrow went his side of this Portray
He was shot on the left side?..Sooo
No on the right side the actual portray,
I get the point of this video.
Me pasa
Left side of his face
He got shot
Hes a virgo..its all about perfection with them
Because he only has one half of a body
True dat