Netflix, The King, historical analysis review: CRIMES AGAINST MEDIEVAL REALISM

[Music] ratings I'm shad and as a massive medieval enthusiast you shouldn't be too surprised that I was rather interested in a recent movie that's just been released on Netflix entitled the king this is a film depicting the rise of king henry v and his great Battle of Agincourt now Netflix already has a rather successful medieval film entitled the outlaw King which I actually gave a glowing review the owl King was done really well and I was very surprised with the lengths that went to to achieve certain elements of historical accuracy both in the events the depictions of the battles and in the arms and armor that we see and even the clothing as well outlaw King was a really well-done film the unfortunate thing is the king isn't nearly as good there are a lot of problems on many levels and there's you know breaks my heart because I want to see great medieval films made you know depicting a medieval period accurately which is why I loved out looking but the king there are a lot of issues and I'm gonna go into it the first major problem with this movie is that it can't really decide whether it is a you know film dramatization of the historical events of you know King Henry the fifth or the Shakespearean play Henry the fifth and it fails at being an accurate adaptation of Eva now I haven't read or watched film adaptations of King Henry the fifth but I am somewhat familiar with the history of this time period and that's what I'm going to be judging this film against but not only that just also its efficacy and enjoyability as a film separate to the historical period but a lot of the enjoyment you can get out of these historical films in my opinion is actually how well they depict the historical period they're based in and so if it fails on the both levels or then it's a particularly awful film and like I said I kind of feel this film does now when I criticize something in this film for being inaccurate if that element is actually being accurate to the Shakespearean play I don't care I criticize Shakespeare as as I'll criticize this film for being inaccurate to the historical period it is supposed to be depicting and Shakespeare took a lot of liberties all right you should not look to the Shakespearean story for historical accuracy and just you know major spoilers from here on in at the beginning of the film we are given this shot which is the fallout of one of the battles between the English and Scots it doesn't have too much relevance to the story the film is actually trying to tell a character we're watching right now we find out to have some strong disagreements with the current king of England which is Henry the fifths father Henry the fourth and they've only really put it in the film to give Henry someone to fight against to show that look he can fight basically to try and establish him as a character where he would be invested - but the problem is this retelling this depiction of henry v he has no character he's so bland and this is one of the I guess flaws problems and you might even say weaknesses of historical movies is that they seem to be reluctant to give historical figures actual character now with all the flaws that we can lump at the foot of Braveheart one of the things that we can compliment Braveheart on is that it's an enjoyable film okay and they gave William Wallace a lot of character was it accurate to his character although a lot of inaccuracies about his history and upbringing but we actually don't have huge amounts of information about there is historical figures temperaments and stuff and so in regards to that to actually make a workable film I feel it is you know acceptable to fill in those gaps as best you can I feel ready should try and remain true to historical accuracy but when liberties do need to be taken I feel we can take them my issue is when you take these liberties in lieu of what we actually do know historically especially when what we know historically works perfectly fine I'm gonna speak more in depth about fee weapons and armor a little later on when it comes up you know in the big fight between Henry and the other guy basically before I get there I need to address a fairly big inaccuracy I feel that they are showing regards to Henry's character and it is that they have depicted him as basically a drunken louts okay and this is again going off the incorrect Shakespearean assertion that Henry the fifth had a riotous youth historical record actually paints a very different picture and that depiction also contradicts another significant element to this film and that is the relationship between Henry and his father in this film it they are shown basically loathing each other okay and know they had some disagreements but they didn't well historical account doesn't really indicate them outwardly loathing one another especially since that one of the things that they show in this film that Henry's father denies him his right to the throne he says in this scene that Henry will not inherit the throne and that his brother Thomas will that's completely incorrect okay well Henry was always the heir to the throne as was his father's wishes okay and the animosity that is shown between Henry and his brother Thomas here doesn't seem to be confirmed by the historical account either in actuality Thomas seemed to have supported his brother Henry and even fought for him in some later engagements in the Hundred Years War Thomas wasn't there at the Battle of Agincourt and he didn't die before Henry took the throne as the film shows the film shows the king giving the throne to his brother in lieu of Henry and then his brother dying in some battle doesn't show you the brother dying just say your brother is dead now your heir to the throne be against your father's wishes and the father and Henry hated each other this is all bullcrap it didn't happen Thomas lived well after Henry took the throne Henry actually fought alongside his father when he was 16 years old and when he was 16 he actually took an arrow to the face just slightly off to the side to his nose they do give Henry the scar that he was well known to have but they put it on the side of his cheek when I was actually next to his nose according to historical accounts when his father became so sick that he couldn't actually fulfill his duties as King Henry came in basically took up the slack but he enacted different foreign and domestic policies that his father disagreed with which resulted in his father dismissing Henry from that role and his younger brother came in and filled that role until his father's death but when the King died Henry became the new king there's no time in which his king was saying his second eldest son Thomas would take the throne the film seems to be depicting the time in which after Henry was removed from his kind of managerial position you know taking the role of King while his father was sick and then it seems to be showing that there was a great you know personal disagreement between the two and that Henry was basically outcast the thing is the film only gives the briefest lip service to the type of policies in which Henry was enacting and now Henry wanted to forgive a lot of the noblemen that had a strong disagreement with his father he wanted to kind of unify England and bring it under a more peaceful rule but the other big policy that Henry the fourth didn't want henry v to go through with was going to war with france henry v wanted to go to war with france before he even took the throne ER this is very important because in the entire film they are showing henry being wholly reluctant to go to war with france when in actual fact Henry wanted to and he was trying to do it before he was even King so this is a massive contradiction to the personality and intent and desires of henry v in this film this is already a fairly big difference between this film and outlaw king outlooking seemed to have gone out of its way to include important historical elements in the events and in the personalities of the characters they were depicting even the small things like the swearing by swans and raising the dragon banner those were really just beautiful and respectful nods to the historical period which they come for those things actually happened and they're in outlaw King but that seems to have been thrown out the window for this movie and it's important for me to review as I reviewed for the outlaw King but don't worry I am going to get to the battles and the Webb an armorer it's just that this is also really important as well it's the whole reason for the conflict there'll be no battle to review and weapons and armor to assess if these events didn't happen the way that they happened historically and that the historical figures acted the way they did and they happened due to that nearly traditional conflicts between England and France and as to who owned certain parts of France because so much of the English monarchy had legitimate claim to lands in France do you remember William the Conqueror do you even know about William the Conqueror who conquered England in the 11th century well he was from Normandy he was French okay and he had full claim and rights over at least Normandy but thanks to lace at negotiations and marriages and other things like that it became a lot more muddled now if you'd like some basic chronology to connect the events of outlaw King to this movie the king and even if you don't want her gonna do it anyway because really interesting it actually helps us understand what's going on a bit remember the bad guy in outlaw King and would the first Longshanks right he had that fairly pathetic son edward ii well Edward the second son Edward the third wasn't nearly as pathetic he was actually pretty darn tough he had some major victories against the France one of the big famous ones is the Battle of Crecy upon Edward the 3rd steth the throne was inherited by his grandson richard ii then richard ii was a pretty lousy king he got the throne wholly too young and even when he grew old enough to kind of take the reins of leadership over his nation he still made a lot of bad decisions and under his rule the english lost a lot of lands to the french i'm doing a lot of the work that edward the 3rd had achieved by the way richard ii is not richard the lionheart big difference richard ii was ultimately dethroned by henry v father henry the 4th henry the fourth was also the grandson of Edward the 3rd and it is that Henry the 4th who was the father of Henry the fifth Henry the 4th asserting the throne from Richard ii who lost a decent amount of the lands that the English crown had rule over in France because richard ii was a lousy king it is those that henry v wanted back he thought they rightly belonged to him and the english crown which is the whole reason for his ultimate declaration of war and invasion now the english did claim that the fringe had mocked them and insulted henry v personally this was after henry took the throne by the way and it's those accounts that gave shakespeare the inspiration for the whole tennis ball thing that we see depicted in this film that french king sent henry v tennis ball saying that he was just a boy who played games well you know just all the other subtext that goes along with it that never happened in real life okay all we have to go off is the english claim that the french mocked them and insulted henry personally we don't know the specifics another decently valid reading of history and i'm not saying it's the correct one i'm just saying it is also valid is that these claims were faked and that the english were just saying them to give them more course to go to war with france but they didn't really need anymore cause apart from a legitimate claim to those lands an actual fact what seems to be more likely is that henry v saw an opportunity in france's weakened monarchy the king of france was going insane okay he actually believed that he was made of glass and with the weakening french monarchy and with the rightful claim that england had over these kind of hereditary lands in france principally being the Duchy of Aquitaine and other holdings in france like normandy henry v saw this as an opportunity which is why he declared war not this ridiculous by the eye i should have probably said this at the beginning i'm gonna reveal a fairly big spoiler they kind of held this back to be a big kind of twist reveal at the end so i'm gonna observe all that you've been warned i'm gonna continue on okay that whole subplot of henry being manipulated into war with france is bullcrap okay doesn't look to have happened historically and in my opinion it weakens henry as a character and ruler that he was just you know an immature unlearned unprepared boy on the throne who was manipulated into this war to me it was a baffling addition into the film it weakens the care Durrell's unhistorical and for those reasons did the opposite of elevating this film to a higher level Henry didn't regret his invasion of France quite the opposite it was a massive success for him and pave the way for later victories as well under the reign of henry v england reclaimed many french lands that they felt were rightfully theirs and as to who had the right claim on these lands as a complete mess because the english and french monarchy intermarried pledged you no lands to each other and everything like back and forth it's it's just nuts and also just an additional kind of interesting thing the English monarchy spoke French all the way up until Henry the fifths reign Henry the fifth of course could speak French fluently but he was the first English you know ruler who actually chose to speak English in his court before then it was all French there was a good number of English monarchies actually lived in France for the majority of time when they actually had rulership over those French lands some of them like Richard the Lionheart didn't even like England so the mixing between the French and English monarchies is so fluid that to claim that there was a distinct difference is very tenuous he basically can't do that you could nearly call them all French before this time all the way to William the Conqueror who had rulership over England and some parts of France at different times so there's a lot of inaccuracies and I just want to round off what I was saying about Henry v not being a drunkard before he claimed the throne he fought in several battles he was well educated and was a shrewd politician and ruler with legitimate experience in the role very different to what the film shows which just basically depicts him as a drunken lout who has no experience or interest in rulership the general depiction of the medieval period the film is mostly disappointing it's kind of gone back to the drab dirty you know muted colors that Hollywood just seems to love to depict this period in gone is the colors that we saw in some instances in the outlaw King but even the outlaw King was still a little too muted the mid period was colorful they loved color in fact color was a sign of wealth if you have a look at how many of the castles were painted on the inside with murals and everything like that it's an absolute riot there's colors and paintings everywhere and sorry again this you know movie it's just gone back to everyone's wearing Browns grays mutes muted colors it's like they didn't even believe in medieval period had sunshine for heaven's sakes even in this scene where Henry is walking outside with his sister and it's like look I know England there's a lot more cloudy than other parts in the world but heavens saying there's still sunshine but it seems like they're purposely muted the colour down in this film and of course they're just wearing Gray's because you know medieval people who don't like color either I mean at least they're clean but still my goodness they could have done so much better and that's what the general depiction of what we're seeing they do a lot better when it comes to the depiction of the weapons and armor now some to say it's perfect the armor I especially the plate look it's good that they're showing period-appropriate mostly period-appropriate armor for the time this movie is based in but we still do see some just poor executions of that armor the armor looks very unfitted untainted okay there are some instances where the armor is going too far down on the waist I mean this strike here this guy it's good is wearing a painted breastplate sir okay yes they did paint their armor in certain circumstances in this time period but the other thing is it seems like they think this was the only armor type all right well no Brigantine was very popular during this time period and on top of just wearing plate they also wore two bards over on top of their armor so I wasn't just painted which seems to be the only thing that they've done here there's no two bars on top of armor that we see anywhere and there's no Jew pawns either now soupçon is an additional layer of fabric armor on top of metal armor we do see some Garrison's among the poorest soldiers but if they were actually trying to get better armor they wouldn't then go to male and we see a you know a decent amount of people just wearing male in this film if they could go to better armor up from gambeson it would then go to say like a coat of plates or Brigantine not just full mail or just what we see with the gambeson and the male wife's Henry's Armour here looks particularly bad I mean it looks unfitted the breastplate is way too low and it's not the the type of armor that a prince would be wearing the weapons on the other hand are mostly pretty good where you see a decent amount of unit polearms and the swords that these guys are wearing our long swords and absolutely this isn't kind of the beginning of the long sword heyday absolutely so two-handed long swords definitely though there seems to be a distinct lack of arming the swords and the arming sword was absolutely still used during this period I might do a full fight scene autopsy of the fight between Henry and this other English nobleman I don't know if this battle specifically or if both leaders of the armies decided to go into one-on-one combat and from my reading of history actually find that this practice wasn't really done or at least wasn't done commonly when it comes to warfare the notions of chivalry like this were really I mean they would save the lives of the nobility for ransom so the idea that they wouldn't kill noble blood was less about chivalry and more about money although Henry v himself certainly didn't follow that practice after the Battle of Agincourt reversal action during the time and they were more interested in overall victory and so forfeiting their victory based on a one-on-one duel no didn't really happen though trials by combat absolutely were still practiced in this time Henry the fifths own father before he came to the throne had a massive dispute with another English nobility and to settle the dispute they agreed to go into a trial by combat what that was ultimately called off by the king of that time richard ii so trial by combat absolutely happened but combats to determine the outcome of wars and battles I haven't read of that happening with Henry fifth please do correct me if I'm wrong I haven't researched every single battle Henry the fifth was in but the ones that I have read it was never even a consideration especially as an Corps and in this film before as an Corps they show Henry approaching the leader of the French armies which they show to be Prince Louie which what Prince Louie he wasn't even there at Agincourt okay but Louie is there in the depiction of this film and Henry goes to Louie and asked them to fight one-on-one to save you know the lives of their soldiers and so I add didn't happen did not happen in fact both sides was so intent on victory well the English were forced to fight they're actually trying to retreat but the French army caught up on them and the English couldn't outrun them and that's why they were forced to fight so short of doing a full fighting autopsy on this fight scene I will just say that the style of fighting they're employing is basically single-handed long sword technique while in fully-armored they're not fighting as if their opponents are in full armor with these swords I like that it generates into some grappling and wrestling that's brilliant okay so points there I kind of like that it also degenerates into more I guess and dignified brutality with the punching and stuff and I love how Henry wins the fight ultimately but my main criticism overall is that most of it is when they're fighting with the swords isn't the right style of fighting but I do like many of the other elements it's great that they're using guard positions I would have liked that cite both opponents were using a different guard position not the same as each other there is one point where Henry does half swords so that's good to see but it doesn't last long I love that his opponent pummels him with you know the quillin's the side of his sword so there's some really good elements here I love that Henry pulls out a dagger and you know that was an interesting where it falls back in trips up his opponent has a good move and then Statten is a pilot right in the neck the dagger was one of the more prominent weapons used to defeat arm and opponents historically so I loved that they showed that so overall I think the fight scene had more positive elements than negative elements so good on them for that but there is a decent amount to criticize in the air execution of the armor that whis being showing here and the larger scale battle the queefs are not fitted very well to their faces at all that's unfortunate they basically give Henry no personality at all he is so bland and dull now as to the details of Henry v personality we don't have a huge amount so like I said it's in these instances where you kind of need to fill in the gaps to make an interesting film especially a film in which we want to be interested at least in the main character again that's one of the things that I liked about outlaw qinger they gave Robert the Bruce some personality and he was still fairly bland but at least his smiling and joking in some instances there was better characterization on nearly every level in outlooking and it was still fairly bland considering though I will say I kind of like edward ii over-the-top rage and passion and stuff and so for a character he wanted to function as an antagonist their depiction of edward ii in our King was done really well to achieve that the only interesting character in this movie was Prince Louie played by Robert Pattinson and I kind of liked Robert Pattinson as an actor his accent was fairly strong in this interesting kind of reviews both criticizing it and saying it was perfect I felt it worked alright especially for his character it was very strong but as to his personality and characterization he is depicted as being pretty evil and you know ruthless not a lot is known as true Prince Louie's personality at this point but if you want full historical accuracy princely wasn't even there at Agincourt okay he wasn't quick enough to get ready and by a principle he died two months later so perhaps that's why they put him in the movie because they sure him actually getting killed is the main antagonist and they show him getting killed in this movie so perhaps they just grabbed Prince Louie even though he wasn't there because I needed a villain and he was he died two months later anyway sorry have him die in the battle for the sake of storytelling so as I mentioned before they depict Henry being wholly reluctant to going to war with France in this movie and that it takes several significant events to push him over the edge first being the insult of the tennis balls which is again a Shakespearean thing based on the English claim that Henry was insulted personally but then they have an assassination attempt or staged assassination attempt to try and get Henry to go to war because it's his main advisor who wants Henry to go to war and Henry doesn't want to go to war historically there was never a French assassination attempt although there was a plot against Henry's life not by the French but by three other English noblemen - aserp him and put Edmund Mortimer on the throne Edmund himself had no knowledge of the plot but it was uncovered and those three men were beheaded it's film seems to have reappropriation tempt against Henry the fifths life as a French plots and then they show a beheading it but it's a beheading of to English and ability not the three that were actually trying to kill Henry and aserp him with someone else on the throne like I said Henry wanted to go to war with France [Music] sorry unfortunately this film is already riddled with inaccuracies and lacks the kind of finesse the you know respectful nods that outlaw King has we basically see no real medieval customs or practices and that was such a highlight for me in out looking none of that is here and then we come to some of the battles and once again the battles are no exception the siege of half floor is rather odd and different one the castle that they're besieging in the film doesn't look to be a port city at all it just seems to be a castle on a hill so there's a big problem this should be the siege of half floor and the most upsetting thing about this is that the siege of half floor is such an epic historical event if you ever want to look at one of the great sieges of medieval history well the siege of half floor is one of them it has so many different stages and elements and one of the big interesting things about half floor specifically it was one of the first big medieval sieges in which gunpowder was employed in a very large measure that's right all I'm saying here is cannons were actually used in this siege not trade RK there might have been some trebuchet there's references to mechanical artillery which might denote trebuchet x' but the primary weapons used to bombard half floor were cannons and the earliest types of medieval firearms that would have been so interesting to show but it seems like you know because this is set in a medieval period Hollywood just thinks guns never existed the medieval period when guns are actually introduced in the medieval period and knights did use them for you know sieges and battle know things like that as far as we know guns were not used in Asian war the large battle after in our half floor and that might have been because they ran out of gunpowder perhaps but no half floor was completely pummeled with cannon fire and gunfire and again this is another reason why you know the siege of Harfleur is so interesting it did fall I mean the outer walls were riddled with holes and stuff some sites collapsed there are accounts of the English being surprised that the French held out so well they would fire back through holes in the walls and even on rubble and from areas that they were just you know didn't think anyone could get to and shoot back from it was a long siege the English ended up suffering from dysentery Henry thought about digging underneath the walls but the lengths of the seeds we are shown in the movie is them just sitting around using trebuchet 'he's throwing rocks and fiery things on at the walls and that's it and they even talk about assaulting the walls and that no that'll be too great a loss of life in there there's no assaults when they actually was okay there were active assaults they were sorties that the French sent out to take out forward bastions that the English had built to set up certain siege equipment stuff I absolute a French was sending out sorties in the English they did a large assault and they took the outer Barbican and this was a big turning point in the siege it was going on for months and then they watched a big assault okay with men and over took me out a Barbican and I was in taking the outer Barbican that the French finally surrendered okay the real historical seed was a hundred times more interesting and engaging than what they showed here in the film there is one positive thing I will say about the siege and it's not even the actual fighting okay it's pretty you know cool to see big trebuchet is launching projectiles and stuff like that but we have seen that before and like I said there's strike one was a lot more interesting but separate through the fighting which isn't really fighting it's just trebuchet throwing things there is a conversation between Henry and one of the bishops or whatever higher up you know a religious authority comes and he says why not just go around surely you cannot simply idle here until they decide to come and that is precisely the definition of the siege I like to see there is a lot of waiting in sieges but to think it was only waiting there is a lot of active things happening like sorties continued bombardments changes in strategies like sapping digging underneath the walls of a castle dealing with supply lines and sicknesses they had dysentery like I mentioned and then of course final assaults and all that but still a lot of movies and sieges thinks it's only assaults and I do like it this movie at least shows that a lot of sieges is waiting around even though like I said there's a lot of interesting things that happens in between there's still a lot of waiting well then why do you not simply go around if they insist on hiding in there Cathal why do you not simply go around it the reason why I like the bishop or whoever he is asking that question is that that's actually a common question a lot of people ask when it comes to castles why don't they just ignore the castle and go around and to answer that I made a whole video dedicated that very subject entitled why were castles built and the answer they give here in the movie is accurate enough ok it doesn't answer everything there's a lot more to the reasons why people built castles and why they were so useful but you know it is accurate and I'm glad it's in the movie you must establish a garrison foothold here for our loans to supply from England so of course that makes taking the city crucially important but not only that it gives them a staging platform a place of security and robs their enemy how all of that a savior platform a place of security to send out and our people attacking them to take land in the medieval period you needed to take the fortifications which was the castles and fortified towns and cities they were the linchpin of these areas if you just park an army in there you're eventually gonna succumb to exposure supply problems and all that stuff a castle gives you a place to garrison your men and prevents an enemy from wiping out your men with ease if you just have an army sitting out in the middle of nowhere with who don't have fortifications they are profoundly vulnerable but then behind fortifications you can make the utility of one man as effective as 5 to 10 ok castles are force multipliers on the macro scale for armies and that's all I will say on that if you want more detail please do go watch my dedicated video but unfortunately those are the only real positives I can mention about this part in the movie and it's also unfortunate that it's so brief in the movie when the siege of Harfleur was such a big and significant element of henry's campaign that led up to the Battle of Agincourt a massive missed opportunity and poorly depicted as to what they did deign to show of this event and also wholly inaccurate as well because show some are you know perceiving a large castle it's actually a port city of very significant tactical and commercial advantage okay her floor was an important port city the thing is successfully capturing an important port city wasn't nearly enough Henry the fifths whole intention of this was to reclaim many of the lands he felt was rightfully his indeed claimed the entire French crown as rightfully is as well so there was a lot more to do problem was the siege lasted much longer than what the English had hoped for her floor wasn't fully destroyed but most of its outer wall defences were a complete mess nearly every building was at least damaged and a good number of them destroyed and it simply wasn't in a state due to the siege where the English could employ in defenses so they had to move and find a more suitable defensive location to house the army through the oncoming winter so Henry needed a secure place for his army and couldn't afford another long drawn-out siege because now the French had amassed an army that could challenge them and any more delay would give the French more time to raise more troops so Henry and his army attempted to reach the English controlled Calais ting as though French forces followed them and tried to block their route north and to try and force a bat Henry didn't want to fight the English they were getting worn out and tired from a long siege they were suffering from sickness there were low on supplies they were not fresh ready good to fight but the French army finally caught up to them and they had no choice but to fight so now we come to the great battle of this movie the Battle of Agincourt and there are some things that they right to do accurately and then other things they just completely go off the rails and make up as they go his close friend and advisor that Henry brings along with him he's a fictional character based off the Shakespearean tale now the Shakespearean tale I think bases him off of one and some other historical figures one of them having fought in the Hundred Years War but Henry was familiar with battle he had fought before and the tactics being employed well of course it makes sense that he looks to his advisers but the way it's depicted it seems like Henry has no idea what to do and is just looking for help from anyone and it's his advisor who comes in with some interesting kind of tactics one of the tactics he brings up is something that is very important and significant to the historical record and that is that the battlefield on the actual day was very muddy and that the French got bogged down in it so that's an accurate element but as to how they execute and depict that I'm a bit more disappointed with again this is Hollywood and you know Hollywood they want a big fight of men actually in the fray and so because of that it feels like they really under played the role that the arch has had in this battle they have the archers firing but a lot of a French Knights seemed mostly unfazed by enough couple of them dropped to it and they like mer that's fine we'll just keep going and they have a main engagement of the French into the English men-at-arms and Knights are on foot after that there's like only one or two more volleys from the arches for how significant the archers were in this battle it is really disappointing to you how little they are featured in this battle itself and for the most part they're trying to put a spotlight on the gritty grimy fight between us you know the knights in armor and stuff like that with no this wasn't actually how the battle played out historically there was melee fighting don't get me wrong okay but the way it came to that was very different than what they're showing here in the movie in the movie they're putting their men arms and nights ahead of that not only the arches but in the Hat they had them march forward to try and lure out the French into a large assault that the French would be reluctant to commit all their forces and for what reasons okay a French historically were not reluctant to commit all their forces because they felt it was a sure gone victory there was also a lack of cohesive leadership amongst the French as well the French forces were supposed to be commanded by the leader Charles to obray the constable of France but it seems like there were certain other elements of the French army that just did their own thing there was a bit of confusion and the French all committed to a massive frontal assault now the French had a massive army but the whole army didn't actually attack who did attack it was the mounted Knights and the number was between 10 to 12,000 now the number of the whole French army is said to be larger than that but from the accounts and from people who actually study this between ten and twelve thousand French Knights were actually in the fighting itself and any larger numbers in that would account for the numbers of the French that didn't engage still ten to twelve thousand was much larger than the English numbers which was between six to nine thousand now even though we don't know the exact numbers it was six hours and nine thousand or something in between what we do know is that the makeup of the English army was something like four to five arches for every one man-at-arms or Knights so one of the big inaccuracies that I find in this battle is that the English Knights engage the French cavalry by themselves without the backup of the English longbowmen it's hard to know exactly how this battle played out but there are certain things or Thorens on the matter of far more confident on than other things one of those things is how the archers will use the way they shot which is directly contrary to how they are depicted in this battle here in this battle it is shown that the longer man shoot large arching volleys upon the French Knights and that is mostly inaccurate from what many authorities on the matter have been out of figure in studying this in fact I'll let Tobias Kapil answer this for us he is the curator of the Wallace Museum and this is from a video that is made and featured on Todd's workshop YouTube channel phenomenal YouTube channel I've given him a shout out before and did a whole video reply talking about one of these awesome tests he did regarding longbow vs. plate armor and that is uniquely informative for the subject we're talking about right now the Battle of Agincourt because that's the point in history in which they're basing the test on but one of the followers videos is dr. cap well talking about how the English longbowmen shot the arrow bows the example of the the collision and the conflict in everybody's minds about this battle between myth and misconception and facts is for example the very popular idea that the English shot up in the air there's all this very dramatic Hollywood footage of archers aiming up in the air and launching arrows high in the air so that they drop down at long range on the enemy and that's visually appear appealing in a film and the image of a rain of arrows is poetic and everything but it's not what happened we have visual sources of the time pictorial art which gives us a sense of what these people looked like and how they shot their shooting straight not up in the air sorry Thank You Tobias and of course Todd from Todd's workshop for the work they have done and the small clip I've featured from their video if you want to see the full video link in the description and to Todd's channel as well so the English shot straight not in huge volleys so what we can infer from that is that the French was able to get into a decent level of close range not like you know where there jacent but close enough to beware these long burros would do maximum damage and then shooting a massive volley into their french oncoming nights well my own opinion now is if I were aiming for the horses they could come close to stalling that French charge completely because one of the interesting things that Todd and Tobias found out in the tests that they did on Todd's workshop is that a high powered English longbow cannot penetrate plate armor made of this pure if it's shot flat on the plates as to the sides well there's going to be future tests that will be now to find out but if it got in the gaps of the armor it would definitely penetrate shrapnel would have been very dangerous to consider and though no tests have been done to confirm this horses aren't going to like being pummeled with high powered bows either now Armour for horses did exist for this period and it usually covered the head neck and kind of front chest of the horse but it was expensive and most Knights didn't have it for their horses getting a suit of armor for yourself was expensive enough so he could certainly see that some French Knights would have had armor for their horses but not nearly all of them and even if the horses do have armor it isn't like full plate armor that protects the entire horse there are many vulnerable areas and if you shoot these horses with enough high-powered bows they are going to drop the other element about the historicity of this fight scene is the role in which the soggy ground played ok one of the interpretations is that the horses of the French actually got bogged down in the mud to slow their charge not to the point where they got completely stuck and couldn't move and the idea that is put forward in the movie that the English will fight in light armor and the French in heavy armor and the French will sink as a result in English wound is a bit silly ok is the ground is soggy enough to the point where you can sink in it the weight of an average man will be enough to sink your feet down now granted heavy armor will make you sink more but medieval armor isn't nearly as heavy as people supposed and the idea that they English wouldn't be hampered by the soggy ground at all and the French wood is a little ridiculous remember the English also had armored Knights now it's a misconception to think that the English one purely through arrow fire the long berman played a very significant role but there was definitely one-on-one fighting but to the level that the one-on-one fighting is shown in the movie is too much in my opinion the longer men in this movie do not have nearly a significant effect as they should have had according to historical record the accurate depiction of this fight would have gone something like the French charging forward getting bogged down horses are much heavier than you know regular people so the horses would have sunk a lot deeper in the bog than regular armored men that would have slowed down their charge the English waited for the French to get into close enough range to maximize their damage from their long bows and they shot straight not enlarge long range volleys and that combined with the soggy ground basically stalled the French's charge completely and then the log Mirman continued to shoot into the French lines as much as possible the French would have closed the distance eventually even while getting pummeled remember these are armored Knights still even if they get dismounted and lose their horse this too wearing armor and that armor is very effective against arrow fire many Schley would have fallen with arrows finding their gaps absolutely but the French still would have closed the distance and when that distance is closed that is when the English Knights are ready to fight and is also when the English longbowmen would not be out a fire anymore because there would have been a chance of hitting their own men and so that is when the English longbowmen would drop their bows pull out their weapons run in and fight in melee right after the French had lost a very significant number there is no accounts of the English laying in wait off to the sides in the bushes to try and flank the French Noah counseled also from my understanding that didn't happen and is again another inaccuracy in this battle now once everyone is engaged the depiction of the battle is very brutal and I do give it you know two thumbs up it is messy it is muddy it would be in the bog but the English would be just as disadvantaged as the French at this stage in the bog and to say that the English have a higher chance of slipping over because they're wearing full plate armor is also a bit nonsensical because they would be wearing shoes that have a measure of grip so this struck here where we see French Prince Louis ready to fight King Henry the fifth and that he slips over completely because of his armor is again silly Henry is also wearing armor it's not full plate armor but mail can be as heavy as full plate armor it's still metal okay and so the only reason why some want to slip over that bad is if they're not wearing shoes at that grip but granted this is so muddy that even shoes with tacks on the bottom would still slip around but then so would Henry okay he looks to be wearing armor that is decently heavy maybe not as heavy as Prince Louie but still pretty heavy and that is not slipping at all and then Prince Louie is completely a bit silly and unrealistic this is one interpretation of this battle based on the historical evidence is it absolutely accurate I have no idea I can see that authority to some electa bias cap well could have been that the French tried to retreat after getting stalled in their charge but some of the things that we are far more certain of is that there was no long-range volleys the Englishman at arms and Knights did not advance outside of ranks so far ahead of the English archers to draw out the French like they're shown in this battle that is a great look at the historically great but in the movie not so great Battle of Agincourt in the king and it is largely disappointing to me now as to the weapons they're using yeah that's great we see pole arms we see period-accurate swords again I think the armor and Henry is wearing is an absolute atrocity for a king I mean it's just a garbage okay but I love that we see a lot of gambeson x' and that the French Knights were wearing you know full plate armor I think the full plate armor was pretty sloppily made that didn't look tailored I think a lot of their helmets for inaccurate the Kois were all loose and not fitting properly but the actual fighting when it started was brutal and they showed that it was very muddy which was accurate they just didn't depict how the mud affected combat in a realistic way in my opinion and so then we have really come to the end of my review of the King I mean there are other things that happen towards the end of the movie which I've already kind of criticized about like a revelation that Henry was manipulated into this war which was bullcrap Henry did end up marrying the daughter of the King of France Charles they're sixths but that was actually something Henry had proposed before he had even gone to war and it seems like that was reverted to by Charles after he had seen how much Henry just basically destroyed them and then Henry was able to claim the crown of France I find it interesting with how many liberties they took with the daughter of Charles the six you know the future wife of Henry and how they use her to depict Henry being not only weak but easily manipulative and FIDIC and honestly this scene really annoys me because it is very inaccurate okay if you actually want to pick time periods and where there was far more inequality amongst the genders well the medieval period actually does a lot better than other time periods but there was certainly a lot more in that period in the modern day just when you compare that period to other historical periods you'd probably be surprised how many freedoms women actually had but when it came to political marriages I find it very unrealistic to how spiteful and insulting the daughter of a French King is being towards Henry at this time Henry just conquered France and through this marriage that any type of peace would be out to be achieved going into the future or peace without conflict I should say and she wouldn't know that she would absolutely have been far more submissive to Henry to try and make the most out of this marriage and not be so insulted and combative but this is I think modern sensibilities being injected into a historical period where women have to be strong and the man who just conquered a nation is depicted as being weak and manipulatable and pathetic it would seem that you have no explanation for what you have done you've shed the blood of so many Christian souls and yet for me now all I see is a young and vain and foolish man so easily riled so easily be kind and that is how they are trying to depict Henry v in this movie young vain easily beguiled weak now don't get me wrong there are points where Henry acts was you know strong assertion stuff like that but nowhere near as decisively as he seems to have really acted historically and the way that this lady spoke to him for the period and the circumstances I find profoundly unrealistic now like I said there are multiple ways of trying to interpret how this could have gone and one is the submissive way that she wanted to make the best out of this situation and gain Francini advantage through the marriage but I do fully admit she could have hated him for coming in and conquering much of her own nation and if she hated him again I feel it's very unlikely that she would speak to him like this because I feel she would then be scared witless of him because he just conquered your whole nation your life is in his hair if you really took off this guy he can execute you for any number of reasons that he can just pick out of the sky like Henry the Eighth did and even though I said there are moments where Henry acts you know decisively and with strength the final comment on his character are these statements by this lady which is then confirmed when Henry confronts his main counselor throughout the movie and it's revealed that the counselor manipulated the whole thing this whole scene with Henry's future wife is bullcrap unknowingly - what I've pointed out there are some other howlers of inaccuracies that someone of her position and upbringing would never say in my opinion a monarchy is illegitimate Wow the movie is trying to show a French princess saying all monarchy is illegitimate that is a completely modern opinion not held by everyone injected into a historical movie that is absolute bullcrap and for a historical film like this okay injecting modern sensibilities is deplorable in my opinion now she might think Henry's conquest of France was illegitimate she might even think her own father's rule is illegitimate and agree with him but for a French princess raised to be a princess with her father's authority and with the authority of monarchies in all the lands round about to think that all monarchy is illegitimate is absolutely ridiculous I'm often there must be for you to contemplate marriage to a woman about whom you know so little courtiers or what breakdown just of that so she says she can't speak English and then she does speak English even the writers are complete idiots and decide to forget that part or they already betray this French lady as being a complete lie which does not paint her in a positive light by going off what she says later on well she's a horrible character already and then she states that contemplating marriage to a woman that you know so little about as something foreign when arranged marriages was the absolute norm for monarchy like this heavens her older sister had married the previous english king richard ii when she was 6 years old this is not a strange thing yet they're showing it to be a straight thing arranged marriages are much more strange to the Western world now is another example of modern sensibilities being injected into historical film this isn't strange is a completely normal I would not submit to you you must earn my suspect there are a lot of women in arranged marriages who would never get away with saying something like that if the husband was particularly weak look I think a woman could say that to husband I will not submit to you but in this situation with the power that Henri holds and what is just achieved I personally feel she would never say something like that do you might hate him but to actually antagonize this Conqueror is just bonkers you've shed the blood of so many Christian souls and that statement is just wholly hypocritical because the French were no strangers to warfare or declaring war they had declared war against the English to reclaim lands that they felt rightfully theirs with the exact same level of justification that Henry had in his declaration of war against the French medieval people weren't exactly shy about going to war in many instances they kind of liked it I do have a video on this why medieval people loved war very check it out if you want to see the ins and outs but warfare in some instances could be seen by medieval people as glorious and a way to gain great wealth and riches and some people honestly enjoyed the fighting the medieval mindset is different to the modern mindset and this scene right here is such a profoundly and egregious example of injecting modern sentiments into a historical period which don't fit so I know I said I was basically done previously but now I am I just needed to finish off you know this review where that one of the more egregious examples of inaccuracy in my opinion but there we go this has been my hugely detailed review of the King as it is now available on Netflix and unfortunately I give it a big thumbs down mmm don't like it didn't enjoy it even from just a film point of view the characters were bland and uninteresting and the character ultimately depicted as being weak and manipulatable and the battles were average average there was one a half-decent fire scene but it did have problems and say yeah please do share your thoughts in the comments below I look forward to reading them and of course I look forward to seeing you in the next video so until that time [Music] you

Channel: Shadiversity

Views: 424,610

Keywords: the king, netflix, review, film, medieval, middle ages, history, historical, henry V, henry the fifth, shakespeare, analysis, agincourt, game of thrones, the outlaw king, outlaw king, armor, sword, swords, longsword, armour, fullplate, full plate, knight, knight's, trebuchet, seige, siege, battle, king, royalty, robert the bruce, willaim wallace, braveheart

Id: wD22D423U5Q

Length: 54min 52sec (3292 seconds)

Published: Fri Nov 15 2019