I just finished your book on my flight home today and I bloody loved it! Sure hope we can get a sequel or at least another work set in that universe! Good video too

@dontafk9809

4 жыл бұрын

Yes please!!!

@TechnoMinarchistBall

4 жыл бұрын

It was great. He needs an editor though. The inner monologues of self hate is a little too frequent, and the there are cases where he repeats himself such as explaining a piece of lore late in the book that was already explained earlier in the book.

@Junkzillabox

4 жыл бұрын

Great book, I can't wait for the next. I particularly enjoyed the audio book, it was amazingly well done. I'm going to miss one the characters so much. He was so funny, I loved his personality since it played off of his partner so well.

@jordanwehler7196

4 жыл бұрын

Didn't know he wrote a book. Sorry for the ignorance. Does someone have a name or a link to a purchase? I'm curious

@TechnoMinarchistBall

4 жыл бұрын

@@jordanwehler7196 With the link in the videos description you should be able to get a free audiobook too.

"It's like they thought the Medieval period didn't even have Sunshine!" To be fair, Shad, it *is* England. I'm not sure they have sunshine today.

@Practitioner_of_Diogenes

4 жыл бұрын

They get sunshire, but it's like one week for the whole year.

@dantaylor9132

4 жыл бұрын

Very true. I live in London, the last time I saw sun was for about an hour more than three weeks ago

@TheMarkg6

4 жыл бұрын

I live in Florida. Please take some of ours. - sincerely a fair skinned construction worker

@broomy1610

4 жыл бұрын

What’s sunshine?

@lordofuzkulak8308

4 жыл бұрын

AkodoAkira1 wait, you mean the sun isn't something invented for films by Hollywood? 😲 😜

A little known fact is that sunshine was heavily taxed in medieval times, so they enjoy it sparsely - as depicted in most movies.

@DedicatedSpartan

4 жыл бұрын

LOL

@pedrohenrique-et3fs

4 жыл бұрын

they had the prima morning

@sebdunleavy1608

4 жыл бұрын

well there’s never much sunshine in England and Northern France

@mustavogaia2655

4 жыл бұрын

@@sebdunleavy1608 And do you think that those two things were not related?

@charlottewalnut3118

4 жыл бұрын

Mustavo Gaia Escanor : Who decided that.

45:30 the reason he is slipping isn’t because of the armor. It’s a known fact that French knights wore blocks of soap on their feet because full plate is to OP and the game devs needed to balance the gameplay

@samclukey9802

4 жыл бұрын

@@gregory7451 I assume you meant a waste of words? Or were you admiring this comment's physique?

@Vorador47

4 жыл бұрын

what's more amazing is he managed to slip and get killed, despite not being there and dying months after the battle.

@CazzyVR

4 жыл бұрын

@@gregory7451 No u

@MrDibara

3 жыл бұрын

Nah, it's obvious the French guy is a newbie and put all his stats into Strength alone. He should've put some points in Endurance, that would've let him at least move decently in that armor set.

@calebharris7568

3 жыл бұрын

sam clukey too good 😂😂😂

Great medieval films? May I introduce... *Monty Python and the Holy Grail*

@cambs0181

3 жыл бұрын

Well to be fair soldiers back then commonly went into battle drunk. Chapman was completely shitfaced in the whole making of that movie.

We all know what the French said to Henry : "Your father was a hamster, and your mother smelled of Elderberry !"

@kaisellers792

4 жыл бұрын

Wrong way round

@Cancoillotteman

4 жыл бұрын

@@kaisellers792 oh yeah true ! Though this way is fun as well ^^

@harknessfan567

4 жыл бұрын

"Now go away before I insult you some more."

@aidanswenson9659

4 жыл бұрын

Ni!

@harknessfan567

4 жыл бұрын

@@aidanswenson9659 "we want a shrubbery!"

One of the things I did appreciate most about this movie was that the armor actually worked. Nobody really got sliced through like butter. Most kills were stabs in the weaker parts of the armor.

@benjaminthibieroz4155

4 жыл бұрын

True. The most absurd thing about armor in this movie is the moment when they say "we remove them" I facepalmed and yelled at that point

@Gew219

4 жыл бұрын

Well, there were scenes of arrows going straight through breastplates.

@gimgimlet6350

4 жыл бұрын

@@Gew219 That is true, but there were also scenes were plate armor fully deflected arrow fire

@brandonfoley7519

4 жыл бұрын

Got thrones lol the hound is strong use big sword chop man in half

@brandonfoley7519

4 жыл бұрын

@@Gew219 I can at least suspend belief in that regard Arrows do have good penetration That's what she said

French Princess: "All monarchy is illegitimate." King Elfboy: "Excuuuuuuuse me Princess!"

@dagonofthedepths

4 жыл бұрын

ah that made my day thank you.

@zaidhernandez4601

3 жыл бұрын

Amazing 😄

@alanmichelsandoval8768

3 жыл бұрын

I thought that by the comment she was well aware of that, she knows It Is unfair but doesnt really give a damn

@jupiterrising887

2 жыл бұрын

@@alanmichelsandoval8768 No, it's just modern BS being injected into a period where it never existed.

My biggest problem with them portraying historical characters as being emotionless, is the fact that the biographers of many of the medieval kings and lords actually record the emotional states such as them flying into a rage when done wrong (Abbot Samson of Bury-St. Edmonds) or crying at the site of a flower.

@dogman9291

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly. If you're willing to do some research, there's actually a LOT of records you can build off of as a writer, to get an idea of what a historical figure may have been like as a person.

@kyle18934

3 жыл бұрын

@@dogman9291 very true. their characteristics add into the story of how and why things took place. they add depth and and a perspective that would otherwise be lost. it gives the feeling that they were actually people that had their own demons and problems in life. they were just people going through life, making decisions. they were not just words on a page, or a story created by an author. If I remember from my history class from a while ago, king hennery was pretty aggressive and angry. he was impulsive and would absolutely invade France if given the lawful chance. he had a major change in character when he was hit in the face by an arrow. the arrowhead, a bodkin (un-barbed, built for armor piercing) was resting against the base of the skull. this may have given him brain damage, or the pain may have changed him.

@crazyviking24

2 жыл бұрын

@@Hahaha12342 I forget the name

@crazyviking24

2 жыл бұрын

@@Hahaha12342 I would recommend a Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England as the story is found there.

@Polyglot_English

2 жыл бұрын

Детерминизм это Свобода 🤙

A French heavy cavalry charge and no one thought to bring a lance.

@Terrekain

4 жыл бұрын

We have American self-defense Battle Axes today - someone in Michigan used one to gore a home-invader. www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-man-fends-intruder-replica-battle-axe-bloody-mess-everywhere

@belisarius6949

4 жыл бұрын

@@Terrekain Who gives a fuck?

@ifikrates

4 жыл бұрын

My point exactly! Netflix seems to deliberately screw this up (they already did - in the Outlaw King). Why? Even from the purely cinematic point of view a cavalry charge looks so much better with lances (as e.g. in Braveheart - regardless of that film's many problems).

@belisarius6949

4 жыл бұрын

@@ifikrates For Holywood Lances are purely just tournament stuff.

@johnnatandc

4 жыл бұрын

Lances are sooo out of trend nowadays... hahahah XD

The king: is completely inaccurate to actual history Shadiversity: it's treason then.

@lorddiethorn

4 жыл бұрын

To be fair it’s based more on the plays but the ending was total bullshit women would not be talking like that

@SRosenberg203

4 жыл бұрын

@@lorddiethorn And even if they did talk like that, the only response they'd get from their husband is to be hit so hard they see stars.

@mariebourgot4949

4 жыл бұрын

@@SRosenberg203 Oh. That is historically accurate? Not just your hurt feelings?

@SRosenberg203

4 жыл бұрын

@@mariebourgot4949 What I described actually is historically accurate for the period. It's not right, but it was the reality of the time.

@Dadecorban

4 жыл бұрын

@@lorddiethorn talking at all*

"But horse armour is expensive" Queue quick image of Bethesda's Horse Armour DLC Shad, you absolute legend.

@FlashBangBANGz

3 жыл бұрын

This comment is underrated.

@ericsplittgerber5154

2 жыл бұрын

I caught this too, seriously amazing

@yig_501

2 жыл бұрын

haha even in 2022 this got me XD hes a legend

Guys, I found out why the movie is not historically accurate. The director of the film actually made it according to a playthrough of Crusader Kings III.

So at 20:54 I misspoke, I meant to say the style of fighting they're employing is unarmored longsword technique while wearing fullplate armor. My brain must have turned off when I said single handed longsword technique because. . . WHAT!?!?

@NeocrimsonX

4 жыл бұрын

Oof

@darkprototype5353

4 жыл бұрын

Btw, pretty sure Metatron said it was based off the play.

@joku02

4 жыл бұрын

Almoust an hour long video fro Shad? WERE BLESSED!

@mattg-xy8jr

4 жыл бұрын

@@darkprototype5353 Metatron**

@darkprototype5353

4 жыл бұрын

@@mattg-xy8jr Damn auto correct. Thanks.

I was literally watching this movie thinking to myself “Shad is 100% making a video on this”.

@AcidJiles

4 жыл бұрын

I enjoyed the movie but was also thinking that Shad would tear it a new one.

@Agnessa92

4 жыл бұрын

I thought that after seeing the first trailer :)

@mdallie763

4 жыл бұрын

@@Agnessa92 Same!!

@kaoskat5111

4 жыл бұрын

same i watched it yesterday and am watching this today.....nice

@mralfey

4 жыл бұрын

Same. As soon as I see the word ‘king’ on Nexflix, I think: *It’s Shad Time*

I interpreted Henry V's "blandness" as him maintaining a royal composure. I've heard Queen Elizabeth talking about how it can be hard to keep up at times. That's why I thought the scene where Henry cries over the death of his friend was really well done.

"He actually believed that he was made of glass!" Not the worst-ever royal delusion...

@MrDibara

3 жыл бұрын

*..... I'm afriad to ask for what the worse ones actually are.* 😑'

@phosphoros60

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrDibara Emperor Caligula of the Roman Empire named his horse a Senator and himself - with the consent of the stunned Roman Senate - a God. Emperor Zheng De of China issued orders to an imaginary General - he also had his trusted advisor, the Eunuch Liu Jin executed by the 'Then Thousand Cuts' practise of having someone slowly bled out to death. Juana la Loca, Joan the Mad, of Spain had her dead husband's corpse put up in a Mausoleum she visited regularly, touching and kissing his rotting body. Tsar Peter the Great's own son died under torture for having an affair. Tsar Ivan IV killed his own son in a fit of rage. The government of England during the Napoleonic Wars was _very_ happy that King George III wasn't legally in charge of any actual state power, because he regularly had hallucinations. Ludwig II of Bavaria spent the entire estate of his country on building the fake mediaval castle of Neuschwanstein, then just walked into a lake and drowned himself. So, yeah, Dayless the Conqueror was one of the less crazy rulers.

@MrDibara

3 жыл бұрын

@@phosphoros60 #__# ......................... 🧠🔫 💥

@MrDibara

3 жыл бұрын

@@phosphoros60 I'm honestly not surprised by the Roman one, but the others were actually surprising.

@philipped.r.6385

3 жыл бұрын

Well, Charles VI first known bout of psychosis was while leading a military campaign in Britanny to capture Pierre de Craon who attempted to murder one of his councillor and was protected by the Duke. A leper came at him screaming that he had been betrayed and shouldn't go further. He was beaten back by his escort, but they didn't arrest him and he continued to scream his non-sense. Then, a page accidently dropped a lance he was carrying and it banged loudly on an helmet than another man carried. Charles drew his sword and screamed "Forward against the traitor! They wish to deliver me to the enemy!" He spurred his horse and started fighting random guys around him. They finally wrestled him on the ground and he fell into a coma. He had killed a knight known as "the Bastard of Polignac" and several other men. It's not at the level of Aerys Targaryen, but it's still something. There was also the "Bal des Ardents" which is pretty telling too: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_des_Ardents .

Nations that have gone to war with France the most: 1. France

@samclukey9802

4 жыл бұрын

You'd think that after all these republics they would have worked out the kinks by now

@borealfear6762

4 жыл бұрын

sam clukey No, we won't because.

@andredulac4456

4 жыл бұрын

If you consider England as a french colony, then yes :p

@PeaneutzTV

4 жыл бұрын

As a French, after seeing how poorly our government handled the Corona-crisis, we should go to war against France once again!

@arkasfenrir6893

3 жыл бұрын

@@PeaneutzTV As another French, i fooking agree !

About Henry's scar: HE WAS SHOT IN THE FACE WITH A F-ING WAR-BOW! there is a documantery about that specific event here on KZread. Look it up. The wound completely messed up one half of his face and all the movie gave him was a cute, anime like scar on the cheek.

@Immopimmo

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, they had to make a special tool to remove the point from deep within his skull. Some pretty hardcore surgery.

@TealWolf26

4 жыл бұрын

*has a little knick on the cheek* oh no....im so hideous! Don't look at me!

@gracesprocket7340

4 жыл бұрын

@@Immopimmo While the surgeon did develop a special tool, that may have been because it was so close to the spine, and lodged in bone. To remove barbed arrows in flesh it is sufficient to pass a pair of quills down the wound to land on the barb points. Then the whole can be withdrawn with minimal or no additional injury.

“All monarchy is illegitimate.” They can’t help but shoehorn modern sentiments into these films/shows. No respect for or interest in history.

@thethirdsicily4802

4 жыл бұрын

as a monarchist myself (semi con.) the idea that people do shoehorn statements like these is absurd, it's a stupid statement that, coming from a noblewoman, sounds even more hilarious.

@medievalgirl002

4 жыл бұрын

@@thethirdsicily4802 Not just from a noblewomen, she was meant to be the daughter of the King of France. I know what you mean about absurd modern sentiments though. Needless to say, that line was not in the original play. I'd say only about 50% of the material in this movie does come from it really. The rest is invention, and very bad at that.

@LitlBlackDragonNinja

4 жыл бұрын

@@thethirdsicily4802 That's what I call propaganda.

@thethirdsicily4802

4 жыл бұрын

@@LitlBlackDragonNinja yeeeeeup

@mariebourgot4949

4 жыл бұрын

​@@medievalgirl002 Because the play isn't invention too? I get your point, but the play isn't a history book.

The armor is so ill-fitting that we see Henry adjusting his coif three times in the final battle, as without the padding it's too large and slips onto his eyes, hindering his visibility...

You know what breaks immersion in half a breath? A character in a medieval setting who happens to be exactly 700 years ahead of their time -.-

@upmayo100

4 жыл бұрын

700? You may want to re-count

@ziomudru

3 жыл бұрын

700 or 600 makes no difference. they have to turn good protagonist into a pacifist so that modern audience can identify.

@maple2524

3 жыл бұрын

Pacificism wasn’t invented in 1900. It might not have been so popular in the Dark Ages, but it certainly isn’t impossible for any given person to have abhorred war back then.

@kielanwade5096

3 жыл бұрын

@@maple2524 Yeah I think saying that all medieval people loved war is just a ridiculous statement. Human nature doesn't change, we tend to try and avoid dying horribly when we can so its not unreasonable to think that some medieval people may have been anti-war. They just didn't have a word for it yet, or they'd probably just call them a coward.

@zacharyradford5552

3 жыл бұрын

@@kielanwade5096 Very few monarchs of any country didn’t like war. Common people never liked war.

I disliked the depiction of the battle greatly. I find the real battle of Agincourt much more interesting than the one that was depicted and no, I don't think it was a budge issue. They simply weren't interested in depicting a real combat engagement and aimed more for a chaotic, brutal, muddy mess like we see in many other movies. I'm especially angered by the movie trope, where soldiers suicidally run into each other and proceed to fight one on one all over the battlefield. We have contemporary sources and modern videos of police vs rioters that confirm that everytime two armed mobs approach each other, they advance as two masses and it is only the first two ranks who do the actual fighting, while the rest were mostly throwing projectiles or waiting to switch the exhausted and injured soldiers in the first rank.

@evilbarrels2506

4 жыл бұрын

This would also be doubly true if the situation depicted in the movie was true, since flanking an opponent gives two major advantages: 1) The ability to fight in formation while also forcing your opponent to fight out of formation. 2) The ability to outnumber the individual fighters in the opposing formation since their file is often much thinner than their rank. If the French were rooted in place (or at least slowed to the point it was difficult for them to regroup) then maintaining formation while flanking them would absolutely be the best course of action, as that would multiply the effect of the flanking maneuver.

@photosyntheticzee9915

4 жыл бұрын

It's almost like they think that people fighting to the death have enough honor to find a single opponent and square off with them, then just look for a new one when you finish fighting, instead of double-teaming enemies whereever you could. The reason we started fighting in shield-walls and phalanxes and maniples and all that is because with a guy to your left and your right, you can be reasonably confident that you won't be double-teamed or struck from your blind spot, and you can focus on the guy in front of you. Does wonders for morale. If you are out of formation, the smartest thing to do is backpedal slowly and fend off blows so that you can keep your enemies in front of you.

@Subtleknife12367

4 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately it is what is in vogue for film battles. They seem to be fixated by making it seem muddy and chaotic since GoT. It is the same way I which every officer is depicted as an idiot and every one is miserable in ww1. It would be nice if film makes made both of these things realistic.

@PatrixBest

4 жыл бұрын

They way they depict battles, being so chaotic, I always wonder how they tell friend from foe. How do you quickly identify one muddy metal-clad man from another? Stay in formation, keep your friends to your sides and rear, keep the enemy in front >:[

@MrEvanfriend

4 жыл бұрын

One thing that he misses, that made the movie battle less historically accurate and higher budget, is that the French attack was NOT mounted. The French men at arms assaulted on foot, not on horseback.

I actually liked the way Timothy played Hal, because he started off with personality and then had to harden himself. I'm not looking at it from a historical perspective just from a story one. The way Hal closes up unless he's with his one friend, and even then it's on an inkling of the smile he had before speaks volumes of his state of mind as a king.

@jlinus7251

2 жыл бұрын

@TheStonesSing another idiot in general. Nice to meet ya

The scene with Katherine is just absurd, especially when you compare it to the original play. Shakespeare's 'wooing scene' between Henry and Katherine is romantic, touching and quite funny. (With some cheeky innuendo, in typical Shakespearean style) Henry makes a fool of himself by speaking French badly , and Katherine laughs at him for it, but not in a belittling way. The best version is probably in the Branagh version of 1989, in which Katherine is played by Emma Thompson who was then married to Branagh.

@Concetta20

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I love that scene too-so I forgive Shakespeare for omitting the fact that Henry would’ve spoken fluent French in real life, since French was actually the official language of the English court pretty up to his time.

@manicpixiefangirl4189

3 жыл бұрын

My Tom Hiddleston-loving heart is deeply wounded. 🥺😢

@zacharyradford5552

3 жыл бұрын

Really believe Shakespeare someone who was born over 100 years after the time of HenryV.

@zacharyradford5552

3 жыл бұрын

@@Concetta20 I forgive Shakespeare for being born over a 100 years after the time of Henry V. Same as now you have to forgive movie writers and directors for being born almost 600 years after that time.

@emmitstewart1921

2 жыл бұрын

No medieval princess would speak so rudely, especially to an important suitor. Nor would a modern one. If she disliked him, or disapproved of his actions, she would have been polite, but noncommittal. Later in her chambers with her ladies in waiting she might mock or show disgust, but she would never publicly scold him so roundly.

At least there are no lightsabers in this movie. Those belong into Star Wars, not the medieval period.

@demigod5219

4 жыл бұрын

Ardus Kaine true but maybe it would be a welcome change, the only Star Wars movies since the prequels have been Rogue One & Solo 🤷‍♂️

@lillyanneserrelio2187

4 жыл бұрын

Where are the pyramids? j/k That would be crazy to have in a medieval period film (hides her light saber under her peasant clothes)

@haillobster7154

4 жыл бұрын

@@demigod5219 sheesh... it's high time some visionary like JJ Abrams, or Rian Johnson directed a Star Wars movie. This franchise could do with their genius guidance.

@weesnaorc1203

4 жыл бұрын

Idk about that. starwars took place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. It might be possible that some jedi stumbled across earth and thought hey they could use an upgrade!

@jackflanagan903

4 жыл бұрын

How's the Pentastar Alignment getting along?

It really bothered me that during the battle they never wore distinguishing colors, how would they know which side they're fighting?

@mnk9073

4 жыл бұрын

That's actually pretty accurate but more so in the way that everyone wore all kinds of colours, all kinds of coats of arms and flew all kinds of flags so yeah, colour coded armies are nonsense up until pretty much the english civil war. This was also not helped by the fact that certain designs, for example a white cross on red, was so popular that there was no shortage of battles where armies fought each other under the exact same banners.

@Wveth

4 жыл бұрын

Medieval armies wore the colors of their lords rather than their kings or countries.

@De_Futura

4 жыл бұрын

Because they usually kept formation while in combat.

@lorddiethorn

4 жыл бұрын

No the English wore the The cross of Saint George on their person

@mnk9073

4 жыл бұрын

@sick boy For illuminations "Les Grandes chroniques de France" and "Chroniques de Froissart" are a great start. Have fun finding out who is who in the mess of boldly coloured doublets, proudly worn crosses and quartered banners especially after Castille joins both sides; kindly enough the illustrators took mercy and put in royal banners the size of sails in some to make it easier...

Medieval England: "Absolute riiiyoottt of colours" Modern day England: "Have you got a licence for them colours m8?"

@romyarmada9580

3 жыл бұрын

Loicence

@irarelyupload6930

2 жыл бұрын

Is there supposed to be a joke here?

I have fought for a few years in full plate, full-contact fighting. I have fought in rain, snow, heat, cold, and WET MUDDY GROUND. The problem is not the armor, it's the shoes. I have slid all over the place in a fight and watched people fall on their face all because medieval shoes/boots are so slippery in muddy wet grass.

@krisnorge5830

3 жыл бұрын

Buhurt fighting?

@patrickallbright2809

3 жыл бұрын

@@krisnorge5830 yes sir!

@krisnorge5830

3 жыл бұрын

Nice! Historical re-enactor here! Different mentality but many of the same interests.

according to historical records in the battle Agincourt, the french knights charged on their horses, but they got stuck in the mud on the field. The english longbow fired at point black range and slaughtered them. Most of the arrows killed the horses and the horse died and fell on top of the knights. Then the skirmishers moved in to finish off the knights while they were trapped under their horses.

@kingmalric9260

4 жыл бұрын

Poor bastards

@MoonLight-zj8iu

4 жыл бұрын

Oh god that's fucking brutal.

@thebuddhaofknowledgemichae2486

4 жыл бұрын

TentaclePentacle it's a movie. Henry V was surrounded by bodyguards in the battlefield.

@somerandomguyfromthebeyond1821

4 жыл бұрын

@@MoonLight-zj8iu the English in the Medival era had a reputation of being rather ruthless in warfare

@Nantosuelta

4 жыл бұрын

A large part of the english archers effectiveness against the french knights at Agincourt was due to the bodkin arrow head which could pierce plate armor much better than previous designs.

Almost back to back hour long videos. Shad you’re too kind to us.

@ravenwarjoy

4 жыл бұрын

It's the influence of the Long Man. Shad is becoming Long by association.

@anthonykeane4984

4 жыл бұрын

Arise shad sword longman

@gabriellloyd

4 жыл бұрын

please no more hour long vids!

@lillyanneserrelio2187

4 жыл бұрын

its long because there is THAT MUCH wrong with the movie. I know my statement isnt true because if that was true, Shad's critique videos on Disney's Star Wars Force Awakens would be a week long. Sory Rey, Im a fellow woman and tried to appreciate the 'strong female heroine" message BUT your character annoyed even me. Rey, you are now tied with adoloscent Anakin Skywalker at his most whiny, petulant scenes in the prequels. (Jar Jar still holds #1 spot as most annoying character.)

@michaelsloanedog

4 жыл бұрын

But longman bad

Just finished this movie on Netflix, and I agree with your observations here. However, I wanted to give an additional note about the Battle of Agincourt: Another essential factor that contributed to the historical English victory was the formation used by the English soldiers. The English longbowmen were stationed behind spike fortifications that granted them protection from the French charge and impaled French horses. The English men-at-arms were positioned in center field to funnel the French into a central melee, while archers on the wings could continue harassing the French with arrows. The English victory was dependent on the success of this troop arrangement and the defensive advantage the English maintained. The movie fails to show any coherent English strategy beyond a surprise flank.

Never mind Henry, the French were fighting each other for several years before Agincourt. The King's own brother, Louis Duke of Orleans was murdered in 1407, probably on the orders his cousin, John 'The Fearless' Duke of Burgundy. Who ended up being murdered himself in 1419. Two factions formed, led by the Duke of Orleans, the brother of the King, and the Duke of Burgundy, who kept fighting each other and vying for power in the vacuum left by the mad and often incapacitated King Charles VI.

@frankie3010

Жыл бұрын

There is no probably. John the Fearless was very happy to tell anyone who'd listen that he did it.

Decrying the legitimacy of all monarchy in the 1400s is akin to a modern person arguing that democracy in all its form is illegitimate compared to a hypothetical and unspecified system that may exist 400 years from now. (like some form of neural linked AI assisted global consciousness technocracy)

@Gew219

4 жыл бұрын

While being the democratically elected official from the Kennedy family on top of that.

@AdriiPing

4 жыл бұрын

Remember, Palpatine loves democracy too :v

@TheBelrick

4 жыл бұрын

And promoting democracy in the face of a world that is perpetually abusing democracy, anti brexiters, trump coups, parties elected because they own the media etc etc. is fucking laughable

@taxuenowoz4038

4 жыл бұрын

Oh I could only hope for such a thing.

@sps6374

4 жыл бұрын

What? Ever heard of Augustine, Thomas of Aquinas, William of Ockham or Etienne de la Boétie ? Plenty of highly-regarded intellectuals of their times discussed the legitimacy of monarchy, its limits and the limits of both secular and religious rule, as well as the consent of the people to be ruled and to depose tyrans, both in medieval times and during the Renaissance (as well as they had long before, and continued after...). As a species we haven't evolved so fast that our ancestors were completely different beings, unable to form the thoughts that we have and to conceive of anything different from what they had in place.

I loved your breakdown of the princess scene. You're totally right in that modern sensibilities/social attitudes shouldn't be put into a historical period piece (accurate or 'inspired by' doesn't matter). A story about a king's rise and attempts at conquest is no place for someone to argue whether monarchies should be ripped down. It's like someone making a movie about Alexander the Great's life and trying to use it to speak about the horror of war and how violence is never the answer. Insane.

@burner27

4 жыл бұрын

Or classical greek cultural norms?

@luigibro2424

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe she’s just a Yorkist

@whitworth5s248

4 жыл бұрын

King Henry might as well have just pulled out a satphone during a big battle scene and called for a air strike from an A-10. The level of movie breaking anachronism would have been on par with the 15th century princess defying the patriarchy and asserting herself as a strong independent woman.

@maximeperez-raymond3346

3 жыл бұрын

@@whitworth5s248 and napoléon 1er and his grognards show their face and sing the ognion song.

@venator0405

3 жыл бұрын

I mean, I dont think it's a bad idea to portray ancient and medieval violence as horrific, as long as you do it frankly and without being ham-handed, or have characters look at it from an anachronistic perspective.

"William the conqueror was French!" *angry Lindybeige noises

@brucetucker4847

4 жыл бұрын

He was a native French speaker, though.

@mitsumichi5325

4 жыл бұрын

As a French, It always amuse me each time I see British people getting annoyed to see William or his 1066 army being called French. It seems that to hear they've been dominated by Frenchmen at some point in history is something they really can't stand.

@blazeaglory

4 жыл бұрын

@@mitsumichi5325 He was Norman. That would be like calling a Welshman English

@mitsumichi5325

4 жыл бұрын

@@blazeaglory I do not agree for Wales was already a distinct, independent and ancient kingdom with its own people, culture and language that have only been conquered and annexed by the kingdom of England in 1283. They became politically part of England but kept their culture and language and managed to keep at least a part of its identity even until today since it's still considered a distinct _country_ from its conqueror, England. To me a Wales comparison would be much more relevant with Brittany rather than Normandy. Actually, if Normandy should be compared to a British region, it would be much more relevant to compare it with the Danelaw, don't you think ? Except Danelaw was a big independent Kingdom carved out of the little English kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia and East-Anglia and finally reconquered by the Kingdom of England in 954 after a century of wars. Normandy, on the other hand, has never been a distinct country. It was a duchy that was created in 911 inside the Kingdom of France for the Viking chieftain Rollon in exchange of his vassalage and conversion to Christianity. It attracted thousands of Norses to settle here but much less than the whole Danelaw did (actually a lot of Norse settlers came from Danelaw to flee the war rather than Scandinavia). They imported their culture and language but remained a minority inside the local French population and quickly intermixed with them. They kept a much more peaceful cohabitation with their neighbouring counties. 150 years later when Guillaume, Rollon's great-great-great-grandson, prepared for his invasion, him and his Norman soldiers probably looked much more French than Norse on many levels. In fact, if you look at the Bayeux Tapestry made in the 1070's on Guillaume's half brother orders, you'll see that Guillaume is presented as "Duke of the Normans" but his soldiers are called... "Franci", "French" in latin. But to be fair, this tapestry was probably made by Englishmen and Guillaume's army didn't just include Normans but thousands of Bretons, Picards, Flamans... So it's much more logic to call this a French Army since that's the only geographical/political delimitation that include all these people place of origin. So, from my point of view, calling a 1066 Normandy man "French" would be more like calling a 1066 Norfolkman "English".

@NeoZeta

4 жыл бұрын

@Hornyshark Meh~ they were essentially French, everyone knows that, only the English refuse to accept that.

It’s a shame he didn’t mention more on the fighting. There were no sword stabs through plate armor like a lot of Hollywood does. Also the use of a hammer/mace by Henry to defeat armor was something I haven’t seen done often in many movies. Armor was defeated how it would of been.

Shad Facts: Shad has performed the bag of rats, cleave, whirlwind trick, but with Elder Dragons. Shogoth will not be bothering us for another 10000 years

@mralfey

4 жыл бұрын

Finally! Shad has liked Shad Facts!

It's funny when a computer game from 2006 (Medieva 2 Total War) can depict a medieval combat engagement more realistically than a movie from 2019.

@Yora21

4 жыл бұрын

It's not about "can", it's about "want".

@maxximo2367

4 жыл бұрын

Man, Total War told me more about medieval history than my school ever could. I love the Total War games.

@elasolezito

4 жыл бұрын

@@slovencleta Yea, i hope the next historical title takes place in late medieval times along with pike and shot, hats off to them if they manage to make the formations as realistic as possible. Warhammer will be top for me and as a Greek i appreciate the Trojan war but c'mon enough with fantasy and superhero duels. There's so much depth and things to cover in these centuries!

@hulking_presence

4 жыл бұрын

Because a video game doesn't actually need masses of real people, armor, etc

@enlightenedterrestrial

4 жыл бұрын

@@slovencleta I just wish they would give us back the hotseat co-op campaign mode, so that we can play with multiple players, without the need to be online all at once. I also enjoyed the slow paced combat of Medieval 2 compared to the newer releases.

Whenever I read "Duchy of..." I can't help but remember that glorious moment where CNN referred to William and Kate as the Douche and Duchess of Cambridge.

@janandreiyanoyan8825

3 жыл бұрын

LOL Is there a video of that?

I actually thought the Outlaw King was too "hollywood" and vastly preferred the King. I thought the depiction of Henry V as an introspective man trying to do right by his kingdom and avoid his father's mistakes and the manipulations of his advisors was well done.

@ciaranmck4469

3 жыл бұрын

It was but it was far from what the real Henry V was like Its much more gritty than outlaw king but Henry V sounds just so much cooler in real life then what we see in the movie

@averageraiden9900

8 ай бұрын

How he was in real life is unkown, people talk like they knew the guy in person, having only glimpses of what was written about this public figure. Its easy to fit in what we want to believe of him, but its always good to remember he isnt your rpg character

@averageraiden9900

8 ай бұрын

And I totally agree with outlaw king being too hollywood id even say a bit generic. I rly liked the king.

@wehrewulf

5 ай бұрын

You thought...poorly.

"All monarchy is illegitimate." That's rich comming from a princess. Man, who wrote this garbage?

@GuitarsRockForever

4 жыл бұрын

Just a little rich.🤣🤣🤣

@probablythedm1669

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, like, wtf... Would she not believe her family's right to rule was the literal will of God? Very weird...

@totocaca7035

4 жыл бұрын

Just a period these biches go through. Once they're in, they know what the biz is about.

@totocaca7035

4 жыл бұрын

Ask liz.

@TrueMentorGuidingMoonlight

4 жыл бұрын

I bet she doesn’t believe in queens either. Would probably use airbending to kill monarchs.

The entire time watching this movie, I kept thinking "wasn't Henry a 6'3", well-built, scarfaced, battle-hardened motherfucker by the age of 20?" And that one thought alone killed the movie for me, before I even got to the later travesties

@commiemeth

4 жыл бұрын

To my Knowledge Henry wasn't 6'3 more likely 6 flat because there really wouldn't be such a huge deal about Edward IV being 6'4. In all accounts I've read Henry V isn't all that tall but that's just me he is personally not a favorite king of mine so maybe that's why

@viorp5267

4 жыл бұрын

Wait 6'3 holy fucking shit. Wasn't a thing about medieval people that they were way shorter than we are now. That must be like 2 meters now.

@boguslav9502

4 жыл бұрын

@@viorp5267 i dont thibj they were necesaaeily much smaller to be honest. I have a suspicion that we see a growth fron abtiquity to the earky medieval. Recession on height in thr middle medieval and a slow rise since the late medieval.

@viorp5267

4 жыл бұрын

@@boguslav9502 I do think they were smaller. Whenever I go to medieval castles I need to duck my head all the time and I am only 1.70cm I can't imagine anyone living comforably in a medieval castle if they were above 1.65 cm in height. You also see that with historical armor if you go to a museum it seems to be made for people between 1.60 and 1.65 cm. though the are exceptions of course.

@boguslav9502

4 жыл бұрын

@@viorp5267 thats why i say it depends on the age, i do believe we see a decrease in meat consumption heqding into the middle medieval and i believe most castles are buikt in this period. Ive been to skansens that represent early medieval living and they seem not muvh shorter than mod3rn persons. Which is why im making my suggestion. Id need to see if there is a paper of human remains throughout history but i would be suprised if antiwuity sported rather robust peoples. And we saw a dip as diet changed and a resurgence od height as meat became popular.

Just checking, was the daughter of King Charles the 6th named, "Mary Sue"?

@yoyo-lf3ld

3 жыл бұрын

What evidence do you have that women were just slaves back in the day?

@astartesfanboy5294

3 жыл бұрын

@@yoyo-lf3ld nobody said that? Literally he didnt mention anything about that. Are you ok man? Seems your heads a bit too far up your own ass to be safe

@Halo_Legend

3 жыл бұрын

@@astartesfanboy5294 He tastes his food twice in its digestive cycle

While it wasn't as historically accurate as it should have been, you've really got to appreciate the realism in combat this movie had. Most medieval movies have guys slicing through armor with their swords like butter. In real life, knights would bash each other with their weapons repeatedly and most kills between them were done with smaller blades through weak points in their armor. The siege sequence was also quite realistic.

I will never understand the need to spruce up historical things. They were already interesting as is, we don't need people to muddle it with their ideas and turn real people into bland characters.

@SamuriLemonX18

4 жыл бұрын

Tell that to Shakespeare.

@jacquesstrapp3219

4 жыл бұрын

SamurLemonX18 Shakespeare isn't taking calls. Typical arrogant playwright.

@ozymandias3456

4 жыл бұрын

Well in this particular movie, having a subplot of the assassin give an excuse to do the real life thing of battling france but also give us the unlikely bit that Henry didn't want to do that as it lets us connect with him.

@FPSBloodlust

4 жыл бұрын

It's SHAKESPEARE, you uncultured fuckin moron

Manga:☺ Anime:😊 Netflix adaptation:😨

@lordofthepizzapie9319

4 жыл бұрын

Henry V, my favorite manga.

@palpatinethesenatehog7086

4 жыл бұрын

@@lordofthepizzapie9319 Mine's Henry the VIII

Lemme guess: it's dark and gloomy, and they mumble a lot? This actually hurts me physically from how dull it looks

>Expensive >Shows Oblivion horse armor This made me laugh.

I'm actually taking a course on early European history, and coincidentally, we recently covered the Hundred Years' War, so the facts are still fresh in my mind. It's crazy to think that the Henry V film from the 80s that's based on the Shakespearean play has a more accurate depiction of the armor than a modern-made movie that probably had more resources at its disposal.

@lecabillaud6060

4 жыл бұрын

As you say, the Kenneth Branagh 1991 movie was far better and more accurate (despite the fact that it is entirely based on the play).

@guypierson5754

4 жыл бұрын

@@lecabillaud6060 1989 I saw it... did it have multiple releases?

@lecabillaud6060

4 жыл бұрын

@@guypierson5754 As it seems, the original release was 1989, but only 1991 in France. You know, Agincourt... pretty poor name here in France... Just joking : most non-American movies had late french releases that time. Not anymore.

@pypy1986820

4 жыл бұрын

Get off nostalgia goggles please. That 80s movie has Henry fighting on horse back in a padded coat and French knights being penetrated and killed by English arrows like WWI infantry facing machine guns. And let's not forget no one took a pot shot at the English king when he goes into long monologues right beneath French ramparts

@AnimaVox_

4 жыл бұрын

@@pypy1986820 Uh, what? I have no nostalgia for that film, I hadn't even been born yet in that decade. I watched it for the first time a few years back as an adult. Please don't make such assumptions, you don't actually know anything about me. And I didn't even say it was totally accurate, I just said the armor was more accurate in comparison to 'The King.'

It is a shame that some feel the need to pander to a particular audience by injecting modern social commentary into a script. We cannot learn about (or from) history if distortions are deliberately introduced. Shame on the film makers and script writers!

@jacobr2022

4 жыл бұрын

Honestly they should have let us do the thinking and not make the characters tell us how to feel about everything like she did.

@cianmurphy7265

4 жыл бұрын

make and watch bland films if you want. if you find accurate depictions amusing enough to make a film... watch a documentary. leave narrative and film making to those who know what there doing

@whitworth5s248

4 жыл бұрын

cian murphy The “just turn off your brain and enjoy it” defense for trash movies is a bad argument.

@guypierson5754

4 жыл бұрын

@@cianmurphy7265 We do want to leave it to those who know what they are doing. Unfortunately, none of those who know what they are doing were involved in this revisionist dumpsterfire of a film. It was SO bland and shit: WE KNOW the real events. The real events were WAY more exciting than this slow dragging dogshit. You are trying to defend it in many posts, but I think instead you should go read a few books about that campaign, an accurate depiction of the campaign and its epic final showdown would have been AMAZING, but that would have taken peopl who care about making good films, not just crappy cashgrabs like this one was.

@TimePlayerOfficial

Жыл бұрын

@@guypierson5754 Medieval chroniclos and history are glorified to an extent, the events you believe to be "Epic" were probably altered by the winner, it's the nature of humans, and that nature does not evolve in just the matter of a few hundred years.

Can we have like one or two medieval movies that aren't about England?

@eddgrs9193

4 жыл бұрын

No, we can't. As long as America is the biggest market, we will only get big budget medieval movies about England. There was a time when Hollywood made movies like "El Cid", but that era is over. So enjoy your Robin Hood re-re-re-...-remakes.

@TooJubeJM1

4 жыл бұрын

No. This is what people want.

@guypierson5754

4 жыл бұрын

@@eddgrs9193 Man, El Cid. I'm from Spain, we know the film is innacurate as all get out, but we still love it cuase Hollywood seldom comes knocking on our historical epics for inspiration.

@ivanvoronov3871

4 жыл бұрын

Well then the characters will have to speak with subtitles and Americans cant read)) seriously though, the best historical film I think is kingdom of heaven, the directors cut specifically. It is really really good , and it set away from England

@zekun4741

4 жыл бұрын

@@ivanvoronov3871 >kingdom of heaven >historical

According to the great 'Agincourt, The King, the Campaign, the Battle' book by Juliet Barker there were also trebuchets and mangonels at the siege. Henry hired a team of 78 people who were responsible for the guns. The Master gunners probably all came from the Netherlands. This book is really worth getting.

The most outrageous for me is how they made the invader look like victims: Henry the 5th, a gentle and peaceful man? What's next! The dauphin Louis the guyenne at the battle of agincou... waaaaaaaaait.....

@Gabrong

4 жыл бұрын

Well, the same happens with movies about Americans fighting at anywhere. "We are going to invade your country and then make a film about how our soldiers suffered from it"

@weld546

4 жыл бұрын

@Holden Mcgroine it's not true ?

@darkadrien14

4 жыл бұрын

@@weld546 more like abandonned by their high command. they didn't receive any reinforcements during the entire day du to a cut in communication...

@walesdoesntsuck6635

4 жыл бұрын

Henry had a legitimate claim to the French throne

@pougetguillaume4632

4 жыл бұрын

@@walesdoesntsuck6635 it's irrelevant, plus it's not like peasant who were raided by roaming mercenaries and english chevauchée were all that concerned in whose buttock would end on the french throne.

What about the damn lances? Maybe I missed something in your review, but it appears that Netflix has some weird embargo on lances (as in the Outlaw King - you mentioned it there) which is all the more mind boggling: not only are they historically accurate, but also would have made the battle scene look so much cooler. A cavalry charge just with swords seems to be completely pointless.

@robwright1286

2 жыл бұрын

A cavalry charge with maces would be more pointless 😏😌

@Buzzy_Bland

2 жыл бұрын

I imagine it’d be *extremely* dangerous to film with even faux lances. You can’t even really spar with practice spears without being at serious risk of injury. I heard someone in the comments of the battle scene mention that the heads of the polearms the dismounted men at arms when they were charged were added in post because of how deadly they would be in the event of an accident. I have absolutely nothing to confirm this, mind you, but it’s food for thought.

The movies is a crime againts french history.

@korstmahler

4 жыл бұрын

It's a crime against all history, even the parts it doesn't cover.

@Dom-fx4kt

4 жыл бұрын

@Mighty Triballian What do you mean by more 'traditionalist?' If you mean by the code of chivalry, then at the battle of Agincourt you would be right, as the Henry V through chivalry out the window to get his much smaller English force, the upper hand. He ordered the execution of hid French prisoners which almost numbered the same size of their actual army for fears that the French were about to counter attack and the prisoners might rise up without having enough people to guard them.

@MrDibara

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dom-fx4kt Sorry to be that kind of guy, but, it is "Henry V *threw* chivalry out the window", that is how you spell the past tense of the verb "to throw". Sorry, not trying to be an ass here, I just felt a little bugged by that mistake there, because it looks like you're saying a different word entirely.

@Dom-fx4kt

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrDibara lol yeah my bad, I can get carried away when typing fast, and say the wrong thing.

@MrDibara

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dom-fx4kt It's okay, we all do it every now and then and we'll keep doing it in the future. So long as we can avoid some more _atrocious_ typos or ones that could lead to a misunderstanding, we should be fine. Have a great day! 👍

I was particularly disappointed we didn't get the Battle of Shrewsbury. Like we're so used to seeing and hearing English longbowmen engaging armoured men-at-arms and crossbows, the idea of two English armies engaging each other with longbowmen (like in the War of the Roses) would have been pretty interesting to see, not to mention it would have been a good way to show that Henry was a good soldier.

Glad I'm not the only one that was let down with "The King" when "The Outlaw King" was such a good medieval movie, I honestly felt bored watching this movie when with the other one I was invested and wanted to see the underdog succeed. This movie though, it made something that happened in history seem like the British decided to take a skip and a hop across the pond to see how their neighbor France was doing and decided let me just buy up some land, they weren't using it. But the way the battle was shot was clearly inspired by the battle scene from season 6 of game of thrones and that's just cheap to rip-off good cinematography for that scene to to get a cool battle scene. It's true the British did send men up to lure the French into their trap, but they didn't really engage them in a full-blown skirmish because they didn't have the men to fight the French hench why they set the trap. This battle is famous for the British shooting thousands of arrows every few seconds because that's all they really had, that's why we still talk about it to this day over 500 years later merely because of how outnumbered king Henry was and the tactics he used to defeat the French.

@Riceball01

4 жыл бұрын

One minor nitpick, it's the English, not British. At this point in time there really wasn't a Great Britain just yet, so it was the English vs. the French.

@mariarogers74

4 жыл бұрын

@@Riceball01 Thanks for catching that, I forgot they were still in conflicts with Ireland and Scotland. Wales was the only one they had full dominion over at the time, sorry about that, my bad lol.

@SRosenberg203

4 жыл бұрын

@@VentureHolly Haha yep. Not to mention the fact that literally any time anyone rebelled against the English throne, for whatever reason, they had the support of the King of Scotland.

The whole bit with Catherine made me roll my eyes. They really tried to shove the “I’m a strong independent wamans!” shtick with her. It’s so anachronistic and ridiculous.

@lorddiethorn

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed

@nealsterling8151

4 жыл бұрын

Not just that, it comes of as extremely arrogant and unlikeable.

@BioHunter1990

4 жыл бұрын

Neal Sterling a character moment made just to appease a group of identitarians coming off as arrogant and unlikable? *You don’t say!*

@nealsterling8151

4 жыл бұрын

@@BioHunter1990 Not only just that, but i was also refering to the performance of the actress.

@haillobster7154

4 жыл бұрын

Like we needed any further confirmation that this pseudo Henry is a wishy washy whiny whimpering wimp.

As soon as I saw this movie the next thing I needed was your take on it!

Hey Shad! I love learning about history and seeking out knowledge. Your channel alone has inspired me to really take a new perspective on history and not only that your channel has helped inspire me to pursue my passion in writing. Thank you for being so awesome I look forward to continue enjoying your videos.

Didn't the English, have wooden barricades and stakes to protect their archers?

@jimmy5391

4 жыл бұрын

Niels Vergouwen indeed they did. I think at the battle of crecy, after the French cavalry charged the English longbow men the English charged back with the hammers they used to drive the stakes in, as well as swords and axes and such

@guypierson5754

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, always: they picked the spot and dug in because they were trying to retreat and were caught by the French, so they knew it was do or die time, they fortified their position with stakes, horsetripping ditches, anything they could get together, its NO joke to be charged by massed lances, you don't try clever tricks, "take your armour off" or any of that silly shit, you dig a ditch and put spikes on your side of it, you pray to St. Crispin, you make sure you have every little bit of armor tied on very tight, you get your arrows all stacked vertically, you might even roll some carts over on their side and climb on them, you do everything you can. Because if that massed charge of lances hits you at speed, you are gone, done, a kebab, a footnote in history.

@mikeg2092

4 жыл бұрын

When I saw there were no stakes I knew I'd be disappointed.

@KnightsandCastles

4 жыл бұрын

They did. The fact is, English were less and exhausted, but they were afraid French fot the reinforcement Busicout waited. So they had to come closer and start shooting arrows. May be that what film fails to show.

"Armor for horses did exist, but it was expensive." Oooh, sick burn!

@jonathanallard2128

4 жыл бұрын

I dont get it.

@Yora21

4 жыл бұрын

@@jonathanallard2128 The image was from the Oblivion horse armor DLC, which famously started the overpriced microtransactions industry.

@jonathanallard2128

4 жыл бұрын

@@Yora21 I see. Very niche joke, but alright. Thx for explaining.

@maximsavage

4 жыл бұрын

@@jonathanallard2128 Among gamers, it's very widely known. Although, it is an older meme, so some of the youngsters might be unfamiliar with it.

@lorddiethorn

4 жыл бұрын

Only on Xbox and pc

the colors and pictures in castles and medieval buildings make sense when you remember that the majority of people were illiterate. Now, in before and just to be clear, oral storytelling was a thing but a picture on the wall is kind of more easily and readily accessible. You can see it at all times. Like illiteracy is one of the reasons why catholic churches have so many murals and pictures in them. That and the fact that masses were held in Latin so most of the people wouldn't even know what the heck the priest is even talking about. So they had pictures. as for the general Hollywood, they're always going by the centuries-long misconceptions about middle ages that started in Renaissance and continued through the other time periods, because people wanted more reasons to make their timeline even more awesome and revolutionary. Hence the propaganda against middle-ages. It was like 'look, we returned to the higher culture from the dark, dark regressive ages'.

From a filmmaking perspective, there's a reason for the muted color palette that may not be an accurate reflection of history. Muted colors are closer together on the color wheel as they push closer to the grays, which leads to smoother color harmony overall. Then, when you want to draw the eye of the viewer to a certain person or area, you can increase the saturation or hue of a particular color just slightly to create color contrast. But, if you have bright colors on your background (As in the example you shared of the brightly colored walls) and all your characters are equally brightly colored and saturated...it's kind of like an orchestra that has no subtlety and is just blasting away with their instruments and demanding attention. It becomes a visual onslaught as the viewer is unsure of the subject in a particular shot. Color theory is a huge topic unto itself, so this is just a brief comment to hopefully inform a little bit as to why a lot of movies choose a more muted color palette. Color is extremely subjective though and up to personal taste. Just know...there are often artistic reasons why filmmakers, photographers, and painters color grade or use the hues that they do.

The moment I watched this the other day I thought "Shad is going to rip this one apart"

@Mailed-Knight

4 жыл бұрын

I thought he give a little bit more praise to the fact that no one is chopping through armour like butter.

Also, one might wonder where the French Civilians are. During the siege, while the army is progressing on the countryside, villages are empty, in reality we know there was a lot of pillaging going on during the whole campaign, the siege of Harfleur was hard on civilians as well, and we don't even see the soldiers being killed after Henry gives the order, we don't see the effects and tragedies of an invasion war on the invaded territory and population :(

@lovablesnowman

4 жыл бұрын

Probably because they didn't want to show Henry's army pillaging and raping their way through France

@Anglisc1682

3 жыл бұрын

That's warfare I'm afraid

@gwennblei

3 жыл бұрын

@@Anglisc1682 I agree, I just think it should have been depicted.

@Anglisc1682

3 жыл бұрын

@@gwennblei Oh, yeah, same actually. As long itself on both sides as it actually was and not just the English. Hollywood loves to portray the English as the villain constantly and people are dumb enough to buy into the idea :P

@gwennblei

3 жыл бұрын

@@Anglisc1682 I mean brutality is usually worst with the invading army, no matter the nationality, could see the damages made to English people in a movie on the Norman invasion of England for example, or in Vikings which mostly overlooks the brutality of the raids and invasions towards civilian populations, which was quite disturbing. On the other hand, English having often been the invaders in history, it makes sense for them to be often portrayed in the role of the aggressor.

In the netflix film "The King" the young king Henry V includes the line "great man to it" in his speech prior to the battle of agincourt, what does that means??

Good points. One thing which I missed personally from your review was the impact on that the french knights didn't have any large interest in fighting the longbowmen on the flanks. Instead, they rushed to the English center in order to acquire captives of the English man-at-arms for ransom. The purpose (they were of course ordered by the French king for doing so as well) for going to war for many knights was economical during this and previous time periods. There is no gain in killing peasants. By doing this they got stuck by the mud and got packed together in the center so many couldn't move or even use their weapons effectively.

The knight he fights in single combat at the start is Sir Henry "Hotspur" Percy, who was killed rebelling against Henry IV at the Battle of Shrewsbury 1403

@traflol

4 жыл бұрын

I'm from Shrewsbury and that was the only reason i watched this film, so i was very disappointed when they didn't really focus on it that much, because that was where henry got shot in the face and i wanted to see that happen!

@slymako

4 жыл бұрын

@@traflol especially seeing as a guy invented an entirely new medical device just to get the arrowhead out of Henry's skull

@medievalgirl002

4 жыл бұрын

@@traflol Yeah. I know this play pretty well, and the two before it, as well as the history of Henry's reign. I just thought this whole movie was a train wreck really, and couldn't understand why they decided to wedge in the Hotspur scene. Even Shakespeare got the timing right, and puts it in Henry IV part 1, at what is meant to be very early in Henry IV's reign.

Netflix is the king of making historical inaccuracies

@ethanlocke3604

4 жыл бұрын

This pun made me very happy

@Ideo7Z

4 жыл бұрын

History Channel: Hold My Beer...

@AkodoAkira1

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I think we need to give the Crown to History Channel. I never knew that aliens were so involved with our history (especially in building things white people didn't). Have you seen Vikings? After them I think the Princedom goes to A&E or Bravo (whoever is doing the Anglo Saxon shows) and after that we might have Netflix as the... Jack? Maybe Knight.

@demo0831

4 жыл бұрын

historical inaccuracies doesnt mean its a bad show its just not historically accurate

@demo0831

4 жыл бұрын

ah wait thought he was reviewing a trailer nevermind

You know it's bad when an absolute know nothing like me sees Henry's armour and even "I" could tell something wasn't quite right with it...

Just wondering how was Damascus steel really used and was in good; also could you do a video on the Nazguls Swords and if you want the armor?

At Harfleur, are there.... MACHICIOLATIONS!?

@mralfey

4 жыл бұрын

But what about the DRAGONS!!

@burner27

4 жыл бұрын

@@mralfey indeed.

pyjamas: worn mcdonalds: unwrapped shad: on oh yeah

@V3NOMXIII

3 жыл бұрын

Hotel - Trivago I'll let myself out

Did you review The Last Kingdom already? I tried the search function on your channel but it wouldn't show up?

Fine analysis as always Shad! as I was watching this movie I was like, damn Shad and Metatron are going to tear it appart haha, that being said, I am very glad that netflix is doing more historical or fantasy genre movies and series, I am pumped about it haha, but still yes, we need more accuracy, thank you so much for this Shad, greetings from Mexico!

Thanks for slamming the "woke" version of Henry V. BTW Several aspects of the film are direct slaps at Shakespeare. 1. The tennis balls are shrugged off by Henry rather than being met with disdain and a witty remark. 2. The whole discussion of the illegitimacy of the French invocation of the Salic Law is dismissed by Henry with a shrug, when it was the basis for his claim to the French throne. 3. Falstaff is a humorous low character in Shakespeare, here he is made the brains behind the victory at Agincourt. 4. Rather than having Henry attempting to woo Katherine in the closing scenes, Katherine tells off Henry with anachronistic feminist and anti monarchist attitudes. 5. Henry V is a portrayed as ultimately a loser rather than "this Star of England," whose infant son was "crowned king of England and of France." Shakespeare had many historical inaccuracies in his play but it is far superior to this film's version.

@SRosenberg203

4 жыл бұрын

I mean, at the end of the day he was kind of a loser though. He died of Dysentery at like 24, and his infant son to be squabbled over by forces that ended up ripping apart both Kingdoms and erasing every single one of his gains. The fact that Henry VI was crowned King of both France and England doesn't mean all that much, especially when you consider his utterly dismal tenure on the throne and the result of his rule.

@sartanawillpay7977

4 жыл бұрын

@@SRosenberg203 His son was the loser because he and his advisors blew it. Can't retroactively blame Henry V for later decisions by others. Henry V achieved recognition as heir to the French throne by arms and diplomacy. Yes he died (at 35) but who doesn't die at some point. Anyway my post was about Shakespeare's Henry V and where I thought the film was taking deliberate swipes at the play. This point is more of difference of the overall evaluation of Henry V than a direct reference.

@SRosenberg203

4 жыл бұрын

@@sartanawillpay7977 Wow he was 35? I was way off, that's wild. Thanks for the correction. I think I always think of him as dying in his 20s cause the year he died was 1422 and my mind has somehow created that association. I hardly think an infant King can be blamed for much. Plus, Henry VI was mentally incompetent. If he lived today and committed a crime, he'd be found 730'd, found unfit to stand trial. Henry V died after taking sick during the Siege of Meaux, which occurred AFTER the peace settlement with Charles. Why was he perpetuating war against a kingdom that he was officially the heir to? I think we're gonna have to just agree to disagree on the status of his losership lol

@sartanawillpay7977

4 жыл бұрын

@@SRosenberg203 We aren't 100% sure of the year of his birth so 35 might be a year off. You are right of course, Henry VI cannot bear the greatest weight for the loss of the throne of France, even though he was in his 20s when France was finally lost. Even Shakespeare blames his advisors.: " Whose state so many had the managing, That they lost France and made his England bleed." Nevertheless, regardless of fault, he was the king who lost his throne. BTW At the Siege of Meaux, Henry V was fighting supporters of the Dauphin who refused to recognize the treaty of Troyes that the French King and estates general had ratified. He was not simply "fighting France" but a faction within it . It is complicated, they weren't "rebels" per se as they considered the King to have signed under duress. I agree that we will not agree on the status of Henry V's losership, but hopefully we can agree he prosecuted the war because he wanted to, not because he was a reluctant unambitious soul tricked into war by a "false flag operation" as the movie portrays.

@SRosenberg203

4 жыл бұрын

@@sartanawillpay7977 Agreed, on that last bit.

Damn. They missed a big opportunity. They could’ve made a more interesting film by making it more historically accurate

@benjaminfoster2005

4 жыл бұрын

And a recast for the whole film

@maximeperez-raymond3346

3 жыл бұрын

Like me disappointment about knightfall's serie. 😖

Great video Shad! Quick question, what are your top 5 medieval movies?

So what movie or show gets medieval battles the most accurate?

Lets make a Historical movie and not even look at Wikipedia....

@mada1241

3 жыл бұрын

It's actually based on Shakespeare, not history.

@jimzimmer2048

3 жыл бұрын

Umbongo doesn’t matter

@UmbaLumba11

3 жыл бұрын

It’s wasn’t a fucking documentary

@moma-b

3 жыл бұрын

You don't understand American film industry. They only care of ONE thing. ＰＲＯＦＩＴ

@couragew6260

3 жыл бұрын

@@moma-b kzread.info/dash/bejne/aneIx66yY7jQqMY.html

I agree with a scene with the French princess. Marriages in medieval times was political and of monetary gain. Arranged marriages was the norm and children were often betrothed at a young age and married very young . A royal princes would know her role was to produce the next heir and to continue the line of success for her husband. The actress should have been directed to act submissive, not challenge nor to look Henry in the eye. He just conquered France, he do whatever he wants.

@SRosenberg203

4 жыл бұрын

Well she might have been willing to look him in the eye and show some spirit, depending on her character, especially in a private setting between just the two of them. Women certainly did that. The issue with that scene was what she is SAYING, talking about ideologies that there is no conceivable way on earth that she could possibly believe in, as a person born in 1395.

@PasserMontanus

4 жыл бұрын

Arranged marriages remain the norm among the world's one percenters.

@azarishere6442

4 жыл бұрын

@@PasserMontanus ironic

@brucetucker4847

4 жыл бұрын

Not to mention, in her case her marrying Henry meant that her children, the descendants of the Valois kings of France, would continue to be the kings of France even though Henry had (as far as anyone at that time knew) secured that throne for his own heir, rather than the descendants of some other foreign royal family Henry might marry into instead. That was a very important consideration and large part of how the peace deal was possible at all.

@Bayard1503

4 жыл бұрын

Should have? Of course. That doesn't mean she would have behaved as was custom. There is a long loooong list of French princesses and queens who were extremely influential and powerful and didn't respect any "custom". For example the Tour de Nesle affair... just a century earlier. Or maybe Eleanor of Aquitaine? Or during the switch to the House of Bourbon and after...

I've seen this movie a few times now. I like getting into the meta in film, and the criticism you have about this really changed my perspective on the writing in a positive way. Your input on these time periods is so great. Sincerely, thank you.

The best part of the Mortimer plot IRL is that Mortimer himself was the one who told Henry about it whenever the conspirators approached the former.

Shad is becoming a longman

@Pedro_Colicigno

4 жыл бұрын

#LongManGood and #LongManShad (videos, not swords...) (well, swords as well, he does love a longsword)

@RitsuCurisu

4 жыл бұрын

@@Pedro_Colicigno I like the #LongManShad one.

@DaelinZeppiTheComputerGamer

4 жыл бұрын

NO!!! LONG MAN BAD! LONG MAN BAD!!!!!

@Loromir17

4 жыл бұрын

@@DaelinZeppiTheComputerGamer Surely long man is not as bad as you think?

@haillobster7154

4 жыл бұрын

Long Shad.

So the english find the way their king is depicted to be terrible, the french find the way they're depicted to be terrible... Who is this movie for?

@TechnoMinarchistBall

4 жыл бұрын

Americans

@benjaminfoster2005

4 жыл бұрын

@@TechnoMinarchistBall i can say that as an american i am also offended by this movie

@lordcorax6918

4 жыл бұрын

Movie about english and french made by americans and australians. No need to think any further

@TealWolf26

4 жыл бұрын

Woke Hollywood trying to put in modern anachronistic morals into history to "make it more appealing" instead of trusting their audience without a "bad guy" and a "good guy."

@sunsoar1822

4 жыл бұрын

yeah your right, they should stop trying to make medieval films altogether

The movie is based on Shakespeare's plays on the subject (Henry IV, Henry V), and makes this very clear through its dialogue and how it is delivered. All of the fight scenes are clearly meant to serve the story rather than be a thing on their own. Modern nonsense aside (royal legitimacy, strong female, etc), the whole thing worked better than expected for me.

A question about the armour, namely the helmets. It's pretty visible that the french and the English are wearing different types of helmet that separates the sides. I see a lot of sallets of various design on the English side, being typical of Gothic/German style armour, whereas the French have many helmets that look like bascinets and armets, afaik that's more common with Italian armour designs. Would that divide in armour style between France and England be historically accurate? Sidenote; I can only really tell that there's a divide by the helmet styles, when it comes to the rest of the armour i'm not know;edgeable enough to say what the differences between Gothic and Italian would be.

@kristofantal8801

3 жыл бұрын

"Would that divide in armour style between France and England be historically accurate?" No, not really... The English preferred the Milanese style (as did the French), but only from the second half of the 15th century. Gothic style was rare among them (as it was with the French). Until the middle of the 15th century, the English used their own style, which was otherwise similar to that of the French (who also had their own style). One of the main differences was that tabards, jupons, etc. were present in smaller proportions on the English side, so they wore their armor purely (white). Gothic and Milanese armor were not yet widespread in France or England at the beginning of the 15th century. Although Milanese armor has existed since the end of the 14th century, it reached its full development by the second half of the 15th century, while the Gothic did not develop until the middle of the 15th century! Sallet and armet (however, they have existed in 1415) were also not widespread yet in France and England (and overall, in Europe too) in the beginning of the 15th century! At Agincourt, both sides still looked similar: lots of bascinetes on both sides. "I see a lot of sallets of various design on the English side" Well, that's interesting, because I don't see many of them (only on some common soldier)... :DDDD Are you sure you know what a sallet helmet looks like? Because I don't think so... Funny because I saw a piece of sallet helmet in the movie on men-at-arms and also on the French side (and it was a mid-late 15th century German style sallet, while the English used the Anglo-Burgundian variant from the mid 15th century)! :D LOL

I personally like the movie. However, these Crimes Against Medieval Realism are inexcusable. Thanks always for your work Shad.

@StateOfMind63

4 жыл бұрын

I agree. I disagree with Shad about Henry's actor having no character. I thought he was quite charismatic in his own way and i especially like the manipulative adviser character even though he was fictional. He kind of reminded me of Baelish "littlefinger" from Game of Thrones. I don't mind the odd liberty being taken for the sake of drama and entertainment but they probably could have kept this film more historically accurate without making it boring.

@JotaroKujo-nj4bx

4 жыл бұрын

Luke S[]ame

"The France" shouldn't have made me laugh that hard, but goddamn

Hey, do you think it would be interesting to study the fighting styles in dauntless?

Smaller point, also a bit of a question: during the execution of the two treacherous nobles, could an axe really have been able to take off heads so easily? (Because I thought that was what the executioners sword was used for and that seemed too simple)

You know, I'm so tired of THAT version of a strong woman in Movies and Books, no matter in what setting or story. And I'm a woman by myself. I just don't unterstand, what's intresting to see such a Captain Marvel, better then everyone, more intelligent then everyone, incredible strong, does not now how beautiful she is, but looks like a supermodel and all. That's so annoying to me. Oh, and really I like your thoughts on fighting and sieges, and It would be AWESOME if you do tell us what you think about the stuff going on in "the lord of the rings"-Trilogie. If you want to fall in a rage, then you could to "the hobbit" instead, I'm just saying Thrandiuls fighting-style - It's horrible. And it looks absolutley stupid, with the intention to look really cool. But It doesn't. It looks just stupid.

@sebastianwagner7334

4 жыл бұрын

You probably have seen it by now already, but he sort of did. There is at least one video reviewing the Cities/fortresses in LotR. And I remember it to be good, I think.

@majorbombas

4 жыл бұрын

Captain Marvel is like Superman wihout his weakness. Even now is hard to connect to superman character, because he is almost perfect in every way... But he has something that Captain Marvel never had... Superman is overpowered character, but he has big flaw - Weak mind. He is intelligent, brave etc. But its really easy to break him. Injustice series shows that really good, but in comic's it was a thing too. Superman can turn into killing machine, he can kill everyone close to him while in rage. When he loose Lois he become a tyrant. Captain Marvel on the other hand is perfect in every way. There is nothing that can break her.

@MrImastinker

4 жыл бұрын

@@majorbombas He doesn't have a "weak mind". He's actually quite intelligent. His problem is that he feels too deeply. Sometime's he's too human, letting his heart guide him rather than his head.

@majorbombas

4 жыл бұрын

MrImastinker Inteligent =\= strong mind. It's totally diffrent thing

@JotaroKujo-nj4bx

4 жыл бұрын

MrImastinker Intelligence and strong minded aren’t same. You can be easily broken and changed by things but be an absolute genius too

3:20 when a horse has a more expressive face than the actor

@haillobster7154

4 жыл бұрын

That horse should have played Henry no.5. Seriously, why can't an animal play a human? What bigotry!! 🤣

@quiban9603

4 жыл бұрын

@@haillobster7154 Oh Lord i would love a movie like that! Everyone acts according to their scripts except Henry is a horse who for obvious reasons just kinda sits there or wanders off doing horse things, while the actors react to his unspoken dialogue as though they're speaking with a ghost.

@maximeperez-raymond3346

3 жыл бұрын

@@quiban9603 like the emperor new groove.

I was waiting for this so long.

Such a sad end for this movie, it was so promising and could have been amazing, next time just follow history and make a great movie. The more i think about this movie the more "garbage" i think it is

@juniornisthal2216

3 жыл бұрын

The film was never meant to be historical though. It’s an adaptation of the The Henriad a group of “historical” plays by Shakespeare

It seems to be a trend in movies now... where the MC is as stoic as a stone and doesn't smile or cry... it is ridiculous. And this is happening in all genres... including fiction like Cpt Marvel, for example. The main characters have the expression range of a plank... which makes it harder to relate to and people end up having or feeling more empathy and sympathy for the bad guy because he is the only one allowed to smile, cry... in overall feel. I think this is just Hollywood stupidity.

@imlaughinq7445

4 жыл бұрын

I don’t agree I think timothees acting during the fight and watching the beginning of the fight was very good acting

@favbubblegirl

4 жыл бұрын

@@imlaughinq7445 I dont think they were criticizing Timothee's acting (which I think is superb), but just the director's direction in how film characters should be portrayed as stoic and emotionless. Remember it's the director that guides the actor into how he wants a character represented and the actor follows that.

@imlaughinq7445

4 жыл бұрын

La Vonne and I believe that the degree of emotion that timothee potrayed fit the character very well

@randomnoob698

4 жыл бұрын

That's a virgin's technique to looking cool. Playing as a bad boy.

@justgetmeahandle

3 жыл бұрын

I have to disagree, particularly on relating to the character. The main character had various, but subtle, expressions throughout the film. His 'inexpression' shows his struggle as a man living under the shadow of his father whom he desparately wanted to be freed of; the burdens of becoming a king worthy of his people while nevigating a counsel of men with their eyes on the crown. All of these 'inexpression' emphasises the conflict our main character experienced. I'd say rewatch the scenes during the coronation feast, aftermath of the battle where he discovered the fate of John.

It's interesting to listen to your point of view after having checked French History channel Nota Bene, where Ben addressed the question of French bashing the movie has been accused of (in which he says that, rather than being French bashing and stereotyping "urrdurr evul French prince", it feels like French people don't exist and the country itself is treated as if it was some faraway land even though it's right South of England, the coasts of each other countries are visible when the weather is fair and both countries are basically like bickering twins). Through that initial question, he expands his explanation and opinion over the way Henry was also depicted in the movie. Both videos are very complementary (with an agreement about the unnecessary addition of modern opinions), and I'm considering adding English subtitles to Nota Bene's video so everybody can check it out as well, to see the PoV of both an English-speaker and a French-speaker.

Henry's sheer Emo-ness had me cracking up all throughout The King.