I'm currently having a break from making RU-vid videos because of school but I might make a part 2 some time in the future if that's something you think would be interesting.
The majority of the population hated the Catholic autocrat James and usurped him. They invited William and Mary to take his place, who were Protestants and much better suited to rule over a majority Protestant country than the Catholic Stuarts.
@@CountBeetle The Confederates were a lost cause, hence the idiotic "Lost Cause Myth". I was comparing this mythology that still persists in the southern USA to the stupid romanticism of the Jacobites in Scotland. I hope this makes sense?
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-astHU_ybiuI.html My review of three different 'pike and shot' battle scenes. Find out which is the most historically accurate...
Viggo Mortensen aka Captain Alatriste, is a phenomenal human. The man speaks 9 languages ffs. He can ride a horse and swing a sword so well he could be a bonafide musketeer. You can catch full movie for free on RU-vid FYI.
Unfortunately, this video has been blocked in Poland!! This seems to be because the footage from 'With Fire and Sword' (a Polish movie) is copyrighted. However, this doesn't affect the channel. Sorry to my Polish viewers (if there are any)!
MINOR CORRECTION: At 6:27, I say "the 5th" when I should've said the 4th Regiment of Foot (hence the "4th" shown on the map). The 5th Foot were involved in the Battle of Corunna but did not partake in the defence of Elvina. That was the 4th.
This scene shows the Jacobites as exclusively broadsword-wielding Highlanders... a VERY significant inaccuracy and myth. Here is a video I made on the diverse array of soldiers which fought for Bonnie Prince Charlie in the '45 Rising. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1tGiPetQPXU.html
I forgot to mention that Rupert's horse spent much of the Battle of Edgehill, having scattered the Parliamentarian horse, in looting the Parliamentarian baggage train. This is not shown in the movie.
here's another inaccuracy for you Mr H Weasel. At 2'24" when the Roundheads "Re-Group!!" the trumpet heard is a Post Horn in [high] Ab - and yet the trumpet seen looks like an Eb Cavalry Trumpet. It is the correct visual - with the incorrect audio.
The Jacobite light cavalry, such as Bagot's Scotch Hussars, were armed with swords and carbines (short muskets). I forgot to mention the weapons they used in the video!
Cavalry combat israrely historically accurate in the movies and TV because TV producers can;t resist adopting the the u8sual wild west imagery and I suspect that if they did it properly the audience would complain it was boring..
Even if the targes weren't invincible, I suppose some protection is better than none. It would definitely provide protection against pistol balls and maybe it could deflect or absorb a musket ball fired at long range if you were lucky. Whether the bullet is deflected or not also probably has a lot to do with the angle at which it hits the targe. Thanks for commenting!
For pete's sake, will you get over this 'historical accuracy' thing? It's not a documentary. It's a commercial film made to earn money, pure and simple. The question should be: is it entertaining?
I'm afraid you are wrong. This film calls itself a 'docu-drama' and is attempting to portray a real historical event. Therefore, it must stay true to the actual history and attempt to be as objective as possible to prevent spreading misinformation and propaganda to the general public.
Does it matter? It is a fictionalized account of an event in a commercial film made for earning money. It is not a documentary. One might as well ask whether Richard Harris actually looked like Oliver Cromwell.
I'm afraid the portrayal of real historical events in movies does matter because it can give the general public perceptions of history that may be wrong or misleading. In the case of my commentary for this video, it was mostly just nitpicking small things that aren't very significant. However, it still makes for an entertaining and informative video. Also, note that when I say a movie or battle scene is "historically inaccurate" (because it is), I am not also saying it is objectively bad. Something could be a good spectacle or exciting to watch even if aspects of it are factually incorrect.
I was 11 years old when I went to the cinema to see this film with my parents. Not sure if I was technically old enough to watch it as I cannot remember its classification but I did see it. I loved the battle scenes but there were parts of the film I did not understand. The execution scene was very memorable. Did it matter to an eleven year old boy that there were historical inaccuracies,, not at all. It fired me up to love history. And as I grew older I did my own research. It also turned me into a wargamer and I have played with model soldiers to this day but there was a twist. Soon after the film I went to a local toy shop hoping to buy ECW toy soldiers. Of course there were none. Airfix did not do them but they did make American Civil War figures and I bought some and I went down a different rabbit hole. At some point I remember seeing Red Badge of Courage and was equally impressed by the film, better still I could buy the Airfix figures to fight the cinematic battles. I did return to the English Civil War when I discovered you could buy ECW metal figures from wargame manufacturers but I was probably about 16 or 17 then. Another memorable watch on TV was By The Sword Divided. I have tried with no success to find a DVD of the series. I have watched Cromwell as an adult and enjoyed the film. I do wish film directors when making war films about anything before World War One would stop the armies charging hell for leather from a great distance and when they reach each other conveniently pair off into twos for a choreographed melee. Or stop using exploding cannon balls !!
Very very good. Can find flaws of course. The artillery pieces are massively too big for field artillery. But a grand spectacle using real people. I did not know Rupert's Poodle ,Boy , had been killed prior to the battle. (I do now at Marston Moor)The dog shown is however not correct. Rupert's dog was what is now known as a Standard Poodle. I used to own 2 ( they were closely related to Roly in Eastenders, my only nebulous claim to fame!). They are wildfowl hunting/retrieving dogs (about the size of a medium Alsation). The bouffants were not originally aesthetic. They were for insulation/ buoyancy in cold water. Boy would have ran alongside Rupert on his horse. Wikipedia has an article and contemporary image . Just a factoid.
As this were Naseby, should not Colonel John Okey's Regiment of Dragoons have been shown as their crossfire from behind hedgerows did colossal damage to the Royalist cavalry?
This scene doesn’t show us the intricate tactics of the specific historical battle but instead gives us more of a broad feeling for what pike and shot warfare was like.
He missed one. Artillery. There were no exploding shells; cannons were firing solid shot then. I could see some dirt getting kicked up by an impact, but why are the horses that are 5 yards away falling over? There was no shrapnel; if a cannonball missed you by 2 inches, then it may as well have missed by 2 miles.
Yes, well spotted. However, because of the difficulty (especially back in 1970) of showing a bouncing cannonball cutting off horses' legs, I can forgive the movie for this... Much easier to show exploding shells.
@@Weasel-vp8zk Well, this isn't the only flick. According to studios, solid cannonballs are a myth and the exploding shell was invented 1 day and 3 minutes after the stone arrow head.
@@mikearmstrong8483 Well, according to Gladiator, the Romans used napalm on the Germanic tribes. 🤣 I've addressed the exploding shells thing in my review of the Edeghill scene so thanks for bringing it up.
Many historical films use artistic licence and have a certain amount of inaccuracy such as Elizabeth I and Mary of Scotland actually meeting in Mary Queen of Scots (1971). However Cromwell is infamous for the sheer amount of inaccuracy, even if we exclude inaccuracy in the mimitary side of the film we still have events chronologically out of order, people still alive when they were dead, people doing and saying things they did not.
Reminds me of a line by Broomhilda, the green-faced witch of American comic strips, quoth whom: "History's kinda like a mixed drink; ya just keep addin' stuff to it til you get it th'way ya want it." 'T'was ever thus, going back to Herodotus, Father of Lies . . . .
Thanks for the commentary, which was very helpful in explaining what I saw when I watched "Cromwell". This has prompted me to re-watch the film. English (then British) history fascinates me, especially the period of the Civil War. Britain without the Civil War would have been a very different place; as a descendant of those English Puritans (my Scottish ancestors were on the other side), I'm grateful for the changes that came about as a result of their struggle for their religious rights.
Thanks for watching and sharing your connection with the Civil War. I agree, it is a fascinating era of British history. Please consider subscribing as I hope to upload a few more videos on the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, especially in Scotland.
Didn't the Scots change sides during the Civil War? hence the 3rd verse of the National Anthem - never sung now referring to "the Scottish Knavish tricks"? How many wars has man instigated for religious reasons, continuing to this very day and tomorrow, and the day after that... and the day after that... History is indeed fascinating. Pity that we never learn from it Richard.
@@a.jamesstretton3813 Yes, the Scots did change sides... well, it's more complicated than that. The Scottish "Covenanters" did switch sides, breaking their allegiance with the English Parliamentarians. However, there were Scottish Royalists led by the Marquess of Montrose who had always been fighting for King Charles. I believe that verse, which also includes the line 'rebellious Scots to crush', harks back to the Jacobite Rising of 1745, not the Civil War. The line is ironic considering that Prince Charles Edward Stuart (leader of the Jacobite rebels) had more Scots in arms against him than for him. Yes, religion is lamentably responsible for many wars and conflicts to this day.
The Commonwealth of England was the political structure during the period from 1649 to 1660 when England and Wales, later along with Ireland and Scotland, were governed as a republic (meaning no king, queen, prince, princess, or regent) after the end of the Second English Civil War and the trial and execution of King Charles I [King of three kingdoms: Kingdom of England (including Wales I am guessing), Kingdom of Scotland, and Kingdom of Ireland.
I inserted 'of England' in the first line of this comment thread. I inserted the parenthetical and bracketed notes. I unintentionally omitted a bracket at the very end of said comment.
@@Weasel-vp8zk I just confirmed there are no exclusive "Welsh things" on the Union Jack (flag of the U.K.). 3 sentences from encyclopedia: The design of the Union Jack dates back to the Act of Union 1801, which united the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland (previously in personal union) to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The flag consists of the red cross of Saint George (patron saint of England, which also represents Wales), edged in white, superimposed on the saltire of Saint Patrick (patron saint of Ireland), also edged in white, which are superimposed on the saltire of Saint Andrew (patron saint of Scotland). Wales is not represented in the Union Flag by Wales's patron saint, Saint David, because the flag was designed whilst Wales was part of the Kingdom of England.
The Protectorate, officially the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, was the English form of government lasting from 16 December 1653 to 25 May 1659, under which the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, with their associated territories were joined together in the Commonwealth of England, governed by a Lord Protector. It began when Barebone's Parliament was dissolved, and the Instrument of Government appointed Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. Cromwell died in September 1658 and was succeeded by his son Richard Cromwell.
I found the names of the oldest British (or rather English) protectorates. Notice that they predate "The Protectorate" known as the Commonwealth of England (1653 to 25 May 1659). They happen to be in the Americas: • Barbados (1627-1652) (as a proprietary colony under William Courteen, followed by James Hay I) • Mosquito Coast (1638-1860) (over Central America's Miskito Indian nation).
A protectorate is different from a colony as it has local rulers, is not directly possessed, and rarely experiences colonization by the suzerain state.
Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 - 3 September 1658) was an English statesman, politician, and soldier, widely regarded as one of the most important figures in the history of the British Isles. He came to prominence during the 1639 to 1653 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, initially as a senior commander in the Parliamentarian army and latterly as a politician.
@@Weasel-vp8zk I copy-pasted from an online encyclopedia, and would have provided the source were it not for the fact that I knew this social media system would have automatically deleted the comment.
Never heard of that battle so I'll look into it. The image came up when I searched into google 'early clan battle' and because there aren't any depictions of the Battle of the Shirts, I just decided to use it. From a quick google search I can see that the Battle of North Inch happened in 1396, so the painting isn't terribly accurate as it shows the Highlanders wearing plaids/kilts, which weren't worn until the late 1500s. Thanks for watching!
@@eddiemccabe4585 Yes and I also used an image of Irish gallowglasses somewhere in this video. 16th century Highland warriors probably looked quite similar.
If you don't want to listen to me speaking for nearly 6 minutes, then here is a brief summary: The Jacobites were not freedom-fighters or heroes but rather trouble-makers who fought for the divine right of kings over democratic decision to usurp King James in 1688, and wanted a monarch on the throne of Great Britain who was a Catholic. Thus, the Jacobites were a small minority, even in Scotland and even among the Highland clans (who were predominantly Protestants). They did NOT fight for Scottish independence, they fought to restore the Scottish Stuart dynasty to the throne of all of the British Isles. If any considered political separation from England, it was down to a desire for stopping the interference of the British government in clan affairs (aka. peace-keeping through disarming acts and policing etc). The Jacobite clans were fighting for their OWN self-interests, not for Scottish nationalism, otherwise they wouldn't have rebelled against the Scottish government during the 1689 Rising BEFORE the 1707 Union was even signed. As for Bonnie Prince Charlie, he was a bad military tactician and an overly-ambitious fool.
This is a difficult one on a number of levels. I cannot name my source. Bayoneting of the wounded. A quick bayonet = a quick death for a man with untreatable wounds as opposed to a prolonged agonised/painful death. British troops after Rorkes Drift may have done the same to dreadfully wounded Zulu warriors.
Yes, if the enemy was horrifically wounded, it could be seen as a merciful act. However, the lack of quarter shown to captured and retreating Jacobites implies the government troops weren't using their bayonets on the wounded out of kindness... In addition to this, a wounded man can still pose a threat to an advancing army, as they may still be able to scythe at people's legs with a sword or fire a pistol. Likewise, the Jacobites often showed little mercy to wounded and retreating government troops... Killiecrankie for example.
Your comment about the aftermath of Prestonpans was completely inaccurate. Charles made sure the Hanoverian wounded were attended to. Hanoverian officers were freed on condition they did not take up arms against the Stuart cause again.
I seem to recall reading that many of the British soldiery at Prestonpans were slaughtered by the Jacobites even as they tried to surrender, in spite of Charles pleading for mercy. Charles didn't speak Gaelic so the Highlanders couldn't understand him. However, I now can't find where I read that so I apologise if that turns out to be a load of rubbish. Perhaps a better example of Jacobite brutality would have been Killiecrankie (1689), where fleeing government troops were slaughtered or drowned in the River Garry. The battle itself only lasted 15 minutes, but the killing went on for hours into the night. I'm not saying this made the Jacobites particularly monstrous.... cutting down routing armies was normal at the time. However, because this docu-drama wants to demonise the Redcoats or at least portray the Highlanders in a more favourable light, it never mentions Jacobite atrocities or ruthlessness. Likewise, the government reprisals following Culloden are shocking to a modern audience. However, that sort of pillaging and revenge-taking on innocent civilian populaces was a common occurrence in clan feuds. At the Battle of the Spoiling Dyke, MacDonald clansmen set fire to a church full of MacLeods. The church was burned as revenge for a previous atrocity committed by the MacLeods on the MacDonalds. Sometime soon, I will make a video on the most brutal clan battles.
I have just now found an account written by James Johnstone, a Jacobite officer, describing the slaughter at Prestonpans: '[those British soldiers which] threw down their arms, and begged for quarter upon their knees, were cut inhumanely.... such who fled into the enclosures were pursued and murdered...'
Yes, the Jacobite Risings and the Battle of Culloden were by no means Scotland vs England. On the Jacobite side there were Highlanders, Lowlanders, Irish and even a handful of Northern English. On the Government side there were English and Scottish Lowlanders, along with a significant number of Highlanders (including the most powerful Highland clan, the Campbells). I think there may have also been some Dutch and Hanoverians.
Some more recent historians have questioned the depiction of O'Sullivan as the abject fool shown in the film. There was tension between Scottish Protestants like Murray and Irish Catholics like O'Sullivan, with the latter tending to be favoured by the Prince.
I look forward to you examining all the western war films that imply WW2 was won on D Day - you will have to live to 300 to get that job done. In a recent poll I read that only 8% thought that the Soviet Union made the the decisive contribution in defeating the Nazi's. I would think someone like you should be mortified by that poll as you are so interested in history.
That’s an astonishing statistic… Most of those people probably think it was American troops that took Berlin in 1945!! Do you know which country the poll was taken in?
Peter Watkins films are often like this. I love his visual style, especially the conceit that a BBC documentary crew have shown up in 1746 to film the battle and he gets this dead eyed stare from his casts (see also The War Game, Privilege and Munch) that I haven't seen other film makers attempt as successfully. As technical exercises, I rate Watkins highly as a film maker and have seen most of his films but he is also a left wing pacifist and his politics are often at a student level. Apart from Munch and La Commune his films were mostly speculative near-future fiction (The War Game, Privilege, Punishment Park and Gladiators) and it's often the same themes over and over.
Thanks for commenting this. I had no idea about Watkins’ other films or political beliefs although I could have probably guessed he was a pacifist from ‘Culloden’ (1964).
