Support the channel by visiting brianholdsworth.ca Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com Podcast Version: brianholdsworth.libsyn.com/
My current favorite is Aliens (1986). I just love it. Especially the main character and her portrayal (Academy award nomination). It speaks to me. How that woman could stay home, but overcame her fears to try helping the colonists. How she overcame the unbelief and scorn. And especially how she then would stop literally at nothing to save her child. How she would lead when necessary. How she was also kind and stayed a mother, not getting crazy. And for some personal reasons.
I don't care about the historical accuracy. Braveheart is a masterpiece. My favourite movie of all time. This is a movie and not a historically accurate documentary. Thanks for the video!
I vacationed in Scotland for 2 weeks. From Glascow to eventually the Military Tatoo, it was the most emotional trip I have ever been on. I am not a Scot but the history of that people is one of courage. If you desire to visit Scotland do not put it off. Give yourself time to return.
@@wolfthequarrelsome504 You do realise that the Windsors claim descent through the Scottish born King James I. So one could actually argue that the Scots rule England (despite the German lineage holding the majority share of heritage in the current monarch).
If you’re curious about some of Brian’s claims regarding past history, consider the incredible book: “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” or if you don’t trust Catholic sources, read “Bearing False Witness” where a Protestant scholar easily debunks lies like the immense exaggeration and slander of the Spanish Inquisition (and why it happened).
Scotland has always called to me even though I don’t think I have one drop of Scottish in me. We visited for our 30th anniversary and fell in love with Edinburgh, Lochness and the Highlands. I watch movies for entertainment and I see them as based on facts not as facts. If I didn’t I wouldn’t be able to enjoy them. Great content.
@@BrianHoldsworth thanks, and no worries. I think you've given an accurate assessment, as we certainly do tend to have an unearned sense of superiority over those who came before us.
13:45 "slanderous treatment of history"... Really? Probably 90% of Hollywood History movies, TV shows, cartons, etc. can be found guilty of that claim. I think it is a bit unfair to call out Braveheart as "not historically accurate" since it is not a documentary, it is a movie for entertainment and inspiration. Even our own History books (see 1619 project) warp and distort history. Your critiques relied solely on anecdotal examples of medieval history, not specific false claims made in the movie Braveheart. While an epic movie with a perhaps oversized influence on perception (or prejudice as you say) of history, this is not really a problem of "Braveheart". Was the Scots battle cry actually "Virtue" instead of "Freedom", or Wallace's last words?!? (Spoiler alert: there are also historical inaccuracies with The Patriot in context of US Revolutionary War).
My favorite Mel Gibson movie is Apocalypto and my favorite film about the middle ages is Charleton Heston's el cid. Ancient combat was all about honour. Just think about the battle between Achilles and Hector in the illiad. My family actually came to Canada after Napoleon's conquest of the Rhine. Many Germans were forcefully conscripted into Napoleon's army and were in his diastrous Winter Russian campaign and many others deserted and fled to North America. I guess my Braveheart would be the German netflix show Barbarians.
Your comment about the complete loss of mediating institutions really brought home the depth of the difference between Americans and Canadians. ;) Granted, there's definitely a war against mediating institutions in the US. But that's the thing: it's an open war, not the silence that falls after resistance is crushed. Our states fight against our federal government; our counties and towns fight our states; our sheriffs say, "You can't make us enforce that"; our courts restrain even the IRS when it goes too far. In other words, Federalism is one of the biggest compliments the American Founders paid to medieval wisdom (along with a clear natural law influence) and one of the most effective bridges we've retained to the more sane pre-"Enlightenment" political environment. So I think that the rural, locally-focused half of America would see the wisdom of the medieval separation of powers, if they understood it. Of course, that wouldn't make them any less suspicious of inherited power... but I'm not convinced that's a bad thing, given that a certain medieval institution seemed to share those suspicions! As for the modern corruption of "freedom," it almost seems like an attempt by the political class to transform an intended limit on their power into a license to seize as much power as possible. The original point -- at least when considering the US rather than France -- seems to have been that it's better to leave questions of ultimate value to the individual conscience than to trust the government with them, given how badly the governments of the time (and the UK in particular, with its nasty habit of engaging in sheer barbarism towards religious dissenters) had abused that power. Turning freedom itself into an ultimate value preserved by the government isn't a necessary consequence of telling the government, "You can't be trusted with something as important as determinations of ultimate value"; rather, it might be the most ironic way that that explicit rejection of political idolatry could possibly be undermined. With that said, regardless of what the political pieties might imply, I doubt a single fallen soldier would consider himself to have been fighting for freedom first and foremost. Family, homeland, the guy in the foxhole next to him, civilians caught in the crossfire, even abstract political autonomy? Those are far more natural things to fight for than freedom from practically all constraint. And in any case, people with that mindset would make terrible soldiers. =P
Once you realize how they lie to you about your ancestors, you get closer to realizing why. Once you realize the extent to which they lie to you about our past, you start to pull at the threads of the facade completely shrouding the pillars of our civilization.
I refrained from watching Braveheart for a number of years because I found that it stirred up feelings of revenge and hatred that went well beyond the cry for justice. The idea of Prima Nocte (which apparently never actually happened) is a pivotal plot point, and I find it too vile and disturbing to repeatedly subject myself to it (even though it is entirely fictional). I do still like the movie for the same reasons you listed, but I probably won't watch it more than a few times in my life.
My perspective is we're never going to truly know every angle of what happened until Judgment Day. And so, history books and cinema can both contribute to our understanding but we're never going to fully understand
I generally approach narratives "based" on true stories as not accurate. This is a great example of a film that is pretty historically aloof. Its a great narrative but similar to another film I love in this vein, Ford Vs Ferrari, its an oddly aloof depiction of a time, place, and series of events. As an adult and as a parent make it a goal for myself and my kids to pair any film in this vein with an exploration of accurate historical events, setting, etc. I tend to think of Braveheart, gladiator and the like in the vein of Benhur, a historical fiction of sorts.
LOL, I thought you would chiefly object to the fact that Braveheart (in the movie) had an affair with the adult Princess of Wales. In reality, the princess was nine years old at the time.
Well, Christianity was being purified via the hands of Gentiles. It’s a great way of thinking about how Protestant beliefs became the dominant form here in the West compared to how it began.
I believe adults watch movies to be entertained not for an education. And if their interest is piqued they refer to reputable sources. The movie 'Braveheart' was, and still is, brilliantly entertaining.
Great vid as always, Brian! Braveheart is also in my personal top 3 movies of all time. However, a case could be made of "why would someone even care to watch a block-buster movie to learn history"? Know what am I saying? If one watches a film, it should be for entertainment, or even inspiring purposes only. So one should focus solely on the story, the morale, or other theatrical wonders of the film industry, while realizing it may not be historically accurate. Think about the book of Jonah, per example, if we were to judge it solely based on its historical accuracy, would that make it any less divine inspired? The book of Jonah in the Bible is a beautiful story of recognizing our sin and finding redemption. And how is futile to run away from responsibility. Does it being solely a narration and not a historical book make it any less worthy or useful? What should matter is the teaching. Granted, movies are not made solely for teaching and to reveal truths [like the books of Scripture are] and rather are there mainly for entertainment, but they can still achieve a moral one way or another. So, I think is wrong, or at least is not fair, to say Braveheart is about freedom per se, as in "freedom of do whatever I want whenever I want" [how most people misunderstands freedom today, indeed], when in fact it gives a very different message: a freedom from tyranny, and of fighting for that which is just and good, no matter the cost. Its message is way more on the "carry your own cross, up to the very end, and good things will happen" side of things than "you can do whatever you want, I don't like authority" one, by far. And I personally can't find anything wrong with that message, even if it's not historically accurate, on the contrary I find it more than justified, awesome and exemplar, regardless of its historical inaccuracies. [That's why it is such a great film to begin with]. Granted, people may still misinterpret things, that's not the movie's fault, at least not in this particular case. TL;DR: In the end, Braveheart is not even talking about doing whatever you want type of freedom, not in the slightest, but about what motivates a man, a full nation by that matter, to fight, against all odds, against evil, where the reward for that particular fight was simply that, freedom [in the form of independence]. My two cents.
Much better said and more eloquently presented than I could. Somehow this video sounded like a woke awakening to criticize a movie he loved, but which gave him inaccurate perspectives on what medieval life was like for most people? His arguments were so disjointed and off the topic of Braveheart in particular, off on tangents to all kinds of popular culture misunderstandings of history... Is the root cause of that this movie "Braveheart"?! Or our own educational system, narratives, political influences (eg 1619 project), and pop culture entertainment as well?
Thank you for the education you provided throughout this video. Eye opener, that the nobility did the fighting, make sense though, and of all of their noble ways of fighting that we now ridicule. I will definitely look more into this. Thank you so much.
Ha! I thought you were going to say your problem with this movie was that it was about as historically accurate as a Chick tract, but thanks for a very different and thoughtful take.
Dear Brian, very valid points. With every new video I like Your channel more. I wish more people would point out tihngs that You did in this video. I'm myself a historian-medievalist amongst other things. I'm just an orthodox christian, who enjoys Your channel, the content You put on. +++
Loved this video! As an anglophiliac, I always disliked braveheartless. Just 1 correction: the levée en masse was an idea that predated Napoléon: it was the Directoire that came up with the idea, supported by Marat. And it was Danton who proclaimed: de l'audace, toujours de l'audace et la patrie sera sauvée.
I will say this. In the middle ages it was not uncommon for workers to serve as conscripts in the military. These conscripts commonly fulfilled the role of skirmishes or archers based on training, tools and pay for the specific battle or army. Armor, and more expensive weapons like swords etc were only affordable to the nobility so they then served as the cavalry or foot based again on specifics of the battle/war most commonly. So yes while the most arguably central soldiering was carried out by people of means, they didn't fight alone. The main difference is they rarely got compensation for soldiering contrary to the plebian archers or skirmishers.
thanks for posting, i consider myself a history buff and often used history while arguing with people who claim that the church has hampered technological and scientific progress wich is manifestly untrue during the middle ages agryculture metallurgy and architecture has progressed a great deal the last two also helped along by the building of churches and cathedrals but there are many more while i also knew about the violence mitigating effect of the cristian churches it never occured to me to put it in a comprehensive argument, goes to show the day you stop learning is the day you die
Thanks for shedding light on this topic. I've been a fan of the Middle Ages for a long time, the Glorious 13th Century, and the Chivalric code. We're living in dark times as the residual embers of Christian civilization continue to burn out.
Same here. Its beautiful and glorious and inspiring, but its also funny of historical inaccuracies and outright lies, the worst being the depiction of King Edward I.
5:53 I would argue the main reason was due to the economy being largely agrarian. If you lived on a farm, outside of harvest and planting time, there's not much work needs doing.
I had a class in college about medieval films in regards to the movie stereotypes. It's a very big habit of our to think they were backyards morally and technologically, but the truth is our reality isn't to far from where we are now.
Costume design is my biggest gripe about this movie, it was the late 13th and early 14th century, not the goddamn Dark Ages. (The English were about 30years away from using gunpowder against the French at Crecy by the time the movie ends) Like would it kill people to wear mail or plate? (Lord of the Rings managed just fine) And the kilts and woad, pick a lane movie: is this the 17th century or the 1st?
02:28 "prejudice" at times is necessary to remember certain events, while knowing they have been probably distorted to a degree; I am Italian, but the Unification was an abomination, but it's still part of my history, no matter what. And however much I may dislike what King Emanuel III of Savoia did, he is part of my history and legacy too. If it gets out of control, then it turns into "prejudice", but there are a lot of false retellings from both sides.
Another excellent video. Two others I’d love to see: 1) the rest of your top 10 favorite films and 2) a commentary on Homo Deus and/or the Declaration of the Rights of Man.
It's very refreshing to see people who actually understand what liberalism is. I just wish people would realize that every single American politician is a liberal. EVERY SINGLE ONE. And the people who do realize it only ever explain why that's a good thing. I would be very interested in learning about your thoughts on different systems of government and their pros/cons
Long live the King! Honestly, it's really hard to assess. Given that we are now mostly liberal democracies with Marxist undercurrents, you can't just impose the ideal, but also, liberalism, to whatever degree it can work, depends on there being a pre-existing harmony in culture and morality but now that it has almost completely dissolved (which liberalism caused) what's left to take shelter. Liberalism can't be redeemed though. Something good has to replace it, but it must be the antidote to late-stage liberalism.
@@BrianHoldsworth I'm no expert in political science, but I tend to lean towards that as well honestly. "Kings can occasionally be bought, but a democracy is always up for sale."
In the mid twentieth century catholic philosopher Frank Meyer argues persuasively that the tension between freedom and virtue is essential to western civilization in general. Classical liberalism is not opposed to the Burkean little platoons of civil society you described. In fact the best liberal philosophers (like Burke and DeToqville) encouraged and relied upon them in their conception of political reality. The leveling of our society today has much more to do with 20th century progressivism, which always defined itself as contrary to liberalism, and the advent of mass media.
Great video, A+. Very intelligent summary of some of the slander against the middle ages. I just don't want to pick on Braveheart specifically as a low hanging fruit. It's just a movie and there is almost nothing historically accurate about it other than the names of some of the characters. I prefer to attack the entire concept of the Renaissance where much of this slander started to materialize.
Another Great Video! As an American kid in the 1980's and a huge fan of Iron Maiden, their music inspired me to become a fan of history. Now living in Europe, I get to learn the history close up. Often people conflate the Dark ages (the couple hundred years after the fall of Rome) with the middle ages. The Medieval period is important especially for Law and business. For England it establishes the rule of law with both the Magna Carta and the Assize of Clarendon. The re-emergence of Cities as power centers, especially the Free Imperial Cities of Germany. Also, the medieval period saw the emergence of the pre-modern merchant classes. As for William Wallace (I caveat this with the fact that my family-name is from the Scots line), he was known to commit an atrocity or two in his time. Especially, if you apply modern standards to that period. As American who lived in the Carolinas, The Patriot has a lot of historical flaws. But for the movie, he created a mythical version of Francis Marion (the Swamp Fox) in Benjamin Martin to tell a compelling story. Having said all that, I still love those Movies! Mel Gibson is a fantastic Artist.
Excellent video as always, Brian. People forget that under feudalism a) the lord had an obligation to feed/protect his serfs, and b) the Church stood as the Hand of God on Earth to protect the welfare of the peasants. We have nothing this power protecting workers today who can be thrown into the streets at will. I love Braveheart (the Freedom speech is one of the best in film history), but this is essentially fan fiction. Hollywood went through a huge anti British faze at the time (Rob Roy, Michael Collins, and the Patriot all came out around the same time as Braveheart), so read into that what you will.
I enjoyed the movie Braveheart myself but wouldn't put in my top 10 movies. Well made movie as you stated but took lots of liberties with historical accuracy. In the end it was largely about entertainment more than anything else.
In the Middle Ages when the Church held power above the lords and even kings, the work schedule was governed by sacred time in addition to the seasons. Certain feast days, Lent, Advent etc were free of labour for all but the house servants, and from late autumn to late winter/early spring, few crops grew, so there was little to harvest. Of course, when they worked, it was dirty, back breaking, and from sun up until sun down. Few moderns could work under such conditions. But historians have shown that they had more days off than modern workers.
In the absence of modern technology it it impossible to spend an entire day leisurely. If we didn't have modern technology and medicine, then based purely on how our society is structured, the average person would live worse quality of life than a feudal peasant. Modern society sucks, it's just that technology is so good at carrying it that we barely notice its problems.
@@sasi5841 I remember reading that every modern Western person has the equivalent of 300 slaves working for him due to technology. We really should bear that in mind before judging previous generations.
@@sasi5841 Sorry if it wasn't clear, but my statement agreed with your own. I simply wanted to add to it and clarify just how dependent our current conditions are on technology.
But I just want to ask you -- the revolutionary war was fought by the lower classes. They predated napoleon. Can you explain? Was it really Napoleon that destroyed the old concept of honorable warfare? One more thing -- It's good that you stick to the original notion of chivalry. I suggest you look at dalrock's blog, if you don't know who he is, about the corruption of the notion. But I think you might be mistaken about the Arthurian legends as the model. That's part of the problem.
Thanks for making our point - the French revolution is the reason why the French look the way they do know: secular art worshipping idols and anti-Muslim perverts just like their mommy America. It doesn't matter cuz Napoleon was the product of the French revolution. The French are clueless about their Gallic-Frankish Roman catholic roots, and the French revolution itself was a result of the Protestant reformation which also gave birth to the satanic U.S.A
Then there is Mel Gibson himself. His excessive 'artistic license' with this story is well documented, as it has been with his other "historical" narrative, The Patriot. The real William Wallace was different, as were Robert the Bruce, King Edward Longshanks, and his "gay" (for the movie) son. I find Braveheart wildly entertaining, but I can't help but worry about its effects on the unsophisticated and less-educated people who will take the story as "reality."
The use of the word "prejudice" set off alarm bells in my head, 'tis a marker of the sorry state of society that words can be twisted to such a revolting state. Thank The LORD almighty that not only can these words be turned around in certain instances, but that there are more words to choose from. For example, the word Heritage that soon followed Prejudice in the beginning allowed me to continue on to watch the rest of a fantastic video, one of his best. In a strange way, the English people being conquered by and combining with other European Peoples has allowed greater choice in words. In one manner of speaking, English encapsulates European language in the broadest manner of languages known to men aside from the mythic "Proto European", which is a far distant ancestor of all European language according to linguists.
I can definitely see your conundrum... This is not a recent development though. The current generation consistently find conceptual and linguistic ways to slander the old and prop up the new. The industrial/ enlightenment era referred to it's elders as the dark ages and corrupted the definition of medical to some thing negative. The modern era renamed to itself that to prop itself up and referred to the generation after them as post-modern, implying some kind of degradation or reduction of quality. Or as stated in Ecclesiastes, " there is nothing new under the sun", in this case referring to the self driven nature of humans.
It's hard to get past my natural conceptions of the Middle Ages, but I think you're right that they weren't truly as bad as we think. There was indeed sickness, and war, and feudalism, but that doesn't mean there weren't people who were truly religious or emotional or kind. There were those masons and architects who built great churches, authors who wrote beautiful poetry, songwriters who glorified God with their music. The problem is that all of the terrible stuff about history is what we hear about the most. The murder! The theft! The hierarchy! But we rarely learn about the good things, like those cathedrals, poems, music, religion, and everyday people whose human nature is the same as our own.
It's not just that "there were good things too" during the Middle Ages, it's that a lot of the bad things that be associate with the Middle Ages are extremely exaggerated and often complete fabrications--like the example of the Iron Maiden.
@@jonathanstensberg true, although we must recognize that there were some bad things about the Middle Ages, including warfare and disease. But Brian is right that they weren’t as bad as they seem.
@@ho8464 Yes, there were serious downsides to living in the Middle Ages, just as there are serious downsides to living in every age. Brian's point is not merely that the Middle Ages weren't as bad as they seem; his point is that we have been intentionally propagandized into the believing they were much worse than they actually were.
Just the battle scenes are great as many movies that involve war did the same like Troy, the Messenger, the last samurai. Nevertheless, the scene of mel Gibson death is pretty awkward and cringe.
I'm an Orthodox and I pressed like the moment you said your favourite movie is The Lord of the Rings. Not meaning anything by this statement except for praise.
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy the Britons yes but they Celts also lived in many places in Europe from France, Spain, through central Europe even so far as the Balkans.
@@georgeprchal3924 Yes, but not the Scotish Celts - they were only in Britain. Btw all Gallic/Celtic peoples are the Cimmerian race (Gomer) called Riphat
I know about the historical license used to make the story, but I am confused about what modern ideologies it espouses? William Wallace was known to be pretty vicious, and I do not believe the English rule of Scotland could be characterized as benevolent.
@@BrianHoldsworth Freedom is a necessary (yet insufficient) condition for all good, especially love -our summum bonum. I think we simply have a misunderstanding of freedom. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KUgkuNlfSQ0.html
@@FromAcrossTheDesert Sure. There's a difference between having the freedom to do what is right and the freedom to do what we want. IOW, freedom to pursue virtue and freedom to pursue our desires. Liberalism and the prevailing philosophy of our time is an endorsement of the latter and it is because of liberal philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Freedom of thought, speech, etc. is based on their kind of freedom, not Christ's or Aristotle's.
@@BrianHoldsworth Liberalism is a category which takes into account a great deal of philosophical territory. I do not think Locke should be considered in the same category as Rousseau nor Hobbs. Locke ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-G42GGKbM87Q.html Rousseau ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-G42GGKbM87Q.html
@@FromAcrossTheDesert They certainly had different starting points and unique contributions, but they are the founding thinkers of liberalism. I'm sure if you looked it up in any philosophical encyclopedia, all three would feature heavily in an article about it.
The brave men who fought against the Nazis in WWII ABSOLUTELY died for love of others, the common good and justice. Not "freedom". Those liberated from the camps did not have freedom as their first concern, I assure you.
Thank you so much for this! I watched Braveheart once in my 20s and it really, really upset me. One: the nudity and Two: the violence of women and the fact that their men were powerless to save them. I don't plan on ever watching it again. It really disturbed me.
its an Ok video, it just lacked research. No citations, plenty of assertions and would have been better if you spoke about some of the historical errors about the faith in Braveheart.
In some respects, yes, in many respects no. Much of pre-Christian civilization that was judged good was kept and adopted. The Roman legal system, architecture, literature, philosophy, etc. We only know about Plato and Aristotle because Catholic scribes copied their works by hand and studied their writings.
I say medieval christianity did a decent job at adopting what was good from the ancient world with some imperfections . For instance it is well noted the works of Plato, although well preserved by monks, were terribly catalogued and kept in private colections which led to serious degeneration of material and confusion about what could really be attributed to him.
@@BrianHoldsworth Read Catherine Nixeys book A Darkening Age to know how loving Christians were to their Pagan neighborhors once Constantine made it a state religion
@@st.mephisto8564 Thanks for the recommendation but my point still stands. If Christians were actually intent on destroying classical culture, none of it would have survived. Yet there is prolific amounts of evidence for their intentional preservation of these things. For example, all the Church fathers were Platonists. St. Basil, one of the most important fathers, wrote Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature in which he says they should study Plato BEFORE they study scripture and theology so that their exegesis will be rationally grounded. There's also the awkward episode with Julian the Apostate who was emperor after Constantine and who tried to restore Paganism but the people didn't want anything to do with it because Christianity had introduced dignity to the common people and concern for the poor. So, in spite of systematic oppression of Christianity, the people wanted it preserved and often paid for that preservation with their lives.
@@BrianHoldsworth Greeks and Romans were a special case. Christianity was heavily influenced by Hellenistic philosophy and Roman culture And the early church was dominated by Romans or romanized people. Naturally, the early church would have favored Greek and Roman pagan culture in ways it denied to others, because it was their ancestral heritage. Can you show me one example of the borrowing "good aspects" of pre-Christian Slavic, Germanic, or Celtic cultures. Did the church adopt any of their laws or their customs? How much of their original lore, myths, and philosophy did the church endeavor to preserve for posterity? Seems like outside of the Greco-Roman world, christianity considered most, if not all, pagan artifacts to be irredeemable and this robbed many people of their cultural heritage.
Sooo...what I'm hearing is that as we as a society have strayed further from God, the worse our working conditions has gotten, as far as vacation time goes? Of course, it makes sense; if we had more free time in a week, we'd have more time to go to church every week. If we had more free time in a year, we could go on pilgrimages. Nowadays, pilgrimages are taken only by either the most devout who MAKE time for it...or those who are unburdened by time and money (potentially those that wouldn't go on a pilgrimage anyway).
See; I never had such a problem with braveheart, for the reasons you state. All it did was give me a hatred of the English, which is ALWAYS justified. That said I agree with your points tho, but I think it can be rescued by pointing out it was a film of it's time (for instance, Kilts didn't exist yet either). The armor is atrocious, etc. It's not a war documentary, it';s a story set in war.
Brian, The whole "people in the middle ages had more days off than we do", is technically true but inaccurate. If you look at things like the number of saint's days and days serfs were exempt from labor, it was more days off than most people have today. But serfs didn't just work their lord's land, but also their own, and premodern agriculture means you're working on that land a lot, even, and especially on your "days off".
It doesn't matter - at least they had values and lived clean and Godly simple life, and weren't soulless money worshipping capitalist as the Protestants, and their creation- America, taught you all to be
@LIONBOY ☀️Король Кошек☀️ tell that to the Lombards. And everybody has values. "Having values" is one of those neutral statements, unless you explore what those values are.
@@epicurius1 No it's not, and no they don't, and if you don't understand the difference between the level of filth and abomination of today's western world and the old one, then you have a lot to learn about values. Plus, the Lombards and the other Germanic tribes were ruthless barbarians at the time of their wars with the Romans, and it was only after they conquered Rome when they were starting to be exposed and were introduced to real Roman Christianity, that they saw the light, were baptised and learned how to live moral lives and turned their people from pagans to Roman Catholics (until the Protestant reformation destroyed everything), so you only prove Brian's point
@LIONBOY ☀️Король Кошек☀️ fun fact...the Lombard banking dynasties became a thing in the 1300s, centuries after the Lombards converted to Christianity, so I don't think that's it. Ad far as overall morality goes, I don't think it is much different. Modern methods of communication just make it easier to hear about stuff that's going on now. And I don't know that Protestants are more "materialistic" than Catholics. That was Weber's obsession
@@epicurius1 You tell me that you don't even agree about the Protestants' materialism either?? - go watch on TV what their snake-oil preachers teach their congregations under Luther's dogma of "by faith alone" lol It doesn't matter when the Lombards converted, the point is that once they did, they were on the right track as civilized people, and if they deviated from it, that was a different story. Also if you don't understand the norms of moral behavior, modesty etc. of the old Christian world compared to today's pornographic world, I suggest you watch the golden era of Hollywood films - even then in modern Protestant/secular America you wouldn't be comparing it to what happens today, so imagine the ancient Catholic times, so sorry, you got a lot to learn if you think that "exposure by media" is what makes the difference between them
*Why do people always focus on western Europe when talking about middle ages. There were thriving civilizations just a little bit east as well as south. Also roman empire fell in 1453.*
Appreciate the medieval historical context, though these are seemingly fallacious criticisms against "Braveheart" but more accurately directed at school history education, documentaries, and Hollywood / entertainment industry treatment (as well as politically motivated culture wars - see 1619 Project) of history in general.
Is no one going to talk about the fact that the movie has nudity and infidelity in it, and the infidelity isn't shown as a bad thing. The message of the movie is nice (be willing to die for what you believe in). But I don't thats a good enough of a reason to watch.
Stop It! This an awesome movie for entertainment. It doesn't make anyone prejudiced against anyone, unless you're a weak minded person. I never thought the middle ages were bad based on this movie. In fact it's the opposite. Watch other stuff and read history books. There. I've fix it. Now get some popcorn and watch BraveHeart. Just fast forward the boob scene, or vid angel it. I thought you were gonna talk about the violence and boobs OR the fact that it's not historically accurate. It's historical fiction. Idk
I provided the initial comment before you got into the “hate” portion. I was a little blown away by the critique but never have developed the hate portion of the movie because I think the Middle Ages were a far better time than our world today. I was in a conversation with a coworker last week and said that 21st century America is NOT the pinnacle of human history and far from. In many, many ways our ancestors built a far superior society than the one we have today. Thank you for the video Brian!
I’ve never understood this view. Braveheart is about man’s quest for freedom. The history is horrible. If you’re getting your history from movies. Stop.
Brian, most of your videos are well thought through and suggest that you thoroughly investigate what it is that you’re going to expound on, however, you really dropped the ball on this one. It’s so blatantly obvious that you put little thought into this video - if any at all - and were clearly motivated by a wanton desire to spread propaganda, and for that, I reported it for misinformation. Don’t even pretend like you don’t know what I’m talking about. The sheer hubris and audacity on display herein is frankly repulsive. It demands a retraction and sincere apology. I’m equally appalled at the fact that no one else has pointed out the glaring blunder that you made, which makes me question the discernment of your audience… You can all keep feigning ignorance and continue to ignore the elephant in the room, but if you lack the skill of telepathy, I will spell it out for you: *Led Zeppelin* is objectively Great Britain’s greatest musical export of the 20th century. - Bruce Dickinson ;-)
its a movie just let it entertain you are reading far to much into it and the church was the most evil of them all so they did not use iron maiden but they did use Choke Pear Heretic's Fork that list is a long one an a great many churches had torture chambers there still there in many of the surviving ones just who you trying to fool here they give tours of them now a days
