The Battle of Waterloo film is epic. No amount of CGI can make up for practical effects and real men. The Russian army extras really gave the film a sense of scale as did the panoramic shots.
I couldn't stand watching it because of the ridiculous close up shots on "mounted" characters. It's just too obvious that they're riding some kind of mechanical contraption hanging off the side of a truck. Doesn't look anything like being on horseback. It's like Monty Python's knees-bent running around behavior, but taken seriously.
@@doobermanpincher I see where you're coming from but to me at least that seems like a real nit pick when you look at all the other shots that had literally thousands of extras in front of the camera at once. So many other films did the whole close up on an actor while they were clearly not on a horse (though I'd agree other films handled it better) but didn't follow those cheesy shots with the long shots with thousands of men on screen at any given moment
@@doobermanpincher I totally agree with Cliff. The very brief moments were worth it just to see the huge numbers of cavalry sweeping across the landscape. In particular when Ney's charge the British squares. It is because of the quality of the rest of the cinematography, that the few close ups jar.
@@doobermanpincher - I have to agree with Cliff, as well. If you watch "History Buffs" you'd know some of the details about "Waterloo." It is truly the last film of it's kind, and it was financially helped by the Russian government. And if you watched the battles in some recent productions(like "Game of Thrones") the horse soldiers line up in ways that are un-natural, to give the impression of large numbers, and then the battle shows small groups of riders and reproduces them, so that it looks like a lot of horse soldiers. It ends up looking wrong - but only to us knowledgeable "nit - pickers." So as long as we shut up, everyone else can enjoy the mayhem. Fortune passes everywhere.
Left out my favorite, the great charge of the 4th Australian Light Horse at Beersheba in the late afternoon of October 31, 1917, depicted in the movie The Light Horseman (1987). The 4th Light Horse wasn't even true cavalry, more like mounted infantry, they had no business making a cavalry charge. But they charged an entrenched German-Turkish position, defended with artillery and machine guns, and they carried it! They charged with the riders holding their bayonets in the air as if they were swords. The charge began at an unusually long distance and it's not clear who ordered it to begin there; some believe the horses, not having had water for a day or two and smelling the water behind the German-Turkish position, started the charge on their own initiative. I highly recommend the movie. Hats off to the the Australian Lighthorsemen, and hats off to the horses!
@@randyclaywell1491 they were mounted infantry..that is the reason for the success of their action..Germans and Turks expected them to dismount and fight on foot
@@randyclaywell1491 doesnt matter as they r not cavalry they r infantry so even if on horses its still an infantry charge. they r whats called Dragoons mounted infantry with no weapons they can use while mounted and only use the horses to get around the battlefields faster to plug holes in defences like a mobile reserve. or get around the flanks of the enemy and then dismount and fire into the rear or flanks of the enemy and if they get fire coming back at them they mount up and run away as they r light troops setup for light skirmishes and scouting. Usaly when the army is on the march the Dragoons will be mounted and out on the flanks keeping an eye out for enemy in the area. if they spot an enemy army near by they send a messenger to their marching army to warn them the rest will dismount and form a skirmish line to hold back the enemy as long as possbile to allow their army to get into battle formation. then they will mount up and run away as fast as possible. They might charge now and then if they see something that would make a nice prize like an lightly gaurded supply wagon or unmaned artillery. There was light dragoons or light horse which did the scouting and skirmishing job. medium dragoons that was the mobile reserve job and heavy dragoons that plugged holes in defenes as they had better weapons for that job. Just cause troops r mounted on horses they r not all cavalry. Royal horse artillery use horses as well and they work with the caverly by going with them in cavalry brigades and most think they r cavalry just cause their on horses but nope artillery.
4:14 The flow of events in Cromwell is really good. No pauses for dramatic emoting every time something happens. No pauses for exposition. The whole scene just flows like a live sporting event, with action, reaction, action, reaction, and so on.
Sir Thomas Fairfax actually commanded the New Model Army, not Cromwell and the NMA was nearly double the size of Charles Army. We had recoiless artillary nearly 300 years before they were invented.
@@desthomas8747 What I think they did was to mix the battles of Naseby and Dunbar together, because in the former Cromwell did indeed defeat a much larger army.
@@steinarvilnes3954 Wonder which battle they mixed Edgehill up with because Cromwell was not there on the first day, shown in the film, he and Colonel Hampden were escorting some guns to the battlefield by the time they got there both sides had run out of gunpowder and quietly withdrew, the King to Oxford and the Earl of Essex to London. As to some other minor points, both sides looked so much alike they wore Field signs and uses Watchwords (Passwords). Ruperts dog was killed a Marston Moor the year before and was a Standard Poodle, huge compared to the tiny white thing that he held in his arm in the film. One of the problems with depiction of history is that the real story was much better than the ones shown. One of my worst film for this is Zulu, heroes, such as Hook was badly represented, a teetotaller, with several good conduct mentions, in the real battle he was ordered to go into the hospital to protect the wounded, when that got to be untenable he, with others saved the lives of all but two of the occupents. In the film he was called a "Malingerer, drunkard, Barack Room Lawyer, his elderly children walked out of the Premier. Much more too much to find room on here we went to a lecture by a local historian, he was telling us about a soldier that came of of one of the rooms, fell into a depfession, covered himself with a cloak as the Zulus came round a corner, whenn they had gone he stood up being dusty and dirty was mistaken for a Zulu and nearly killed.
Hey, the grounds keeper job is very important. He's got to keep the battlefield flat and level and mowed like a fairway. I've heard from multiple guides at Gettysburg that their favorite question from tourists is "how did they fought the battle with all the monuments in the way?" Or some version of that.
Battles got fought where armies could deploy. e.g. Agincourt is in the French countryside, not some wilderness. The woods on either side were there; Henry chose the position as a bottleneck.
@@jameshetu6885 I've been on the Gettsburg field (and it was farmland in 1863). Cemetery ridge looks like nothing compared to even a slight hill, but Little Round Top is a fearsome obstacle; you wouldn't want to climb it without hiking gear, let alone under fire.
There's a movie scene of Australian light horse charging German led ottoman defensive line in Gaza during WW 1. Though that's not British though, but still commonwealth.
The charge scene in Waterloo is breathtaking, you can clearly see the influence in "Braveheart". I've always loved the movie as the scope it is simply amazing and incredible to be filmed in the USSR at the height of the Cold War. THANKS for making this compilation! That said, it would have been great to show the charge of the 5th Light Horse at Beersheba in the movie, "The Lighthorsemen," as they were Commonwealth forces at that time
Waterloo and The Charge of the Light Brigade are the two films that started my fascination with 19th century British/ European history as well as furthering my love of all types of swords. Well done in compiling this list sir, well done indeed!
#metoo. Sad really as once you know what really happened these great pieces of art become simply annoying. It's really difficult to watch anything Napoleonic these days without being pissed off by the gross, simple, and often pointless, inaccuracies. From uniforms and weapons to action there is enough info out there to make it good, at not much if any greater cost and still be watchable. Then there is the politics ...
One of the best charges shown in cinema was the charge of the Australian Light Horse into Beersheba in 1917, I know they weren’t strictly cavalry but it was still one of the last great cavalry charges and looked bloody awesome in the film.
Конфликт между ашкеназским и сефардским еврейством считается гораздо более глубоким, чем идейные, религиозные и прочие противоречия. Активист "Ликуда Ицик Зарка пожелал ашкеназским евреям сгореть в аду, как сгорели шесть миллионов. Зарка - деятель небольшого ума, но прислушаться к нему стоит, потому что он говорит то, что другие думают. Более того - то, что должно было прозвучать, чего ждали очень многие, включая, возможно, даже тех однопартийцев, которые поспешили осудить его слова. Если это не соответствует действительности, то зачем так бояться? Разумеется, ашкеназский "принц" Нетаниягу далек от того, чтобы оправдывать Холокост и желать миллионам евреев смерти в газовых камерах. Суть происходящего в другом. Перевод конфликта в этническую плоскость давно носится в воздухе. В самом деле: по одну сторону баррикад стоят университетские профессора, деятели культуры, работники хайтека, юристы и судьи, военнослужащие элитных частей, феминистки, жители престижных районов Тель-Авива и Хайфы. Одним словом, белая кость, представители тех профессий и сфер деятельности, где всегда преобладали выходцы из Европы. И другая сторона - поселенцы, мелкие торговцы, "вязаные кипы", население городов развития и бедных кварталов - "шхунот". Нет, не все они сефарды, но все же восточных евреев среди них значительно больше, чем в первом лагере. Так же, как больше их в "Ликуде" и других правых партиях, по сравнению с "Аводой" и "Еш Атид". Противопоставление "правые - левые" часто совпадает с формулой "сефарды - ашкеназы". Конфликт между ашкеназским и сефардским еврейством считается самым давним и неразрешимым, гораздо более глубоким, чем идейные, религиозные и прочие умозрительные противоречия. Таковы все конфликты на национальной почве: человек может изменить веру, место жительства, образ жизни, политические взгляды, но не этническую принадлежность. Исторически сложилось так, что истеблишмент в нашей стране - это ашкеназские евреи, а простой народ - сефардские. Ашкеназим - богатые, образованные, светские. Сфарадим - бедные, отсталые, религиозные. Разумеется, это всего лишь клише; они далеки от действительности, но занимают прочное место в нашем национальном сознании. Возьмите практически любой израильский фильм или развлекательную передачу - в них так или иначе затрагивается тема отношений сефардов и ашкеназов. В обычное, мирное время она обсуждается на уровне шуток, не всегда добрых, но никого не задевающих всерьез. У нас и сейчас еще не война, во всяком случае, улица пока не перешла грань, отделяющую протестное движение от гражданской войны. Но для бенефициаров этой ситуации ставки очень высоки, даже больше, чем власть. Ставка - будущее Израиля, путь, по которому пойдет общество в ближайшие годы. Кто-то возглавит это движение, кто-то останется позади. Ни правительство во главе с Биби, ни его оппоненты, стоящие за уличными акциями, не могут позволить себе проиграть. Разделяй и властвуй - излюбленный прием всех манипуляторов, он почти никогда не подводит. Нужно лишь найти подходящий повод для разделения; и чем проще этот повод, тем он надежнее. Вот почему противостояние сегодня стараются вывести на новый уровень, более примитивный и понятный, по сравнению с нюансами судебной реформы и этапами ее продвижения. Ведь термины "правые - левые" можно толковать по-разному, да и флаги у тех и других одинаковые. Но сефард или ашкеназ - величина абсолютная. Когда звучит клич "Наших бьют!" (или "Чтоб вы все сгорели!"), каждый точно знает, относится ли это к нему или к соседу. Знает, на чьей стороне он должен стоять и кто его враг. В свое время Нетаниягу очень прозорливо сделал ставку на восточную общину и собрал под своим крылом сефардских политиков. И прежде, и сейчас это позволяет ему говорить от имени простых людей, какие бы решения он ни принимал, в чью бы пользу ни продвигал законы. Если представить нынешнее противостояние как борьбу элиты против народа, протестующие всегда будут меньшинством, "узким кругом", сколько бы тысяч человек они ни собрали на площади. Но "народность" "Ликуда" и правых - такой же миф, как "элитарность" левых. И тут, и там борьбой руководят настоящие элиты, представители политической верхушки, которые в очередной раз не поделили ресурсы и власть. И в данном случае эта элита - против народа. А народ - мы все, сефарды и ашкеназы, светские и религиозные, правые и левые, репатрианты и старожилы, которые, несмотря на все сложности и разногласия, хочет жить в нормальной стране, не раздираемой внутренними войнами. Это важно помнить, чтобы не поддаться на манипуляции и провокации.
@@chrisrussell3064 Премьер-министр Биньямин Нетаниягу распространил посредством своей канцелярии заявление, в котором резко отмежевался от просьбы министра по делам Иерусалима и еврейского наследия Меира Поруша («Еврейство Торы»), адресованной украинскому послу - впустить на территорию Украины раввина Элиэзера Берланда, ранее осужденного за сексуальные преступления. «Правительство Израиля не имеет никакого отношения к просьбе впустить раввина Берланда в Умань и не поддерживает эту просьбу», - говорится в заявлении Нетаниягу, которое фактически является выговором министру. Информация о том, что израильский министр лично просил украинского посла похлопотать за раввина Берланда наделала немало шуму в социальных сетях. «Министр Поруш - подлый человек, готовый на все ради нескольких лишних голосов избирателей, - написала одна из женщин, пострадавших от раввина Берланда. - Его снисходительность к грехам ультраортодоксов печалит нас всех. Он потерял всякую меру нравственности и совести, позор ему». Напомним, как уже рассказывал сайт «Детали», министр Меир Поруш лично обращался к послу Украины в Израиле Евгению Корнийчуку с просьбой помочь снять запрет на въезд в Умань раввина Элиэзера Берланда. Элиэзер Берланд был осужден и отбыл срок за сексуальные преступления. В настоящее время въезд на территорию Украины ему запрещен. Министр Меир Поруш курирует вопрос посещения хасидами Умани в период войны. И, как пишет 12-й телеканал, значительная часть его усилий на этом поприще были посвящены тому, чтобы добиться разрешения на въезд на территорию Украины для раввина Берланда. Помимо обращения к послу он также направил письмо в Высший административный суд Украины с ходатайством отменить запрет. Но и суд, и посол отклонили просьбы Поруша. Посол ответил, что личного ходатайства Поруша ему мало, а чтобы содействовать в выполнении просьбы, ему надо получить официальное письмо от правительства Израиля. Организовать такое письмо Меир Поруш не смог. Это не первый случай, когда лидеры ультраортодоксальной общины оказывают покровительство одиозным и скандально известным фигурам, демонстрируя, что «мирское» осуждение, светская репутация, как и решения светского суда, для них не имеют веса. Достаточно вспомнить странную поддержку, которую бывший министр здравоохранения Яаков Лицман оказывал учительнице-извращенке из Австралии Малке Лейфер, которая несколько лет скрывалась в Израиле от австралийского правосудия. Весной нынешнего года Берланд принял участие в центральной церемонии празднования Лаг ба-Омер - зажжении огней - на горе Мерон в ночь на вторник, 9 мая. Его допустили к церемонии, несмотря на то что он был судим за сексуальные преступления и над ним тяготеют обвинения в других грехах. Участие Берланда было одобрено министерством по делам религии и министерством по делам Иерусалима и еврейского наследия. Министр по делам Иерусалима и еврейского наследия Меир Поруш всегда поддерживал Берланда и лично несколько раз навещал его. Решение организаторов церемонии пригласить Берланда вызвало протесты со стороны как министерства по делам религий, так и правозащитных групп. «Нельзя предоставлять трибуну человеку, осужденному за преступления на сексуальной почве, - заявило, в частности, Движение за чистоту власти. - Берланд не заслуживает права на участие в любых общественных мероприятиях». Раввин, признавшийся в причастности к убийствам и преступлениям на сексуальной почве, возглавит торжественную церемонию Раввин Берланд: этапы «большого пути» основателя секты Обвиняемый в убийстве подростка, совершенном 35 лет назад, переведен под домашний арест Как сообщалось ранее, в 2016 году Элиэзеру Берланду были предъявлены обвинения в непристойных действиях по отношению к четырем женщинам, включая несовершеннолетнюю, а также в нападении с отягчающими обстоятельствами на мужа одной из своих жертв. Позже он был признан виновным в двух случаях сексуальных домогательств и по одному пункту о нападении и приговорен к полутора годам тюремного заключения. Берланд также отбывал тюремный срок за уклонение от уплаты налогов, мошенничество, растрату, отмывание денег и другие преступления. В 2021 году раввин признался в причастности к убийствам таксиста Ави Эдри в 1990 году и 17-летнего ешиботника Нисима Шитрита в 1986 году. Однако обвинения по этому делу ему не были предъявлены «из-за юридических трудностей».
the slow motion part of the scot grays charge is one my if not the best movie moments ever. and then nays charge when the camera pan out to reveal all the red coat squares.
Looks like a special dramaturgy trick like the rest of the scene. It's all about easy to comprehend visual metaphors, not accuracy. Notice how it transitions from one scene to another. There's just one plane edited directly after another and could be shot different day or month.
Remember this film is based on a stage play; very poignant visual storytelling to cut from the horse and rider juxtaposed to the lone, riderless horses rushing through the line.
@@Vespuchian but all those visuals, photography, music amount to nothing if all scene is a big pile of bullshit made only to gain a quick reaction in the pubblic
Oh for the good old days . . . when you could rent the Russian army and make a war movie that literally had a cast of thousands . . . and use a helicopter shot to prove that you had.
Excellent compilation video! I like in Warhorse how dozens of horses survive unscathed and continue the charge with their riders cleanly shot off. The British Army had armored horses in WWI it seems.
The Australian film The Light Horsemen shows a really good charge when they captured Beersheba in then Palestine. They held their bayonets like sabres.
Did not understand why the used their bayonets as swords rather than fix bayonets and use their rifles as lances. A WWI rifle with bayonet is a lot closer to lance than a WWI bayonet was to a sabre even if WWI bayonets were long.
@@almacmathain6195 They wouldn't have been trained to use lances, plus even if they had the weight of a 303+bayonet would've been all wrong (difficult enough on foot with both hands). Swinging 16 inches of sharpened steel however sort of comes naturally
Love: 1. wilhelm's screams here and there 2. Polish ulans with lances 3. British infantry formations of boxes in secomd Waterloo movie and great birds eye view of cavalery moving around. 4. Awesome artillery fire, shock and sound effectiveness of it in one of the movies. 5. Beautifully poetic last scene of single horse running ahead without rider. Thanks!
Found out about Outlaw King because of this video. Probably going to watch it soon! It looks great. This makes me think that I would really appreciate more suggestions for historical war movies from you, if you are aware of any particularly good ones.
Right? A man on horseback coming right at you has quite a lot of his body hidden behind the horse's head and neck. There is no way that many horses would run by unharmed even if they gunners were ONLY aiming at the riders individually.
@@foelancer7625 It might be more evocative, it's also as far as I know, really tricky to pull off with real horses without them being injured. Charge of the Light Brigade with Errol Flynn has a rather infamous place in history just because of this.
@@tyrannicfool2503 Well most charges are shown wrong. You move into to position at steps (skrit) then move towards the enemy at start in steps to move up to a trott (trav) at the last hundreds of meters you actually go into the gallop. Horses get tired to too. But ya I was hoping for the same.
At the battle of Omdurman (as portrayed by The Four Feathers, 1939), the British actually had gunboats behind them on the Nile with modern breach loaders and Maxim guns. The Infantry opened up at 2000 yards range in volley fire, not point blank. These combined to break the charge, but the Khalifa's army was not defeated. The units then advanced against them and the real fight began. They were faced by Infantry and Cavalry charges at much closer range. Some British and Allied Sudanese Regts became isolated in their advance. The Gunboats manoeuvred to provide support to the units on the flanks, who were heavily pressed. British discipline payed off and the Dervish army was defeated soundly. The Battle of Abu Klea (as portrayed by The Four Feathers, 2002), the squares were far too small, and the battle was actually a lopsided victory for the British, 65 to 1,100 dead. At Agincourt, the French Knights actually advanced on foot, in two dense groups. By the time they reached the English lines slogging through the mud, many were already exhausted.
Enjoyed that very much - If ever you decide to recut, I'd include the Australian Light Horse (British Empire troops) charge at Beersheba in 1917 from the film The Lighthorsemen. I'd also commend your choice of the (broadly) more accurate 1960s Charge of the Light Brigade to the spectacular but historically risible Errol Flynn version (but why oh why did they put the whole brigade in cherrypicker overalls?!)
the light horse were not cavalry they were dragoons. even thought they did charge they were not supposed too as they only fought on foot and didnt have any swords just rifles. the horses were to just get around faster. once then got to where they needed to attack they dismounted and went in on foot.
Oh gosh that warhorse scene where the lazer machine guns manages to snipe all the riders off the horses which also manages to all succesfully jump over the germans not hitting one.
@@scholagladiatoria At first I thought the scene looked pretty good like what you would expect would happen in a calavry charge happen on on unexpecting camp than suddenly the fleeing germans got a speed boost and sillinest commenced.
@@timothystevens1529 Yeah I raised an eyebrow at that as well. Seems a bit of an odd layout for a camp. "Let's set up all our tents here in the open. Oh... and take all our machine guns over there in the edge of the forest. No... don't emplace them with fields of fire facing outwards... have them targeted towards our own camp."
@@peterblood50 LOL They could have shot the scene at night, and the Brits could have flaming sabres for some reason. Then a high distance shot with the flaming swords extinguished as the magic laser machine guns sniped them off their horses. If the film makers really wanted to show the horror of the transition to modern warfare, they should have used their CGI budget to show the entire company mowed down in gory detail, including most of the horses (except for the title character horse of course).
The story goes that when they were filming the Agincourt charge in 1944 in Ireland, they only had time for two takes. Mid-way through the first take ... a lone B17 flew across the clear blue sky, leaving a white con-trail. The charge had to be called-off, and re-started - after the con-trail evaporated.
Most notable cavalry charge in history - the 21st Lancers at Omdurman. 24:21. Because it marks the most astonishingly rapid weapons development in humanity's existence. Winston Churchill commanded men on horseback armed with spears. In his last term as Prime Minister, he commanded a nuclear arsenal. Lieutenant Winston Churchill led a squadron of lancers through the enemy formation, pistol in hand, sword at his side. The lances can be grouped with spears, which humans had been using for 400,000 years. Men had been fighting from horseback for thousands of years. He was Prime Minister of the U.K. for a second time in 1951-55. In his last year the country had an atomic bomb arsenal mounted on bombers, operationally. A rapid advance - in 57 years! - from men mounted on horseback with lances and pistols - and swords! A fun collection, Matt. Thanks! P.S. The film is accurate in showing Churchill carrying a Mauser C96 pistol. British officers could supply their own choice of pistol. Among other reasons, he preferred a pistol due to an old shoulder injury.
Just a minor nitpick - he didn't lead the charge - he was actually from a different regiment (hussars) and took part at his own request. As you said, he used the pistol primarily because of his injured arm/shoulder.
@@scholagladiatoria Was compressing quite a lot to keep attention. Only said he led a squadron, not the charge, and even that’s inaccurate. But he did charge with some sub-unit of lancers at his command, needed for the contrast to nukes at his command. Not his regiment; Churchill actually managed to be at the scene of action by being a war correspondent for the Morning Post, which could be done while a serving officer. But Matt - not impressed by swords and nukes in one guy? When cadet Winston trained with a sword, it was still a real fighting weapon.
No noI'mźx@see eeeeèddddddddddddddddddďddddddddffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff6😢😢 9:35
I love your reviews of movies and shows! Would you consider reviewing video games like Mordhau? How accurate are the arms and armor? How do the techniques translate to real life?
At the start of the charge of the Scots Greys at Waterloo, the opening scene is a homage to a famous painting of the event called 'Scotland forever' by Lady Butler.
this is only because movies are obsessed with showing only instances where cavalry charges didn't work. for most of medieval history and for much of the blackpowder era a heavy cavalry charge was still the most deadly thing on the battlefield.
Yeah, Hollywood is for appealing to the unwashed masses, who like to associate themselves with the chaps walking around on foot in the mud. The Charge of the Heavy Brigade would be AWESOME to see on film, but nobody has really bothered. Same for things like the Battles of Patay or Auray.
@@scholagladiatoria You don't get that poignant and romantic sense of watching the last gasp of a bygone era unless all the boys on the pretty horses bravely die.
@@nilloc93 Incorrect, ROUTES were the deadliest thing on the battlefield. It just so happens that in the absence of discipline, pikes, or palisades, heavy cavalry charges tended to turn into routes.
Successful cavalry charges to film: Blenheim, though 8,000 cavalry charging at once would have to use CGI, Emsdorf, a little known battle in a little known war but just one battalion of dragoons went through five battalions of infantry and took a vast number of prisoners, Kassassin, the moonlight charge of the household cavalry would make a great spectacle and the darkness could hide a lot of the sins of the movie industry, and Elandslaagte, dragoons and lancers fighting both dismounted and mounted (don't look at the Wikipedia account of this battle, it's plain wrong).
Cavalry charges are stressful. Don't know if it's been mentioned but T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) shot the camel he was riding on in the back of the head during one of his first charges. Apparently riskier for the camel than the rider.
Was a little disappointed that King Arthur's charge on the French castle from The Holy Grail wasn't included. I know they were using coconut halves banged together but all the same, it's a classic.
@@DavidSmith-ss1cg Long ago, but _not_ far away. Middle-earth was meant to be a mythological past age of Europe, and the Shire was an idealized England.
love the 4 feathers sequence, was masterminded by my cousin and a multi air shot overlaid, he taught heath ledger how to running jump onto his horse in one sequence
I'm not qualified to opine on accuracy but my favorite depiction has always been that of the Australian Light horse at Beersheva in "The Lighthorsemen".
Wonderful.Just imagine the work that went into costumes and rehearsals and scenes before today’s computer assisted graphics graphics.And all those great actors of bygone years.
The thing we learn is that since the invention of gunpowder, cavalry charges against infantry and artillery have proved disastrous in most cases. Curiously, one of the last successful charges was the Australian lighthorse at Beersheba - not strictly cavalry, but it's not so strange really. Effectively, they were dragoons in the old sense, and dragoon units (of mounted troops with firearms) ended up being used as cavalry.
The U.S. Special Forces joined Northern Alliance troops charging on horses Taliban an Al Qaeda troops in Afghanistan at the start of the war in 2001. Granted, it was not as epic like an classic cavalry attack in an open battle field but it should count,
What has always amazed me when they made a lot of these films, there wasn't any CGI around back then The logistics and getting the horse and soldiers together, the choreography must have been a nightmare, you couldnt do numerors retakes They must have had some pretty ingenious tricks with the cameras, the actors How many people were hurt during the making of these films ? When they did these charges in real life,I wonder how the horsemen felt charging into massed spears, pits with stakes, clouds of arrows, facing cannons with grapeshot, being shot at with muskets (okay a musket wasnt very accurate, but if the troops are massed, you are going to hit something, the musket ball were big as well) I have watched a lot of these charges, it always seemed a crazy way to fight a war (the same as trench warfare in WW1) Anyway thanks for uploading these charges, it was very good watching them, I'm glad I never had to do one Yes War Horse was a fictional film but it didnt make it a lesser film, I have enjoyed it I have enjoyed all these films even though there were mistakes in them, I watch a film to be entertained, not educated
There are a few more great charges on film to include. Aside from the famous Beersheba charge, there is also the 1939 Charge of the Light Brigade, which starred Errol Flynn. Perhaps it was left out due to it being black and white? The final charge is very dramatic and realistic. In fact, several horses and one rider were killed when he fell onto a saber. The scale of it and number of horses used was incredible.
funny thing about Flynn's movie They Died With Their Boots On....all those wild indians charging in were actually filipinos....who kept falling off their horses... forcing some retakes
I know that script writers want to make movies exciting, but the German infantry outrunning the British Calvary from their camp to the woods and then having time to man their machine guns was rubbish. I would have chosen the change of the Australian Light Infantry at Beersheba instead. I also would have chosen Kenneth Branagh's Henry V instead of the Laurence Oliver's version.
"Why stick em, when you can shoot em." "If your close enough to stick them, your close enough to shoot them." I thought sword play went out with sailing ships.
The most well dressed armies in the past , were kitted out in beautiful tunics, well groomed adorned horses, and their finest garb, and all, just to get blown to hell, what a waste war is?
They weren't the Australian Light Infantry, but the Australian Light Horse. And yes, it could have been included, although they weren't part of the British Army.
@@YesYes-xb6he You are quite correct that the Beersheba charge was done by the Australian 4th Light Horse Brigade, which although it sounds like they were cavalry, were actually mounted infantry. Excellent piece of film though.
@@EldarKinSlayer For those wondering, the Australian Light Horse were not cavalry, but mounted infantry, intended to be highly mobile, but tovfight dismounted. Beersheba was a brilliant success - but not a cavalry charge.
@@alecblunden8615 After Beersheba most of the Australian light horse were issued with '08 swords and given a crash cause in being cavalry and saw out the rest of the war as true cavalry and had some successful fights as such
The only plausible explanation is that it was a trap. As for not hitting the horses, I guess some were shot but all the riders were. How they managed to avoid any of the shot riders getting dragged along by their stirrups is another question.
@CipiRipi00 You are correct that they were Mounted Rifles and untrained in Cavalry which makes it even more astounding that they accomplished a job for which they were never trained. The Light Horse attack on Beersheba was their FIRST ever battle as Light horsemen and no one can change history.
@CipiRipi00 Don't forget the Australian OIC had to get permission from the British before the attack. The British General Chetwode came up with the idea in the first place as they also desperately needed water from the Beersheba wells. General Allenby was so impressed with the Light Horsemen whose 6km charge at Beersheba, with thirsty horses, opened the way to attack the Turks in Jerusalem that he put the Light Horsemen in front of his own troops at the head of the Victory Parade in Jerusalem from which he took the salute. I think it was the first time a British General ever allowed foreign troops to march in front of his own. Israel erected a large statue of a Light Horseman titled ''The Australian Light Horsemen" out of deep gratitude.
Yes, of course, Agincourt has to be shown, but this film didn't have the soacking wet ground, didn't show that most of the Knights were killed by men at arms using spikes driven through the eye visors, and the archers were dresssed very grandly for Welsh farmers.
Holy crap, I didn't know Matt acted as Ponsonby, leading the Scots Greys in Waterloo! But really, Michael Wilding looks exactly like an older Matt!!!!!
Movies: Outlaw King (2018) 0:25 Henry V (1944) 1:26 Cromwell (1970) 3:39 Waterloo (1970) 6:26 Waterloo (1970) 11:27 (Michel Ney Charge) The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968) 13:47 The Four Feathers (2002) 17:59 The Four Feathers (1939) 20:07 Young Winston (1972) 24:26 Lawrence of Arabia (1962) 26:31 Warhorse (2011) 28:45 Outro - 32:16
YESSS! Haha! You put it in there, saw the title and was going to be... quite cross, if you hadn't (it being The Charge of the Light Brigade from 1968*) IS THAT A PORT BOTTLE!
That was a great video! But you left out the best one. I was surprised you didn't include the 1936 version of Charge of the Light Brigade with Errol Flynn.
Charge of the Scots Greys is one of the greatest scenes put to film. They remade the painting of Scotland Forever! with real horses and men. Also I think the raid in War Horse was meant to be part of the Battle of the Frontiers.
3 года назад
No mention of the 8,000 French Infantry in the way and no mention of the other Regiments in the Union Brigade.
October 1917 The Australian Light Horsemen successfully mounted cavalry charges against the town of Beersheba, starting THE Sinai and Palestinian campaign of the First World War.
Four other cavalry charges come to mind: 1. The battle of Crecy, 2. The battle of Poitiers, 3. The battle of Bannockburn, 4. Charge of The Australian Light Horse at Beersheba (if you include Commonwealth military actions). I don't know whether there are movies/reenactment of the first 3 but there is definitely a movie on the last one.
Most late period cavalry used both firearms and swords. Having a lance to manage makes it awkward to operate firearms. Whereas a sword can simply be worn.
Oliver was a self important ass. And as for the Charge of the Light Brigade, didn't those cockwads charge horses into trip wires to simulation canon fire? Killing how many? That message, "No animals were harmed in the making of this motion picture"? A direct consequence of Charge of the Light Brigade.
@@scholagladiatoria The 21st Lancers at Omdurman carried carbines and lances, but of course charged using the lances. Then in the middle of a melee, hard to switch to the carbine. Edit: read the bit about the carbines a while ago, having trouble confirming it at the moment.
What!? You missed Monty Python and the Holy Grail?! Who could possibly forget the use of coconut halves for horses? Awe inspiring! ...and that wonderful use of the command voice - "Run away! Run away!
@@dunruden9720 no you are not , but I think it deserves honorable mention just because it was the best cavalry charge in any movie , any era , any where
@@dunruden9720 But it is part of British history. I am British and my Grandpa was part of that campaign. He never spoke about it much but had huge admiration for the ANZACs he fought beside. He was a post office engineer but had to learn to ride a camel to carry messages owing to the lack of a phone network in the desert!
@@dunruden9720 I know you aren't Brits. BUT before 1931 weren't you a British colony?. Even after 1931 didn't you have just limited independence? If you were still a colony at that time, it should have qualified. Well, it was a magnificent charge and was excellently portrayed in the movie
You could make that argument though in reality of the 4 regiments that counter attacked at Waterloo only 1 large squadren of a dutch cavalry regiment was actually Polish
What about the Australian Light Horse charge at Bersheba Palestine 1917 , against Ottoman Turks, last successful charge in WWI of course the Australians thought they were charging for beer and sheilas. This made the taking of Damascus tactically possible, a few short weeks later......the Australians got to Damascus first.
Did you notice, in Laurence Olivier's Agincourt made in 1944, that the archers, dressed in tights though they might have seemed, shot their arrows from the right hand side of their longbows. Shad would have been proud of them. The other observation I have from your selection is that the British have been a good deal better in receiving cavalry charges than mounting them. Speaking as an infantryman, I find this satisfactory.
The Union Brigade and in particular its CO Ponsonby and the Scots (North British) Greys do not carry the Pattern 1796 heavy cavalry sword. But, given the plethora of other inaccuracies in that segment and all the others, that hardly matters. Still, stirring, no matter how anti-historical.
