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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manga:☺ Anime:😊 Netflix adaptation:😨

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

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

while it may not have been historically accurate, I think the movie was pretty good piece of art. Unless you are looking for a history lesson, I think the movie is definitely worth a watch.

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

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

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

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

Netflix is the king of making historical inaccuracies

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

The movies is a crime againts french history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henry was a disciplined warrior king, Netflix portrays him as a lazy, self-indulgent millennial. It's kind of annoying and I imagine there's a few annoyed Brits because of it.

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

Historical inaccuracies aside, this film was almost perfect. Henry had plenty of character. 1)One can easily connect-the-dots that he was so disillusioned with his father's war-mongering, that he had long given up on seeking the crown. 2)He began to believe that he was destined to save England after his victory in hand-to-hand combat against Hotspur and his brother's death. Thus, he grew more comfortable with the role of king. 3) I don't get why you believe his father (the king) despised him. Quite the opposite appears true. One gets the impression that his father loved him and perhaps felt guilty of not heeding Henry's advice in the past. There are multiple tells that Henry was held in high esteem by just about everyone. Conclusion: he must have done something to have earned this. Its already clear that he was competent on the battlefield and in court. 4) there was a fair bit of sunshine in this film.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only the English could write the story of their king claiming another nation's throne with them being the angsty underdog. I was rooting for the French.

Sleeping Beauty definitely got the colors right for medieval clothing 😂

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

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

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

Henry's personality is a matter of taste; I personally enjoyed him - it's refreshing that not everyone has to be overly outgoing and gregarious. On details - there's a big difference between people of the period liking color and having access to it. Color was expensive and while the upper nobility could certainly afford it, I find it quite believable that the general cityscape and feel is not filled with color. As late as the 19th century only the richer peasants in Sweden, where I live painted their houses due to how expensive it was, most buildings were the grey of aged wood. Same thing with clothing - up until quite recently the only colors in general use were those available cheaply and most clothing for the average man and woman were undyed. As to the fight scene in the mud - I may be wrong, but it appears to me that Edward is depicted as weaing only a plate breastplate and a chainmail coif with no mail on neither legs nor arms, which would indeed make him significantly lighter. It is also noted in numerous places in historical litterature that while it's true full plate was pretty agile and that an experienced wearer could perform rather advanced maneuvers in it, getting up from the ground was more difficult in it and getting a man in plate to the ground was one of the viable options for a lesser armored man. A closed helmet certainly doesn't benefit any sort of maneuvering. So, while certainly exaggerated in the movie, I find it quite believable that there would be benefits to wear lighter armor under the conditions of the day. It should be noted that according to historical noted, the battle was fought not on soggy grass, but on a recently plowed field, wet by rains. Anyone who has walked across a plowed field knows that trying to do anything more advanced would be a challenge. On a slightly bigger scale there is the battle itself - like you said, no one knows exactly what happened, so one should prehaps refrain from criticizing the movie overly for it's accuracy here. What the litterature does indicate is the ground conditions, as said above, that is, barely traverasble at more than a walk. The English set up their men-at-arms in the center and archers on the flanks, with woods securing them from being flanked and providing a funnel which prevented the French from benefitting from their superior numbers. It is also noted that the english longbowmen initiated firing at over 200 yards - not being an archer I don't know if it's possible to fire a longbow straight at such a range as indicated in the video. In any case, the French not being able to advance at a gallop, or even a trot naturally took heavy casualties. Sources are divided - some claim the French persisted in trying to mount a cavalry charge while others claim they abandoned the horses and attempted to charge on foot. When finally arriving at the English lines, the English archers had protected their positions with sharpened stakes, noted in multiple sources as an innovative move, and this prevented the cavalry from breaking through the archers. At this point the Archers are said to have abandoned their bows and entered hand to hand combat and some sources claim many of them were not wearing shoes to help them navigate the increasingly heavy mud. As consecutive lines of French attacked the French side of the line got increasingly crowded to the point where sources claim they could no longer lift their weapons. Sources claim that the French outnumbered the English anywhere from 2-1 to 5-1 at the beginning of the battle while the causlties are reported at 5,000 to 10,000 for the french and 100-1,500 for the English, so whatever happened it was a disastrous loss for the French. How the French leadership failed to stop such a disaster has been debated, several historians believe it's a combination of eagerness and confidence among the French noble knights thinking the much smaller English army easy pickings and thus more concerned with achieving glory for themselves than the overall battle, which they though were a forgone conclusion and the efficiency of the "combined arms" tactics of the English army. To summarize - sure, the movie could have done a better job if their aim was to make an absolutely accurate historic depiction of events, but as movie battles goes, it was fair, and it captured the spirit of what happened - the French were proud and assured of victory to a fault, the English much more pragmatic and the conditions of the day favored the English to the degree where they could pull off a victory that should have been impossible. On a bigger scale - I get the impression that you state that the claim of Henry V on the crown of France is undisputable and just. That statement in a sense disqualifies the entire position of the French lineage throughout the 100 years war and over-simplifies things. Far to much happened between 1066 and 1415 to make a state that one sides claim was simply the legitimate one and the many complexities is the reason hostilities were so enduring. Of specific note is that Edward III abandoned his claims to the throne of France in 1360 in exchange for lands in France as a Vassal to the French King. Nine years later Edward took up the claim to the throne again, of course without relinquishing the holdings he had obtained and naturally the French royalty opposed this. The English house maintained this claim (which you refer to as legitimate) up until 1420, where they recognize Charles VI as King with Henry V as his son in law and legal heir, aftrer which Henry adopted the title "Heir of France". Henry's son, Henry V, an infant at Henry V's death was the only English king that actually ruled France for a period up until Charles VII was Crowned with help of Joan of Arc, which was the beginning of the end of English influence in France. The point is that the issue of the crown of France was extremely complex and both sides had strong claims which is the reason there was over 100 years of wars over them. As to the conversation Henry has with his wife to be, the French princess - while it might sound contrieved she has a good point - Henry's father, Henry IV was an usurper to the throne inherited by her own grandfather, Richard II. As mentioned, the lineage and claims was far from straight forward. Now, was it a bad movie? Depends on what you expect. If you expect it to be perfectly historically accurate, problably no. Thing is, most people who watch movies are neither knowledgable enough to know the difference nor interested - they want to watch a compelling movie. Painstaking recreations of every historic fact only appeals to a very small demographic which isn't large enough to pay the cost of making a modern movie. Sure, if it can be done and while still making the movie compelling to a general audience so be it, but even I, who am very interested in History enjoy a good movie with fictional parts over a Historically accurate one that's boring. Some stories can appeal to both camps, but not all. In any case, a movie has to be able to stand on its own. Star Wars doesn't become bad because it's not accurate to history nor a likely future. If one goes into the movie with the notion that it's fiction inspired by historic events and by Shakespear I think one enjoys it much more than one who allows himself to be annoyed by any historic inaccuracy. All in all, I found the movie enjoyable.

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

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

Years ago, I read in a miniature war gaming magazine, that on the day of battle, many of the English were suffering from dysentary. They did not wear their breeches so they could fight and defecate at the same time.

"Conquered france" he actually didn t thou, war was still on.

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

pyjamas: worn mcdonalds: unwrapped shad: on oh yeah

I really feel like the writers watched the battle of the bastards on game of thrones and tried to replicate it but in a more historically accurate context. Watch both battles one after the next you'll see exactly what I mean.

Henry had (some) French captives executed *during* the battle of Agincourt, while it was uncertain whether the tiring English army could stand against a renewed attack (around a half of the French army was either unengaged or had reformed following their first repulse), in the lull prisoners had been taken, looting was under way and the threat of a large body of armoured (even if theoretically disarmed and surrendered) in the army rear with unknown numbers of additional French cavalry and reinforcements arriving from the surrounding area, taking up arms again was uncomfortable. He set 200 archers to execute the prisoners taken at that point, and reformed his battles for a renewal of action. Many more prisoners were collected from the field later, but the deaths among the French nobility were high, as they were better armoured and more likely to have been taken 'in' the English lines, thus among those killed, either in action, or by execution.

Waited so hard for this! Thank you, Shad🙋🏻‍♂️

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

Worth noting. Although the english kings spoke french, it was mostly a holdover from the norman invasion. Their french was taught from parent to child, often without being reinforced by contemporary french. This meant that by henry's reign, the accent of the english nobility was so different from the french accents due to so long being surrounded by english speaking saxons, that the french used to openly find them amusing for how brutish and gutteral it sounded. This partly caused the english nobles to bite the bullet and just learn english as their main language, embracing their separate heritage rather than being accepted by neither group.

Henry V's wife was tough; she was left as a single mother with a baby, after Henry's death. V was responsible for the death of her brother. BUT the women of the French court were different from the Brits. The French women were quite tough, witness the French She-Wolves who have been acquitted of saving the Plantagenet line earlier.

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

The statements you made toward the end I agree with wholeheartedly. Recently I got into a pretty bad argument with a friend about history and this growing trend of judging history with the standards of today. No matter how hard I fight this I seem to be losing ground. People are not studying history to learn the mistakes of the past in order to not repeat them, but to twist it to suit an agenda. There is no respect of the past or the lessons it teaches. I am wanting to get my degree in history and teach it how it is meant to be taught, but I am afraid that we have lost too much ground to the PC culture to make any difference.

For the first time since I started watching your videos, I must disagree. I am also a medieval enthusiast and I absolutely love realism. This, I would say, I believe is one of the best medieval movies I've seen. It might have had some differences from what actually happened, but in reality, there is absolutely no way any film could cover even 90% of them. Through actual filming, you meet difficulties, constraints and sometimes lack of resources. From what I can see, the director of the film did an amazing job at recreating a memorable moment of history and also wrapping it with an interesting story with their available resources and time.