Thank you for appreciating all of the hard work that we put in to the weapons on the movie, we tried to make it as real as possible and I am so proud that you think we succeeded. Kind regards, Tim (Master Armourer on Outlaw King)
Thanks heaps for commenting Tim! People in the medievalist community have been craving a film that showed proper respect to the weapons and armor of the time period and you did such a great job, so much better than any other medieval film I can think of, Well done sir and THANK YOU
Really the only thing I think I noticed was the grand bascinets on that finally cav charge. But they also kinda look like great helms and sugar loafs? I was actually surprised to see open face bascinets so early and had to research if they did in fact have them as early as 1300s-1310s. Though I am curious if scotland had them or the coat of plates (which looked like the pattern at kusnacht?) Seeing as they were so poor at the time. Or were they supplied by an alliance with france which I know happened at times and the movie just didn't mention it?
Always thought it was weird that people go out of their way to adapt true stories because they're interesting, and only to change it because they're not interesting enough.
One huge excuse actually: expense. Medieval films aren't like Westerns in that historical authenticity costs. A lot. It's the main reason why we don't get many of them while we get plenty of cowboy films. Hopefully Outlaw King will rejuvenate interest in the genre the same way Gladiator did for Swords-and-sandals flicks but it's worth remembering that there's usually more in the way of that than just not caring about historical authenticity.
Here's an interesting tidbit that you didn't mention: There's a legend about Robert the Bruce hiding in a cave after one of his many defeats, and he watches a spider unsuccessfully attempt to climb up the cave wall in order to spin a web. Bruce reflects that he is just like the spider, a failure. Then he sees the spider successfully climb the wall on its seventh attempt and he wonders at its tenacity and vows not to give up himself, soon winning his first victory in the war against the English. In the movie, they actually allude to this legend very briefly. Before the battle of Loudoun, Robert the Bruce is praying for victory, and then there is a quick shot of a spiderweb, before it cuts to the armies marching to their positions. It's only a few seconds long, but it is a clear message (to those who know what to look for) that this is the point when his fortunes are changing and that this battle is not going to be like the last ones. I thought this was handled perfectly. Since it's a legend, it wouldn't be quite right (and it would probably hurt the pacing) to literally have Bruce watching a spider climb a wall over and over again, but just giving it that quick nod was a great way to pay homage to the story without derailing the film.
I saw the cave set in the studio. There was a little orange ball suspended by wires at the caves entrance for spider CGI. They must have filmed it but cut it out.
You should watch the film again. When the Bruce is bathing in the pond he tells his followers it's time to go back. Angus says "It's too soon, we're not ready. We should wait and build our strength." And the Bruce says something like "No, we can do it. Just like that spider."
My father used to tell me that story as a bedtime story when I was a little kid, since we're like distantly related to the Bruce clan or something like that. It's good that they featured some kind of reference to it.
As an Medieval archaeologist I was also blown away by the accuracy in muted visuals and grounded feel of the film. My only gripe was that it relies a bit too much on movie short-hand in setting up the two sides of the conflict.
The full version was way longer but got cut down. And frankly I think this period of history could only be told properly with a series. Problem is then the budget would have to be stretched much further. Bannockburn in 1314 was the main event and that was 8 years after the main events of the film. The conflict lasted for another 14 years after that including several large battles and an Scottish expedition to Ireland. But I was impressed by a lot of the details. Even if the armour wasn't particularly well tailored, but that's such a minor gripe honestly. The film shows you can pay attention to little details and end up with a beautiful product. The actual story wasn't too bad but I feel like it focused on some of the wrong things. But overall it was a great film.
Hi, it's my colleague who made the castle, we watched your video and learned all the knowledges about true castle, but unfortunately, supervisor deny the proposal, that's why we don't have accurate machicolation and battlements in the show.... However, thank you for making such a great channel, keep it up! VFX guys had heard your voice :D
Which castle exactly did your colleague work on? Because the one we see in this video is Craigmillar castle in Edinburgh. It does indeed have machicolations, but unfortunately they are too shallow to be seen clearly in this footage. I assume you mean they did CG set extensions to restore the ruined battlements? I see that the parapet and merlons have been restored on the tower in the background (the real one is not quite as tall anymore), although not so much on the wall in the foreground (which really should be as tall as the tower). But it's also quite obvious why adding that wall back in post would not work, as it would have hidden the character almost completely from the camera, and he wouldn't have been able to see the enemy outside at all. They really should have built that wall for real, so that they could have shot it more accurately. It's too late to try and save that one in post.
You overestimated how knowledgeable normal audience emphasis on normal audience who knows little about history from school or didn't study at all , i can't count how many times i have to explain that the sniper duel between vasily and erwin konig never happens or that the scots in braveheart should've look almost exactly the same as the english
@@ZombiAstral What he means is that 'normal' people see a historical film and they believe it, not because it's accurate but because "It's in a film, so it MUST be accurate"
@@dr.jpdixon6299 Almost nobody believes that Hollywood tells accurate true to life stories historical or with current events. What are you even on about?
Yeah, that last scene where they let him go really got me. I was just like "Hostage! Aren't your wife and daughter still hostages? Could you not trade him for them, come on!".
This was the worst bit of the film by far for my girlfriend and I, unbelievably stupid decision by the writer/director just so they could have a ridiculous duel between the main characters. Basically an assumption that their audience are morons and need the lowest form of resolution to resolve the plot for them.
@@MrShoryuken1 Indeed, the scene would have been equally powerfull without the duel but ending the scene with the start of the pursuing and the off text telling how "Kind Edward the 2nd had to flee from the battlefield and avoid capture by Bruce's forces" or something like that.
Plus, warriors at the time were always looking to capture their enemies for ransom (it was the primary focus of chivalry) It would have been obvious for anyone to capture him just by virtue of their culture. I think the only time I've seen that on screen was in the miniseries, Pillars of the Earth (which I wouldn't mind seeing Shad review due to all the medieval architecture talk in it)
They probably could have ransomed him for the WHOLE OF SCOTLAND and still gotten his wife and daughter back. The could have LITTERALLY gotten a KINGS RANSOME!!!
I was thinking the exact same thing. No father would never, ever, let their child's kidnapper walk away like that. It seemed so ridiculous it completely ruined the movie for me.
Hold just a damn minute. You mean to say that armor actually exists in this movie, and people don't drop dead the moment you point a -lightsaber- sword in their general direction? This is absolutely unheard of! How dare they do something so radically realistic!? Also, _SPEARGASM_
@Mr. Nutt Ending them rightly would've been chivalrous. Raising the Dragon Banner meant giving no quarter, so no ending anyone rightly, only "unrightly".
I really loved this movie and the costumes were outstanding. The aspect I noticed was the colour, using natural and local dyes for the majority of the costumes, except for Edward I & 2 and Robert during his coronation in red, a colour historically worn by royalty. I also loved all of the linen shifts worn by the men, kirtles and headresses galore on the women. Costumes can be both beautiful and accurate. What a joy!
the lady the guy was married to failed to consumate her marriage and had second thoughts after he plotted rebellion. that scene was a bit much though for drama sake is kinda meh
This video is a perfect example of how enjoyable it can be to listen to someone who is very passionate and knowledgeable ramble about something they enjoy for a long time.
In Bernard Cornwell's "Azincourt" he describes the French/Burgundian force raising a red banner known as the Oriflamme. This banner was supposed to let everyone know the French would be taking no prisoners and there would be no quarter given. If that is correct, I would suggest there is reason to believe an actual dragon banner existed since it represented something similar.
I dunno man, nothing The Bruce said was quite as moving as "would you give up every moment from that day to this, for one chance, just one chance!" Hell I wanted to fight for Mel Gibson then, and I'm English!
@@AeneasGemini lol! And I just wanted to gate-crash the entire affair with a modernized Viking warband and steal the french-born queen XD /Greetings from Sweden
@@AeneasGemini . I agree they should have kept that speech it was great, however it would be a better movie if they portayed history as it was. They really had no excuse to falsify history to the masses.
*me trying to convince my girlfriend to watch the movie with me* Me:Its about the Scottish rebellion, and Robert the Bruce. Her:So Me:Its incredibly historically accurate! Like the most ever! Her:So. Me:Chris Prine Hangs dong. Her:... Im in...
I would actually like to see a movie with no hero, nor villain. Just 2 protagonists that face of against each other, bother having their reasons for fighting, letting the audience decide who is their "hero". Would be fun to see two people coming out of the theater with completely different takes on the plot.
Hey Shad. Yes the Warwolf is accurate to the time, and the siege of Sterling Castle in 1304. After 4 monthes of bombardment King Edward got restless and order his chief engineer, James of St. George, to create a new and bigger catapult. It's also true that he refused the surrender of William Oliphant until the "Wolf" was finished and used.
I´m also pretty sure that flaming bombs for trebuchets are fictional, however. What exactly are they supposed to be made of, and what were they going accomplish? As said before, likely not burning the castle...
@@superbit415 I dont think anybody had greek fire after the Byzantines stopped using it - we dont even know today what it was supposedly made of, less so the medieval English I suppose. But thanks für the heads up, I did notwatch the movie yet.
@@KanaiIle using the technology of the time, it would have been possible. What you need are three things: 1. pitch/tar/oil or any other flammable fluid 2. a breakable container that can resist fire for a bit, like a ceramic pot 3. something like a rag that can be soaked in the liquid. There you go, medieval molotov cocktail! So it was most certainly a possibility simply given the technology of the time. As for if it was actually used, I don't know. Also you'd want to get it INSIDE the castle walls, as it won't really do much against stone. You want it to spread amoung the buildings on the inside that were made of mostly wood and straw. Also that's where the people are...
@@Nerobyrne That seems hugely impractical (how to get all the materials), highly dangerous upon use (image the thing cracking from the acceleration), unreliable (the fire has a high chance of getting snuffed out during the flight) and expensive... for what? Lighting a patch of the inner bailey on fire at best? All that when you could just use conveniently shaped rock and actually damage the walls for your men to get in. I just dont see that happening.
I was very happy to see the knighting ceremony done so accurately as well. Having the king slap you with a glove or gauntlet was supposed to be the last blow you receive unanswered. Hence the trope of a man slapping another man with a white glove.
My mother and I are Clan Logan, one of the clans who first fought with Robert de Bruce. The two Logan brothers were under command of Sir James Douglas transporting the heart of Bruce when they were killed. That's why the Logan clan's banner is the heart with nails piercing it. Anyway, my mother and I were amazed by the accuracy of the story and the way it was told. Great job Netflix and everyone involved. And great job to you for such a great in- depth video!
So agree, it was such a strange plot twist. Letting the King go?! 😐 Man, the money that such a capture would have generated. And all the more when that very same English King was keeping Robert the Bruce's new wife hostage.
Glad to see you're doing well on Patreon! I remember this channel from SOOO long ago from my first Skyrim days, wanting it to be successful and huge, and you're making it my man!
I've heard the argument that thrushes were only at the entrance to a building - effectively filling the foyer floor - and that this entire room was effectively the "threshold" (or possibly had a threshold at each doorway as a stopper) and acted as a doormat for catching mud etc. Putting out clean thrushes for guests would be the equivalent of scrubbing the doorstep and shaking out the welcome mat so you make a good initial impression. After all, if you have serious money and influence, you have tapestries on the walls, finely-fitted stone floors (with or without carpets/rugs)...there's no good reason to then cover them with reeds once you're past the doorway. In fact you'd probably show them off as a sign of your status, a "look what expensive floors I can afford" sort of thing.
Rushes please, a thrush is either a bird or a yeast infection, you wouldn't want to cover the floors with either (; Rushes were mainly used for comfort like carpets. In earlier times they might have been strewn about like straw in a stable, later they were certainly made into mats (long gowns would drag loose rushes). If a castle or church had finely crafted tile, they wouldnt cover it, but dirt, rough stone and (on upper elvels) timber floors would be, especially in living quarters. The rich might use actual carpets, but keep in mind that many lords were not actually very rich.
Thrust is historically accurate, however - that's why we have the term "threshold." Otherwise, it would be the "reshold." :-P That said, you are quite correct - the lesser areas of the hold were likely covered in this manner. But those areas are less likely to be shown off to important visitors, so it wouldn't matter as much if they were changed or not. Either way, one would expect the lord's main hall to be as well appointed as possible, even if the rest of the building was built on the rough side.
There could also have been differences in rushes use according to wealth. The poor and lazy could have just used strewn rushes, wealthier people and households managed by conscientious women could have used neater bundles and the rich could have used woven mats.
@@aussiebloke609 @aussiebloke609 Then it would be thresh, not thrush. Originally thresh was a verb that means beating or trampling. Threshing wheat, described the process, of seperating seeds. Also there is no "hold" in threshold it's thresh-old (in older versions threshwold or trescold) theshold is a piece of wood or stone where you thresh the wheat to seperate the seeds, or where you thresh your feet to seperate mud and snow.
Btw the bit about the threshold holding back the thresh from slipping out is from an old "trivia" book. But it seems that use of the word thresh is no older than the 17th century and the same book claimed that "raining cats and dogs" comes from cats and dogs living in the thatched roof and getting washed out during a storm.
@Ricardo Morales Errrr... where does 'choking the swan in anger' happen today? And how much is this a 'time-honoured custom'? I have heard of 'choking the chicken' 'toss the turkey' and 'spanking the rooster' but they are describing something COMPLETELY different. Certainly not here in the UK. You would get arrested if you choke one of the Queens birds. Doesn't stop people from certain countries from taking them for food though. Bastards.
Yeah, the ending and fire arrows were the only two things that stuck out to me *Spoiler below*. I almost yelled at my TV "They have your wife man...You NEED that hostage. Tell your men to grab him, what the hell!"
yes. besides, after no answer for the question at the end (Shall I kill him, your majesty?), there would have been 100 warriors with the question "Am I allowed to kill / capture him?"
Robert B That was the first thing I thought of also at the end, why are they letting him go? why is he not being held for ransom? He didn’t know he was going to be able to get his wife or daughter back. Also everybody standing around and not paying attention to the 2 kings fighting each other seems ridiculous. Other than those two parts near the end it was a very good movie to watch
I’d like to see a historically accurate film done on the battle of agzincourt but have it from the perspective of a English long bowman like in the book I’m reading at the moment by B cornwell
I'm no medieval expert at all But I've been archaeologist long enough to have excavated a lot of medieval archaeology. This new movie has nothing thats blatantly wrong, not that I noticed Majority of it seemed fine regarding historical correctness. The story & what they wear . Only gripe is Edward2 ( as Prince Eddy in movie) Is portrayed as a warrior knight Which is the opposite of everything that's written about him. He hated sword practice & most of the training knights had to learn, hunting was about the only useful ( re: warrior training) that he loved doing. But he preferred to learn about thatching roofs or building boats etc - he was more the 'arty- type' than a warrior . But because it's an all round good film it doesn't spoil things. It's a very good movie. It's everything that Braveheart isn't . Braveheart is like a Disney version of medieval Britain A theme park movie .. ☺
Yeah it was an odd choice. He wasn't as soft and effeminate as in Braveheart but I always felt like he should be shown as a tall but gentle person. He wasn't up to being king. Unfortunately for the sake of plot much had to be changed. When Edward I died on route to Scotland Edward II immediately called off the campaign and went home.
@@nutyyyy I think eddy2 was born in the wrong era , he was more interested in learning how things are made , he loved woodworking he learned how to thatch a roof, he liked sports especially rowing. If he lived today he would be like king Charles, 'a tree hugger". I don't think he was a coward, or gay ( that rumour started long after his death) he just wasn't a warrior..
I really hope that this film does well. If it does, it'll send a message to movie studios that there is a market for historically accurate movies. I don't mind giving them my money if they give me more of what I want.
I remember watching a battle scene from this film and thinking "No random animals pelts? No studded leather fetish gear? Coifs actually being worn? Armor not smeared in mud? Bright colored clothing? What the hell is going on here!?"
Oh and Longshanks didn't feel like a villain, felt like he was reacting, and doing so appropriately, he just ended a scottish uprising. His behavior was fair. His son's was more over the top villainous, but since he historically was betrayed by his nobles further down the line, it makes sense they'd portray him as incapable and useless as a leader.
I understand why they didn't do it (modern sensibility) but I just want to point it out. All records indicated that Edward II was very beta instead of physically aggressive and bullish. Indeed, according to the records, it is very likely that he had an on and off scandalous homosexual relationship with his best knight buddy to the disgrace of England and his Queen. Other than that, they depicted Edward II's delusion of grandeur and the frequent reality strikes back moments for him perfectly.
I didn't know armor worked! Every time I saw armor used it was just as protective as butter! Wow, something actually worked the way it was designed to in a movie for once! Edit: I actually just watched this yesterday. 9/10 greatest medieval movie I've ever seen. -1 for fire arrows.
@@ironwolf3319 well to be fair I imagine maybe 3 in 10 fire arrows would remain ignited and if that's the case you would want a good 30 or so archers shooting them. I'm simply of the mind that in very specific circumstances they must of been used at some point. Being able to ignite a castles wooden and straw structures on fire from a distance would be VERY usefully during sieges/ambushes.
Yeah, when they let Edward walk away, I couldn't stand it, it was so bad. I was thinking "that's it, the war is over when you have Edward. You can force him to sign what every peace deal you want"
The nudity scene is actually a really good scene in context. He is being reborn. He just lost everything, his army, his family, his countrymen have turned against him, and the people he was asking for help have refused to give it to him. So he goes to the river, bathes and is reborn out of the river. That is the moment where things start going right for him. It's not just there to show male nudity, its actually good story telling. Also I'm gay.
Great Video Shad! I was nervous about watching this video, as I was an extra in this Film and I didn't want you slating it haha! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I was gutted I didn't take part in any battles, but you do see me next to Chris Pine on a number of occasions as 2 different characters, so that's a bonus.
Ah, I see we agreed in many things. I watched it, and I have to say I didn't quite point out everything you mentioned. Really glad you covered it, was wandering if you would.
Awesome review. I'm not an expert, but had a hunch while watching the movie that the equipment, clothing, and weapons were accurate. Thanks for the confirmation. Totally agree about the final battle scene, letting Edward II crawl away wouldn't have happened.
I agree with what you said about the historical accuracy of the movie but there is one thing you got wrong. You said the Battle of Loudoun Hill in the movie was chronologically the Battle of Bannockburn but Bannockburn was 7 years after. The movie actually got it right as far as chronology is concerned, what was inaccurate was timing by a matter of weeks (Edward I died after the battle not before) the movie clearly shows that it was only a mounted force the English had, which was the real force composition for the Battle of Loudoun Hill. The movie even states in text that it was the turning point of the Wars of Independence not the main final battle as Bannockburn was the main final battle.
11:40 Even today in rainy or snowy days they throw wood shavings or sawdust on the floor in some public places to soak the water brought in by wet shoes, and prevent the floor from getting too slippery. Given how easy was for the roads to be muddy back then, I don't find the straws on the floor mysterious at all. I suspect that they would have needed a lot more straw than what's shown in the picture to be effective, though.
Fact: Most castles(and OTHER dwellings) were known to have RUSHES(thrushes?) up to ankle deep on the floors, which were, usually, changed about once a month. Rugs on the floors were only for VERY rich people, and they WOULDN'T be where they could be walked on in muddy/wet/dirty footwear(they were FAR too expensive, and impossible to clean once they got stained)
I was wondering if this would be any good or not, in terms of its realism. Thanks for taking the time to confirm that it has some worthwhile elements, and historical forethought put into its production, Shad. :)
my favorite part of the movie was seeing William Wallis' dismembered torso handing by an arm from a stone. I said to my mate at that moment while watching, "Look! there's Mel Gibson"
Lol no it means even me as a brown guy is so sick of hollywood pushing diversity over actual skill as a actor. And you want minorities in a movie about medieval scotland lol cause that makes sense
@@baronessvondengler Yeah it's amazing how everyone agreed to talk in a secret code in 2015 or so. Good thing people like you are around to tell us what people are actually saying. And there to make sure moviemaking is treated more like designing a zoo. Got to make sure people see all the demographics they want to see! Also last I checked Scottish people _are_ a minority.
@@baronessvondengler Who do you think are fooling? Most people aren't stupid enough to fall for those tricks despite the fantasies of deranged leftists. We know what Europeans look like, thanks.
Well, this is definitely a step in the right direction! I disagree a little about the whole ''hero-villain'' thing being neccesary in movies, I think it would be much better to have characters and factions just acting according to their beliefs and being both villanous and heroic depending on the circumstances.
But didn't that kind of happen in this film? Robert's tactics were brutal and I have to imagine that the idea of killing men at Mass or murdering someone in a church was unthinkably apalling not only to the English but to many Scots. He also broke his oath pretty much right after he gave it. These are pretty villainous traits and the film didn't shy away from them.
Necessary, no, but it's a lot easier to get a large audience invested in your work if they have a clear hero to root for. So it's more of a mass-appeal thing.
Hell we have earlier series of game of thrones to prove that can be universally popular, not so much recently unless the final series has some shock twists.
@@AndersonKeim true, Robert is no saint, but the english soldiers and royal family are downright monsters, though Edward II does appear to have been kind of a dick in actual history.
As a direct descendent of Bruce, Valence, Edward I, Edward II, D'Umphraville, Douglas and John Comyn, I think the film did a splendid job of portraying our family past!!😁😁😁
Never clicked so fast. I was wondering whether to watch this movie. We shall see! Edit: Well it looks like I'm going to have to! A shad seal of approval no less!
Re Thrushes on ground; I can tell you from growing up on a farm with dry bay cabins, having straw or similar on the ground makes cleaning the floor much easier / efficient. It just seems to take more effort to brush a floor of anything without the covering.
"Raise the Dragon banner," sounds a lot like the Oriflamme, a banner used by the French which meant no quarter or prisoners would be taken. I don't know if there is a connection, but there you go.
The armour in the final battle fails against every sword strike on a piece of mail until that mail is on a main character 😂 it’s really funny to watch when you notice that
whiteo333 nope and literally the point of the video is being pedantic and picking out shit in the film bit dumb to come on a video based on that and complain about it lmao
5:35 As a vegan, I must say that shields were also covered in cloth. I have made a steel heater shield with a cloth covering. There is little proof that this is rawhide anyway and probably wouldn't be as leather is expensive to use on hundreds of shields and props look just as good with cloth coverings. Meat is just a by product of the leather industry, not the other way around. You know a good film when you are totally immersed, you laugh and cry, and, unlike The Last Kingdom, you actually like the main character and want them to succeed. And I'm a proud English man. Absolutely blows Braveheart away. And all the poor are not covered in shit. Chris Pine was awesome.
His eight times back grandfather was Sir Robert De Brix from the Cherbourg region of Normandy , he came over with William the conqueror as one his closest commanders , even in Bruce’s time they still owned large estates in east England .
Haven't watched the video yet, but I gotta say I thought it was a fairly decent movie, but it stood out in its depiction of arms and armour. Not perfect but much better than most. Now to see what you think :)
Shad Facts: Shad has on three separate occasions been struck by lighting. Not only did he survive he is actually stored the energy and uses it in his adventures. As such he requires almost no food
This is a common myth. In fact, Shad gets power whenever someone says or thinks "machicolations." The lightning strikes are simply the delivery method for said energy when he releases a new video, due to the large numbers of people suddenly thinking about machicolations. The rest of the time, it's just a little zap when he touches a doorknob.
As far as thrushes go, one thing I heard somewhere was that there was a stone placed across the floor at the door or entrance in order to keep the thrush matting from spilling out or being kicked out by traffic. This thrush hold is where we get threshold. Or so I believe
When I was watching, I just assumed that the dragon banner was an English equivalent to the French Oriflamme (no quarter etc). Thanks for your research!
Oh Sweet, it's out! Well, step aside Braveheart, a new Scottish Medieval historical movie is here! Also...did they cut out that scene from the trailer where Robert the Bruce rides on horseback and throws an axe at a guy?
When they let the Edward just walk away bothered me so much when I saw it, I'm glad you mentioned it in your video. Taking prisoners is something often left out of films, but nobles could yield on the battlefield and would be prisoner to the person who beat them and they in turn could demand ransom from the captive's family. The higher in rank the noble the higher the ransom and so if you managed to capture a king you would get a massive ransom... Hence the expression 'a King's ransom'. Not to mention they would have been able to dictate all sorts of conditions for his release such as an end to the war and independence for Scotland. But I suppose it was necessary for dramatic purposes.
Have you read any of Brandon Sanderson's work? Ya know, besides the last three WoT books. He unsuprisingly has a similar style to Robert Jordan and his series are FANASTIC!
I hate infallible and heroic protagonists. The best protagonists are fraught with weaknesses, or portrayed as very flawed humans, but that overcome difficult odds and end up growing as people during the course of the story. Even protagonists with superhuman abilities need weaknesses to be interesting. Otherwise they just come across as Mary Sues.
The movie was amazing, but I'm quite disappointed with the depiction of the last battle. I was hoping someone would finally depict a battle scene like it REALLY happened in reality - two battle lines keeping an orderly battle formation going against each other repeatedly, with short pauses in-between to carry the wounded into the rear. This was just another of those chaotic melee 1v1 type of battles and that is utter nonsense.
The Battle of Edington, from the finale of "The Last Kingdom" season one, was actually very good in that regard. When both sides fell back to reveal the ground soaked in blood and gore, and littered with the wounded and dead, I was delighted. I hope that we'll one day get to see, say, the Battles of Towton, or Evesham, depicted with a similarly realistic scale and attention to actual tactics.
@@etinarcadiaego5708 I must say I'm not a huge fan of that battle. Although I appreciate the effort of creators to differentiate this action scene from all other movies that just do chaotic clashes, I still think their understanding of shieldwall was totally distorted and misinterpreted.
@@gfilmer7150 A film about De Montfort would be pretty awesome. I read Sharon Kay Penman's "Falls the Shadow" years ago, and always thought that the Second Baron's War would make an excellent subject, if depicted accurately. Osprey Publishing recently released a very good book in their "Campaigns" series about Lewes and Evesham.
I just finished watching it when I noticed your review in my recommended. I, too, was really thrilled to see the historical accuracy. Changing Bannockburn out for Laudon Hill was understandable, kind of. On the other hand, as they were surveying the area and making the battle plans, I was gleefully chortling because I thought it was Bannockburn. Years ago I had taken a college course in Scotland with the University of Maryland, a nearly 2-week intensive and immersive class on History, Life, and Culture in the area around Edinburgh. One of the places we went to during the course was the memorial site for the battlefield of Bannockburn. We studied the tactics used by Bruce's troops utilizing the marshy land to founder the horses on the first day. The shroud for the wedding was fantastic as was the swearing on the swans and raising the dragon. The weaponry and the small round shields gave me a thrill as much as the rest of the costuming. I loved that they were dirty when they should have been and clean when appropriate, too. The absence of more 'modern' textiles and more modern drapes of those textiles was wonderful. Though, I will admit the storytelling was also compelling enough that I know I missed a lot of the historical accuracy details. But there were no horribly glaring historical inaccuracies to pull me out of the story, either.
First thought when that sword went right through the mail was "yup shads gotta bring this up" haha also when Bruce got knocked down he gets up and removes his helmet mid battle i thought "that's probably the Last thing you want to do in that situation" very odd. otherwise great video!
@@Damo2690 that´s not the reason. You could do that easily with colors e.g. It´s so the actors can actually be seen acting and heard talking. Under a helmet, not so much, not with visor down.
Damn them Shad! They should have filmed the Battle of Bannockburn! It was one of the most brutal battles of than period, and also the Bruce defeated Sir Henry de Bohun in single combat by spliting his skull in half! I mean come on movie!! What the hell????
@@alexkirrmann8534 they've already talked about part 2 and 3,When it was revealed bannockburn wouldn't be shown.im guessing they were waiting for the reaction to this release.i hope it comes about,because Bruce's life is epic enough to be a 10 part series.
Yeah but what Shad said about Bannockburn was wrong as Bannockburn happened 7 years after De Bruce's initial war of independence but Shad says Bannockburn happened right after he captured all the castles in Scotland and that the battle in the movie is actually Bannockburn chronologically (which it isn't)
Man your book shelf is a nerds dream. I see Star Wars books, Star Trek, a fancy edition of one of the Wheel of Time books, marvel comics, a reproduction of Glamdring, Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, nice!
the thrash on the ground could be in order to make the castle smell nice. You would be surprised how much nice smelling plants there are when I forage while hiking, they might have used certain tree barks after running their fibers a bit in order to release the liquids of the tree from the inside, or just get leaves or stalks.
