Honestly for something meant to be historically accurate, they're often so historically inaccurate. Also, why the hell did they not send a scouting party ahead of the main army so they know beforehand that they have been outflanked 😂

Who needs a helmet when you have plot armor?

@@LizardYup Spot on. Nobody on any medieval battlefield would be without a helmet - it was the first and most vital piece of armour. And no commander would ever ride at the very front of his force - its asking to lose the leader through an ambush. There would always be scouts riding ahead and out to the flanks.

That they are not wearing helmets is dumb af

Hounskull yes Heeheheh🤣

Haha best comment here 🤣

This comment made me very happy. Almost as happy as the super realistic historical accuracy, but not quite.

How dare you to critisize such a historic accurate first class movie? ;-) Best comment, nails it to the point. This rubbish is beyond trash!!

Браво, ты реалист😑

Come on, man. It's a movie . Where would you find authentic English longbows made of compound yew with 120 lb drawweights? And where would you hire extras who are trained archers since childhood who have developed the special musculature needed to draw these heavy bowstrings all the way back to their ear? Chill out, man. It's a MOVIE.!

Arrows are not like most movies or shows, when someone gets hit by an arrow it doesn't go a few inches and stop, it goes straight through like a bullet. Not only for long bows, but modern compact bows are even more deadlier.

@@rocksjoshua Not if you have plate armor on. Even chainmaill and a gambeson is good protection against arrows.

@@silastengler3467depends I’d say you need a combination of all types of Protection, I have no doubts an arrow could easily pierce a single chest plate

@@jimparis5073 it depends on the quality of the breastplate. No arrow in going through a good breastplate. Why do you think guns were invented🤓

@@silastengler3467 You are not compleatly inncorrect but guns were inventet becouse the training with a Arcebus was only a few Weeks insted of Years with a Bow 😉. Sorry for my English 😆

lol true

Probably the latter.

+Torrey Holmes If they actually did that then the whole flow of the movie would be slow and turn boring, seeing most other knights get hit and continue to fight, in a film you want to see fast paced motion actions cause its more enjoyable to a audience in whole.

+Ewan Smith Ah yes, because making a fight look hard and grueling totally saps all the enjoyment out of watching it. Yes, we'd all rather watch battles where the good guys win effortlessly every time. That explains why shows like "Vikings" and movies like "Saving Private Ryan" are so unpopular.

Noo, I mean towards the fact you dont want to see the protagonist fighting 10 people in a row all in 4 minute long fights doing this will interrupt the flow of the movie and make it boring cause of how long it takes. And any person who would want to see this is not the average film viewer.

Ewan Smith Four minutes is too long even for most climactic finale fights... you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. There's a difference between "hard fought" and "long." Any good protagonist in a medieval war movie (or fantasy movie) is a great fighter. Great fighters try to end a fight in as few efficient moves as possible. But, and this is the important part, it's not interesting to see the hero swing his sword once per fight if he does this many times in rapid succession (different matter altogether if ONE fight is concluded with a single thrust/slash, because that can be dramatic and, done right, is very plausible). A hero who has to work for his kills is more heroic. And "work" can be as simple as needing to attack twice. The "bad guys" should at least try to defend themselves. If your bad guys aren't competent at all, then there's no tension, nobody believes the hero is in danger, and no amount of frantic camerawork can save that. Even Batman gets punched from time to time (and in armor, the Hero can be "punched" many times and not be hurt at all).

it means exactly the same

ОГОНЬ!!!

Louis Robert I think they shouted “fire” when gunpowder came along.

@@louisrobert3631 Nope. Before guns, they said “loose.”

As i have heard they said "Unleash Hell"

@Kingston Julien One you dont have a girlfriend let's be honest. Two, that's fucking weird either way.

@@cleshsesh6155 its a bot milo

@@tannerthepanman9202 I hate it I want it gone ahaha

This comment is in every medieval battle scene.

@Kingston Julien shut up bot scam

+OfficialBCGaming Maybe asymmetrical warfare just isn't there thing ;) But seriously I did notice that too

+Sai's Afflicted In England, every boy/man from the age of 10 was required to train in archery by law. This meant that every man was an expert archer. This is why the longbowmen were so good at battles like Agincourt. Most of the English army were just peasants anyway. Only the Men at Arms and Knights actually had any real training in martial arts. They only made up a small part of the English armies - most of the armies were just peasants with cheap armour, a buckler, a bow, and a long knife, or a sword if you could afford one but they were surprisingly expensive. Additionally, it was a siege. It is easier for the defender because the attacker is funnelled down narrow streets which can be barricaded. Additionally, the peasants were fighting for their lives. They were dead men walking. They were going to be massacred. Sun Tzu - the guy who literally wrote the book on military strategy - said something along the lines of that if you corner someone, they'll fight like tigers. When they have nothing to lose, they fight even harder. This is also why the English army achieved great victories against numerically superior French armies, such as at Agincourt. The English were trapped with nowhere to go. It was their last stand so to speak. Think of it like the Spartans at Thermopylae.

+Luke of Lancs Historically, yes, most English soldiers were peasants. But if you watch the video, which my comment was about, you see mailed soldiers with swords and axes being slaughtered by peasants armed with shovels and sharpened sticks. Also, my comment addressed the disparity between the combat effectiveness when fighting the French army and their complete failure to take out a small band of all but unarmed peasants. But, I also understand that this is fiction, and in modern society we always root for the unarmed peasants because we see them as underdogs suffering oppression.

The two famous victories Edward the third commanded in were Poitiers and Crecy. This i would imagine was a watered down version of one of the two. History on a budget

***** Swords were expensive to make. They require a specialist tradesman - a smith. Swords also take a long time to make. It requires a lot of skill to make a good quality sword. To buy a sword is expensive. 15th C England basically went like this: you had "li, s, d" or "pounds, shillings, and pence". 12 pence in a shilling and 20 shillings, or 240 pence, in a pound. The average sword was a pound and the average person made 2 pence a day; so that is 120 days of labour for a sword. However, this is unrealistic as the person has to spend this money to sustain himself and his wife and children too. First, the discussions around money and its availability looking at the period 1150 to 1350 and taking the upper end figures for currency in circulation £200,000 we get 48,000,000 pennies in circulation with a population of 5,000,000 that's 9.6 pennies each. So the likelihood of our average peasant amassing sufficient money to buy a sword is zero. There is a problem with this it is more likely that currency was in the region of £100,000 to £125,000 or 4.8 to 6 pennies per person in actual circulation therefore even less likely our peasant has a sword. Second the documentary records point clearly to peasants trying to resist the move to money because it undermined some of their old rights. Paying the lord in produce was tied to the harvest so any believe that our average peasant earned X inflated claim in money needs to be resisted. The monetary value is a tax assessment not an income in cash which led to a lot of resentment. Third, the concept that a man who struggles from year to year at the whim of the seasons would hoard away an otherwise (to him) useless piece of metal which he could sell to buy a pig/goat/cow and therefore increase the productivity of his land is fanciful. The concept of a hide of land appears here, a hide varied in size depending on the quality of the land but for good land a 'knights fee' rose from 3 to 5.5 hides your peasant was lucky if he had a hundredth of a hide or maybe an acre. The trade in second hand weapons and armour that made some merchants rich also shows that as wars finished in one area the weapons dealers then as now would move the surplus to more profitable areas. Second hand weapons were still out of reach for most ordinary people. A sword was a luxury item...

bert lyte Shot or loosed, never fired (came in with musketry). It can be done, but I am concerned at the range and the fact that the archers were shooting blind at a dispersed target. A marksman at reasonable range using a 175lb + bow could possibly achieve the kill..

Your telling me a longbow weighs more than a 13 year old boy? And as far as range goes, maybe if the archer was 5 feet away but as far as I know, especially during the hundreds year war when armor was beginning to be perfected, I don't think it likely.

bert lyte Err: you don't know much about archery do you Bert. the poundage is the draw weight of a bow, not how much the bow physically weighs. To draw a 175lb bow (physical weight about 5-10lb) you would need to push about 45lb of efforts and draw(on 2 or 3 fingers) the balance of 135lb. So, your very over weight 13 year old boy (unless you are an American, in which case slim 13 year old boy) would have you holding his head and shoulders in your left fist and the rest of his body on 2 or 3 fingers. Will a war bow with a short bodkin head punctures plate armour? Yes, lots of tests done, including some I have taken part in. It all depends on quality of armour, shape of armour, arrow head shape, whether it had hardened steel edges, draw weight of bow, strength of archer, range etc, etc.

Well ,ill take your word for it, but is the latter a certain possibility or would you say more rare.

bert lyte no idiot. The Draw WEIGHT of the bow

100%

@Nein_Nein_Fegelein lololol😂

😂👍

Total War: Shogun 2

Medieval 2 Total War*

+TheBetito123 they don't say "Shamefur dispray" in Medevil 2

Aye that's from Shogun 2 I have that game

Colts796

Elite Muppet Depends on the bow & its, the arrow head used and the range at which is is shot + the quality of the armour and what the shield was made of. So, improbable, but not impossible. The use of archers shooting blind into a dispersed enemy is the biggest improbability in the clip, unless you also question the uncoordinated charge across the river using mixed cavalry & infantry. Hitting a man in plate won't drop him, but a poleaxe or war hammer will. Yes, men don't die instantly, yes they would twitch and kick and flop around, but it did shew a lot of the brutality of medieval warfare.

Geoff Boxell no just no

Not to mention the citizens of the Town building up barricades and entirely ignoring the fact that they have walls which they could use to defend themselves... why even bother to build a wall if they don´t use it?

@@danielwolfgang8234 The wall isn't any good when the English were able to break down the gate with a ram. Besides most of them looked like they were peasants not professional soldiers so they probably didn't know how to station the wall properly and use it to their advantage.

​@@barbiquearea Mhhh you have a point, but still the prospect of at least using it to shoot the attacking force with bows and crossbows would have had some effect. Don´t get me wrong, the barricades are a good idea as second line defense. But leaving the walls completely unmanned, that´s just unrealistic to me.

also its funny, the horseman said they would attack at dawn, and then immediately attacked....smh

Idk, he probably expected them to spend the night cowering in fear and saying their prayers. The most of a defense he expected was probably having to ram the gate. That would have been just a fun warm up exercise for his troops.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😏

When he told the civilians they were all going to be killed I was like “good job dumbass. You just motivated the whole population of that city to resist you and fight to the death.”

Duh bro what do you think we are idiots? Stop stating the obvious

And under The plate You have chainmail and a gambeson

it's a film it is not realistic

a warbow cant even pucture gambison (one of the lightest armor they carry) and like gary the storm trooper said they ahve other armor layers too.

+Matthew Gallagher or because perhaps shields...worked...and plate armour worked....historically speaking a well made harness could resist arrows from even the most powerful of bows ...as in the arrows would bounce or glance off.

+ The imperial Inquisition i don't know if someone would wear mail, plate and gambeson...that's too much weight and you would overheat in it..But yea you would have mail and plate if you're rich...and a cotton shirt too.

There is one little error. Back then you guys got kicked out of France.

Britains: Mimimi....France: Mimimi! XD.

I speak Slovak because I am Slovak. You speak English because you are..... Ou! I forgot, that you murican guys don't really have have our own language, do you? What a shame!

+Rokulda my lord calm your self

You are just a sad little troll,arent'ya ? fuck of bich ;)

DANK crusade Lmao

Maybe its why the French lost at the battle of Agincourt and Crecy

@Sean Rooney Even in ancient history they had stronger armour than that that one is made of butter xD

A freaking cuirass pierced by an arrow. Damn, real cuirasses can protect the wearer from early guns!

Can a bodkin arrow pierce through a shield and armor?

Common sense really. it's like no one went down to the edge of the river in the morning and no one noticed the dead guards. Then mailed cavalry charge across that river? Plus the arrows that instantly kill - no chance unless it hit somewhere vital like the heart, or eye. Come on - really?

@@endtimesvoyager726 yes, every film should have slow agonizing death scenes for each soldier

@@jimmycakes7158 No. Every film should've made the armor protect them from said death in the first place. It takes time to take down a heavily armored opponent.

@@f1r3hunt3rz5 +bows aren't like crossbows, Crossbows were invanted exactly because they are slow but they can penetrate armor, menwhile bows can't do it that easly, bows were used for rapid fire? against light armor and such. So for this scene it have sense they use bow because they are taking the enemy by surprise and they know that they had no armor, but that men with SHILD+ARMOR he Had to survive.

@@robfus Crossbows cannot pierce plate armor, and also struggle piercing mail.

Well thats true. All Heavy Armors and Sheilds during the ahindred Years War were useless becaude Longbow is noe invented

The shield was made of wood... his chest plate should have saved him though.

😂😂😂😂😝😅

It was made in China. Cheap plastic.

pieter fischer well made wooden shields can definitely stop an arrow... That shield also seemed to have had a leather finish on the surface, so I highly doubt it would be able to go ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

I mean that’s what happens when you make your armor and shield out of aluminum

you are right, just watched 1917 again and apart from ten minutes or so of two leads wading thru the filth and obscenity of WW1 no mans land ... everything else was cleanish uniforms and a bit of mud. !!!! none of the poor bastards waist deep in mud water and filth, corpses literally by the thousands , rotting bodies buried into the sides of trench works and millions of rats feeding on the dead. they should read some history and i mean real history

@@sgtgewartsmith7992 so was it good?

0=l:::::::::::::::::::::::> +1 quite stupid

It doesn't even look real! It's like one of the plastic costume swords I bought when I was a snot-nosed kid! It's so laughably bad I'm brought to tears!

IKR how can they call this a 14 century battle

And the even funnier thing is, the guy waving the flag is wearing a perfectly real looking sword. Who says all kings have to carry an ornate sword? Are they afraid no one will know who he is, otherwise? HE'S WEARING A CROWN! HE'S A KING!!!

10:13 so is that ram...

Brestplates don't stop arrows, shields can but don't have to.

Sure, sure ;)

well actually, Breastplates were made to be somewhat resistant to arrows, Chainmail was worthless, and had to essentially hit at an angle to glance off, thats why the english developed the bodkin tip, it pierced mail easily, and could penetrate plate armor somewhat well (not fatally however). then they developed crossbows, the bolts were larger and the metal was thin and thick, plus they could have it hold more power for punching armor. Granted yes shields dont have to and could stop an arrow, the arrow during those times would almost never have enough punch to go through a wooden shield and into a breastplate.

direct hits but this was shot in the air so every shield and every armour alone would stop it.....this would stop it twice ^^

Its the power of the Longbow :)

marley o' sullivan how goes the war?

More like how goes the butter industry

marley Cummins ah the butter lord at it again

King has summoned us for a feast

"So we were in war with Rodohok , nord and sarranid, the Marshall come to me, Count Despin, we go siege Shariz menwhile wait reinforcment from Praven, we started buil the siege tower and guess what *clap on the table* the king throw 7 days of feast,*laughing* the butterlord"

+Mint Mo my comment was made 4 month ago so I already have and now I'm sick of it

_____ mount and blade ps4 brought me here lol

_____ Its almost harvesting season.

@@mastercheif878 u bought new mb? Haha

Apparently they learned it from Warband

@@omarsener8491 In warband it actually works because the enemy is dumb

f1 + f3

+VelmiVelkiZrut If anything they are understated. The ones used by historians are pathetic 60lb bows. Nothing like a 150lb plus warbow. It's TV regardless. In a Roman shows arrows went through testudo shields. A gondorian soldier got killed by an arrow from a low poundage bow straight through his breastplate. In reality people usually wouldn't die from one cut of a sword. Certainly not if wearing plate. Athleticism often won out in plate armour battles. But that would be boring. I'm yet to see films with correct attire too. Like Braveheart usuing lamella plate for knights and kilts and woad for the scots.

okay as a guy who has read up on history weapons and the battles they were used in yes the English Longbow is overrated in certain aspects. At the battle of Crecy as show above it was the key weapon that helped turn the tide of battle for the English, however coupled with the fact that it was a sneak attack at the crack of dawn with the English ready to kill anyone who got in their way of going home was also a big factor as well. Now onto the biggest misinterpretation of a victory ever Agincourt. While the long bow was used and slightly effective at harassing the French knights and killing their crossbowmen the real killer were the Man At Arms who used every weapon at their disposal while the French were trudging through the mud slowed down by their armor and funneled into a kill zone that prevented their knights from using their horses effectively. that is how the battle was won not because of some magical bow but by smartly using the terrain, drilled men who were good at close combat, and holding their position so they could let the enemy get murdered on their turf. Also one final note the French Steel Crossbow was the death of the English Longbow. This was because the crossbow is easier to aim and train people to use, where the longbow takes years of training to perfect the use of. This along with the fact that quantity beat quality, in this case at least, the old bow and arrow was fazed out for the crossbow and later the Musket and Archebus.

Valrock Mograth

yes?

VelmiVelkiZrut: You hit the nail sir, We all know Brits love boast, they talk big and act small. If their longbow was really useful, how did the Frenchmen kicked them out of mainland?

Gunjiro X And then there's Arn the Knight Templar... Yeah, it's not perfect, but compared to this shit? It's amazing. Also, the fucking horse is the saddest tbing ever. Seriously, fuck you Swedish miniseries-makers. Chamsiin actually made me cry. I do not cry. Ever. It just doesn't happen. Oh, and I want that sword.

You mean... this magic mirror is not a view into the past?!?!?! I am shocked, shocked I say!

@@MrChoffe93 "England is the worst shit country ever"- Says a person who is communicating in the language that originally evolved in England. Stop being anglophobic. England and the UK, my native country, has had a huge impact on the world and its history. Also, how can you say that England is full of dumb and ignorant people when this country has sired geniuses like Stephen Hawking and Isaac Newton? What's so bad about England anyway?

Yeah they need fix their AI... Seems they can't see sh*t and hear sh*t. Watching this video make me think that they are in video game or something...

@@matthewbradley1609 Well one could argue that the French language was the 'world language' at the time up until roughly the 18th century, that the French, or Normand at the time, ruled England by beating them badly at Hastings, resulting in 1/3 of the English language being French words or slight changed ones. And other stuff. But hey, we're still talking to each others in English. And he has a point, England is far from being a wonderful "country" especially compared to Sweden.

+MadMac2236 I think the filmmaker's obvious mental problem derives from those notoriously stupid WW2 movies of the last 70 years where a GI or a Brit kills 10 dull Germans with each shot. It simply isn't meant to inform but rather to entertain. And would you feel entertained to learn that in fact the Western Allies took higher casualties on the French and Italian Front than their German counterparts? No. So why disturb people with reality?

+SnakeTheFox Tactics? In a movie???

+SnakeTheFox this movie is fucked up armors and weapons not working how they should and exactly what you said

+Maxim Kretsch I think that would be great frankly, could make for some good narrative.

SnakeTheFox Yeahand the danish flag at 11:09 which doesnt make sence as the danes didnt participate in the 100 years war

This is a movie... And it is inaccurate.

Says Your Mom

@@kristofantal8801 That has nothing to do with the comment though. Or are you suggesting that soldiers in the past didn't have to fight up close?

Actually, in battles prior to popularisation of gunpowder weapons, you were less likely to die when fighting and more likely to die of hunger, sickness, and toppling and being cut down by enemy when routing. Or after the battle when the winning side eradicated the wounded

SFMF

Sorry, that's what you get when you buy a shield made in China.

Jmej

Imagine if an army actually had arrows this powerful. Would have easily taken over the world.

@@alexandercrush you wouldnt need them we have guns that are way more effective.

@@tannerthepanman9202 I meant back then.

Good one lol

Yep.

James Huggins There was like a fucking smoke comming out if that trench 2 meters away from the camp!

Criminally underrated comment.

Cheap Chinese plywood.

@Wulfheort you are very wrong. Look up Tods Workshop on KZfaq. He shows that a 200lb English longbow can punch through a shield/chainmail, and the gambeson. A well made breast plate was the only thing that stopped the longbow

@Wulfheort I am on mobile so I cant figure out how to send a link, but the name of the video is: "Lockdown Longbow - do shields stop arrows". The video is made by Tods Workshop. He does a few similar videos

@Wulfheort oh I totally agree, the arrows wouldnt kill, but I do believe it would punch through the shield and chain mail. I will check out Skallagrim, thanks for the suggestion

@@Viper0hr im guessing you consider yourself an armchair historian as well? Because you just armchaired pretty hard

@@Viper0hr not trolling. You did exactly what you complained about. You came in here with no credibility and made a statement. Its just funny that you arent self aware. Hopefully you dont get angry at this and acctually self reflect. I dont have any credibility either, but at least im not complaining about armchair historians like you and I

All that was left was for an eagle to stand on his hand.

Even bullets don’t instantly kill people

Maybe they were new recruits with no experience. Or am I just talking out of my ass here?

@@youtubecreators384 Of course...

Maybe it was a secret weapon. ⚔⚔

It gets really tough to beat certain enemies if they have main characters in their group.

Ulol

They underestimated a bunch of peasants. Also they literally told them that every single person including the women and children would die. So they are going to give it their 100%

Clearly you don't appreciate the stopping power of the body odour of 13th century peasants

That is the power of British engineering

Well Technically it pierced a single walled shield that did not seem to have a frame or outer finish, 2 layers of chain mail (the front of the forearm and rear of forearm) AND then 1 layer of plate chest armor and then what looked like 1 more of chain mail that he wore under the plate... I also assume it pierced some sort of wool or cotton layer that he wore underneath that mail too. 6 Layers in all.

Never like this of cause. But it’s a movie

@@lpc3109 He had the same 3 layers on his back, making it 9 layers

die Langbogen waren aus mehrfach verleimte Eiben Hölzer, nachbauten und test Schiessen durch die Profesoren der Oxford University of history haben bewiesen das die Pfeile auf einer Distanz von 300 Meter mühelos Schilde und Rüstungen durschlagen, desweiteren haben Analysen an Gebeinen ergeben das die Spannkraft so gross war das bei vielen die Wirbelsäule durch das "Training" verformt wurden. Das V von Winston Churchill 1940 war darauf zurück zu führen das Langbogen Schützen die Spann Finger abgeschnitten wurden so gross war die Furcht vor die Schlag Kraft dieser Soldaten, die entgegen der Legende keine Bauern waren sondern die absolute Waffe der Engländer darstellten. Wer zweifelt sollte die Französichen Geschichts Bücher lesen. Pure Angst.

Sorry to tell you but it isn't realistic

Easy to kill the French but difficult to kill peasants yeah sounds realistic

that's because the French used witchery to win and are ashamed of it, even though they are to be lauded for burning that witch, Joan of Arc, at the stake.

wow that's some crafty revisionism right there. you should be a fiction book writer... we need better stuff than 50 shades of grey and twilight. First of all, Joan is a saint recognized by catholic church. So I don't know what butt fuck religion or faith you belong to. Second, we all know the English are still sore at the loss, and you must be english too from your dumb comment :)

Wow. What a dumb comment. Besides what has correctly been said by Perfecttrunks2000 above: It was the burgundians - englands allies - who murdered St. Jehanne.

nobby roberts i am american...just that i know more about history than my countrymen.

+Alpha6499 lol England fucking kickstarted these countries and after ww2 gave them independence, now give England some slack they were once the great empire who gave independence to the greatest countries of today like the USA, India, someparts of south africa, Australia and Canada, without England these countries wont exist today

Yes!? 😮 it’s gonna be massacre

They should be demoted

+Taylor Ahern English knights, along with the chain mail clad Scottish/Irish Gallowglass mercenaries, WERE A PRETTY FEARSOME AND PHENOMENALLY TOUGH BUNCH, AND UTTERLY EXPERT AT HAND TO HAND COMBAT (as both groups were quite possibly the Western European equivalent of the Japanese Samurai). Few other nations in history have bred and yielded up warriors as hardy, stout, capable, fierce, skilled, die hard, intrepid, powerful, inspired and as ferociously resolute as the British Isles have (England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales). Those old school, late Medieval warriors who were born, raised, trained and prepared for battle in the British Isles eventually acquired the reputation as that of being Europe's premier warrior race (and I would rank British, Scottish and Irish warriors of that time higher than the Swiss halberd and pikemen, in terms of ferocity, courage in battle, toughness and skill at arms).

Yes, those guys as well, hard as coffin nails, powerful and thoroughly well skilled. Great fighters!

And yes, the German Doppelsoldners were fearsome bad-asses, super tough, super strong and renowned for their outstanding and brilliant swordsmanship. Also, weren't those die hard and fearless swordsmen often in the vanguard of any approaching Landsknechte pike formation? I believe those fiercely sword slashing, havoc and mayhem wreaking swordsmen were, as they were that good, deadly, tenacious, ferocious and highly skilled (while often dressed in flamboyant and garish colors). FEROCIOUS indeed, as those German doppelsoldners were right up there with all those legendary and formidable English knights, and savage, bloodthirsty and ULTRA FEARSOME Scottish/Irish Gallowglass mercenaries. What warriors, what bad ass professionals, and what warrior societies that produced them!

+Taylor Ahern May I ask candidly how it is, if the British are such great warriors, that they never conquered the world, that the overall conclusion of the Hundred Years War was they got stuffed (loosing half of France is kind of a big deal), that for the most part, they got stuffed all the way to the 19th century by every possible people in Europe and only kept their independance because they are an isle? What would you say about the people who fought the whole continent for almost 25 years straight, and winning 90% of engagements. What would you say about the fact that, even though war is big money, the greatest mercenaries were, depending on the precise period, italian, swiss, german or spanish (or scot, allegedly). What would you say about the Poles, who won a battle with a numerical disatvantage of 50:1? The samurai of Europe? The great english gentry was french (I hear the Lionheart barely ever step foot on his isle kingdom), at least frankish. If anything the samurai of Europe were frankish knight (descendents of Charlemagne knights) who ruled over the continent were riches are found for half a millenium. Not saying of course the Longbowmen were bad troops, but they were never as effective as you seem to picture yourself (I would like to point to Matt Easton's Schola Gladiatoria here).

Interesting point my man. I shall role it over in my mind, and consider what you just wrote. Very interesting. It's rolling over in my mind now as I type these words. Rolling, rolling, rolling😊😊😉

The actual battle didn't happen as absurdly as in the movie. enemy search party They avoided it and approached several kilometers away, and as soon as the sun rose, they made a surprise advance. That is the Operational surprise attacks of this age. It didn't happen that the troops were hiding right in front of the enemy's encampment like Rambo did.

not possible to happen in anyway no arrow could do that

... except there weren't any that I could see.

+BobSamson147 weak shield

+warbossgrotsmasha23 I would rather say it´s weird Tv logic, the man shot is seen wearing chainmail, a Gambeson (I think) and a steel cuirass/breastplate. On top of that he is protecting himself with a shield that when strucked sounds to me like it would be made of metal. All that and the arrow still penetrate and even exist his body. Pure magic in that arrow.

+Sebastian Säterdal Its not magic just craftmanship and gravity and bodkin

"studded leather" ... NO. A steel cuirass with/without mail + shield would certainly stop a bodkin arrow. And on the possibility it may, it will certainly not kill him. And what sort of soldier would, especially one with authority, not be completely dressed in his armour in time of war knowing they're close to their enemy?

+Didgeridoo Kangaroo God wills it !!!! 😲

Nope.

@@bcgroiSENSE it can

+Creterix agreed

+Creterix very much agreed

+Dylan Fontaine very very agreed

I don't think it's supposed to be. it's just entertaining and that's it.

Doctor Thrax not even!

+Clay Ronso LOL!!!! Yep, think of all that time we wasted reading and studying Chaucer in Middle English. Who knew they sounded just like us now? Oh, woe is me.

That’s how Middle English peasants sounded like

And they didn't even chant "GROND! GROND! GROND! GROND! GROND!"