there is half swording.... use of daggers to stab in weak points. Stabbing in the helmet slits. Use of war hammers and spear s against armor. People actually getting tired. pulling knights down to immobilize them and finish em off. They did a lot right imo

Honestly I love the shitty duel. My favorite part of the movie. Not the highly choreographed and meticulous fight scene we'd expect of professional knights and hollywood blockbusters. Just a couple of noble dipshits rolling in the mud trying and failing not to get rondel'd in the neck.

My issue in the movie was- how would any of the armored knights tell who’s friend or foe? I noticed no distinguishing differences between combatants during the battle sequence.

To be fair, a vast majority of the arrows in the movie did just bounce off the armor. Only a percentage hit effectively. Those that did were shown more clearly though.

Netflix: next up willam the conqueror The movie name: the conqueror king

Hiring reenactors for movies have been done-Gettysburg

The scene at azincourt was terrifying Edit: specially being in a full plate armor while drowning in mud and horses crushing your helmet

I like the scar on the cheek of henry. That injury. And the surgery that removed the arrow. Is super ingenious and interesting! They knew more about keeping wounds clean than history tries to tell us

I'm an archer. When longbows shoot at 80 or 100 yards (and target longbows are typically 40-50lbs, granted, but this also means a very high arcing shot) we don't generally see much, if any, penetration difference between those ranges and 40 yards which is shot with a fairly flat trajectory. That's practical experience, not theory.

Critique is good, but I liked how the people got tired and how not everyone was in the same armor. You're never going to have a perfect Medieval movie, but it's something.

I think we should honestly applaud the fact they are "Attempting" the knight in shining armor look, they slapped armor everywhere, i mean the styles and quality was all over the place but watching the scenes i got very excited to see that much full plate and that many Helmets with visors! They even had a few points where the main characters had helmets with visors!!! This is something so rare in modern medieval and fantasy films, its one clear step in the right direction, Outlaw king also! I hope this means we are going to see more of this in the future, Imagine the next movie brought out is based on the war of the roses and we see actual Sallets and polaxes in use. I have faith in this!

When "The Last of the Mohicans" was made, they used A LOT of reenactors as extras, including several prominent authors and experts. This movie has been lauded over and over for it's historical accuracy from the standpoint of clothing, weapons, and battles. More film makers should learn from the example this movie set.

Historically accurate? No. Fucking awesome movie? I thought so!

The film "Gettysburg" depicting that battle from the American civil war employed re-enactors and the result was absolutely amazing and proves your point.

METATRON! Please Review Joan of Arc, The Messenger, 1999 film! Not only armour and weapons, but warfare and tactics! Thank you!

Given that it’s produced by Netflix I’m kinda surprised it doesn’t feature any Black knights.

As a frenchman, I have to be honest I found it too bad, because it had so much potential and so many acting talents in it (with Chalamet and especially Pattinson who did a perfect job), but it was so bad from a historical point of view.. it basically shat on the Azincourt battle, shat on History and, call me paranoid or not, seemed to have francophobe passages (like why the fuck would you invent that the Dauphin killed children ??!). But anyway, I think it's a shame because the movie in itself wasn't that bad but this whole thing behind just made it look like the remake of a 1599's british propaganda (which the play Henry V of shakespear originally was).

You are overstating the case with the arrows. When you shoot at a 45 degree angle for maximum range, the arrow's vertical velocity will be very low as it falls at terminal velocity, but the horizontal velocity will still be >50% of the initial velocity. So the archers would be handicapping the arrow's ability to threaten armor, but it would still be highly effective against horses and lightly armored troops. This could be enough to force the enemy to charge: so-called 'goading fire'. There is indeed textual evidence for longbows being used in this way. It's probably what short bodkin heads were for, since these heads are actually quite poor against armor, but are very light and good for long range shooting.

@Metatron actually the only force lost with volley /arc fire is due to air resistance gravity is a conservative force meaning that in the lack of air resistance any object thrown upwards or at an arc hits just as hard as a direct shot This is not to say arc shot is not worse for instance as the trajectory is longer it will meet more air resistance

what i like in the first battle in the movie is that some knight have painted armor or helmets, i think that's something we don't usually see in movies

That is why I have always said that if you want to make the perfect battle of Agincourt, what you should do is take the costumes and armor from the Laurence Oliver film (1944), the muddy battlefield full of stakes from the film by Kenneth Branagh (1989), and finally the infantry formations (because the archers are not well represented in any of the three films), the weapons, the correct way of fighting used by the Men-at-Arms and the cavalry charge (removing the arrows going through the metal, giving them spears instead of swords similar to the William Wallace movie by Mel Gibson and changing the armor for some more in line with the time) from this 2019 Netflix version. Mixing these three , but adding the charge of the French infantry (which they always omit) and fixing the missing details, I'm sure no one would be unhappy with the final result. The film also seemed acceptable to me, but knowing about military history, it made me suffer a lot to see every error on the tape.

You should have mentioned exactly why the armor is bad. Like you did with the mail armor, you should have said exactly what's wrong in other instances. You say that the armor the French prince is wearing is garbage, but you don't explain why. You say that helmets are wrong, but again, there's no explanation. To me, all of it looks pretty damn normal. I don't even know how it should look like. At 12:01 you say his armor is "ridiculous", but to me it looks just fine. Ok you do provide some solutions to the problem, and they are legit, but I don't even see a problem here to start with. To me this just sounds like a pet peeve of yours and you're ranting about it. It seems that you made this video assuming that everyone knows how real armor looks like, but only a few people have that knowledge. An average person like me, who has never seen real armor, can't really tell what's wrong with the suits in this movie. If someone searches youtube for a review for this movie and they see this video, they're gonna be just as confused as me.

I LEGITIMATELY finished watching this this morning, and well, I was wanting you or Shad to review it! Yay!

Another example of archers shooting straight and point blank as the norm (pun intended) is the Battle of Hastings. In Sir Edward Creasy's book "15 Decisive Battles of History" he writes of the Norman archers being ineffective against the defenders shields and decided to aim up, dropping their arrows onto the Saxons (english, anglos, I don't remember the proper proper noun) whereupon Harold took an arrow to the eye and the rest is, as they say, speculation... I mean history

The amount of energy lost by an object going up is gained back while coming down. Most of the energy is lost to air friction.

When they drew their swords, it actually made a wooden sound instead of the cliché metal sound that we are so used to hearing

The longbow was great at shooting horses and the mud took care of the rest

Before watching the video I'd like to say this is a very good movie and I highly recommend it.

Watched it yesterday, although there was a lot wrong with it historically, I was still entertained 👌

I’ve read recently that the longbows were so effective not because they injured/killed the knights, but rather they shot their horses: they were relatively lightly armoured in the flanks (i.e their sides) and even if the arrows didn’t kill the animal the shock and pain would make them throw their rider or “crash” which would either disable or outright kill them.

Excellent video. I do have a comment on the note of the physics and geometry of the arrow's flight however. If I were firing an arrow at an upward arc and gravity was the only force acting on the arrow to stop its upward momentum (lets assume wind resistance only affects vertical momentum here), the amount of time the arrow is spent going up will equal the exact amount of time the arrow spends going down. If we calculate the time it takes for an arrow to hit its peak (vertical velocity = 0) and calculate the vertical velocity of the arrow once it comes down to ground level, you will find that the vertical velocity of the arrow at both points is equal (just in opposite directions). Therefore, if an arrow is shot, the only thing detracting from its speed and momentum will be 'drag' or wind resistance OR the final height of the projectile (so firing uphill will result in a slower vertical velocity at the final point which appears to be the case in the film). Important to note is that these forces cause velocity to go down over time, so the longer the arrow is in flight, the greater loss in velocity. An arrow will be in the arrow longer if it is fired at an arc than if it is going straight, so the arrow will slow down more when fired at an arc. To wit, your statement that firing an arrow straight vice at an arc is correct, but not for the reason that you stated (that being gravity). I can work this out with actual numbers if needs be. Again, though, I always love your videos.

Hiiii Okay, I have only one question about arrows being fired up in the air. I am the worst when it comes to physics, that is why I am asking, but I was under the impression that since energy does not get destroyed only transferred if you shoot an arrow up, it will transform the kinetic energy on potential gravity, yes? Then as it comes down the gravity potential gets transformed into kinetic, so apart from air drag (which for an arrow I guess it's not that big), shouldn't the arrow come down with the same momentum as it went up? Like a pendulum? I know the arrow is not heavy, but gravity does not care about that right?

They don't show the scar under Henry's eye. He took an arrow in the face under his eye in a previous battle and was only saved by a skilled surgeon who created an ingenious way to get the arrow out. That's why he was painted in profile.

“That is awful” **Zooms to a tin can**

Hey, Metatron, you said a while back you'd do another video about volley arrow fire. Any updates on that?

It’s okay, but the fights and duels and battles felt much more realistic than most medieval-style movies do these days. Drowning opponents in the mud, stabbing enemies with small blades in weak points, using fists and melee weapons beyond swords, arrows bouncing off armor most of the time with some penetration here and there…wonderful. Please keep doing this, just makes the movies feel less like propaganda.

The sources on Agincourt are very clear on armour penetration. Arrows penetrated plate armour. Gesta Henrici Quinti, an eye witness of the battle, specifically said "the missiles which by their very force pierced the sides and visors of their helmets ..." Likewise, Enguerran Monstrelet mentioned that "the French began to bow their heads so that the arrow fire would not penetrate the visors of their helmets." indicating that they in fact did penetrate their visors when arrows came straight at them. The top of a helmet is often 3 mm thick, the sides often only 1.5 mm, and the breaths are a weak spot. This is also supported by Jean Le Fèvre: "...the French began to bow their heads so that the arrow fire would not penetrate the visors of their helmets." Walsingham said it indirectly. "Then the cloud of arrows flew again from all directions [flanks], and iron sounded on iron, while volleys of arrows struck helmets, plates and cuirasses. Many of the French fell, pierced with arrows, here fifty, there sixty." Lydgate’s Battle of Agincourt: "Our archers shot full heartily, and quickly made the Frenchmen bleed; their arrows went at great speed, and took down our enemies; through breastplate, haubergeon, and bascinet they went...." This was most likely arrows coming in from the flanks and pierced the thinner sides of breastplates made of wrought iron. Other sources talk about the damage the arrows did in a more general way. Tito Livio Frulovisi: "... the English would have been thrown into disorder by the French knights if the greater part of the latter had not been killed or wounded with arrows and had been forced to retreat in terror.” The Gesta Henrici Quinti: "...they were forced to fall back under showers of arrows and to flee to their rearguard, save for a very few who, although not without losses in dead and wounded, rode through between the archers and the woodlands, and save, too, of course, for the many who were stopped by the stakes driven into the ground and prevented from fleeing very far by the stinging hail of missiles shot at both horses and riders in their flight.” (Including the quote above.) Thomas Elmham: "Our arrows were carried and penetrated ..." Henrici Quinti: "... clouds rain missiles, the earth absorbs blood, breath flies from bodies, half-dead bodies roll in their own blood, the surface of the earth is covered with the corpses of the dead ... that one vomits forth his soul in blood..." A continuation of Brute from 1377 to 1419: "... our archers made them stumble. Our Archers shot no arrow off target; all caused death and brought to the ground both men and horses.” The Religieux (Monk) of Saint-Denis: "... forced to retreat in the face of the enemy archers after they had lost several of the braves of their men ” “In the opinion of the French, it was precisely what injured the most their enemies which assured the English of victory, especially the continuous way in which they had rained down on our men a terrifying hail of arrow shot.” Mémoires de Pierre de Fenin: “But it went completely the other way. For when it came to engaging, the English had such a large quantity of archers who began to shoot strongly against the French.” Enguerran Monstrelet: "Sir William de Saveuses ... was shot dead from off his horse." (Including the quote above.) Jean Waurin and Jean Le Fèvre: "But before they could engage together, many French were hampered and wounded." Edmond de Dynter: "English archers caused maximum damage to the French with their arrows..." Thomas Basin: "wounding so many horses on which the French were mounted and men also, killing a good number, so that even before they came to hand to hand fighting, the French turned around..."

I just watched it, no it certainly isn't perfect . However it was decently written, good acting all round, No BLACKWASHING AT ALL which is refreshing. I must admit I was really surprised just how good it actually was, no over the top battles ect. Watch it

The combat between full plate Knights was the highlight.

Hey R, Your mic sounds really good in this video. In a lot of your older videos the volume varies, and sometimes things like the bass level were way too blown out, but everything sounds great here.

You've got your physics a bit wrong there, mate. First off the term "power" would be more like energy or momentum. And now to the actual part you got wrong - it is true that objects in flight do lose some of their energy but it's not due to the elevation difference since there this insignificant thing called the Law of conservation of energy stating that energy is not lost but only transitions from one form to another. In the case of changing elevation the kinetic energy of the arrow would be turned into potential with the zenith point being where the kinetic energy in the vertical wold be zero and the potential exactly equal to what the kinetic was at the point of launch. In the mean time the arrow would be bleeding energy in the horizontal due to drag/air resistance. Once the arrow starts going down potential energy would convert back to kinetic causing the arrow to seem to accelerate while still losing some energy to air resistance. Your example of dropping an arrow does not illustrate the case since you only have potential energy being converted into kinetic in the vertical completely ignoring that a launched arrow has momentum in the horizontal and the final impact is determined by the combination of the two. I would give a modern day example: each year there are several cases of people being severely injured or killed by billets fired in an almost vertical direction - if a bullet were to be shot straight up it would travel to its zenith point and then start falling having lost the stabilizing effect of the rifling spin and go down at it's terminal velocity (significantly slower). If however it's shot at an angle the trajectory is a parabola and the bullet keeps spinning, retaining it's aerodynamic properties and speed bringing a lot more hurt(energy) with it wherever it lands.

Special guest?!! Please be the great bland man himself, the one "take" God, the summer sweater wearing genius... LINDYBEIGE 👏💣💥

Pretty sure that (ignoring air resistance) an arrow shot up in the air would hit the ground at the same speed (and thus same energy) that it left the bow at. It's when we consider air resistance that we observe that it's the vertical air resistance on the way down that reduces the speed of the arrow and forces it to plateau at terminal vertical velocity (if it hasn't hit the ground by that point already). The air resistance on the way up only has the effect of limiting the altitude the arrow may reach and thus only indirectly affects whether the arrow has enough time to reach terminal velocity on the way down or not. So we can attribute the loss of speed (and thus energy, as the mass of the arrow is constant) largely to the air resistance acting on the arrow's journey downwards from the altitude it reached. I think Metatron had the right intuition when making claims about firing arrows high, but perhaps confused the forces a bit in his explanation; air resistance should be stressed as the force that causes the arrow's speed at impact to be lower than when it was released, not gravity. There are also horizontal effects of air resistance that decrease the arrow's horizontal velocity, thus reducing the overall speed at impact even more, which makes it better to reduce your horizontal range as much as possible when shooting. Certainly we can conclude that shooting the arrow directly into the enemy at a shallower angle and closer range will mitigate the loss of energy to air resistance, thus inflicting a much more powerful hit and being more likely to penetrate armour and he's totally right in this regard (it is common sense as well).

@Metatron Occhio sulla parte della pioggia di frecce (Sulla quale hai completamente ragione) però secondo la fisica, ciò che fa perdere efficacia alla freccia nel tiro a lunga gittata non è l'andare contro la gravità, (poichè la velocità di arrivo equivarrebbe quella di partenza in assenza di attriti) ma è bensì la resistenza dell'aria che rallenta la freccia proporzionalmente alla lunghezza del tragitto.

Despite all the flaws, I'm really excited that we are starting to move a way from the all-powerful swords trope. This gives me hope that movie makers can learn towards making a more historically accurate (or physically/mechanically plausible) medieval and/or fantasy shows.

On the account of the arrows, there are a lot that break off the knights' armor in those scenes. I thought the ones that did stick only hit the weak-points and didn't penetrate the armor?

As a physics point of order, the issue of energy loss with arrows is from friction with the air, not gravity. Gravity has a net zero effect as long as the point of impact is at the same elevation as the archer.

I'm curious how much of the design of the coif in movies is to function like a cloth hood that the actors can pull back between scenes. (Also to make sure the stars faces are visible.)

I was waiting for Metratron to review the full thing. Historical inaccuracies aside, I loved it.

I appreciate that King Henry had a scar on his face in the film

Hey, I noticed in some of your older videos such as your Kanabo video from 2 years ago you had a samurai helmet, where did you get it from? I’m in the UK as I assume you are judging by your accent, yet they’re all ridiculously expensive online.

At 7:37 or so, I know that "up and over" volley fire didn't happen at Agincort, but didn't they use it at other times/other eras? I feel like I've seen some battles on Kings and Generals where the archers were placed behind their own infantry and lobbed the attacks over their heads into the enemy. But I could be (quite likely am) wrong.

at least its not full of Africans portraying historical characters. if it was a bbc production .

Totally agree with you about the armor and battles. For me personally I didn't like the film. I feel their portrayal of Henry V was very poor and misrepresented the historical Henry greatly. They make him naive, manipulable and barely gave him any personality. The historical accuracy side of things was atrocious, especially with much of the plot points. I think their mistake was taking too much inspiration from the shakespearean play. The siege of harfleur was pathetic and inaccurate and agencourt was a mess. I'll be going into detail in my review ^_^

Great video! I have two thoughts about your points of the mail coifs and the reeanactors: 1.) I think it'ts the same like the light inside the helmet of an Sci-Fi astronaut: you have to see the actor's face. 2.) just a guess of mine, but there should be certain problems with the use of reenactors, because they might be more "problematic" to handle as individuals than actors who are just doing what the director wants without discussions about details. And even without some sort of labor-union (?), it might be common using professional actors or stuntmen from an existing network. That is of course just a try to explain things, which keeps your points still valid. :-)

What's the name of the movie at 12:30?

As Matt would say "Cpt Context is here to give you some context!"

Im so glad you made this. I watched this the other day and thought to my self WWMS (What would Metatron say?) lol

What I liked about the battle is it really showed just how insanely dangerous it would be in that melee even in full plate armor. But they kind of killed that when Flastaff took off his helmet and then really killed it when Henry ran down into the melee just wearing mail.

Another point you may have overlooked in regards to arrow fire (I know that fire has a more modern connotation to firearms, but maybe it is now etymologically appropriate to use it in this context due to our newer speaking) is that at maximum range, there will be a very limited distance where the arrow will be at "hitting height". This is something that I picked up from the youtube channel "Cap and Ball" about why in 19th century European armies stared using lighter and faster ammunition as opposed to the old slower heaver ammunition (sort of like 9mm compared to .45 caliber). As far as I know, part of the reason the armies started lightening their ammunition is because slow projectiles follow a much more curved trajectory to hit a target at a certain distance, so unless you get the angle just right, the projectile will fly right over their head (or strike the ground in front of the target), due to the high curve of the trajectory, where as a straight and fast projectile will stay close to the height profile of the target, and be much more likley to hit.

The battle scene was a confused mess. Now, historically, it was meant to be a confused mess. But not the same confused mess that actually happened. Instead, we ended up with the choreographer creating a confused mess of his own invention. I was very disappointed by what I saw, as it provided no visual representation of why the English won.

So the thing to take away from the Movie is that they did some Things really good and some quite bad. Well i suppose thats a Start. They'l just have to keep it up and improve Further. Im honestly just glad that we are beyond non existent Armour and Lightsaber Moments.

Great point about hiring reenactors, they did that exact thing in the new star wars show the mandalorian, all the stormtroopers in that show are fans who built their own sets of stormtrooper armor and are members of a reenactment group

We know from huns, hungarians, mongols, avars, etc that specialized with the recurve bow (around 80 lbs, even more): Galloping charge and fire from point blank (20 meters or even 10) will penetrate steel full plate. But this add the horse's momentum to the arrow

TL;DR of raining arrows: Shooting into the air is stupid and ineffective.

One of the things I loved about this movie was the armour being actually useful. Soooooooo freken refreshing and it added to some of the suspense.

Another thing to mention about volley fire into the sky. Arrow fletching is designed to stabilize the arrow as it leaves the bow. It forces the tail end of the arrow to be as inline with the point as possible via friction with the air and imparts spin to the arrow. This makes fletching incredibly useful for accuracy in shots relatively close in range. For volley fire aiming up, fletching is incredibly useless and even detrimental since the difference in mass between the heavy arrow point and the lighter wooden shaft is more than enough to stabilize the arrow as it falls down. Tape a metal bolt to a pencil and toss it up into the air, its gonna fall bolt first with almost no wobble in the tail end. The fletching also introduces friction which slows the arrow down and spin which it doesnt need (no archer is going to be aiming for an eyeball at 100 m). Both of these drastically reduce an arrow's efficacy when you shoot up into the air.

I enjoyed this movie due to great cast and story fully aware it is full of historical inconsistencies. As for Henry showing the sword into the ground once French prince was on his arse - that was not his sword, that was a random sword laying around Henry found just as good to defend himself. I like how he uses a hammer too.

Will you make the video about Japanese women underwear you had promised back in 2016?

I literally just watched this just before coming on KZfaq. It was pretty good.

Engineer and physicist here. Just to clarify your point on the arrow fire: the arrow doesn’t lose energy (the more accurate term, not power) by being arced up because of gravity. Yes it will slow down as it rises, but this kinetic energy is converted into gravitational potential energy, and back into kinetic energy as it falls. The loss is all due to drag from the air, so the further it goes, the more drag will reduce the arrow’s total energy, all due to air friction/drag. Neglecting air resistance, the arrow would fall with exactly the same velocity it left the bow with (assuming the initial and final elevations are the same). Of course in reality, arrows traveling so far can lose a good portion of their initial energy to drag. I know you understand this, I just couldn’t help myself after your explanation perked my ears up :)

Yes! I was wondering when you were going to cover this.

8:40 your understanding of physics is distressing.

even my first time seeing the movie i was aware of the issues you mentioned and it did slightly irk me because im a turbo nerd. however, regardless of the inaccuracies in the armor, the volleys etc. i think this is all STILL 100% superior than almost ANYTHING hollywood has given us. issues aside, its still 10 steps in the right direction. issues aside, it still gives a much better idea of the combat and the culture than almost anything hollywood has given us. i still love movies like braveheart and 1981 excalibur i grew up on those films and those films along with video games like medieval total war did nothing but further spark my interest in the era and drive me to further learn the real history. movies like outlaw king and the king are doing it better though despite the inaccuracies and i am so happy that european history is being portrayed in such a positive light with these films. its obvious a trend has started and im just looking forward to the next one. i would love to see a movie like this about william the conqueror and the normans, however outlaw king and the king have focused so much on england that maybe a new medieval setting would be a more fresh experience such as a film where the protagonists are set in medieval france, germany, spain, milan or venice. when casuals think of medieval times they usually instantly think of england or france, but we here know that in the 15th century the germans and the italians were making the best suits of plate armor. even most of the surviving manuscripts about combat are german. there are so many directions they can go with this

I think it was in the series Battlefield Detectives episode on Agincourt, the suggestion was made that the main purpose of the arrows was to injure horses and unseat the knights. Archers carried daggers and hammers. As knights were unhorsed many had trouble getting to their feet, a combination of the weight of the armour and the mud, and the archers would attack them with daggers and hammers while they were down. From what I’ve read, the most effective weapons in the destruction of the French Army at Agincourt was the mud and French confidence that the battles outcome was a foregone conclusion.

Great video as always! Just a small comment (physicist here). While you're absolutely right by saying that the arrows would lose most of their momentum if shot upwards, this would not be due to the arrows going against gravity. Since gravity is a conservative force, the arrows would theoretically reach the ground at the same speed as they were shot at (in a conservative field the path taken doesn't matter, just the endpoint). What makes the arrows lose power is the viscosity of air (or air friction). When the arrows are shot up and then fall, they have to travel a much longer distance to the target than if they went on a straight line, thus giving air more time and distance to slow the arrow. Keep up the amazing content!!

The thumbnail looks like a album cover lol

I like the vests the knights wore that had chainmail sewn on the arms, leaving the torso (which would have been covered by the breastplate) bare cloth. Are these historically accurate?

I would say the armour is actually fine, in comparison to other movies. Yes, once you really look at it, you notice the flaws, but just glancing at it or keeping your eyes where the camera wants you to look, you don't really notice anything that jumps out at you. The armour could be better it certain respects, but on the whole I think it does a much better job than other historical productions.

I find the battle in the movie to be underwhelming. It's soldiers suicidally running into each other and proceeding to have individual duels all over the battlefield. It's ridiculous, this old movie trope. There is no battle-line, no formations. It's just disorganized butcher-fest. The tactics of the movie battle are also underwhelming, well, non-existent, to be exact.

The movie was absolutely beautiful I didn’t mind the historical inaccuracy or the plastic lookin armor

I noticed about the arrows, when they came down (didn't like that they did that though) what caused the knights to fall was usually the horses rearing up as they, the horses, were hit. I also noticed that where the knights themselves were hit and died, they were hit in the gaps and when they hit the breastplates, the arrows actually broke and did not pierce.

Good review. I'm interested to hear your opinion on the short but well shot siege scene.

I did not even know the movie was about to be released, was a nice surprise for me. It was very entertaining.

I dont know anything about Netflix so I've never even heard of this.

I don't think it makes any sense to say that volley shooting was never used, after all the reason helmets are so essential, and continued to develop was to protect against such things. This also holds true for some shield formations, which don't make a lot of sense if volley shooting wasn't a thing. Then there's the whole "the arrows of the barbarians blot out the sun" thing from Thermopylae, gives it credence, unless you think this inaccuracy has persisted since Herodotus. That's not to say it was used at Agincourt, but to say it was never used is just silly. Also I do not recommend you drop an arrow from a building, if you hit someone it could be very bad indeed (I cannot find the episode, just an article talking about it, but mythbusters did the whole shooting an arrow straight up thing, and found it could be fatal).

Correction for Lord of the Rings. The only faction so to speak we see doing volley fire in open battle are the orcs against the Rhohirrim in The Return of the King. All of the Good guy factions are firing volleys from defensive positions. Excluding the Intro of The Fellowship, where the Elves fire direct volleys with a low arc from the rear line of Elves during the battle of Mt. Doom. (I hope in the past 3 years this has been pointed out already, but I just couldn’t find that comment)

The scene where they were seizing a French castle was pretty good I thought, they kept bombarding it with Trebuchets trying to get them to surrender, not wanting to charge in, because it's a castle

Knights charging with swords and no lances sadly also not enough mud

Also, the colors in the movie were mostly fine. People weren't in raggedy broken fabric. What gives it that gray and dark look the the LUT or filter on all the scenes. Those are purposely done as a cinematic tool to incite a certain emotion or mood in the viewer.

The movie Gettysburg set in the American civil war used reenactors as extras for the movie. It helped force them to make an amazingly accurate film since thw extras understood all that was going on, the equipment was correct, and as the director said they could not make an inaccurate film or the extras would leave

"does it provide educational historical value?" -"no" "Does it need to?" -" it doesn't matter" That makes no sense 😭 not at all. Following this logic I could judge lord of the rings by it's historical accuracy. Even though it's fair to partly judge this movie on accuracy, as it was trying to be realistic, your Argument ist still not valid. That being said, this movie was fantastic in my opinion and while not always accurate, still a great adaptation.

There was something refreshing about the anticlimactic dual, siege and battle. It wasn't what I expected. It was what I'd imagined it would really be like.

The English army numbered 5000 archers and 1000 men-at-arms: the rest were non-combatants. I'd also recommend looking up the papers on Agincourt by Professor Clifford Rogers, as the best available sources on the battle.

There is a problem with your analysis of arrow power, if you use a 100pound bow and shoot at 45° to maximize the range, what happens is that the arrow will fight against gravity while going up, so the power in the arrow is of 100pounds - mass X gravity X maximum height, when it falls down, it then gains a power from the gravity equal to mass X gravity X height. Therefore the energy is reduced by gravity only if the target is higher than the shooter (on top of remparts for exemple) and it is increased if the target is lower. However, what reduce energy in general is friction, and the longest in time there is friction, the less energy is left in the projectile, so the further you are from your target, the less energy.

For me it was a pretty boring movie. And the young Henry V and his younger brother looked more like Loss boys then nobles.

The fact the king wears poor armour gives the feeling he cares very little about himself, he is not in the spotlight, he is selfless. And it fits his character. The fact the armour of the dolfin is so ridiculous also matches the character.

I found the arrow arc assertions you made fascinating so thank you for that. It got me thinking however if a very heavy and very sharp arrow was fired to rain down on the opponent would the additional kinetic energy of the rain make them potentially lethal again? I 100% agree with your view so my question is more getting the opinion of a respected peer if you would honour this pupil with your wisdom. All the best buddy.

Ok, a couple of points and a question. I am a SAG-AFTRA actor and you are mostly correct about saving money hiring reenactors but each person would also be paid for using their own armor. Still obviously less than making all the props. Also they usually hire groups like the Irish Military to be huge numbers of any kind of warriors. They are certain to be well trained, physically fit, easy to instruct, have lots of expereince and are used to working in those conditions for long days and being fed in the way they cater and not complaining. etc I know the volley arrow shooting gets you going, but I just think it's still possible that they used both the volley and direct firing of arrows because as you said The archers practiced all the time. The volley is not random at all. It's extremely accurate. They practice all the time. I am also an archery hunter and until it became frowned upon, hunters shot on the run at moving targets at great distances. It's exactly the same technique as throwing a football and can be perfected with practice. Just a thought. There is footage someplace that I saw with my own eyes, of some of the great archers like Ben Pearson and his peers shoot a long bow with at least 85 pound draw, about 130 yards and kill a mountain goat while he was running and the goat was running. Filmed all in one continuous shot so I'm certain it wasn't fake.

More nonsense about arrows not penetrating plate armour. Gesta clearly say they penetrated the sides and visors of their helmets.