Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: Von Stroheim on August 28, 2019, 12:55:59 AM
-
Apparently based on Henry IV parts I&2 and Henry V .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMJnsTx-TBg
-
I'm looking forward to that.
-
Oooooh.....nice
-
looks good
-
Yeah...oooh indeed!
-
Looks pretty promising.
Maybe a bit heavy on the colour filter at times; I wouldn't mind "olden days" films to be a bit more vibrant every now and then.
-
Interesting.
-
That does look good
-
It seems to be in the same style as the Outlaw King. Which could use some improvements but i enjoyed it very much and welcomed it as a step to the right direction.
I have to say that i have my doubts about the cast. Especially the twilight guy....
-
Looks pretty promising.
Maybe a bit heavy on the colour filter at times; I wouldn't mind "olden days" films to be a bit more vibrant every now and then.
One of the reasons to watch Helen Mirren as Elizabeth Tudor (apart from her own unmatched acting) is that the show recognises the pre-Victorian world was not a uniformly muddy mass of grey and brown. Someone remembered that rich people spend money on their clothes (not Mirren - she's a nudist), or looked at a few renaissance paintings.
-
It seems to be in the same style as the Outlaw King. Which could use some improvements but i enjoyed it very much and welcomed it as a step to the right direction.
I have to say that i have my doubts about the cast. Especially the twilight guy....
Actually, it seems they intend to follow a traditional take on the story, using Shakespeare's Henriad cycle as main source of inspiration. Oddly, I prefer that approach. At least, we are certain that Shakespeare knew how to write a play and made it interesting.
-
With the HYW being an almost lifelong obsession; I'm reserving judgement.
It's definitely based on Henry IV and Henry V by the Bard. I do hope that it has some twists and turns that are not already anticipated by Shakespeare.
From the brief bit's I've seen on the trailer they appear to have got the look of the thing more or less correct but I might live to regret making that observation!:)
I'm looking forward to seeing it, it hits Netflix UK on November 27, 2019.
Kind Regards
-
Actually, it seems they intend to follow a traditional take on the story, using Shakespeare's Henriad cycle as main source of inspiration. Oddly, I prefer that approach. At least, we are certain that Shakespeare knew how to write a play and made it interesting.
oh I totally agree on that. I was commenting mainly on the visuals. Outlaw King has its weaknesses as a movie but i see it as a step forward regarding the historical accuracy. This looks to be in the same vein. Bright colors, people dont look like they were rolling in mud. Black Adder haircuts lol. If i see a carriage without solid wood wheels i will cheer lol
-
oh I totally agree on that. I was commenting mainly on the visuals. Outlaw King has its weaknesses as a movie but i see it as a step forward regarding the historical accuracy. This looks to be in the same vein. Bright colors, people dont look like they were rolling in mud. Black Adder haircuts lol. If i see a carriage without solid wood wheels i will cheer lol
Can't be any worse than The Hollow Crown which had Henry V running 'round in a Greek Hoplite's cuirass!! lol lol lol.
(I thought Tom Hiddleston's Henry was quite poor as well, but that's going OT ;) )
Kind Regards
-
Can't be any worse than The Hollow Crown which had Henry V running 'round in a Greek Hoplite's cuirass!! lol lol lol.
(I thought Tom Hiddleston's Henry was quite poor as well, but that's going OT ;) )
Kind Regards
Or the black french princess and if i remember there were some literally black knights in the series lol. Although to be fair that was more like an extravagant stage play adaptation, not a period drama per se. At least thats the way i tried to explain it lol
-
Or the black french princess and if i remember there were some literally black knights in the series lol. Although to be fair that was more like an extravagant stage play adaptation, not a period drama per se. At least thats the way i tried to explain it lol
True and ditto lol lol lol
-
Or the black french princess and if i remember there were some literally black knights in the series lol. Although to be fair that was more like an extravagant stage play adaptation, not a period drama per se. At least thats the way i tried to explain it lol
Ummm, that is literally exactly what the Hollow Crown was. A television adaptation of a series of Shakespeare plays.
As such why anyone would be surprised by non-traditional casting and inauthentic costumes is an ongoing mystery to me.
Likewise I'm pretty sure The King isn't a documentary, so it seems bizarre to criticise it for telling a different story than the history.
-
Ummm, that is literally exactly what the Hollow Crown was. A television adaptation of a series of Shakespeare plays.
As such why anyone would be surprised by non-traditional casting and inauthentic costumes is an ongoing mystery to me.
Likewise I'm pretty sure The King isn't a documentary, so it seems bizarre to criticise it for telling a different story than the history.
And who has critiziced The King? ???
-
And who has critiziced The King? ???
On LAF? No one. Yet. ;)
-
Incidentally, the mounted knights crashing into the formed infantry line may point to the death of Hotspur rather than the later French campaign - those particular shots and the ensuing scrum could depict the battle of Shrewsbury rather than Agincourt.
Casting-wise, I was mildly amused to see a Franco-American actor as the King of England while an Englishman plays the French dauphin.
-
I once shared an office with a Welshman called Chichester and an Englishman called Morgan. Very confusing.
-
those particular shots and the ensuing scrum could depict the battle of Shrewsbury rather than Agincourt.
I'm quite sure of it. There's no way that they would have left out the stakes surely? Not to mention the archers (though they were certainly present at Shrewsbury in great numbers???)
Incidentally, the mounted knights crashing into the formed infantry line may point to the death of Hotspur rather than the later French campaign
Who was slain at Shrewsbury as one of the main protagonists in the rebellion.
EDIT: Then again, he is being anointed and is clearly "King Henry" in the film so I hope they haven't got their timeline mixed up(?). going to have to wait and see :)
-
It seems to be in the same style as the Outlaw King. Which could use some improvements but i enjoyed it very much and welcomed it as a step to the right direction.
I have to say that i have my doubts about the cast. Especially the twilight guy....
Pattinson is actually a great actor. Twilight just was a project where nobody gave a damn and therefor nobody even bothered to try :P
-
Agree with you entirely about Pattinson - looking forward to the Lighthouse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2hQb8fP-bA
-
Gonna no dee that? lol (that joke will apply to a very small but select bunch of LAF members!!) lol
Actually that the lighthouse looks good too. So much quality stuff coming off the streaming services now. Love the look of The King, the acting ability is there, the costumes, scenery etc and the basic storyline.....but it's soo easy to screw it up for us.
-
The movie has been presented at Venetia Festival. Critics have been lukewarm, at best. Currently it has a 71% approval rate on Rotten Tomatoes, which is not bad but neither is brilliant. Of course, it may have something to do with being a Netflix production. Critics are somewhat ambivalent, as if a streaming network producing movies is some kind of heresy. lol
-
The premiere has been announced for November 1st on Netflix.
I'm not sure if this is applicable to the UK but I hope so!!
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/new-movies/timothee-chalamet-joel-edgerton-and-david-michod-on-filming-netflix-movie-the-king/news-story/05ac5a44641c5805dd79f4752e419c45 (https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/new-movies/timothee-chalamet-joel-edgerton-and-david-michod-on-filming-netflix-movie-the-king/news-story/05ac5a44641c5805dd79f4752e419c45)
The armours in this pic are looking, well, to put it politely; incomplete:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YEAy-AjcRV4/XaM4gf2wHOI/AAAAAAABB9c/H3Fm1QhRRaM-DrM3MzdKzp6YIFAGUmakgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Gt8oonmZ.jpg)
-
But an awesome haircut ;)
-
But an awesome haircut ;)
Yeah, very much the opposite of mine lol
-
lol
For a king of England, Timotheee also has a very French face ;)
-
lol
For a king of England, Timotheee also has a very French face ;)
Even after a four to five year hiatus I'm so *#%* deep in the HYW that I just cannot get my head around the armours! lol lol
i'm going to have to watch a few episodes of The Last Kingdom to get myself accustomed before I watch The King! :?
I probably need professional help o_o lol
-
Well The king is released on Netflix today in the UK :)
-
Just watched it.
SPOILER ALERT
Pretty good I thought. Bit slow, and wasn’t too keen on the reimagining of Falstaff as the gallant hero, but hey, the guy playing Falstaff was also the writer and producer, so what can you do... ;)
A very creditable attempt at the right costumes, armour and arms for the period. Not quite right in places, but a lot closer than most medieval movie and TV productions manage.
Unfortunately, Game of Thrones’ ‘Battle of the bastards’ has now infected every medieval battle to be portrayed on screen... if it’s not a seething mass of close-packed men squidging around ineffectually in all-covering mud and viewed from a bird’s eye angle, it’s not considered proper. Personally, I doubt medieval battles were like this, but I suppose it makes good viewing... it’s just a bit of a cliché now, along with the flaming trebuchet balls (check), and the crates of squawking chickens signifying an army off to war (check).
Robert Pattinson as The Dauphin was excellent value though. Timothée Chalomet, less so - strangely disengaging and hard to feel anything for.
The twist in the ending was rather good, and the brutality was believably matter of fact and unsentimental.
On the whole, I’d say 7/10, pushing 8/10. :D
-
Well The king is released on Netflix today in the UK :)
Thanks for that. It has also just become available on Netflix in New Zealand.
Captain Blood,
like you, I would like things to be as historically "correct" as possible, however, I found this video informative about why some things are done the way they are in movies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF1VFlCnLQ4&list=PLoh12pW2SpBvhzCnvwtumA2llG_9VM8QL&index=18&app=desktop
Apologies if this has already been posted here before.
-
Unfortunately, Game of Thrones’ ‘Battle of the bastards’ has now infected every medieval battle to be portrayed on screen... if it’s not a seething mass of close-packed men squidging around ineffectually in all-covering mud and viewed from a bird’s eye angle, it’s not considered proper. Personally, I doubt medieval battles were like this, but I suppose it makes good viewing...
Strange really, the crush at Agincourt was cited as being the reason Battle of the Bastards was filmed in such away....so you could say the idea had come home
I'm no expert in the HYW etc but I wasn't impressed.....I always thought Shrewsbury was a bit of a bigger affair.......I liked Hals scar but didn't see the point because it was not even referenced in the story
I am a strange creature - I can totally suspend reality while watching movies/TV (ie Game of Thrones) but I get my knickers in a right twist if something is sposed to be 'historical.
I suppose films have to be watchable and interesting (imagine the 'real' Zulu.....hours of gun fire and little else going on....no Ulla Jacobbson......) but my argument is that films are the nearest thing majority of the population come to history and they believe films implicitly, so the producers should get it right....or at least the basics right -
Spose everyone is different....so I shall now go back to my cave.....
SB
-
I have to confess I couldn't watch the whole thing. If you want to do Shakespeare, do Shakespeare. If you want to an historical film, you should make some attempt at accuracy. I counted six or seven serious historical errors in the fist 20 minutes of the film. So I skipped ahead to the big mud wrasslin' scene at the end. Then made myself feel better by re-watching Kennith Branagh's Henry V.
-Michael
-
There were some good bits - I liked the single combat scene at Shrewsbury - I hasten to add for the fight choreography and style of fighting...........I declared straight after Battle of Bastardcourt.....so I probably missed the exciting bit in the last 20 minutes.
However for me it has won the 'Valhalla Rising' award of 2019 AKA "whoosh there goes two hours of my life I won't get back again"
-
Didn’t really do it for me. Tonally very one dimensional, big battle that I’d waited 90 mins for was underwhelming. Best thing about it was that I didn’t pay for it.
-
It was OK. I preferred Outlaw King as far as Netflix medieval films go. Agincourt was.... Boring? And felt unlike anything I've got in my head about a medieval battle let alone Agincourt. Also the Battle of Shrewsbury was odd, as in this film it didn't happen at all.
The point made above about about the 'battle of the Bastards' reminds me of all films after the Brad Pitt Troy where there was a battle they had people running at each other at a sprint before leaping into the air. Its weird things that they do in films and TV. I rewatched some of Last Kingdom recently and was again stuck at the odd Testudo like shieldwalls.
-
Thanks for that. It has also just become available on Netflix in New Zealand.
Captain Blood,
like you, I would like things to be as historically "correct" as possible, however, I found this video informative about why some things are done the way they are in movies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF1VFlCnLQ4&list=PLoh12pW2SpBvhzCnvwtumA2llG_9VM8QL&index=18&app=desktop
Apologies if this has already been posted here before.
My wife is laughing in the corner after listening to this as I watched it - to quote her directly "I like him, he's just shat all over everything you say when we watch those films."
Bollocks.
-
Well I enjoyed it.... not the best film ever but far from the worst, and yes the History was all over the place but I thought it they made a good fist of time and place
-
Just finished it
I expected thunder. I got flies farting.... Meh
-
Just watched it.
Whoever did the closing credits did a good job .................................
lol
-
What a shame no one making this thought to read a history book or even read Shakespeare. A couple of hours of my life I won’t get back :-[
-
As opposed to all those other hours that you will get back Sparrow???????
-
Watched it. Got bored halfway and skipped to the end. I have seen fights between my cats that were more epic.
-
I think the duel between Henry and Hotspur was deliberately anti-epic. Similarly the duel that didn’t happen between Henry and the Dauphin. I actually think it was quite a brave choice by the director to portray single combat between two armoured knights as a desperate, clumsy, down and dirty ferocious fight with everything and anything available, rather than the heroic swordplay we’re all used to seeing in historical epics since movies began. A deliberate attempt to show what it may (because who knows for sure) have been like, and confound the usual cliches.
But yes, while it may have shown a more gritty, less romanticised take on what happens when two fully armoured men try to murder each other at close quarters, it certainly sacrificed the epic qualities we have come to expect from such moments.
But I must admit I rather liked it because of that :)
-
I agree. Seemed like a deliberate decision to make it an anticlimactic fight and more of a chance to bring the character down a couple of pegs.
-
I agree. Seemed like a deliberate decision to make it an anticlimactic fight and more of a chance to bring the character down a couple of pegs.
Like dead you mean? lol
-
Watched it. Got bored halfway and skipped to the end. I have seen fights between my cats that were more epic.
lol lol lol
-
I don't mind the decision to sacrifice the "epic"; I lament the decision to sacrifice the history.
-Michael
-
I don't mind the decision to sacrifice the "epic"; I lament the decision to sacrifice the history.
-Michael
I agree but one has to recognise that they don't just twist the plot out of all proportion to history for artistic license or artistic expression.
It is done in the main to make the story 'readable', whether by cipher or more overtly for the regular viewer who simply won't understand the story without what looks like short cuts. And, sometimes they are just that, short cuts, but not in the case of The King.
I too cringed, but cringed with a degree of awareness that five years ago, would have been utterly wanting.
-
Well ... I liked it. It was a good film, well cast with some really nice performances. As far as renditions to date of Henry V campaigns and Agincourt I'd dare say it's the best so far.
What it wasn't was very historical and for the life of me I will never understand or agree with movie script writers re-writing history to suit their idea of whatever story they think they are telling. Poor brother Thomas - killed off by the script writers years earlier and in the wrong country. Truly?
What's fascinating ifs the spin that Henry V is a reluctant war hero who was tricked into war with France. And here was me thinking he was a bloody-minded warmongering warrior King who continued to wage aggressive war in France for years after Agincourt including what we might see as an atrocity against innocent civilians at Rouen - civilians whom he was claiming to be his subjects.
The woeful jumble-sale armoured men-at-arms in shot were the least of the inaccuracies.
-
I liked it too.
Yes errors, agreed, and yes why do productions miss out important stuff?
But then again I still enjoy Braveheart and The Patriot!
-
Well ... I liked it. It was a good film, well cast with some really nice performances. As far as renditions to date of Henry V campaigns and Agincourt I'd dare say it's the best so far.
Which, to be brutally honest, isn't saying a lot. There certainly is no plethora of art when it comes to this subject.
What it wasn't was very historical and for the life of me I will never understand or agree with movie script writers re-writing history to suit their idea of whatever story they think they are telling. Poor brother Thomas - killed off by the script writers years earlier and in the wrong country. Truly?
Well, that's the thing. It wasn't history. It was art. If I may just take a quick analogy; no one would seriously would expect Mark Rothko, who was left very wing, to concentrate on portraits of Marx or narrative landscapes of the suffering of the poor like Millet(?). In the same way, we cannot expect movies to imitate history to the point that we, as wargamers, are going to be satisfied. And yes! I get just as frustrated as the next man, or woman, but that's just the way things are.
What's fascinating ifs the spin that Henry V is a reluctant war hero who was tricked into war with France. And here was me thinking he was a bloody-minded warmongering warrior King who continued to wage aggressive war in France for years after Agincourt including what we might see as an atrocity against innocent
civilians at Rouen - civilians whom he was claiming to be his subjects.
Well yes, we was anything but. I cringed when they tried to deal with the killing of the prisoners at Agincourt with a anemic one liner that utterly failed to strike a chord!
My main gripe with the movie, erroneous historical hick ups aside, was that it seemed disjointed. Certainly there was none of the brilliance of Brannah and his version of Shakespeare's Henry V's craft; in moving scenes along with just the right amount of pace as to push the story telling forward. I think, also, for me there were too many moments that were just unbelievable in terms of the acting.
I could say more but I think I've popped on the parade too much as it is.
The movie is by no means a disaster, but nor is it high art.
I will watch it again :)
-
I have no problem with them making up fictional stories about medieval(ish) armies that smack each other up the side of the head with a variety of nifty weapons. I just don't think you should pretend you're telling an historical story. I am perfectly willing to give those sorts of films a chance if the trailers look half-way decent. I just object to the rewriting of history. I understand that this subject is one of those things we all react to somewhat differently, and I don't mean to denigrate the opinions of those who did enjoy the film.
Tim: "But then again I still enjoy... The Patriot!"
I'll bet you don't have to un-teach all that bad history to college freshmen!
-Michael
-
Well ... I liked it. It was a good film, well cast with some really nice performances. As far as renditions to date of Henry V campaigns and Agincourt I'd dare say it's the best so far.
Nothing like Agincourt at all. Although the "arrow storm" experiment did not take place in 2015 at the reenactment we have a goof idea of what it might have looked like and the arrow storm on The King was utterly misleading. Archers were used to ***disrupt*** charges, to cause disruption and disorder.
What it wasn't was very historical and for the life of me I will never understand or agree with movie script writers re-writing history to suit their idea of whatever story they think they are telling. Poor brother Thomas - killed off by the script writers years earlier and in the wrong country. Truly?
Yeah, it's funny though- I can almost forgive them for making this decision as before the Perry Plastics had come out who had heard of Battle of Baugé? Probably only a few of us on this forum. (I'm not blowing my own trumpet. I've been obsessed with Late Medieval warfare for 20-30 years!)
Battle of Baugé
What's fascinating ifs the spin that Henry V is a reluctant war hero who was tricked into war with France. And here was me thinking he was a bloody-minded warmongering warrior King who continued to wage aggressive war in France for years after Agincourt including what we might see as an atrocity against innocent civilians at Rouen - civilians whom he was claiming to be his subjects.
[/quote]
Undoubtedly there were many in England who were desperate to get back into fisticuffs with France. Henry V was a psycho when it came to war so you can include him in that cabal!! ;)
Good device to add to the plot though not that well executed but I suspect that the editing process may have been responsible for this as the idea rang true throughout the movie- even to the point of where Queen Katherine was elucidating his self deception near the climax.
I've got to stop talking about this movie, I'm going to end up watching it again! lol (TBH, I will and I will enjoy it too) :)
-
Pretty good I thought. Bit slow, and wasn’t too keen on the reimagining of Falstaff as the gallant hero, but hey, the guy playing Falstaff was also the writer and producer, so what can you do... ;)
Brian Blessed as Flastaff or noone. ;)
-
The problem with things like this is that it makes me start looking covetously at things like the Perry plastics. I read the Juliet Barker book 'Conquest' a few years ago and ever since then I've contemplated getting some figures for this period...
-
Just watched it. A useful reminder of how good Shakespeare is (not that I needed it after seeing Gandalf as Lear last year).
-
Brian Blessed as Falstaff or no one. ;)
He was the Earl of Essex, if you're talking about the movie.
-
Watched it. Got bored halfway and skipped to the end. I have seen fights between my cats that were more epic.
What type do you keep? Mine just skirmish.
-
He was the Earl of Essex, if you're talking about the movie.
The was also the Duke of Exeter......
-
True. Oops.
-
FierceKitty: "Just watched it. A useful reminder of how good Shakespeare is (not that I needed it after seeing Gandalf as Lear last year). "
Jealous!
FierceKitty: "What type do you keep? Mine just skirmish."
Ours too... but in their heads, they're thinking "Agincourt!".
-Michael
-
I must admit - I burst out in uncontrolable sobbing at the end (which set off at least one other person near me).
-
Great flick. I quite liked the reinvention of Falstaff.
-
Great flick. I quite liked the reinvention of Falstaff.
The real career of Sir John Fastolf is a much more gripping story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fastolf (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fastolf)
Great book:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Falstaff-Fastolf-Hundred-Years-ebook/dp/B008O8HXNM/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Sir+John+Fastolf&qid=1573488190&s=books&sr=1-2 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Falstaff-Fastolf-Hundred-Years-ebook/dp/B008O8HXNM/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Sir+John+Fastolf&qid=1573488190&s=books&sr=1-2)
-
Great book:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Falstaff-Fastolf-Hundred-Years-ebook/dp/B008O8HXNM/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Sir+John+Fastolf&qid=1573488190&s=books&sr=1-2 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Falstaff-Fastolf-Hundred-Years-ebook/dp/B008O8HXNM/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Sir+John+Fastolf&qid=1573488190&s=books&sr=1-2)
Be putting that on to buy list!
Cheers
Matt
-
I cant comment on any historic inaccuraties, but I found it somewhat dull.
The french prince was badle written. He was so obviously evil that it was bordering on silly, he might as well have been a vampire.
I dont know a lot of history, but even I knew enough history to know that the big battle was Agincourt and I think most people who would watch the movie figured this out as well.
They really didnt need the french prince going "This litttle village of Agincourt..." spoken in a carricature french accent more suitable for 'Allo 'Allo.
The duel between Henry and Hotspur was great, I loved that it wasnt epic and felt more realistic. The battle of Agincourt was well done too.
I feel the movie could would have been better with more battles. If you dont aim for historic accurracy (as I can see many critics claiming) at least aim for some action. Whats the point of diverging from history if you're not making the movie more interesting?
-
I quite liked it. Agincourt was decent, much of it looked vaguely accurate historically and although the plot contained a lot of creative fiction it's not a documentary and some of the set piece dramatics were entertaining. Pattison was a bit silly but that was partly the point. This stuff is always going to be judged against Gladiator and Braveheart. Both brilliant films of historic fantasy. This never hits their heights but it's a bold and ambitious movie with a surprisingly convincing lead performance. It's loads better than Outlaw King, which had its decent moments but was largely a dull two hours-plus of men scowling between brief moments of excitement.
-
"This litttle village of Agincourt..." spoken in a carricature french accent more suitable for 'Allo 'Allo.
The duel between Henry and Hotspur was great, I loved that it wasnt epic and felt more realistic. The battle of Agincourt was well done too.
Particularly as, being French, he would have called it Azincourt. That doesn't seem to be what has riled the French, however:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/04/director-agincourt-museum-says-netflixs-king-anti-french-will/
-
Thanks for that link, Andrew.
One thing in it struck my interest: "Recent research dismisses as well wide of the mark Shakespeare’s claims that Henry’s “happy few” defeated a French army that outnumbered his men by five to one. The figures were most likely 12,000 French to as many as 9,000 English, they say."
?? Can't say I haven't read all of the recent literature, but I have read some and I haven't seen any that put the forces this close together in numbers. Anyone have some insight on this argument?
-
Sounds like the usual "Oh, God, I'll never get tenure if I don't find a topic for my Ph.D." syndrome.
-
Thanks for that link, Andrew.
One thing in it struck my interest: "Recent research dismisses as well wide of the mark Shakespeare’s claims that Henry’s “happy few” defeated a French army that outnumbered his men by five to one. The figures were most likely 12,000 French to as many as 9,000 English, they say."
?? Can't say I haven't read all of the recent literature, but I have read some and I haven't seen any that put the forces this close together in numbers. Anyone have some insight on this argument?
Educated 'guestimates', which is all we can do, have varied over the years but I think that if you read Agincourt, A New History, Prof. Anne Curry, Tempus 2005 you will find the most in depth study of the numbers of French at the battle that is available. Anne Curry is one of the foremost academics in this field and unfortunately and trhis study is head and shoulders above, for example, the popular history of Juliet Barker.
-
It's fair to say that little thought is given in the UK to French thinking - and feeling - about the Hundred Years' War, and I'm sure some exposure to the French point of view may be constructive, while bearing in mind the adage, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" (Furthermore, they still haven't apologised for the Norman Conquest, while continuing to gripe about the - very real - depredations of English armies a few hundred years later).
I'm far from well versed in the scholarship of the period, but I noted with interest Bernard Cornwell's historical note to his novel Azincourt (sic), in which he addressed the recent trend to downsize the French numbers at the battle. In short, he said that, if the smaller estimates are correct, the battle is "an impostor". There has to be a reason the English victory caused such a shock wave at the time, and made the French so wary of giving battle thereafter. If Henry's army wasn't dramatically outnumbered and crippled by dysentery, what was it?
-
I have also noticed some people are quite creative about counting the numbers of the French Army, deciding to omit troops who were present but weren't actively committed on the day! Quite an imaginative way of depicting the size of a force I must say.
-
Thanks. Barker and Curry were in fact the two things I have read recently.
I like the "they still haven't apologised for the Norman Conquest" observation, Andrew.
-Michael
-
Sounds like the usual "Oh, God, I'll never get tenure if I don't find a topic for my Ph.D." syndrome.
lol
-
Just watched it. Happy that i didnt pay 14 dollers to see it in the theater. lol
-
It's like somebody made a film after looking at "my pop up book of henry" and that's it.
-
I'm sure the museum referred to in the Daily Telegraph article is well worth a visit, and the French scholarship may well bring a more balanced and nuanced perspective, but I can't help wondering how far the revisionism will go; how long before they claim Agincourt as a victory, for example? Excuse my cynicism.
-
Revisionist history always seems to follow fashionable perspectives, designed to smooth over sensibilities rather than clarify fact.
-
Very true. New perspectives can be stimulating and aid understanding, but they don't always provide real insight, except into the author's mindset, which can sometimes be little more than a cry for attention. Not too cynical, I hope.
-
"Revisionist history" is one of those phrases that tends to raise hackles ("political correctness" is another one), but basically it just means reexamining received historical dogma and offering some significant new interpretation or emphasis. Some revisionist ideas die a relatively quick death (“the Roman Empire fell because they all had led poisoning from the lead water pipes in their houses!” didn’t last long as archaeologists unhelpfully pointed out that the Romans pretty much always used ceramic pipes to carry water). Other revisionist ideas gain traction because they correct genuine flaws in previous interpretations. The historiography on the causes of the English Civil was first dominated by the “Whig” interpretation (it was all the Stuarts’ fault, the dandified losers), which was in turn replaced by the Marxist interpretation (it was all about class struggle, actually). The flaw in both interpretations is that they largely ignored the importance of religion in the equation, which historians in the last couple of decades have very effectively argued was extremely important to the outbreak of the war.
Another example is the growing number of (mostly British) historians – including J.M. Bourne and Brian Bond - who have been arguing that the traditional “lions led by donkeys” interpretation of British generals in WWI is seriously flawed in many ways. I have found their arguments to be very convincing.
The most annoying thing about the phrase “revisionist history” for me is how often it is overused – usually by publishers hawking a book they have just published.
-Michael
-
I'm sure the museum referred to in the Daily Telegraph article is well worth a visit,
It is, small but well put together. The battlefield is well worth a tour, it’s largely the same as 1415.
-
"Revisionist history" is one of those phrases that tends to raise hackles ("political correctness" is another one), but basically it just means reexamining received historical dogma and offering some significant new interpretation or emphasis.
True enough, I must say Mike Snooks' book 'How Can Man Die Better' is a superb work that clears up a lot of myths and inconsistencies about Isandlwana, so I have to concede that sometimes it does work!
-
Didn't enjoy it at all. The leading part just didn't cut the mustard portraying a warrior King. The Historical absence was for all to see, and the fiction plot was just slow and boring.
On the plus side, it's promising that Netflix are attempting to create historical subjects, I quite enjoyed Outlaw King.
-
The Mike Snooks book sounds interesting, Cubs; I'll look for it.
-Michael
-
I liked the film.
But then again I am not burdened with a huge knowledge about all the characters and I have no national pride riding on it either. I felt it was a fine action movie set in a medieval setting with a Shakespeareish twist. For "Hollywood" the costumes and sets were very good. And so were the fight scenes. Fighting in armor 9 out of 10 times end with a struggle on the ground and with someone getting shanked by a dagger. They even used halfswording techniques as shown by medieval manuscripts to be the correct way to use your sword when fighting armored opponents.
-
I thought this could be a pretty decent based on the production value. Honestly as someone with interest in both film and this period and deeper than average(but not scholarly) knowledge of both, I thought it was fine, not good , not egregiously bad, just fine. (what sort of nobleman goes to battle without armour, also the dauphin falling over was funny and pathetic in equal measure but didnt make sense considering that plenty of other men and been wrestling over that patch seconds ago wearing full armour)
My take aways were that it made me want to paint more of my HYW french(huzzah for motivation from unexpected places), and that Timothee Chalamet is a solid actor for someone I'd not heard of before. I'm getting more cautiously hopeful as a result that the new Dune might actually be good.
-
Finally got round to seeing it … oh dear.
About and hour and a half in, I really liked it (the head-scratcher Battle of Shrewsbury aside). It seemed well acted (even Robert Pattinson's OTT cabaret act as the Dauphin was well done I thought and Henry V's diminutive stature didn't bother me too much), visually it was great, I enjoyed the slightly archaic (but not too archaic) dialogue and the fight scenes choreography was nasty and dirty.
But then it went weird. The 'take' on Agincourt (eh?), the complete re-write of Henry V as a peacemaker (eh?), the bizarre duel with the Dauphin (eh?) and that bit of touchy-feely, "Let's sing Kumbaya sat in a circle" complete nonsense at the end … sheesh. It left me feeling the same way as when I watched 'Highlander II' - it somehow managed to completely undo all the good up to that point for me.
As a standalone film, with medieval characters rewritten for modern sensibilities, I can see how people might enjoy it. But for me the fact that it got so close and then soured it, made it all the more disappointing.
-
If the measure of a good movie can be made by watching it again then I managed another 52 minutes before I gave up.
Sorry, it just lacks the requisite dynamism and tension to keep me on song.