Top 10 Things The King Got Factually Right & Wrong
video description
Date: 2023-11-20
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 30
Yann
Disgusting latest example of frenchbashing.
Here are a few FACTS that you missed:
- The English forces were not approximately 5000 but 8 000, The French forces were not between 30 000 and 100 000 (are you mad ) but at most 15 000.
- King Henry V was neither a humanist nor a pacifist. The real Henry V was known for being belligerent, aggressive and cruel.
- King Henry did not look like Chalamet, he wore an ugly scar on the right cheek.
- The war against France was not the result of a plot against the King, but rather the continuity of the foreign policy of his ancestors, claiming the rights of the English crown on the throne of France. Henri V wanted to establish his legitimacy.
- During the battle of Azincourt, he had all the French prisoners executed, most of them gathered in barns and burned alive, slit their throats or their heads crushed with the blows of the masses. The next day, he had all French survivors on the battlefield slaughtered.
- He reduced the population of Rouen to famine during the siege of the city from July 1418 to January 1419, killing 35, 000 people in six months.
- The siege of Harfleur was the scene of bloody fights, contrary to what the film suggests. The French exits were numerous and the English losses amounted to more than a thousand men.
- The intervention in the film of the Dauphin de France, Louis de Guyenne, is fanciful. He was never present either at the siege of Harfleur or at the battle of Azincourt. Moreover, the caricatural version of this character, interpreted by Robert Pattinson, presents him as a rude, arrogant, idiot, cruel and brutal character. This vision is far from reality: Louis de Guyenne, Dauphin de France, who died at the age of eighteen two months after the battle of Azincourt, was a devout and obliterated young man with fragile health.
- The battle of Azincourt did not take place in such a hilly and green place, as the film shows, but on fallow fields and ploughing in plain. In addition, it was the English who held the heights, not the French as the film suggests.
Another example of the British rewriting History in their favor.
2017: Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk.
2019: David Michod's The King.
And when you think about the outrage in the UK regarding the U-571 movie. What a joke. Ever heard of the metaphor of the straw and the beam?
British historical movies seem to be made as some kind of porn movies. This their way of jerking off.
Not that US historical movies have any more value.
reply
Disgusting latest example of frenchbashing.
Here are a few FACTS that you missed:
- The English forces were not approximately 5000 but 8 000, The French forces were not between 30 000 and 100 000 (are you mad ) but at most 15 000.
- King Henry V was neither a humanist nor a pacifist. The real Henry V was known for being belligerent, aggressive and cruel.
- King Henry did not look like Chalamet, he wore an ugly scar on the right cheek.
- The war against France was not the result of a plot against the King, but rather the continuity of the foreign policy of his ancestors, claiming the rights of the English crown on the throne of France. Henri V wanted to establish his legitimacy.
- During the battle of Azincourt, he had all the French prisoners executed, most of them gathered in barns and burned alive, slit their throats or their heads crushed with the blows of the masses. The next day, he had all French survivors on the battlefield slaughtered.
- He reduced the population of Rouen to famine during the siege of the city from July 1418 to January 1419, killing 35, 000 people in six months.
- The siege of Harfleur was the scene of bloody fights, contrary to what the film suggests. The French exits were numerous and the English losses amounted to more than a thousand men.
- The intervention in the film of the Dauphin de France, Louis de Guyenne, is fanciful. He was never present either at the siege of Harfleur or at the battle of Azincourt. Moreover, the caricatural version of this character, interpreted by Robert Pattinson, presents him as a rude, arrogant, idiot, cruel and brutal character. This vision is far from reality: Louis de Guyenne, Dauphin de France, who died at the age of eighteen two months after the battle of Azincourt, was a devout and obliterated young man with fragile health.
- The battle of Azincourt did not take place in such a hilly and green place, as the film shows, but on fallow fields and ploughing in plain. In addition, it was the English who held the heights, not the French as the film suggests.
Another example of the British rewriting History in their favor.
2017: Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk.
2019: David Michod's The King.
And when you think about the outrage in the UK regarding the U-571 movie. What a joke. Ever heard of the metaphor of the straw and the beam?
British historical movies seem to be made as some kind of porn movies. This their way of jerking off.
Not that US historical movies have any more value.
reply
Dr.
These sort of dramas are still far removed from reality and please take Shakespeare out of the picture wholemeal.
Many monarchs and sons didn't get along Edward1 and 2nd, George1 and 2nd, and the Coeur de Lion and John wanted rid of their father
as soon as possible in a permanent way and Queens and sisters weren't to clever either. But to take Henry 5 for example he was horribly
facially disfigured after the battle of Shrewsbury and no mention of his sometimes bodyguard and enforcer a large short tempered Welshman
who was very good with a large hammer called Davy Gamm who was with him almost all of the time. see what i mean.
reply
These sort of dramas are still far removed from reality and please take Shakespeare out of the picture wholemeal.
Many monarchs and sons didn't get along Edward1 and 2nd, George1 and 2nd, and the Coeur de Lion and John wanted rid of their father
as soon as possible in a permanent way and Queens and sisters weren't to clever either. But to take Henry 5 for example he was horribly
facially disfigured after the battle of Shrewsbury and no mention of his sometimes bodyguard and enforcer a large short tempered Welshman
who was very good with a large hammer called Davy Gamm who was with him almost all of the time. see what i mean.
reply
fanjoy
The French did not have 100, 000 soldiers. it was actually closer to 13, 000. French financial records of the time have often suggested that. Not to mention that 13, 000 men was considered a large army of its era. It was also recorded that the battle took place on the morning following a very unpleasant night, with heavy rain. Henry realised very early on that Cavalry was going to be severely hindered in a now boggy quagmire of ploughed fields. The French sustained very heavy casualties at the hands of British Longbowmen.
I studied Henry V in school, and was fascinated by the history of his campaigns.
reply
The French did not have 100, 000 soldiers. it was actually closer to 13, 000. French financial records of the time have often suggested that. Not to mention that 13, 000 men was considered a large army of its era. It was also recorded that the battle took place on the morning following a very unpleasant night, with heavy rain. Henry realised very early on that Cavalry was going to be severely hindered in a now boggy quagmire of ploughed fields. The French sustained very heavy casualties at the hands of British Longbowmen.
I studied Henry V in school, and was fascinated by the history of his campaigns.
reply
Carlos
. Henry had a disadvantage with only about 5000 men at his side. The French, meanwhile, had somewhere between 30000 and 100000
Wrong. Most scholars today agree that those numbers were exaggerated by contemporaneous English sources to depict the battle as even more epic. While some current English scholars agree today that the proportion was 7000: 20000, some French scholars draw a 9000: 12000 proportion. The real number must be in between, but what it is undoubted is that the English were outnumbered.
reply
. Henry had a disadvantage with only about 5000 men at his side. The French, meanwhile, had somewhere between 30000 and 100000
Wrong. Most scholars today agree that those numbers were exaggerated by contemporaneous English sources to depict the battle as even more epic. While some current English scholars agree today that the proportion was 7000: 20000, some French scholars draw a 9000: 12000 proportion. The real number must be in between, but what it is undoubted is that the English were outnumbered.
reply
wrxstigoabs
How about pronouncing the French name of the battle at the heart of the Henry V story (Agincourt) correctly (Agincore) and get the estimates of French soldiers even close. Most scholarly estimates have 30, 000 as the upper limit and none get anywhere close to 100, 000. The King is a gripping semi-fictional drama based on Shakespeares semi fictional play. This clip does a good job at separating fact from fiction
reply
How about pronouncing the French name of the battle at the heart of the Henry V story (Agincourt) correctly (Agincore) and get the estimates of French soldiers even close. Most scholarly estimates have 30, 000 as the upper limit and none get anywhere close to 100, 000. The King is a gripping semi-fictional drama based on Shakespeares semi fictional play. This clip does a good job at separating fact from fiction
reply
Teri
I don't really care how much is truth. it's a movie from LaLaLand. This movie made me want to learn more about Henry's life, so I researched. Thatbeingsaid, this is the best movie I've seen in years: the script, photography, period attire, and OMG the acting: Chalamet, Edgerton, Pattinson, Depp, Mendelsohn, Harris. This film should inspire a cult following and be known as Chalamet's claim to real fame.
reply
I don't really care how much is truth. it's a movie from LaLaLand. This movie made me want to learn more about Henry's life, so I researched. Thatbeingsaid, this is the best movie I've seen in years: the script, photography, period attire, and OMG the acting: Chalamet, Edgerton, Pattinson, Depp, Mendelsohn, Harris. This film should inspire a cult following and be known as Chalamet's claim to real fame.
reply
Tim
Good vid describing which aspects of the film were factual and which strayed away from history. But the Right & Wrong part of this vid's title makes it sound like the creators of The King were ignorant and incompetent, which is far from the truth. They knew exactly what parts were factual and where they were taking liberties. This vid should amend the title to read Fact vs. Fiction instead.
reply
Good vid describing which aspects of the film were factual and which strayed away from history. But the Right & Wrong part of this vid's title makes it sound like the creators of The King were ignorant and incompetent, which is far from the truth. They knew exactly what parts were factual and where they were taking liberties. This vid should amend the title to read Fact vs. Fiction instead.
reply
Owen
In the battle of Agincourt, Henry had more than 5, 000 men. I think you meant to say cavalry and heavy armoured knights. But even then, the numbers for those were 6-7, 000. Furthermore the battle in the film did not happen the way it did in reality. So the battle in the film may aswell be completed fiction, as it is more fictitiously presented than it being true to life
reply
In the battle of Agincourt, Henry had more than 5, 000 men. I think you meant to say cavalry and heavy armoured knights. But even then, the numbers for those were 6-7, 000. Furthermore the battle in the film did not happen the way it did in reality. So the battle in the film may aswell be completed fiction, as it is more fictitiously presented than it being true to life
reply
Daniela
Oh, I hated Hal for basically abandoning and betraying Falstaff in the Shakespeare play (which was represented again in My Own Private Idaho, with Keanu Reeves playing the Hal character. I was surprised to see, then, that in this version Hal doesn't betray Falstaff. I know it's not historically accurate, but it makes for some great drama, in both cases.
reply
Oh, I hated Hal for basically abandoning and betraying Falstaff in the Shakespeare play (which was represented again in My Own Private Idaho, with Keanu Reeves playing the Hal character. I was surprised to see, then, that in this version Hal doesn't betray Falstaff. I know it's not historically accurate, but it makes for some great drama, in both cases.
reply
Raphal
Lmao the dauphin of france was so sick that he could not move from his bed and this was a shy guy, really respectful, some parts are also false like the battle where the french had not the high ground, it was the english and the way of how the king is show is funny because he actually kill the french prisonners after the battle lol
reply
Lmao the dauphin of france was so sick that he could not move from his bed and this was a shy guy, really respectful, some parts are also false like the battle where the french had not the high ground, it was the english and the way of how the king is show is funny because he actually kill the french prisonners after the battle lol
reply
Dominique
The movie is pathetic, it is even less historical than 300! Every moment in the film is false, Henry V was a brute, he is the first kind to execute noble prisoners (an absolute shame at the time. Finally, and in spite of Azincourt, the English started losing the war with Henry V, and for more political than military reasons.
reply
The movie is pathetic, it is even less historical than 300! Every moment in the film is false, Henry V was a brute, he is the first kind to execute noble prisoners (an absolute shame at the time. Finally, and in spite of Azincourt, the English started losing the war with Henry V, and for more political than military reasons.
reply
Clockwork
The French actually wanted to fight the English forces 'honorably'. They would charge in with chivalry to ride the English down. But the English men used the terrain and weathee to their advantage, and basically killed chivalry. Certainly a smart move on Henry's account, but he destroyed honorable warfare there and then.
reply
The French actually wanted to fight the English forces 'honorably'. They would charge in with chivalry to ride the English down. But the English men used the terrain and weathee to their advantage, and basically killed chivalry. Certainly a smart move on Henry's account, but he destroyed honorable warfare there and then.
reply
MrTangolizard
Still a good movie but anyone who reads history will see a lot of holes in it the crime is that some of the holes such as putting archers behind spikes would have been so easy to do it just seems pointless to not do Henrys v speech before battle was very well done as well nothing like the original but still very good
reply
Still a good movie but anyone who reads history will see a lot of holes in it the crime is that some of the holes such as putting archers behind spikes would have been so easy to do it just seems pointless to not do Henrys v speech before battle was very well done as well nothing like the original but still very good
reply
daylon
No mention on how they butchered the battle of Agincourt? The one battle we know most about and they butchered it. Had infantry march out to face cavalry and the archers had no protection on their flanks. In real life the archers fired from the flanks not up into the air. No point in wasting your arrows raining down arrows
reply
No mention on how they butchered the battle of Agincourt? The one battle we know most about and they butchered it. Had infantry march out to face cavalry and the archers had no protection on their flanks. In real life the archers fired from the flanks not up into the air. No point in wasting your arrows raining down arrows
reply
mooppy
Guys these videos are good and all but I want to remind everyone that The King is played out on how Shakespeare portrayed it.
That being said the movie is of course gonna have a lot of plot holes compared to the real thing and plus it is always hard to condense such a massive story in a 1 hour and some change film.
reply
Guys these videos are good and all but I want to remind everyone that The King is played out on how Shakespeare portrayed it.
That being said the movie is of course gonna have a lot of plot holes compared to the real thing and plus it is always hard to condense such a massive story in a 1 hour and some change film.
reply
Ron
When people whine about historical accurateness of events that took place over six hundred years ago it really cracks me up you think they know what was said between two people in a closed room conversations that were had and what not. No they don't they take liberties with a story and write it their own way
reply
When people whine about historical accurateness of events that took place over six hundred years ago it really cracks me up you think they know what was said between two people in a closed room conversations that were had and what not. No they don't they take liberties with a story and write it their own way
reply
Fantasy
Its not meant to really be an accurate historical story. Its a retelling of the Shakespearean play Henry V. Which is also not historically accurate. I liked to movie though, the ending was lame though. It should have ended with him standing on the boat as England became visible on the Horizon.
reply
Its not meant to really be an accurate historical story. Its a retelling of the Shakespearean play Henry V. Which is also not historically accurate. I liked to movie though, the ending was lame though. It should have ended with him standing on the boat as England became visible on the Horizon.
reply
TheFiresloth
100 000 men is a completely fictional number too. It would simply not have been possible at this time to have such a huge army in a western European country.
Historians put the actual numbers of the French between 12 and 20 000 men, probably 14 000. The English had 7000.
reply
100 000 men is a completely fictional number too. It would simply not have been possible at this time to have such a huge army in a western European country.
Historians put the actual numbers of the French between 12 and 20 000 men, probably 14 000. The English had 7000.
reply
M.
THANK YOU mojo! For once youve been helpful. Been looking for information on this movie for ages.
Besides the fact that not much has been historically accurate you gotta admit that the resemblance of Tim and Henry is enormous. Not to mention the acting. Still a brilliant movie
reply
THANK YOU mojo! For once youve been helpful. Been looking for information on this movie for ages.
Besides the fact that not much has been historically accurate you gotta admit that the resemblance of Tim and Henry is enormous. Not to mention the acting. Still a brilliant movie
reply
Herv
10: 03 John Falstaff didn't exist? Please read The real Falstaff, by Stephen Cooper. John Fastolf, yes Fastolf, was a captain of Henry V defending Harfleur while Henry was at Agincourt. Fleeing the battlefield of Patay in 1429, he was accused of cowardice and put under trial.
reply
10: 03 John Falstaff didn't exist? Please read The real Falstaff, by Stephen Cooper. John Fastolf, yes Fastolf, was a captain of Henry V defending Harfleur while Henry was at Agincourt. Fleeing the battlefield of Patay in 1429, he was accused of cowardice and put under trial.
reply
Gwenn
You got the numbers wrong in the end: D France didn't field between 30 000 and 100 000 men, France would have never been able to field 100 000 men in the middle ages! Modern historians estimate french army between 12 000 and 36 000 men, and English one between 6000 and 9000.
reply
You got the numbers wrong in the end: D France didn't field between 30 000 and 100 000 men, France would have never been able to field 100 000 men in the middle ages! Modern historians estimate french army between 12 000 and 36 000 men, and English one between 6000 and 9000.
reply
Willem
Not sure where you got your info but the French never had 30k-100k troops during that time. If they had 30k fighting troops, there was no way that Henry could have won that battle at all.
The French had roughly about 15k fighting men, the rest were servants.
reply
Not sure where you got your info but the French never had 30k-100k troops during that time. If they had 30k fighting troops, there was no way that Henry could have won that battle at all.
The French had roughly about 15k fighting men, the rest were servants.
reply
Paul
The other video I watched has some discrepancies. That the Dauphin and other French leaders actually did act like bullies. It also said the tennis ball is, in their words Almost certainly true. I'm not saying they're right. But someone has some facts mixed up.
reply
The other video I watched has some discrepancies. That the Dauphin and other French leaders actually did act like bullies. It also said the tennis ball is, in their words Almost certainly true. I'm not saying they're right. But someone has some facts mixed up.
reply
Ryan
30 to 100, 000 French vrs 5, 000 English? More like 12, 000 French. receipts and documents during the years mentioned only had the French with 6, 000 paid soldiers scrapping up the rest once the BRITs landed in France. so they probably only had around 12, 000
reply
30 to 100, 000 French vrs 5, 000 English? More like 12, 000 French. receipts and documents during the years mentioned only had the French with 6, 000 paid soldiers scrapping up the rest once the BRITs landed in France. so they probably only had around 12, 000
reply
TooTall
Your numbers at Agincourt are WAAAAY off. Henry had roughly 8-9k troops, and the French had between 18-25k. The French did not have 30-100k soldiers, and you should really check the source (or trash it) which gave you this ridiculous number.
reply
Your numbers at Agincourt are WAAAAY off. Henry had roughly 8-9k troops, and the French had between 18-25k. The French did not have 30-100k soldiers, and you should really check the source (or trash it) which gave you this ridiculous number.
reply
Phileas
MsMojo Wow! This episode is really dull. Making it out of a dull film did not help. Why was this episode necessary?
Pattinson was really bad and whose idea was it to disrespect the French by having him speak English in a French accent?
reply
MsMojo Wow! This episode is really dull. Making it out of a dull film did not help. Why was this episode necessary?
Pattinson was really bad and whose idea was it to disrespect the French by having him speak English in a French accent?
reply
2Hard4MeGAMING
A 100000 French soldiers? First, they weren't soldiers, they were mostly knights, secondly, there were at most 15 000 French men during the Battle of Agincourt, not a 100000. A little fact checking would have gone a long way.
reply
A 100000 French soldiers? First, they weren't soldiers, they were mostly knights, secondly, there were at most 15 000 French men during the Battle of Agincourt, not a 100000. A little fact checking would have gone a long way.
reply
Vladyslav
I genuinely dont get why this movie is so inaccurate. Historical events seem to have been even more exciting, so I dont understand why would anyone make a movie based on historical events thats less exciting than actual events.
reply
I genuinely dont get why this movie is so inaccurate. Historical events seem to have been even more exciting, so I dont understand why would anyone make a movie based on historical events thats less exciting than actual events.
reply
Luke
This is basically a movie on the play by Shakespeare with some hollywood added in. It wasn't meant to be historically accurate, though there are many accurate parts in it. It was a great movie overall. I was impressed.
reply
This is basically a movie on the play by Shakespeare with some hollywood added in. It wasn't meant to be historically accurate, though there are many accurate parts in it. It was a great movie overall. I was impressed.
reply
Thunderworks
It's typically an english thing to end a movie with their last major victory of the war, despite the fact that the war is not over and they lose decisives battles at the end (Orleans, Patay, Formigny, Castillon)
reply
It's typically an english thing to end a movie with their last major victory of the war, despite the fact that the war is not over and they lose decisives battles at the end (Orleans, Patay, Formigny, Castillon)
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
