Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just watched the film and it’s good but I am left scratching my head at a few bits. Two little questions.

Why did anybody bother using cavalry if a small ditch could stop a cavalry charge? Surely this would happen at every big pitched or set piece battle? Why bother investing in the armour and the horses if a few peasants with shovels could easily beat you? The film implies there’s some threat from these heavy knights but it never provides any context for why a cavalry charge would be dangerous within the film itself.

Also I don’t like how Hollywood depicts Knights. It’s very much the whole Agincourt thing where fighting in armour on horse is depicted as this ritualised form of chivalry as opposed to “real fighting”. As if for a few millennia people were just being stupid and playing at war. Basically in Outlaw King the Scots win because they’re fighting dirty. But wasn’t “normal” Knightly combat pretty vicious anyway? Plus aren’t Bruce and Douglas also Nobles and Knights? The way they talk about “the Knights” is done in a way to make it seem like they’re normal peasants fighting against entitled aristocrats; which isn’t really case. Really one group of Knights/Men at Arms is on foot and the other is on horses?

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Why did anybody bother using cavalry if a small ditch could stop a cavalry charge?

Because contrary to popular belief, not everyone in the "warrior" class of a "warrior society" is actually any good at the whole "war" part. The film actually isn't that far off from what actually happened at the Battle of Loudoun Hill. Robert the Bruce lured English cavalry into a slaughter by have a much better understanding of the terrain than his enemy. He dug ditches in front of his lines, and the area around Loudoun hill gave the opposing general no other means of approach but that one direction (which happened to be through a bog). It's also similar to how William Wallace and Andrew Moray won at Stirling Bridge, though in that case the "ditch" was a river loop and a bridge.

If it helps, the English did eventually learn. The way Robert won Loudoun Hill is close enough to how the English beat the French at Agincourt as to be nearly identical. They charged into thick mud a day after heavy ran, got bogged down, and murdered. The popular saying is that an entire generation of French nobility died at Agincourt to English peasants. An exaggeration, but a good way of framing the culture shock that came from something that to us in hindsight was an obviously bad idea. The age of the Knight and horse as dominating elements of the battlefield was ending.

So, yes, this series of loose events did happen thrice in history, all of the ones I know of involving the English! It's almost like they learned or something and then applied the lesson on the French

Surely this would happen at every big pitched or set piece battle?

No general can control the weather, and not every general is going to get to take full advantage of terrain the way Robert did.

Basically in Outlaw King the Scots win because they’re fighting dirty.

That is basically how they won, in the movie and IRL. Robert the Bruce's army was a mere 600 men fighting an English force of 3,000+. It's the kind of victory legends are made of.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Why did anybody bother using cavalry if a small ditch could stop a cavalry charge?

Because contrary to popular belief, not everyone in the "warrior" class of a "warrior society" is actually any good at the whole "war" part. The film actually isn't that far off from what actually happened at the Battle of Loudoun Hill. Robert the Bruce lured English cavalry into a slaughter by have a much better understanding of the terrain than his enemy. He dug ditches in front of his lines, and the area around Loudoun hill gave the opposing general no other means of approach but that one direction (which happened to be through a bog). It's also similar to how William Wallace and Andrew Moray won at Stirling Bridge, though in that case the "ditch" was a river loop and a bridge.

If it helps, the English did eventually learn. The way Robert won Loudoun Hill is close enough to how the English beat the French at Agincourt as to be nearly identical. They charged into thick mud a day after heavy ran, got bogged down, and murdered. The popular saying is that an entire generation of French nobility died at Agincourt to English peasants. An exaggeration, but a good way of framing the culture shock that came from something that to us in hindsight was an obviously bad idea. The age of the Knight and horse as dominating elements of the battlefield was ending.

So, yes, this series of loose events did happen thrice in history, all of the ones I know of involving the English! It's almost like they learned or something and then applied the lesson on the French

Surely this would happen at every big pitched or set piece battle?

No general can control the weather, and not every general is going to get to take full advantage of terrain the way Robert did.

Basically in Outlaw King the Scots win because they’re fighting dirty.

That is basically how they won, in the movie and IRL. Robert the Bruce's army was a mere 600 men fighting an English force of 3,000+. It's the kind of victory legends are made of.

The earthworks they use aren’t particularly big or difficult to build though. Why didn’t every ancient, medieval army or early modern army do this before fighting cavalry? Plus, the show doesn’t explain the advantages, if any, of putting guys on horses in heavy armour and charging into people. This makes it seem like a stupid tactic at all at all times. I am assuming there were occasions where knights just charged into infantry and ran them down?

The weather isn’t that relevant. Most of the soldiers die because they fall into the ditch.

It’s makes for a good story but I think it’s a little disingenuous. The audience look at romanticised depictions of cavalry charges and assume that “real war” is nothing like that. But they don’t question the romanticised aspects, they question the use of cavalry and armour at all; which isn’t considering the context in which they were used. Basically weren’t all medieval battles brutal and bloody affairs where every side was trying to murder the other? I think this is the story playing to preconceptions people already have. Heavy cavalry in the 10th century is not the same as heavy cavalry in the 20th century.

To use a crappy version of this kind of story. When Bron fights the Knight of the Vale in Game of Thrones. He makes a witty remark that the Knight fought with honour because he lumbered about in his plate for a minute before falling over. How was the guy being chivalrous exactly? He wasn’t holding back, he didn’t do any kind of curtsy. It’s a case of just throwing a Knight against a mercenary in a straight up duel and just blurting out an inane sentiment to score brownie points. This is why the show plays down that the cast are part of the Scottish nobility and “Knights” themselves. The same thing happens with. the North in Thrones where they look like normal people with Yorkshire accents so you assume they’re on the people’s side (unlike Outlaw King) the Starks do absolutely nothing to back that preconception up. I just consider those aspects of a story to be almost manipulative.

One of the big powers of mounted knights is the fear factor (still seen today when mounted police are used in demonstrations), it's really hard to stay put when many tons of horse comes thundering towards you

it takes bravery and even more importantly training which a lot of medieval armies just didn't have as the footsoldiers were often levies with minimal military experience,

one of the reason Robert the Bruce did so well was he spent the time training his men to fight in a schiltron (pike formation) so their automatic response to flee a cavalry charge became one of standing strong and 'hiding' behind their pike screen

it's one of the reasons that mercenary companies could command their pay because they tended to be experienced fighters so (assuming they were paid on time, and didn't think their paymaster would loose the battle) they would stand and fight rather than run

most likely as those battles were very much exceptions and why they are still remembered

the thousands of other battles where knights went full rohirrim on poor footsloggers with fup all chance most likely wouldn't be a good tale and a tad ye olde tymes Omaha in terms of splattery unpleasentness

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


The earthworks they use aren’t particularly big or difficult to build though. Why didn’t every ancient, medieval army or early modern army do this before fighting cavalry? Plus, the show doesn’t explain the advantages, if any, of putting guys on horses in heavy armour and charging into people. This makes it seem like a stupid tactic at all at all times. I am assuming there were occasions where knights just charged into infantry and ran them down?

Most did, or at least attempted to. The issue is that its next to impossible to protect an entire army from a heavy cavalry charge. Give heavy horse even a few dozen meters of space and they'll punch through your line, wheel around and overrun you from the rear while the accompanying foot charge strikes at the same time. The reason it worked at Loudoun Hill is because Robert picked his ground expertly. There was quite literally only one way to get to his men: right through the meatgrinder.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

The weather isn’t that relevant. Most of the soldiers die because they fall into the ditch

The weather and terrain are both integral reasons why Robert won the battle. Without it, his flanks would have been exposed and the end around that the English horse attempted would have been succesful. Instead, they floundered in the bogs and were massacred.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

It’s makes for a good story but I think it’s a little disingenuous. The audience look at romanticised depictions of cavalry charges and assume that “real war” is nothing like that. But they don’t question the romanticised aspects, they question the use of cavalry and armour at all; which isn’t considering the context in which they were used. Basically weren’t all medieval battles brutal and bloody affairs where every side was trying to murder the other? I think this is the story playing to preconceptions people already have. Heavy cavalry in the 10th century is not the same as heavy cavalry in the 20th century.

Amusingly enough, the way this particular battle is depicted in the film is quite historically accurate. Its in stark contrast to most period pieces (LOOKING AT YOU BRAVEHEART) which bastardize the details of events for on-screen spectacle. I wasnt exaggerating when I said that Robert picked his ground well.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
most likely as those battles were very much exceptions and why they are still remembered

the thousands of other battles where knights went full rohirrim on poor footsloggers with fup all chance most likely wouldn't be a good tale and a tad ye olde tymes Omaha in terms of splattery unpleasentness

1. This is one reason you see lots of fortifications in Europe. Why use a ditch when you can have a ditch and wall? Most fighting in Europe really revolved around sieging the forts. Look to the Scottish wars as a good example.

2. Terrain has to be specific. Just digging a ditch only does so much and takes time, training and equipment. Its also why the Romans did it EVERY DAY on the march.

3. As a counterpoint. Have the same battle. Now have the English march up good archers or Italian crossbowmen and starting shooting those massed schiltrons. Congratulations British, you just defeated Mel Gibson and several hundred Hollywood actors at Falkirk. Remember English, when you capture Mel Gibson, take the marbles out of his mouth before he speaks, or you'll never understand a word he says!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maes_Moydog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
The earthworks they use aren’t particularly big or difficult to build though.

Add mud and rain, and you don't need a deep ditch to slow down people in heavy armor, let alone horses and their knights.

Have you ever tried slogging through a bog after heavy rain? Ever tried having a fistfight in full armor in those conditions?

Why didn’t every ancient, medieval army or early modern army do this before fighting cavalry?

Because military history is filled with more incompetents and mediocre leaders than geniuses and not everywhere is Scotland, which got to be a thorn in England's side for a long time in large part due to terrain difficulties. And this kind of is what everyone did. A series of upstart and crushing defeats for heavy cavalry throughout the late Middle Ages ushered in a swing of military favor back toward the infantry. Even though shock cavalry would remain militarily significant for centuries to come, they were no long the deciders of battles by the end of the Hundred Years War. The advancements in arms and infantry tactics, plus the rise of early modern armies and the professional soldier, would gradually wittle away at the horse and rider's military dominance.

Plus, the show doesn’t explain the advantages, if any, of putting guys on horses in heavy armour and charging into people. This makes it seem like a stupid tactic at all at all times. I am assuming there were occasions where knights just charged into infantry and ran them down?

I honestly think you're reading too much into this.

It's a spectacle film about the good guys overcoming long odds to beat the bad guys. It's not a doctoral thesis on Medieval military tactics, and its not even close to the most inaccurate film of its kind I've ever seen given that the basic course of events of the Battle of Loudoun Hill are followed.

This seems like a really odd thing to be throwing around terms like "disingenuous" around.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Why did anybody bother using cavalry if a small ditch could stop a cavalry charge?

Because contrary to popular belief, not everyone in the "warrior" class of a "warrior society" is actually any good at the whole "war" part. The film actually isn't that far off from what actually happened at the Battle of Loudoun Hill. Robert the Bruce lured English cavalry into a slaughter by have a much better understanding of the terrain than his enemy. He dug ditches in front of his lines, and the area around Loudoun hill gave the opposing general no other means of approach but that one direction (which happened to be through a bog). It's also similar to how William Wallace and Andrew Moray won at Stirling Bridge, though in that case the "ditch" was a river loop and a bridge.

If it helps, the English did eventually learn. The way Robert won Loudoun Hill is close enough to how the English beat the French at Agincourt as to be nearly identical. They charged into thick mud a day after heavy ran, got bogged down, and murdered. The popular saying is that an entire generation of French nobility died at Agincourt to English peasants. An exaggeration, but a good way of framing the culture shock that came from something that to us in hindsight was an obviously bad idea. The age of the Knight and horse as dominating elements of the battlefield was ending.

So, yes, this series of loose events did happen thrice in history, all of the ones I know of involving the English! It's almost like they learned or something and then applied the lesson on the French

Surely this would happen at every big pitched or set piece battle?

No general can control the weather, and not every general is going to get to take full advantage of terrain the way Robert did.

Basically in Outlaw King the Scots win because they’re fighting dirty.

That is basically how they won, in the movie and IRL. Robert the Bruce's army was a mere 600 men fighting an English force of 3,000+. It's the kind of victory legends are made of.

The earthworks they use aren’t particularly big or difficult to build though. Why didn’t every ancient, medieval army or early modern army do this before fighting cavalry? .

Because it isn't practical. Without good terrain and fortunate weather, you can spend half a day building ditches and the enemy cavalry just goes around and burns your house or your fields.

When they have room to maneuver, they are devastating. The biggest issue of warfare of the period is getting enemies to actual commit to battle, which means putting them in a position where they have no choice (often dictated by food and supplies), or when they think they can win.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
The earthworks they use aren’t particularly big or difficult to build though.

Add mud and rain, and you don't need a deep ditch to slow down people in heavy armor, let alone horses and their knights.

Have you ever tried slogging through a bog after heavy rain? Ever tried having a fistfight in full armor in those conditions?

Why didn’t every ancient, medieval army or early modern army do this before fighting cavalry?

Because military history is filled with more incompetents and mediocre leaders than geniuses and not everywhere is Scotland, which got to be a thorn in England's side for a long time in large part due to terrain difficulties. And this kind of is what everyone did. A series of upstart and crushing defeats for heavy cavalry throughout the late Middle Ages ushered in a swing of military favor back toward the infantry. Even though shock cavalry would remain militarily significant for centuries to come, they were no long the deciders of battles by the end of the Hundred Years War. The advancements in arms and infantry tactics, plus the rise of early modern armies and the professional soldier, would gradually wittle away at the horse and rider's military dominance.

Plus, the show doesn’t explain the advantages, if any, of putting guys on horses in heavy armour and charging into people. This makes it seem like a stupid tactic at all at all times. I am assuming there were occasions where knights just charged into infantry and ran them down?

I honestly think you're reading too much into this.

It's a spectacle film about the good guys overcoming long odds to beat the bad guys. It's not a doctoral thesis on Medieval military tactics, and its not even close to the most inaccurate film of its kind I've ever seen given that the basic course of events of the Battle of Loudoun Hill are followed.

This seems like a really odd thing to be throwing around terms like "disingenuous" around.

Because it doesn’t show the events in context. Guys in armour on horses making cavalry charges was a valid tactic for thousands of years before this. Not setting that context makes it look way more stupid than it actually was. Plus it actually belittles the achievement since the threat of 3,000 knights charging across open ground is never established in the film.

It’s not just a case of hubris and bad judgement. For example, you don’t have one of Longshanks old captains say “oh your grace I don’t like the look of this. It’s too overcast for a battle, let’s wait for the rain to die down.”. Then, yes, it’s a case of hubris and bad judgement. But given that the film makes a big deal out of contrasting the “chivalry” of the English against the clearly not nobles Scots. I mean they even go to a fishing village for some gaelic singing with the peasants. So it is making the point that fighting on horseback was redundant at the start of the 14th century.

Plus it’s playing into the notion that guerilla warfare is invincible at all times and in all contexts. Which I really don’t like. I mentioned this in another topic but in A Song of Ice And fire I can’t stand the background for how Dorne beat the 7 Kingdoms with Dragons; even after Aegon burnt down every city and drove the population into the deserts. It’s incredibly silly with whole cities able to disappear and dragons mysteriously absent from all the pitches battles like where Orys Baratheon gets captured. Yes it’s fantasy but this is a trope and it’s something I think writers completely take for granted; almost without thought or question. George clearly never asked himself “well could Dorne actually win” he just thought “ah, these were the only people smart enough to use guerilla warfare and everyone else in Westeros is a thickie”; which leads to an absurd piece of backstory. To go back to Outlaw King, didn’t the Welsh have a bit of success before being conquered and part of England for centuries afterwards? They were also that rare breed that were smart enough to use guerrilla warfare, ambush tactics, hit and run etc etc. How did Scotland win and Wales lose? The way the Outlaw King tells it is that they should have won because these tactics have no real counter. Funnily enough George R R Martin actually describes the Dornish as Wales crossed with Spain in the desert. He somehow missed that the Welsh actually lost their war for independence.

You’re bitching about history...because of game of thrones?

That’s a new one.

Sterling191 wrote:
You’re bitching about history...because of game of thrones?

That’s a new one.

Because it’s doing the exact same thing Game of Thrones does. We re talking about a film that’s telling a story. Yes it’s inspired by that history but it’s main purpose is to tell a story. Hero rises, saves his people from tyranny and wins on his own smarts. The English are full of hubris and underestimate their opponent; defeat is the result. That’s a framework that is routinely used in stories for dramatic effect. The issue is that this becomes a kind of gospel irrespective of the context. It’s a trope. I am struggling to put my mind to a case where this outright denied. Maybe in the War of the Worlds remake where this guy is ranting about how they’re going fight guerilla war on the Martians even whilst literally digging a deeper hole into his basement. Yes, that’s trying to be dark, but it’s a case of actually weighing up the context because of what they’re actually up against is beyond them.

The problem is that as a moral tale it’s kind of flawed. The criticism is that the English are full of hubris and use brute force rather than brains; underestimating their opponent. But, they could have had exactly that attitude and still won. Had they brought, for example 2000 longbow men and 1000 men at arms on foot instead of 3,000 heavy horse. So the outcome isn’t the result of one sides mentality at all. That’s why I mentioned earlier that it would have been better had the King of England refused advice not to make the cavalry charge, or if he’d said “leave the infantry behind and we’ll take the glory”. But the King going “we’ll just shoot off the hill with massed arrows and we have the numbers” would have had a very different result even if the hubris was the same. They could have mentioned that Edward 1st did this at Falkirk and his weak son clearly goes against this; but the film doesn’t establish that.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Why didn’t every ancient, medieval army or early modern army do this before fighting cavalry?

They couldn't take out their phone and google "how to stop a cavalry charge" back then.

Truthfully though, it mostly comes down to years of films and games viewing historical war through our modern tactics and ideas. It's incredibly hard to wrap your head around the realities of war in those times and why concepts like Moral and "breaking" and logistics of supplies and such determined so many of these battles. The rousing speech is famous, largely because half the battle was convincing most of your infantry they shouldn't wander off. Far more a matter of herding cats than the kind of regimented formations you see in film.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Why didn’t every ancient, medieval army or early modern army do this before fighting cavalry?

They couldn't take out their phone and google "how to stop a cavalry charge" back then.

Truthfully though, it mostly comes down to years of films and games viewing historical war through our modern tactics and ideas. It's incredibly hard to wrap your head around the realities of war in those times and why concepts like Moral and "breaking" and logistics of supplies and such determined so many of these battles. The rousing speech is famous, largely because half the battle was convincing most of your infantry they shouldn't wander off. Far more a matter of herding cats than the kind of regimented formations you see in film.

We’re not talking about forming a pike phalanx, we’re talking about digging a hole in the ground.

They live alongside animals so they would be familiar with how they behave and ways of dealing with them. Plus it’s just common sense that an animal that falls down a hole will have a bad time of it. I find it hard to believe nobody before Robert ever considered this?

Yeah I definitely think that’s a large part of it. Arrows and swords punching clean through armour. Any close order formation being depicted as suicidal and “romanticised”. For example, the way the Patriot depicts close order soldiers as being an antiquated and silly form of fighting. Which, you know, Waterloo, forming squares and all that? Just going to act like this isn’t a thing? Anything that looks like out the box thinking or displaying initiative being automatically rewarded because they’re culturally valued traits. When have you ever seen this depicted as reckless and foolish?

Usually the heroes just need to breath the words ambush or hit and run and then they instantly overcome any obstacle and are screaming Wolverines. It doesn’t explain why everybody doesn’t fight in this style or manner and when it would be really inappropriate to do so. For example, when Belisarius was retaking Africa from the Vandals the Vandals tried to be clever and split their army into three for this next level flanking manoeuvre. Which became a total fiasco that left all three armies defeated in detail. Or, before Culloden when the Scots tried a next level strat of a night assault on the English camp. But they then got lost in the bogs and were untested for the Battle next day. You don’t see these kind of screw ups in film. It’s taken for granted that simply deciding to wage guerilla warfare or using clever tactics guarantees victory. It should be easier said than done and i don’t get this impression at all.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Because it doesn’t show the events in context. Guys in armour on horses making cavalry charges was a valid tactic for thousands of years before this. Not setting that context makes it look way more stupid than it actually was.

That's a really asinine standard for historical films. You might as well criticize Good Will Hunting for not giving the audience a math lecture so they could understand the complexities of the equation Leo D. solved, because everyone goes to movies for a lecture

Plus it actually belittles the achievement since the threat of 3,000 knights charging across open ground is never established in the film.

Except it is, way earlier in the film when it's pointed out how William Wallace lost at Falkirk to a much better general who actually knew what he was doing (Edward I, aka Edward Longshanks). And then again, before the climax when Robert made his plans for the battle in the first place and had to dig ditches explicitly so that he could blunt a cavalry charge.

And who in the western world needs "Cavalry charge hurts" explained to them? That's the basic assumption of our culture, to the point we ignore the countless battles where cavalry got slaughtered by creative tactics.

It’s not just a case of hubris and bad judgement.

At Loudoun Hill, it really kind of was. Aymer de Valence, one of the most powerful men in all of Europe at the time, was a good statesman, but a gak general. He only ever won one battle and he mostly won it because Bruce was naive and stupid at the time. Robert the Bruce learned his lesson about overconfidence pretty damn fast thouh. Valence did not and he went on to lose to the Scotts thrice in his lifetime, always to the same basic tactics and field conditions.

I'm seriously completely baffled that you apparently so distressed by a movie battle, especially this movie battle which actually stuck to the history of the events it portrays.

Using field fortifications is dependent on you being able to dictate the direction the enemy will attack you from. And the trick to that is, once you find that battlefield that has the terrain you like and get there, the other army is close enough that you don't have time to do very much fortifying. Sure, you can break out the whip, but troops worn out from digging hasty fortifications don't fight very well.

Worse, if the other guy sees your field fortifications and says 'No, I think I'll go over yonder and sack your peasants instead', now you've got to chase him down... with troops tired from making field fortifications.

Having said that, yes, there were quite a few battles in the medieval period involving various forms of field fortifications. And against those defenses, it was suicide to send heavy horse in.

That's what infantry was for, and competent generals used it instead. Or they dismounted their heavy cavalry and went in on foot. Long and short, very rarely do you see a battle go the way Loudoun Hill did. Most generals were too smart to charge heavy horse across terrain that they could not see clearly, or was obviously fortified.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Yes it’s inspired by that history but it’s main purpose is to tell a story.

And that story is the post-Wallace rise to power of Robert Bruce. Of which, Loudoun hill was one of the defining moments.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

The problem is that as a moral tale it’s kind of flawed.

There's quite literally no moral to this "story". Its a half baked action flick with just enough narrative exposition to get you to the stabby, bloody parts (oh and the two minutes of sex).

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

That’s why I mentioned earlier that it would have been better had the King of England refused advice not to make the cavalry charge, or if he’d said “leave the infantry behind and we’ll take the glory”. But the King going “we’ll just shoot off the hill with massed arrows and we have the numbers” would have had a very different result even if the hubris was the same. They could have mentioned that Edward 1st did this at Falkirk and his weak son clearly goes against this; but the film doesn’t establish that.

So...now you want to rewrite history because you dont like it?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Because it doesn’t show the events in context. Guys in armour on horses making cavalry charges was a valid tactic for thousands of years before this. Not setting that context makes it look way more stupid than it actually was.

That's a really asinine standard for historical films. You might as well criticize Good Will Hunting for not giving the audience a math lecture so they could understand the complexities of the equation Leo D. solved, because everyone goes to movies for a lecture

Plus it actually belittles the achievement since the threat of 3,000 knights charging across open ground is never established in the film.

Except it is, way earlier in the film when it's pointed out how William Wallace lost at Falkirk to a much better general who actually knew what he was doing (Edward I, aka Edward Longshanks). And then again, before the climax when Robert made his plans for the battle in the first place and had to dig ditches explicitly so that he could blunt a cavalry charge.

And who in the western world needs "Cavalry charge hurts" explained to them? That's the basic assumption of our culture, to the point we ignore the countless battles where cavalry got slaughtered by creative tactics.

It’s not just a case of hubris and bad judgement.

At Loudoun Hill, it really kind of was. Aymer de Valence, one of the most powerful men in all of Europe at the time, was a good statesman, but a gak general. He only ever won one battle and he mostly won it because Bruce was naive and stupid at the time. Robert the Bruce learned his lesson about overconfidence pretty damn fast thouh. Valence did not and he went on to lose to the Scotts thrice in his lifetime, always to the same basic tactics and field conditions.

I'm seriously completely baffled that you apparently so distressed by a movie battle, especially this movie battle which actually stuck to the history of the events it portrays.

Show don’t tell. For example, in the Patriot, even that has the scene where the Red Coats wreck the Continental Army in a pitched battle. This does three things: it’s creates a sense of threat, it creates an understandable reason to use outside the box tactics and it makes them actually beating the Redcoats in a straight up battle an achievement. Hell even Independence Day does this. How worse would that film be if we simply had it told to us in a random bit of dialogue that “oh yeah the shields are too good” and then in the only fight of the film they work. Scenes like that create drama.

We never see a cavalry charge so we don’t actually see the threat he’s trying to avert when he digs his trench. I shouldn’t have to have watched Return of the King to have that conveyed. The entire film is about trashing knights and mounted combat.

We don’t ignore the battles where cavalry get smushed. Agoncourt? Crecy? Bannockburn? Charge of the Light Brigade? Waterloo? Historical cavalry battles aren’t popular because that’s the story of the landed aristocracy and culturally we prefer our humble “band of brothers”. It’s not a cultural assumption at all that cavalry are dangerous. It pretty much is just Lord of the Rings and all the films which copied Lord of the Rings. Which, because it’s only in fantasy films where we see knights, cavalry and all that leads people to associate it with a romanticised image of war; as opposed to proper fighting. So no, this film is part of a trend and feeding off people’s preconceptions. Not some niche critique.

Paraphrasing. We’re talking about the film and not the battle. The film does not establish that the English could have just brought up 2,000 longbowmen and shot them. The King simply rocks up without his infantry we saw earlier in the film without any context given. That should have been presented as a lapse in judgement instead of the composition of the English army inexplicably changing.

Distressed? Being melodramatic aren’t we? I don’t like when things are done for dramatic license but make no sense. When your perception is shaped by what the narrator is telling you. For example, contrast what Black Douglas does to the Red Wedding. Ones depicted as clever guy who’s being a tad ruthless to one up these nobodies who are just playing at War. Whereas the other spent time humanising the victims before they got slaughtered by somebody else who was bitter and out for vengeance; motivations that are given no sympathy at all. Yes, yes, he didn’t stab a pregnant woman and it was at Church; not a wedding. Although TBH if he did I don’t think that would dent his character because still nobodies. But that’s an example of how a story can be very biased depending on what you are and are not told.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Why didn’t every ancient, medieval army or early modern army do this before fighting cavalry?

They couldn't take out their phone and google "how to stop a cavalry charge" back then.

Truthfully though, it mostly comes down to years of films and games viewing historical war through our modern tactics and ideas. It's incredibly hard to wrap your head around the realities of war in those times and why concepts like Moral and "breaking" and logistics of supplies and such determined so many of these battles. The rousing speech is famous, largely because half the battle was convincing most of your infantry they shouldn't wander off. Far more a matter of herding cats than the kind of regimented formations you see in film.

We’re not talking about forming a pike phalanx, we’re talking about digging a hole in the ground.

They live alongside animals so they would be familiar with how they behave and ways of dealing with them. Plus it’s just common sense that an animal that falls down a hole will have a bad time of it. I find it hard to believe nobody before Robert ever considered this?

Yeah I definitely think that’s a large part of it. Arrows and swords punching clean through armour. Any close order formation being depicted as suicidal and “romanticised”. For example, the way the Patriot depicts close order soldiers as being an antiquated and silly form of fighting. Which, you know, Waterloo, forming squares and all that? Just going to act like this isn’t a thing? Anything that looks like out the box thinking or displaying initiative being automatically rewarded because they’re culturally valued traits. When have you ever seen this depicted as reckless and foolish?

Usually the heroes just need to breath the words ambush or hit and run and then they instantly overcome any obstacle and are screaming Wolverines. It doesn’t explain why everybody doesn’t fight in this style or manner and when it would be really inappropriate to do so. For example, when Belisarius was retaking Africa from the Vandals the Vandals tried to be clever and split their army into three for this next level flanking manoeuvre. Which became a total fiasco that left all three armies defeated in detail. Or, before Culloden when the Scots tried a next level strat of a night assault on the English camp. But they then got lost in the bogs and were untested for the Battle next day. You don’t see these kind of screw ups in film. It’s taken for granted that simply deciding to wage guerilla warfare or using clever tactics guarantees victory. It should be easier said than done and i don’t get this impression at all.

What if the cavalry don't charge? What if they just sit there?
Alternative ly, what if half get off their horses, form lines and hit you?

Sterling191 wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Yes it’s inspired by that history but it’s main purpose is to tell a story.

And that story is the post-Wallace rise to power of Robert Bruce. Of which, Loudoun hill was one of the defining moments.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

The problem is that as a moral tale it’s kind of flawed.

There's quite literally no moral to this "story". Its a half baked action flick with just enough narrative exposition to get you to the stabby, bloody parts (oh and the two minutes of sex).

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

That’s why I mentioned earlier that it would have been better had the King of England refused advice not to make the cavalry charge, or if he’d said “leave the infantry behind and we’ll take the glory”. But the King going “we’ll just shoot off the hill with massed arrows and we have the numbers” would have had a very different result even if the hubris was the same. They could have mentioned that Edward 1st did this at Falkirk and his weak son clearly goes against this; but the film doesn’t establish that.

So...now you want to rewrite history because you dont like it?

Yes, even an action flick has a moral and a story to it. You actually mentioned earlier that it was about hubris. So, make up your mind I guess.

Either you’re twisting my words or you’re not reading my posts. My point is that the King is foolish and rushes into a battle. He fails because of his own overconfidence. Presenting him with an option for success and him refusing it in error is a way of showing that. It makes a better story. Him rocking up with an all cavalry army after every other English army depicted has been majority infantry thus far without an explanation is bad story telling.

You keep bringing up the battle and I am talking about the film. I have not once said “that did not happen” in connection to this event. Have I said that?

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


Yes, even an action flick has a moral and a story to it. You actually mentioned earlier that it was about hubris. So, make up your mind I guess.

I said nothing about hubris. Please actually read the posts you're hysterically responding to to complain that a historical action film didnt do what you wanted it to do.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Either you’re twisting my words or you’re not reading my posts. My point is that the King is foolish and rushes into a battle. He fails because of his own overconfidence. Presenting him with an option for success and him refusing it in error is a way of showing that. It makes a better story. Him rocking up with an all cavalry army after every other English army depicted has been majority infantry thus far without an explanation is bad story telling.

Nobody. Cares. The film is a largely accurate portrayal of a historical battle. Deal with it.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

You keep bringing up the battle and I am talking about the film. I have not once said “that did not happen” in connection to this event. Have I said that?

No, you're demanding that a film that takes great pains to (mostly) accurately portray a specific battle suddenly rewrite history because you dont like how that battle went down centuries ago.

I swear we found Mel Gibson on the internet, who cant stand that somebody did a film about the Scotish Wars of Independence and didnt horribly mangle one of its primary combat sequences.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Show don’t tell.

Repeating a maxim you've heard before won't make it any less ridiculous when you apply it incorrectly.

Movies tell all the time. They're movies, not novels or miniseries. There's a reason so many of them open with cliche narration. I'll bet more people can tell you what happened at the Battle of Pelenor Fields than at Agincourt.

Paraphrasing. We’re talking about the film and not the battle. The film does not establish that the English could have just brought up 2,000 longbowmen and shot them.

Except they didn't, in the movie or in reality.

The King simply rocks up without his infantry we saw earlier in the film without any context given.

What context do you want? Seriously it's a movie. They're not going caveat every plot point with all the justifications for why things are happening the way they're happening. That's just going to make a really bad movie.

Distressed?

You've dedicated an entire thread to complain about the lack of context in a historic war film that depicts its climactic battle accurately (it's probably the only noteworthy part of the movie). Maybe you're not distressed, but you're something.

I don’t like when things are done for dramatic license but make no sense.

What dramatic license? The movie shows things pretty much how they actually happened. Congratulations on the 20/20 vision that comes with nearly 1000 years of hindsight. This may be the first time I've ever seen someone get so bent out of shape over a historical event being portrayed as it actually happened in a movie made for entertainment.

When your perception is shaped by what the narrator is telling you.

But that’s an example of how a story can be very biased depending on what you are and are not told.

I see and hear Braveheart references monthly. I haven't even heard a word of this movie since it released until now. You're really putting way too much weight into a movie that a only handful of people with Netflix accounts will ever watch.

And, I think a non-insubstantial number of said viewers only tuned in to see Chris Pine's wiener.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Show don’t tell.

Repeating a maxim you've heard before won't make it any less ridiculous when you apply it incorrectly.

Movies tell all the time. They're movies, not novels or miniseries. There's a reason so many of them open with cliche narration. I'll bet more people can tell you what happened at the Battle of Pelenor Fields than at Agincourt.

Paraphrasing. We’re talking about the film and not the battle. The film does not establish that the English could have just brought up 2,000 longbowmen and shot them.

Except they didn't, in the movie or in reality.

The King simply rocks up without his infantry we saw earlier in the film without any context given.

What context do you want? Seriously it's a movie. They're not going caveat every plot point with all the justifications for why things are happening the way they're happening. That's just going to make a really bad movie.

Distressed?

You've dedicated an entire thread to complain about the lack of context in a historic war film that depicts its climactic battle accurately (it's probably the only noteworthy part of the movie). Maybe you're not distressed, but you're something.

I don’t like when things are done for dramatic license but make no sense.

What dramatic license? The movie shows things pretty much how they actually happened. Congratulations on the 20/20 vision that comes with nearly 1000 years of hindsight. This may be the first time I've ever seen someone get so bent out of shape over a historical event being portrayed as it actually happened in a movie made for entertainment.

When your perception is shaped by what the narrator is telling you.

But that’s an example of how a story can be very biased depending on what you are and are not told.

I see and hear Braveheart references monthly. I haven't even heard a word of this movie since it released until now. You're really putting way too much weight into a movie that a only handful of people with Netflix accounts will ever watch.

Well as per the first post I just watched the movie. So it’s fresh and i wanted to say something about it. Is a wargamig geek forum an appropriate place to discuss that; yes.

Which is why novels and TV are better stories than a chopped up film.

I really can’t tell if you’re trolling. I am saying it would be a better film if that scene had happened. I never once said “oh but this conversation must have happened”. Again, thread title, we are talking about the film; not a historical discussion of the battle.

I already said, King told he can use Longbowmen, decides not to. We’re shown that he made a mistake and had a choice to avert a disaster. Why do you think people make a big deal about the French not arming the peasants and insisting on using just mounted knights before Agincourt? Same principal.

And? You don’t have to read it if you don’t want to. Is there a limit to the amount of threads the forum can hold? Some kind of eating line I am not aware of? I wanted to talk about it.

I am not talking about a Wikipedia entry of events I am talking about how the story is told. The thread title isn’t “Battle is historically inaccurate”.

Of course the films morality is shaped by our point of view characters. If you told the tale of some England peasant who was a good lad who gets his throat cut at Church by a Scottish Noble whose drunk on vengeance and getting off on the power trip that becomes a very different story to lovable rogue tossing faceless drones into a well. You could change absolutely nothing about the events or what’s said and yet have a very different reaction.

I already mentioned. I just watched the film. So, it’s why I am discussing it. I did bring up other films and TV shows where this is the case but this is fairly current so I went with that.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Well as per the first post I just watched the movie. So it’s fresh and i wanted to say something about it. Is a wargamig geek forum an appropriate place to discuss that; yes.

You're perfectly free to talk about it, but anyone else is equally free to say you're making a lot out of an anthill here.

It's a run of the mill war flick that stuck to a fairly truthful depiction of events in its climax. If you want a product that's going to give an in-depth play by play rather than just keep the narrative rolling, watch a documentary. No one was ever going to take this movie on a tangent to explain how the English managed to feth up a battle that favored them 5 to 1 in a movie that's typical "good guy smart good guy wins" and no one is going to be taking any great moral lessons from it.

I'll probably get accused of chippiness for this, but I can't escape the suspicion that there wouldn't be quite so much objection to the film if either the factions involved or the outcome of the battle were different...

 Yodhrin wrote:
I'll probably get accused of chippiness for this, but I can't escape the suspicion that there wouldn't be quite so much objection to the film if either the factions involved or the outcome of the battle were different...

If it was a fantasy series with make believe countries I’d be making the same argument.

Cavalry wins or loses in the mind. If a cavalry charge hits home, and the infantry breaks, they'll be slaughtered and casualties will be exponentially worse than even what a pitched battle would be. The majority of losses happen while the enemy is running.

If you don't break, and can stand there and take a wall of charging horses, then if they can't break through your lines, your infantry can pull them off the horses and kill them. Very, very few infantry in history have been able to demonstrate that courage and absorb that shocking charge.

I think you're only seeing the weakness of the unit, TotalWar.

This clip shows light cavalry charging each other, getting stuck in, and then heavy cavalry going through a natural barrier, taking casualties, before smashing through a defensive line. The defenders do everything right, but they can't stop the cavalry's momentum. Notice the light cavalry though, once they start slashing at each other, would definitely be as vulnerable as infantry in that messy melee- arguably moreso since horses are big, mostly unarmored targets. The trick is getting the cavalry to stand still and fight you.




The time period is much further along, but it shows how devastating a well executed, dedicated charge by professional heavy cavalry can be- even when the enemy is far better equipped than the Scots. Enjoy!

If you don't break, and can stand there and take a wall of charging horses, then if they can't break through your lines, your infantry can pull them off the horses and kill them. Very, very few infantry in history have been able to demonstrate that courage and absorb that shocking charge.

As I understand it horses will not charge into a wall of spears - they will shie away /try for gaps - that a cavalry charge mostly relies on the infantry being unable to "Hold" - trying to hold as they charge at you must have been incredably hard to do!

Also that medieval cavalry is a bit of an anomoly - most of the time its heavily armoured and professional warriors charging milita at best and enjoying themselves until they can fight their opposite numbers.

Ancient armies could hold against even heavy cavalry if they were discipined enough and they were not being shot to pieces by artillery or bows/slings - same as Ney's cavalry, unsupported were not able to break the allied squares at Waterloo without infantry or artillery support. Harold's men held off Norman Cavalry and the Scotts held of the Enlish cavlary of Edward I behind their spears - until he brought up bowmen and shot the crap out of them.

Right, it's incredibly difficult for cavalry to break a dense infantry formation - provided that the infantry holds its ground, is disciplined enough not to break through fear, isn't being used as conveniently large target for archers, or (especially once you get to the days of the napoleonic wars, for example) getting torn up by musket/cannonfire.