De Slag om de Schelde has come out in the Netherlands, about the lesser known Battle of the Scheldt in 1944. Concentrates on individual characters involved, such as a Dutch girl in the resistance, a Dutch soldier in the German army and a British pilot. Where it will go after Dutch and Belgian cinemas I know not.

Quote from: Leman on 22 June 2021, 04:22:36 PM
De Slag om de Schelde has come out in the Netherlands, about the lesser known Battle of the Scheldt in 1944. Concentrates on individual characters involved, such as a Dutch girl in the resistance, a Dutch soldier in the German army and a British pilot. Where it will go after Dutch and Belgian cinemas I know not.

It sounds a little bit like Dunkirk.

Quote from: Raider4 on 22 June 2021, 04:00:28 PM
Spoilt by the panto-villian turn by Pattinson as the French prince.

Interesting take on Agincourt - it's always been my understanding the English were at the top of the hill?

Having walked the battlefield at Agincourt it is actually reasonably flat with just a slight hollow forward of the initial English dispositions.
At Crecy the English defend a slight rise with copses, terracing and a sunken road to their front.
At Poitiers they fight with a thick hedge to their front & centre and orchards and hedges on their flanks.

At Agincourt the real issues for the French were:

1) very restricted frontage - the English filled the gap between 2 woods - which would have greatly disadvantaged the French men-at-arms (on foot or mounted) - thus reducing the fighting front of the French significantly

2) the ground had been recently ploughed

3) it had rained very heavily and unseasonally - so that the ground was even more soft than usual - it had become a quagmire - especially as the 2nd an 3rd French 'battles' closed for combat

4) arrogance/overconfident - fostered by the belief that a French army that outnumbered the English raiders so heavily should have just run down the significantly smaller English force frontally meant that they were overconfident - also a large proportion of the French attack went in dismounted - allowing the archers to rain a significant volume of arrows down upon them as they advanced  slowly across the muddy terrain

5) exhaustion - having fought/re-enacted in full C15th harness and carried a sword and polearm in the process, personally I'd not have also wanted to march the distance the French did, in slippery and clogging mud - to end up facing a static enemy at least as well arrayed as me (& reasonably rested)at the other end . Especially not under a barrage of longbow shafts.

The film is (as stated by DecemDave) only really a potion of the battlefront - it doesn't show the archers setting their stakes which would have funnelled the French mounted troops into the English dismounted men-at-arms, knights and billmen. The 'flank attack' from the woods by Henry is pure fallacy of course. But the armoured melee I suspect is very realistic as is the single combat between Henry and Hotspur (earlier in the film). The bit in the melee with Falstaff fighting holding the blade of his sword in one hand and the handle in the other is based on contemporary fighting manuals and is very effective.
I also think that once the melee between the opposing men-at-arms was underway the archers supporting their men-at-arms would have been realistic. English archers of this period were not the poorly equipped wretches depicted in the film, they had reasonable armour and helmets and at least swords and bucklers supplemented by axes, mauls and mallets (all attested by contemporary chroniclers). So they were very capable of getting stuck in, especially with an opponent who was wrong footed by the mud and with limited visibility in the press of battle.

For those who have not read it the John Keegan book - The Face of Battle - is (IMHO) a brilliant examination of the way that soldiers behave in these kinds of situations.
Well worth the read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Face_of_Battle

For all its faults I still thoroughly enjoyed it  

Cheers
Mark

Quote from: Leman on 22 June 2021, 04:22:36 PM
De Slag om de Schelde has come out in the Netherlands, about the lesser known Battle of the Scheldt in 1944. Concentrates on individual characters involved, such as a Dutch girl in the resistance, a Dutch soldier in the German army and a British pilot. Where it will go after Dutch and Belgian cinemas I know not.

Canada, maybe? Since they did much of the fighting and got very little of the glory.

Big Insect: Fits wiith what I have read/watched. Accounts mainly say a 'defile'. Makes you wonder whether Henry REALLY judged the ground...and the conditions.. or just 'got lucky'!
'A Slight Dip' in front of English position, 'May' not have looked like a problem... almost an 'invitation', rather than 'uphill'. But, with the wet ground...

By this time, English Archers were 'pro's', not  so much 'levy', so think that most would have had 'some sort' of 'protection' / 'weaponry'. This was s 'an armed raid '...

Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 23 June 2021, 09:11:43 AM
By this time, English Archers were 'pro's', not  so much 'levy', so think that most would have had 'some sort' of 'protection' / 'weaponry'. This was s 'an armed raid '...

English sources don't categorise archers as archers in this era (right the way through to early Tudor period) they are just called 'soldiers'. Same as there are no references to the word 'billmen' until Henrician times.
Those 'archers' belonging to professional retinues (as took part in the Agincourt campaign) would have been as capable with a polearm and/or sword and buckler, as with a war-bow. They were professional soldiers. I also suspect that by this time they probably fought in a reasonably dense formation and would have been well armoured - at least on body and legs. Munition armour was a lot more prevalent even in the early C15th than we actually believed previously.

Agincourt is a classic 'constricted front' battle - like Horacio on the bridge or the Viking champion at Stamford Bridge - or the Spartans at Thermopylae - it's just that it all turned-out well for King Henry in this instance.

Interesting stuff - looking at other well documented medieval battles - such as Granson, Morat  Nancy etc if you read the contemporary accounts you get a very different view of how certain troop types operated - such as Swiss pike keils moving (at pace) over wooded hilly terrain to outflank the Burgundian position - try that on most wargames tables and you'll be in for a long and potentially dull game 

Quote from: Big Insect on 23 June 2021, 11:15:22 AM
English sources don't categorise archers as archers in this era (right the way through to early Tudor period) they are just called 'soldiers'. Same as there are no references to the word 'billmen' until Henrician times.
Those 'archers' belonging to professional retinues (as took part in the Agincourt campaign) would have been as capable with a polearm and/or sword and buckler, as with a war-bow. They were professional soldiers. I also suspect that by this time they probably fought in a reasonably dense formation and would have been well armoured - at least on body and legs. Munition armour was a lot more prevalent even in the early C15th than we actually believed previously.

Agincourt is a classic 'constricted front' battle - like Horacio on the bridge or the Viking champion at Stamford Bridge - or the Spartans at Thermopylae - it's just that it all turned-out well for King Henry in this instance.

Interesting stuff - looking at other well documented medieval battles - such as Granson, Morat  Nancy etc if you read the contemporary accounts you get a very different view of how certain troop types operated - such as Swiss pike keils moving (at pace) over wooded hilly terrain to outflank the Burgundian position - try that on most wargames tables and you'll be in for a long and potentially dull game 

Battles can be won by the unxpected...Against The Rules... That's WHY they were won!
You will know much more Medieval than I. But I was amazed on watching a recent doc on Bannockburn.. It 'posthumated' a dawn assault... D2...up a valley and through woods...to surprise an English Camp 'expecting' a 'set piece' battle, later.
'Scottish Spears... good on defence'...
Or, English at Flodden... excellent defensive position, but attacked disorganised Scots, down hill.
Richard III 'outdated' cav charge 'could' have worked? Just didn't.
Just exercise judgement ... and roll the dice! Just as they did!
Apologies for ignorance of much medieval!

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 22 June 2021, 05:11:55 PM
It sounds a little bit like Dunkirk.

people who loved Dunkirk will probably like this one too. For me personally it was a dissapointing visit to the cinema... as was Dunkirk.

Cheers,
Rob

As one who loved Dunkirk, I hope to get a chance to watch it then.

Any views on '1917'? Trailer does not inspire... especially, the 'SPR' 'motivation' storyline... but, any good?

It's OK but shold be called 1916 - there is little shell damage around. Plot is OK and the kit looks about right. Not bad but probably best to wait for it to come up on terrestial TV.

Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 03 August 2021, 03:53:54 AM
Any views on '1917'? Trailer does not inspire... especially, the 'SPR' 'motivation' storyline... but, any good?

It's an excellent "Boy's Own" story. It's beautifully shot, well paced, keeps the tension going, gets the period detail pretty well correct BUT it's a blockbuster movie, not a historical documentary. If you are the sort who's enjoyment of a film is going to be ruined because it is not getting the historical minutiae right, don't watch it. 

Definitely better on the big screen, however, I'd second Ian's suggestion to see it on TV, if it's available.

1917. Thanks, Guys. Might give it a try from TV or cheap dvd. It is the 'personal interest' motivation that puts me off... too 'Hollywood'. So many blokes did similar... in so many wars, without that... so makes it feel a bit 'iffy'. Could just ignore 'story'! In 'Private Ryan', it was the beach landing that 'made' the film... the rest was, well...

I have posted on another forum, comment about '1917' and the ''Golf Course' battleground. May as well copy to here... hope no one will mind.

" 'No Man's Land' could vary in cratering, etc. Depends on 'where' and 'when'.
Much fought over areas.. especially where lines close together... could be the horrible images so often seen.
However, I have seen several aerial photos... of SOME areas... in which the cratering was pretty much confined to the trench / wire entanglement zones... with 'No Man's Land' between the lines, relatively untouched.

If no targets in 'No Man's Land'... why shell it?
Open ground is a better kill zone from a Defender's point of view,... and Attackers Command would not want troops 'dropping into cover' and 'sticking' there. However risky a crater might be... probably safer than in the open.

As the period of use extended, sporadic shellfire at wiring parties, patrols, listening posts, etc. would gradually churn things up more. But, it was the extended, concentrated barrages before a major assault... and 'counter' fire, that really hammered the ground. "

After many years exposure to photos in books... (and Wargames tables!)... giving an 'impression' of battlefields in several periods... watching DVDs such as the 'Pen & Sword' series has been rather an eye opener. Battlegrounds were so 'BIG'! Hard to imagine the prolonged terror and fortitude of those who had to advance across large spaces of 'open'... in the face of archery, artillery or MGs. Movies , with their 'in shot', heroics... just cannot show the 'scale' of things... and the True Heroism of those who were there.

Anyway, might give 1917 a 'try'! Thanks.

Ah, never underestimate the profound stupidity of human beings, especially in large groups.

I was disappointed with "1917".  I felt it was a story written by a 6 year old.