Historian Gets Mad at BATTLEFIELD 1 | The Runner (Battle of Gallipoli 1915)

[@historylegends]

This video was made possible thanks to my Patrons. LINK ► www.patreon.com/thehistorylegends

[@deergaming5421]

Can you please react to glory

[@chadmemes6937]

@historylegends you should make a video game or movie that isn’t pure garbage lol

[@chadmemes6937]

@Yap yap the destroyer what

[@chadmemes6937]

@Yap yap the destroyer I was talking about the games historical accuracy that he reacts to

[@ImperialZorn686]

Go play the games instead of reacting to static video

[@ianmills9266]

The cap is definitely historically accurate. The slash peak whoever was only ever acceptable for senior nco's

[@teru797]

The most historically inaccurate part of all this is how many whites there are. Everyone knows it was mostly Black men and some Indians who fought WW1

[@fischersfritz468]

@@teru797 LOL. Not really, no

[@teru797]

@@fischersfritz468 you sound like a white supremacist. are you racist have you not played the game it's mostly blacks in WW1 white stole credit black lives matter

[@connorlyman249]

Mans so mad over an anzac uniform, get klapped man, look at your books again, and see the blue shirts, the reason he had a cape is because his bio IS "Pride of Australia." He is also real, and thanks to @Ian Mills, we know that they were allowed with the cap, plus the history legend guy gets so mad, over very little things. @HistoryLegends Take a second to read before you post stupid crap about very little details.

[@connorlyman249]

And they wore it in three wars! Three! WW1, WW2, Vietnam (Vietnam Was very little blue shirts btw.)

[@sammolyneux2536]

As an Irishman I’m surprised that we’re not taught about any of this, most Irish history that happened under British history is usually swept under the rug

[@AbuHajarAlBugatti]

Same for Wales. The royals still call us lazy Trolls in their books

[@smoley3310]

Not strictly true as in secondary history you can learn either early modern 1400s to 1800s so covering Irish history. World history etc or later modern with ww2 Irish independence, Northern Ireland America or India depending. As far as I’m aware it’s down to the teacher as mostly later modern is much easier to know and learn because of relevance and it’s still new history so it’s not like we aren’t taught about it flat out it’s straight up what’s easiest to write about in the exam.

[@chrisjanicki4031]

The boys in the Dal are too busy pushing for LGBT to be taught at school. They don't want to teach kids anything too patriotic in any case they become too nationalistic about their country. We've had a page a fockin page about Michael Collins in history which is sad as I went to Hamilton High (Former Garda Barracks) where Collins was actually kept prisoner .

[@kensington1199]

Are you related to Stefan by chance?

[@pats3071]

An Irishman with a French name lol Ireland is full of history, schools shouldn’t be focused on teaching the Irish about their oppressor’s history. It’s much more important to learn about the Easter Rising and the war of independence/civil war during this time period. That’s Irish history.

[@goat3225]

Its not realistic but it definetly feels authentic.

[@comradekenobi6908]

Wonder why the next 2 games couldn’t even match up to bf1s atmosphere

[@butter5842]

Authenticity is what matters. If the game was realistic it wouldn't get fun at all. Imagine getting shot once and game over. If we wanted realism we'd join the real army.

[@ACM1PT95]

Both. It's not realistic nor authentic

[@LordKurian]

@@ACM1PT95 Better than cod which pump 2 ww2 in 2 years . While battlefield something new 'WW1' .

[@saviomocciaro8870]

@@ACM1PT95 some gears are inaccurate, but this is not a justification to say that bf1 is trash, just look at all the positive things

[@declangaming24]

Battlefield 1 is better than vanguard battle of empires for PC depicts gallipoli accurately with the Australians in the British campaign.

[@Bravo5SoldierLT]

Yeah and I don’t understand why historylegends is always getting mad, it should at least say “Historian reacts to Battlefield 1” not “Historian gets mad”

[@declangaming24]

@@warbandplaysAU9178 I believe the story mode should be accurate as possible but getting gallipoli incorrect is shocking I swear the Australians wore blue and the British and commonwealth wore a similar uniform gallipoli is the WW1 D day.

[@KSmithwick1989]

@@Bravo5SoldierLT Simple because this is a clickbait ploy to promote his books. And even then their is still comments correcting him, because his knowledge of firearms is sometimes lacking.

[@Bravo5SoldierLT]

@@KSmithwick1989 what mainly promotes to me is when his videos say “Historian reacts”, but when his videos say, “Historian gets mad” I’m just all, “oh god, what the hell did he get mad at this time?”

[@KSmithwick1989]

@@Bravo5SoldierLT Haha, so real. I started watching parts his videos for that reasons. The "reactions" are really wooden and repetitive.

[@xnoobwarx4571]

Any Historian can get mad at tiny details but looking back Battlefield 1 was the most historically accurate video game ever and since BF2042 nobody can complain

[@LarryWater]

BF1 was nit historically accurate.

[@CommissarChaotic]

What about Battlefield 1942 and Vietnam? BF1 is historically authentic at least.

[@kempergreenk]

It is most accurate than most arcade style video games, but obviously serious mil sims are more accurate than BF1 when it comes to history

[@soap.5765]

And yet they couldn’t even get the uniform right…

[@MadDog3845]

Hey mate, just some things to point out! 2:00 - firstly, in the five campaigns you play, three of which are heavily focused on the British and American side, any other member of the allies is pretty much non-existent up until the Italian and Gallipoli campaigns. 3:14 I believe he’s wearing a ground sheet/poncho, I have no idea why he’s wearing it like a cape. 3:40 even though conscription wasn’t a thing, a lot of boys still lied about their age. The youngest is believed to be Jim Martin who died at Gallipoli at 14 due to typhoid fever. I believe this is just an error in the wording. 19:04 basically like brothers who have their feuds. The closet thing I can compare it to is probably Canada and USA 23:09 I’ve seen one source say that there could have been 50 Australian Aboriginal soldiers at Gallipoli, at the time Australia had the “White Australia Policy” barring anyone who wasn’t white from Australia, this also came into the military when non-white servicemen weren’t allowed. I remember seeing a medical discharge paper for an aboriginal soldier at an exhibition, it was really quite horrible and sad. I think if they wanted to diversify they could’ve added the famous Australian sniper Billy Sing, whose father was Chinese. He was officially the best sniper at Gallipoli, with around 150 confirmed kills and an estimated total of around 200 confirmed kills. He apparently had a “sniper duel” with a Turkish sniper named Abdul the Terrible (name Korkunç Abdül). He died alone as an alcoholic after the war. 25:13 lastly, it’s common because there definitely was a big divide between the two groups. The British saw the Australians and New Zealanders as nothing more than sons of a penal colony, this was only perpetuated when the Australian got in a lot of trouble for stealing company rum, playing impractical jokes on the British etc. the British officers definitely treated their local combat groups much better than the commonwealth soldiers, even Australian general John Monash would complain in a letter about the lack of recognition for the Australian sacrifice by the British public. The story in that game is that the old dude has to go and rescue around a platoons worth of wounded who are stuck, it would make sense that the British would fire artillery to cover their retreat. Edits- spelling mistakes

[@historylegends]

Very interesting! Thank you 🙏

[@atomicmillenial9728]

Only full-blooded Aboriginals were barred from serving, for the same reason they were banned from consuming opium and alcohol. To protect them. Mixed race men were allowed to volunteer, and many did. The "White Australia Policy" never actually existed. It's a loosely defined term for a series of immigration acts enacted in the early 1900s, most notably the Immigration Restriction Act (1901) and the Pacific Island Labourers Act (1901). I know they teach you in school these days that it was to keep anyone that wasn't white out of Australia, that's bullshit. The Immigration Restriction Act specifically targeted Chinese migrants, that's it. The Pacific Island Labourers Act was enacted to cut down on the number of Islanders being blackbirded and forced into indentured servitude on Queensland cane farms. There was never any government policy that banned non-whites from settling in Australia, and small numbers of Black, Asian, Arabian and Pacific Islanders settled in Australia at what was supposed to be the peak of the powers of the White Australia Policy.

[@mikeycraig8970]

Because it's a cape first. The 37 (cape) and 58 (poncho) pattern webbing came with their own rain protection which was rain protection first, anything else after.

[@-John-Doe-]

Show me the legislation titled: _”White Australia Policy”_ Or are you conveniently engaging in classic radical _(left)_ historical revisionism? Cherry picking laws and pointing out that Australians happen to be white - you do understand that people are born Citizens, correct? That’s what citizenship is - it’s inherited from a people. Obviously that’s going to be correlated with some genetic traits. _”This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race.”_ -Note that _“British Race”_ isn’t _”White Race”_ - your modern race politics is a distortion of basic law and language regarding nationality. While you’re at it, feel free to provide the background for the _”Asian Japan Policy,”_ and every other nation with the same laws. You might be better off looking at Israel, China, India, Saudi Arabia, virtually any nation on the planet.

[@xilencered7788]

Bro you should make these videos.

[@thatdudeinasuit5422]

I think one of the main reasons they might have mentioned the ANZACs first is becausr of how the Gallipoli Campaign is considered an enormous part of Australian cultural heritage. Regarding how Australians and Kiwis see each other, we're almost like siblings in the sense that Australia gives NZ shit and vice versa but we are still incredibly close Allies.

[@saiahr5463]

Yeah I think it makes sense to have the ANZAC's first.

[@justbethinking]

yeah i thought the same, the battle for gallipoli was australia and new zealand’s first time fighting under their own flag. we created international identities in the process, that’s why we think of the anzac when talking about gallipoli

[@hmsbelfast2019]

The East African front is something that I think everyone forgets and I would love to see more about it

[@thearnorianruby4681]

The one where the British fought a German commander and his Afrikaner troops correct? I forget his name, but he returned to Germany as a hero. Edit: Sorry, forgot to add the y to the end of the word, Germany.

[@hmsbelfast2019]

@@thearnorianruby4681 Yeah it is very interesting. I don't see we games haven't used it loads already since there were loads colonial troops on both sides.

[@zh2266]

@@thearnorianruby4681 Rommel, the Desert Fox

[@thearnorianruby4681]

@@zh2266 right. Much appreciated.

[@joenathan288]

@@thearnorianruby4681 Paul Von Lettow Vorbeck

[@Magicwillnz]

"Lied about his age to get past conscription..." So he lied... to become a conscript? He was voluntarily a conscript?

[@emelyarye2641]

conscription here just means "the recruitment process", even though it doesn't. it's pretty surprising to me that this many people go out of their way to be strict on it and limit their own understanding. its clearly what they meant.

[@hydrolistconlanka4729]

4:38 They actually did that photo in the MP map called “Cape Heles” Also the uniforms are Well-made to the multiplayer again, but that came in a DLC

[@nyda2452]

The uniforms in Bf1 on the side of the Central Powers are pretty low effort: Germans, Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians are practically all wearing the same uniforms (or rather base skins), just in different colours and just partially with different headgear. The original one is the imperial german "field-grey" uniform m1907/10 with "brandenburg cuffs" (three buttons in a row on each cuff) and red piping from the outbreak of WW1 in 1914. However, they didn't even get that design quite right (some details are wrong). Also, they are using obviously Wehrmacht Y-straps from WW2. The other two Central Powers have the exact same base skins (including Y-straps from WW2, ammo pouches and boots), just re-coloured white for the Ottomans and re-coloured "stone-grey" for the Austro-Hungarians. They even "enhanced" some of the red elements. And while the Ottomans were re-coloured khaki later on, they still wear the same base skins (including the equipment pieces). This leads to Ottomans and Austro-Hungarian soldiers featuring "brandenburg cuffs" they never had, while missing chest pockets they actually had. Depending on the soldier class, only the caps are actually ottoman or austro-hungarian and not german ones (though it is accurate that both used german helmets, too). Seriously, you can't blame this design mess on bad research, anymore, this is pure laziness (likely due to economic reasons - but this gets even more embarrasing for Bf1 when recalling that an indie game like "Verdun" managed to portray each nation's uniform mostly accurate).

[@Krejii05]

As an Australian the runner mission really stuck out to me, it was so weird to play so many shooters but only have Australia in one of them

[@axlem4549]

Have you tried Squad out?

[@pats3071]

Australia is in many, just not mainstream console titles

[@CommissarChaotic]

TF2 lol

[@SuspiciousAnomoly]

I learned more history from this guy than my entire school career of history classes.

[@LethalShot3190]

I must say your reactions to historical movies, and games are some of the best I've seen. I don't know if I asked you but I was wondering if you could do a reaction to The Thin Red Line because that was a pretty realistic World War II movie depicting the Pacific pretty well👍

[@MBP1918]

That first image of the fort you showed was actually what the galipoli multiplayer map is like where the Australians vs Ottomans in operations mode

[@donge9589]

Another great analysis, I was so happy when they announced BF1 was having a Gallipoli group of missions. I think they captured some details quite well but like you say they missed an opportunity to show the Irish contribution from the River Clyde. They could have done a mission each for the Irish, Anzac and British Landing really and not mixed everything together. My great grandfather landed as part of the suvla bay attack in August. He was in 6th royal Munster fusiliers as part of a Lewis gun team. He then fought in Greece, Yugoslavia, Gaza/Jerusalem and then finished the war in France. Lucky to be alive I guess, wish I knew him, have his service medal and from that could find a few things out about his units service during the war.

[@saviomocciaro8870]

i don't understand all this hate against bf1 for some inaccuracies, i mean, all the stuff that we see in bf1 really existed, prototypes included, Dice made an awesome job, they made a lot of research, some gears are innacurate for the year and stuff like this, but they didn't put fake stuff in the game. they never said that this was supposed to be a simulative game, the whole ww1 atmosphere is in the game, jeez.. i'm a guy who study ww1/2 history, but damn, i don't see all this need to cover with shit the game. Is the game set in ww1? yes did they made research? yes does it feel ww1? obviously so, there's no need to say that bf1 is trash just beacuse ''the cap here was no used until 1916, we are in 1915, this game is trash'' look at all the positive things that the game have.. but these videos that make this man are so amazing because can actually make people who don't know history nicely, get more informed .

[@ELIASREXZERO]

I agree I think it’s a fun game and the historical accuracy is very good and mostly accurate

[@saviomocciaro8870]

@@ELIASREXZERO there are some inaccuracies but it's not like invented stuff etc. Everything that is in the game existed, everything in the game is based by real things, they have a base of truth

[@thearnorianruby4681]

Agreed. Despite the inaccuracies, I can still play it and enjoy it. It's about execution not strictly sticking to the facts.

[@supercasta6642]

Your comment makes me remember of a discussion between me and a friend of mine that was mad about the new Isonzo trailer because there were some trees on the map. Like, I know on 3000 mt very few trees grow, even fewer on the Dolomiti, but for just 2/3 trees calling a game still to come out "utterly garbage" is just dumb, futile and childish.

[@saviomocciaro8870]

@@supercasta6642 yeah people acts so childish, I love ww1/2 history and the games about them. But calling a masterpiece like bf1 trash, because, "this helmet wasn't used until 1918" "zeppelins didn't flew so low" is acting like a moron. The important thing is the atmosphere, is ww1? Yes. It feels ww1? Yes, so is fine. If the stuff that we see in this kind of games have a base of truth, is fine. A lot of ww1/2 games are not completely accurate, but calling them shitty because there are some inaccuracies, Bruh.

[@viledagame6610]

nice timing for the video, today is the anniversary of the Naval Battle for the Gallipoli One of my grandparents died during Gallipoli campaign, and I am living in Çanakkale; the city which gallipoli is located at. I would say geography is okay for the game but real terrain is far more different than the one in-game. Also ottoman troops didn't use flamethrowers or fancy weapons like those in the game. For the record, ottoman army only had less than 1 million rifles for the army, and half of them were Martini-Henry rifles. Only 300k of them were 1893 turkish mauser which mostly saw service at gallipoli; because it was closer to Constantinople, hence it was easy to deliver the supplies nevertheless I think it was an okay mission, not the best when it comes to historic accuracy though

[@HankD13]

I do love it when somebody applies accurate historical knowledge to these fantasy epics masquerading as actual history. Side note - always hated (once got seriously threatened in Australia) for simply pointing out Gallipoli was not just an Australian tragedy. Australia's 8,709 dead is horrific. But I can't forget my mum's uncle Dick - who landed with the Lancashire Fusilier's and came home shot through the mouth and stomach - one of the 78,520 wounded, along with 34,072 dead the UK suffered. But Gallipoli seems to now be just an Australian, or ANZAC event.

[@coreysoupe2611]

Yeah cause ANZACS did most of the fighting and achieved a lot

[@HankD13]

@@coreysoupe2611 Yep. Really accurate, non partisan history. Nobody else there.

[@James-mn3re]

It's not just because "Australians died" that Gallipoli is seen as such an Aussie (or more accurately, an ANZAC) tragedy. It's because of the scale relative to our size. In 1915 the Australian population was roughly 5 million people. The amount that served? ~415k off the top of my head. That's about 8% of the entire population of a tiny country fighting a pointless war on the other side of the world. About 50k of them served at Gallipoli alone, and with numbers like that you should surmise that every single family in Australia had someone, or knew of someone fighting in the Dardanelles. Also, when Aussies talk about Gallipoli, we're not talking about the entire campaign as a whole, we're specifically talking about the massacre that was Anzac cove, where Aussies were sent by pommy dogs to die for absolutely no good reason, compounded by the horseshit planning of the admiralty, which kick-started our spirit of nationhood. It serves as a symbol on why we shouldn't fight Britain's pointless wars, and risk unbelievable amounts of our young to the horrors of war, both in Gallipoli and in France. So yeah, no wonder you got threatened, you're shitting on the families of most Australians when you act like a massive selfish twat when you ignore all of what makes Gallipoli significant to us. I like the Brits, I have massive respect for them and I see our nations as almost brothers, but you're just an absolute dog cunt, and deserve to be treated like one.

[@THEINTERNETANOMALY]

@@James-mn3re 100% brother

[@brodynightingale8359]

@@James-mn3re damn straight

[@tonyjensen217]

I definitely want to see more about this game. I love this game and still play it to this day, didn't know a lot about how historically inaccurate so it would be interesting to see the other campaigns

[@sarahlovett4013]

It’s 1915 but the brits have Brodie helmets which they didn’t have in real life until 1916

[@nic2340]

who asked nerd

[@GamerCainey]

As an Australian, in our defence, it usually is the fault of the British.

[@Aureus_]

Love to see new vids

[@toolzrus5118]

What’s funny is that for the multiple player mode the Turks have correct uniforms but the British still dint

[@toadkillerdog4282]

In the turning tides Gallipoli maps the British and the ottomans are wearing correct uniforms.

[@nyda2452]

Actually, not even in that case... In Bf1, the uniforms of the Central Powers were designed with low effort: Germans, Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians are practically all wearing the same uniforms (or rather base skins), just in different colours and just partially with different headgear. The original base skin is the imperial german "field-grey" uniform m1907/10 with "brandenburg cuffs" (three buttons in a row on each cuff) and red piping from the outbreak of WW1 in 1914. However, they didn't even get that design quite right (some details are wrong). Also, they are using obviously Wehrmacht Y-straps from WW2. The other two Central Powers have the exact same base skins (including Y-straps from WW2, ammo pouches and boots), just re-coloured white for the Ottomans and re-coloured "stone-grey" for the Austro-Hungarians. They even "enhanced" some of the red elements. And while the Ottomans were re-coloured khaki later on, they still wear the same base skins (including the equipment pieces). This leads e.g. to Ottoman soldiers featuring "brandenburg cuffs" they never had, while Austro-Hungarian soldiers are missing chest pockets they actually had.

[@Arsontapir]

@@nyda2452 Not the chest pockets. Now my immersion is completely ruined

[@simplymadness8849]

@@Arsontapir It’s not just chest pockets on their own. It’s all of the little things adding up that create something that doesn’t look right.

[@Der-Stahlhelm]

@@toadkillerdog4282 toad you here lol ?

[@Starfleet8555]

They got the ship in the foreground, for the bombardment. At first thought it would be a HMS Queen Elizabeth, which was present during the battle. However, closer inspection I realized that's not a Queen Elizabeth class; it's an Iron Duke class. However, NONE of the Iron Dukes were present; they were all in the Grand Fleet up at Scapa Flow. You can see it has 10 guns not 8, which the Queen Elizabeth had 8 guns. I also thought it might've been an Orion class, since that had a similar Armament to the Iron Duke. However, the ship in the foreground has a tripod mast which would indicate an Iron Duke. In short, no, it's not correct. That ship is an Iron Duke class bit NONE of the Iron Dukes were present during the battle. If they wanted a Dreadnought battleship, then they really should've gone for HMS Queen Elizabeth, since it was present during the battle. Otherwise they would've had to use a Pre-dreadnought battleship. Most of the allied capital ships comprised of Pre-dreadnoughts during the battle.

[@PhoenixT70]

Yep, and that's the truly tragic part of Gallipoli. The ground troops were landed to protect the ships sent to force the straits, and the only reason those ships were there was _because they were losable._

[@Starfleet8555]

@@PhoenixT70 The ground forces were sent in because the ships failed to break through the Strait due, Ottoman fortifications and mines

[@PhoenixT70]

@@Starfleet8555 Not entirely. The commanders also didn’t want to lose the ships they had served on as lower officers, and the bitter irony is that the ships themselves were entirely expendable. If you lost a pre-dreadnought in the dreadnought era (after a few years of buildup), you really didn’t lose anything worth writing home about because a pre-dreadnought was useless against a dreadnought. These ships were just going to be scrapped after the war anyway; the logic was, “Let’s put them to use, and if we lose them, it doesn’t really matter.” Cold comfort for their crews, but fairly sound logic.

[@josh_bartholomew_2530]

they sample a dreadnought for use in the game and then they use that model as the dreadnought model in game. They use the same model for any time a dreadnought is deployed on any map/mission regardless of the country using it because its a dreadnought and thats really all they need. They don't need to make a different dreadnought model for every single map and country because that would be ridiculous. The dreadnoughts during the war all looked relatively the same so for gameplay purposes there is no need to constantly make a new variant for everything just because one slightly different looking class that had a different mast was used at Gallipolli vs what was used at Heligoland which is one of the multiplayer maps. If they did that they would have to do it for every piece of equipment, uniform, tank, and so on and so on for every map or campaign which is a whole lot of unnecessary work and time and hard drive space vs just using the one goddamn dreadnought model.

[@w-james9277]

As a limy Brit I want to ask if you think there's an anti british sentiment around popular media right now? We all know that the British empire was tyrannical and there were atrocities committed, but it was the same for all western European countries like France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands yet they seem to get away with it. Whenever I see historical media I get the feeling they try to down play the UK contribution or in some cases, portray them as villains with them being stuck up, arrogant and cowardly. Im fascinated by history so I want these nations and people to be portrayed as they actually were. Like all empires before the British and European empires weren't all good but at the same time weren't all bad. When I see people claiming the British today want to colonise everything is the same as people claiming all Germans are Nazis's. PS: And as someone of Irish descent, i'd love more content about the Irish in WW1.

[@noobguy9973]

welcome to humanity where everyone is an asshole and tries to paint others as ''evil'' even thoe we all know everything is lot more complex than just mere good and evil

[@iLikeTrains0372]

They had gas masks. They expected the Ottomans to use gas because they knew Germany delivered the weapon. Ottomans didn’t use gas weapons but used firebomvs that were legal to use so after 1 month, the allied soldiers removed the masks because they felt gas threat was over. You can read such stuff from memoires of Anzac soldiers published 1915 issue Australian and New Zealender newspapee. Check the Otago Times and The Age they have internet archives

[@XaviRonaldo0]

Why are there ANZAC troops at Cape Helles in this?

[@kevinkocher9347]

There are plenty of ww1 movies about Gallipoli but not well known one being Gallipoli with Mel Gibson and mark lee but there is a docudrama made in 2015 that tells both sides stories by multiple sources be prepared to cry as the men tell their story up to their fates.

[@ZeSgtSchultz]

I really wish this game was more like the old cods. I think you should do a small series on cod 2, or even just the last american mission. It really make you feel like those last american hold outs

[@puneetdhillon4770]

Still more historically accurate then Vanguard

[@pablon4585]

@@puneetdhillon4770 amen to that

[@razgriz9146]

He'd have fun with that game, to be sure. Especially the part where Panzer II Light Tank was apparently able to go toe-to-toe with Crusader Cruiser Tanks.

[@NegiTaiMetal011]

Looks like I'm learning something more from you. You corrected various details I never knew the game had or I think I know.

[@NoxcyiBorz95]

They legit used the German outfit on ottomans but changed the color to white

[@error-st9tc]

I feel inaccuracies are kinda overshadowed by the story the meaning behind, and in almost all stories they don't try to dehumaniz each side. But that's just my opinion

[@collewis6681]

Man, I wish they would get things right. Anzac, are still important to New Zealand and Australia. Anzac, means Australia New Zealand Army Corp. Well, as a New Zealander. There are many jokes between the two countries. New Zealand is known as the little brother of Australia. After the campaign, then it came out the name of ANZAC.

[@kommissioned]

Sheesh, you don't miss a thing! Great video, very informative.

[@olliesrandomchannel7300]

The cape is to put over your nose and mouth when there’s gas being used kind of like a gas mask

[@systemreset9410]

I don't know if you did it on purpose or not but today is the anniversary of this war. So, kudos either way. I really liked your analysis and takeaways. I really appreciate the effort you put into this. I understand its frustrating most of the time. And if this angered you this much, don't watch the Arabian theatre mission, you'd go mental (actually please watch it, i'd pay top dollar to see that). Also i like your channel a lot, I discovered through a friend who sent me your first Russian-Ukrainian war analysis. Subscribed since then.

[@historylegends]

Your kind words mean a lot to me! Thank you 🙏

[@lorenzotituri9145]

Could you react to the Italian mission too ? I guess you will produce a fine video as well 🤣 P.s. You are doing an amazing job 🤙🏻

[@yo.nomas123]

yes, that armored guy resisting airplane bullets must be amazing when analyzed

[@ewok_jedi9188]

If you're looking for a good ww1 Gallipoli show (it is pretty historically accurate) it's on Netflix it's called Gallipoli. It's good you should watch it

[@danubianfederation1672]

I am interested in the multiple strokes, mental breakdowns and aneurysms if you reacted to some of the Battlefield V missions

[@rolfagten857]

Really good in-depth exploration of the details. Wasn't there a unit badge on the Australian hats?!

[@ropatevuta2911]

In regards to the “human with high melanin” near the end of the video, that would be a representation of an Indigenous Australian soldier who served in Gallipoli. 70 Indigenous Australians served in Gallipoli but I’m not sure if they would have been present for that advance

[@dajoker8998]

We wuz kangz n shit

[@EASAustraliaNSW]

@@dajoker8998what

[@jakebrowncollection1772]

this mission always annoyed me the fact that the aussies are on V beach in cape helles and not Gaba Tepe AKA ANZAC cove and that they show them on the River Clyde Rather than the men of the 2nd Battalion Hampshire Regiment and 1st Battalion Royal Munster Fusiliers and 1st Battalion Royal Dublin Fusiliers. these men were cut down as they left the collier but fought on they should be remembered. The Hampshire's especially get forgotten thanks to things like Wikipedia and other sources. The actual Name plate of the River Clyde is in there Regimental museum. I've had to edit Wiki myself to correct the wrongs. it brings alot of anger as ive met some of the guys who were there from the battalion and who saw the carnage.

[@Aristocrat1cs]

"Assassin's Creed Gallipoli?!" LMAO

[@drunkukrainian6998]

A small detail i picked up on is on the ship he said "level your GUN" atleast for Britain you call it a RIFLE A GUN HAS WHEELS!

[@Thaboggelwoggeler]

It may not be THAT historically accurate but the graphics and the atmosphere is good enough for I think almost all of us

[@ConkerVonZap]

If i not mistaken, they hired indy neidell as a freelancer to do the information at the beginning and end of the mission.

[@kursatcizim265]

14:39 daki fotoğrafı nerden buldun link verirmisin ve googleden bulduysan ne yazdın da buldun yani ne arattın google de de bu fotoğrafı buldun ?

[@alexblanco5116]

I feel like you will have a heart attack if you watch the nordlys war story in battlefield 5

[@historylegends]

I’ll reserve a bed at the hospital

[@loafheader]

im glad they mentioned the irish in there, people tend to forget that the Irish fought in the british army

[@ottomanmtd6919]

you need to continue the video because you still not see ottoman flamethrower :DDDD

[@atouchoflightning448]

The thing with the Brody helmets in 1915 is mainly because dice was too lazy to change up the models instead of making new modified Irish models for One campaign they use the same stock British army that’s in the rest of the game

[@ntfoperative9432]

I wouldn’t call that laziness, more time saving. Why take the time modeling out a new soldier that’s gonna appear in one Campaign story and nowhere else, when you could take take a small creative liberty by using an already made model

[@simulify8726]

Hey, love your analysis, when will the next update on Ukraine will come? I am eager to watch your analysis of current situation

[@Klyis]

Great analysis! One minor thing though. When referring to front part of a ship bow is pronounced like bou. I don't blame you for that mistake since we sailors have a long history of pronouncing things differently from everyone else.

[@deathmachineyt3254]

Honestly even though I'm younger generation I usually don't believe the games, and I usually do own research and stuff and read books about it

[@HawkThunder907]

We need something New, a game without money people, we need people who want to make games that are fun and historical accurate. It sucks for the today Generation, because the schools arent learning history right, they font even care for history then

[@oaschloch7951]

You clearly are not part of the target audience of this game.

[@oliversherman2414]

I love your channel keep up the great stuff!

[@bubblegumhero2753]

On max difficulty the defense is much more realistic, machine guns are constantly on your steps and almost every soldier approaching the beach dies. Also in the tranches there are more soldiers.

[@charltonbruton2579]

bro is overanalyzing a video game…

[@tgslime9068]

Just like what people do to cod

[@waynelow7401]

I mean they made it as accurate as they could back then, it actually let people start to focus Ww1 again which a lot more Ww1 related games came out, so it's a w I guess (I'm also pretty sure this dude is playing in the easiest difficulty, it could explain why there is only so much Turkish soldiers during the entire campaign missions for this side of the war)

[@MrLuxen]

If the younger generation uses video games as a primary source for their historical knowledge their teachers and parents have failed them.

[@gabrielbarrios6712]

Dude! Your humor only keeps getting better 😂😂

[@HenriqueFPplay]

in 2016/17 bf1 was the best game, the atmosphere, the chaos, especially in the multiplayer and nobody cared if the game wasn't 100% historically correct, the game community was wonderful, nowadays old players like me miss the game a lot bf1, if you didn't play this game at its peak simply because it wasn't historically correct you were and are too dumb

[@moss8702]

Play it now. It's still kicking strong and just as gorgeous

[@puneetdhillon4770]

Actually now we have cod vanguard with Japanese carrying stg 44s

[@yesfiraswa]

@@puneetdhillon4770 vanguard: - paper armored japanese tanks destroys sherman in one shot - flashbangs during ww2 - volksturmgewehr full auto

[@noobguy9973]

ı would like to argue and say DOOM 2016 was the shit but everyone has tastes

[@marooner-martin]

Fun fact, not these subtitles, but the ones you see during loading screens, were written by ‘The Great War’ KZbin channel

[@Reddok762]

There is actually a documentary i watched before the game came out i can vouch you were right alot of the soldiers got slaughter

[@shuhratkessikbayev8886]

Still more realistic and accurate than BFV's war story mission that takes place in Norway.

[@Molesey_97]

Great video! Totally agree with you, we british seem to get a bad wrap when it comes to ww1 and ww2 for some reason. Also, I don't understand why they don't invest in hiring a team of historians to work with them on historical games or even a couple of historians just to sign off the game and give it the green light. I guess it comes down to money but still I think it should be prioritised as you say this is how the youth learn of past events and the Gurkas are very impressive soldiers like the Canadians when it comes to war.

[@1Chasg]

What are you talking about they clearly did alot of research and had the aid of historians. You have to understand this is a Battlefield game. If they made the WW1 experience 100% realistic it would be a boring video game. Yet despite this, DICE produced an authentic feeling WW1 experience and got alot historically right, especially compared to other historical shooters like Vanguard. The odd cap being a year early doesn't warrant hate.

[@noob-su3xs]

mate please watch all the videos they made on how they made these weapons and vehicles in game

[@PhelippeMitsu98]

The only relief that is we Didn’t have to fight Jannissaries in Gallipoli

[@nastynate4916]

Oh god when you mentioned the possibility of the “time to go” line being a possible foreshadowing, it reminded me of the Gallipoli movie and now I’m sad

[@johnno7429]

Why are the slouch hats bashed like a town hat? This is an insult to the ANZACs as well as every other nationality including Johnny Turk. The brave men buried in the hills of Gallipoli should be given more honour than this

[@bingolos9063]

Everyone been calling BF1 realistic and historicall accurate before. Until some "historian" reviews it, then suddenly everyone changed their mind

[@LordKurian]

But its better than cod vanguard lol .

[@bingolos9063]

@@LordKurian in terms of the game itself, yes BF1 is better than vanguard. but when it comes to historical accuracy BF1 is no different to VG.

[@bladeforce3000]

@@bingolos9063 Bf1’s relatively slight historical inaccuracies is incomparable to how awfully innacurate Vanguard is, even looking past the hilarious addition of red dot sights the game struggles to make a good portion of the guns accurate to the time.

[@bingolos9063]

@@bladeforce3000 No doubts

[@toadkillerdog4282]

I understand most of your criticism here. However getting angry over the fact “Britain” was put last in a basic list is pretty random to me. It’s just a list, it doesn’t mean they are implying they did less.

[@historylegends]

In a list you typically start with the most important factors/actor

[@toadkillerdog4282]

@@historylegends Well I just don’t think it was meant to say anyone did more than the other. (The list anyway)

[@paolochierici3251]

Love those videos. Please make one with every world war battlefield campaign

[@bradical6019]

Unlike Britain and France , this was to be Australia and New Zealand's first big engagement into the war thinking they would be sent to the western front , remembering the war has been going on for a year ? In Australia and New Zealand ANZAC DAY is a very important event, its part of our culture, to remember our men who went there and fought for the first time together for the British Empire. Even though it ended in failure, it didn't break our resolve and we continued fighting in the war. Also, both Australian and New Zealand took part in small actions in the second boar war , this would be our baptism in a real major war. Most other nations don't really remember this campaign, Australia and New Zealand and Turkey get together once a year at Gallipoli to honour all the fallen , every year the 25th April both Australia and New Zealand its a public Holiday where many take part in Anzac day dawn parades to remember those that died and who returned, including current service personnel overseas.

[@thelime4147]

The Gun that the player is using is a Lee Enfield, the standard issue rifle of the british army, but the sights however are very historically inaccurate. He is also using a shotgun which weren’t used until the americans arrived in Europe in summer of 1918. The weapon besides the turkish soldier is a german Gewehr 98 the standard issue rifle of Germany.

[@gustavofring5832]

It's ironic that the multiplayer map is more accurate

[@XaviRonaldo0]

You call yourself a historian yet keep calling them Turkish instead of Ottoman. Not all of them were Turkish

[@jaggedskar3890]

Great work.

[@bradenclark8885]

The mauser seen at 13:23 is close to a Turkish mauser however you can see in the butstock that there is a black circle. This would be a joke that was drilled through the stock and reinforced by a metal insert to help with taking down the actual bolt of the gun to clean and to inspect your firing pin. It is also not seen on Turkish mausers but instead more prominently on German K98 mausers. This doesn’t mean it wasn’t impossible for Turkish forces to receive K98s but it is unlikely that a common foot soldier would be issues it instead of a sniper. And being that the soldier we see at 13:23 is right at the front of the battlefield I don’t think he is supposed to be a sniper. So I don’t believe, in my own opinion, we are looking at an accurate firearm in this shot other that it is a mauser.

[@viledagame6610]

ottoman forces never fielded Gewehr 98 on large scale except the expeditionary forces, our main backbone were Martini Henry rifles and then 1893 and 1903 Mauser's. Since ottoman empire at that time didn't have any industry; we were only reliant on foreign arms supply

[@bradenclark8885]

Thank you this is very informative. I thought that was the case for the gewehr 98 but I am more versed in WWII history. In which case both the 1903 and 1893 were not manufactured with the bolt takedown hole in the stock so what we see in the video I guess is historically inaccurate. Thank you

[@viledagame6610]

@@bradenclark8885 you are always welcome, glad that I helped

[@nicholai1008]

I think a lot of confusion regarding Turkish Mausers stems from the fact that Turkey bought up a bunch of G98s after the First World War and basically cobbled together working rifles from the mountains of surplus they accrued. There really isn’t a “standard” interwar Turkish Mauser because they were made with parts from multiple guns. This includes plenty of rifles with that bolt disassembly hole, and other weird variations. Since most of these rifles are WWI vintage people assume that they were used by the Ottomans, when in reality (as the poster above pointed out) they only used G98s in a very limited capacity.

[@viledagame6610]

@@nicholai1008 actually, post war ottoman government nor republic bought spesifically G98's. Ottoman government had army limitations, which they couldn't buy any rifles. Turkish republic on the other hand used 1890, 1893 and 1903 mausers during the revolutionary war. However biggest supply of weapons came from soviet union, they sent us 100.000 pieces of Mosin Nagants. After the war domestic arms production began, I forgot the earlier models' names but in 1938 we began producing our ww2 service rifle T38 or M38, both names were used. Which was also kind of based on 1903 mauser

[@dexterhowe9992]

Bro battlefield is just about stealth EVERY CAMPAIGN IS STEALTH

[@gewurzgurkenkaiser2575]

I will never be able to play a game like this again

[@Egeli70]

15:40 Actually the germans didnt make them. They just sent regular helmets, which later were made custom in the Ankara Arms Factory.

[@coolhandluke7772]

I think the cape is meant to be a rain coat

[@michealzachary3888]

If he took a look at the multiplayer maps I think he would like them much better. As they have less of the fantasy trenches however they are not as closely based on real location.

[@prestongarvey6933]

Gotta love how everyone shits on vanguard for being historically inaccurate but those same people go out of their way to defend bf1 even though it is just as inaccurate as vanguard. Talk about hypocrisy...

[@toadkillerdog4282]

Probably because people hate diversity in historical games.

[@dragonflyc1967]

That's because Battlefield 1 actually gets the feel that you are in WW1 unlike Vanguard which is woke as hell, also you could have diversity done right in Vanguard with examples such as the Folgore, Hungarians fighting on the flanks of Stalingrad, Japanese-American Infantry Division fighting on the Western Front and etc..........

[@juanhan4688]

Or maybe because COD Vanguard is actually complete garbage. The campaign has neither head nor tail, a new fuhrer in 1945? When Germany was on the verge of collapse and the Austrian regime was tougher than ever because of the leader's paranoia as a result of the failed attack in 1944? It could not be more unreal, Hitler replaced any officer who did not support his ideology (which had a marked cult of personality) so in that case, how is it possible for a trashy general to proclaim himself the new leader? It's ridiculous. Also, the campaign is basic, they go on a mission, they get captured, they each tell their stories, they break free and kill the villain. Ready, there is no plot, there is no goal, it is empty. Vanguard was made for warzone, which makes the game feel more like one based on a current conflict than world war 2. The characters have no charisma, they are flat and boring. Besides, what was the need to emphasize the racism of the Nazis so much? Everyone knows that, because it is not better to put the perspective of the war from a German. In addition, including Battlefield 1 destroys COD Vanguard, not only do you have dozens of ethnic groups but there are also several factions such as the Americans, the British, the French, the white army and the red army, the Russians, the ANZACS, the British Navy, the Italians, the Ottomans, the Arab rebels and the Austro-Hungarians. We have women snipers on the Russian side, African-Americans as shooters in Germany and Britain (possibly from African colonies), Indian doctors on the English side, colonial soldiers on the French side, and so on. And best of all, they don't always stress where you come from and your ethnicity. The inclusion is much better adapted and inserted into the context of the conflict and although it is true that it has many historical errors, it is a war game, not a war simulator. If you are looking for a realism attached to history, play Post Scriptum or Hell let lose. It is a game designed to entertain, not to teach, if you want to learn, watch a documentary then. What famous war game is themed around the First World War besides Battlefield 1? None and being the first Battlefield has recreated a great world war, it feels like fighting in Verdun or Gallipoli. On the other hand, in Vanguard I feel in the present, explosive bullets, reflex sights, modern combat tactics, current weapon modifications... It's terrible. And the protagonist group made up of members of the allied side is not very inclusive, where are the Indians? The British Raj sent millions of men to fight in both World War I and World War II. Where are the Chinese? The Chinese nationalist army has been fighting Japan since 1937. Where are the Yugoslav guerrillas? They practically fought the Germans to the end without outside support and defeated them. Where are the French? In Africa the French colonial troops of Free France fought against the Italians and the Germans alongside the British. Where are the Spanish? Both republican and Francoist soldiers joined the war armies after the Spanish civil war. Many republican soldiers enlisted in the red army. Where are the Egyptians? Let's not forget that during World War II Egypt was a British protectorate which fought against the Italian incursion of Graziani and later against Rommel. Where are the Greek armies that managed to escape from the Germans and joined the British to fight against the axis in North Africa. Where are the Ukrainians? The Soviet Union was made up of republics which had characteristic elements that differentiated them from each other and the Ukrainians were the ones who suffered the most on the eastern front. The Red Army was made up of individuals from all the Soviet republics, not just Russia. Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan... all the Soviet soldiers from those countries don't matter? Where are the Brazilians? Brazil was the first South American country to focus its war effort against the axis to the point that the Brazilian army participated in the battle of Monte Cassino and in other combats in the Italian campaign. Where are the Indonesians belonging to the Dutch army who fought against the Japanese? Where are the Canadians? The Mexicans? The Filipinos who, together with the Americans, tried to repel the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. Where are they? As you can see, there are many individuals who fought with the allies who have been ignored, why not tell their story? Unlike Battlefield, Vanguard tells a boring story with an exaggerated attempt at inclusion, something that clearly contradicts the policy that Activision had with employees which caused abuse, mistreatment, teasing and sexual harassment of the highest ranking individuals against the companies. women and men (employees of the company) of lower rank. The environment was really toxic and unpleasant and Activision, to correct those mistakes, makes an inclusive game with the aim of avoiding society's reaction against them. I am sorry if my comment is very long, but there are issues that need a great explanation to be clarified. Cod Vanguard is a boring game, both its campaign and its multiplayer are, for me and for many, quite disappointing. The game is bad because not only is it poorly optimized and full of bugs, but it's also the same game as COD modern warfare from 2019 only unlike that Vanguard it has a lousy story. The game was so bad that the criticism I had regarding this garbage had blinded me to the inclusion, which I don't care about but you can't sustain a shitty game with shitty inclusion.

[@prestongarvey6933]

@@juanhan4688 I think I should clear thigs up by saying that I don't like vanguard either, and I also like BF1. What am saying is that if people are willing to call out vanguard's historical inaccuracies saying that I changes historical events then I think we should hold bf1 and other ww1 and ww2 shooters to the same standard. If you watched the video then you'll see that the Gallipoli campaign was rewriten just to "add diversity" when like historylegends said, there is a lot of stories with lots of diversity.

[@juanhan4688]

@@prestongarvey6933 My comment is addressed to the user who said that those who complain about the inclusion of Vanguard defend Battlefield 1 knowing that it also has an inclusion that in some cases is not correct historically speaking. Battlefield 1's inclusion attempt is in my opinion better than COD's because it doesn't feel important while in Vanguard it seems inclusion is the most important thing. And I say it again, I don't mind the inclusion in these games, they are not historical documentary games, but if you are going to make a game with a historical theme try to stick to it and in that battlefield 1 is better than COD vanguard because as far as I know There were no reflex sights in WWII. Historylegends should react to other types of works which aim to tell a story, which is not the case with Battlefield 1 which focuses on entertainment. Both battlefield and vanguard are entertainment products set in a historical period, so they can take some creative liberties but must respect the important elements of the story. And if we talk about changes by inclusion, vanguard takes the gold medal by creating the allied avengers who played key roles in each war campaign of the second world war, battlefield may have altered what really happened in Gallipoli but vanguard practically altered all the history of the second world war. And I think you have misunderstood my comment, vanguard came out to give activision the image of a good company after the internal scandals, showing itself as tolerant and progressive. Vanguard doesn't just have an economic motive, it also has a political one, something that battlefield 1 largely lacks. Compare COD modern warfare from 2019 with vanguard and you will notice a clear change of goals in the product. What I am going for is that if I try to make an entertaining and inclusive work, I fail in both aspects, while battlefield 1 manages to be entertaining and include various ethnic groups, although in my opinion inclusion is not a relevant element, which is relevant it's the story they tell and how entertaining it can be and Vanguard doesn't meet that goal. I'm not praising battlefield 1, I've said like 5 times that it's full of historical errors, but that historically speaking it's much more accurate than Vanguard, despite being a mere entertainment product

[@Slavik_Shorty]

"Is he the train commander of the Hogwarts express?!" Lol

[@blackarrow7988]

A lot of people are complaining about this guy criticizing what they call “little things” and saying that they’re not that big of a deal. My question is, “If they were such minor details, then why are you getting so bent out of shape about what some guy on KZbin says about it”?

[@danielpenaofficial4186]

U should make it to where the audio of the videos come through the same video loudly

[@SRDPS2]

He on fire more than some CoD Vanguard I can't imagine how much mistake on that lol

[@HooDooBrown]

ITS JUST A GAME. And because of games. We have people who thought the m1 grand couldn't be reloaded for over 10 years. Due to games never adding it in.

[@darthtytherous2107]

My guy just needs to react to a CoD WaW mission so he can actually have a somewhat fun time.

[@Aufenthalt]

Love this Dude👍

[@vincentwitt1810]

I think the multiplayer version of Gallipoli in bf1 has a much more accurate map design than in the campaign. I may be wrong tho

[@chiefsmeg7832]

Amazing video, absolutely love this content. However, cylindrical grenade that looks very similar to a Mills bomb? a) Where are the improvised jam jars and b) Mills bombs weren't available until just before the evacuation in December.

[@midz_5089]

13:20 thats a gewehr 98, BF1 never added any Turkish mausers. Also why does that soldier have a gas mask canister? Poison gas wasn't used in gallipoli. Leather Y straps are also wrong as I don't think the ottomans recieved those, so made improvised ones from rope or breadbag slings. Jackboots are also uncommon for enlisted men who would mostly have ankle boots and puttees.

[@nyda2452]

The uniforms in Bf1 on the side of the Central Powers are pretty low effort: Germans, Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians are practically all wearing the same uniforms (or rather base skins), just in different colours and just partially with different headgear. The original one is the imperial german "field-grey" uniform m1907/10 with "brandenburg cuffs" (three buttons in a row on each cuff) and red piping from the outbreak of WW1 in 1914. However, they didn't even get that design quite right (some details are wrong). Also, they are using obviously Wehrmacht Y-straps from WW2. The other two Central Powers have the exact same base skins (including Y-straps from WW2, ammo pouches and boots), just re-coloured white for the Ottomans and re-coloured "stone-grey" for the Austro-Hungarians. They even "enhanced" some of the red elements. And while the Ottomans were re-coloured khaki later on, they still wear the same base skins (including the equipment pieces). This leads e.g. to Ottoman soldiers featuring "brandenburg cuffs" they never had, while Austro-Hungarian soldiers are missing chest pockets they actually had.

[@stormeaglegaming5395]

Could you check out Call of Duty World at War Pacific Campaign ?

[@dailynaturevibes1146]

I'd love to see that 🥰

[@dailynaturevibes1146]

I'm 18 and world at war is the only campaign I liked in cod😁

[@bruh-br4wo]

Bro got me questioning this game now

[@Big_Berg]

The cape is a trench coat with the collar buttoned up for anyone wondering

[@Streloski]

Plash Palatka

[@scoutgaming9728]

HL: “Am I playing Assassin’s Creed: Gallipoli?!” Ubisoft: “WRITE THAT DOWN, WRITE THAT DOWN”