The Washington Miniseries Doesn't Look Very Good...

The so-called History Channel is at it again, this time with a mocku- sorry, documentary miniseries about George Washington. I have not had the displeasure to watch it, but from this trailer, I am not particularly inspired. Normally you want, in a trailer, to show off the biggest and the best you can offer...it seems the History Channel has gone with the exact opposite, showcasing some of their farbiest. At least...I certainly hope this is the farbiest they have...because otherwise...yikes!
Atun-Shei's Film Project: • I'm Making an Indie Mo...
Chris P's meme video: • Washington - Bad Costumes -
-
- -
- -
This video was made in support of The Native Oak. Learn more about our educational mission here:
www.nativeoak....
If you'd like to support the channel, please consider giving on Patreon,
/ brandonf
You can follow me on social media too!
/ thenativeoak
/ brandonfisichella

[@AtunSheiFilms]

You've got it all wrong, Brandon. There is no gold decoration on the officer's hats because the Zorgons from the Planet Xelabequef landed in Piccadilly Circus in 1748 and demanded all the British Empire's gold to fuel their ships. I know this is true because I saw it on the History Channel. Thanks for the shout out :)

[@soundwavegamer2321]

Atun-Shei Films hahaha

[@ShakespeareInTheAlley]

👍

[@skoshman1]

Because... Aliens.

[@Ynffy]

@@skoshman1 And the patriarchy white washing anunnaki immigrant history. All as you can see on "History Channel".

[@kmaher1424]

One of your recent productions could have sold to the History Channel on visuals alone. Nazis and Aliens, just their thing! Alas, the verbiage would have offended them. Too smart!

[@aleckushmerek1757]

The history channel is a disgrace and doesn't deserve it's name. Keep exposing these farbs, you're doing great!

[@isleepforeveer]

@@freedomfunnies770 Channel*

[@can-chan6119]

Whenever you find out that the history channel is actually coming out to make something that’s related to history instead of Ancient Aliens, but it’s still plagued with massive inaccuracies and incompetence of the creators.

[@AbrahamLincoln4]

It's full of pawn stars and other crap. The 90s and early 2000s history channel was top notch. They show pretty good documentaries.

[@benjaminbierley2074]

@@AbrahamLincoln4 I miss those days, grew up watching those, ended up almost able to run circles around my history teacher in high school, most of all when it came to WWII due to both the volume of documentaries on the war but how it helped ignite my interest in it and history in general.

[@chrislondo2683]

@Alec Kushmerek what about Hunting Hitler? Don’t get started here why there’s people that believe he’s still alive. Nonetheless, Quinton did a excellent series on it.

[@wp9746]

they really should have stuck to ice road truckers and pawn stars

[@nathanielblodgett8235]

And ancient aliens

[@d.s.archer5903]

@@nathanielblodgett8235 And Oak Island, and Bigfoot.

[@Shadowman4710]

@@d.s.archer5903 and haunted civil war battlefields...

[@nativegerry335]

@Don Cossack You mean ice chode fuckers and porn stars

[@free_at_last8141]

"What the Klan does during the day" channel.

[@angrybadger7946]

"how George Washington was a spy from mars sent by aliens" next on history channel

[@commandingjudgedredd1841]

"I'm not saying it was George Washington, but it was George Washington."

[@kaiserjoe2316]

"and he still lives to this day rebuilding pinball machines from the ancient 1980s when he's not panning for gold with bigfoot seeking yokels."

[@kaiserjoe2316]

@John Saunders Lol! One of the best titled documentaries I saw which may have actually been Discovery if im honest was "Timequest: The Search for Jesus' Foreskin." Seriously. NOT A JOKE. Could be the next Indiana Jones movie.

[@pickeljarsforhillary102]

George Washington shares a Vegas strip side condo with Socrates.

[@diegorincon4673]

Search up “aliens and presidents”. Or better don’t.

[@Trazyn_the_Infinite_40K]

"Why Clinton is on the show, who even knows." Clinton is the descendant of an OLD revolutionary war political dynasty. To History Channel that means: " oh, he's related to George Clinton. He MUST know about George Washington".

[@commanderNSO]

Well heck, so am I.

[@jacobwbruce]

I would like to add on to this that Bill Clinton gets his surname from his step-father and is not descended from the Clinton family directly

[@Trazyn_the_Infinite_40K]

@@jacobwbruce this is also true.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

@@jacobwbruce Hillary is descended from a fille de roi.

[@yaelrar.4460]

Lots of people have the last name Clinton. Doesn't mean they are related to George Clinton. But the History Channel doesn't think you know that. So they'll play Bill as related to George.🤦‍♂️

[@ChristheRedcoat]

F in the chat for the one out-of-step lad at the end who thought he could sneak by you.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

F

[@jamesbhollingsworth5452]

F

[@coltonfalletti6360]

F

[@ashtux1075]

F

[@KingKurotrol2000]

F

[@SultanOfAwesomeness]

Silly Brandon, redcoats aren’t people, they’re lobsters.

[@Lagmaster33]

Have a swim with your frog friends, colonial!

[@mr4ever566]

I'm doin'Continental Army Reenactment, and well that's true

[@mr4ever566]

They're lobsters

[@SultanOfAwesomeness]

@@Lagmaster33 and you with your tea, loyalist!

[@samuel10125]

@@SultanOfAwesomeness did you have a good treason day?

[@mn8886]

In the movie Gettysburg the film makers got reenactors to come and be extras in the movie so that everything looked accurate, the history channel should have just done that...but do they care, no!

[@GorinRedspear]

If memory serves, they even provided many of the props used in the film, such as the pipe and tobacco pouch used by Sam Elliott in a scene lasting only about 15 seconds.

[@RJLbwb]

Isn't the History Channel Ted Turner's creation too like the movie Gettysburg?

[@peterbanderas8184]

I was just thinking how, no matter what you think of him, Ted Turner really did want accuracy in his two civil war films.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

George Lucas should have used fans in plastic armour instead of CGI clones.

[@insanehippiehippieinsane3828]

The re-enactors brought everything they had including Canons.

[@joeblow9657]

14:02 "these men look more like cheaply outfitted Continental swine than true and proper British soldier" Damn Brandon F., just damn

[@RJLbwb]

I guess they couldn't get Newt Gingrich to be the "expert" on this one. Eh, maybe Clinton might have something say about Washington from the perspective of being president, but the History Channel's choices for commentators comes across like they want talking heads popular with the target demographic, rather than experts on the subject matter.

[@joeblow9657]

@@RJLbwb Lol. TFW a bad history show chooses unqualified commentators because they're well known former politicians instead of proper experts taken in context. Brandon F. should write to them. Also, maybe Gingrich is too busy with another open marriage to be on the show

[@kmaher1424]

The show (the "historical" bits, at least) was shot in Bucharest. Perhaps that is how the Romanian Army marches. Too far away for Reenactor Volunteers. They could have hired a few as consultants, but did not bother.

[@andreimorar5249]

@@kmaher1424 as a Romanian and volunteer in a reenactment group that recreates the Romanian army, I don't think that's how our army marches. It just looks silly as shown in that footage. Also, I did not know the scenes were filmed in Bucharest. I guess it has to be at Buftea, near Bucharest, since there are most of the filming stages built for such kind of scenes, and foreign films and documentaries like filming there

[@kmaher1424]

@@andreimorar5249 Yjsnk you for the information. It appears that the "soldiers" were poorly directed.

[@BufusTurbo92]

9:41 The costume department looked at period satirical illustrations and thought the enormous hats were legit

[@MixerRenegade95]

Hats that big would not come about until the 1790s and by that point they were full on Bicorne cocked hats not Tricorne cocked.

[@BufusTurbo92]

@@MixerRenegade95 yes but some satirical pieces DID have enormous hats depicted in them for comedic purposes.

[@MixerRenegade95]

@@BufusTurbo92 Very true and yes I did laugh at those too.

[@joeblow9657]

Well Puck was a good magazine, just in context though

[@fds7476]

Yes, but that would imply that they read.

[@jahsiahbowie1120]

I think they should rename the “history” channel to the “Vaguely pro American that sometimes features thing that may be historical channel”

[@historygeekslive8243]

😅😅

[@kaizermierkrazy6886]

VPATSFTTMBH channel.

[@cammysmith7562]

Why do they always hire extras? Why don’t they hire out reenactment groups they would save money on the uniform and it would look good.

[@yank-tc8bz]

Ted Turner always hired reenactors for his Civil War TV movies Saved a bundle on uniforms, weapons and tents.

[@Riceball01]

Probably because either nobody thought of it or they think that reenactors only do Renaissance/Medieval, Civil War, or WWII and nobody reenacts any other period of history. That, or maybe there are no reenactment groups near them and they don't want to pay bus or fly them in and put them up in a hotel as well as feed them.

[@spitandfire]

Here's the problem though. You hire a bunch of idiots, dress them in crap clothes from decades old historical movies. And get to march and shoot. Vs Reenactors who have very expensive kit they wont want badly damaged. Who also have day jobs and as such will quite rightly charge a far higher price for their services than some street slub. And money matters more than historical accuracy to the studio

[@jungefrau]

Union rules is one. Reenactors are also often, uh, heftier than actors and look like fluffy moderns.

[@ThejollyFrenchman]

Because reenactors are often too old, and harder to work with.

[@5.7moy]

“Poor extra was probably told he would be on a history program, not a comedy special” Brandon roasting the history channel over here

[@robfromjersey7899]

I'm old enough to remember when the History channel was actually good. The memories...

[@samuel10125]

Yup now it's all aliens and conspiracy theory's.

[@keithhagler502]

It has never actually been good. It was created from the very beginning for nefarious reasons and to distort truth.

[@SRP3572]

Same here, before it became a haven for bad history and just another reality t.v. channel

[@msc7825]

Amen

[@darramlogan7126]

Yup.

[@influenza3736]

Just be glad they didn't include aliens

[@bluebread6482]

at this point i actually want a self aware series where washington's boys fend off british zombos

[@mindbomb9341]

Or vampires

[@davidells6760]

So it really _was_ aliens?!

[@proudamerican4337]

Don't give them any ideas. lol

[@angrybadger7946]

Is your profile picture from extra history?

[@oats4632]

Did they even TRY to contact reenactors?? It would be so much easier and more effective than having the costume department throw something together!! Nice vid

[@kaynebartholomew2994]

Oats no they didn’t. When they made “The Revolution” they did. One of the groups near me had members in that show. This show...ugh. It’s so terrible.

[@knave91]

According to IMDB, the filming location was Bucharest Romania. Those were probably extras hired for the scenes.

[@David-js4wd]

As a 17th reenactor of many years and one time leader of a group I was contacted many times by production companies, they did not want advice, they had already made up their minds on what they wanted, they wanted bodies - people who would turn up for nothing in the hope they MAY see their own faces on TV... for their 5min of "fame"...

[@mattc4013]

2:31 It's the classic "Cool people never look at explosions" shot!

[@cdcdrr]

Cool regiments don't look at explosions. They set the White House on fire and then march away.

[@inquisitorsteele8397]

@@cdcdrr lol

[@historygeekslive8243]

@@cdcdrr 😅😅😅

[@leifewald5117]

Causing an explosion and not looking back whilst marching away? Now that’s soldiering..

[@thekaiser3815]

Unless it is for commady and Played for larghs

[@ulysses2921]

I think the people who made this played empire total war once, and that is as far as there ‘research’ went.

[@Nonsense010688]

I don't think Empire had that large hats...

[@ulysses2921]

Si Wi I was referring to the flag and the uniforms

[@Nonsense010688]

@@ulysses2921 okay makes sense

[@FieldMarshalYT]

@@ulysses2921 As was I.

[@joeblow9657]

Shots fired!!! Shots Fired!!!!

[@wildernessofzinn17]

Finally...a am glad to hear someone say what the so-called "History" Channel really is. It is anything but history. I stopped watching it. More like the History Revisionism Channel. Like the rest of the media, the "History" Channel is more concerned with entertaining indoctrination than history

[@athel1585]

It's like everytime I watch Vikings I just want to scream into a pillow cos of all the inaccuracies

[@dredlord47]

At least they're trying to do actual history again instead of "reality" shows.

[@model-man7802]

Me too I quit watching it.

[@Shadowman4710]

The only "indoctrination" these corporatist ass-clowns are interested is indoctrinating you into spending your money. This channel has a specific target audience. Without putting too fine a point on it let's just say that most of it was born before 1960 and most have at most a year or two of community college. They're playing to the biases of the consumers as do most of these networks. They find a niche' and exploit it. Capitalism 101.

[@leod-sigefast]

Most NatGeo and History is total rubbish. Repetitive repeated crap. How many times do we have to see the battle of Midway or Iwo Jima and how the US marine corp is the best in the whole world...ever. I really would like to cancel the documentary subscription but it seems impossible to do so.

[@micahistory]

Imagine him breaking down the whole series when this was just one image

[@Mark-Mcloud]

Imagine watching the whole series knowing most of it is wrong

[@micahistory]

@@Mark-Mcloud yeah

[@danielwolfgang8234]

The history channel isn´t known for accuracy when it comes to the depiction of certain people. Watch some of their works about Ancient Rome and you may find yourself blinded by the terrible errors and obvious lazyness.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

You mean Rome rise and fall of an Empire, yeah that show got a lot wrong, to many comparisons to the modern United States half the time, poor costumes, skipped critical parts of Roman history. Constant table flipping each episode not kidding every episode they have a scene where a guy runs up and tosses a table over normally a barbarian to show a raid or riot. It also overrates certain events as well like Teutoburg forest and the aftermath. It skips nearly all of the reign of the First Emperor, the creator of the Principe period of the Empire Augustus. it skipped several of the civil wars, no mention of the Carthaginians or Greeks, in fact the first episode is set in Marius's lifetime and covers the creation of the full time professional Roman legions. it Skips Rome's rise to power. Dear god near the end do they never give the Romans any credit at all it seems in the last few episodes the Romans always are failing, even though they where still doing things right enough and pulled off amazing victories and actions to save there Empire several times. Diocletian is never really mentioned or given a episode. The guy who saved the Empire from the brink, remade the whole legal and military system created the co emperors system, made the foundations of which later medieval kingdoms would base themselves on with feudalism. no mention at all. Half the time the experts seem to be talking about something else rather than on screen or what the Narrators on about. the seem to apply to much of there own opinions and thoughts onto the situation than what the historical evidence or proof we have says. According to this show the Romans Lorica Segmentata and Lorica Hamata they wearied was actually flimsy leather cloth. They never changed the gladius to a longer sword either, nor the shields to smaller. In fact the republican era Army looks the Same as the Early Empire and Late Empire. The acting sometimes don't get me started.

[@danielwolfgang8234]

@@RomanHistoryFan476AD To be honest, i only endured the first part with the "First Barbarian War". The part with the Cimbrii and Teutons. During the 50 or so minutes I wasn´t quite sure if I am supposed to laugh or to cry over the crappy looking leather "armor" worn by the Romans, or the ugly, fur -style clothing the germanic tribals were wearing in the show. Not to mention their cute little, also fur covered, shields and the fact that nearly EVERY germanic warrior was armed with what i can only discribed as a early medieval longsword. Because appearently Spears and Axes were not the more common armament of the tribals east of the Rhine back then. Same for the clothing, clearly only romans were capable of linen weaving in the time around 100 BC. >w>

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

@@danielwolfgang8234 I was a young teen when i first saw it and was madly interested in Rome so i watched it, looking back at the show it is comedy.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

@John Saunders Well that explains the constant fighting every damn episode, and the repeat shots of a guy flipping a table over.

[@maximilienfrancoisderobesp202]

I remember seeing their episode on the Third Servile War.

[@OrlopRat42]

That drawing of the ensigns of the 57th you used is mine. I got a kick out of seeing it in your video, thanks!

[@BrandonF]

A pleasure to see you here! I knew your channel from uploading the music, but had no idea you were an artist!

[@31BCooter]

The US Army still uses the blue book and we march the exact same way they would of in the 1770s but apparently its not fancy enough.

[@ricoh633]

You should cover turn Washington’s spies uniforms. For the first season they had somewhat accurate uniforms but then they changed the costume department or something and everything looks sloppy like these men do!

[@rococo-reinette]

I suspect that if that lad with the egregiously gargantuan "cocked hat" were to spin it around a few times, he'd launch himself into the air...

[@GetWarded]

It’s amazing how much content Brandon can put out by analyzing just one still image. One should aspire to be so detail oriented.

[@Tevildo]

Did you notice the scene at 21:08 where the soldier "checks the chamber" of his musket as though it's a bolt-action rifle? I rather imagine you did. :)

[@jasontronetti3871]

Nobody: History channel at 10pm: ufo Invaders

[@oz_jones]

King George was an alien 👁👁

[@benjamind2219]

ah yes, *HISTORY*

[@chasevonrhedey]

Saddest thing is it's actually at 6pm

[@BigBangAttack-mt6pz]

@@chasevonrhedey It doesn't really matter if it were at noon, the history channel's purpose is that it exists

[@layalzaidan1019]

Brandon F. My dude, I think you should see this show called "Turn: Washington's Spies". It may not be historically accurate all the way but at least it pays some homage. plus it should be a refreshing breath of fresh air while you rewatch and review The Patriot. (Also it only has 4 seasons)

[@thecatwithatophat4069]

Alternate title for this video: Brandon Gets Mad at the Channel That Brought Us Pawn Stars

[@isaacwhite9255]

My friend Gary Foreman of Native Sun Productions was one of the "founding fathers" if you will of the History Channel. Lots of early documentaries that the History Channel showed have his name upon them and they are very good quality, unbiased, and as accurate as could be. Unfortunately, over time the History Channel started to misuse and abuse his material and also started changing their minds about whether or not they would show real History or show whitewashed agendas. This reason, among many was the reason for Gary leaving. The History Channel has been declining rapidly since then.

[@guycalabrese4040]

I think those huge hats are recycled sombreros from some "Remember the Alamo" special on History Channel...🤓

[@historygeekslive8243]

😅😅

[@jwkennington]

I guess the most appalling thing is that we should expect any accuracy from Hollywood. Having been an extra on movies, I can tell you, they really don't care.

[@coltonfalletti6360]

7:10 Hi everyone!

[@Pineappleparty]

Welcome to the History channel, where we do five minuets of Wikipedia searching and just make the rest up from there, because who's really going to know?

[@BigBangAttack-mt6pz]

The fact that you misspelled "minutes" makes it even more accurate

[@Pineappleparty]

@@BigBangAttack-mt6pz joke still reads the same

[@CaptainAhab117]

Having been in the army I can say from experience that having your gear hang loose and flap around against your body on a long march will quickly get annoying.

[@micahistory]

This is the reason I subscribed to you. To watch you complain about every detail possible

[@DelDel__]

This trailer is so American, as a European I can't help but only finding it comedic lmao

[@jorgeguanche5327]

Hold your horses!!!!!...as an european.....?????..first, im european too...an we are not the same....and second..you talk like a bigmouth sir!!!!!

[@ethanhatcher5533]

@John Saunders "unwittingly"

[@ricardoaguirre6126]

Yeah we do love our explosions and slow motion.

[@jorgeguanche5327]

@Joakim von Anka nordic????...so...youre not a descent of the great roman empire...like the other ldiot...you must stfu dude..the nordsmen allways look to us in the south over the shoulder...

[@Lagmaster33]

@@jorgeguanche5327 You are a descendant of the Moors

[@emorynguyen1583]

Literally yesterday I was trying to watch Chris P’s video on this, but it’s age restricted for some reason. The thumbnail made me laugh; this was good timing

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

The History Channel is back at doing history ? At least that's a step in the right direction

[@OcarinaSapphr-]

Duke of Lorraine Step in the right direction? If they they’ve tripped & fallen off the cliff!

[@101jir]

@@OcarinaSapphr- drunkenly.

[@Thespian821]

Being that I have worked with props for theatre companies and am a collector of historical firearm replicas, I could tell, clear as day, that the musket props used in the miniseries were the DENIX replica French Charleville musket. Regardless if the troops were French, Continental, or BRITISH, they were all using Charleville replicas.

[@zachv1942]

British using charlevills?.@_@

[@Thespian821]

Zachary V, I know. Pathetic.

[@saadkhan1128]

Low budget KZbin channels teach more history then million dollars history channel

[@2manyIce]

I don't know much about uniforms of any day and age, but the hats struck me as soon as I saw them. My first thought was: "Those hats are too big for the heads." I may be too hard on these people, but oversized clothing is usally reserved to men in the custard-pie-throwing department.

[@gtfanatic]

Brandon I knew you would do this and I found historical inaccuracies too.

[@AbrahamLincoln4]

The history channel is a shadow of its former self. It was so much better in the 90s and early 2000s

[@ShakespeareInTheAlley]

this is a series to teach people about Washington's life, of course i agree that accuracies should be perfect but, most people wouldn't notice these inaccuracies. I do love your channel, keep it up

[@fus132]

I would've agreed if it was an entertainment channel first, but it isn't. On any historical channel worth its salt, there's no room for inaccuracies, and general half-assery, then you're supposed to educate people.

[@Patchaddictedpolymath]

Most people would look at this and not watch it.

[@jacksonlarson6099]

Since you're on the topic of miniseries, John Adams review when?

[@Azdaja13]

Go on Brandon, you know deep down you want to watch that series. Suffer for our amu... (cough) sorry what? I didn't say anything... xD

[@pablojn4826]

everyone at History Channel 2: No! you were the chosen one!

[@joshuawells835]

0:37-I think they called President Clinton for his expertise as a President of the United States. Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. 9:44-The oversized hats remind me of those large foam Texas cowboy hats. Something else I noticed while watching both this and The Men Who Built America: Frontiersmen is that the History Channel reused footage from some of their other works, such as Sons of Liberty and Texas Rising. Then in Washington, they used footage from The Men Who Built America: Frontiersmen. At the Battle of Fort Necessity, I saw Tecumsah led the Native Americans attacking the fort.

[@Tareltonlives]

@Matthew Chenault And a lot of those entrepreneurs WERE Racist, greedy, callous sacks of shit.

[@ulisesguzman8574]

"Cheaply outfitted continental SWINE" Alway nice to see Brandon's inner king coming out

[@maxwellclark6992]

Hey Brandon remember when the history channel was actually GOOD

[@stupidperson9250]

No

[@Elizabeth-0]

Daniel Morris it was pretty good in the late 90’s and early 2000’s.

[@kaynebartholomew2994]

Maxwell Clark are you referencing shows like “Civil War Journal” from the 1990s or early 2000s? That was a pretty good show. Even “Patton 360” used reenactors for the live action sections.

[@maxwellclark6992]

Reenactor Talk yes I am

[@Apollo890]

Well this is just going to be another American feel good ego stroking fest. So you can hardly expect it to take an objective view of the traditional narrative.

[@JSteplyk]

Except one of the consulting historians just published an iconoclastic book on Washington.

[@Apollo890]

@@JSteplyk is that the same book that Brandon recently tore a new one?

[@JSteplyk]

No, that was a kid’s book. I’m referring to Alexis Coe and her book.

[@Apollo890]

@@JSteplyk never heard of her, but still that image that Brandon speaks on is dreadful I can't imagine a historian like David McCullough wanting to put his name on that.

[@historygeekslive8243]

First of all, I want to agree with everyone here. The history channel has been sucking for a long time and rarely puts out any actually history anymore. In saying that though, I am a big history buff and have been watching these Revolutionary War docs since I was a kid (yank) of course. I watched this documentary just now and the history channel did a decent job on something that most American history shows gloss over. They actually said in the documentary that Washington did work for the "British Colonial Militia" previous to the Revolution , they have him with a somewhat British accent and they have him dressed in a red coat during the French and Indian War. They also explain in here that he is of British ancestry and that he was loyal in the beginning. This is usually a big no, no.. American documentaries usually gloss over this very obvious part of George Washington. He is usually in blue the entire time and has an American accent. They also show the British taking New York and Philadelphia and the Continental Army running from the British in the first three years of the war. They actually give Brits some of the things that they usually whine about on these American documentaries.

[@Valleyreb]

I love your humorist commentary - thank you for expressing so eloquently what we are all thinking as we watch such shows

[@jamespocelinko104]

History Channel: Makes miniseries on George Washington Brandon f. : "I smell a farb."

[@JSteplyk]

Speaking of hats, a review of The Crossing would be a fine thing. It always seemed to me as if they decided Washington should be the only one with a respectable cocked hat. Everyone else was stuck with runty excuses for headwear.

[@kmaher1424]

The Crossing was lame.

[@historychick]

I made the mistake of watching the first episode. The civilian fashions, especially the ladies', was atrocious to say the least.

[@cnppreactorno.4965]

1:22 that's the Jersey Greys on the right, they reenainact the 3rd New Jersey Regiment, a pretty local unit to me, the story behind the uniform is something alone the lines of either there wasn't enough blue dye, or the dye would have been to expensive to dye their coats blue

[@inq101]

You might be being a bit harsh on the costume department. Costume departments have a tough job. You or I have months to get the one outfit we are using right and our budget is, well generally pretty high. They may have days to go from concept to needing dozens of finished costumes with a very limited budget. This looks like a combination of a shoestring budget, scheduling and little to no historic consultancy. I'm not saying this is a good example, I'm saying it's likely you're looking at the wrong target. The director, producers, etc. are the ones that should be the target of your ire.

[@zachv1942]

If you can't do the job don't take it.

[@Albukhshi]

I got one of those Seven Years War cartridge boxes (a replica, but a good one). It's wrong even for that period: it would have been jet-black by 1750, and the flap, while certainly very long, would have had a different shape. It's also missing that tongue of leather at the bottom, that they used to shut the cartridge box when on the march (this either has a leather loop run through it, or something similar; the design was actually unstandardized). The box itself is generally somewhat semicircular, instead of the rectangular shape, and was designed such that you shouldn't see the stitching on both sides (as you do @ 18:34). The belt it's attached to looks too narrow, is the wrong color, (they would have been buff or yellow-buff, not off-white) and is missing the buckles on the front, and just above the box itself; these were used to adjust the level of the cartridge box, and the angle on the hip.

[@arwing20]

This miniseries will certainly stoke that good old American ego at least. Just came from Simple History and their recent Battle of Bunker Hill video and oh my, what wonderful Jingoism from the American comments. As if any of them went anywhere near a history book :D

[@Elizabeth-0]

arwing20 The comments on that video were painful to read.

[@AbrahamLincoln4]

11:52 You just roasted him!

[@anonmouse1481]

Someone get this man an award for throwing shade at an entire network and a show at once without breaking step.

[@royeverett2124]

Hello Brandon.You are in accord with the Adjutant-General who wrote on 4th February 1769 to a Mr Fauquier at the War Office:"The King having observed,that the hats of the several Regiments are of different sizes,and cocked in different methods,I am to acquaint you,that the patterns which are sent to the Comptrollers Office,for the Cavalry and Infantry,are,in comformity to the King's Orders,to be sealed by the Board,and deposited as patterns;and it isHis Majesty's pleasure that the hats of the several Regiments are for the future to be made comformable to them,both as to the size of the brim and method of cocking". In the same year, 1768,a Bennett Cuthbertson issued on behave of the Board of Ordinance,"A System for the Compleat Interior Management and Oeconomy of a Battalion of Infantry".There was also an edition reissued unaltered in 1776.In Article XXVI it he says:"The cocking a soldier's hat in a becoming manner,being a principal ornament to his appearance,should be very much attended to;the short,smart cock is certainly most adapted to a military man,as it gives a sort of martial air,adds to his height,and fits firm on his head:four inches and a half are enough for the breadth of the leaves,as anything above that size,drowns the face,unless it be remarkably full and broad:the utmost exactness must be observed,in reducing all the hats of a Regiment to this dimension,and fixing such a uniformity in the cocking of the whole,that the nicest eye may not be able to perceive a difference:nothing will so effectually ensure those two points,as a machine,with which every Regiment should be provided,under the direction of some person,accustomed to the hatter's business". Article XXVII:In order to prevent the front cock of the hat,from squeezing to a pinch,a piece of whalebone,of about four inches long,should be sewed to the on the inside of that part;and that that there may not be the smallest difference,in the method of wearing all the hats of the Regiment,a narrow bit of black tape,about half an inch long,must be sewed close to the lining,upon the part of the hat which lies exactly over the nose,when put on in a proper manner;by which,it will be impossible for a soldier to have an excuse,for twisting the front cock more to the right or left,than should be;and it will also enable,even the most inexperienced Officer,by casting his eye to this mark,to be at once assured,whether the hats of his Company are worn agreeable to the orders of the Regiment". There was a further letter issued by the Board after recommendations of Inspecting Officers in 1780;"The button of the hat must be placed very high.All hats must be worn well forward on the face,and over the right eye,not too much to one side,but in such a manner that the front cock comes about in a perpendicular line over the left eye so that the hat may clear the firelock". Brandon you are going to have to grow a queue,as Article XXVIII:"To prevent hats from ever falling off at exercise,or to be moved improperly upon their heads,and thereby to give the soldiers a pretence for the least unsteadiness under arms,two narrow pieces of tape,as near the colour of each man's hair as can be,should be sewed to the lining,and from these come round the back of the head,there to be fastened by a very small hook and eye,exactly under the plat of the hair".It is also forbidden for new recruits whose hair isn't long enough to wear wigs. Areticle XXIX:"Unless the laces of the soldier's hats are made of mohair(which is first to be preferred,for the richness and glossiness of its look) those of linen will answer best,as they can be kept clean,by the assistance of pipe-clay scraped in water,and that,without the trouble of taking off:woollen lace upon the contrary,soon gathers dirt,or turns of a yellow hue,which nothing can remove,unless frequently taken off,and stoved with brimstone:another great advantage attending the linen laces is that they can always be easily replaced,when worn out,at a very trifling expence,(One yard and 1/2 of linen,at 2s. per yard,will lace 18 hats),and by that means,the hats may be kept compleatly laced at all times:a thread tassel from the right corner of the hat,with a white linen-tape-band,adds greatly to the smartness of it,and can ,by washing,be kept as clean as the hat-lace,which will not be the case,if made of woollen materials,as has been accounted for:the button- loops also should,for the same reason,be of linen-tape,about a finger's breadth,else it will shew to no advantage in the hat" Keep up the good work.

[@hrotha]

Ooooh, a post-credits scene and everything

[@micahistory]

Every time I think that you couldn't possibly go into so much detail, you go into more detail and point out so many things that I would have never noticed

[@kitsunefirefox1986]

Remember when the History Channel retained or at least brought on actual Historians. They need one or more on set, this "epic" is hemorrhaging at an alarming rate.

[@jonhillier1]

I love your rants. Please keep it up. I learn at least one new thing from every video you put out.

[@zaffronthebountyhunter4196]

I like the History Channel’s documentary sieres that actually had allot of Historical accuracy the sieres was called The Revolution and it was about it The American War of Independence.

[@Rellana1]

I'm watching that now. It's honestly not too bad.

[@devinmorse3607]

Fun fact: The US Army still doesn't stamp. We still use much of the concepts developed by Von Steuben and his Blue Book. Of course, now, modern Blue Books are Post specific.

[@JohnsonTheSecond]

I dread the day they do one on WW2 or an Assassins Creed game based on the war; I will physically evolve into Brandon F. mark II just to point out each and every farbism. Edit: Yes, exactly, you got the last part about smaller creators getting things more accurate than bigger companies with budgets mostly. This applies to all sorts of media, from movies and series to games, as you experienced with AC: 3 pedantically playing it. Look at Battlefield 5 or any new WW2(-"themed") game, and compare any aspect of it barring graphics quality to anything like Red Orchestra 2. Even RO2 has its small farbisms but as a whole it's more immersive than any Battlefield game, thousandfold - About 7 years since it was released, no microtransactions, no advertising that I know about and no MASSIVE budget later, you still find servers full with 64/64 people without an update since around 2014. Historical accuracy *works* but big explosions, extremely fast-paced gameplay which stops you from Heaven forbid getting *bored* of needing to take in your surroundings for a moment are more appealing to big companies these days.

[@golvic1436]

That march scene damn near killed me. I mean, the terrible uniforms are one thing, but that march showed up and I choked on my drink instantly. History Channel is a joke.

[@renngretsch]

Wait till Brandon sees the whole show, and one of the troops just off screen in this clip is shown carrying a minimi

[@RiflemanMoore]

"Meh, it'll do." - The costume department, probably.

[@erinmontoya1128]

Would really love to know your thoughts/opinions on the HBO show Turn: Washington's Spies

[@diegorincon4673]

History channel: we love history! Also history channel: Aliens are on earth

[@jagsdomain203]

Does this suprise you?

[@gtfanatic]

Nope not at all

[@HistoryBoy]

I was excited to see the series, and still am, but it’s interesting to see that the history channel doesn’t seem to care at all about historical accuracy. Thanks for this video Brandon! Love when you shoot down the farby films.

[@jnlaf]

The history channel give up caring about true history and facts years ago.

[@Tareltonlives]

"What regiment are you?" "Frankly we have no idea"

[@TheDancingHyena]

"We hold these truths to be self evident...that...oh you know how it goes." -Biden

[@Tareltonlives]

That giant hat always makes me laugh. They look they walked right off of Pirates of the Caribbean

[@fiviifjj]

Americanised history. Forget about historic accuracy! That doesn t sale! We need big boom booms in the show so it keeps the people watching! As a european, this is nasty to look at.

[@mitsvanmitsvanio6106]

Also I believe that it is boring and tiring to have everywhere the AWI and G.Washington this G.Washington that, Empire Total War for example had a whole campaign playable only through this side alone. Also if they so much want to always speak about AWI then at least show us the real war that was fought really far from the American Colonies, the whole narrative of the Americans won the war alone just with a little help from France is stale, boring and unaccurate. And the SYW is so much interesting but nobody cares to make something about it, only the boring (by the USA narrative otherwise not so much) aftermath that is AWI.

[@kyledonahue9315]

Lmao ok, because shows like 1864 and Babylon Berlin aren’t sensationalist and over the top at all.

[@mybumbrash]

Can you do a video on TURN: Washington's spies. I think this was one of the best things i watched last year. I stopped going to the gym for a month to binge watch all season as quick as possible. Great video by the way i love these types of videos because i learn more plus i laugh at others who are trying to be an authority on history and get everything wrong.

[@randallpope363]

They dress their aliens more accurately.

[@zenmello]

You're right Brandon, why didn't they reach out to the reenactor community like the makers of "Gettysburg"?

[@IanK3b]

Washington did not have sexual relations with that woman

[@exploatores]

it was no relation, only sex :)

[@IanK3b]

@@exploatores okay kevin

[@Will-bo7kg]

The problem is that a lot of the inaccuracies could be solved for same cost or cheaper than the inaccurate version. Even adding some minor alterations, that could be undone to get the original back, could if not solve the problem at least make it near invisible.

[@rmk3155]

10:35 It looks like Napoleon's Bicorn from British Propoganda.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

At least we admit in our Propaganda that no one could defeat Napoleon in his Prime and that Waterloo was a lucky one. The Americans on this show would be wanked to hell in ability, the British will be made to look like idiots.

[@mitsvanmitsvanio6106]

Well what did you expect from ungrateful traitorous colonials.

[@ThePalaeontologist]

@@RomanHistoryFan476AD Generally agree with what you said, though Waterloo was not really down to luck. Wellington played for time the entire time. I totally get what you mean by it and you're not being too dismissive of Wellington's effort. In my opinion, Napoleon was beat even before Blucher turned up. He'd lost too many men already and it was a strategic mess. Wellington was a bit lucky at Waterloo in one sense, of course. That is obvious. However, in a strategic sense, the British had been a little unlucky in 1815. Assuming Napoleon dealt with, there was outrage over Napoleon's sudden return from Elba, and to power as a result. Britain had been breathing a well-earned sigh of relief after being in a state of near literal non-stop war with France (in whatever form) for like three decades. There was no desire for a long drawn out war with the French again. Britain had begun to wind down and scale back a little, with it's recruitment slowing after Napoleon's first exile and various British regiments being redirected or stood down to some degree. In other words, Napoleon's shock return to the head of the French armies, seemingly out of nowhere in a relatively short space of time, caught Britain and other coalition allies somewhat off-guard. Prussia was apparently less trustful of Napoleon being fully subdued as a threat and had maintained their armies in the field, in case of a return. This stood them in somewhat better stead than the British, whom were sort of half-ready and incredibly pissed off what Napoleon came back. Britain had been exceedingly clement towards Napoleon, in 1814, insisting that he be exiled with some dignity, given an honour guard of a thousand of his finest troops, and made Emperor of Elba, living out of palatial homes with orchards and luxurious gardens. As far as exiles/imprisonments go, that has to be one of the most gracious that ever happened; even though, there was a slight overtone of mockery by the British and their allies, in having made Napoleon the Emperor of a small island. Wellington's army at Waterloo was more of an ad hoc conglomeration of core British regiments and brigades, with a majority of non-British allied regiments of a plethora of origins (Dutch, Germanic, ''Bohemian'' varieties etc) In general, the British were the strong core of the multi-national force led and supported by the sheer will of Wellington in the field. He was awaiting the arrival of Blucher, this is true. However, an annoyingly common trend you'll see in online comments and discussions about Waterloo, is for anti-British speakers to come out of the woodwork screeching about the British being ''saved'' by the Prussians. Even some Wehraboos rear their ugly heads and start bragging about the Prussians being ''superior'' etc. It gets old fast. Suffice it to say that the main reason why there were not more specifically British troops under Wellington's banner at Waterloo, is because they simply weren't mobilised yet. The true military machine of Britain had scaled back a fair bit and the British Parliament was kind of caught napping. It wasn't that the British Army consisted of just 25,000 troops. Of course not. The vast majority of British soldiers were elsewhere and it wasn't just that Wellington was awaiting the Prussians, in a longer term sense, he was waiting for more and more British soldiers to be ferried over to Antwerp etc. Obviously the Royal Navy was absolutely dominant and that wouldn't have been the issue. It was just a matter of timing. It's why Britain sent Wellington to lead a bit of a cobbled together, last minute army, to explicitly fight side by side with the Prussian Army. Then there were the Austrian and Russian armies lurching closer to France and Belgium all the time. Even were Napoleon to somehow beat Wellington and Blucher, what was left of his forces would have been swamped by Austro-Russian forces flooding over the French borders. Part of the point of Wellington being there was to achieve victory in the West, without relying on the Russians to do it. Say if Wellington stood firm in Belgium, unchecked by Napoleon for a month, over half the British Army would have been sent by then. It is part of why Napoleon struck so viciously to try and divide and conquer both Wellington and then Blucher. Unable to take his full force to Belgium (leaving sizeable portions to guard France) Napoleon crossed into Belgium with over 97,000 men, and the specific intention of defeating the British and Prussians in detail. Even were this to happen, it'd be a longshot. There'd still be hundreds of thousands of Russian and Austrian soldiers to deal with and both Austria and Russia had learnt bitter lessons in fighting Napoleon (largely, unfavourably, on their part) In a way, Wellington knew Napoleon wasn't just going to let the coalition mobilise it's full strength and swamp his already depleted French forces. It was kind of down to Wellington to hold the line. I'm not sure he was expected to just beat Napoleon outright by himself, but he practically did. Napoleon's Middle Guard broke on that hill, and that was before the lion's share of Blucher's army had become engaged, very late in the battle. To this day, though, some seem to interpret this as Blucher and German arms, facilitating the victory. I strongly disagree. They - and their _very presence_ in disheartening the French when they realised they were trapped between two armies - did contribute late phase and Napoleon had to divert forces. Everyone knows the whole controversy over Grouchy having not brought his Army Corps back to the battle, and Napoleon had to rely on splitting his already outnumbered troops to delay Blucher's vanguard. What didn't help was how British propaganda media at the time, certainly touted Waterloo as a big British victory, aiming to tie a neat bow on the whole thing and perhaps inflate the comparative role of British forces, in some regards (though genuinely, British influence on the war was decisive whether people like to heard that or not) It's pissed off Dutch and German folks for two centuries, the idea of Britain painting Waterloo as the grand finale and British victory (only) That said, Wellington himself knew it was the ''closest run thing'' and that he was nearly beaten. Blucher's arrival certainly did seal Napoleon's fate. Nevertheless, the point still stands; Britain could have sent 100,000 more men in time and so even were Wellington routed at Waterloo, even were Napoleon somehow able to properly rest his by then (theoretically) surviving numbers of soldiers, and then somehow beat Blucher's entire army - it just didn't have time to. Every day Napoleon roamed free and at large, was a day he grew stronger. That, simply could not be tolerated. All the allied nations declared war _on Napoleon_ instead of just declaring war on France itself. Strategically, even were Napoleon to have beaten Wellington at Waterloo, and then somehow handled Blucher, he'd then have more and more British troops arriving regardless. As it was, Wellington was just about able to hang on. Britain couldn't afford to wait around, knowing Napoleon would come back with more and more men if given the chance. P.S - just to reiterate, I must stress that I know you weren't saying this was not the case. It is just a matter of wording. Point being, Britain's full-strength wasn't ready yet, caught on the back-foot by Napoleon's shock return. But there was only so much that they could do. Napoleon's armies had been bled dry at Waterloo. Napoleon went bon voyage and off to St. Helena; for British imposed Exile, South Atlantic boogaloo.

[@tomv.l.345]

And always the explosions after they fired a canon. They used solid round shot or canister (close range). Explosive shells existed, but were hardly used for field artillery in those days. Too dangerous.

[@theread3480]

A British man yells at poorly made costumes for 20 minutes straight

[@noteanotell937]

He's American bow your head in shame.

[@hobmoor2042]

This US man is annoyed at the laziness of the "research" and the unbalanced presentation of the events. Such casual programmes are not "History", just a bit of prejudice reinforcing drama.

[@theread3480]

Hob Moor I was expecting him to focus on how it portrays the events in the light it does, such as how it portrays General Braddock or the Boston massacre. Not him just ripping apart costumes from one scene

[@kyledonahue9315]

Brandon is an American.

[@jonathanstull8956]

I still remember when The History Channel was actually pretty good at giving you the history based on the information they had at the time. There's things we know about stuff nowadays that we didn't know back in the mid to late 90s

[@marclacey2263]

"And also, this man is out of step." That made me laugh.

[@gerry9011]

I watched the full documentary series (unfortunately), and it's all just 'Britain bad, muh pariotism', and they even fail that narrative horribly.

[@tdrk6114]

Brandon forgot the 54th rule of cool. Cool guys don’t look at explosions

[@RJLbwb]

Just picturing that cartage box smacking into that guy's groin everything he takes a left step, ouch. Never has the cost of Farb been so brutal.

[@anthonyhayes1267]

Never run with a heavy sporran

[@MB-st7be]

To be fair, creating dozens of historical uniforms on a low budget is *incredible* difficult. Wardrobe departements often consist of only one or two people (usually women) who work round the clock often well into their unpaid private time trying to source stuff, fit it, modify it, for *dozens* of scenes, handed to them or changed at the last minute. I'd just use some seven years pouches too.

[@jasonswain3948]

You are absolutely correct, my dear sir. The whole series is overflowing with farbisms, anachronisms, and downright bad decisions. I watched the entire series. The inaccuracies do not get any better. Remember when The History Channel actually had history programming?

[@euphrasieroloson3318]

Your pedantic sarcasm is my favorite thing in videos like these

[@otakunthevegan4206]

The gag you made tho. "The History Channel's ugh" yea that sums up History Channel.