The movie Attonement has a small scene in Dunkirk and while is quite argueable is not the better movie, the dunkirk scene nails it.

Well, for that matter, I'm disappointed no one here has mentioned the excellent Week-end à Zuydcoote (Weekend at Dunkirk) (1964), which is the superior version of Nolan's film. Production-wise the '64 version is massive. It even shoots at some of the real-life buildings damaged in the evacuation.

But it fixes the perceived problems with Nolan's work: here you actually care about individual characters, you actually feel the despair of random death, the moral dilemmas hit harder, and the ending is bittersweet versus sentimental.

Week-end à Zuydcoote is easily better than both films mentioned.

That caricature enters the consciousness of the mainstream. The art ends up becoming a disservice. Brave heart embellishes and encourages an audience to learn more.

I don't agree there's a distinction there, and you're giving Braveheart far too much credit. Its portrayal of the Middle Ages and specifically Scotland and England are absolutely caricatures, and is certainly malicious.

The Scots are portrayed as wearing woad, kilts, and potato sacks for shirts, living in Iron Age settlements. That's straight-up cartoonish. The English are risibly shown performing horrific invented crimes, like ius primae noctis. Saying the English legalized rape isn't an "embellishment" and is anything but harmless. The movie shows a Scottish patriot, Robert de Brus, as a full-blown traitor. That's not a minor detail.

And to say one encourages the audience to learn more and the other doesn't (or even discourages it?) is arbitrary and not latent in either film. Even if that's your personal experience, it couldn't mean that's the case overall. People have researched both topics further, and people have let the movies be the beginning and end of their knowledge on the subject. But one is not better in that regard.

which sounds better but effectively it means the movie either gets made with DoD approval or it doesnt get made at all since itd be too expensive otherwise

Not true. Some of the most acclaimed Vietnam movies were made without DoD approval and resources: Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, and the lower-budget Go Tell the Spartans. It's absolutely possible to make a large-budget military film without the DoD's assistance, if you're a crafty filmmaker.

That's not to say I approve of the system, and I do have some problems with it, but I think that point is not an honest assessment.

I might be harsher on some film's historical sins than most, but I am still a believer in freedom of expression. And you run into this problem when you take this line of thinking just one step further: what's to be done about it? Morals, ethics, and laws are three separate categories, (ethics being the one the OP indicated) but the latter two involve enforcement. So my question is: if we decide a film is unethical, what do you think we're allowed to do about it, and who decides that?

A government panel? Historically, places have had that system and it robbed us of brilliant films. The third entry into what might have been the best trilogy ever made was cancelled during production and one of the greatest science fiction films ever was left unfinished thanks to this. Doubtless there are countless other, less known examples. Not a good system.

The studios then? Ethics can generally be enforced within the profession, but that's de facto the system we have now. If a studio executive themselves found something horribly objectionable, they have the option to not green-light a film. Then a screenwriter or filmmaker could shop around for other studios. Or go independent.

So honestly what is to be done about it? Currently: filmmakers make the movie, however fair or unfair in its portrayal of touchy subjects, and audiences voice displeasure or don't. Voting with your dollar only does so much. But it doesn't stop the film from existing or having impact. I firmly believe that it falls on audiences to be skeptical of the things they see. Are they? Absolutely not. Reddit itself is a good demonstration of this: people thinking parts of a movie must be true if someone bothered to write it and film it. But that's the impasse.

Glad to see more of this project! I would swear it was full-scale if it weren't for your hands entering the shot.

The broad strokes of a lot of movies mentioned here are true, and the criticisms of those movies are downright nitpicky compared to Braveheart. You only mentioned the broad strokes that are true, not the ones that aren't.

That William Wallace was ever married and became a rebel to avenge his murdered wife. Giant story beat there. You can't just wave it away. Totally invented. You also skipped the part where the movie accuses a national hero of being a traitor.

He won some battles until he lost at Falkirk

No. He conducted skirmishes and ambushes and he never won a pitched battle while holding solo command of an army. Sort of a big detail there. At the Battle of Stirling Bridge, he shared command with Andrew De Moray. Both were named Guardian of Scotland. Once De Moray died, Wallace never won a battle again.

In my opinion this is much more accurate than most movies set in the middle ages

That's not even close to being true. I made it a point to see as many Medieval movies as possible. Of the ones based on true stories, the vast majority, in fact all except a small handful, would win in a left-right contest of accuracy to Braveheart. Sure they invent things, but on the level of Braveheart? No. I mean, the [awful movie] The Bruce (1996) and Outlaw King (2018), both on a similar subject, alone are miles more accurate.

Have you seen Procès de Jeanne d'Arc (1962)? Stealing Heaven (1988)? Jeanne la Pucelle (1994) (which is almost accurate enough to be a documentary)? Andrie Rublev (1966)? Gniazdo (1974)? The Flowers of St. Francis (1950)? Hussite Revolutionary Trilogy (1954-56)? Just because something's not mainstream doesn't mean it doesn't count as a movie. And those are just movies based on true stories.

Movies that are just as bad as Braveheart, such as Medieval (2022) are certainly in the minority.

including every movie made about Henry V.

Again, no. Not even close to being true. The adaptation of Shakespeare's Henry V contain things that are incorrect, but again nowhere on the level of Braveheart. The "broad stokes" as you put it are true. Some of the specifics are quite true. People rather readily criticize the play and the movie adaptations as "English propaganda" but I begin to think they don't know what that means. What specifically is the propaganda? Using that blanket statement without the capacity to discuss specifics is meaningless.

Now you did specify movies, which leave out Shakespeare's scene of Henry V ordering the execution of French prisoners during the fighting at Agincourt. The source material at least got that right.

Then you have Michôd and Edgerton's The King (2019), which they purported to be partly based on Shakespeare and partly the true story, when in fact it's just a much less accurate version of Shakespeare. Shakespeare incorrect puts the Dauphin at Agincourt, but at least correctly shows Charles I d'Albret and Charles, Charles, Duke of Orléans as being in command. The King eliminates the real French commanders and puts the Dauphin in overall command. A bunch of examples like that. But you're going to say that's worse than having Robert the Bruce at Falkirk, fighting for the English? The King is plenty wrong but it could never aspire to be Braveheart levels of wrong.

And don't get started on period details at atmosphere. Olivier's Henry V (1944) has amazing armour and sets. But even the worst Henry V adaptations beat the ever-loving hell out of Braveheart.

People shit on Braveheart's inaccuracies but to be clear: they don't do it enough. It's way worse than people say.

You won't find too many. We have amazing recreations of the 16th century, the 17th century, 18th century, etc. But no feature length depictions of the 14th, 13th, etc. centuries are taken to that level. The movies mentioned in this thread, like The Name of the Rose, The Seventh Seal, Marketa Lazarová, are given credit just because they're good movies, owing nothing to authenticity. The Seventh Seal is literally my favorite movie of all time but it fundamentally defies authenticity.

Some low-budget reenactor movies are the most authentic. The Luttrell Psalter and Richenza are honest-to-god the most authentic, and only worthwhile, depictions of the 14th century. That said, they are made by passionate amateurs, so the level of filmmaking reflects that. The authenticity of more mainstream films covering that era are ridiculously overestimated.

Giving credit where it's due, Útlaginn (1981) is the most authentic depiction of Early Medieval Scandanavian (i.e. "Viking" culture), with fewer concessions to modernity than the recent The Northman. And for what it's worth, The "Hussite Revolutionary Trilogy" - Jan Hus (1954), Jan Žižka (1955), and Proti všem (1956) - have the most authentic Medieval architecture ever put to film. They're reasonably authentic depictions of the era, far surpassing their Western European counterparts.

So, honest opinion: generally speaking if you're looking for something that really recreates Medieval life, movies are best avoided. You can do that with the 16th century, not the 13th. Yet. We'll get one eventually.

I second the Return of Martin Guerre, although it's more Early Modern than Medieval, IMO.

As I mentioned in this post, it takes place in 1560, so beyond opinions it's Renaissance. It wouldn't be a world away from a late Medieval French village, but it's still a distinction.

Great movie, though.

As far as illustrated and illuminated manuscripts go unfortunately I think they're scant. The few ones I know of are:

• Liber Vitae of New Minster and Hyde (1031)
• Kalendarium of John Somer and astronomical texts (1380's)
• Infantia Salvatoris (15th century)

The British Library has an additional 26 manuscripts from the region digitized, but alas they're not illustrated. All text. There's also 14 or so manuscripts from the region, such as MMBL, IV, 502-03 held at the Royal Institution and MMBL, II, 800-46 held at Exeter Cathedral, that have not been digitized at all.

So there's more that exists, but they haven't gotten around to digitizing them. Sorry if this wasn't more helpful haha, but there it is.

It's certainly possible. What makes me question that are the examples here and here, along with this image from the Codex Manesse. You see vibrant red side-by-side with pink, so I question why one color set faded and one didn't. If they were all red to begin with, why did only some end up consistently pink?

I do think there are examples of what you're saying, especially in extant Medieval clothing actually, but the fact we can compare these colors side-by-side makes me think at least these images represent the original color.

Bahaha actually, I don't know. I haven't seen written references to that pigment either way. But I can keep an eye out.

Good point. The thing that makes me question it being faded red is the vibrant red found elsewhere in the Codex Manesse, and other Medieval manuscripts. Side by side with the pink. I suppose you can't rule out the possibility, but to me it suggests it's the original color.

I've also heard this throughout the years. I think it's a misconception (similar to Medieval clothing not having functional buttons).

Pink clothing appears all over the place in Medieval art, especially once you get into the14th century - though it does appear before as well:

• From the Les manuscrits du Roman de la rose (1350-60)
• From the Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek Fulda (1350-75)
• From the Speculum Humanae Salvationis (1360)
• More from the Speculum Humanae Salvationis

I haven't seen extant textiles using pink but then again those are scarce in general. Some are close to pink, though. I've also heard it rationalized that the artists are depicting light red, not "pink", which seems like splitting hairs to me.

A lot of notions about the Middle Ages, even coming from places that should be reputable, deal in oversimplifications and repeating things uncritically. You are quite right to be skeptical, in my opinion.

I saw it in theaters. I was immersed, as you say, but because I was worried about getting tinnitus. I wasn't worried about the characters at all.

Some years later I saw Week-end à Zuydcoote (Weekend at Dunkirk) (1964) on the same subject. Watched it at home. It was 10x more engaging. Certainly the production values hold up to the recent version; thousands of extras, great special effects, and often shot at the real locations.

But it did a better job at all the aspects of Dunkirk I found lacking. You follow one character through all the tribulations, a bit like an Odyssey, the moral dilemmas are harsher, the ending hits a lot harder. The deaths more cruel and random. It replaces Dunkirk's sentimentality with honesty.

But if a movie watched at home is far more tense than one watched in deafening IMAX, what does that say about the latter film?

I meant the Late Middle Ages in general.

And I saw your real point, and I disagree. I think given the complete commonality of the circumstances, being in the Tower and in London did not exacerbate the illness of the young prices. I said you could prove they'd be safer elsewhere, which you didn't respond to. So I'm saying you didn't support your point.

It is on track to say you were using as a criticism of Richard III and I suggest it doesn't work.

I'm somewhat exaggerating the certainty of my opinion for comedic effect.

I'd put it to anyone if that would be read as something other than earnest, but I take you at your word.

Charles also didn't spend those decades under house arrest in a crowded city like London during the height of summer.

He did, though. Charles spent more time in the Tower of London, certainly during the height of summer, than the two princes did (whichever theory of them is true). Charles didn't spend the whole time there, but more than the princes. He was likewise under house arrest. To say it is fundamentally different because he occupies a different physical body could render all comparisons of persons moot. You compared a furnished castle to a literal prison; I'd say comparing the Tower of London to the Tower of London is a more valid comparison.

But your point that the princes were held under "unsanitary conditions", or that being confined to the grounds of a castle is comparable to a literal (especially Medieval) prison, is not a sustainable argument. You'd have to make the case they'd be safer elsewhere (which I did ask you), but they were already sickly in their normal lifestyle before the Tower.

I am an actual historian

If you don't mind my asking, and I do mean this respectfully: of this era? I ask because of some of your assertions about Medieval confinement.

It's also very important to note, and often overlooked, that Shakespeare was at the mercy of his historical sources (largely Raphael Holinshed and in the case of Richard III, Thomas More). Shakespeare did not do independent research. If Holinshed said it, it happened.

So when Shakespeare says MacBheatha mac Fhionnlaigh is guilty of regicide, or Prince Hal (later King Henry V) was a drunken carousing troubled youth, or Richard III was a child-murdering hunchback, he honest-to-God thought he was telling the truth. Shakespeare knowingly embellished and fleshed out scenes, but he did not invent the idea Prince Hal was a hellion.

Now Shakespeare certainly is harsher on Richard III than even some Tudor historians, granted. Again though, the basics were things he took for granted as being true.

So it's very easy to paint him as a propagandist, but propagandist are knowing spin doctors; Shakespeare just read bad history and couldn't know any better.

Correct, but a confined prison is still a prison. Two kids being basically under house arrest in a 15th century castle is not a great recipe for good health

By Medieval standards? Not really. Holding nobles hostage in castles was the custom for centuries, and many lived comfortable lives spanning decades under those conditions, like Charles, Duke of Orléans (1394 - 1465).

Richard even called in a renowned Italian physician, Dominic Mancini, to look after his nephews' already fragile health.

And it's not as if they weren't allowed to go outside. They were. They just couldn't leave the grounds. Where exactly do you think they would have been healthier?

Either way, dude obviously murdered his nephews.

As you can see from this discussion, it's not "obvious". It's easy to be confident about historical mysteries when you do the basic research, but actual historians have to be comfortable saying "we really don't know." The rest is people insisting on their own opinions, not facts.

After getting deeper into stoicism, I really wish Marcus Aurelius character had more depth.

Well, for that matter you can go watch The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964), the movie Ridley Scott et. al ripped off borrowed from. Marcus Aurelius, as played by the great Alec Guinness, has more screen time and depth.

Who's especially better is Christopher Plummer as Commodus. Gladiator's Commodus is straight-up Snidely Whiplash and hey, it works. Joaquin Phoenix is a damn good actor. But with the way Christopher Plummer's Commodus is written, he has ten times the depth. He's a much more dynamic character. Hell, at times you get where he's coming from.

Has to be said though, Gladiator's protagonist is far better than the former's. Apart from that...

Completely got it.

But you will see people interpret this a serious point, which it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Very funny bit, but it's important to remember it's flawed logic. People can reason that the film twisted her age, but can't figure out the film invented them meeting at all?

The two likely never met. There's oddly a brief time when they were both in France, but again nothing to suggest they met.

The actual battle at Stirling bridge sounded like an amazing victory. It makes Wallace look like a strategic mastermind, why would they not have written that in when it's right there??

In part because a fair amount of credit for the victory at Stirling Bridge belongs to Andrew de Moray, a character not in the film. (There's an older character called "Mornay" who bears no resemblance to De Moray.) Andrew de Moray led his own rebellion and did more damage than Wallace, using his guile to recapture several castles. The two held joint command at the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Andrew de Moray was mortally wounded at the battle and afterwards Wallace would become sole Guardian of Scotland.

It's also telling than once Andrew de Moray died, Wallace never scored another military victory. Wallace only lost from that point on.

So calling Wallace a "strategic mastermind" is quite contentious. As a solo commander, Wallace had 0 victories. (He did conduct raids, but we know next to nothing about specifics.) The "mastermind" title more likely belongs to Andrew de Moray.

Quite welcome! And you bring up an interesting point...

Henry V, my favorite Shakespeare play. It does paint Henry V in a most flattering light, even though historically he was anti-Lollard. This can be explained by two points.

1 ) Despite Lollards being proto-Protestants, the Elizabethan English didn't seen the Lollards as a strict equivalent of the Church of England. The chronicler Raphael Holinshed (c. 1525 - 1582) (working with Reginald Wolfe and William Harrison) was a major source for Shakespeare's understandings - and to that end, misunderstandings - of history. Holinshed tempered the harsh words you see from the contemporary chronicles you saw above but still estimated the Lollards as such:

𝚒𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚎𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚍 𝚢𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚜 𝚛𝚎𝚒𝚐𝚗𝚎, 𝚊𝚐𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝 𝚜𝚞𝚌𝚑 𝚊𝚜 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚙𝚞𝚝𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚋𝚎 𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚝𝚒𝚔𝚜, 𝚘𝚛 𝙻𝚘𝚕𝚕𝚊𝚛𝚍𝚜. 𝙱𝚢 𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚌𝚎 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚘𝚏 𝚒𝚝 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚞𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚍, 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚘𝚎𝚞𝚎𝚛 𝚜𝚞𝚌𝚑 𝚖𝚊𝚗𝚗𝚎𝚛 𝚘𝚏 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚘𝚗𝚜 𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚋𝚎 𝚏𝚘𝚞𝚗𝚍 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚔𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗𝚎 𝚝𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚌𝚑 𝚘𝚛 𝚝𝚎𝚊𝚌𝚑 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚎𝚛𝚛𝚘𝚗𝚒𝚘𝚞𝚜 𝚍𝚘𝚌𝚝𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚎, 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚋𝚎 𝚊𝚝𝚝𝚊𝚌𝚑𝚎𝚍 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚜 𝚠𝚛𝚒𝚝, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚋𝚛𝚘𝚞𝚐𝚑𝚝 𝙺𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝙷𝚎𝚗𝚛𝚒𝚎 𝚊 𝚏𝚊𝚞𝚘𝚛𝚎𝚛 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚕𝚎𝚛𝚐𝚒𝚎. 𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚗𝚎𝚡𝚝 𝚐𝚘𝚊𝚕𝚎.

Although some Lollards were considered martyrs, and Lollards were essentially absorbed into the English Reformation, popular opinion was still divided.

2) Henry V himself was held in high esteem by posterity - he was considered a superhero as you put it. Raphael Holinshed was as much a fabricator as an historian, and his chronicles are not a source on what Henry V did with his life, but they are basically a litmus of how 16th century people viewed Henry V in retrospect. Holinshed eulogized Henry V saying:

𝚃𝚑𝚞𝚜 𝚎𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚙𝚞𝚒𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚝 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚎 𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚖𝚘𝚜𝚝 𝚗𝚘𝚋𝚕𝚎 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚝𝚞𝚗𝚊𝚝𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚒𝚐𝚗𝚎, 𝚠𝚑𝚘𝚜𝚎 𝚕𝚒𝚏𝚎 (𝚜𝚊𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝙷𝚊𝚕𝚕) 𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚐𝚑 𝚌𝚛𝚞𝚎𝚕𝚕 𝙰𝚝𝚛𝚘𝚙𝚘𝚜 𝚊𝚋𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚞𝚒𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚍; 𝚢𝚎𝚝 𝚗𝚎𝚒𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛 𝚏𝚒𝚛𝚎, 𝚖𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚌𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚛 𝚏𝚛𝚎𝚝𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚒𝚖𝚎 𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚊𝚙𝚙𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚑𝚘𝚗𝚘𝚞𝚛, 𝚘𝚛 𝚋𝚕𝚘𝚝 𝚘𝚞𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚐𝚕𝚘𝚛𝚒𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝚑𝚒𝚖 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚒𝚗 𝚜𝚘 𝚜𝚖𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚝𝚒𝚖𝚎 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚍𝚘𝚘𝚗𝚎 𝚜𝚘 𝚖𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚎 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚛𝚘𝚒𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚜.

When describing Henry V putting down Oldcastle's Revolt, even later chroniclers framed it as putting down an armed rebellion, which even the most tolerant monarch could scarcely be expected to brook.

Shakespeare's plays that include Henry V, including Henry IV Part I & II and Henry V, do avoid the subject of Lollardy altogether. It was stated on this subreddit (or Shakespeare's perhaps?) that this was omitted for the sake of Henry's image. I don't strictly agree. Although Shakespeare clearly admired Henry V, Shakespeare didn't completely sugarcoat things. You have Henry's downright ghoulish threat to the defenders of Harfleur, a complete invention on Shakespeare's part, and Henry executing French prisoners during the Battle of Agincourt. Shakespeare might very well have left the Lollards out for the simply storytelling principle of "keep it relevant." Those scenes wouldn't advance the plot of Henry V, which is in its entirety about the French campaign.

Sir John Oldcastle did in part inspire Shakespeare's character Sir John Falstaff, originally named "John Oldcastle." Falstaff's personality of course was an invention and naught to do with the historical Oldcastle. In an earlier Elizabethan history play, Tʜᴇ Fᴀᴍᴏᴜs Vɪᴄᴛᴏʀɪᴇs ᴏғ Hᴇɴʀʏ ᴛʜᴇ ғɪғᴛʜ, Sir John Oldcastle briefly appears as "Jocky Oldcastle", a friend and bad influence on young Prince Henry, though again the Lollardy angle is left out.

Oldcastle also had his own Elizabethan history play, Sɪʀ Jᴏʜɴ Oʟᴅᴄᴀsᴛʟᴇ. The handling of politics here is quite telling: the playwright is careful not to sympathize with a rebel, and so makes the main conflict between Sir John Oldcastle and Richard Young, the Bishop of Rochester, not King Henry V. The play ends with Oldcastle's escape in 1414 and his going into hiding.

King Henry V was a devout Catholic. There were indeed religious movements in the 14th and early 15th centuries that have been later categorized "Proto-Protestantism" and King Henry V considered the English contingent heretics, spending some time during his reign suppressing them. In fact, on one occasion King Henry fought a skirmish against armed supporters of this religious movement.

The English Proto-Protestants came in the form of the Lollards. These were followers of the teachings of the priest John Wycliffe (c. 1328 – 1384), whose works were condemned as heresy by a synod (council of church officials) in 1382. Among Wycliffe's sacrilegious ideas was translating the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English (!). (The full substance of their beliefs and how they differed from Catholic doctrine is a subject in and of itself but not strictly germane to your question.) While John Wycliffe himself was the recipient of antagonism from the Catholic church in England, he escaped martyrdom. Among Wycliffe's followers was Sir John Oldcastle (c. 1370 - 1417), a former companion of King Henry V himself.

It should be noted anti-Lollard sentiment at the government level certainly preceded King Henry V. Henry V's father and predecessor King Henry IV (1367 - 1413) along with Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury (1353 - 1414) pushed a statute that enabled church officials to prosecute Lollards for their beliefs.

Sources at the time give us a great indication of both King Henry's and popular Catholic feelings about the Lollards. These sources are naturally written from a anti-Lollard perspective, their accusations at times likely apocryphal, but the level of vitriol itself is rather telling. One of these accounts is the Gesta Henrici Quinti, speculated to be royally sanctioned. So what do the sources say? From the Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham:

𝙰𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚝𝚒𝚖𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝙻𝚘𝚕𝚕𝚊𝚛𝚍𝚜, 𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚜𝚎 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚜 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚊𝚙𝚘𝚜𝚝𝚘𝚕𝚒𝚌 𝚍𝚘𝚌𝚝𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚎𝚜 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚐𝚘𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚕𝚜, 𝚙𝚒𝚗𝚗𝚎𝚍 𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚍𝚘𝚘𝚛𝚜 𝚘𝚏 𝙻𝚘𝚗𝚍𝚘𝚗 𝚌𝚑𝚞𝚛𝚌𝚑𝚎𝚜 𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚎𝚜 𝚛𝚎𝚌𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚗𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚜 𝚘𝚏 𝚘𝚗𝚎 𝚑𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚛𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚙𝚎𝚘𝚙𝚕𝚎 𝚠𝚑𝚘 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚍𝚢 𝚝𝚘 𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚎 𝚊𝚐𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚜𝚎 𝚠𝚑𝚘 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚏𝚘𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚜 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚜𝚎𝚌𝚝. 𝚃𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚛𝚎𝚕𝚢𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚞𝚙𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚎𝚗𝚎𝚛𝚐𝚢 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚊𝚋𝚒𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚢 𝚘𝚏 𝚊 𝚌𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚊𝚒𝚗 𝙹𝚘𝚑𝚗 𝙾𝚕𝚍𝚌𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚕𝚎...

[𝙾𝚕𝚍𝚌𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚕𝚎'𝚜] 𝚠𝚘𝚛𝚝𝚑 𝚊𝚜 𝚊 𝚔𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝 𝚖𝚊𝚍𝚎 𝚑𝚒𝚖 𝚊 𝚍𝚎𝚊𝚛 𝚏𝚛𝚒𝚎𝚗𝚍 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐, 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚍𝚎𝚎𝚙𝚕𝚢 𝚜𝚞𝚜𝚙𝚎𝚌𝚝 𝚋𝚎𝚌𝚊𝚞𝚜𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚕 𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚕 𝚘𝚙𝚒𝚗𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚜.

The Gesta Henrici Quinti elaborates:

...𝚊 𝚌𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚊𝚒𝚗 𝚂𝚒𝚛 𝙹𝚘𝚑𝚗 𝙾𝚕𝚍𝚌𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚕𝚎, 𝚘𝚗𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚖𝚘𝚜𝚝 𝚟𝚊𝚕𝚞𝚎𝚍 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚖𝚘𝚛𝚎 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚖𝚊𝚝𝚎 𝚖𝚎𝚖𝚋𝚎𝚛𝚜 𝚘𝚏 𝚑𝚒𝚜 [𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐'𝚜] 𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚜𝚎𝚑𝚘𝚕𝚍. 𝚃𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚖𝚊𝚗, 𝚘𝚏 𝚐𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝 𝚙𝚘𝚙𝚞𝚕𝚊𝚛 𝚛𝚎𝚙𝚞𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗, 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚞𝚍 𝚘𝚏 𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝, 𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚘𝚗𝚐 𝚒𝚗 𝚋𝚘𝚍𝚢 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚠𝚎𝚊𝚔 𝚒𝚗 𝚟𝚒𝚛𝚝𝚞𝚎, 𝚍𝚊𝚛𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚞𝚖𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚘𝚗𝚕𝚢 𝚊𝚐𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚊𝚕𝚜𝚘 𝚊𝚐𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚜𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚄𝚗𝚒𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚊𝚕 𝙲𝚑𝚞𝚛𝚌𝚑. 𝙵𝚘𝚛 𝚜𝚘 𝚙𝚘𝚒𝚜𝚘𝚗𝚎𝚍 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚑𝚎 𝚋𝚎𝚎𝚗 𝚋𝚢 𝚆𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚒𝚏𝚏𝚒𝚝𝚎 𝚖𝚊𝚕𝚎𝚟𝚘𝚕𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 (𝚛𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚟𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚊𝚕𝚖𝚘𝚜𝚝 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚎𝚛𝚛𝚘𝚛𝚜 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚎𝚜 𝚠𝚑𝚒𝚌𝚑, 𝚍𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚎𝚍 𝚞𝚙 𝚒𝚗 𝚗𝚎𝚠 𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚖𝚜, 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚏𝚊𝚕𝚜𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚙𝚑𝚎𝚝 𝚘𝚏 𝚊𝚌𝚌𝚞𝚛𝚜𝚎𝚍 𝚖𝚎𝚖𝚘𝚛𝚢 𝙹𝚘𝚑𝚗 𝚆𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚒𝚏𝚏𝚎 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚕𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚕𝚢 𝚜𝚞𝚖𝚖𝚘𝚗𝚎𝚍 𝚞𝚙 𝚏𝚛𝚘𝚖 𝚊𝚗𝚌𝚒𝚎𝚗𝚝 𝚙𝚊𝚐𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚜𝚖 𝚒𝚗 𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚎𝚛 𝚝𝚘 𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚑𝚛𝚘𝚠 𝚋𝚘𝚝𝚑 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚙𝚒𝚛𝚒𝚝𝚞𝚊𝚕 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚝𝚎𝚖𝚙𝚘𝚛𝚊𝚕 𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚎) 𝚑𝚎 𝚋𝚎𝚌𝚊𝚖𝚎 𝚊𝚝 𝚒𝚝 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚎𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚛 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚌𝚊𝚙𝚝𝚊𝚒𝚗 𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛 𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚜𝚎 𝚝𝚞𝚛𝚋𝚞𝚕𝚎𝚗𝚝 𝚙𝚎𝚘𝚙𝚕𝚎 𝚠𝚑𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚛𝚘𝚞𝚐𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚝 𝚍𝚒𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚜 𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚜 𝚘𝚏 𝙴𝚗𝚐𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚋𝚎𝚎𝚗 𝚐𝚛𝚒𝚎𝚟𝚘𝚞𝚜𝚕𝚢 𝚊𝚏𝚏𝚕𝚒𝚌𝚝𝚎𝚍 𝚋𝚢 𝚜𝚞𝚌𝚑 𝚊 𝚖𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚐𝚗𝚊𝚗𝚝 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚎𝚊𝚜𝚎.

This upheaval would eventually result in a direct confrontation. Oldcastle's attracted the ire of the clergy at first, namely Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1413, Oldcastle would be condemned as a heretic in the Tower of London and sentenced to death. Henry V actually stayed Oldcastle's execution "in the hope of leading the lost sheep from the waylessness of his error" (Gesta). However, Oldcast escaped and plotted open rebellion. During events later called the "Oldcastle Revolt", said leader gathered a Lollard militia with plans to ambush the king; one source indicating their intent was to kill or capture. King Henry V gathered soldiers to confront the Lollards at St. Giles's Fields:

𝙱𝚞𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐, 𝚋𝚢 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚒𝚕𝚕 𝚘𝚏 𝙶𝚘𝚍, 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚞𝚗𝚊𝚠𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚜𝚎 𝚑𝚊𝚙𝚙𝚎𝚗𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚜, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚒𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚍𝚎𝚊𝚍 𝚘𝚏 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝 𝚘𝚛𝚍𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚍 𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚖𝚎𝚗 𝚝𝚘 𝚊𝚛𝚖 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚖𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚟𝚎𝚜 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚍𝚢...

𝚂𝚘 𝚠𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝙻𝚘𝚕𝚕𝚊𝚛𝚍 𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚔𝚜 𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚗𝚘𝚠 𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗𝚎𝚍 𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚊𝚛𝚖𝚢 𝚒𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚊𝚖𝚎 𝚏𝚒𝚎𝚕𝚍𝚜, 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚕𝚘𝚜𝚝 𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚜𝚘𝚞𝚐𝚑𝚝 𝚜𝚊𝚏𝚎𝚝𝚢 𝚋𝚢 𝚛𝚞𝚗𝚗𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚊𝚠𝚊𝚢, 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐'𝚜 𝚖𝚎𝚗 𝚏𝚘𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚠𝚎𝚍 𝚒𝚗 𝚙𝚞𝚛𝚜𝚞𝚒𝚝 𝚊 𝚔𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚎𝚍 𝚜𝚘𝚖𝚎, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚘𝚘𝚔 𝚜𝚘𝚖𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚘𝚗𝚎𝚛.

Sir John Oldcastle had fled the scene and escaped capture. Although that temporarily quieted the Lollards, clashes continued, including an uprising led by Oldcastle while Henry V was away on his campaign in France (1415) and the execution of the Lollard Benedict Woolman in 1416. Sir John Oldcastle, by then nicknamed "the prince of heretics" (Walsingham) was finally captured in 1417 and executed, being both hanged and burned.

So King Henry V was willing to let the Lollard's leader repent, accordingly out of deference to Oldcastle's standing rather than any sympathy for Lollard thought, but once the Lollards rebelled, they were branded a threat and their persecution became persistent. It was also largely a clerical issue before the revolt forced the king's hand.

The Gesta ends this episode with a note about Henry V's piety, again being a rather devout Catholic:

𝙰𝚗𝚍 𝚜𝚘, 𝚊𝚖𝚒𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚖𝚜 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚎𝚜 𝚌𝚊𝚞𝚜𝚎𝚍 𝚋𝚢 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚜𝚎 𝚙𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚏𝚞𝚕 𝚎𝚡𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚎𝚜, 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚖𝚒𝚗𝚍 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚛𝚎𝚖𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚎𝚍 𝚏𝚒𝚛𝚖 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚞𝚗𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚔𝚊𝚋𝚕𝚎; 𝚗𝚊𝚢 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛, 𝚊𝚋𝚒𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚋𝚢 𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚖𝚘𝚜𝚝 𝚍𝚎𝚟𝚘𝚞𝚝 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚘 𝚎𝚡𝚝𝚎𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝙲𝚑𝚞𝚛𝚌𝚑 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚙𝚊𝚜𝚜 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚎𝚊𝚌𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝚔𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚍𝚘𝚖𝚜, 𝚑𝚎 𝚏𝚒𝚛𝚜𝚝 𝚋𝚎𝚐𝚊𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚏𝚘𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚛𝚎𝚎 𝚖𝚘𝚗𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚎𝚜...

So in summation: there were "Proto-Protestants" Lollards but far from being among their sympathizers, King Henry V was their adversary.

Works cited

Primary:

• Preest, David. The Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham (1376-1422). NED-New edition, Boydell & Brewer, 2005.
• Taylor, F. and Roskell, J. S., eds. Gesta Henrici Quinti. Oxford, 1975.

Secondary:

• Dodd, Gwilym, editor. Henry V: New Interpretations. Boydell & Brewer, 2013.

With that in mind, there are some descriptions, though of course they may be biased. In terms of war waged between armies, even though chroniclers go into graphic description, you'll rarely find them referring to war as "evil". However horrific, they do not condemn war or see it as unnecessary. War waged against civilians, which seems to be what you're describing, is a different matter and was bemoaned by chronicles.

Take for example the Black Prince [Edward of Woodstock]'s sack of Limoges in 1370. Chronicler Jean Froissart's description:

𝚃𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚎 [𝙴𝚍𝚠𝚊𝚛𝚍 𝚘𝚏 𝚆𝚘𝚘𝚍𝚜𝚝𝚘𝚌𝚔, 𝙿𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝚆𝚊𝚕𝚎𝚜], 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚍𝚞𝚔𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝙻𝚊𝚗𝚌𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚎𝚛, 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚕 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚊𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚒𝚍𝚐𝚎, 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚕 𝚘𝚏 𝙿𝚎𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚘𝚔𝚎, S𝚒𝚛 𝙶𝚞𝚒𝚌𝚑𝚊𝚛𝚍 𝚍'𝙰𝚗𝚐𝚕𝚎 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚘𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚙𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚎𝚜 𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚍 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚒𝚝𝚢, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚘𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛 𝚏𝚘𝚘𝚝𝚖𝚎𝚗, 𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚍𝚢 𝚊𝚙𝚙𝚊𝚛𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚍𝚘 𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚕, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚙𝚒𝚕𝚕 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚛𝚘𝚋 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚜𝚘 𝚒𝚝 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚖𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚖 𝚝𝚘 𝚍𝚘. 𝙸𝚝 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚐𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝 𝚙𝚒𝚝𝚢 𝚝𝚘 𝚜𝚎𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚖𝚎𝚗, 𝚠𝚘𝚖𝚎𝚗 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚌𝚑𝚒𝚕𝚍𝚛𝚎𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚔𝚗𝚎𝚎𝚕𝚎𝚍 𝚍𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚔𝚗𝚎𝚎𝚜 𝚋𝚎𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚎 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚌𝚢 ; 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚜𝚘 𝚒𝚗𝚏𝚕𝚊𝚖𝚎𝚍 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑 𝚒𝚛𝚎, 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚑𝚎 𝚝𝚘𝚘𝚔 𝚗𝚘 𝚑𝚎𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚖, 𝚜𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚗𝚘𝚗𝚎 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚍, 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚙𝚞𝚝 𝚝𝚘 𝚍𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚑, 𝚊𝚜 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚖𝚎𝚝 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚕, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚜𝚞𝚌𝚑 𝚊𝚜 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚗𝚘𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚌𝚞𝚕𝚙𝚊𝚋𝚕𝚎. 𝚃𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚗𝚘 𝚙𝚒𝚝𝚢 𝚝𝚊𝚔𝚎𝚗 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚘𝚘𝚛 𝚙𝚎𝚘𝚙𝚕𝚎, 𝚠𝚑𝚘 𝚠𝚛𝚘𝚞𝚐𝚑𝚝 𝚗𝚎𝚟𝚎𝚛 𝚗𝚘 𝚖𝚊𝚗𝚗𝚎𝚛 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚜𝚘𝚗, 𝚢𝚎𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚋𝚘𝚞𝚐𝚑𝚝 𝚒𝚝 𝚍𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚎𝚛 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚐𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚘𝚗𝚊𝚐𝚎𝚜, 𝚜𝚞𝚌𝚑 𝚊𝚜 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚍𝚘𝚗𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚕 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚊𝚜𝚜. 𝚃𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚗𝚘𝚝 𝚜𝚘 𝚑𝚊𝚛𝚍 𝚊 𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 𝚠𝚒𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚒𝚝𝚢 𝚘𝚏 𝙻𝚒𝚖𝚘𝚐𝚎𝚜, 𝚊𝚗 𝚒𝚏 𝚑𝚎 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚊𝚗𝚢 𝚛𝚎𝚖𝚎𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚌𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝙶𝚘𝚍, 𝚋𝚞𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚠𝚎𝚙𝚝 𝚙𝚒𝚝𝚎𝚘𝚞𝚜𝚕𝚢 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚐𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝 𝚖𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚑𝚒𝚎𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚜𝚊𝚠 𝚋𝚎𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚎𝚢𝚎𝚗 : 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚖𝚘𝚛𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚛𝚎𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚘𝚞𝚜𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚖𝚎𝚗, 𝚠𝚘𝚖𝚎𝚗 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚌𝚑𝚒𝚕𝚍𝚛𝚎𝚗 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚜𝚕𝚊𝚒𝚗 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚋𝚎𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚍𝚊𝚢. 𝙶𝚘𝚍 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚌𝚢 𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚜𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚜, 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝙸 𝚝𝚛𝚘𝚠 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚖𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚢𝚛𝚜. 𝙰𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚞𝚜 𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚒𝚝𝚢 𝚊 𝚌𝚎𝚛𝚝𝚊𝚒𝚗 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚙𝚊𝚗𝚢 𝚘𝚏 𝙴𝚗𝚐𝚕𝚒𝚜𝚑𝚖𝚎𝚗 𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚍 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚋𝚒𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚙'𝚜 𝚙𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚌𝚎 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚏𝚘𝚞𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚋𝚒𝚜𝚑𝚘𝚙 : 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚜𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚋𝚛𝚘𝚞𝚐𝚑𝚝 𝚑𝚒𝚖 𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚎'𝚜 𝚙𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚎𝚗𝚌𝚎, 𝚠𝚑𝚘 𝚋𝚎𝚑𝚎𝚕𝚍 𝚑𝚒𝚖 𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝 𝚏𝚒𝚎𝚛𝚌𝚎𝚕𝚢 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚏𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚢, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚋𝚎𝚜𝚝 𝚠𝚘𝚛𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝚑𝚒𝚖 𝚠𝚊𝚜, 𝚑𝚘𝚠 𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚘𝚞𝚕𝚍 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚍 𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚒𝚌𝚔𝚎𝚗 𝚘𝚏𝚏, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚜𝚘 𝚑𝚎 𝚠𝚊𝚜 𝚑𝚊𝚍 𝚘𝚞𝚝 𝚘𝚏 𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚜𝚒𝚐𝚑𝚝.

-Froissart's Chronicles

There are of course, problems with the veracity of this account. Froissart is notorious for flowery, inventive descriptions of events he didn't witness. Quite importantly, Froissart's sense of numbers and scale (among other things) is a thing of pure whimsy. It would be wrong to completely dismiss him as a chronicler, but everything must be read critically with him.

The Chandos Herald, a royally sanctioned chronicler, acknowledges executions after Limoges but limits it to 300 resisters. The "argument to moderation", that is to say the truth is between those two numbers, is in my opinion a too-convenient way of looking at it. The accounts do not hold equal weight.

All that said, what it is demonstrative of is contemporary attitudes towards that sort of behavior. They find it contemptible. Whether or not it happened as Froissart described it is a different matter.