You no nothing about my people history and you probably don’t even no where we English came from well I give you a history lesson we English came from Denmark and northern Germany we was one of the Germanic tribes known as the angle and Saxon that came from Denmark and northern Germany we invaded and took the land from the Welsh and run what was left of them in to the mountains nowadays you would call that part the country 🏴 and then once we was finished with them we settled and then are Viking cousins came over and well rest is history but the point I’m trying to make here is that we native white English are Germanic not French so remember that when your doing your pointless video on us English the French had no influence here we don’t speak French we speak proper English witch is not French English is a Germanic language and I’m proud to be English and I’m proud to be Germanic so 🤫🤫🤫 muppet
"Before the battle a single man rode up alone to Harald Hardrada and Tostig. He gave no name, but spoke to Tostig, offering the return of his earldom if he would turn against Hardrada. Tostig asked what his brother Harold would be willing to give Hardrada for his trouble. The rider replied "Seven feet of English ground, as he is taller than other men." Then he rode back to the Saxon host. Hardrada was impressed by the rider's boldness, and asked Tostig who he was. Tostig replied that the rider was Harold Godwinson himself."
According to the book 1066 The Year of Three Battles, Tostig replied to Harold that he wouldn't be remembered in history as the man who accompanied the king of Norway to England to then betray him, but he also told Hardrada that if the two fought, he hoped his brother would win. Of course these exchanges seem a bit too dramatic to be real, but who knows. They at least fit the character of the persons involved.
@@therightarmofthefreeworld4703 Interesting that some brotherly love was there to an extent, I always saw this as Godwinson offering Tostig a lifeline hoping he took it.
@@jack1428 I'm pessimistic enough to think he was just trying to divide the forces against him. But I'd like to think there was a human motive for the offer.
@@therightarmofthefreeworld4703 Makes no sense. Tostig's reasoning behind joining Harald's campaign was for revenge and to at least receive some significant slice of the pie after Harald conquered England.
Almost 1000 years later and we still talk about him. Crazy how some people rise to the status of being so influential in their time they become a legend.
I have lived in york all my life, i have played on fields at Stamford bridge, this battle was even studied in history class in school. Thanks for telling the story again in magnificent detail.
People always shy over how Harold built a force big enough to take out the Normans, then effectively ran +10,000 to take on the Vikings on 25/09/1066 (shortly after harvest season) and then ran them back to take on the Normans on 14/10/1066. The men must have been tired and severely deteriorated before either battle. Truly the unsung heroes of the time.
It also speaks to the kind of man Godwinson was too. If 10k men are willing to march 500 miles and fight two battles in the space of a few weeks in unseasonably warm weather you know he was a charismatic guy.
it is extremely impressive for the time. but just for comparison's sake experienced modern British infantry in some of the better regiments could make it in time carrying about 50kg. I've run around and fought with 80kg for days on a couple of occasions, but I say 50 'cause I know I'd pile in pretty quick carrying much more than that having to do a dozen miles a day or more. just fyi, 30-50kg going 12.5 miles in 3 hours is the airborne standard. at least it was when I was still playing (I'm out now). but we don't do much for the rest of the day after that 😆
Harald Hadrada is my 33rd direct descendant through my mum's bloodline. We are so very proud of our rich viking heritage and humbled to receive a special plaque from the Swiss govt with our family tree with all my family and past descendants. 😍
I am a direct descendant of Godred Crovan, King of Dublin and the Isles, who was among Harald Hadrada's men that day (but he was not yet a King). I am also a descendant of William the Conqueror - he was my 30th Great-grandfather, and I am also a descendant of many of the men who accompanied him and fought at Hastings - around 15 of them that I know of. I am also a descendant of King Malcolm III Canmore, and his wife Margaret of Wessex, who was reigning in Scotland at the time of this battle - he would have been my 28th Great-grandfather.
Serious question... does anyone else think that the famous berserker on the bridge HAS to be a complete fiction? It doesn't make a bit of sense. We know for sure the English army had plenty of archers because Harald Hardrada himself was killed by an arrow through the throat.... so why wouldn't they just feather the berserker with arrows the moment he stepped onto the bridge and waived his axe around? It's got to be BS. I think the reality probably was that the Viking army was essentially just massacred because they weren't at all prepared or equipped for a proper battle, and that didn't sound very heroic. So, they created this guy on the bridge to make it sound more epic.
@@ianmedford4855 As far as I know we know about the story thanks to English sources, perhaps they didn't want to waste their arrows since they expected someone to cut him down already or the archers were still behind many things could've happened, he most probably didn't kill 40 of them though, numbers such as 40, 80 etc. are used symbolically.
How about following up on this tale and tell us the tale of Willian the conqueror next? or maybe a big time jump and cover the story of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden?
The Bar Kokhba revolt, a Jewish uprising that ended with 500k dead and the disbandment of 2 Roman legions. It permanently altered Jewish religious life, resulting in the renaming of Judea to Palestine by the Romans
Good idea. If I remember correctly, we have 4 interesting sources from Levant alone that describe his crusade. Both from Saracen and Frankish sources, not to mention other European ones.
@@InvictaHistory Also Sigurd Jorsalfare (meaning "crusader/pilgrim to Jerusalem") was the first monarch to go crusading, setting the standard for all other monarchs to do the same.
Englishmen! I am waiting here In my heart I know not an ounce of fear We are waiting here my trusted axe and me Just come at me, I will not flee Death! I know that it awaits Soon I will enter Valhalla's gates!
One great unknown in history is how World History might have unfolded differently, if not for that single arrow striking Harold Hardrada in the throat. Even an interesting thought experiment as to whether Harold Hardrada would have handled the inbound William the Bastard, or if Willie would have even attempted the strike had he received news.
@@janledvinkaxd with the outcome of Williams attack, it's hard to see how he could prevail over an even larger force. then you throw in there that the aristocracy might have thrown in with William or perhaps even Harold's.. or even if they perhaps form a third faction. Just so many different possibilities
@@turnballZ Hardrada would likely not have a larger force than Harold had when confronting William- even if he left no garissons anywhere and kept all his forces together, he would not be able to call upon local levies so quickly after the conquest, leaving him with 8-9k men at best
Hardrada likely would have fared worse against William than Godwinson did. William would have proceeded with his attack because Hardrada's forces were comparable to Godwinson's and would have been in the same geographical position. Hardrada did not have as many men as Godwinson and if he had triumphed at Stamford Bridge he still would have taken significant casualties, so he would have been even weaker. Hardrada would not have been able to draw reinforcements or resupply as effectively from Anglo-Saxon dominated England as Godwinson did, so Hardrada would have been less prepared to face William than Godwinson. Hardrada also had the same weaknesses in his army as Godwinson that William exploited, mainly the low numbers of cavalry and reliance on undisciplined infantry formations vs William's infantry/cavalry combo with advanced tactics like feigned retreats. Neither Hardrada or Godwinson were set up to defeat William so soon after fighting each other, William's key advantage other more cavalry was that he arrived last and allowed his enemies to weaken and destroy each other. Hardrada's death also was not very critical at Stamford because by that point the viking army was already being surrounded. If Hardrada had not died right then it probably would have only bought another hour or two before his army collapsed anyway.
This might not directly be related to Harald, but it must be said that one of the factors why the Norman Conquest happened was because the Pope wanted to fully exert control over the Church of England as they were the third last Church in Western Europe that didn't recognize Papal Supremacy at the time, and thus were excommunicated in 1052 (Ireland remained Orthodox until the Great Reforming Synods in 1101, Wales remained Orthodox until 1170). Native clergy were replaced, liturgical reform enacted, and a strong emphasis on papal church control was propagated. As such, it is safe to say that, prior to 1066, the Church of the British Isles was Orthodox, and the Normans brought the effects of the Great Schism to British soil. That is why Western Rite Orthodox Christians venerate Harald Godwinson as a passion bearer (Saint). Also, get this: After the Conquest, many Anglo-Saxons fled Britain, most of them migrated to the Eastern Roman Empire and were recruited into the Varangian Guard. In turn, the Emperor granted them land in modern day Crimea, where they founded cities such as "New London" and "New York".
Historians are very sceptical of this claim to put it mildly. With the exception of some disagreements with the Catholic church, which was not exclusive to England, it has in general been found that the English church aligned much closer to the Catholic church than the Orthodox one. As for replacing the clergy and reforms. It's much more likely that the reason was that William preferred Normans holding the very influential seats the church provided rather than Englishmen. The reforms were also for the most part just accelerating reforms that were already in progress. For more reading I'd recommend "The orthodoxy of the Anglo-Saxons: Conversion and Loyalty in the Pre-Conquest English Church" by Jack Turner.
Just think how different history would have been if the Normans had invaded England first. The Saxons would have weakened their army defeating them, leaving the door open to the Vikings, instead of the other way around. Would have totally changed history.
@@beepIL In this case it was just a matter of the weather. William came pretty close to having to cancel his invasion because he ran out of supplies waiting for the right wind to cross the channel. From what I remember he had less than a week left.
That do sound like something for Cody at the alternative history channel but it isn't a given that is what would have happened. Both Stamford Bridge and Hastings were really a flip of a coin and ended by a lucky or unlucky arrow depending how you see it. Either of the 3 could have become king of England no matter who invaded first. All were incredible competent and history were so close to moving in 2 very different directions then it did. William the bastard did won which lead to a fortification project never seen before or since of England which in turn lead to no other foreigner successfully invading the country in the future which in turn lead to England slowing becoming the worlds largest super power ever. Harald Hårdråda would have never done that since the project really killed of the viking age. The only viking who believed in strong fortifications was Harald Blåtand (Bluetooth), the rest were more the types who believed that a strong offense were the best defense. With Godwinson it's a bit harder to predict, he might have gone either way but likely would have gone for a middle ground between the 2. 1066 was one of a couple of years that decided the worlds history with a flip of the coin, just like when Cesar crossed the Rubicon, when Napoleon invaded Russia and the first battle of Breitenfeldt during the 30 year war. If Hårdråda had won, maybe Norway would have been the global empire instead of Great Britain (likely not but who knows?).
@@beepIL But that is wholly different. It's clear that Hitler wasn't the cause, he was the result. The political climate of 1920's Germany was poised to give spawn to someone like Hitler. In this case, if indeed the Normans had invaded first, we could have a very different Great Britain, a very different Western-Europe and a very different history.
@@loke6664 Wrong. Norway would never been the center of a global empire even Harald Hardada have been the winner in 1066. The population in England was much bigger than the population in Norway. The center of this empire have still been in England and not in Norway. The same happend when the danish king Canute the Great invaded England in 1014. He moved to England and ruled his Nordsea empire from England and not from Denmark.
This legendary Warrior King will still be mentioned through the ages to come. i am following this Channel for a long time and I wish they would do an episode about King Decebalus of Dacia against Emperor Traian of Rome. It would be a fine mini series of history , Romano- Dacian wars of 101-102, 105-106 and so much more to his Sagas .
@@InvictaHistory there are a lot of mystical stories to be uncovered from the Dacian Wars and it is a good topic to discuss about more . Contact me If You want to uncover it more.
1066 is definitely one of the most interesting alternate history scenarios for me. Not just how would England/Britain have evolved differently if the Anglo-Saxons had beaten both the Norwegians and the Normans, but what if the Norwegians had won? Would it have been a similar case to Cnut's invasion earlier that century where Scandinavian influence kind of just fell apart due to unlucky circumstance, or could there have been a real chance of England (and perhaps Britain as a whole later) becoming a quasi-Scandinavian region?
There would likely be a new united realm of England, Norway and Denmark under Harald, though if it would remain united after his death is uncertain. Depending on who ends up on the different thrones afterwards, England could be of largely norse character or remain Anglo-Saxon. No matter the result, Britain as whole would probably be seen as cultural "cousins" of the Scandinavians, but who knows what that would entail hundreds of years later.
If either the Norwegian had won against Harold not much would have changed as the Saxon and Viking lifestyle at this point was very similar.. But if Harold had won at Hastings the map of Europe would have changed completely. America might have been settled a lot earlier. Trade routes would have been very different. Britain may have never been part of the crusades. France would have reclaimed Normandy and the power of The pope would have been a lot weaker.
@@agentpipp I suppose that our king Harald Hardrada would live in England and not in Norway if he have won in 1066 just like king Canute the great have done before him. Norway and Denmark had a much smaller population than England in 1066, so the population in England would never accept to be ruled from Norway for a long time. England would have been the center in an union between Norway and England or perhaps a new anglosaxon nation would had started after Harald Hardrada died. But an anglosaxon nation would of course have been more oriented agaist Scandinavia than a Norman nation. French influence you know..💁♀
1066 England would make for a pretty good tv show. From the Viking invasions to William the conqueror and his struggle against english duke to take the crown of england. You'd get a pretty good 5 seasons arc there.
They did The Last Kingdom which has similar politics/invasion's from the same countries. Granted that was in like the mid 800s to early 900s so a couple hundred years prior to 1066. It was mostly about Denmark invading England though. Pretty good show but they are doing like 1 more season I think. 5 or 6.
@@Zeerich-yx9po Wow bro, you must be a pro. Cherry picking one example out of the whole dumpster fire of PC wokist Netflix. You kind of just proved my point. Not to mention that even in Squid Game they managed to cram in a Pakistani dude so that there is some "diversity". Congratulations you played yourself as the dickwad DJ Khaled would say. 🤣
We have a name of the unarmoured Berserker of Stamford Bridge, though it's not generally accepted by academia as unquestioned truth. It's said that he was called "Þjóðólfr Sterkur Einn" - "Thjodolf Strong One" or “Thjodolf The Strong”. Even though it's not fully accepted by academia as of yet, it atleast gives us a name as a reference point.
It's a really cool legend - but I wouldn't put any actual money on that event having happened. It doesn't occur in any of the Sagas (which WOULD have talked about it if it had occurred), and gets a one sentence treatment in the British telling of the battle (with no name). The embellished version comes from British scholars in the 19th century, who appear to have made the story up - there's no further citations other than them.
"Thjodolf The Strong" is part of the song "Stanford Bru" created by an old Norwegian couple, who were inspired by the Anglosaxon Chronicle. They probably took the name from Thjodolf/Thjodolr/Tjodolv-Arnórsson who was the skald or poet of Harald, and probably died in the battle. The "lonely Norwegian" event was added to the Chronicles almost a century later by Norman scribes. And it doesn't match the timeline of the battle, it also has a lot of plot holes and contradictions.
The narration is absolutely incredible, makes one feel that they are truly a spectator of these events. Even with all the blood, death, and brutality one can’t help but wish they were apart of these amazing historical epics in all their horror and glory.
It would be pretty brutal to be honest. The English had to constantly deal with border raids from the Danelaw and they grew increasingly annoyed with this (understandably) Burial sites have been found where men considered by the Archaeologists to be part of captured, failed Viking raiding parties, were defeated and decapitated or given blunt force trauma on their skulls) There was a burning resentment by the peoples living around the incursion territory that was the Viking Danelaw, and they always wanted to drive the Vikings out again. It was seen as a complete affront to their land and people, and they wanted them gone. No quarter was asked for nor was it given. The burial sites speak to the nature of the violence going on while it did.
My biggest takeaway whenever this period is brought up is that Harold was one of the most unlucky people ever. William's invasion would've been an uphill battle if Harald hadn't just made his move up North.
Yep. It was such a tragedy, and he did so well in very nearly defeating the Normans even after this incredible effort against Hardrada, and then the march back. And he was a good king; one of the potential reasons it's thought he rushed to give battle to William before waiting for further reinforcements was that he wanted to stop the Normans' depredations on his people in the surrounding countryside. And he evidently inspired great personal devotion; he was beloved of his wife, and all his loyal Housecarls fought to the death around his body at the end of the Battle of Hastings. And then were ushered in hundreds of years of brutal colonial, foreign rule, domination and exploitation. It'll always make me sad. I wish there was more honour and attention given to him in this country.
10/10 Invicta! A wonderful subject and story shown in full arc that was splendidly presented, entertaining and educational. Seriously you guys knocked this one out of the park :)
I have to say, your videos are by far the best quality on UA-cam, regarding, art, narratively as well as historical accuracy and reliability. Thank you for good content sir.
I'm a Viking reenactor in York and this is the first year in a long time that all 3 of the major 1066 battles; Fulford, Stamford Bridge and Hastings, are taking place, and all going well I should be able to attend all 3 (though not as a combatant, I'll be sticking to the living history encampments and watching the battle from the sidelines)
It was stated in the video that York is 190 miles from London, and that the English soldiers were able to reach York from London in 4 days.... York is in fact 280 miles from London.
My favourite thing about this is how people will imagine Stamford bridge being an epic span over a river that you could imagine a regiment fitting tightly on, when today the bridge spanning the Derwent at Stamford bridge is a one way car bridge that has the worst bottleneck for traffic in the East Riding 😂
I am blown away .. it was just perfect … the battle narration felt almost as though you were singing a saga .. thank you … it’s just beautiful….a suggestion about the next episode - William the Conqueror … the story of how a bastard became a conqueror & then a king
Can't blame Harald for being confident in victory, even with an unarmored force and surprise on the enemy's side. The man had hitherto led a glorious life with countless legendary victories against great odds, escaping from Constantinople and outsmarting their invincible sea-chains, fighting Arab pirates and pushing back Saracens in the Levant, led Byzantines, Kievan Rus and Norsemen alike into the fray, finessed his way into the heart of a Rus princess, led successful riots against an empire, conquered his homeland and bested his norse kin in battle after battle against men of the same upbringing and toughness as he. I mean to my knowledge, such continous and unhindered success must've been unheard of for that time. The man must've been a living myth to others, told of by firesides in whispers and awe. But sadly, even the mightiest of men can be felled and defeated in any battle given the right circumstance and a bit of bad luck.
Really enjoyed this series about Hardrada, up to recently I knew him only as the king who had lost the battle of Stamford Bridge. What a legend and what a way to go, reminds me a little of Pyrrhus, the warrior King, who died in battle killed by a roof tile.
I wonder, what if Harold Godwinson had instead waited for the Norman attack that came just a few weeks later? Would he have been able to repel William? Would he then be able to repel Hardrada, or would his weakened force fail to repel the Norwegian king without the element of surprise that was so important in the battle of Stamford Bridge? Or would William have just won anyway? I wish I had access to the multiverse to see these outcomes. England would be a very different place today. I guess my games of Crusader Kings are as close as I can get
@@radicalxg8282 If he had not fought the Norsemen first he would ve had a sound victory against William, so not by some chance. Harold and his army even almost won, despite the fact that he had just fought a massive battle against the Norsemen.
@@wulfheort8021 We dont know but one thing is clear Harold had the odds againts him, if he went to fight william first the same case of the original timeline applies, he have to fight hardrada with a tired battle battered army with no time to muster his loses and rest, force marching his army to meet a more fierce hardrada army who for sure would be shadowing and swooping on harold like a vulture as soon he finishes william with reinforcements and all. Regardless who harold fights first for me the moment those 2 armies decided to invade at the same time it was the end of AngloSaxon reign of england.
@@radicalxg8282 The fight against Hardrada would have probably a loss if he fought William first, but William would have definitely lost in that case. You said if Harold won by any chance, while Harold would have won for sure. That's the only thing I was pointing out. Harold his best chance was first taking on Hardrada and then William. I believe it was only 2 weeks after the Stamford Bridge battle that he force marched back to the south, many of his men returned home to harvest the yield, so only his own retinue was left. But with that retinue he nearly defeated William. He took on a position on a hill, rendering William's crossbowmen/archers useless. Harold's men even broke William's left flank, but Harold his men did not hold the line and started chasing the routing Normans, William and his cavalry encircled those Saxons and finished em off, this happened again and again until the Saxon lines lost cohesion. If Harold his men kept formation, they'd have won the battle.
@@wulfheort8021 It was just only 3 days after the battle with hardrada that william arrived and he had to rush and force march his army to meet william's but yeah william army really struggled againts harold's, with full strenght i do believe william would have lost, however instead we would be seeing the birth of Viking ruled england after that lmao that would certainly be a crazy timeline
I had a read on the Anglo Saxon chronicle. There is no quote of the axe or he was a berserkers “But there was one of the Norwegians who withstood the English folk, so that they could not pass over the bridge, nor complete the victory. An Englishman aimed at him with a javelin, but it availed nothing. Then came another under the bridge, who pierced him terribly inwards under the coat of mail.” No mention of him being a berserker. Or a double blade axe Also Berzerkers where outlawed early 11th century the battle on the bridge was late 11th century.
The information on the axe comes from Henry of Huntingdon's Chronicle, who may have had access to a unique version of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, some other oral tradition, or he just made it up (but I find that unlikely) "Here a single Norwegian, whose name ought to have been preserved, took post on a bridge, and hewing down more than forty of the English with a battle-axe, his country's weapon, stayed the advance of the whole English army till the ninth hour." Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon 1909 Translation, Page 209. Hope this helps.
Cnut is my direct ancestor. My family had our surname falsely recorded when we arrived on Ellis Island from Norway in 1908, but I've always been a huge fan of Northsea history.
I'll always respect Harold Godwinson. A hero who came so close to a glorious victory over two fearsome invasion forces in short order. The last true king of England. All the rest have been foreign usurpers.
@@Ackalan Well he was an Anglo-Saxon, yes. So was the population of England at that time. Most importantly he was culturally English, and was elected by the Witenagemot.
Kudos to those highly disciplined & dedicated Saxon soldiers who marched speedily north to take on the invading, fearsome Norse Viking force then upon emerging victorious up there that badly bloodied English Army spun around & marched south at a furiously unrelenting pace before facing & nearly defeating that formidable Norman force (it was a very closely fought contest!). Great soldiers, very professional, powerfully motivated, thoroughly well trained, rigorously drilled, tough as nails & driven by incredible stamina, that Saxon Army was undoubtedly one of the best in Europe. Their march north before emerging victorious against that terrifying Heathen Army then wheeling about & marching south at an equally fast pace only to smash into & nearly defeat what was one of the finest & most splendidly equipped Armies on the Continent was the very stuff of legend & amongst the greatest military feats of the Medieval Era. Amazing!
If they were tired, they never needed to face William in the field. They had fortifications and the loyalty of local lords and could have rested their men. Unfortunately the Middle Ages, at least in Western Europe, were never much for sound strategy.
@@schoolofgrowthhacking Fortification wasn't that good in Anglo-Saxon England, most things were made of timber, it wasn't until the Normans that stone defenses and castles were being built in England. Apart from some older wore down Roman forts maybe
Seeing your depiction of the berserker was awesome though I find it funny if it is fabricated because that means Anglo Saxon English either needed to describe how powerful they were to defeat such warriors or stress how close the situation was that they had men that powerful
This was such a awesome video Harald Hardrada is easily one of my favorite historical figure from history second only to Cortez, and he deserves a TV show but it needs to be done right with a big budget no woke nonsense and put on HBO.
I live on the humber River, our local place names are a crazy mixture of old Saxon and Norse. You can drive from village to village around here and see that pretty much every old saxon Church is covered in scorched red stone from repeated viking raids in the 8/9thC. One church still has an original anglo saxon sheild boss nailed to the ancient oak door. This island is covered in history.
First! I would also like to say this is a great video. Harald Hardrada's invasion of England is rarely covered compared to William the Conqueror's, and even then often as a footnote. It is actually as interesting as William's invasion itself and something of a potential turning point in European history. Who knows how different England would be had Harald Hardrada won.
My crypto mentor Mrs Brenda Lincoln , you may have come across her on a few interviews I invested $3000 last two weeks and it profited me $11,410 a higher success.
Wow I know Mrs Brenda Lincoln . I met her at a conference in carlifornia 2019 where she introduced us his business strategy, she helped me cover my student loans
I think that Stamford Bridge was one of the less well-known of the battles within a very short period, between more than two groups. Such an interesting kingship succession crisis.
The thumbnail has one thing wrong. Shows the Danish berserker armoured. He is noted as being unarmoured in line with most of the other Danes who weren’t expecting to fight and didn’t have their armour on. That’s why they lost so badly.
"Englishmen! I am waiting here In my heart I know not an ounce of fear We are waiting here my trusted axe and me Just come at me, I will not flee Death! I know that it awaits Soon I will enter Valhalla's gates! On the bridge we met his axe While he stood, none could pass His axe cut deep, through flesh and bone He held the bridge all on his own Forty men, died by his steel The only way we could make him kneel Was to send four men out on the stream And sting the bastard from beneath From Beneath" ~Amon Amarth
Wasn’t really due to battle of Stamford bridge they lost Hastings. Just bad discipline on the Saxons behalf. Up until the charge down the hill they were doing well
While this isn't *strictly* untrue, the English were weakened significantly by Stamford Bridge, both due to losses in the battle itself and due to leaving a significant portion of his army on the scene as they raced down to fight William, including his entire cavalry arm. IE, while the battle of Stamford Bridge definitely wasn't the sole reason for the defeat at Hastings, the odds would've been significantly more in favour of Godwinson if if hadn't been fought.
I’m incredibly disappointed in this video - your researcher seems to have taken the account provided in the Heimskringla as unquestioningly factual despite there being absolutely no evidence to suggest that Anglo Saxon or Scandinavian armies of the 11th Century used massed cavalry in battle or combined arms tactics in the way you’ve described. The Heimskringla is a 13th Century retelling which not only adheres to the standard trope of medieval authors basing their understanding of history on contemporary events but also appears to have conflated Stamford Bridge with the more famous Battle of Hastings. It is extremely unlikely that cavalry was used during the Battle of Stamford Bridge in the way this video describes and I’m honestly appalled with how little research has been done prior to uploading it. Really unimpressive and, frankly, this is bad history.
@@lordofhostsappreciator3075 you seem confused, let me help you; The Vikings - fantasy TV show inspired by history. The Battle of Stamford Bridge - an historical event.
Well it's a valuable question you raise. Harold fought alongside William in Normandy in 1064. He would have certainly known how to use horses. Yet rather surprisingly, he didn't use them in combat when fighting William. So it rather does beg the question; How did the English use their cavalry at Stamford and why DIDN'T they use them in Hastings?
@@robertbluestein7800 I’d imagine because they didn’t use them at Stamford Bridge either. There are absolutely no contemporary English or Scandinavian sources describing battle as anything more than two shieldwalls smashing together and an infantry slog. The Normans introduced the concept of combined arms tactics to English warfare, the Anglo Saxons likely did not develop their own. This video takes its account from the Heimskringla - a 13th Century manuscript with all its latent anachronisms and, probably, confusion with the far more well documented Battle of Hastings (archers peppering the Norwegians, cavalry charges and feints, Hardrada killed by an arrow - it’s all very familiar). I think there’s a difference between awareness of tactics and the ability to implement them yourself - only 2 years passed between Harold’s captivity and his famous battles, probably nowhere near enough time (given everything else which was going on) to reform the English military from a purely infantry force into one with an elite cavalry arm. I’ve no doubt that Harold would’ve been impressed with the way the Normans fought and given more time, it’s possible we’d have seen a gradual evolution from dismounted Thegns to mounted Knights. Alas, events got away from him. I rather think it was the prior knowledge of Norman tactics which dictated how Harold fought at Hastings - he would’ve known that the only real path to victory lay in deploying his forces as an immovable wall for the Normans to break themselves on. I feel it would’ve worked too, if not for his untimely death.
Several discrepancies with other accounts of the battle, but well done nonetheless. The only real issue i have is the Anglo-Saxons fighting from horseback? That seems to go against their military traditions as far as im aware.
If I remember correctly, that reference was took from the Sagas, The Chronicles don't mention that. Probably the Norwegian saw a few English scouts or officers on horsback at the begining of the battle or on the other side of the river clashing with the bridge guards.
@@marcelOberauer What had actually happened was that Harold Godwinson and some of his Thanes and Huscarls, had ridden ahead of the main force to gather local Fyrdmen (militia) and any meaningful soldiers whom were not militia, to join his main force following behind him. They would dismount for the battle as far as I'm aware. They just used the horses to ride ahead of the main force to save time and gather more men, riding from farmstead to village etc asking for more men to join the column. This was completely not mentioned in the video.
@@ThePalaeontologist Yes, that's what the Chronicles say. But the Sagas mention that they were attacked by horsemen, that could mean that the riders crossed the bridge fast surprising the Norwegian, or, that they saw the horsemen in the other side of the river driving away some vikings there, then Harald formed in shieldwall to counter that, and the riders could have dismounted by that time. But I can't remember if sagas mention cavarly charge during all the battle... But yes, there are contradictions with the sources, and a few discrepancies with Invicta narrative.
You're glorifying Harald too much. He was an invader who wanted to brag about one more fight in his vanity and bloodlust. He wanted to prove he still 'had it'. How many had to die for one man's ego? His 'claim' to the English throne was beyond spurious it was a paper-thin excuse to have a good old fight. That was all he wanted. It's what he got, and then 22 (not 30) of his 300 ships went home.
And unsurprisingly, you continue the misinformation regarding the Norwegian on the bridge. The Anglo Saxon chronicle states thus: Then was there one of the Norwegians who withstood the English people, so that they might not pass over tlie bridge, nor obtain the victory. Then an Englishman aimed at him witn a javelin, but it availed nothing ; and then came another under the bridge, and pierced him terribly inwards under the coat of mail. Nowhere is he described as a berserker (something you just would not find in a Christian force in the 11th century) and certainly no mention of a 'double bladed axe' as you state. Additionally, after several videos showing Hardrada in lamellar, you finally show him in mail...at the battle he wasn't wearing it. You even quote the saga line '...of armour bare' ffs. And STILL referring to him as a Viking. He was not a raider, he was a high medieval king leading an invasion force.
Only just found this gem of a channel, suffices to say I'm a happy lad right now. (Bit off topic, but if you enjoyed this Bernard Cornwell writes some wonderful historical fiction you might find interesting)
This is a very interesting video. Thank you for this. The comment section is also full of really interesting information. Thank you everyone for all the new information.
Harald Hardrada, the last Viking, was the ultimate warrior. In the1030's and 1040's, while in service to the Eastern Roman Emperor as leader of the Varangian Guard in Constantinople he was sent out on numerous raids against the Bulgarians in Macedonia and Moesia Minor who were revolting again and again after losing their last tsar and their independence to the Byzantines some 20 years earlier. Harald was very brutal in putting down these revolts and burned down many Bulgarian fortresses. For this he became known as Harald the Bulgar-burner. A badass who lived up to his name and reputation. I know that about him because I'm Bulgarian.
Tnx for this story about our ancistors. In school back in Norway we learned that the story about the Berserker (wild, strong and fearless warrior) on the bridge, is a story that may have come later and may not be true. But according to that story he was more than 2 meters tall.
![The Last Viking - The Campaigns of Harald Hardrada [FULL DOCUMENTARY]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uYsmHdgD5V4/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Last Viking - The Campaigns of Harald Hardrada [FULL DOCUMENTARY]](/img/tr.png)
The Viking sagas continue with the tale of the famous Jomsvikings Mercenaries: ua-cam.com/video/ry_J2IPAZoE/v-deo.html
You no nothing about my people history and you probably don’t even no where we English came from well I give you a history lesson we English came from Denmark and northern Germany we was one of the Germanic tribes known as the angle and Saxon that came from Denmark and northern Germany we invaded and took the land from the Welsh and run what was left of them in to the mountains nowadays you would call that part the country 🏴 and then once we was finished with them we settled and then are Viking cousins came over and well rest is history but the point I’m trying to make here is that we native white English are Germanic not French so remember that when your doing your pointless video on us English the French had no influence here we don’t speak French we speak proper English witch is not French English is a Germanic language and I’m proud to be English and I’m proud to be Germanic so 🤫🤫🤫 muppet
You should read The Last Viking by Don Hollway. His time in the Varangian Guard is fascinating.
I love vikings💪💪💪
"Before the battle a single man rode up alone to Harald Hardrada and Tostig. He gave no name, but spoke to Tostig, offering the return of his earldom if he would turn against Hardrada. Tostig asked what his brother Harold would be willing to give Hardrada for his trouble. The rider replied "Seven feet of English ground, as he is taller than other men." Then he rode back to the Saxon host. Hardrada was impressed by the rider's boldness, and asked Tostig who he was. Tostig replied that the rider was Harold Godwinson himself."
According to the book 1066 The Year of Three Battles, Tostig replied to Harold that he wouldn't be remembered in history as the man who accompanied the king of Norway to England to then betray him, but he also told Hardrada that if the two fought, he hoped his brother would win.
Of course these exchanges seem a bit too dramatic to be real, but who knows. They at least fit the character of the persons involved.
@@therightarmofthefreeworld4703 Interesting that some brotherly love was there to an extent, I always saw this as Godwinson offering Tostig a lifeline hoping he took it.
@@jack1428 I'm pessimistic enough to think he was just trying to divide the forces against him. But I'd like to think there was a human motive for the offer.
@@therightarmofthefreeworld4703 Makes no sense. Tostig's reasoning behind joining Harald's campaign was for revenge and to at least receive some significant slice of the pie after Harald conquered England.
If Harold would have defeated the Bastards army at Hastings he would be remembered as "The great" today.
Almost 1000 years later and we still talk about him. Crazy how some people rise to the status of being so influential in their time they become a legend.
When you win against Norwegian Vikings only to lose to French Vikings
Because the french played dirty.......ok so did we but you get the point, so did the viking on the bridge 🥁
That's because the greatest Viking and it's greatest men (Rollo and his band of merry men) became the 'French Vikings'
@@SH19922x Rollo was count of Bretagne he wasn't a normand. Rollo never had viking blood.
That's why England's beef is with France and not Norway.
@@JohnDoe-or9gg no...
I have lived in york all my life, i have played on fields at Stamford bridge, this battle was even studied in history class in school. Thanks for telling the story again in magnificent detail.
I wish I could live in York but because I don't have any family there is hard for me to move there
As a Yorkshireman I can honestly say Scarborough never recovered, still an abandoned wasteland to this day xD
I'm surprised there was anything worth raiding! Maybe they just stopped at the chippy
Have some respect guys, those Vikings caused millions of pounds worth of improvements.
Haha yeah Scarborough would of been better off under the vikings.😂
They didn’t actually intend to raid it, but then they smelled it as they sailed past and tried lighting the town on fire to avoid getting sick.
Also as a Yorkshireman, you do still have the penny slot machines so….
People always shy over how Harold built a force big enough to take out the Normans, then effectively ran +10,000 to take on the Vikings on 25/09/1066 (shortly after harvest season) and then ran them back to take on the Normans on 14/10/1066. The men must have been tired and severely deteriorated before either battle. Truly the unsung heroes of the time.
It also speaks to the kind of man Godwinson was too. If 10k men are willing to march 500 miles and fight two battles in the space of a few weeks in unseasonably warm weather you know he was a charismatic guy.
Amazing historical facts, way more interesting than GoT
it is extremely impressive for the time.
but just for comparison's sake experienced modern British infantry in some of the better regiments could make it in time carrying about 50kg.
I've run around and fought with 80kg for days on a couple of occasions, but I say 50 'cause I know I'd pile in pretty quick carrying much more than that having to do a dozen miles a day or more.
just fyi, 30-50kg going 12.5 miles in 3 hours is the airborne standard.
at least it was when I was still playing (I'm out now).
but we don't do much for the rest of the day after that 😆
@@greg_4201 That's good work, very impressed.
@@4tr3x92 thanks. but I wish it was for the benefit of Britain rather than for Israel and the banks.
Harald Hadrada is my 33rd direct descendant through my mum's bloodline. We are so very proud of our rich viking heritage and humbled to receive a special plaque from the Swiss govt with our family tree with all my family and past descendants. 😍
Wow that's cool!!!!
That’s crazy! Fascinating to have a descendant of his in the comments!
That’s bad ass
I am a direct descendant of Godred Crovan, King of Dublin and the Isles, who was among Harald Hadrada's men that day (but he was not yet a King). I am also a descendant of William the Conqueror - he was my 30th Great-grandfather, and I am also a descendant of many of the men who accompanied him and fought at Hastings - around 15 of them that I know of. I am also a descendant of King Malcolm III Canmore, and his wife Margaret of Wessex, who was reigning in Scotland at the time of this battle - he would have been my 28th Great-grandfather.
Yeah you and millions others
19:54 "...it was acknowledged by all that he was harsh but fair"
Truly the Dark Souls of medieval rulers.
The final episode of the documentary was as good as all the other ones! Thank you Invicta for making such a great documentary of this legend of a man!
Glad you enjoyed! This was actually a viewer suggestion and it was indeed and excellent one
Didn't expect to see you here, love your videos. Ave
Serious question... does anyone else think that the famous berserker on the bridge HAS to be a complete fiction? It doesn't make a bit of sense.
We know for sure the English army had plenty of archers because Harald Hardrada himself was killed by an arrow through the throat.... so why wouldn't they just feather the berserker with arrows the moment he stepped onto the bridge and waived his axe around? It's got to be BS.
I think the reality probably was that the Viking army was essentially just massacred because they weren't at all prepared or equipped for a proper battle, and that didn't sound very heroic. So, they created this guy on the bridge to make it sound more epic.
@@InvictaHistory hey can you name the song that plays around 16 min into the video?
@@ianmedford4855 As far as I know we know about the story thanks to English sources, perhaps they didn't want to waste their arrows since they expected someone to cut him down already or the archers were still behind many things could've happened, he most probably didn't kill 40 of them though, numbers such as 40, 80 etc. are used symbolically.
What a story. In the end Harold did get what he wanted and obviously knew the sacrifices and risks of war
Even in death and defeat, he sealed the fate of England.
@Leo the British-Filipino And indirectly to an almost 1000 year long period of Anglo French rivalry
@@RandomNorwegianGuy. Well the Anglo Scandinavian rivalry was replaced by Anglo French rivalry.
@@guilzd5836 And the potential for a Norse-Greek Empire died with Harald
Ah yes it stopped the Anglo-Norse wars and changed to the Anglo-French wars
@@paladinhansen137 honestly, I'd love it if that Norse-Greek Empire happen, the Eastern Roman Empire fighting alongside with the Norsemen
Thanks to all who suggested we cover this story in the first place! What tales should we cover next?
put subtitles like @EpicHistoryTV please
Taiping Rebellion would be nice.
How about following up on this tale and tell us the tale of Willian the conqueror next? or maybe a big time jump and cover the story of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden?
The Bar Kokhba revolt, a Jewish uprising that ended with 500k dead and the disbandment of 2 Roman legions. It permanently altered Jewish religious life, resulting in the renaming of Judea to Palestine by the Romans
The rise of Constantine.
While you're covering the Norse, I'd love to see a video on Harald's grandson Sigurd I, who led a crusade of Norwegians to Jerusalem.
That would be quite the interesting follow up. I've got that added to our list of ideas
Sorry to be a nitpick, but Sigurd was Haralds great grandson. Harald - Olav- Magnus- Sigurd.
@@motordude67 Whoops. Thanks.
Good idea. If I remember correctly, we have 4 interesting sources from Levant alone that describe his crusade. Both from Saracen and Frankish sources, not to mention other European ones.
@@InvictaHistory Also Sigurd Jorsalfare (meaning "crusader/pilgrim to Jerusalem") was the first monarch to go crusading, setting the standard for all other monarchs to do the same.
I appreciate how the art of the bridge sequence is a homage to the Roman one
Yes, call back to Horatius upon the bridge. I'm sure there are other similar stories in many more cultures
Just like the battle of milvian bridge
Englishmen! I am waiting here
In my heart I know not an ounce of fear
We are waiting here my trusted axe and me
Just come at me, I will not flee
Death! I know that it awaits
Soon I will enter Valhalla's gates!
wasnt he christian
@@andreascovano7742 Correct, however the song is about the berserker at the bridge, not Harald.
One great unknown in history is how World History might have unfolded differently, if not for that single arrow striking Harold Hardrada in the throat. Even an interesting thought experiment as to whether Harold Hardrada would have handled the inbound William the Bastard, or if Willie would have even attempted the strike had he received news.
I don't see any reason why William would not attack if Hardrada prevailed. It would only make his task easier.
Had they only taken their armor
@@janledvinkaxd with the outcome of Williams attack, it's hard to see how he could prevail over an even larger force. then you throw in there that the aristocracy might have thrown in with William or perhaps even Harold's.. or even if they perhaps form a third faction. Just so many different possibilities
@@turnballZ Hardrada would likely not have a larger force than Harold had when confronting William- even if he left no garissons anywhere and kept all his forces together, he would not be able to call upon local levies so quickly after the conquest, leaving him with 8-9k men at best
Hardrada likely would have fared worse against William than Godwinson did. William would have proceeded with his attack because Hardrada's forces were comparable to Godwinson's and would have been in the same geographical position. Hardrada did not have as many men as Godwinson and if he had triumphed at Stamford Bridge he still would have taken significant casualties, so he would have been even weaker. Hardrada would not have been able to draw reinforcements or resupply as effectively from Anglo-Saxon dominated England as Godwinson did, so Hardrada would have been less prepared to face William than Godwinson. Hardrada also had the same weaknesses in his army as Godwinson that William exploited, mainly the low numbers of cavalry and reliance on undisciplined infantry formations vs William's infantry/cavalry combo with advanced tactics like feigned retreats. Neither Hardrada or Godwinson were set up to defeat William so soon after fighting each other, William's key advantage other more cavalry was that he arrived last and allowed his enemies to weaken and destroy each other. Hardrada's death also was not very critical at Stamford because by that point the viking army was already being surrounded. If Hardrada had not died right then it probably would have only bought another hour or two before his army collapsed anyway.
This might not directly be related to Harald, but it must be said that one of the factors why the Norman Conquest happened was because the Pope wanted to fully exert control over the Church of England as they were the third last Church in Western Europe that didn't recognize Papal Supremacy at the time, and thus were excommunicated in 1052 (Ireland remained Orthodox until the Great Reforming Synods in 1101, Wales remained Orthodox until 1170).
Native clergy were replaced, liturgical reform enacted, and a strong emphasis on papal church control was propagated. As such, it is safe to say that, prior to 1066, the Church of the British Isles was Orthodox, and the Normans brought the effects of the Great Schism to British soil. That is why Western Rite Orthodox Christians venerate Harald Godwinson as a passion bearer (Saint).
Also, get this: After the Conquest, many Anglo-Saxons fled Britain, most of them migrated to the Eastern Roman Empire and were recruited into the Varangian Guard. In turn, the Emperor granted them land in modern day Crimea, where they founded cities such as "New London" and "New York".
Fantastic comment! Learned alot including the Anglo-Saxon cities in Crimea
Thanks for posting this man, really interesting!
Historians are very sceptical of this claim to put it mildly. With the exception of some disagreements with the Catholic church, which was not exclusive to England, it has in general been found that the English church aligned much closer to the Catholic church than the Orthodox one.
As for replacing the clergy and reforms. It's much more likely that the reason was that William preferred Normans holding the very influential seats the church provided rather than Englishmen. The reforms were also for the most part just accelerating reforms that were already in progress.
For more reading I'd recommend "The orthodoxy of the Anglo-Saxons: Conversion and Loyalty in the Pre-Conquest English Church" by Jack Turner.
That's just a stupid interpretation
'Church of England'?
I’ll never forget Hazard scoring that goal. Spurs players fuming as they’ve lost the league to Leicester. What a brilliant depiction of those events.
😂😂😂
Just think how different history would have been if the Normans had invaded England first. The Saxons would have weakened their army defeating them, leaving the door open to the Vikings, instead of the other way around. Would have totally changed history.
Imagine if hitler died at birth
You can say this on so so many tiny things in history that changed so much in the timeline
@@beepIL In this case it was just a matter of the weather. William came pretty close to having to cancel his invasion because he ran out of supplies waiting for the right wind to cross the channel. From what I remember he had less than a week left.
That do sound like something for Cody at the alternative history channel but it isn't a given that is what would have happened. Both Stamford Bridge and Hastings were really a flip of a coin and ended by a lucky or unlucky arrow depending how you see it. Either of the 3 could have become king of England no matter who invaded first. All were incredible competent and history were so close to moving in 2 very different directions then it did.
William the bastard did won which lead to a fortification project never seen before or since of England which in turn lead to no other foreigner successfully invading the country in the future which in turn lead to England slowing becoming the worlds largest super power ever.
Harald Hårdråda would have never done that since the project really killed of the viking age. The only viking who believed in strong fortifications was Harald Blåtand (Bluetooth), the rest were more the types who believed that a strong offense were the best defense.
With Godwinson it's a bit harder to predict, he might have gone either way but likely would have gone for a middle ground between the 2.
1066 was one of a couple of years that decided the worlds history with a flip of the coin, just like when Cesar crossed the Rubicon, when Napoleon invaded Russia and the first battle of Breitenfeldt during the 30 year war. If Hårdråda had won, maybe Norway would have been the global empire instead of Great Britain (likely not but who knows?).
@@beepIL But that is wholly different. It's clear that Hitler wasn't the cause, he was the result. The political climate of 1920's Germany was poised to give spawn to someone like Hitler. In this case, if indeed the Normans had invaded first, we could have a very different Great Britain, a very different Western-Europe and a very different history.
@@loke6664 Wrong. Norway would never been the center of a global empire even Harald Hardada have been the winner in 1066. The population in England was much bigger than the population in Norway. The center of this empire have still been in England and not in Norway. The same happend when the danish king Canute the Great invaded England in 1014. He moved to England and ruled his Nordsea empire from England and not from Denmark.
This legendary Warrior King will still be mentioned through the ages to come. i am following this Channel for a long time and I wish they would do an episode about King Decebalus of Dacia against Emperor Traian of Rome. It would be a fine mini series of history , Romano- Dacian wars of 101-102, 105-106 and so much more to his Sagas .
Oooh the Dacian wars would certainly be a fantastic series to cover
@@InvictaHistory there are a lot of mystical stories to be uncovered from the Dacian Wars and it is a good topic to discuss about more . Contact me If You want to uncover it more.
@@InvictaHistory It would be neat to cover it from the Dacian perspective.
Hear hear!
@@AtrioxDark7777 outstanding!
1066 is definitely one of the most interesting alternate history scenarios for me. Not just how would England/Britain have evolved differently if the Anglo-Saxons had beaten both the Norwegians and the Normans, but what if the Norwegians had won? Would it have been a similar case to Cnut's invasion earlier that century where Scandinavian influence kind of just fell apart due to unlucky circumstance, or could there have been a real chance of England (and perhaps Britain as a whole later) becoming a quasi-Scandinavian region?
There would likely be a new united realm of England, Norway and Denmark under Harald, though if it would remain united after his death is uncertain. Depending on who ends up on the different thrones afterwards, England could be of largely norse character or remain Anglo-Saxon. No matter the result, Britain as whole would probably be seen as cultural "cousins" of the Scandinavians, but who knows what that would entail hundreds of years later.
If either the Norwegian had won against Harold not much would have changed as the Saxon and Viking lifestyle at this point was very similar.. But if Harold had won at Hastings the map of Europe would have changed completely. America might have been settled a lot earlier. Trade routes would have been very different. Britain may have never been part of the crusades. France would have reclaimed Normandy and the power of The pope would have been a lot weaker.
@@agentpipp I suppose that our king Harald Hardrada would live in England and not in Norway if he have won in 1066 just like king Canute the great have done before him. Norway and Denmark had a much smaller population than England in 1066, so the population in England would never accept to be ruled from Norway for a long time. England would have been the center in an union between Norway and England or perhaps a new anglosaxon nation would had started after Harald Hardrada died. But an anglosaxon nation would of course have been more oriented agaist Scandinavia than a Norman nation. French influence you know..💁♀
I love the unique, epic and poetic way you narrate these videos. Keep up the good work!
1066 England would make for a pretty good tv show. From the Viking invasions to William the conqueror and his struggle against english duke to take the crown of england. You'd get a pretty good 5 seasons arc there.
As long as its not done by Netflix or someone of the like, cause they would make everyone gay black muslim women.
But everyone would know the ending
They did The Last Kingdom which has similar politics/invasion's from the same countries. Granted that was in like the mid 800s to early 900s so a couple hundred years prior to 1066. It was mostly about Denmark invading England though. Pretty good show but they are doing like 1 more season I think. 5 or 6.
@@Zeerich-yx9po Wow bro, you must be a pro. Cherry picking one example out of the whole dumpster fire of PC wokist Netflix. You kind of just proved my point. Not to mention that even in Squid Game they managed to cram in a Pakistani dude so that there is some "diversity". Congratulations you played yourself as the dickwad DJ Khaled would say. 🤣
Too bad they'd ruin it. TV today has this bad habit of trashing every decent concept with PC BS
We have a name of the unarmoured Berserker of Stamford Bridge, though it's not generally accepted by academia as unquestioned truth. It's said that he was called "Þjóðólfr Sterkur Einn" - "Thjodolf Strong One" or “Thjodolf The Strong”. Even though it's not fully accepted by academia as of yet, it atleast gives us a name as a reference point.
It's a really cool legend - but I wouldn't put any actual money on that event having happened. It doesn't occur in any of the Sagas (which WOULD have talked about it if it had occurred), and gets a one sentence treatment in the British telling of the battle (with no name). The embellished version comes from British scholars in the 19th century, who appear to have made the story up - there's no further citations other than them.
One of Thorkell's descendants no doubt😤
Thjodolf, the brave warrior, who was stabbed in the balls.
"Thjodolf The Strong" is part of the song "Stanford Bru" created by an old Norwegian couple, who were inspired by the Anglosaxon Chronicle.
They probably took the name from Thjodolf/Thjodolr/Tjodolv-Arnórsson who was the skald or poet of Harald, and probably died in the battle.
The "lonely Norwegian" event was added to the Chronicles almost a century later by Norman scribes. And it doesn't match the timeline of the battle, it also has a lot of plot holes and contradictions.
@@Callmecel There's a lot of fake history out there. Unfortunately most people seem to eat it up.
The narration is absolutely incredible, makes one feel that they are truly a spectator of these events. Even with all the blood, death, and brutality one can’t help but wish they were apart of these amazing historical epics in all their horror and glory.
A series chronicling the Great Heathen Army’s arrival in England and then the reconquest of the Danelaw would be really cool
It would be pretty brutal to be honest. The English had to constantly deal with border raids from the Danelaw and they grew increasingly annoyed with this (understandably) Burial sites have been found where men considered by the Archaeologists to be part of captured, failed Viking raiding parties, were defeated and decapitated or given blunt force trauma on their skulls)
There was a burning resentment by the peoples living around the incursion territory that was the Viking Danelaw, and they always wanted to drive the Vikings out again. It was seen as a complete affront to their land and people, and they wanted them gone. No quarter was asked for nor was it given. The burial sites speak to the nature of the violence going on while it did.
The scene in "Vikings" is terrifying from a pointy end perspective. When the crew is so strong, you can't tell who the actual leader is.
My biggest takeaway whenever this period is brought up is that Harold was one of the most unlucky people ever. William's invasion would've been an uphill battle if Harald hadn't just made his move up North.
Yep. It was such a tragedy, and he did so well in very nearly defeating the Normans even after this incredible effort against Hardrada, and then the march back. And he was a good king; one of the potential reasons it's thought he rushed to give battle to William before waiting for further reinforcements was that he wanted to stop the Normans' depredations on his people in the surrounding countryside. And he evidently inspired great personal devotion; he was beloved of his wife, and all his loyal Housecarls fought to the death around his body at the end of the Battle of Hastings. And then were ushered in hundreds of years of brutal colonial, foreign rule, domination and exploitation. It'll always make me sad. I wish there was more honour and attention given to him in this country.
Technically it was an uphill battle as the anglo saxons had positioned themselves on a hill when battling the normans
That's actually somewhat funny you should say that: it was LITERALLY an uphill battle for William! 😄😁
@@dreamer2260 Do not worry mate, true Anglo Saxons remember their own! Godwinson live• in glory!
@@a05odst62 Cheers, I’m glad to see others who feel the same way :)
Harald was literally a Mount & Blade: Warband player.
10/10 Invicta! A wonderful subject and story shown in full arc that was splendidly presented, entertaining and educational. Seriously you guys knocked this one out of the park :)
Great video 👍 keep up the amazing work!!!
I have to say, your videos are by far the best quality on UA-cam, regarding, art, narratively as well as historical accuracy and reliability. Thank you for good content sir.
Hi Invicta, I love your channel, keep up the great work!
At this point this battle is a UA-cam classic. All the best channels have a video on it 😅
Good job on the visuals!
Love your vids, keep up the good work and never give up
I'm a Viking reenactor in York and this is the first year in a long time that all 3 of the major 1066 battles; Fulford, Stamford Bridge and Hastings, are taking place, and all going well I should be able to attend all 3 (though not as a combatant, I'll be sticking to the living history encampments and watching the battle from the sidelines)
It was stated in the video that York is 190 miles from London, and that the English soldiers were able to reach York from London in 4 days.... York is in fact 280 miles from London.
I bet Harold’s fall took a lot out of his forces. The fact that they was able to put up such a good fight shows their dedication and discipline.
My favourite thing about this is how people will imagine Stamford bridge being an epic span over a river that you could imagine a regiment fitting tightly on, when today the bridge spanning the Derwent at Stamford bridge is a one way car bridge that has the worst bottleneck for traffic in the East Riding 😂
I am blown away .. it was just perfect … the battle narration felt almost as though you were singing a saga .. thank you … it’s just beautiful….a suggestion about the next episode - William the Conqueror … the story of how a bastard became a conqueror & then a king
Can't blame Harald for being confident in victory, even with an unarmored force and surprise on the enemy's side. The man had hitherto led a glorious life with countless legendary victories against great odds, escaping from Constantinople and outsmarting their invincible sea-chains, fighting Arab pirates and pushing back Saracens in the Levant, led Byzantines, Kievan Rus and Norsemen alike into the fray, finessed his way into the heart of a Rus princess, led successful riots against an empire, conquered his homeland and bested his norse kin in battle after battle against men of the same upbringing and toughness as he. I mean to my knowledge, such continous and unhindered success must've been unheard of for that time. The man must've been a living myth to others, told of by firesides in whispers and awe. But sadly, even the mightiest of men can be felled and defeated in any battle given the right circumstance and a bit of bad luck.
Overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer.
Really enjoyed this series about Hardrada, up to recently I knew him only as the king who had lost the battle of Stamford Bridge. What a legend and what a way to go, reminds me a little of Pyrrhus, the warrior King, who died in battle killed by a roof tile.
I wonder, what if Harold Godwinson had instead waited for the Norman attack that came just a few weeks later? Would he have been able to repel William? Would he then be able to repel Hardrada, or would his weakened force fail to repel the Norwegian king without the element of surprise that was so important in the battle of Stamford Bridge? Or would William have just won anyway? I wish I had access to the multiverse to see these outcomes. England would be a very different place today.
I guess my games of Crusader Kings are as close as I can get
I think he was doomed i see him losing againts hardrada if by some chance he won againts william
@@radicalxg8282 If he had not fought the Norsemen first he would ve had a sound victory against William, so not by some chance. Harold and his army even almost won, despite the fact that he had just fought a massive battle against the Norsemen.
@@wulfheort8021 We dont know but one thing is clear Harold had the odds againts him, if he went to fight william first the same case of the original timeline applies, he have to fight hardrada with a tired battle battered army with no time to muster his loses and rest, force marching his army to meet a more fierce hardrada army who for sure would be shadowing and swooping on harold like a vulture as soon he finishes william with reinforcements and all. Regardless who harold fights first for me the moment those 2 armies decided to invade at the same time it was the end of AngloSaxon reign of england.
@@radicalxg8282 The fight against Hardrada would have probably a loss if he fought William first, but William would have definitely lost in that case. You said if Harold won by any chance, while Harold would have won for sure. That's the only thing I was pointing out.
Harold his best chance was first taking on Hardrada and then William.
I believe it was only 2 weeks after the Stamford Bridge battle that he force marched back to the south, many of his men returned home to harvest the yield, so only his own retinue was left. But with that retinue he nearly defeated William. He took on a position on a hill, rendering William's crossbowmen/archers useless. Harold's men even broke William's left flank, but Harold his men did not hold the line and started chasing the routing Normans, William and his cavalry encircled those Saxons and finished em off, this happened again and again until the Saxon lines lost cohesion. If Harold his men kept formation, they'd have won the battle.
@@wulfheort8021 It was just only 3 days after the battle with hardrada that william arrived and he had to rush and force march his army to meet william's but yeah william army really struggled againts harold's, with full strenght i do believe william would have lost, however instead we would be seeing the birth of Viking ruled england after that lmao that would certainly be a crazy timeline
been waiting for this one!
I had a read on the Anglo Saxon chronicle.
There is no quote of the axe or he was a berserkers
“But there was one of the Norwegians who withstood the English folk, so that they could not pass over the bridge, nor complete the victory. An Englishman aimed at him with a javelin, but it availed nothing. Then came another under the bridge, who pierced him terribly inwards under the coat of mail.”
No mention of him being a berserker. Or a double blade axe
Also Berzerkers where outlawed early 11th century the battle on the bridge was late 11th century.
The information on the axe comes from Henry of Huntingdon's Chronicle, who may have had access to a unique version of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, some other oral tradition, or he just made it up (but I find that unlikely)
"Here a single Norwegian, whose name ought to have been preserved, took post on a bridge, and hewing down more than forty of the English with a battle-axe, his country's weapon, stayed the advance of the whole English army till the ninth hour." Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon 1909 Translation, Page 209.
Hope this helps.
@@royaltowel9081 yes a battle axe. Not a two headed axe.
@@royaltowel9081 to the 9th hour. does that mean like 9am/pm or he held it for 9 hours?
Probably the best series you've done! Thanks man.
Cnut is my direct ancestor. My family had our surname falsely recorded when we arrived on Ellis Island from Norway in 1908, but I've always been a huge fan of Northsea history.
Then I see your account name.
Lol 😂😂
So you might be friends with Mike Oxelong or Ben Dover
These videos where amazing!!
Thanks to all of you Invicta.
I’ve never clicked on a video so quickly🔥
The next tale shall be the Tale of Liu Bang, the great scoundrel that founded Han Dynasty.
Wild times in history. It's great to learn about how such pivotal events shaped the part of the world where most of my ancestors came from.
I'll always respect Harold Godwinson. A hero who came so close to a glorious victory over two fearsome invasion forces in short order. The last true king of England. All the rest have been foreign usurpers.
Wasn't he of Saxon decent though?
@@Ackalan Well he was an Anglo-Saxon, yes. So was the population of England at that time. Most importantly he was culturally English, and was elected by the Witenagemot.
@@dreamer2260 And when did the Saxons invade Britain?
@@Ackalan About 500 years before that.
One of my favorite historical warriors. Thank you for this great video.
Kudos to those highly disciplined & dedicated Saxon soldiers who marched speedily north to take on the invading, fearsome Norse Viking force then upon emerging victorious up there that badly bloodied English Army spun around & marched south at a furiously unrelenting pace before facing & nearly defeating that formidable Norman force (it was a very closely fought contest!). Great soldiers, very professional, powerfully motivated, thoroughly well trained, rigorously drilled, tough as nails & driven by incredible stamina, that Saxon Army was undoubtedly one of the best in Europe. Their march north before emerging victorious against that terrifying Heathen Army then wheeling about & marching south at an equally fast pace only to smash into & nearly defeat what was one of the finest & most splendidly equipped Armies on the Continent was the very stuff of legend & amongst the greatest military feats of the Medieval Era. Amazing!
If they were tired, they never needed to face William in the field. They had fortifications and the loyalty of local lords and could have rested their men. Unfortunately the Middle Ages, at least in Western Europe, were never much for sound strategy.
@@schoolofgrowthhacking in 3 days? Unlikely.
Apologies if you meant via a prolonged guerilla war
@@schoolofgrowthhacking Fortification wasn't that good in Anglo-Saxon England, most things were made of timber, it wasn't until the Normans that stone defenses and castles were being built in England. Apart from some older wore down Roman forts maybe
When you said “the king of England was here” I felt that
Seeing your depiction of the berserker was awesome though I find it funny if it is fabricated because that means Anglo Saxon English either needed to describe how powerful they were to defeat such warriors or stress how close the situation was that they had men that powerful
Housecurls/carls werent they??
You guys are friggin amazing and you're so good at narrating these stories! Love the content!
The normans in Sicily, the reconquista or the wars of the teutonic order would make great series.
Great video, amazing!! Thank you so much for making.
This was such a awesome video Harald Hardrada is easily one of my favorite historical figure from history second only to Cortez, and he deserves a TV show but it needs to be done right with a big budget no woke nonsense and put on HBO.
I live on the humber River, our local place names are a crazy mixture of old Saxon and Norse. You can drive from village to village around here and see that pretty much every old saxon Church is covered in scorched red stone from repeated viking raids in the 8/9thC. One church still has an original anglo saxon sheild boss nailed to the ancient oak door. This island is covered in history.
First!
I would also like to say this is a great video. Harald Hardrada's invasion of England is rarely covered compared to William the Conqueror's, and even then often as a footnote. It is actually as interesting as William's invasion itself and something of a potential turning point in European history. Who knows how different England would be had Harald Hardrada won.
@Leo the British-Filipino then why type a comment
@Leo the British-Filipino You could be watching this video or doing something else instead. That aside, expanded on my original comment since then.
@Leo the British-Filipino nobody cares about your opinion
Great video. Love the channel
*It requires money to make money this is the best secret I have ever heard we don’t make money we make multiple money.*
There are platform where you can invest and they trade your money. Then pay you profit either weekly or monthly. That's investing.
There are platform where you can invest and they trade your money. Then pay you profit either weekly or monthly. That's investing.
My crypto mentor Mrs Brenda Lincoln , you may have come across her on a few interviews I invested $3000 last two weeks and it profited me $11,410 a higher success.
Wow I know Mrs Brenda Lincoln . I met her at a conference in carlifornia 2019 where she introduced us his business strategy, she helped me cover my student loans
I think that Stamford Bridge was one of the less well-known of the battles within a very short period, between more than two groups. Such an interesting kingship succession crisis.
RIP to a real one
This whole production was a Saga in its own right!
Best wishes for you and your Team here.
2022.
I appreciate the history lesson.
Beats political correctness college.
Bravo guys.
The thumbnail has one thing wrong. Shows the Danish berserker armoured.
He is noted as being unarmoured in line with most of the other Danes who weren’t expecting to fight and didn’t have their armour on. That’s why they lost so badly.
So Stamford Bridge is Hastings in reverse?
You are one A1 storyteller! Thank you so much, best regards from Norway! Keep it up!
A lot of Chelsea fans were at this battle
moral of the story: don't separate from your armour when in hostile territory
"Englishmen! I am waiting here
In my heart I know not an ounce of fear
We are waiting here my trusted axe and me
Just come at me, I will not flee
Death! I know that it awaits
Soon I will enter Valhalla's gates!
On the bridge we met his axe
While he stood, none could pass
His axe cut deep, through flesh and bone
He held the bridge all on his own
Forty men, died by his steel
The only way we could make him kneel
Was to send four men out on the stream
And sting the bastard from beneath
From Beneath"
~Amon Amarth
Harald: Arrow to Throat
Harold: Arrow to Eye
That was the Forth not the River Tyne.
Ah thanks for the catch
Thanks! That was an incredible series.
I believe it was actually Chelsea v Tottenham a couple weeks ago
Excellent historical channel( Invicta) ...clearly explained historical background of events in this episode thanks for sharing....
Wasn’t really due to battle of Stamford bridge they lost Hastings. Just bad discipline on the Saxons behalf. Up until the charge down the hill they were doing well
While this isn't *strictly* untrue, the English were weakened significantly by Stamford Bridge, both due to losses in the battle itself and due to leaving a significant portion of his army on the scene as they raced down to fight William, including his entire cavalry arm.
IE, while the battle of Stamford Bridge definitely wasn't the sole reason for the defeat at Hastings, the odds would've been significantly more in favour of Godwinson if if hadn't been fought.
Anglo-Saxons*
This saga is, thus far the BEST of all your videos. Hope you do some about the First Crusade, it would be awesome to watch the art and narration!
I’m incredibly disappointed in this video - your researcher seems to have taken the account provided in the Heimskringla as unquestioningly factual despite there being absolutely no evidence to suggest that Anglo Saxon or Scandinavian armies of the 11th Century used massed cavalry in battle or combined arms tactics in the way you’ve described.
The Heimskringla is a 13th Century retelling which not only adheres to the standard trope of medieval authors basing their understanding of history on contemporary events but also appears to have conflated Stamford Bridge with the more famous Battle of Hastings.
It is extremely unlikely that cavalry was used during the Battle of Stamford Bridge in the way this video describes and I’m honestly appalled with how little research has been done prior to uploading it.
Really unimpressive and, frankly, this is bad history.
My thoughts as well.
>"This is bad history"
>Pfp of a Vikings character
Top Kek
@@lordofhostsappreciator3075 you seem confused, let me help you;
The Vikings - fantasy TV show inspired by history.
The Battle of Stamford Bridge - an historical event.
Well it's a valuable question you raise. Harold fought alongside William in Normandy in 1064. He would have certainly known how to use horses. Yet rather surprisingly, he didn't use them in combat when fighting William. So it rather does beg the question; How did the English use their cavalry at Stamford and why DIDN'T they use them in Hastings?
@@robertbluestein7800 I’d imagine because they didn’t use them at Stamford Bridge either. There are absolutely no contemporary English or Scandinavian sources describing battle as anything more than two shieldwalls smashing together and an infantry slog. The Normans introduced the concept of combined arms tactics to English warfare, the Anglo Saxons likely did not develop their own.
This video takes its account from the Heimskringla - a 13th Century manuscript with all its latent anachronisms and, probably, confusion with the far more well documented Battle of Hastings (archers peppering the Norwegians, cavalry charges and feints, Hardrada killed by an arrow - it’s all very familiar).
I think there’s a difference between awareness of tactics and the ability to implement them yourself - only 2 years passed between Harold’s captivity and his famous battles, probably nowhere near enough time (given everything else which was going on) to reform the English military from a purely infantry force into one with an elite cavalry arm. I’ve no doubt that Harold would’ve been impressed with the way the Normans fought and given more time, it’s possible we’d have seen a gradual evolution from dismounted Thegns to mounted Knights. Alas, events got away from him.
I rather think it was the prior knowledge of Norman tactics which dictated how Harold fought at Hastings - he would’ve known that the only real path to victory lay in deploying his forces as an immovable wall for the Normans to break themselves on. I feel it would’ve worked too, if not for his untimely death.
Rollo was the first Norman leader of West Frankia also known as Normandy. He married Gisleia and his son was William Longsword.
just found the channel recently, and it resparked my interest in history
Several discrepancies with other accounts of the battle, but well done nonetheless. The only real issue i have is the Anglo-Saxons fighting from horseback? That seems to go against their military traditions as far as im aware.
If I remember correctly, that reference was took from the Sagas, The Chronicles don't mention that. Probably the Norwegian saw a few English scouts or officers on horsback at the begining of the battle or on the other side of the river clashing with the bridge guards.
@@marcelOberauer What had actually happened was that Harold Godwinson and some of his Thanes and Huscarls, had ridden ahead of the main force to gather local Fyrdmen (militia) and any meaningful soldiers whom were not militia, to join his main force following behind him. They would dismount for the battle as far as I'm aware. They just used the horses to ride ahead of the main force to save time and gather more men, riding from farmstead to village etc asking for more men to join the column. This was completely not mentioned in the video.
@@ThePalaeontologist Yes, that's what the Chronicles say. But the Sagas mention that they were attacked by horsemen, that could mean that the riders crossed the bridge fast surprising the Norwegian, or, that they saw the horsemen in the other side of the river driving away some vikings there, then Harald formed in shieldwall to counter that, and the riders could have dismounted by that time.
But I can't remember if sagas mention cavarly charge during all the battle...
But yes, there are contradictions with the sources, and a few discrepancies with Invicta narrative.
This stand was an inspiration for Húrin Thalion's last stand in the Battle of Unnumbered Tears in JRR Tolkien's legendarium.
You're glorifying Harald too much. He was an invader who wanted to brag about one more fight in his vanity and bloodlust. He wanted to prove he still 'had it'. How many had to die for one man's ego? His 'claim' to the English throne was beyond spurious it was a paper-thin excuse to have a good old fight. That was all he wanted. It's what he got, and then 22 (not 30) of his 300 ships went home.
Yes! I have enjoyed it, thank you very very much for this amazing series! Harald Hardrada has grown to be one of my favourite historical figures.
Yes, no Norwegian king has experienced as much as Harald Hardrada around in Europe and Asia.
And unsurprisingly, you continue the misinformation regarding the Norwegian on the bridge. The Anglo Saxon chronicle states thus:
Then was there one of the Norwegians
who withstood the English people, so that they might not pass over tlie
bridge, nor obtain the victory. Then an Englishman aimed at him witn a
javelin, but it availed nothing ; and then came another under the bridge, and
pierced him terribly inwards under the coat of mail.
Nowhere is he described as a berserker (something you just would not find in a Christian force in the 11th century) and certainly no mention of a 'double bladed axe' as you state. Additionally, after several videos showing Hardrada in lamellar, you finally show him in mail...at the battle he wasn't wearing it. You even quote the saga line '...of armour bare' ffs.
And STILL referring to him as a Viking. He was not a raider, he was a high medieval king leading an invasion force.
Wow, this is by far my favorite video on this
A very enjoyable and informative series! Loved it!
Only just found this gem of a channel, suffices to say I'm a happy lad right now. (Bit off topic, but if you enjoyed this Bernard Cornwell writes some wonderful historical fiction you might find interesting)
This is a very interesting video. Thank you for this. The comment section is also full of really interesting information. Thank you everyone for all the new information.
Wow, what an amazing story so well put together, 👏 it was a pleasure to watch!
Harald Hardrada, the last Viking, was the ultimate warrior. In the1030's and 1040's, while in service to the Eastern Roman Emperor as leader of the Varangian Guard in Constantinople he was sent out on numerous raids against the Bulgarians in Macedonia and Moesia Minor who were revolting again and again after losing their last tsar and their independence to the Byzantines some 20 years earlier. Harald was very brutal in putting down these revolts and burned down many Bulgarian fortresses. For this he became known as Harald the Bulgar-burner. A badass who lived up to his name and reputation. I know that about him because I'm Bulgarian.
Beautiful work. I really enjoyed this.
Quite a finale that was. Thank you, Invicta.
Like how the algorithm has suggested this to me now there is a more current battle of Stamford Bridge ongoing...
Tnx for this story about our ancistors. In school back in Norway we learned that the story about the Berserker (wild, strong and fearless warrior) on the bridge, is a story that may have come later and may not be true. But according to that story he was more than 2 meters tall.