Battle Of Hastings: Secrets Of The 1066 Conquest | Dan Snow's Norman Walks | Chronicle
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 тра 2024
- Perhaps the most famous battle in British history is the defeat at Hastings in 1066, when William the Conquerer's Norman forces took victory on the British south coast. Historian Dan Snow puts his walking boots on and sets off to see what the British landscape can teach us about this fascinating battle. From their violent arrival on these shores to their most sustaining legacies, Dan's trilogy of walks follow an evolutionary path through the Normans' era, from invasion to conquest, to successful rule and colonisation.
Welcome to Chronicle; your home for all things medieval history! With documentaries covering everything from the collapse of the Roman Empire to the beginnings of the Renaissance, from Hastings to Charlemagne, we'll be exploring everything the Middle Ages have to offer.
Subscribe now so you don't miss out!
Chronicle is part of the History Hit Network. To get in touch please email owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com.
It's like Netflix for history... 📺 Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service and get 50% off using the code 'CHRONICLE' 👉 bit.ly/3iVCZNl
It's like Netflix for history... 📺 Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service and get 50% off using the code 'CHRONICLE' 👉 bit.ly/3iVCZNl
I just love the white cliffs so beautiful.
I am a Chivers and we hailed from Normandy. We are on the battle honors of the Norman invasion in 1066. We settled in Ireland till Cromwell times, then fled to Virginia. This is history that's so real to me. Glad I come from a culture that kept records, and glad for a family that obsessively kept their generalogy alive.
It's so nice seeing well produced battle documentaries. Not to throw shade at the UA-cam map ones, but these are much more immersive and rarely on television anymore.
I think I have "Dan Snow PTSD". When he speaks, all I can hear is "My name is Dan Snow, and I want to tell you about History Hit TV..." ;)
It's like Netflix for history! Omg, flashback...
Oh God, I thought I was the only one. I can't fall asleep without hearing that. Can we make a support group or something?
Isn't it refreshing that this time, he isn't talking alone by himself at the stonehenge. now he is talking alone by himself along the coast
Exactly, I was calling it “mini-ptsd”. I also have Horrible Histories flashbacks to that great impersonation they did of him. Ha ha that always makes me laugh out loud.
Haha...yep! I have Dan Snow PTSD as well.... particularly when he's sitting inside a Lancaster or when the video is deemed "not available in your country" the UK!
I find this period most interesting. We are taught "English Kings" but actually, all Danes fighting over England, Normans were settled Vikings, The "viking invasion" Battle of Stamford Bridge was led by Tostig .... Harold's brother!
Why has there never been a major big budget movie or TV series that focuses on 1066 and the Battle of Hastings? I'm amazed that NETFLIX or BBC have ever attempted it? The story of King Harold, The Viking invasion, Stamford Bridge and William's invasion, the Hastings battle and the aftermath would make for a fantastic long running mini series- it could run for years as they follow the English/Scottish/Welsh & Irish history.
There’s an upcoming show called Viking’s: Valhalla coming on Netflix soon which will include these events and stories, its a spin off of the show Viking’s (highly recommend).
@@Izzy-jc2pb Thanks, I'll look out for that!
There is a movie on UA-cam.
I envy those countries who still have their records of their history even from the most ancient times, this records reminds them who they really are and keeps their identity
Oh don't tell me that, I am so pissed for the Kelts not leaving any written records! In the Central Europe, we are still called Bohemia after the Keltic tribe of Boii (Boii Home). We still call our rivers the way the Kelts called them, yet we know of no Keltic king name from Rhine to Danube or Elbe.
Actually in the UK we don't have many records for the crucial period from the departure of the Romans and the creation of Anglo-Saxon Britain
True enough. The land of England, especially, but also Wales and Scotland is still largely owned by descendants of the Norman army who came over with William. House of Lords, inherited wealth, all that rooted in Norman conquest. Descendants of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, and more recent migrants all second class to descendants of Normans and their allies.
Grenfell Tower as recent outworking of Norman ravaging of Sussex and, later, the north? Just to show they don't care and they can do whatever they want.
"If Eton be a democracy, then I'm going to get me some.... They've got no chins and they always win..."
You must be an American
@@cuebj time to redress, go knock on the local stately home door, and tvvat them with an axe and take it over. that's how they got it.
Never ceased to amaze me such interesting ways of English history lessons...many thanks....from Bucharest...
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the change in coastline explained.
Thank you for that.
One absolutely loves the history you share.
Well done and thank you.
Thanks so much for this appealing docu. As a moderator in the Viking Museum of HAITHABU I'm very much interested in this matter. Besides...same year of 1066 Haithabu was burned and not rebuilt. Hello from the peninsula of ANGELN and from the UNESCO Workd Heritage Haithabu and Danewerk.
My ancestors were part of that invasion. I have been to the 13th-Century graves of Demaines at Bolton Abbey in Yorkshire. French last names with English first names. Like me.
William of Normandy is my 28th great grandfather on my maternal great grandfather and great grandmother side of the family. I would love to go to England to see this area.
My ancestors were also part of the Norman invasion.
Same all of mine were
Also my ancestors
Also my ancestor Ralph de Pomeroy, said to be a close friend of William.
I really enjoy and look forward to your authentic videos laced with your energy and intelligence , and knowledge.
Thank you , Sir.
Salud ! ! !
My wife and I trace back to both: Harold and William. 1,000 later and love blossoms.
I can't describe why, but I love every single bit of this david carpenter history professor
A defining period in British history. Very interesting to watch and well presented.
Harold and his army had fought, and travelled from Stamford Bridge, undoubtedly his army was totally tired and weary, possibly if the English had been rested the story may have had a different outcome, we can only guess.
These great debates about the Battle of Hastings tell us so very much, except, where are the bodies of the very brave but unfortunate participants buried.
Thousands of dead soldiers probably from both sides seem to have just disappeared, was it the acid soil that hides them or is there still to be discovered the remains of the many brave souls who perished in one of the greatest battles on English soil.
Will we ever know. Yet another great Dan Snow and experts video. Thanks for this. Love it.
Love Dan's enthusiasm!
I loved watching Dan and his father. They used great maps and visuals. I’ve watched him that long.
yes historians love a good bloody atrocity
Whoa Dan you actually hosted one! Cool show my man :) what a visual that fleet must have been.
It's actually weird to think when i look at Durham Cathedral everyday as it's my home town that the French built it.
FitzOsborne (Norman possibly illegimate but acknowledged noble/baron) was ensconced in Wales before the infamous battle of Hastings. Mercenaries from Flanders, Friesland, Belgium had already subdued most of recalcitrant locals in Orkney, Scotland and Wales (Picts, Saxons and Angles). Sometimes they could wade over Doggerland if the route was close in to The Fens but boats ruled. Carefully laid plans from consistent and excellent intel over many years, place the Bastard Conquerer at the white cliffs in time to be present at the arranged great battle. All of it very carefully arranged, including the creation of the Treasury of England and run by Henry the Treasurer, a servant of William. The Treasury of the Kingdom (William’s) England was structured and firmly established by 1086. The Norman royal treasury was stored in Winchester where Henry the Treasurer was given land and the job of safe-guarding the treasure. I grew up with people whose ancestors were these mercenaries, named Fleming and Drury 38-39 generations past. An interesting history not written in to the current narrative; sadly.
Humm
Tell me more ?
what would you take out in order to fill in those details?
One of my distant ancestors was at this battle. In fact the King spoke to him saying "If you don't stop mucking about with that bow and arrow, you'll have someone's eye out"
Im from Hastings and there a big dispute about where the battle really took place, it’s true the only evidence of the battle is the abbey on the “battlefield” however there is ruins of an old abbey in crowhurst (harolds estate). Duke William vowed to build an abbey on the battlefield where he defeated the Saxons so it would be really interesting if there was an investigation into it!
Think the mention in this video that the wooden fort at Hastings was thrown up quickly, and how the area was not quick to recover after the foraging that they landed at Hastings and then moved inland along the Roman road. Check out the SOTNI channel that goes into this theory in more detail. Due to the trading that went on across the channel, then William would have known all about the land. Why land at Pevensey, then have to do a long loop around the marsh/coastal inlet? Doesn't make military sense, especially if there could have been troops stationed in the Roman Fort. There are rumours that a later churchman, stopped the building of the Abbey, and moved it to a more profitable location. There's even doubt that the preceding battle location of Stamford Bridge is in the correct place, when you analyse the written accounts.
As I was taught, amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistic, which goes along with what you are saying.😊
I loved this episode. This time is important to my family history. Its the birth of our sir name with mysterious origins. I laughed a little when you referred to them being Norman's. William was a descendent of Rollo. I've read that William put a call out and it was answered by large numbers of Scandinavians (where my bloodline comes into play). I've found a few reports that say the Scandinavians out numbered the Norman's. Two of them were brothers, Wyamarus and Stephon with no reported sir name. Wyamarus, supposedly stood 6'7" and carried the largest all iron battle axe seen on the battle field. Its said he cut a man from shoulder to the saddle and each half fell on each side of the horse installing so much fear it turned the battle at Hastings. His size and present on the front line ended future battles before they even started. They were both knighted in 1067 and given the sir name and area know as Whalley or d'Whalley. So in our family we're a little bias and see this as a the final battle of the Vikings to win England. Might have taken almost 200 years but here we are. 🙂
Love learning about this history
me too
13:18 that's being a little too dismissive of William. Yes it did come down to logistics, communication and geography but William still needed to know how to use these to conduct a military campaign, win a battle and how to do this better than his opponent. And this is good generalship. The average Joe Schmo doesn't know how to use these to win a war, I sure don't and I certainly wouldn't know how to use them against someone as talented as King Harold.
William was an experienced commander of modern, combined arms forces. Harold had to rely almost entirely upon heavy infantry, mainly fyrd militia, but a small corps of professional huscarls. He had far too few archers and no heavy cavalry. In effect he had some light cavalry, actually mounted infantry, since his army used ponies for transportation, but he lacked chargers for battlefield shock cavalry.
If not for his having to forced march north to Yorkshire, defeat the invading Norse, then south again, leaving many troops behind, plus losing some in the fighting there, he might well have beaten William's advanced continental mercenaries and retainers.
William also was lucky that his huge fleet couldn't sail in August. Harold lost many men among his peasant fyrd, who needed to go home to harvest their crops.
Yet, despite their largely amateur status, English heavy, antique shield wall, largely spearman infantry was the best in Europe, as evinced by their victory over Norsemen using the same tactics, and their prominence among the Byzantine Varangian Guards. But under the circumstances, old-fashioned heavy infantry lost out to the new-fangled combined arms force.
@@johntillman6068 - I think what you're describing isn't entirely "combined arms" tactics as much as the WW2-ERA German "Ausfragstaktik," in which the command structure doesn't rely on a single leader calling the shots, but is more decentralized and relies more on the initiative of the local commanders. The Norman's were Vikings originally, and they were used to fighting as groups of small bands(ship's crews) in sync to achieve a goal in the most effective manner. This method worked very well for William the Bastard's followers, who all became English Lord's. This method also was the secret of Nazi Germany's frightful effectiveness in WW2; nobody ever really beat them, what happened is that every army in the world now uses some form of combined arms tactics(whatever you want to name it). Good call on the overview of the tactics used in this famous and epochal battle. The REAL importance of this battle is the English language as we know it, because the English language is the result of French-speaking Norman men-at-arms trying to pick up Saxon(German-speaking) barmaids. Thanks for posting a comment.
I don't think new fangled troops or even any tactics used by William won the battle
A lucky arrow in the Saxon king's/leader's eye
Harold was in a good tactical and strategic position having willaim penned in near the shore
and Harold wasn't losing the battle....and that's all he had to do, not lose, and reinforcements would be arriving for him and not for William.
but it's the arrow that changed all that
@@manuelkong10 - The Bayeaux Tapestry was made soon after the battle, but there are contemporary accounts of the battle in which Harald wasn't killed with an arrow to the eye, but was overborne and stabbed in the chest several times.
The arrow to the eye account was probably made by the Catholic Church, as it's often been the fate of kings who lied. The account of Edward the Confessor is not always all taken as truth - as has been much of the records of the Catholic Church. The accounts of the church usually go along with what best suited the churches interests. The promise Harald made to William, and the circumstances of the two almost simultaneous invasions, seem very much like the sort of thing that the Catholic Church was in the habit of doing in the Middle Ages(and is one important reason they were called "The Dark Ages).
There was once a documentary about this topic, and the entire show(I think that it may have been the old series "Battlefield Detectives) was devoted to this question. What the show decided was that William's heavy cavalry gave him rest periods, while Harald was exhausted by his frantic journey to the north to defeat the Vikings and he and his personal guard were finally overpowered at the end of a long, long day of frantic activity, shorthanded and exhausted.
@@DavidSmith-ss1cg No, the main difference is not a command system, but rather combined arms vs. single arm warfare.
Harold’s army was antique, composed practically totally of heavy infantry in a shield wall, essentially unchanged from Ancient Greece.
William’s army, by contrast, consisted of heavy horse, heavy infantry and light infantry (archers) in a balanced force. On their palfreys, the knights could also serve as light cavalry.
It was the 6th century BC fighting the AD 11th century.
Plus Dane axes wielded by the huscarls and mail armor.
clever wrap-upof the episode
I think that it was the feint(s) by the Breton's on William's left flank that won the day. It was a planned tactical maneuver that was shared by the Alans and used successfully by the Bretons on the Franks. The Saxons never saw it coming, and apparently fell for the maneuver more than once on the same day.
My understanding was that much of Harold's army was made up of peasants armed with pitch forks and such which iirc were known as The Great Fyrd. The impression I have is that the initial reverses suffered by the Normans were real and the undisciplined peasants charged down the hill after them. These peasants were then caught on the flat by such as Norman Cavalry and were slaughtered. Once it was realized they would do that - then - it was done as a lure and the repeated losses to this bulk of Harold's army were important to his defeat. The more disciplined troops of Harold's men would not have fallen for that - but the peasants never learned.
.
@@BobSmith-dk8nw I agree with you, but am still puzzled as to how/why William chose to be at the foot of the hill. He and his troops had been in the area for days and knew the terrain. They also knew when Godwinson was coming. Yet, they chose to be at the foot of the hill. As you point out, William and his men were experienced, and would have chosen the better terrain unless they were up to something. A debate for the ages!
@@kevinhathaway7240 The Impression I have - is that Harold could have chosen to attack William where ever he found him - or - he could choose to take up a defensive position and wait for William to attack him. Harold would seem to have chosen to defend, possibly because his army was tired from it's long march south from Northumbria and undoubtedly strung out as well.
There may well have been any number of defensive positions Harold could have chosen and he picked that hill at Hastings. William might well have chosen another hill for his camp in case Harold attacked him - but - since Harold didn't attack William - William attacked him.
Thus - the Normans having to come up the hill Harold had chosen to defend the top of.
Had Harald Hardrada not landed in Northumbria and Harold been awaiting William with his whole army rested and in one spot we probably would have had a much different battle.
.
@@BobSmith-dk8nw The reason that I'm reluctant to climb on board with the scenario that you are proposing is because William's forces fought differently than did Harold's. Harold relied upon infantry supported by cavalry. He fought a linear type of battle that worked fine against the Vikings, who were caught resting and had no time to employ tactics, techniques and procedure.
However, William employed his forces with cavalry up front supported by infantry. He required a dynamic, fluid battlefield to allow the cavalry to do their job. It is a form of 'economy in force,' which when employed correctly is lethal on the battlefield. We, the US Armed Forces, employ economy of force on the modern battlefield.
So William needed room to fight with the cavalry and he also needed chaos. This is why it would appear that his left flank broke and ran. The left flank had the assignment to draw the linear forces of Harold down off the hill and into an area where they could be decimated. Predictably, they went for it.
@@kevinhathaway7240 What you are saying - is that they were able to predict their enemy being stupid.
Taking advantage of your enemy being stupid is one thing but counting on your enemy being stupid is a mistake.
The other thing is - there was William ... and then there was Williams Army. He was not leading "his" army. He was leading a collection of units from various leaders who had all joined him in hopes of getting awarded a lot of Saxon holdings. So - I wouldn't be so sure about how the Normans planned on doing things and if they had the ability to be clever before hand. Thus, saying that William's forces needed a specific situation to be used at their best - and that he sought to create that situation is a bit much.
All in all - getting a group of ... groups ... to all do anything at the same time is a real accomplishment - which tends to mitigate against people being clever.
He attacked Harold on the hill - because that is where Harold was. He didn't have any choice about that. Getting Harold's troops off the hill - would benefit his Cavalry but it would benefit any forces to not have to attack - up a hill. This of course - was the REASON Harold was on the hill.
We both agree that the Saxons who did come off the hill and got killed because of it - were a real factor in Harold losing the battle.
But - what we are really arguing about here - is whether or not the Normans always planned to lure the Saxons off the hill - or - whether or not the initial reverses of the Normans were real.
Historically - I've seen any number of times where people claimed to have done something clever and it was all part of their brilliant plan all along - when it wasn't.
Here - what William intended and when he intended it - is going to be something reliant on historical sources. Do we have historical sources that say he always intended this? You mentioned before about the Bretons using this tactic. I can certainly believe that once they saw that the Great Fyrd would stupidly try to chase them when they fell back - that they would begin to use feints to get them to do it - simply because enemies are always easier to kill if you don't have to climb a hill to do it.
My recollections of how the battle took place - are nothing like yours.
If we really wanted to - we could look all this stuff up and go buy books and compare sources but ... I don't really feel like doing that just now ... so I'll be sticking with what I remember about the battle. The paper I wrote on this was over 50 years ago ... so ... I don't have access to that paper any more - much less the sources I used in writing it.
It isn't like this wouldn't be a bit of history that would be interesting to pin down - it would - but I can see this being a lot of work and ... I've got other things to do with my time than spend hours ... if not days ... if not longer than that on this.
.
You've got to take imto account today''s terrain to the one in 1066. Quite different ones.
Golden warrior is a fantastic book. I highly recommend it if you can find it.
The Bayeux Tapestry is embroidered. The pictures are not woven into the fabric.
This was very interesting and I guess you felt that you had to leave some things out - but - failure to even mention the wind blowing in the wrong direction for the Normans to come, Harold waiting for them worried about having to let his peasants go harvest their crops and then the landing of Harald Hardrada in Northumbria - right at the start of the video to set things in context would have helped. As is - you don't mention the Vikings until a good way into things.
It's like the viewer is left with the question as the Normans unload from their ships - "Why did the Saxon's let them unload unmolested? Where were the Saxons?
,
Very good points!
Re “Wind blowing the wrong way”. There’s much debate on the issue. Some say there was a perm north wind, some say it was a story concocted by the Normans. My view is that the Normans had lost most of their seafaring expertise. Viking boats could sail to within 12 deg of the headwind and they had oars anyway. But in order to transport horses (which the Vikings never did) they had to remove the seats for the oarsmen. And the “north wind” could be just onshore breezes so, taken all together, they couldn’t reliably launch a 700 ship fleet without a sustained southerly
@@cynric5437 That makes sense. I've done a tiny amount of sailing and understand tacking to sail in the general direction of the wind but this is the kind of thing the transports may have had more trouble with.
The other thing here is that it is common for their to be more than one reason why things happen the way they do.
.
@@BobSmith-dk8nw I’ve just spent 8 years researching the Battle and almost everything I was taught doesn’t tally with what I found out. Take the departure from St Valery sur Somme. 1 ship went astray while all the others ended up at Pevensey. One source says that the fleet formed up outside the estuary before heading to England with no lights showing. So, imo, they navigated by the pole star a few degrees off the starboard side. Using the same heading but without the wait gets you to just east of Hastings (instead of Beachy Head) so, if the lost ship turned right they would have landed somewhere near Romney Marsh area (which is where the ship was found) while the others landed at the old Roman fort of Pevensey.
@@cynric5437 Yeah. It is really hard to figure these things out sometimes. You've got winds and tides and currents - that all change at different times of the day or month or year ... and who knows how much they've changed in a thousand years. Then you've got people just blundering about having no idea what they're really doing (as opposed to what they _think_ they're doing) and how are you ever going to find that out from historical sources ... "And then - he - having no idea where he was or what he was doing - blundered into trouble but managed to extricate himself ..."
Good luck with it.
.
r.i.p harold godwineson.
My ancestor was there, Odoh FitzGerald accompanied William from Normandy. However, my branch of the family lost all royal titles after the Desmond rebellions in Ireland, between the 1580s and 1819. The Geraldine dynasty were Tudor cousins through Nest, and remained in the service of the crown until their cousin Elizabeth 1 starved the Irish in a bid to crush Catholicism. Still, the family crest of the red X is on the union jack to this day. The FitzGerald/ Desmond/ Geraldine history is fascinating, and well worth a read on Wikipedia
William was a grandfather to me as with many people
Sadly the Norman's have won the battle..... I would have wished that my Saxons would have won the battle.... I am a native Saxon from Westphalia Germany.... Saxon ties never dies.... 🌹🏴🇩🇪💓
Why do you have a st George flag(brought in post invasion) and a rose, associated with the tutor. ;) Just poking fun
The flag is the flag of England and England is mainly of Anglo-Saxon ancestry.. with the old Anglo-Saxons kingdoms Wessex, Sussex, Essex, and Kent. I have been many times in England.... and I felt always like home...
@@albionmyl7735 @Albion my l it's the flag of St George, a Greek Turkish soldier in the roman army. The flag was adopted by England in 12th century. Nothing to do with Anglo saxons. What about the roman Britain's where in Britain before the Anglo saxons raided and settled. And what about the celts before them. And the beaker folk before them, and so forth
@@Ed-wm8dx thats all true... but now it's the present flag of England... Where we can find huge traces of Anglo-Saxon heritage...
@@albionmyl7735 @Albion my l yes, you can choose to cherry pick a specific part of history in a specific geographic location to harken back to, to strengthen your own small place in this large world now if it makes you feel special.
BBC always makes the best documentaries. Unless TV stations in the US.
Nice video about battle of hastings...Britain conquered at 1066 AD. clearing explaining of events and background factors which interfered events
Get your facts right----Britain was NOT conquered 1066----there was no'Britain'.
Britain was NOT conquered in 1066!
1066 and the Norman invasion led to Normans taking over all other parts of Britain and Ireland... Strongbow invaded Ireland from Wales, the Cambro-Normans invaded 1 May 1169.... Wiki It
This is great and all Dan, but can you tell me about History Hit TV?
Germanic England converted to Frankish England after 1066. Normans were french speaking Vikings. They restored English warfare basically and old Saxon peasant culture so quickly adopted into heavy cavalries and feudal knights as Anglo-Norman period.
Have you seen Simon Ropers UA-cam channel.m
“Germanic England converted to Frankish England after 1066”
What do you mean by that? If you define the Normans primarily by their Viking heritage rather than their romanised language and culture, then they were Germanic too. And they weren’t Franks.
@@tp230 Saxons are came from Saxony (Northern Germany) but Normans are came from Denmark.
@@eraysredojevic well the Normans came from Normandy, their leaders being descendants from Norsemen from Scandinavia, who are also Germanic people. Franks are also a Germanic people. So no matter how we look at it, your sentence « Germanic England converted to Frankish England » does not make sense. Both Saxons and Franks were Germanic people. And Normans, although we can argue about their genetic makeup, if you define them only as descendants of vikings, weren’t Franks.
@@tp230 England royal coat of arm and Denmark royal coat of arm is similar to each other. (3 Lion) Normans were Danish origin. Franks were Germanic before Charlemagne period. Sorry your argument is pointless!
Have you ever asked yourself, if you could travel backwards through time, what advice you would give to King Harold? Perhaps he could’ve left a garrison on the south coast when he marched north to face Hardrada but would it have been enough to disrupt the Norman landing and prevent their breakout from the beaches until he could return from Stamford Bridge? He would still have needed his main force to defeat the Viking invaders. The most effective coastal defence would’ve been archers to pick off the exposed Normans as they tried to land, but archers were a precious commodity so could he have spared enough of them to leave behind guarding the south coast? Otherwise if at least he had marched south and attacked immediately while the Normans were still gathering their forces on the beachhead and organising supplies etc, he might have driven them back towards the sea, rather than assembling a defensive shield wall nearby and waiting for the Normans to come to him. Or could he have even tried cutting cards with the devil and offered terms to Hardrada when the battle was won, in return for his support against William? Risky, and might have cost him part of his realm with another inevitable battle further down the line, but hardly a worse outcome than that which transpired.
Yes many times, my advice would have been to say, Harrold for Christ sake please listen to your mother and brother, have a kit-kat take a breather, you've just done one lot of Danes wait for more reinforcements and keep telling the guys in the Shieldwall on the big day to be disciplined don't go charging off wanting to stab up the Normans, just wait for the order.... Then you can go and stab up some Normans, or just wait it out till dusk and the victory is Ours...
I have recently discovered that my son is a direct descendant from the Frenches of French Park who were rewarded with lands in Ireland for taking part in the Battle Of Hastings. My son was born on 28 June 2002, King Henry VIII's 428th birthday and he was the enemy of Francis the French king
Your son born in 2002 was the enemy of Francis the French king???? Either you're on drugs or you need to improve your writing skills!
As it happens, the Duke of Normandy was indeed the rightful king of England in any event.
I wish that I could step onto the English shores 1000 years ago. For one thing, the geography would have been different, perhaps considerably. Another interesting thing is that back then, England would more or less would have been pretty much covered in forest.
The Moors for example,
were not barren landscape, on the contrary, they were vast completely forested areas. Prior to the use of coal, it was wood that was necessarily used. And of course for building infrastructure, trees were all cut down.
What I would give for a chance to use a time machine. A chance to spend one full year on the island, to see with my own eyes, how my dear England has changed in the last one thousand years. Even another 1000 before that !
How prepared enough could I be for such a visit ? The myriad of risks would never over-
take my curiosity.
Curiosity may well have killed the cat - but it's this difference between cats and people that catapults human knowledge, progress, and success.
I've always had a passionate penchant for the history of 🇬🇧 -
and I'm not English !
Excellent, and we'll written comments.I agree with you, Jackie Reynolds .I feel the same passion, nostalgia for anything I see and wish I was back 1000 years or even 100 years ago.
We have always beeeeen curious . . .
since birth, Aye!!??!?!?!
Why do you think Will the Con was the rightful king? I thought the Witan was in charge of who would be king rather like the cardinals of the Catholic Church are responsible for the election of the incoming Pope.
Curiosity killed the cat but satisfaction brought it back.
The second part of that phrase is often forgotten
Rightful king my ass. Usurper and murderer more like.
@@robert2948 The English succession had been royal screwed by Canute 50 years prior anyway. Don't get me wrong, Canute was a better king than most of the true-blooded 'Anglo-Saxon' ones, but his naked usurpation followed by the sudden death of all his sons left a very precarious position from the English POV.
Heck, Edward the Confessor only became king b/c he was Canute's *stepson.* By that point, Emma of Normandy had taken charge of directing the succession, & she convinced her son Harthacnut that his half-brother Edward was the most-natural successor. Edward was sworn in on the promise he'd uphold *Canute's* laws, not
Æthelstan's.
And poor Edward was stuck in a rock and a hard place. The family of Earl Godwin (who he blamed for his brother Alfred's murder) had wrested a lot of control away from him (four Godwinson brothers each held Earldoms giving their family effective control of at least half of England). And he couldn't oppose them b/c his wife happened to be their sister.
He also couldn't set aside his wife with an annulment b/c of her powerful brothers, preventing him from producing an heir (either Edith was barren or he refused to sleep w/ her due to his dislike of her family, whichever you fancy). As a result, it sounds plausible to me that a frustrated Edward promised William the succession in 1051, if only to stick it to the Godwin family.
(now, you can argue the crown was still elective at this time & thus Edward wasn't in the position to promise Duke William anything, but, I mean, only technically; the preferred successor of the incumbent still mattered for something & naked conquest could still win the day--just ask Canute).
Edward may have regretted that choice; he may even have made his peace w/ a son of Godwin being his successor, but the situation was certainly ambiguous & I have a hard time laying 'blame' for what happened--at the very least, William's claim was better than Harald Hardrada's, right?
Wasn't the Vernon's around @ this time as well??? Sir Edward Vernon! Man need history on him
This fortress built by Nature for herself /Against infection and the hand of war, /This happy breed of men, this little world, /This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house. . . .
Richard II
Shakespeare
"This England!" (also a lovely magazine of the same name, subscribed to by my mother for many years, still have many old copies!)
Archeologists have found no evidence of a battle at the field below the monastery.
There is a theory of another possible site where the battle took place at Crowhurst just 3 miles from battle Abbey. There is a UA-cam channel called secrets of the Norman invasion which you may find of interest.
One of my Ancestors Alanus De Berneval fought alongside William The Conquerer🖒
They should/must make a High production, historical accuret movie about 1066! Like follow the story on the beyoux tapestry!!
What I like about it is woman was the grandson of Rollo. Brother of Ragnar lothbrok. And people believe the vikings didn't build anything or stay anywhere. Ha.
@@phillipstroll7385 you know the Show Vikings are kinda unhistorical accuret and rollo wasent ragnars Brothers!
@@historybuilds I've never seen it. But I have read the sagas and they do say he was. So I'll take their word down in their time over yours or someone from today.
They wont, they only make terrible remakes and ultra woke gay superhero movies now days.
@@phillipstroll7385
Start reading a little bit more
Rollo I was past Ragnar Lothbrok
About 💯 year's
These days, Invasions are
much more Insidious. 🤔
How can you walk in the 'footsteps of the Normans' when one still does not know where they walked? Archeology still has not shown ONE SHIP, METAL RIGGING, or a broken link from mail to show where they landed. With that many ships and men, SOMETHING was left that we can find. Next, no broken weapons, discarded armor or mass graves have been found at 'Battle Abby" so in all probability the battle was NOT fought there. Just asking,
@@Azrayl Three or four people have said that ..... and they all picked differing places. I would say, that it is not really ON the tapestry in that case.
At that time Guillaume (Not William) was French and also supported by the French King for the conquest.
Two mistakes within the first 5 mins @Dan. The Bayeux Tapestry is thought to be English in origin, made by ladies in Canterbury under the direction of a monk. Pevensey was an island in Roman times not a promontory. Note the suffix "sey" then note Wallasey, Anglesey, Southsea, all very watery places. I've spent 8 or so years researching the Battle and nothing of the "official" narrative stands up under close scrutiny. Spend £200 on a copy of William of Poitiers "Gesta Guillelmi" and try to fit today's narrative onto his account. Part II, page 130 (for the translation from the original latin) ,the start of Para 19' " Emboldened by this, they launched an attack with greater determination on the main body of the army, which in spite of the heavy losses it had suffered seemed not to have diminished."
@Ready For Anything. The tapestry was in Latin and it was found in the Bayeux monastery- it was most likely made by English monks
@UCokm8jQ4G65vqfdq-FW0KMg You're an idiot! The embroidery (because that's what it is, not a tapestry) was created in Canterbury by ENGLISH women! Nobody in France would've had the skills to produce such a piece. Its was a project of Odo of Bayeux. And that is where it was taken. But it was made in Canterbury England by English women!
How stupid d'you feel now? Calling BS on a historical fact? 😂😂😂
5:23 They literally say it was woven in England, not sure what doco you're watching?
@@kmjsmith It's not a certainty, records on the subject of the tapestry and its origins are quite vague.
@@mikeycraig8970 "Nobody in France would've had the skills to produce such a piece."
I'm English and well acquainted with arrogant anglocentrism, but despite having heard this line from Simon Schama describing the tapestry, I've never heard any explanation for why historians would come to such a conclusion that France lacked for embrioderers of any significant skill for this particular work.
Did the Norman invaders take all the good embroidering ladies with them to England?
Did the French have something against ladies embroidering in the first place where the English did not?
Do tell - to me it seems like an anglocentric assumption that they would know every possible place in the 11th century from which the tapestry could have been sourced even in England, let alone in France too.
"So, we talk about William's great generalship, but so much of it actually comes down to logistics, communication, geography."
That was a weird statement.
The leader of the invasion, William, the general, as the narrator suggests, would be in charge of... Logistics, communication, and determination of and utilization of the geography.
To understand and use all of these things properly is what makes a good general.
million dollar question is , if the viking and william had a team work ? or they knew about the invasion as the king harold couldnt win on 2 fronts? they dont tell you that , some sort of alliance ?
Not one single archaeological find relating to the battle of 1066 recovered from the site of Battle abbey?
It dosn't add up right,
Wrong location perhaps?
@@robert2948 I would want to see more real data before relying on manufuctured data (like the building of an abbey).
It always bums me out that Harold lost. He is an English hero many times over who was elected king by the wittan fairly bc they didn't want a foreigner like Edward did. Then fought against the confessor attempt at a Norman overthrow and then defended his country to his death. He was a proven warrior, natural leader, keen political and ruthless watchief who had used revolutionary tactics, essentially creating a Anglo saxon navy seal/ spec ops/ black ops/elite commando unit made of a small select fee peerless warriors each woth a specialty. Archer 2handed hammer sword shield, 2 Norse are, a poleaxe, one with a spear and even one with buncha caltrops and daggers n shit who was super sneaky. Did it whilst I nWales to counter hostile locals and a harsh alien geography.
I just feel like the Norman's try and spin it so Harold was a throne thief but I'm pretty sure William was just tryna strong arm his way to the throne no less than hardrada. And since Eddy the confessy loves sucking Norman d*ck so much he was letting him. But the English nobles were not about it and did what they could to curb the Norman's and once he was dead quickly crowned thier choice the English hero Harold instead.
Same as Richard the 3rd. He was a good brother and a good king and a great person if u look into it. Yea he prolly killed nephews but in context it was the right call. And I have a theory since he never defended himself thay he didn't kill them people say why not provide bodies. Well cuz then support could rally around around. But if people whispered they were dead then nobody could support them. Duh. They had a stronger claim lol. But he was loyal to brother. I think Henry 7 walked in and found em and after shitting his pants and cleaning up he immediatly killed them. Idk seems more likely to me judging by character. Richard hated the Woodville. And was fighting them. And it was him or them. And most nobles hated them too and supported him. He wasn't after nephews. I think alot of nobles were down with him hidden kids and being king. Again he was a hero and proven leader n they hated Woodville. Just checks with his wntire lifelong personality better than the clear and obvious and known propaganda of the tutors.
Yea I personally feel that Richard 2 was slandered too
william the orange or william the conqueror also known as william the bastrd
As a saxon with a name daring back to the saxon Kings of mercia I really feel for Harold. Running up the country bearing the vikings, then back south to only loose to rollos grandson!.. I wonder what would be different now if the saxons had won???
@@fghjjjk if he beat William he'd undoubtably considered among the greatest kings in English history for one. And so much would be different it's impossible to comprehend. Tho Saxon decended ended up on thone anyway just thru female line. cuz Henry 1st married from house of Wessex . Then his daughter made Henry 2nd and it goes from there.
This is an interesting walk through history. Learning more about William (my 28th great grandfather) invaded England in 1066 is interesting. I am learning more than I did in my own history classes when I was in high school or even in middle school. I feel as though I am walking in the footsteps of my 28th great grandfather.
william the bastard , i think king Harold was a brave warrior king .he fought on two front , a true English hero.
I too am related to a French Knight who invaded England and fought at the Battle of Hastings, he lived and married an English woman an died apparently at 103 years old-which would be an extreme age at that time
Are you related Michael Jordan as well? You cannot rule it out.
I have traced my paternal great Grandmother back to William the Conqueror making him my 28x great grandfather ..i just wish I could connect my paternal great grandfather back that far as our last name Fletcher is Norman- French (de le Flechere) my ancestors were noble and the conquest is what brought us to England.
A fletcher is one who adds the feathers to an arrow. Noble indeed.
There was nothing "noble" about William the bastard, a brutal tyrant who sailed to this land on a ship of lies, crushed the people mercilessly, and left a legacy of oppression that continues to this day.
My ancestor sir Robert D'oily was knighted by King William the 1st
The old Port of Hastings is where William landed his ship's. Ifeel certain the battlefield is in the wrong place.
All evidence points to Pevensey.
ships
@@johntillman6068 There is a local legend in Ninfield that the Normans landed there and indeed at the base of Little Standard Hill a load of ships nails were found by a group of metal detectorists. So, foot soldiers and nobs land at the old Roman fort on the island of Pevensey while the horses were offloaded just the once at Ninfield. Foot soldiers and nobs relocate by boat to the Port of Hastings - a Priory was located on the spot where William's feet touched mainland English soil for the fight sometime during the reign of Richard the Lionheart (1189 - 1199).
There are many reputed sites for the Battle of Hastings. 4 of which you might be familiar with. Battle Abbey, mini roundabout near Abbey (Time Team), Crowhurst (Nick Austin), Caldbec Hill ( John Grehan), Up to 1.5 miles to the East ( Kathleen Tyson - Carmen), Two sites near Netherfield ( Simon ?), Beech Farm ( Simon Colman) and my preferred site which is the ridge just inside Ashes Wood, currently under investigation by the Forestry Commission. The initial skirmish might have happened at the other end of the High Street to Battle Abbey, which is where English Heritage now places the battle.
@@kevincasey5035 Thanks. Good to have archaeologist evidence.
20:57 aggressively _HAPPY_ dogs, maybe
In none of the documentary sources for this period are the inhabitants of England called 'Saxons'. They are called 'English'. And 1066 is not the 'most famous date in British history' though it might be the most famous in ENGLISH history.
"English" meaning inhabitants of England (ie Saxons).
the norwegians was cought unarmed, tired after their recent battle. A genious move by Harold, and mybe the only way to win
King Harold's army was English and not merely 'Saxon'.
Yes, probably but Britons and Saxon's (but mostly Saxon, my heritage)
Through my mom I am descended from a Norman Knight. We even know the village in which he came from. Wace said he fought at Hastings, but it is possible he came after. Through my father, my family also comes from France. This side came later, but also owned lands in Normandy and Picardy. Both sides spent several centuries in England before coming to America. I hope to someday visit Normandy and Williams tomb. 🏴⚜️
the "oath" doesn't even matter....the throne was NOT Harold's to promise to Anybody
The oath went more along the lines that Harold wouldn't put up a fuss or oppose William's already-staked claim. Becoming King himself would have violated that oath, assuming any oath was made in the first place.
My bloodline traces back to Sir Adam De La Lone of France, his son Adam went to England in 1066, defeated the English and was rewarded lands for his participation. He is listed in The Doomsday Book.
William the conqueror " now there's going to be a certain amount of violence " " but we all know it's all for a good cause don't we "
im samurai 。i like .anglo norman Castle
The Bayeux Tapestry is not a neutral story of the battle as it's soley from the perspective of the Norman's.
I just thought of this - how did they get horses on and off those boats? Lifted? Don’t think so. A ramp? I’ve never thought of that.
@Ballsnya Jaws They have to be some good ramps. Also I thought the Viking boats had flat bottoms and didn’t draw much water. That would be a nasty trip ‘cross channel.
Alexa how did they get horses on small boats in 1066 and were there insurance policies for aquatic equestrian activities
@@Mr0rris0 🤣🤣
They weren’t stupid. They were experts at many things 🤔
@@graceamerican3558 apart from they wernt vikings. But actually normans
Is there a movie about this invasion?
Indra. .... no....
But there should have been already!!!!!!
Yes, the motive was to gain land and riches for both the Normans and their Flemish mates and the Pope (the church increased its landholding stake in England by 5% from 20 to 25%... England before the invasion was seen to be the wealthiest nation in Europe at that time... The Normans were apparently carrying the cross banner, this banner was personally blessed and sent to William by Pope Alexander II, the head of the Church to which all Christians belonged. William had got it by persuading the Pope that King Harold Godwinson was an oath-breaker, and by promising to modernise the old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon Church if he won... There was The Great Schism of 1054 whereby the Saxons weren't in keeping with Rome even though they sent Peter's Pence (or Denarii Sancti Petri and "Alms of St Peter") are donations or payments made directly to the Holy See of the Catholic Church. The practice began under the Saxons in England and spread through Europe...
Snaxons are saxons who went on picnics.
Their bloodlines would go on to produce the Duke of Sandwich.
I have seen some interviews of people who were at that battle: it was brutal.
How so?
Was it a seance?
@@cinepost I think the BBC had Kate Adie reporting live from the scene.
They landed at Crowhurst…..Harolds Manor,everyone knows in Crowhurst there is even a Cross where Harold fell.He was hacked to pieces not an arrow.They landed on the Blverhyde near old hastings which still had sea water in the 50’s.
How do yo know there were you.?
The Saxons viewed the halley comet as a baf omen. “Oh gee, a comet....not now please, we’re lost sight!”.
time to take it ALL back.
Before all of that, King Harold gave Northumbria to his brother Tostig. Then Tostig asks his brother King Harold, can he allow his friend Harold Hardrada and his men land to stay and King Harold says, yeah he can have seven feet of English land or how ever much he needs for his grave and the battle of Fulford bridge begins. Harold Hardrada is killed and buried in his seven feet of English soil and then King Harold is killed by William the Conqueror and gets his five feet of English soil where he is buried. "You reap what you sow," there are no more true words that those five.
Tostig was already Earl of Northumbria under Edward, tho. Harold probably reconfirmed the appointment.
The calamity of 1066
955 years ago. You're way better at history than I am math so it's all good. Haha
So basically the English were whipped by the French but it's more digestible for the English if we call them Norman Viking Frankish chaps
After 1066 English historians call the their Norman conquerors "English" - it always makes me laugh.
the queen is related to rollo
I am what is commonly known in some circles as first.
The English army sure saved alot of money on helmets. Using Hastings items for 1000 years
If we stand on Beachy Head today we can see a mighty armada of dinghies landing on the sand. Poor Harold didn't have a 'world class' navy to protect his coast line in 1066. We seem to have regressed a 1000 yrs.
Oh here we go. Any excuse to bang the Nationalist drum. Perhaps we should use medieval tactics to fight these invading hoards. It's a history doc, not an excuse to get on your soapbox. Oh, and great Saxon name Marco.
Riki, that's because English people don't rule the country... Because if they did, it definitely wouldn't be happening and that goes for the last 80 years....
I'm proud to be a Angles- Saxon , I'm a Hewing which is Saxon, and I was born in Nottingham. I dont live in England as my birthright was taken away in 1066, which lead freemen because serfs to a invaded colonial force, the Normans and backed by the Pope because the Angles -Saxon where worshiping in Saxon and not Latin, day will come when England will be a Republic and revise the damage the Normans have done , my family call him by his proper name , William the Bastard.
My son, said the Norman Baron,
I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England, that William gave me for my share
When we conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is
But before you go over to rule it, I want you to understand this:-
The Saxon is not like us Normans.
His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious, till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow, with his sullen set eyes on your own
And grumbles, “This isn’t fair dealings,” my son, leave the Saxon alone.
You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears
But don’t try that game on the Saxon; you’ll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county, to the poorest chained serf in the field, They’ll be at you and on you like hornets, and if you are wise you will yield.
But first you must master their language..their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don’t trust any clerk to interpret, when they come with the tale of their wrongs
Let them know that you know what they’re saying; let them feel that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear ’em out if it takes you all day.
They’ll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark
It’s the sport not the rabbits they ’re after (we ’ve plenty of game in the park).
Don’t hang them or cut off their fingers. That’s wasteful as well as unkind
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher, makes the best man-at-arms you can find.
Appear with your wife and the children, at their weddings and funerals and feasts
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests
Say ‘we,’ ‘us’ and ‘ours’ when you’re talking, instead of ‘you fellows’ and ‘I.
Don’t ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell ’em a lie!
Rudyard Kipling ~ Norman and Saxon
:....and here, beneath the great abby, where not as single artifact from a large battle has EVER been found"
and then with the "acidic soil" dodge hahahahah
it's SO funny how the "EVENTS" can be "mythologized" but Never the PLACE
lol
English Heritage's income would be at risk if the scam was revealed.
The English coast was much closer to France in some places than it now is.
Dan Snow has his fathers im the best man if England style of presenting .Peter Snow was a news reader who made himself noticed as insufferable
if id have been in charge, they wouldnt have had time to get off the boats, let alone, getting on the battle field.
Vive la france 🇨🇵
I don't like William the conqueror, he ended the saxon rule in England, long live king Alfred the Great of Wessex! Even though i love the vikings and its sagas and heroes, specially Ragnar, i like the saxons too, but not the viking descendants of Rollo, William the conqueror and their people who ruled this land. Saxons are the true English!
The defeated never relish their conquers
They had their seed in Anglo Saxon and Celtic wombs. You could be one of their seedlings too. Check if you have an R1a Haplogroup. If you do... You are likely a norman
@@pij6277 lol but im not a European
That is a very stupid and childlike perspective of history
@@juanblanco1267 and whats the stupid and childlike perspective there? Lol
Saxons vs Normans, today it's nerds vs geeks.
Conquest or Invasion??? That's the question...
Let's all get 1066 tattoos. That'd be cool.
Congrats for visiting Crowhurst, the actual battlefield, not beyond as Nick Austin has proved.
There you find the steep and the malfosse.
The Batlle Abbey is a hoax as the very Battle abbey chronicle says "the actual site was not suitable to found an abbey".
Sad that the most important fact in English history is still so much misplaced 🤔
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!