Who Was The Real King Harold? | King Harold: Fact Or Fiction | Timeline
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 тра 2024
- Tony Robinson reveals the real story behind the last great Anglo Saxon king. Far from being just the loser at the Battle of Hastings, Harold was a charismatic leader.
It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service, at a huge discount using the code 'TIMELINE' ---ᐳ bit.ly/3a7ambu
You can find more from us on:
/ timelinewh
/ timelinewh
This channel is part of the History Hit Network. Any queries, please contact owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
Sign up to History Hit with code 'timeline' for 80% off bit.ly/TimelineSignUp
Is it be possible to trace the descendants of Harold? And make a documentary of that?
Audio engineering is atrocious; the volumes are all wrong, and I believe it is because this program was originally mixed tor TV, which uses surround channels, which normally carry background sounds and music at lower levels; and when the program was dumped onto UA-cam, which uses stereo sound, they mixed all the channels together and gave the same volume to the surround channels as the front channels; and now the voice over gets lost behind music and background sounds. And evidently nobody checked the final product before releasing it to the public.
Wonderful programme. Exactly what the BBC should be making instead of strictly come lowest common denominator
From Britannica website, the tapestry was first referred to in 1476, in 1730 French scholar Bernard de Montfaucon published the earliest complete reproduction of it. It has been restored more than once and in some details the restorations are of doubtful authority.
DNA has now shown the Vikings look nothing like blond hair blue eyes drawn in cartoons, it has also shown that only 5% of Viking decendants still live in that country.
Hope you find more information on this.
@@jamesbautista4694 my mother's family were given land on the Isle of man by William of Normandy but this was passed down through word of mouth,. Harold's family and Anglo Saxon's would have made themselves scarce and disinherited by William. It would be incredibly difficult I think to trace Harold's bloodline.
I love how Tony Robinson actually goes to the places where all of this happened. Makes the documentary so much better.
he always arrives on a golden banana...lol..
not that we would know, he could just stand in any random field and tell you
His production team, director, producer.
@EnglishXnXproud i thoughtv the abbey is on the site of the battle, the town/ village is called Battle. & it had little info boards & speakers telling how the battle was going throughout the day.
It looks like the place described by Williams biographer.
I don't know if the abbey is on the site of Harolds death .
What makes you say it wasn't the battle site ?
Do they know where the real location was ?
EVERY bbc documentary narrator walks and talks from places relevant to the documentary! I call it "the BBC style"
Famous Greek saying: “count no man happy until he is dead.” Harold was the greatest soldier of his age. Proved it time and time again but lost a single battle - unfortunately the last one
ddpresearch07 - “ΜΗΔΕΝΑ ΠΡΟ ΤΟΥ ΤΕΛΟΥΣ ΜΑΚΑΡΙΖΕ” (lit. “Count no man blessed until the end”) - The words of Solon the Athenian to King Croesus of Lydia (Herodotus, The Histories). ADDENDUM: How right you are!...
I agree King Harold should be honoured..
We should learn more about him in our History lessons at School.
Thank you for this very interesting documentary.
I learnt about king Harold in school ! I’m 55 they don’t teach this history any more !!! I learnt all about Henry v111
Why are UA-cam ads louder than the original videos. Actually these ads make me hate the products being advertised...
@Jellybean Nifty tip! Thank you.
Well, go for UA-cam Premium, no ads, it is worth the monthly cost
@Jellybean That turns out not to work.
Agreed.
After swiping to the end, try hitting the replay button. That's how I do it and it works.
It's clear to see how much Tony Robinson loved making this series. He loves it and therefore so do we. Thanks Tony!
I've been watching a lot of Tony Robinson documentaries lately and I've noticed something: He almost always mentions that something happened "on an industrial scale."
hahaha thank you for that little tidbit!
Yes, he seems to do it on an industrial scale.....
"and then, the industrial revolution happened. On an industrial scale"
@Gail: "[Tony] He almost always mentions that something happened "on an industrial scale." That's because he's short. Next time, listen for the cameraman muttering, "It's not an 'industrial scale' to anyone over five foot."
@@srm3441 It's titbit - TITBIT - not facking tidbit. Why is the English language constantly sanitised to remove the slightest hint of swears?
Harold is an interesting character and I’ve always enjoyed reading about him. I feel like he typically gets associated with losing Hastings along with his life and that is it but in reality the whole story is fascinating up until his end.
There's a good account of these things in Heimskringla by Snorri Sturluson, although it tells more about Hardrada it does mention the events leading upto and including Hastings.
Yes, he lost in Hastings but had already repelled an invasion by the Norwegians. He force marched his army down south to combat yet another enemy whose army was large and fresh.
And? Perhaps he should have sent someone else to deal with his brother and Hardrada in York and waited for William in Hastings, finished off William and then dealt with the northern invasion. Who can say?
@Colin Marble - While I like the train of thought you are on, I don't think fighting William first would have helped much.
The wall failing Harold and his men, I personally think, was an inevitable outcome against the Norsemen from Northern France.
Tactics evolve and the shieldwall was bound to break eventually. Lest we forget Alexander's renowned Companion Cavalry at the Battle of Guagamela. (and before)
@@Possiblyabandaid For most of the battle the mounted Norman knights were probably not making much of a difference. Their only real advantage was the mobility their horses gave them. Despite the programme saying so, it is highly unlikely that the mounted knights managed to fool the English into following them only to be cut down numerous times. William of Poitiers tell us that Englishmen followed retreating Normans several times, but there is no reason to think that this put the English at a disadvantage most of those times.
The English army was not composed in the main of peasants with no military training. Most of them were thegns, who were the landowning class and would be expected to be fully trained in fighting technique and were required to be equipped with helmet, mail shirt, shield and spear and if possible a sword as well. There were also the professional housecarls. There were also some ceorls (peasants) as the tapestry makes plain, but these would not have been there in any great numbers. In all probability, some thegns brought some of their tougher, more capable ceorls with them to make up for the fact that many other thegns, having already exhausted their service commitment for the year, were not prepared to do any further service. We are told that during the battle the Normans were assaulted with stones attached to sticks. These were probably thrown from behind over the heads of the English warriors by ceorls using the sticks to add force to the casts, just as the grenades used by the Germans during the first half of the 20th century had handles to improve their momentum and handiness. Some ceorls also appear to have been positioned in the battle line, probably among the contingent who had come with Harold's brother Girth, earl of East Anglia (who the programme conveniently forgets to mention, as it does his other brother Leofine, earl of Hereford). With East Anglia being closer to the coast, most of its thegns will have been on duty across the summer so are less likely to have responded to a call for troops after their service commitment had ended.
Back to the battle. Most of the eruptions of men from the English line would have been of Dane axe armed Housecarls supported by thegns with swords and spears. The Dane axe was capable, in practiced hands, of taking the leg or even the head off a horse. These men would have erupted out to take advantage of any confusion in the Norman attack, cutting down men and horses and then withdrawing back to the safety of the line. For the trained thegns and particularly the housecarls this would have been a routine part of warfare and probably was a part of normal military training and they would have known how far out they could go and when they would need to retreat back to the line.
However, the ceorls would never have had any such training, their experience of fighting probably being limited to wrestling and fist fights, as well as wild animal hunts with spears. As I said, it is likely that one small section of the line was held by ceorls with little to no training in arms or tactics. By late afternoon the battle had been going for several hours already and these men would have seen groups of housecarls and thegns leaving the line to attack disordered enemies. They would probably have been getting bored and wanting to emulate what they had seen the experience well equipped warriors doing.
At one point in the late afternoon Norman cavalry was driven off from the shield wall close to where these men were and they ran out after them. They probably ran out too far and did not realise when to retreat. As shown on the Tapestry, they became cut off as the mounted knights rallied and rode back to cut them down. In all probability some of the knights headed straight for the gap that then ceorls would have left and would have started hacking to left and right to stop it closing up and to widen it as quickly as possible. William, seeing this, would have ordered all his cavalry conroys towards that point so that they could get in behind the English line. Once that had happened much of the English line would have been forced to turn around to defend the rear, thus weakening the entire formation. After that it would rapidly have become a foregone conclusion.
Therefore, in all likelihood, the mounted knights only made a difference at that point when a fatal weak point in the line had been exposed and their horses gave them the speed to take advantage of it. It was not really any difference in tactics, just speed at a crucial moment.
Of course, there was another factor in the battle with the programme failed to mention. Although Harold had been joined by his brothers Leofwine and Girth and their contingents, he was not joined by Edwin, earl of Mercia, who failed (probably on the basis of a long standing enmity between his and Godwin's families) to turn up with his men, as he should have done. In all probability, as his earldom was furthest from a coast, he would have had a greater number of thegns available to him who were not already time expired. Had Edwin turned up, the English army at Hastings could have been bigger by at least two thousand men and there would have been no need to have part of the line made up untrained, underequipped ceorls.
Therefore, the real reason Harold lost the Battle of Hastings is that he was let down by Edwin, earl of Mercia. The programme was very remiss in not mentioning that.
He should definitely have a huge monument put up to honour him. This was a man who fought for his country time and time again and who eventually gave his life for it. He is the embodiment of English courage and honour so he should be remembered as such, Not just the man who lost the battle of hastings but a man who embodies the heroic English spirit which has remained through the tests of time.
indeed
I think Tony's closing comments on this documentary are so stirring and spot on. This is a really good demonstration of how our history informs our understanding of the present. Thank you for this.
Excellent documentary, I've been fascinated by the history of Saxon England, and Harold in particular, but I still learned more from watching this. 1000 years on, this was still possibly the most dramatic and momentous sequence of events this country has ever seen, and because it resulted in the conquest, probably had a more profound, momentous and lasting effect on this nation than just about any other episode in our recorded history. It's sad that after a millennium, the earth now gives up so few clues about what happened that day, and history is written (or sewn onto cloth) by the victor to suit his purposes, much like the Tudors after the defeat of Richard III. It's a sobering thought that not a single aristocratic family in England can trace its noble lineage back further than the Norman conquest, because an entire layer of English society, the Saxon nobility, was totally wiped out; many slaughtered on the battlefield and in the battle's aftermath, or systematically dispossessed in the following weeks. I believe one Saxon earl did retain his title and lands for another year or two until he too was dispossessed by the Normans. It was literally out with the old, in with the new; the peasants feeding the pigs were still the same, but the lord in the castle collecting their taxes was new. And Tony was right, we are still living with the legacy of a rigid class system that has its roots in the Norman conquest. The nobility has become more diffuse over the centuries, with names of Celtic origin and some that are harder to identify, but just look how many of them still bear the prefix "De" or "Fitz" and you realise how comprehensive the influx of Normans was, all those years ago.
No we wasn't all wipe out all my ancestors are English got no french or Celtic it go and show how uneducated people like yourself are when it come to us Anglo Saxon 😂🤣
Unlucky Harold: Beat the Vikings in the Semi-final, but lost to the Normans on penalties.
Paul Coleman he is a norsemen himself
@@balyeetbhagaloe6416 no he was only a half norsemen !
@EnglishXnXproud Ok Scandinavian, norse, dane or swede all the same for me
@Finn MickCool Did you write the Sicilian scene for Tarantino?
A tradition upheld by the English football team to this very day. 😁
Why hasn’t there been a tv series made about Harold Hardrada , William the conquerer, and Harold Godwinson. Such an interesting time and they all that they different kind of rise to power. Hardrada In the service of the Byzantine empire and his rise to become commander of the Varangian guard. That would be a huge tv show . If they ever made it.
I know there was a two parter documentary(it was more of a tv movie with alright visuals) I saw awhile back. I think it was 1066 the Battle for Middle Earth.
More of a see what happened than we say what happened type of documentary. Think Ch 4 made it like a decade ago.
If your like books there's one called dragon fire, that's all about king Harold before and serving the byzantine empire ending with the 1066 battle of Hastings. Brilliant book :)
@@Possiblyabandaid
It's called 1066: Battle for Middle Earth. I think the thing I liked most about it was that when two armies started fighting, the soldiers would actually hold formation rather than breaking off into a thousand individual duels like they usually do in the movies.
Would pay to watch a movie like that, only need a historian, an amazing script writer, and endorsement to be funded.
@@Possiblyabandaid I'm currently writing a book about 1066 and obviously these three men will be the focal point. I plan to go into the film industry and want to make a film or tv show for my book. This was an incredible time period with some amazing characters who have rich backgrounds. It would be awesome.
Wonderful conclusion by Prof. Smyth at the 46:57 mark. May he rest in peace.
Harold was awesome, and he's been mostly forgotten, and that's a shame. I'm going to set up my Godwin dynasty on CK3.
This is a great idea. Never done a Godwin play through, but I should.
Such an excellent communicator, he really brings the past alive.
There should be a mournful and moving monument to the late and much lamented King Harold.
@Antonio Perales del Hierro Get out!!!
Yes. He should be far better respected in this country. He was a hero, and the last truly native King of England.
@Celto Loco The natives today are the Anglo-Saxons. He was the last Anglo-Saxon king.
@Celto Loco Bruh what the Anglo Saxons had been in England for 500 years before he was even born so was he really a conqueror? The English people are Anglo-Saxon whether you like it or not maybe not entirely genetically but still a good portion not to mention basically all English culture and language is from them so no he wasnt a conqueror and I highly doubt the average person would've hated him. Also you do realise the Celts invaded England as well and took it from someone else right?
That's what the razor wire at the Tesco is for.../S ua-cam.com/video/aKnX5wci404/v-deo.html
"An Aristocratic elite who spoke a different language and were completely cut off from the people they were ruling. And a thousand years later, that social gulf is still taking a long time to bridge."
Yep. A tragedy that Harold was defeated. It could well have gone the other way.
@@dreamer2260
The thing is, with Harold's death, also english culture died.
What came after was basically a copypasta of french feudal system.
@@mercianthane2503 I can't help but think there's more than a grain of truth to that, yes.
Fascinating! Never knew the "Back story" which brings the history alive. You can choose your friends, but you're stuck with family.
Superb documentary & the conclusion at the end is brilliant and so true. Long live King Harold.
Tony Robinson's documentaries are always interesting to watch ^^
Faeyrie he’s a traitor to the English people..
@@oakashthorn5714 how???
@@oakashthorn5714 : Have the grace to reply for goodness’ sake...If only to discount your otherwise quite outrageous remark!
There are two locations for the archer who killed King Harold given in this programme. One is in front of the King. The other, in this programme, is alleged to be behind a building, some 200 metres away. At the time of his death King Harold was probably wearing a helmet. Therefore the location of the archer, reported in this programme, is inaccurate. Also, the injuries suffered by King Harold probably couldn’t be conceived from 200 metres away, because the distance to subject ratios should produce different wounds. The Bayeux Tapestry, potentially, depicts the archer standing in front of the King, which is contemporary with his injuries. However, the stretch of a bow is probably about 1 metre. Therefore, one can conclude that the archer was in front of the King, and no more than 10 metres or 30 Feet away. Ultimately, this programme makes a huge mistake: Both the position, potentially, occupied by the archer in front of the King - and the one behind the building - can only be occupied by a Traitor.
I love Tony Robinson documentaries! Please keep them coming! 🙂👍
When was this filmed? He looks a bit younger in this one.
TwistedGeniusMedia 👍
@Jean-Ian Simard I like Starkey too, he tells it how it was . A lot of historical presenters embellish too much.
Starkey is a proper historian
I love Starkey.
Tony Robinson is an excellent narrator, but every now and then he slips in a gratuitous comment which unhistorically condemns Stalin and the Soviet Union. The narrative which has been generally accepted in the West is almost totally false and research since the early 1990s has proved that.
Tony Robinson's documentaries are like the "TOP GEAR" show only about history! ❤️
What I find amazing is that, researching my Cantrell Family genealogy, is that In that Tapestry you show and talk about, the Norman Name of Cantrell [ Chantrell ] is woven into it:-). Our family goes back to the early records of ancient England. First records are found in Lancashire, where the Cantrell Name is found as being granted lands by Duke William of Normandy, for their distinguished assistance at the battle of Hastings in 1066:-) How grant it is to find coverage of this and that my ancestors are attached to it!
Fascinating stuff-takes me back to studying the Anglo Saxon Chronicles in an introductory Old English class a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. Only problem- yfel am blandenfeax ge dêaf, and when I got the volume jacked up high enough so I could actually hear Tony, my wife just about jumped out of her skin when an ad came on at 8.3 on the open-ended Richter scale. Thanks very much for posting this, but a bit more gain on the audio signal would have been very helpful.
Tony.....You and your team are outstanding! And, you tell great stories. Be safe ❤️🙏❤️
Brilliant documentary, with much more detail of what led up to Hasting especially where poor Harold was concerned than many other documentaries on the subject. You can’t help wonder what line history would have taken if Harold had prevailed, no Plantagenets, no Edward Longshanks. The history of Scotland & Ireland would of been much different. Sad to think we are still dealing with the consequences of the Norman invasion to this day.
This is the subject of much debate. Personally I feel that it was something of a tragedy. If Harold had prevailed, I suspect the country would have gravitated into the loosely Scandinavian sphere, rather than that of Continental Europe, and to pick an example of what the country would look like now, I suppose somewhere like Denmark would be as close as any. But it goes deeper, because although feudalism existed here before the conquest, the relationship between the Saxon earls and the "commoners" seems to have been more benevolent and personal (they could better identify with each other.) For the Normans, the peasants were just part of the cash cow they ruled at arms' length. Some ponder whether the country would have been as outward looking without the Norman influence, or even if there would have been an empire. I would say it's quite likely, because the same blood of the Normans ran through the veins of the Vikings who had arrived, settled and assimilated over previous centuries, and because being an island nation would eventually and inevitably have dictated the need for naval strength. Relations with Ireland might also have been very different, as the countries had coexisted reasonably peacefully other than the occasional coastal raiding parties that seem to have been a fixture of the times. In fact, it was the arrival of the Normans in Ireland that signalled the beginning of all the trouble that followed, because although they assimilated and intermarried with the native Gaelic population, and formed alliances with Gaelic chieftains (unlike their counterparts in England with the Saxons,) as they were still seen to owe allegiance to the king of England since the time of the conquest, it created a pretext for the Crown to lay claims on Ireland itself. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Rest in peace old king.
So, Edward the Confessor had actually brought a Norman fifth column over with him, or allowed them to come later. As these Normans practically paved the way for the later invasion of England, Edward was really a traitor to his land and people. How would England have developed if Harold had won at Hastings, if William had been killed instead ? An academic question, of course, but intriguing nonetheless.
I would love to find out somehow how this alternative timeline and history would have worked out for England, Britain and Europe. No French wars, no Hundred Years War, no wars with Scotland and Ireland possibly. Who knows ? I agree with the historian who stated that we should erect a great statue of Harold, celebrating a heroic king who fought two great battles within just weeks to keep his country free from foreign invaders. Alas, he was destined to lose the second battle by bad luck and a very small margin. Although there is truth in the accusation that Harold was a usurper of the crown of England, England must never forget him, even if the ruling class would prefer to.
well said, i totally agree.
Well the same can also be said about King Vortigern when he invited the Saxons over. This then paved the way the way for the angles, jutes and Saxons who then killed the Romano-Britons/Celts and took their lands and forcing them to fled west to wales who then became the welsh. The Norman conquest is almost ironic karma for the Anglo-Saxons.
@@mijanhoque1740
A cruel irony indeed, but true nonetheless. Well said.😊
'St.' Edward the Confessor was a real sell-out -- which is why the Normans loved him.
Writing from France: I would guess that the most lasting impact of 1066 was on the English language. Old English is completely unreadable to me (since primarily a Germanic language at the time), but the middle English of Chaucer is relatively easy to read (one can see the admixture of French and Latin that came in the wake of 1066). This eventually evolved into modern English, the English of Shakespeare.
One of the best if not the Very Best - Superb research, delivery AND presentation! Meritworthy to nth degree: thanks a million for knowledge and entertainment! Must say that we do have some very impressive historians - both amateur and professional!
Who else is binge watching these during covid ???
👇
Me. They're great.
ah, the great fort of tescos
I didn't know that TESCO was that old.
The Welsh are coming! Fall back to Tescos!
When you're outgunned, and your gut tells you you're going to be in a siege for the next eight months, Fort Tescos, where EVERYTHING comes in "industrial-scale" packs, is the sensible place to take cover. Just make sure someone's got their sacred Tesco card in their armor, before you barricade yourselves in.
archers mount tesco
@@cooldudesquid441 Cavalry races down the canned goods aisle, peas and creamed corn to their left, off-brand coffee on their right. These brave men see none of the homley landscape, focused as they are on the main exit, and the dangers of the parking lot beyond.
Good luck making the current Norman rulers erect a memorial for Harold. Great documentary and the gentleman has told the tale very well plus no annoying background music.
I thought the current rulers are German.
@@Du-Masses 😂. True.
@Celto Loco Our aristocracy is still descended from the Normans. Look at many of their surnames. They're French.
The Normans only ruled for 100 years they then got replaced by the French Plantagenets who then got replaced by Welsh Tudors who then got replaced by Scottish Stuart, and so forth.
I loved every second of this, more Timeline please!!! Oh and because it's Tony, bring back Time Team :D
Another fine bit of history narrated by Sir Tony. Makes you proud to have Anglo Saxon heritage.
Tony has worn a few hats over the years. And this hat is his BEST Thank you for all your history lessons. Best TUTOR ever
Tony these are master pieces of work and I thank you and your team.
How true was the statement that you made at the very end
Thanks for the video. You, English people, should be proud of such great Historical figures!
I find king Harold fascinating. Thanks for another great video 😊
If only Harold had a cunning plan.
As cunning as a fox who was just promoted to teach a class on cunning plans at Oxford?
@@CoffeeDrinker369 If only he weren't as thick as a whale omelette.
Jared Baxter 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
It wasn’t meant to be.
He had a good plan. Except that the one thing not accounted for in the plan - a Norman arrow - found it's mark. With Harold gone after that, doesn't matter what the plan was.
Unexpectedly homesick for my hometown Hereford now thanks Tony I just wanted to know about king Harold.
Thank you for this, British history is so fascinating!
And very bloody. I said to my wife "this is kinda like the Game of Thrones".
@@dddux Isnt Game of Thrones based on the war of the Roses?
yes@@robloxxd5367
English History. British is a Political construct of the Nations of England, (Northern) Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
@@wessexheathen5708 Not Northern Ireland. Only England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland is strictly part of the UK, not Britain.
Liked the clip. What wasn't mention but might have was that The Battle at Hastings was one of the first times that combatants, the Normans in this case, were riding horses equipped with saddles that had stirrups.
Harold’s sister, the one that married Edward the Confessor was named Edith of Wessex and she was indeed a human being. Her mother, Harold’s mother and the wife of Godwyn was Ghyta Thorkelsdottir and she was, also, a human.
What an amazing story!
Thank you for this.
❤
1066 is odd in that it is so well known and yet not so well known for that very reason being hammered into the skull of most english-speaking school children that everyone just assumes they know the story. Then it's compounded by national historians of the recent past who tried to un-frenchify the frenchness of the next several centuries calling people like Henri I-III as Henry passing over the fact that french was the language of the royal court for 3 centuries. Considering many of the upper class are descended from William's (Guillaume's) followers it's no small surprise. Harold really should be studied more and admired for his achievements and mourned for being cut down low before he could accomplish more.
French was spoken in court in many European countries up until a 100 years ago: even the tsars spoke French.
As an American, I think 1066 was on a linear time line at the front of the book.
Magna Carta got more love in the chapters if I remember right.
Ronin Dave p
It wasn't actual French. It was a heavily French-influenced mix of Norse and Frankish (another Germanic language/dialect). It was so different from French that even the upper crust of Normans in both England and Normandy had to study French as a foreign language. Of course, even at the time, French was still considered a dialect of Vulgar Latin. . .
Lynx South
Are you sure? How does one account for the heavy influx of French vocabulary in English after 1066 which actually transformed Old English into Middle English?
Charlton Heston was asked to play William,he turned it down saying he would only play Harold as he was the true hero.
Then good for Charlton Heston.
@@johnday6392 He seemed just fine until 1972 when his politics took a 180. Then he became the Charlton Heston we all know: a conservative gun nut bigoted cultist. You know how sometimes people will say "oh, he died too young", that the world would have been better off with a few more decades of his existence? In Heston's case the exact opposite is true. A waste of carbon. Good riddance to filthy trash.
Ok mate calm down, he is dead alright! 🤣
@@googiegress7459 - You seem to see politics everywhere and in everything. A real bundle of laughs. Why don’t you just sword off and leave us alone to enjoy this great history programme!
Charlton Heston with an arrow in his right eye or forehead ! I do not see this !
Love all of the timeline documentaries!!! From the Pantagenets to the Tudors to the Stuarts!!!
Well researched, plus showing actual sites of historical battle, one that changed English history. insightful narration by Tony Robinson; particularly his closing remark!
That is not the site of the battle, the real site was at crowhurst, a few miles further south
He's a well known republican, and Anti Royalist.
Great documentary. I love King Harold
"Not to worry Harold, I have a cunning plan"
What a superb documentary about King Harold. 10/10
Really well presented documentary!
Keep them coming please
Wonderful piece!
This is a subject near and dear to my heart and yet this is probably the fifth time I’ve tried to watch this without success. No idea why.
I love Harold. He was a good man.
I feel just the same.
R.I.P Harold Godwinson true King of England.
He could have become King of England however he was not chosen by Edward the Confessor !
Indeed. He'll always be a hero of mine.
Tony Robinson going full circle from Blackadder The First to the actual history behind it. Brilliant 🤩
Thanks got breaking up the ads every few minutes with a little bit of documentary. Learning about Menards, AARP, etc., at full blast would have gotten tedious without hearing about Harold at a nice volume.
I wonder how history would have gone, what the English culture would have been, had Harold won the day and William sent back to Normandy with his tail between his legs.
Probably no different. :D
All that happened was the language changed, though maybe england would be more scandinavian leaning - which is to say, they'd still be kind of liberal, but maybe the welfare state would exist as well in the same mold as scandinavian welfare. The anglosaxons had a witan, which was similar to the house of lords and could easily adapt onto a house of commons (which, iirc, formed in the 14th century; a century after 1215), so being french wasn't particularly special to that. The anglosaxon monarchy was also relatively centralized, just like the norman monarchy. So, not much different by the way things are currently going. It's possible that with the witan, the house of commons would appear earlier. Perhaps a magna carta document might have to be written first, and it's entirely possible that, with a long enough line of anglo saxon kings and the end of the viking age, the lords would be obliged to try to impose more checks on the king's power. Reduction in external threats often means that people don't want to give as much power to the central govt - unlike in continental europe, where external threats were always present, and so historically, the trend was to centralize more and more.
Fuedalism still existed in anglosaxon england - the normans only made land arrangements a bit different to put their people into power. Crusades? What's to stop anglo saxons from joining the crusades? They were already joining the byzantine varangian guard after Hastings. Any chance for prestige, men will take it. Cavalry tactics and knights? The anglo saxons would be slower to adopt that, and might earn several harsh lessons before they do.
Castles? Stone castles were built after the crusades, and the anglosaxons would probably learn. After all, they'd dealt with vikings for centuries, and were no stranger to different kinds of fortresses - same goes for the french, their lords were forced to build fortresses to cement power in their localities in a time of chaotic decentralization. Stone fortresses would be prompted by the crusades, or in a king being interested in following the trends of foreign powers to better effect conquest of the islands. Basically, I think the shift to stone castles would be slower, but it'd happen due to trade of ideas with the continent. Also, there would probably be wars with france, as it grew stronger and tried to marry into the english nobility - though this wouldn't be at the same scale as the 100 years war, there might be a lot of separate wars.
Britain might still form the world's largest empire - I don't see how being french was somehow special in setting them on that path. The dutch and spanish had more to do with it. Also, I don't think 100 years war contributed anything to england's growth or success, considering they lost in the end.
So tl;dr - The biggest impact the normans had was the 100 years war - which is impressive, considering that war occurred 300 years after 1066. Meaning the impact of 1066 in the middle ages is still very huge, but not in the way some people make it out to be.
Or maybe Harold would have met any number of early medieval deaths two months later and William would have returned then and nothing changed. My point being that "what if" isn't very productive.
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/high-house-prices-inequality-normans
@@craigbenz4835 who said it was supposed to be "productive?" The what-ifs are important to understand how pivotal an event was.
The Welsh and Scots would have been more successful in keeping England out perhaps. It would have taken longer to catch onto the castle building frenzy. Another Norman would have tried again perhaps. There are two major idealogical thoughts to follow. the first is life is like a calm pond and a rock thrown into it sends rings out that effect the entire pond. the other life is like a raging river and when you toss a rock into it you can not even tell where it entered, it has no effect. the movie A Wonderful Life imagined itself into the first one well and imagined one life changing everything. A king held more sway but I imagine the end results might be more similar than different.
This whole history is why I have never really been down with the parable of the Prodigal Son.
Even today William and Harold are still fighting. But now they are both princes in the same family - and it's William again destined to be king.
Except Harry’s real name isn’t Harold, it’s Henry.
When my son did this at primary school I did a bit of research and realised that the importance of this battle (which was never explained either by my son’s teacher or indeed when I was at school) is that it not only changed British history but European history as well. The connection it created between England and France affected the history of Western Europe. If Harold had won England would have remained a strong but marginalised petty kingdom like so many others in Europe but because he lost it gave rise to something much bigger and influential - and no that’s not any anti-BREXIT dig just a statement about the strange meanderings of history.
@Jennifer Goodwin Thank you Jennifer and Tuppy for this insight into history. I learn from the comments as well as the video as a result.
@Jennifer Goodwin Very, very well said. I've always mourned Harold's loss and felt he was a hero since I first heard the story. Truly I think it was the greatest tragedy and catastrophe in English history.
I’m polish and I love your, our European history ,,,,
My Grandmother was Polish
@@markorollo. Mine wasn’t
Great Documentary but the Ads are so LOUD. Maybe fix the sound on the uploads so I don't have to crank my volume so much to be able to hear Tony talk.
He is simply bloody marvelous. I always loved history and he would have been wonderful lecturer... Makes we wish I had read History instead of Mod Lang...ah well, whenever I retire..I can do another degree...That is reflection on how inspiring I find him to be...
First time he's not been jumping around and behaving madder than a march hare - the doc is all the better for Tony's more mature approach to his topic!
What I find so interesting is that neither William nor Harold has even the remotest blood claim to the throne of England. The REAL heir was Edgar Ætheling. However, his niece, Edith (later Matilda) of Scotland, married William’s youngest son, Henry I. So all future generations had both the true and the usurper bloodlines. It was kind of like an Anglo-Saxon-Norman version of the War of the Roses resolution (Henry VII marrying Elizabeth of York).
What I find so interesting, is that it seems I am the only one to notice a castle wall, and RAZOR WIRE for a grocery store...? I think you have PROBLEMS; MAJOR PROBLEMS! "Let's all pretend it doesn't exist..."
To be fair, the ascent of pretty much every royal dynasty in history comes down to someone usurping somebody else.
Harold was elected by the Witenagemot. That makes more legitimate claim to me than any bloodline.
I am on my knees Tony.
Awsome.
I love how after every statement he walks off camera. He walks off like he has an important meeting 😂
Or, 'I said what I said, die mad about it', depending on his overall tone, lol.
1066 in a nutshell: a Norseman vs a Norseman vs a Nor(se)man
That is exactly the way to summarize it ! Brillant !
exactly it was family killing each other cousins against cousins
Yep.
Harold Godwinson was Norse by way of his mother. He was for certain an English man.
Even the Normans once Norse lol
Thank You
44:55 technically, it was Edgar the Aethling who was the last Anglo-Saxon king, though Harold was the last to both be formally crowned as well as being declared by the Witenagemot.
Excellent documentary 👏👏👏
I'd always believed Godwin was the brains. Apparently it was Harold who was! Sic gloria ..
What a King he might have made.
So close to being the greatest king of all time.
The razor wire of Tesco's - what a defence LMAO :oD
That made me laugh!
GREAT STUFF!
I like to learn about Britain from Tony Robinson he is really nice to listen to
Apparently my ancestors who left England rather hurriedly in the 1600s for America forgot to bring the crown...would someone forward it please, I'll pay the postage.
"Swein" is pronounced "Svein".
The letter w, which the English pronounce "double-u", because when written cursive looks to most like a double u, is in fact a double v.
In the Nordic languages, such as Norwegian, it is called "double-v", and sounds thus: "dobbelt-v".
It is one of the many letters, along with much of the English vocabulary, and several names, which comes from the Vikings.
Having lived in Norway for 2 decades, I know a few men with the name "Svein". Most use the single v, but occasionally one finds a double-v, but they are all pronounced as v.
Always a pleasure to see Mike Loades make an appearance
Like these documentaries but wen they videotaped I don’t think there volume was up high enough
I can’t turn it up louder
Could you imagine getting men of today to walk 190 miles in a few days like that. Most of them are probably not in good enough shape to do it. Incredible feat
Tbf, I'd only go if i got 1st class train ticket. With a coffee and croissant.
To be fair most of them were professional soldiers so they would've been better fed and in better shape than the average person, The average person back then was far from healthy to the best of my knowledge as the majority of them were underfed.
Having watched and trying to learn from this video, I was wondering why Harold and those before him had not built better roads and lines of defense. Sort of a ancient autobahn for soldiers and the provisions needed. Yes men and women were much more physically stronger than what we have today. All the more reason to promote physical health and good nutrition at home, in school and through the government and the church. Looks to me that the government prefers fear-mongering, fast food, lock downs and losing ones ability to travel. The church, as usual, is silent and doesn't seem to have much to say of any great note. And the school is the last place that I would want my children to go to. That leaves me at home with the wife and children. Physical fitness, good nutrition, the reading of books and learning from videos like what Tony has here with Timeline.
@@chrisgillard6129 I'm not sure but its possible they just didnt have the capabilities. It would've been impossible for Harald to achieve regardless if others could because by the time he came to the throne there were already 2 Kings laying claim to the English throne and preparing an invasion so he couldnt have just sent the fighting men off to build a grand roman-like road system. Also I have to disagree that the AVERAGE person back then was healthier. I'm not talking about the nobles and kings who more often than not were very healthy even for todays standards but the average citizen back then was struggling to survive a lot of the time. Eating only bread, potatoes and maybe meat every few months if they were lucky. Most of them would've been underweight I'd imagine or at least on the lower end of the healthy range. So no I don't think people back then were healthier than now considering it is known it is more healthy to be overweight than underweight.
Evidence of this is that the Kings and Nobles were often a few cm taller than the rest of the population and in some cases FAR taller than that, Harold Godwinson for example was over 6 feet tall when the average English man back then would've been 5'7 or 5'8 and William the Conqueror was 5'10 when the average man in Normandy was probably like 5'6-5'7 if they were all healthy wouldnt they all be around the same height?
@@blitzen435 You make some good points. I was figuring about how everything in ones life would require so much more physical exertion compared to our modern day world where the machines do all the manual labour. Yes, I failed to consider diet. Fascinating program.
46:58 - This guy sums up King Harold perfectly.
I love how baldric is educating me today.
Well done sir!
it should also be noted that the whole "arrow" thing in the Bayeux tapestry has been subject to debate as to whether it is actually Harold or not.
Brayden Olson Have you seen two members of the Fyrd running away with an arrow in each of their eye on the BT ( at the very end of the BT)?. So even if Harold got one in the eye it was not a fatal injury just a deliberating one.
viewing the Bayeux Tapestry, it has to be Harold Godwinson with an arrow in his right eye or above the right eye ! This story is well-known . Typical to the Bayeux Tapestry, his head is situated between the letters of his name ! He is also shown with other Anglo-Saxon warriors which are less ''equipped'' than himself ; with the exception, on the right, probably a Housecarls Anglo-Saxon warrior, with his long war axe ! Harold has the best shield yet, with the most arrows stuck in this long Norman style shield. A possible meaning , he was targeted at close range !? An arrow in the eye would have been extremely serious, same with an arrow above the eye, possibly severe brain hemorrhaging from the superior cerebellar main artery or/and piercing the cranial bone ! Difficult to know exactly how quickly he died !
I thought the arrow was bayeux tapestry propaganda to hide the hacking & mutilation of heralds body by William. Don’t know where I read that
Check out the Icelandic sagas that cover this period from the Norse perspective, fascinating reading
i like how oversimplified did this exact episode in only 12 minutes, and it was just as good.
I've thought about this battle everyday for the last 30yrs.....love to be a bird in a tree to watch this moment in history
I think the guy being cleaved in the head with a sword (same scene as arrow in the eye) is Harold, the arrow is someone else. It's been written that Harold's wife/mistress had to recognise him by his tattoos because his face was gone, an arrow in the eye won't make your face unrecognisable, but a sword to the head can, and clearly did in this case.
Pretty sure thats because they cut his head off
Most modern military historians, think Battle Abbey is actually fairly close to, but not actually on the battlefield of Hastings. Also the most common weapons were spears, not swords.
Tony Roberson is a great story teller
Fantastic. Thanks
Some large details interestingly omitted. 13th October negotiations
"A monk, named Hugues Maigrot, came in William's name to call upon the Saxon King to do one of three things:
either to resign his royalty in favor of William
to refer it to the arbitration of the Pope to decide which of the two ought to be king
or let it be determined by the issue of a single combat
Harold abruptly replied, 'I will not resign my title, I will not refer it to the Pope, nor will I accept the single combat". Harold was far from being deficient in bravery; but he was no more at liberty to stake the crown, which he had received from a whole people, in the chance of a duel than to deposit it in the hands of an Italian priest.
William, not at all ruffled by the Saxon's refusal, but steadily pursuing the course of his calculated measures, sent the Norman monk again, after giving him these instructions: "Go and tell Harold that if he will keep his former compact with me, I will leave to him all the country which is beyond the Humber, and will give his brother Gurth all the lands which Godwin held. If he still persist in refusing my offers, then thou shalt tell him, before all his people, that he is a perjurer and a liar; that he and all who shall support him are excommunicated by the mouth of the Pope, and that the bull to that effect is in my hands."
Pre-fabricated castles that were strategic genius
William made careful plans for the Norman invasion. The Normans were great builders of castles and fully appreciated the great advantages that a castle gave to a fighting force.
Wooden Castles could be erected quickly
Parts to make the wooden castles were pre-built - the timbers were cut to the correct sizes and bolts were used to fit them together
The Romans used a similar system when they built their wooden forts
A suitable place to build on high ground would be located
Carpenters and some of the military would ensure quick construction
The castle would be used to intimidate the local population
A number of fighting men would man the castle, ready to take on any attackers
It would also be used to safely store supplies and equipment together with the horses
Norman chroniclers described the erection of the castle at Pevensey as follows:
"They took counsel together, and looked for a good spot to build a castle on.
They had brought with them in the fleet, three pre-built wooden castles from Normandy, all in pieces, ready for fitting together, and they took the materials of one of these out of the ships, all shaped and pierced to receive the pins which they had brought cut and ready in large barrels; and before evening had set in they had finished a good Castle on English ground, and placed their stores there. All then ate and drank, and were glad to be ashore".
So a very interesting take on Harold and the Norman invasion lead by the Duke of Normandy, William the conqueror but seemed somewhat bias not giving William the credit he was due in his success.
At last! Someone who knows their history 😁
Success fundamentally justified by an oath extorted under duress.
No amount of careful planning and post-event whitewashing can ever remove that stain.
One of the most erudite comments I have ever read. Brava!!!!!!
Bet they got they're flat pack castles from IKEA. Keep it in the family.
Even though I'm of Irish descent I've always had a bias in favor of King Harold, prolly cuz my maternal grandfather was named Harold, and both my father and his father were named Harry. And that was long before watching The Last Kingdom too.
It wasn't the Anglo-Saxon English who did all those vile things to the Irish, but rather the Normans, Welsh and Scots. The Anglo-Saxon "true English" line ended here in 1066 with the death of Harold. After 1066 the Anglo-Saxons themselves became second-class citizens in their own country.
Henry II was a French born and bred King of England and he ordered the invasion of Ireland and with the popes blessing.
The English up to that point had never invaded, if it wasn't for the Normans there's a chance it may have never happened.
Infact up to that point the only people on the receiving end were the English from the Irish not to mention the enslavement of the English.
Everyone of Irish descent should cheer on the English when you see any TV show depicting this part in history, because if that day had gone differently then 800 years of Irish history would have gone differently also.
Nice documentary
Have you got the Bodeccia episode of fact or fiction can’t find it anywhere 🙏
18:46 and onward -- Medieval II music, anyone?