If you made it through childhood, and there wasn't a plague or outbreak of disease or a famine, and you didn't get killed in a war, or murdered, and you weren't a woman (because, childbirth), it wasn't unusual to make it to 60 or 70 - it wasn't unheard of to make it to your 80s. But it would depend on exactly when you were, and where you were - and ironically, monarchs would be less likely to make it to that age because of wars and coups.
24:00 Given that Gibraltar was under Muslim control at this point (like most of Spain and all of North Africa) and Richard was returning from a crusade, that would've been an even poorer choice.
30:10 "Where does this [tonsure] haircut come from?" - Within Christianity (and specifically Roman Catholicism), monks had their scalps shaved in a tonsure that made their remaining hair resemble a crown, because legend had it that the same had been done to St Peter by his enemies to humiliate him during his early years of preaching, and he'd kept the style to honour Christ's crown of thorns. However, other Christian traditions (notably Celtic) had different forms of tonsure, such as shaving the front half of the scalp, and the practice also existed in various forms throughout the ancient world to denote wildly different social ranks such as holy men or slaves, so it's likely the age-old custom just spread and evolved over time, acquiring different styles and meanings to the different religions and cultures that adopted it.
Some things the video either got wrong or left out: Richard Did not hate England as portrayed. Had made an oath to go on crusade while his father was king, he just died before Richard left John offered to pay the Holy Roman Emperor 80,000 marks to keep Richard imprisoned. Richard got out because his mother payed his ransom, 150,000 marks. This did NOT bankrupt the Angevin Empire as often claimed by John apologists and in 1203 John was far richer than Philip Augustus. John Straight murdered Arthur when he was drunk, it wasnt an accidental fire. John wasnt forced back to England, he went back rather than face Phillip out of cowardice. The English lords also had lands in France, they refused to help John because he had killed Arthur and was generally tyrannical. John owned less than half of England at the time of his death, the rest belonged to Louis of France. The Angevin Empire was under no circumstances untenable, it became so due to Johns uselessness. He broke alliances with other nobles, pissed off his own vassals and the pope and was a truly terrible and cowardly general. If someone more like a Richard, Henry V or Edward I had become king the empire would absolutely have lasted. John is far and away the worst English king, Henry VI is the only one that even comes close to his level of incompetence.
4:00 "What was the average age that you died in the Middle Ages?" - Largely depends where you lived and how wealthy you were. But even a prosperous yeoman (essentially the medieval middle-class), if he reached the age of 20 intact, wouldn't bank on getting too far past 50; his peasant neighbours would think themselves lucky to make it past 45. (And of course, half of the population died before they reached 20.) And living a long life wasn't necessarily even considered desirable, at least for men. Whereas women, if they survived childbirth, might attain some status and respect in their later years for their experience and wisdom, a man who reached 60 in a highly patriarchal society could well be seen as feeble, dependent and unmanly unless his body remained in good shape. Some kings and aristocrats stayed fit and healthy enough to play the martial patriarch in their autumn years - Edward I fighting the Scots in his sixties, the marcher lord Baron Mortimer fighting the Despenser War against Edward II at 66 (and dying of battle injuries at 70), 60-year-old Sir Thomas Erpingham fighting at Agincourt - but if you were one of the little folks who'd spent a lifetime behind the plough, the chances are you'd be grateful for five decades and glad if there weren't many more.
In fact John was beaten at the battle of Roche-au-Moine and had to retreat to La Rochelle where he had landed, one month before the Germans were beaten at Bouvines. Bouvines is considered one of the most important battles in European History. This took place 123 years before the beginning of the Hundred Years' War, which was a discontinuous series of wars and campaigns rather than a continuous war. The Plantagenet and Capetians had fought for two centuries for the control of France before the Hundred Years' War began.
10:44 "Is that [portrayal of Becket's death] accurate?" - More or less, allowing for comedic license and a few cherished myths. Henry II certainly ranted about Becket to his household and entourage during Christmas 1170; the famous words "will no one rid me of this turbulent/meddlesome priest?" were an 18th century invention, and the monk Edward Grim (who wasn't actually present) gave Henry's words instead as "what miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!" But the effect was the same: four of Henry's loyal knights travelled to Canterbury, where Edward Grim *was* present to see them attack Becket in the cathedral with their swords, hacking at his head until they sliced off the top of his skull and "scattered [his] brains with the blood across the floor." (Grim himself almost lost an arm trying to defend Becket during the assault.) The idea of Henry being angry with his knights afterward, and arguing that he never meant them to kill Becket, is part of the myth; he never arrested the perpetrators, and actively advised them to flee to Scotland to escape justice. It was the medieval version of plausible deniability: a mob boss getting his underlings to do his dirty work without giving any incriminating orders, and keeping them sweet while they take the rap for him. Which is why "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" has survived as such a useful and allegorical stock phrase in English, even though it's ultimately an anachronism.
In 1275, the first age of consent was set in England, at age 12 (Statute of Westminster I). In 1875, the Offences Against the Person Act raised the age to 13 in Great Britain and Ireland, and ten years later the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 raised it to 16.
No, 100 Years War is under King Edward III, over 100 years later. But really it was the 387 Year War from when William the Bastard took England in 1066 (thus having non-French land) and the final loss of Calais in 1453.
Calais was lost much later than 1453: it was in 1558 in the reign of Mary Tudor (1553-58). The Normans spoke Norman, a form of French, but they would never have considered themselves to be "French" any more than the people living in most of Scotland would have considered themselves "English". The Kingdom of France in those days was very loosely held together with those western provinces acknowledging merely a nominal fealty to the King of France extracted from Rollo the founder of Normandy in exchange for the land. The idea of nationality was yet to come: land and social status were supra-national.
@@MrBulky992 If Normandy wasn't French, then France didn't exist and England too. As the modern idea of a Nation didn't exist and local culture was strong in both places...Your analogy is bad. But if it can reassure an English person :)
@@shakya00 Normandy was a souzerainty within/alongside France: it was a tributary state with political autonomy. That status does not make the inhabitants "French": they just owed allegiance to France (in return for the Norse incomers being allowed to settle there without interference in the previous century). The political organisation of England was completely different: it was more tightly bound with greater centralisation and control. All the former kingdoms were fully absorbed into a unitary state with a developed system of taxation and law.
@@MrBulky992 Normandy was a duchy...as many other parts of France...It is called feudalism. Normandy was mostly inhabited by local people, the vikings that settled mixed ethnically and culturally very quickly and most of the nobility had more french blood than viking ancestors, including the House of Normandy...You never wonder why "Norman" influence in England was mainly coming from French influence ? (like words imported in the vocabulary or some customs). Crazy how English people try to rewrite History for whatever agenda. For England tho, you are right, it was more united.
@@shakya00 Yeah I'm sure it's just English people who do that and not every culture on the planet. I have a feeling it's only statements that go against your own views that stand out. I've never really understood why 'some' French are so quick to claim the actions of the Normans, when it basically led to the massacre of thousands of people. It's a strange flex. I've even seen some claim England became a French colony, which is crazy. I'm pretty sure the duke of Normandy or wherever they later came from were doing it for purely selfish reasons, not for France or the king. Infact it simply created a long-term enemy that would drain resources from both sides for centuries.
Out of the MANY things that were not mentioned on this vid, was the significance of Henry II's parents, ie. Empress Matilda & Geoffrey PLANTAGENET, the Count of Anjou. The Plantagenet Dynasty started from the reign of Henry II & lasted to 1485 when the Tudor IMPOSTERS took over. On a separate note, no one really knows who ordered the murder of the Princes in the Tower in 1483 but at least Richard III had the balls to lead his army and died for his cause on the battlefield of Bosworth. He had not anticipated the treachery of the Stanleys.
As far as I understand it the English had amassed quite an army over the last few hundred years, as the English weren't at war The Barons sbd tge wealthy were trying to employ them as they're own private merceneries, at least thats what the pope thought. He suggested holy crusades as a way to avoid civil disturbances and keep them busy. If you say Magna Carta enough times eventually you'll be right. Still, a funny cartoon.
Hundred years war started 14th century with Edward 111 and his son Edward the Black Prince. Interesting video about the reconstruction of the Black Prince battle dress on a program call Stitch in Time. Think you’ll like this one. 😊
29:43 This is from a 19th-century portrait of King Philip II of France, which we're not sure looks anything like him, but it's kind of used as representation for him a lot.
During the time of Henry 11 and his sons there was a Knight was served all these as Kings. William Marshal ( The Marshal ) The Greatest Knight Who Ever Lived, There was a movie A Knight’s Tale, which was base on him
The Character William Thatcher played by Heath Ledger, was only inspirational for the film. Shame really as they had the opportunity for telling William Marshalls full life story. Serving 5 Kings is an amazing achievement.
The life expectancy in general would probably be around the 50's-60's, possibly even beyond. Middle Ages folk generally ate much healthier than we do today, even with all of the beer they drank, the nobles even more so, monarchs who lived into their 80's, and even their 90's, aren't uncommon. The problem is that of the issue of average ages, which take into account the high infant mortality rate, along with the Black Death, which is why it appears the life expectancy appears to be so low. In reality, if you survived childhood, you were pretty much guaranteed to live into old age, unless you got really unlucky and happened to reach adulthood during the time of the Black Death.
I was under the impression that the disappearance of Arthur of Brittany was assumed by contemporaries to be murder by John. Didn't one chronicler actually say that John killed him in person? He was supposedly prone to fits of uncontrollable rage. I had never heard any claim that he might have died in an accident.
24:06 yeah except back then…Spain was under the rule of the Moors who were Muslims, trying to get through that way would have probably been a very bad idea because he’d just fought against Saladin but honestly any way through Europe would have been stupid. He went with the route that was probably the least likely to end up with his head decorating another king’s walls.
10:19 here’s a fun fact. One of the knights who did this incredibly stupid thing….was a Scottish Noble….he was Henry’s uncle. Only reason I know that is because in a video on Scottish history this same man made out like a bandit. He used all the bad blood between Henry and his family to buy Scotland’s freedom(and a city in England that is still technically under Scottish rule because the English never bought it back before King James became king of England too but they can have it and no one ever corrected it) and then Edward the first tried to ignore it but Scotland pointed out to the Pope that the contract of overlordship Edward and his son Edward tried to point to was null and void because Scotland had paid for its freedom. Meh I’d check that declaration of independence because if the English recognise it there’s probably some Weasley back door clause that’ll put America back under Britain’s rule(just saying).
45:39 It was the latter. Basically the Popes were like referees, back in the day, if two countries had a dispute that was going nowhere, the Pope would step in to find a way to make things work again. I mean the Declaration of Arbroath, Scotland's most sacred document is a letter and a case to the Pope to get the English to stop the Scottish wars of independence because they'd lost by this stage and basically Edward the II was like "I won so there! You can't make me accept Robert the Bruce is King and that I am not overlord of Scotland" and the Pope basically said "Either you accept you lost or I'll excommunicate the entirety of England making you fair game for everyone else in Europe including France, Scotland and anyone else who wants an easy target for plunder without the fear I'll throw them out of the church club" and Edward be like "But Robert was excommunicated" and the Pope be like "Was he? Easy fix. Welcome back to the club! Robert my boy! Now do you want Ireland?".....The Pope didn't have an army but he didn't really need one, heck the Vatican only had an army from 1929 till 1970 because before then the Pope could be like "Uhhhh yeah I don't like France....Spain could you fix that for me?" heck you mentioned Henry the VIII? Bet you didn't know the Pope gave him the title of "Defender of the Faith" for beating up the French before he went "Need an heir!" crazy.
15:12 Yeah I agree. Though Napoleon isn’t the best example because he was amazing(and I’m British so I shouldn’t say that about an Italian….because they beat us in the rugby recently). He tried to bring the Spanish Inquisition to an end, made all of Europe quake in its boots and only mucked it up by not making America pay back its debt(you guys still owe the French quite a chuck change….geeze let’s hope the interest rate is good for that loan because otherwise….yeeese) forcing him to go to war with Russia(okay there were other factors but I’m British and blaming America for everything is a National passtime, I’m only joking and I don’t mean any ill will).
1:01 I said this on the original video. That didn’t happen! Shakespeare or Bekant made it up! It is true Richard’s brother drowned in whine but he died a full year before a border war between Scotland and England. A war led by Richard and started by him! Back then wars took time to prepare for. Richard was probably in Yorkshire prepping his army for the campaign. His brother, who was a traitor, died in London, he was to be given the traitor’s death for a noble (head comes off) but King Edward(Richard’s other brother) was asked by his mother to show mercy and he said “Yeah okay” and allowed his traitorous little brother to choose how he died and Clarence(no that wasn’t his name but what he is often referred to as, see why I went for other brother) had a fondness for Malmsey wine, so he asked to be drowned in the stuff and honestly if I could be drowned in Irn Bru and death was unavoidable I’d go for it.
32:22 I have no clue. You've probably just nailed both reasons as to why it kept happening but lord knows what came first. If I were a betting block(And i'am because me betting a tenner on Scotland on Saturday was a bad idea) I'd say it probably was the keep it in the family thing followed by the whole make the excuse thing.....but who knows. It's probably true that at some point all the royal/noble families of Europe weren't related but given marrying Peasants wasn't really an option(No Disney Aladdin BS here) and that Marriages could do several things including raising military strength and trade(don't ask me how it's just what tended to happen), marrying your second cousin five times removed was about as distant a relation as most nobles back then married. Heck John's Sister was nearly married off to Saladin's brother(Till she told Richard to F off) and that would probably have been the least incestuous marriage of that era(Well if you ignore how Sultans did things).
27:45 That depends on who you ask. If I was the mayor of London I’d be like “Rot in heck!” Because Richard tried to sell London at one point(nobody wanted it not even Scotland who was the first people he tried to sell it to….Scotland be like nah we just bought back our freedom we’re skint but at least it was worth it! Not like John’s grandson is going to totally ignore this and pretend he is still overlord of us right….1294, oh come on!). Richard also wasn’t wearing any armour when the boy shot him….which is why a boy with a barely functioning crossbow was able to kill him.
You said it couldn't have been much better with the situation deteriorating in France but...if you remember he inherited the Angevin Empire and despite losing against Philippe Auguste (king of France), he then was part of a powerful European coalition against a diminished France and still got his ass kicked by the French king and also if we add the fact that he gave so much power to the pope over England due to his decisions prior and that the Barons rebelled due to his loses diminishing even more his power as king... Nah, his legacy was very bad despite being in a very good starting point.
4:17 I asked this once in history class but I made the cut off 5. According to my history teacher back then he said it varied. It depended greatly on your social class for starters(in some eras you were better off being a peasant because a doctor in the noble court was as good at their job as I would be as US president….my first order is to give all America’s money to Scotland! See ya suckers! Only joking!) but rule of thumb medieval period you were better off as a noble because you were away from the commoners, tudors were that period where doctors were hiss and miss. Stuart era and Georgian era your better off as a peasant because Mercury was seen as a cure….yeah not the best idea. Victorian era definitely better to be rich because your back to away from the commoners and as a poor kid you were more likely to get stuck up a chimney. But generally once your out of being a young kid, life expectancy was about average you’d probably not make it beyond your 60s but John’s mother made it into her 80s and I know one of the Bishop of Coventry’s was in his late 90s when he is recorded to talking to Elizabeth Woodville. So living that long was rare but it still happened. Basically though if you’re living today you’ll probably live longer because doctors today don’t try known poisons as a cure!
John might deserve the title of 'worst king', but having a bad king did lead to some positive changes in the long-run as it allowed England to figure out how to run itself rather than just relying on the King's word being final. The same goes for Charles I, the lasting consequences are pretty huge. Also it was around this time that English nationalism was on the rise. One of the reasons John managed to overthrow his brother's top guy, William de Longchamp, was due to the latter's inability to speak English. Showing that as early as the 1190's, not being able to speak English was seen as a major weakness for a position of power.
42:52 I really need to show some self control....oh well. No. the Hundred Years war....well let's put it this way. King John, King Henry III, King Edward I, King Edward II and King Edward III, it's under his reign the 100 years started in 1337 and lasted till 1453.....so not so much the 100 years war more like the 116 years war.
11:55 I’m sorry I’m a history nut but that isn’t what actually happened. The lands the queen brought with her into marriage were hers and Richard the lion heart would inherit them. So the two were actually peeved because behind their backs Henry was selling pieces of it to other people. Just because they were married didn’t mean the king got to rule her lands, they were still hers and Richard was like “Hoi that’s my inheritance! Ya old prat!”.
I didn't understand how Henry II could have "regained control of Scotland". Did he or his predecessors ever have it? To be honest, I thought it was the opposite i.e. the Scots who, in the reign of David I (1124-1153), had temporary control over the northern part of England so any territory regained by Henry II (1154-1189) was (northern) England, as it had been since Aethelstan created England in 927.
80% of English people are descended from King Edward III (who started the 100 Years War to get back the lands lost in France by John). King Edward is descended from King John. So that makes many of us probable descendants of King John.
Henry II had inept sons. Ironically his wife Eleanor of Acquitaine had more balls than any of her sons. Richard (1) the Loin heart hardly spent any time in England and then got himself kidnapped on the way home from the costly Crusade and then bankrupted England AGAIN with his ransom. John was crap and was also beset with bad judgement & luck. The best thing about John was his son, Henry III, who reigned for a long time and a lot of the development of Westminster Abbey, occurred during this reign ......
Yes the Pope had some real Power back in that Day. He ruled over a good part of Italy known as the Papel States and he obviously had an Army. The Pope also had his own Family including his Children and they could also have a lot of Power. Just watch the TV Show The Borgias and you know what I mean. And last the Pope could excommunicate a King and that means that the People are no longer bound by their oath to be loyal to the King. A German King had to go all the way to the Castle of Canossa and wait outside until the Pope finally forgave him.
Incorrect. Some popes had kids because for some before the 1200s clerical marriage wasn't seen as an issue. Innocent III never had children and was single all his life.
34:24 Hate to say it but we as a specie we still haven't collectively agreed on that given that child marriages are still a thing....there are several charities worldwide fighting to stop them. I just googled how many happen each year.....the number is in the millions. It's disgusting, wrong and anyone caught arranging such a thing should go to prison and never be let back out but they still happen. I googled the numbers but the statistics make me want to throw up.
If you made it through childhood, and there wasn't a plague or outbreak of disease or a famine, and you didn't get killed in a war, or murdered, and you weren't a woman (because, childbirth), it wasn't unusual to make it to 60 or 70 - it wasn't unheard of to make it to your 80s. But it would depend on exactly when you were, and where you were - and ironically, monarchs would be less likely to make it to that age because of wars and coups.
24:00 Given that Gibraltar was under Muslim control at this point (like most of Spain and all of North Africa) and Richard was returning from a crusade, that would've been an even poorer choice.
30:10 "Where does this [tonsure] haircut come from?" - Within Christianity (and specifically Roman Catholicism), monks had their scalps shaved in a tonsure that made their remaining hair resemble a crown, because legend had it that the same had been done to St Peter by his enemies to humiliate him during his early years of preaching, and he'd kept the style to honour Christ's crown of thorns. However, other Christian traditions (notably Celtic) had different forms of tonsure, such as shaving the front half of the scalp, and the practice also existed in various forms throughout the ancient world to denote wildly different social ranks such as holy men or slaves, so it's likely the age-old custom just spread and evolved over time, acquiring different styles and meanings to the different religions and cultures that adopted it.
Some things the video either got wrong or left out:
Richard
Did not hate England as portrayed.
Had made an oath to go on crusade while his father was king, he just died before Richard left
John offered to pay the Holy Roman Emperor 80,000 marks to keep Richard imprisoned.
Richard got out because his mother payed his ransom, 150,000 marks. This did NOT bankrupt the Angevin Empire as often claimed by John apologists and in 1203 John was far richer than Philip Augustus.
John
Straight murdered Arthur when he was drunk, it wasnt an accidental fire.
John wasnt forced back to England, he went back rather than face Phillip out of cowardice.
The English lords also had lands in France, they refused to help John because he had killed Arthur and was generally tyrannical.
John owned less than half of England at the time of his death, the rest belonged to Louis of France.
The Angevin Empire was under no circumstances untenable, it became so due to Johns uselessness. He broke alliances with other nobles, pissed off his own vassals and the pope and was a truly terrible and cowardly general. If someone more like a Richard, Henry V or Edward I had become king the empire would absolutely have lasted. John is far and away the worst English king, Henry VI is the only one that even comes close to his level of incompetence.
4:00 "What was the average age that you died in the Middle Ages?" - Largely depends where you lived and how wealthy you were. But even a prosperous yeoman (essentially the medieval middle-class), if he reached the age of 20 intact, wouldn't bank on getting too far past 50; his peasant neighbours would think themselves lucky to make it past 45. (And of course, half of the population died before they reached 20.) And living a long life wasn't necessarily even considered desirable, at least for men. Whereas women, if they survived childbirth, might attain some status and respect in their later years for their experience and wisdom, a man who reached 60 in a highly patriarchal society could well be seen as feeble, dependent and unmanly unless his body remained in good shape. Some kings and aristocrats stayed fit and healthy enough to play the martial patriarch in their autumn years - Edward I fighting the Scots in his sixties, the marcher lord Baron Mortimer fighting the Despenser War against Edward II at 66 (and dying of battle injuries at 70), 60-year-old Sir Thomas Erpingham fighting at Agincourt - but if you were one of the little folks who'd spent a lifetime behind the plough, the chances are you'd be grateful for five decades and glad if there weren't many more.
The thing about John is that he has no redeeming features or achievements to set against his failures.
Actually, he had.
In fact John was beaten at the battle of Roche-au-Moine and had to retreat to La Rochelle where he had landed, one month before the Germans were beaten at Bouvines. Bouvines is considered one of the most important battles in European History.
This took place 123 years before the beginning of the Hundred Years' War, which was a discontinuous series of wars and campaigns rather than a continuous war. The Plantagenet and Capetians had fought for two centuries for the control of France before the Hundred Years' War began.
10:44 "Is that [portrayal of Becket's death] accurate?" - More or less, allowing for comedic license and a few cherished myths. Henry II certainly ranted about Becket to his household and entourage during Christmas 1170; the famous words "will no one rid me of this turbulent/meddlesome priest?" were an 18th century invention, and the monk Edward Grim (who wasn't actually present) gave Henry's words instead as "what miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!" But the effect was the same: four of Henry's loyal knights travelled to Canterbury, where Edward Grim *was* present to see them attack Becket in the cathedral with their swords, hacking at his head until they sliced off the top of his skull and "scattered [his] brains with the blood across the floor." (Grim himself almost lost an arm trying to defend Becket during the assault.)
The idea of Henry being angry with his knights afterward, and arguing that he never meant them to kill Becket, is part of the myth; he never arrested the perpetrators, and actively advised them to flee to Scotland to escape justice. It was the medieval version of plausible deniability: a mob boss getting his underlings to do his dirty work without giving any incriminating orders, and keeping them sweet while they take the rap for him. Which is why "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" has survived as such a useful and allegorical stock phrase in English, even though it's ultimately an anachronism.
55:18 Wait...It is Vlogging Through History (UA-cam channel that does History reaction videos too) that did the voice !
In 1275, the first age of consent was set in England, at age 12 (Statute of Westminster I). In 1875, the Offences Against the Person Act raised the age to 13 in Great Britain and Ireland, and ten years later the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 raised it to 16.
No, 100 Years War is under King Edward III, over 100 years later. But really it was the 387 Year War from when William the Bastard took England in 1066 (thus having non-French land) and the final loss of Calais in 1453.
Calais was lost much later than 1453: it was in 1558 in the reign of Mary Tudor (1553-58).
The Normans spoke Norman, a form of French, but they would never have considered themselves to be "French" any more than the people living in most of Scotland would have considered themselves "English". The Kingdom of France in those days was very loosely held together with those western provinces acknowledging merely a nominal fealty to the King of France extracted from Rollo the founder of Normandy in exchange for the land. The idea of nationality was yet to come: land and social status were supra-national.
@@MrBulky992 If Normandy wasn't French, then France didn't exist and England too. As the modern idea of a Nation didn't exist and local culture was strong in both places...Your analogy is bad. But if it can reassure an English person :)
@@shakya00 Normandy was a souzerainty within/alongside France: it was a tributary state with political autonomy. That status does not make the inhabitants "French": they just owed allegiance to France (in return for the Norse incomers being allowed to settle there without interference in the previous century).
The political organisation of England was completely different: it was more tightly bound with greater centralisation and control. All the former kingdoms were fully absorbed into a unitary state with a developed system of taxation and law.
@@MrBulky992 Normandy was a duchy...as many other parts of France...It is called feudalism. Normandy was mostly inhabited by local people, the vikings that settled mixed ethnically and culturally very quickly and most of the nobility had more french blood than viking ancestors, including the House of Normandy...You never wonder why "Norman" influence in England was mainly coming from French influence ? (like words imported in the vocabulary or some customs).
Crazy how English people try to rewrite History for whatever agenda.
For England tho, you are right, it was more united.
@@shakya00 Yeah I'm sure it's just English people who do that and not every culture on the planet. I have a feeling it's only statements that go against your own views that stand out.
I've never really understood why 'some' French are so quick to claim the actions of the Normans, when it basically led to the massacre of thousands of people. It's a strange flex. I've even seen some claim England became a French colony, which is crazy. I'm pretty sure the duke of Normandy or wherever they later came from were doing it for purely selfish reasons, not for France or the king. Infact it simply created a long-term enemy that would drain resources from both sides for centuries.
The Angevin Empire is interesting, but first I must tell you how I wipe my arse 😅.
I think Pope Innocent's accent is supposed to be Italian American (specifically New Jersey, like The Sopranos), because he's Italian, you know.
I might be wrong though... he just said "bubbe"...
Out of the MANY things that were not mentioned on this vid, was the significance of Henry II's parents, ie. Empress Matilda & Geoffrey PLANTAGENET, the Count of Anjou. The Plantagenet Dynasty started from the reign of Henry II & lasted to 1485 when the Tudor IMPOSTERS took over. On a separate note, no one really knows who ordered the murder of the Princes in the Tower in 1483 but at least Richard III had the balls to lead his army and died for his cause on the battlefield of Bosworth. He had not anticipated the treachery of the Stanleys.
As far as I understand it the English had amassed quite an army over the last few hundred years, as the English weren't at war The Barons sbd tge wealthy were trying to employ them as they're own private merceneries, at least thats what the pope thought. He suggested holy crusades as a way to avoid civil disturbances and keep them busy.
If you say Magna Carta enough times eventually you'll be right.
Still, a funny cartoon.
We actually don't know what killed Geoffrey ... one version is "trampled to death in a jousting tournament".
Hundred years war started 14th century with Edward 111 and his son Edward the Black Prince. Interesting video about the reconstruction of the Black Prince battle dress on a program call Stitch in Time. Think you’ll like this one. 😊
A monk's tonsure represents the crown of thorns of Jesus.
29:43 This is from a 19th-century portrait of King Philip II of France, which we're not sure looks anything like him, but it's kind of used as representation for him a lot.
During the time of Henry 11 and his sons there was a Knight was served all these as Kings. William Marshal ( The Marshal ) The Greatest Knight Who Ever Lived, There was a movie A Knight’s Tale, which was base on him
The Character William Thatcher played by Heath Ledger, was only inspirational for the film. Shame really as they had the opportunity for telling William Marshalls full life story. Serving 5 Kings is an amazing achievement.
The life expectancy in general would probably be around the 50's-60's, possibly even beyond. Middle Ages folk generally ate much healthier than we do today, even with all of the beer they drank, the nobles even more so, monarchs who lived into their 80's, and even their 90's, aren't uncommon.
The problem is that of the issue of average ages, which take into account the high infant mortality rate, along with the Black Death, which is why it appears the life expectancy appears to be so low. In reality, if you survived childhood, you were pretty much guaranteed to live into old age, unless you got really unlucky and happened to reach adulthood during the time of the Black Death.
I was under the impression that the disappearance of Arthur of Brittany was assumed by contemporaries to be murder by John. Didn't one chronicler actually say that John killed him in person? He was supposedly prone to fits of uncontrollable rage. I had never heard any claim that he might have died in an accident.
24:06 yeah except back then…Spain was under the rule of the Moors who were Muslims, trying to get through that way would have probably been a very bad idea because he’d just fought against Saladin but honestly any way through Europe would have been stupid. He went with the route that was probably the least likely to end up with his head decorating another king’s walls.
10:19 here’s a fun fact. One of the knights who did this incredibly stupid thing….was a Scottish Noble….he was Henry’s uncle. Only reason I know that is because in a video on Scottish history this same man made out like a bandit. He used all the bad blood between Henry and his family to buy Scotland’s freedom(and a city in England that is still technically under Scottish rule because the English never bought it back before King James became king of England too but they can have it and no one ever corrected it) and then Edward the first tried to ignore it but Scotland pointed out to the Pope that the contract of overlordship Edward and his son Edward tried to point to was null and void because Scotland had paid for its freedom. Meh I’d check that declaration of independence because if the English recognise it there’s probably some Weasley back door clause that’ll put America back under Britain’s rule(just saying).
45:39 It was the latter. Basically the Popes were like referees, back in the day, if two countries had a dispute that was going nowhere, the Pope would step in to find a way to make things work again. I mean the Declaration of Arbroath, Scotland's most sacred document is a letter and a case to the Pope to get the English to stop the Scottish wars of independence because they'd lost by this stage and basically Edward the II was like "I won so there! You can't make me accept Robert the Bruce is King and that I am not overlord of Scotland" and the Pope basically said "Either you accept you lost or I'll excommunicate the entirety of England making you fair game for everyone else in Europe including France, Scotland and anyone else who wants an easy target for plunder without the fear I'll throw them out of the church club" and Edward be like "But Robert was excommunicated" and the Pope be like "Was he? Easy fix. Welcome back to the club! Robert my boy! Now do you want Ireland?".....The Pope didn't have an army but he didn't really need one, heck the Vatican only had an army from 1929 till 1970 because before then the Pope could be like "Uhhhh yeah I don't like France....Spain could you fix that for me?" heck you mentioned Henry the VIII? Bet you didn't know the Pope gave him the title of "Defender of the Faith" for beating up the French before he went "Need an heir!" crazy.
15:12 Yeah I agree. Though Napoleon isn’t the best example because he was amazing(and I’m British so I shouldn’t say that about an Italian….because they beat us in the rugby recently). He tried to bring the Spanish Inquisition to an end, made all of Europe quake in its boots and only mucked it up by not making America pay back its debt(you guys still owe the French quite a chuck change….geeze let’s hope the interest rate is good for that loan because otherwise….yeeese) forcing him to go to war with Russia(okay there were other factors but I’m British and blaming America for everything is a National passtime, I’m only joking and I don’t mean any ill will).
Toilet paper should hang over, to invite people to use it. Well that's what my Grandma told me as a child.🤣
In retrospect, John's reign really started to go downhill when he appointed Sir Hiss as his chief advisor.
You should look into William Marshall Connor, a really interesting knight in history.✌🏼
1:01 I said this on the original video. That didn’t happen! Shakespeare or Bekant made it up! It is true Richard’s brother drowned in whine but he died a full year before a border war between Scotland and England. A war led by Richard and started by him! Back then wars took time to prepare for. Richard was probably in Yorkshire prepping his army for the campaign. His brother, who was a traitor, died in London, he was to be given the traitor’s death for a noble (head comes off) but King Edward(Richard’s other brother) was asked by his mother to show mercy and he said “Yeah okay” and allowed his traitorous little brother to choose how he died and Clarence(no that wasn’t his name but what he is often referred to as, see why I went for other brother) had a fondness for Malmsey wine, so he asked to be drowned in the stuff and honestly if I could be drowned in Irn Bru and death was unavoidable I’d go for it.
32:22 I have no clue. You've probably just nailed both reasons as to why it kept happening but lord knows what came first. If I were a betting block(And i'am because me betting a tenner on Scotland on Saturday was a bad idea) I'd say it probably was the keep it in the family thing followed by the whole make the excuse thing.....but who knows. It's probably true that at some point all the royal/noble families of Europe weren't related but given marrying Peasants wasn't really an option(No Disney Aladdin BS here) and that Marriages could do several things including raising military strength and trade(don't ask me how it's just what tended to happen), marrying your second cousin five times removed was about as distant a relation as most nobles back then married. Heck John's Sister was nearly married off to Saladin's brother(Till she told Richard to F off) and that would probably have been the least incestuous marriage of that era(Well if you ignore how Sultans did things).
27:45 That depends on who you ask. If I was the mayor of London I’d be like “Rot in heck!” Because Richard tried to sell London at one point(nobody wanted it not even Scotland who was the first people he tried to sell it to….Scotland be like nah we just bought back our freedom we’re skint but at least it was worth it! Not like John’s grandson is going to totally ignore this and pretend he is still overlord of us right….1294, oh come on!). Richard also wasn’t wearing any armour when the boy shot him….which is why a boy with a barely functioning crossbow was able to kill him.
You said it couldn't have been much better with the situation deteriorating in France but...if you remember he inherited the Angevin Empire and despite losing against Philippe Auguste (king of France), he then was part of a powerful European coalition against a diminished France and still got his ass kicked by the French king and also if we add the fact that he gave so much power to the pope over England due to his decisions prior and that the Barons rebelled due to his loses diminishing even more his power as king...
Nah, his legacy was very bad despite being in a very good starting point.
4:17 I asked this once in history class but I made the cut off 5. According to my history teacher back then he said it varied. It depended greatly on your social class for starters(in some eras you were better off being a peasant because a doctor in the noble court was as good at their job as I would be as US president….my first order is to give all America’s money to Scotland! See ya suckers! Only joking!) but rule of thumb medieval period you were better off as a noble because you were away from the commoners, tudors were that period where doctors were hiss and miss. Stuart era and Georgian era your better off as a peasant because Mercury was seen as a cure….yeah not the best idea. Victorian era definitely better to be rich because your back to away from the commoners and as a poor kid you were more likely to get stuck up a chimney. But generally once your out of being a young kid, life expectancy was about average you’d probably not make it beyond your 60s but John’s mother made it into her 80s and I know one of the Bishop of Coventry’s was in his late 90s when he is recorded to talking to Elizabeth Woodville. So living that long was rare but it still happened. Basically though if you’re living today you’ll probably live longer because doctors today don’t try known poisons as a cure!
John might deserve the title of 'worst king', but having a bad king did lead to some positive changes in the long-run as it allowed England to figure out how to run itself rather than just relying on the King's word being final. The same goes for Charles I, the lasting consequences are pretty huge.
Also it was around this time that English nationalism was on the rise. One of the reasons John managed to overthrow his brother's top guy, William de Longchamp, was due to the latter's inability to speak English. Showing that as early as the 1190's, not being able to speak English was seen as a major weakness for a position of power.
42:52 I really need to show some self control....oh well. No. the Hundred Years war....well let's put it this way. King John, King Henry III, King Edward I, King Edward II and King Edward III, it's under his reign the 100 years started in 1337 and lasted till 1453.....so not so much the 100 years war more like the 116 years war.
11:55 I’m sorry I’m a history nut but that isn’t what actually happened. The lands the queen brought with her into marriage were hers and Richard the lion heart would inherit them. So the two were actually peeved because behind their backs Henry was selling pieces of it to other people. Just because they were married didn’t mean the king got to rule her lands, they were still hers and Richard was like “Hoi that’s my inheritance! Ya old prat!”.
I didn't understand how Henry II could have "regained control of Scotland". Did he or his predecessors ever have it?
To be honest, I thought it was the opposite i.e. the Scots who, in the reign of David I (1124-1153), had temporary control over the northern part of England so any territory regained by Henry II (1154-1189) was (northern) England, as it had been since Aethelstan created England in 927.
80% of English people are descended from King Edward III (who started the 100 Years War to get back the lands lost in France by John). King Edward is descended from King John. So that makes many of us probable descendants of King John.
Henry II had inept sons. Ironically his wife Eleanor of Acquitaine had more balls than any of her sons. Richard (1) the Loin heart hardly spent any time in England and then got himself kidnapped on the way home from the costly Crusade and then bankrupted England AGAIN with his ransom. John was crap and was also beset with bad judgement & luck. The best thing about John was his son, Henry III, who reigned for a long time and a lot of the development of Westminster Abbey, occurred during this reign ......
Yes the Pope had some real Power back in that Day. He ruled over a good part of Italy known as the Papel States and he obviously had an Army. The Pope also had his own Family including his Children and they could also have a lot of Power.
Just watch the TV Show The Borgias and you know what I mean.
And last the Pope could excommunicate a King and that means that the People are no longer bound by their oath to be loyal to the King.
A German King had to go all the way to the Castle of Canossa and wait outside until the Pope finally forgave him.
Incorrect. Some popes had kids because for some before the 1200s clerical marriage wasn't seen as an issue. Innocent III never had children and was single all his life.
34:24 Hate to say it but we as a specie we still haven't collectively agreed on that given that child marriages are still a thing....there are several charities worldwide fighting to stop them. I just googled how many happen each year.....the number is in the millions. It's disgusting, wrong and anyone caught arranging such a thing should go to prison and never be let back out but they still happen. I googled the numbers but the statistics make me want to throw up.
Omg the attempt at English accents 😅😅 very funny 😊
Not a very good "clip" and about fortyfive minutes too long.