Normandy was a land from France with a duc and a king ,,,the king of France and the normans in hastings are speaking only french,,,not norman,,,Dieu et mon droit - Honni soit qui mal y pense
good show! I got more information about this battle.
I read in one science article that if Harold won the battle, the saxons and vikings would have total controll over the british isle and more viking cities would be founded. Britain would be the base where vikings can make new expedition far to west, where they can colonise the coast of america and the viking will also expand to the east to rusia and make it a nation.
its just speculations, but incredible how much a battle can change.
Yet again another video that forgets about what happened after he reached London and crossed Wallingford bridge and headed for the town of Berkhamsted to take the final surrender of Archbishop Ealdred, the Bishops of Worcester and Hereford, Earls Eadwin and Morcar, and the chief men of London, who swore allegiance to him, and offered him the crown. Berkhamsted is a very important part but it's the part that is never mentioned.
why did they keep chasing them! reminds me of those annoying vultures and marines in star craft that give chase to the enemy and breakup my defense line!
TWING! HEAD SHOT!... You wouldnt be surprised if the Normans sank that low? WELL GUESS WHAT SUN SHINE, I WANT TO HANG YOU TILL YOU KICK AROUND, THEN CUT OPEN YOUR STOMACH, RIP OUT ALL OF YOUR INSIDES WHILE YOUR STILL ALIVE, BURN THEM, CUT OF YOU LEGS AND ARMS AND CHUCK THEM IN THE SEA WITH YOUR, ''KING'' HUUUUURRAAAAHHHHH!!!
see, look here, england may still exist, but theoretically, it was under french control. thing about it, they won and they were french, so england really didnt exist past 1066 AD
They werent French, they were Norman, there was no France as a nation back then. Check out the Norman attacks, plundering and burning of Rouen, Paris, Mortimar and even as far down as Bordeaux. The coastal towns and hamlets of the Franks, lived in perpetual fear of the savage and unscrupulous Norman's.
The King of the Franks had to come to terms with the Normans, they were totally uncontrollable, and that's when they were giving Normandy and everything in it.
i am not religous, but this is yet another was where religion has been involved. lol do christians never think religion is used to get ppl to do what higher ups want and keep ppl in place? also i wonder how accurate this is, it doesnt seem like a human reaction to chase fleeing enemies when you help your friends who are still locked in battle by charging the flank or rear
Wow....a funny bunch of a few thousand infantry and 'cavalry' men fighting for a poor island described as one of the most important facts in history...5 years later in 1071 the Byzantines assembled for the battle of Matzikert about 40.000 men (a quite depressing number for their standards) and the nomadic-then Turks about 30.000.These 'new age' documentaries are lucking a sense of historic responsibility I think...
To end the stream of bollocks called comments I dont like my father as he is an arse who left my mother, but i'm part of his blood so, so be it. Now back on topic. This documentary is good, i've been at the hastings reenactment every year since 2006 (whens its gone on) and each time we get a little further hehe..better luck next time King ;-) give those Normans a good run for their money.
the Celts only made up most northern Ireland and Scotland. The Anglo-Saxons (Saxons for short) were a germanic group from northwestern Germany that immigrated to Britain. So before you go off saying what you think is right, check the facts.
@Bjjownsu10 the britons were actually gaelic not celtic, celts were from the balkans, read up ancient greeka dn roman texts, celts came to briton under flase pretences on june 21st 1795 when ignorant actors started a druid sect in london, they used the name celtic and it has stuck ever since, a total misconception that is actually now thouroughly believed by the masses
lol, an american telling a briton his own heritage and history, i like that, as i said, celts are from the balkans north of the danube, read it up, also read up about celts being introduced to the uk in 1795 in the QI General Book Of Ignorance, quite intresting actually, but one thing for sure, i do know my british and ancient history without that last reference point
iberian where not celtic, they where originally the migrating peoples decended from the north african tribesthat belonged to the cult of the bull, these people spread across from egypt over many thousands of years, wherever they stopped they settled, mixed with whichever poplulation was already present and then after af ew generations their decendants moved further west, eventually into spain, they have roots in many races and many tribes, the sea people (ancestors of carthage) being one of them
it was a 3phase migration, as i mentioned about the sea people and the cult of the bull, they were the druids, among other people to arrive were supposed survivors from the fall of troy, they intermixed with these druids, also the gaels arrived from france, the decendants from these 3 migrations were the people the romans eventually came to conquer
@Bjjownsu10 i didnt say you did say that lol, i was just stating a fact, the answer to your question of who were the people in briatin pre-rman invasion is gaels, not celts, i already made this clear, celts being referenced to britons is a relatively more modern reference than most people actually believe, dont believe me, dont believe historical scripts written in modern books, read older mauscripts and texts
@LordoftheHornets All the sources I have looked say that the Gaels are celtic, so I'm going to stick to that. But, now the next point is what is the typical English person made of??? In my opinion the English have never been fond of Germans or see them as brothers, but still some claim anglo-saxon heritage.
all the sources oyu havce probably looked at are probably not ancient sources which you never studied, i have both gaelic and saxon heritage in my family and am very proud of both, i am a briton form britain and should know a thing or two about my own history heritage and culture, im sorry that you wont believe me in any way whatsoever but it is me living on the frontline of this historical matter at hand and not you who are many many miles away, it is like me saying your incan not american >>>
on this matter but in reference to never having been fond of germans that is also untrue, it wasnt until the 1900's that this came to the fore, pre-1900's the german people were a great support to britain in their many wars against the papal states of france italy and spain, without their help and support britain would never have been a nation free from papal dictation for these past many centuries, until 1904 with our treaty of entente with france germany was our greatest ally
It doesn't matter if the English dislike Germans. Just because someone doesn't like their father it doesn't then cut their bloodline off from their father. Secondly the Saxons weren't Germans, they were Saxons. A Germanic tribe yes but not Germans.
@Urinesauce The average English guy doesn't look very Germanic, its obvious the English are a mixture of peoples and they are not more Germanic than they are celtic.
@LordoftheHornets I never said Iberians were Celtic so don't put words I didn't say. So, you are saying before the Roman conquest of Britannia the people were a mixture of races and tribes????But, please don't bring the Troy bs that stuff is unreliable.
The Saxons did use archers to some degree but not sufficiently. If Harold had stayed in London and waited for his forces to replenish, he could of had a massive force of about 15 thousand men, and had time to plan strategy. Thus bringing archers, maybe some cavalry although they rarely used cavalry. The Normans luck was unbelievable to say the least. They should of been slaughtered. If the Saxons could last till nightfall, a fresh bunch of reinforcements was on the way, and they would of won.
"The Normans luck was unbelievable to say the least. They should of been slaughtered."- Urinesauce
Dude, providence...its called providence. After all it was the Normands that were carrying the Roman Catholic standard...Harold shoulda kept his promise to William after he saved him from that shipwreck. Karma finally caught up to Harold.
Poor Saxon England. Really well-acted segment. The "occupation" lasted for centuries, they said. Are they actually implying it ended or just defining what has existed until today? I wonder if your typical Brit still sees the ruling classes as outsider "Norman-esque" men and more identifies with his Saxon past.
well losts of things happened since the Norman conquest... the civil war, cromwell, various instances of a different set of people becoming the elites, the protestant reformation, William of Orange,rise of the industrialists, mass immigration... "Brits" arent just saxons being ruled by french speaking nobles living in forts on muddy hills
@Bierreisender Of course there is a bigger and more profound Anglo-Saxon heritage and identity in England today.
Historia Brittonum 830 and of course the Anglo Saxon Chronicles which acknowledges English identity and self rule through Egbert of Wessex, there are countless other examples also.
But you just have to see all your shires that are still very much alive in England today, so Saxon-ness still very alive.
harold had the battle won if his stupid left flank didnt give chase. simple envelopment maneuver and they could have smashed the cavalry with axes. he was cursed that day. luck plays a huge role in most significant batlles.
It would have been nearly impossible, given the Saxon method of dismounted, front line command, to have coordinated such a maneuver. Similarly, the mere suggestion that the mostly-conscript Saxon army could take down the Norman heavy cavalry is ludicrous.
@Jaybyrdxxx Yes, and that person would be you. It is wrong to assume that because Normandy TODAY is part of France, that it is correct to state that the Normans THEN were French. They weren't They French, they were Norman. France did not exist. The Normans were quite different to the largely Frankish and Gallo-Roman population in that they were from Scandinavia. Today of course, after centuries of intermingling, the French race is far more homogenous than 1000 years ago. Educate yourself.
@IncaRoad01 yes , but it became norman country only after the siedge of paris (886 year ) before that it was france 's. and meny french people staied in normandy for a longe time.so when wiliam came to counquer england meny of his trups where french that have stayed in normandy after the siedge of paris 886 year
@TheVikiLaki the normans are the northern french ,,,, and the word normand means north man william was from england and returned , he was promised half of the kingdom of england for his partisapation in this battle
@IncaRoad01 Were the Normans culturally similar to us Anglo-Saxons?
I'm starting to...well basically take an interest in Englands history being English myself and it's definetely amazing to see, hear and learn of our ancestors.
@Jaybyrdxxx no sweat the history is clear and reads quite easy , i dont see how any one could make this mistake theres so much written and this is taught so much because we have all the facts of whos who and what they did ,,,
@Jaybyrdxxx dude ur the one who needs to review their history, france wasn't a nation until a few years before the Hundred years war. It was made up of frankish kings, and independent states
@IncaRoad01 what ? ummm no they were french ,, and the word means north man and even today is france and counts for 5.5 percent of the french population , and william was not french or normand he was english
@harshvgaus I don't think luck is truly that important in the battle of Hastings. If I had to pick the battle that has been decided mostly by luck, it'd be the battle of Midway.
Overall though, luck rarely is the most important factor that wins battles. It'd be the forces themselves: their numbers and training as well as the quality of their commanders.
The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and destroy its victim.
@harshvgaus in the art of war, it is written that if the general doesn't give clear orders, it is his fault if they all fail. If the general gives clear orders and the soldiers don't comply, it is their fault. Harold gave clear orders (according to this prog). He told them that the shield wall should hold, no matter what. The saxon soldiers broke ranks, broke discipline, broke the wall and lost. Though I agree with you that luck is important, in this battle, discipline was key.
1) NEVER call the Normans French. They were of Danish descnet, given the land in France by Charles the Simple in 911AD
2) The comabt on here was only partially realistic. It depicted many warriors with expensive swords, whereas by far the most common weapon was a spear. Also all the Saxons were depicted with round-shields. The Huscarls wielded the same style kite shields as William's infantry.
What was at these times to be "french" or "danish" or "english"? These men would not understand you. There were no nations at this time, even the word "nation" did nt exist. These men believed they were subjects of a king, not citizens of a "nation". To think the reverse is anachronism. The only things we know its that the normands spoke french, were subject of the king of France,(William was a vassal of this king). But you are true we never speak about them as french or danish or whatever else.
The thing is the center of William's army was mainly composed of normans but the right wing was composed of French and Germans, whereas the left one was composed of brittons from Brittany. (Brittany was independent at that time). In fact very few danes had settled in Normandy in comparison to the rest of the population.
Never call the Normans Danish, they were just as much Danes as they were French. The Normans were Vikings who at one point had wrestled Denmark from the Dani peoples. The term "Norman" literally means "Norse Men".
True enough I suppose, but I don't think it was that simple. It's possible these actions were happening roughly the same time, or it's possible BBC is exaggerating. I frankly wouldn't take their word for it. There could be a number of factors involved.
As the narrator mentioned, the Normans were legitimately broken in some areas, and only discipline was re-instilled when William showed up, similar to Wellington's constant appearance at various squares at Waterloo.
Yes I agree. I note with BBC and History Channel they both have slightly different accounts of this and other famous battles. Its amazing the differences between the two channels when you see them side by side. One thing about the Normans winning was at least the organisation and system they brought to the land meant beleagured British Isles were never invaded again. So thats a positive.
And you have to say that William had a little animal cunning (even Caesar) in him for he didnt just let things roll on. When his men were losing faith he leapt in to rally them. And when other leaders might have accepted the setting sun as a time to regroup and wait till next day he came up with a master stroke of a plan to win the day.
In that leaping in he came very close to being killed. he was de-horsed and only just escaped again. The Normans thought that they had lost their leader, yet he rode in front of them, waving his helmet to show he was alive.
Yeah, I think they were definitely a unifying force, England before was composed of lords who owed loose fealty to the king. In terms of their political systems, it's hard to see any basic differences.
lol Stem. Trust me, its a lot better than the SciFi Channel haha. Star Trek original used varied sets, but Star Trek TNG over 167 episodes nearly always stays on the flight deck set. Yawn. Oh and no miniskirts to compensate.
All they had to do to win was hold the formation and stay in line. The Normans would have been ground down. If one group breaks rank and is cut down, you'd think the others would get the message and not fall for the same sucker tactic again. But low and behold they did. This is what cost the Saxons victory. There is inexperience and there is plain stupidity. Its like some people deliberately seek an early death and love to condemn their fellow fighters to defeant by their actions. Depressing.
The Normans weren't the brightest for charging up a hill repeatedly either. Yet they did.
Alexander would probably have either set up his archers differently, or rearranged his horsemen.
I also don't like how they portray the knights as some riotous group of thugs. Although they were like that from a socio-political standpoint, they were very disciplined in a charge, and while they would have lost some cohesion charging uphill no doubt, they wouldn't be coming up in ones and twos.
how can you say that?? harold and the saxons marched north to york to figth hårdråde and his men. then when they had beaten them they then marched down to figth the normands. to coordinate that march aint stupid at all. it takes a lot of skill to pull that of. by the way the battel of hastings could have gone ether way. and by the way dont call any one stupid if you havent done the same thing they have done,and done it better.
WTF? did he say French?
tillallareoneluv 3 weeks ago
why does BBC refer to them as "english" when in fact "English" are angles saxons jutes normals, celts, roman...etc?
kdelg001 3 weeks ago
Meh, I'm going to play medieval 2 total war
TheDiego1255 1 month ago
Normandy was a land from France with a duc and a king ,,,the king of France and the normans in hastings are speaking only french,,,not norman,,,Dieu et mon droit - Honni soit qui mal y pense
christmar67 1 month ago
Family guy version is MUCH better.
MJFAN666 2 months ago
@MJFAN666 stop dissin' it
TakaPride3 1 month ago
@TakaPride3 That was a joke you idiot. -.- My GOD. Have you even seen it?
MJFAN666 1 month ago
u just need a sayain and blast them all to bits :D
ben312k9 4 months ago
very nice documentary of the French invasion of England ^ ^
TheJEANFB 6 months ago
@TheJEANFB Norman.
Hellsconsort 5 months ago
@Hellsconsort I would have said Norman French + French ^^
TheJEANFB 5 months ago
wow
MrZizhen 6 months ago
i wonder how this battle would have played out if the saxons had cavalry to face against the normans
LordAzanko 6 months ago
God these 'made-up' interviews are horrible, but overall this is well worth watching.
raykaelin 6 months ago
Harold was not definetley shot in the eye. Most people think that he was.
MissPinkaii 8 months ago
3.00 - It took William all day to understand that his archers should raise their angles and sights... WOW! Great general lol
Grimrippa1 8 months ago
"chinks began to appear everywhere"
i know, four of them own a take away doon the road
HipHopCypher 11 months ago 7
the mistik tanks lost the battle!
What happened mistik tank?
tonganmousse 1 year ago
good show! I got more information about this battle.
I read in one science article that if Harold won the battle, the saxons and vikings would have total controll over the british isle and more viking cities would be founded. Britain would be the base where vikings can make new expedition far to west, where they can colonise the coast of america and the viking will also expand to the east to rusia and make it a nation.
its just speculations, but incredible how much a battle can change.
movienaut 1 year ago
5:20 WTF are you talking about? God- this takes me right out.
campbpar 1 year ago
so you had German, French and Dutch kings in England... why than have something like the EDL?
Marenqo 1 year ago
Dramatization sucks.
Lachausis 1 year ago
I have to write a 2 page s-ay about the battle of hastings and it needs to be done in less then 4 hours, someone help!
Yuna9989 1 year ago
i hate how they have the so called personal accounts put in there like those idiots were actually there lol
but interesting video anyway
OsamaBinLooney 1 year ago
So basically they fought like the Greeks a couple thousand years earlier.
TheDevilsBusiness 1 year ago
William is lucky to tell his archers to shoot high so they hit the saxons behind the wall of shields so that he can become king of england
Henry897564 1 year ago
Yet again another video that forgets about what happened after he reached London and crossed Wallingford bridge and headed for the town of Berkhamsted to take the final surrender of Archbishop Ealdred, the Bishops of Worcester and Hereford, Earls Eadwin and Morcar, and the chief men of London, who swore allegiance to him, and offered him the crown. Berkhamsted is a very important part but it's the part that is never mentioned.
DibbersPage 1 year ago
why did they keep chasing them! reminds me of those annoying vultures and marines in star craft that give chase to the enemy and breakup my defense line!
raaspider 1 year ago
TWING! HEAD SHOT!... You wouldnt be surprised if the Normans sank that low? WELL GUESS WHAT SUN SHINE, I WANT TO HANG YOU TILL YOU KICK AROUND, THEN CUT OPEN YOUR STOMACH, RIP OUT ALL OF YOUR INSIDES WHILE YOUR STILL ALIVE, BURN THEM, CUT OF YOU LEGS AND ARMS AND CHUCK THEM IN THE SEA WITH YOUR, ''KING'' HUUUUURRAAAAHHHHH!!!
mylesbradley1234 1 year ago
"Chinks began to appear everywhere, and the Normans began to flood the shield wall"
???
I wasn't aware the Battle of Hastings was fought in Asia.
Who knew?
jessicafischerqueen 1 year ago
Wow!! That was the best history show I've seen in a long time. I liked the interviews. Very good!!
kimdkus 1 year ago
see, look here, england may still exist, but theoretically, it was under french control. thing about it, they won and they were french, so england really didnt exist past 1066 AD
DuescherStoltz 1 year ago
@DuescherStoltz
They werent French, they were Norman, there was no France as a nation back then. Check out the Norman attacks, plundering and burning of Rouen, Paris, Mortimar and even as far down as Bordeaux. The coastal towns and hamlets of the Franks, lived in perpetual fear of the savage and unscrupulous Norman's.
The King of the Franks had to come to terms with the Normans, they were totally uncontrollable, and that's when they were giving Normandy and everything in it.
Woodlander65 1 year ago
@Woodlander65 No, France was a country! Noandy was a Grant to the Norse from Charles the simple king of France!
DuescherStoltz 1 year ago
@DuescherStoltz
Not as the France we know today, and Normandy didnt become a part of it till the 1200s.
Woodlander65 1 year ago
@Woodlander65 Norman is an abreviation of North men the were infact Vikings when they first landed in what was to become Normandy!
swollower 1 year ago
i am not religous, but this is yet another was where religion has been involved. lol do christians never think religion is used to get ppl to do what higher ups want and keep ppl in place? also i wonder how accurate this is, it doesnt seem like a human reaction to chase fleeing enemies when you help your friends who are still locked in battle by charging the flank or rear
randyroo2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow....a funny bunch of a few thousand infantry and 'cavalry' men fighting for a poor island described as one of the most important facts in history...5 years later in 1071 the Byzantines assembled for the battle of Matzikert about 40.000 men (a quite depressing number for their standards) and the nomadic-then Turks about 30.000.These 'new age' documentaries are lucking a sense of historic responsibility I think...
terzokost 2 years ago
To end the stream of bollocks called comments I dont like my father as he is an arse who left my mother, but i'm part of his blood so, so be it. Now back on topic. This documentary is good, i've been at the hastings reenactment every year since 2006 (whens its gone on) and each time we get a little further hehe..better luck next time King ;-) give those Normans a good run for their money.
StueyLestrange 2 years ago
kind of ironic, isn't it, that king william died falling off his horse
spinynorman230 2 years ago
Those guys rack me up, they talk as if they were actually there lmao
BabyVotaw 2 years ago
The Britons are Celtic not Saxon.
Bjjownsu10 2 years ago
the brittons werent the leading class in england at this stage. It was the saxons that populated and ruled england at that time
irishprice 2 years ago
the Celts only made up most northern Ireland and Scotland. The Anglo-Saxons (Saxons for short) were a germanic group from northwestern Germany that immigrated to Britain. So before you go off saying what you think is right, check the facts.
spinynorman230 2 years ago
@Bjjownsu10 the britons were actually gaelic not celtic, celts were from the balkans, read up ancient greeka dn roman texts, celts came to briton under flase pretences on june 21st 1795 when ignorant actors started a druid sect in london, they used the name celtic and it has stuck ever since, a total misconception that is actually now thouroughly believed by the masses
LordoftheHornets 2 years ago
@LordoftheHornets Gaelic is celtic
Bjjownsu10 2 years ago
lol, an american telling a briton his own heritage and history, i like that, as i said, celts are from the balkans north of the danube, read it up, also read up about celts being introduced to the uk in 1795 in the QI General Book Of Ignorance, quite intresting actually, but one thing for sure, i do know my british and ancient history without that last reference point
LordoftheHornets 2 years ago
Than who the hell was the people before the Roman conquest of Britannia!!!!!!! Where they Iberian people who migrated from Spain or what??
Bjjownsu10 2 years ago
iberian where not celtic, they where originally the migrating peoples decended from the north african tribesthat belonged to the cult of the bull, these people spread across from egypt over many thousands of years, wherever they stopped they settled, mixed with whichever poplulation was already present and then after af ew generations their decendants moved further west, eventually into spain, they have roots in many races and many tribes, the sea people (ancestors of carthage) being one of them
LordoftheHornets 2 years ago
it was a 3phase migration, as i mentioned about the sea people and the cult of the bull, they were the druids, among other people to arrive were supposed survivors from the fall of troy, they intermixed with these druids, also the gaels arrived from france, the decendants from these 3 migrations were the people the romans eventually came to conquer
LordoftheHornets 2 years ago
Comment removed
Bjjownsu10 2 years ago
@Bjjownsu10 i didnt say you did say that lol, i was just stating a fact, the answer to your question of who were the people in briatin pre-rman invasion is gaels, not celts, i already made this clear, celts being referenced to britons is a relatively more modern reference than most people actually believe, dont believe me, dont believe historical scripts written in modern books, read older mauscripts and texts
LordoftheHornets 2 years ago
@LordoftheHornets All the sources I have looked say that the Gaels are celtic, so I'm going to stick to that. But, now the next point is what is the typical English person made of??? In my opinion the English have never been fond of Germans or see them as brothers, but still some claim anglo-saxon heritage.
Bjjownsu10 2 years ago
all the sources oyu havce probably looked at are probably not ancient sources which you never studied, i have both gaelic and saxon heritage in my family and am very proud of both, i am a briton form britain and should know a thing or two about my own history heritage and culture, im sorry that you wont believe me in any way whatsoever but it is me living on the frontline of this historical matter at hand and not you who are many many miles away, it is like me saying your incan not american >>>
LordoftheHornets 2 years ago
on this matter but in reference to never having been fond of germans that is also untrue, it wasnt until the 1900's that this came to the fore, pre-1900's the german people were a great support to britain in their many wars against the papal states of france italy and spain, without their help and support britain would never have been a nation free from papal dictation for these past many centuries, until 1904 with our treaty of entente with france germany was our greatest ally
LordoftheHornets 2 years ago
@LordoftheHornets If that is your belief that is respected. Also what do you have to say about the Latinization of your country by the Normans?
Bjjownsu10 2 years ago
It doesn't matter if the English dislike Germans. Just because someone doesn't like their father it doesn't then cut their bloodline off from their father. Secondly the Saxons weren't Germans, they were Saxons. A Germanic tribe yes but not Germans.
Urinesauce 2 years ago
@Urinesauce The average English guy doesn't look very Germanic, its obvious the English are a mixture of peoples and they are not more Germanic than they are celtic.
Bjjownsu10 2 years ago
Nonsense.
Urinesauce 2 years ago
@LordoftheHornets I never said Iberians were Celtic so don't put words I didn't say. So, you are saying before the Roman conquest of Britannia the people were a mixture of races and tribes????But, please don't bring the Troy bs that stuff is unreliable.
Bjjownsu10 2 years ago
Imagine the slaughter if the saxons had archers on the top of the ridge ...
maddympkv 2 years ago
The Saxons did use archers to some degree but not sufficiently. If Harold had stayed in London and waited for his forces to replenish, he could of had a massive force of about 15 thousand men, and had time to plan strategy. Thus bringing archers, maybe some cavalry although they rarely used cavalry. The Normans luck was unbelievable to say the least. They should of been slaughtered. If the Saxons could last till nightfall, a fresh bunch of reinforcements was on the way, and they would of won.
Urinesauce 2 years ago
"The Normans luck was unbelievable to say the least. They should of been slaughtered."- Urinesauce
Dude, providence...its called providence. After all it was the Normands that were carrying the Roman Catholic standard...Harold shoulda kept his promise to William after he saved him from that shipwreck. Karma finally caught up to Harold.
RideMyBMW 1 year ago
@RideMyBMW That's the most retarded post I"ve read on youtube in three years.
Way to go!
jessicafischerqueen 1 year ago
@jessicafischerqueen WTF? Get back to yer rocks, ya fu%$in crack hoe!
RideMyBMW 1 year ago
Poor Saxon England. Really well-acted segment. The "occupation" lasted for centuries, they said. Are they actually implying it ended or just defining what has existed until today? I wonder if your typical Brit still sees the ruling classes as outsider "Norman-esque" men and more identifies with his Saxon past.
Bierreisender 2 years ago
well losts of things happened since the Norman conquest... the civil war, cromwell, various instances of a different set of people becoming the elites, the protestant reformation, William of Orange,rise of the industrialists, mass immigration... "Brits" arent just saxons being ruled by french speaking nobles living in forts on muddy hills
j3parrots 2 years ago
And then we haven't spoken of the queen of today, that has her roots in Germany
joehoe222 2 years ago
@Bierreisender Of course there is a bigger and more profound Anglo-Saxon heritage and identity in England today.
Historia Brittonum 830 and of course the Anglo Saxon Chronicles which acknowledges English identity and self rule through Egbert of Wessex, there are countless other examples also.
But you just have to see all your shires that are still very much alive in England today, so Saxon-ness still very alive.
j0andc0 2 years ago
@Bierreisender fuck, i see them as Normanesque and not legitimate rulers myself
LordoftheHornets 2 years ago
4:14 - "Chinks began to appear everywhere" haha
epicgrooves 2 years ago
cool
funnyz2k 2 years ago 8
harold had the battle won if his stupid left flank didnt give chase. simple envelopment maneuver and they could have smashed the cavalry with axes. he was cursed that day. luck plays a huge role in most significant batlles.
harshvgaus 3 years ago 30
It would have been nearly impossible, given the Saxon method of dismounted, front line command, to have coordinated such a maneuver. Similarly, the mere suggestion that the mostly-conscript Saxon army could take down the Norman heavy cavalry is ludicrous.
epicgrooves 2 years ago
@harshvgaus
A - you mean his right flank
B- "simple" envelopment tactics were not possible with a saxon shield line. You require light infantry and cavalry.
C - William was brilliant in that second part of the battle.
Luck is important, but skill is more useful
dukeofcanada 1 year ago
@harshvgaus
What a turn of events. The fact that the french retreat in battle was what ultimately led to them CONQUERING ENGLAND. wow...
Yeah, they much have to say that God gave them the victory in this instance 'cause it's certainly french mettle that won them England...
Athanatos2727 1 year ago
@Athanatos2727 They weren't French, they were Norman.
IncaRoad01 1 year ago
@IncaRoad01
Exactly, they were Norman , remember that .
Northmannia1066TV 1 year ago
@IncaRoad01 The normans were French thats Normandy is in france. somebody needs to revise there history.
Jaybyrdxxx 1 year ago
@Jaybyrdxxx Yes, and that person would be you. It is wrong to assume that because Normandy TODAY is part of France, that it is correct to state that the Normans THEN were French. They weren't They French, they were Norman. France did not exist. The Normans were quite different to the largely Frankish and Gallo-Roman population in that they were from Scandinavia. Today of course, after centuries of intermingling, the French race is far more homogenous than 1000 years ago. Educate yourself.
IncaRoad01 1 year ago 9
@IncaRoad01 yes , but it became norman country only after the siedge of paris (886 year ) before that it was france 's. and meny french people staied in normandy for a longe time.so when wiliam came to counquer england meny of his trups where french that have stayed in normandy after the siedge of paris 886 year
TheVikiLaki 10 months ago
@TheVikiLaki the normans are the northern french ,,,, and the word normand means north man william was from england and returned , he was promised half of the kingdom of england for his partisapation in this battle
lesterclaypool1 10 months ago
@IncaRoad01 Were the Normans culturally similar to us Anglo-Saxons?
I'm starting to...well basically take an interest in Englands history being English myself and it's definetely amazing to see, hear and learn of our ancestors.
MisterMWest 3 months ago
@IncaRoad01 Exactly...if anything they were Vikings...
LairdEJM 2 months ago
@Jaybyrdxxx you are correct ,,,
lesterclaypool1 10 months ago
@lesterclaypool1 Thank you x
Jaybyrdxxx 8 months ago
@Jaybyrdxxx no sweat the history is clear and reads quite easy , i dont see how any one could make this mistake theres so much written and this is taught so much because we have all the facts of whos who and what they did ,,,
lesterclaypool1 7 months ago
@Jaybyrdxxx dude ur the one who needs to review their history, france wasn't a nation until a few years before the Hundred years war. It was made up of frankish kings, and independent states
LazyJoe335 1 month ago
@IncaRoad01 what ? ummm no they were french ,, and the word means north man and even today is france and counts for 5.5 percent of the french population , and william was not french or normand he was english
lesterclaypool1 10 months ago
@IncaRoad01 pay attention ,,, what do they say at 6: 02? i believe he says the french
lesterclaypool1 7 months ago
@harshvgaus
luck can't help stupidity!!!!
keithehlert 10 months ago
@harshvgaus I don't think luck is truly that important in the battle of Hastings. If I had to pick the battle that has been decided mostly by luck, it'd be the battle of Midway.
Overall though, luck rarely is the most important factor that wins battles. It'd be the forces themselves: their numbers and training as well as the quality of their commanders.
The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and destroy its victim.
-Sun Tzu
mathematicsarefun 9 months ago
@harshvgaus in the art of war, it is written that if the general doesn't give clear orders, it is his fault if they all fail. If the general gives clear orders and the soldiers don't comply, it is their fault. Harold gave clear orders (according to this prog). He told them that the shield wall should hold, no matter what. The saxon soldiers broke ranks, broke discipline, broke the wall and lost. Though I agree with you that luck is important, in this battle, discipline was key.
Grimrippa1 8 months ago
@harshvgaus lol thats his right flank but anyway yeah ur right
mike28156 6 months ago
Two Things:
1) NEVER call the Normans French. They were of Danish descnet, given the land in France by Charles the Simple in 911AD
2) The comabt on here was only partially realistic. It depicted many warriors with expensive swords, whereas by far the most common weapon was a spear. Also all the Saxons were depicted with round-shields. The Huscarls wielded the same style kite shields as William's infantry.
sicblades666 3 years ago 2
What was at these times to be "french" or "danish" or "english"? These men would not understand you. There were no nations at this time, even the word "nation" did nt exist. These men believed they were subjects of a king, not citizens of a "nation". To think the reverse is anachronism. The only things we know its that the normands spoke french, were subject of the king of France,(William was a vassal of this king). But you are true we never speak about them as french or danish or whatever else.
sirupeuse 3 years ago 2
The thing is the center of William's army was mainly composed of normans but the right wing was composed of French and Germans, whereas the left one was composed of brittons from Brittany. (Brittany was independent at that time). In fact very few danes had settled in Normandy in comparison to the rest of the population.
tortue2008 2 years ago
Never call the Normans Danish, they were just as much Danes as they were French. The Normans were Vikings who at one point had wrestled Denmark from the Dani peoples. The term "Norman" literally means "Norse Men".
epicgrooves 2 years ago
@sicblades666 You say the Normans were of DANISH paternage -- so they've voted that Rollo was Danish over Norwegian already?
LinkSOB 1 year ago
Im proud to say one of my ancestors fought in the battle of Hastings along side William :)
chaloner 3 years ago
I bet spiderman would beat the lot of them.... yup....
Gabpopp 3 years ago
True enough I suppose, but I don't think it was that simple. It's possible these actions were happening roughly the same time, or it's possible BBC is exaggerating. I frankly wouldn't take their word for it. There could be a number of factors involved.
As the narrator mentioned, the Normans were legitimately broken in some areas, and only discipline was re-instilled when William showed up, similar to Wellington's constant appearance at various squares at Waterloo.
beepandbop 3 years ago
Yes I agree. I note with BBC and History Channel they both have slightly different accounts of this and other famous battles. Its amazing the differences between the two channels when you see them side by side. One thing about the Normans winning was at least the organisation and system they brought to the land meant beleagured British Isles were never invaded again. So thats a positive.
aeonflux67 3 years ago
And you have to say that William had a little animal cunning (even Caesar) in him for he didnt just let things roll on. When his men were losing faith he leapt in to rally them. And when other leaders might have accepted the setting sun as a time to regroup and wait till next day he came up with a master stroke of a plan to win the day.
aeonflux67 3 years ago
In that leaping in he came very close to being killed. he was de-horsed and only just escaped again. The Normans thought that they had lost their leader, yet he rode in front of them, waving his helmet to show he was alive.
sicblades666 3 years ago
Yeah, I think they were definitely a unifying force, England before was composed of lords who owed loose fealty to the king. In terms of their political systems, it's hard to see any basic differences.
beepandbop 3 years ago
neurd! -[+]-[+]-
01793pop 3 years ago
history channal is shit
StemDFpiaK 3 years ago
lol Stem. Trust me, its a lot better than the SciFi Channel haha. Star Trek original used varied sets, but Star Trek TNG over 167 episodes nearly always stays on the flight deck set. Yawn. Oh and no miniskirts to compensate.
aeonflux67 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Good God the Saxons are stupid. So stupid its embarrassing to watch.
aeonflux67 3 years ago
What makes you say that?
beepandbop 3 years ago
All they had to do to win was hold the formation and stay in line. The Normans would have been ground down. If one group breaks rank and is cut down, you'd think the others would get the message and not fall for the same sucker tactic again. But low and behold they did. This is what cost the Saxons victory. There is inexperience and there is plain stupidity. Its like some people deliberately seek an early death and love to condemn their fellow fighters to defeant by their actions. Depressing.
aeonflux67 3 years ago
The Normans weren't the brightest for charging up a hill repeatedly either. Yet they did.
Alexander would probably have either set up his archers differently, or rearranged his horsemen.
I also don't like how they portray the knights as some riotous group of thugs. Although they were like that from a socio-political standpoint, they were very disciplined in a charge, and while they would have lost some cohesion charging uphill no doubt, they wouldn't be coming up in ones and twos.
beepandbop 3 years ago
how can you say that?? harold and the saxons marched north to york to figth hårdråde and his men. then when they had beaten them they then marched down to figth the normands. to coordinate that march aint stupid at all. it takes a lot of skill to pull that of. by the way the battel of hastings could have gone ether way. and by the way dont call any one stupid if you havent done the same thing they have done,and done it better.
bliree 3 years ago 3