Battle of Hastings (Part 5/6)

[SonOfLight1979]

The normans and the saxons look exactly the same...............how did each man tell who was on what side?

[Athalston]

The Saxon warriors were some of the best in Europe at the time; but the fact that the Saxons had no horse culture ultimately defeated them. That said, the Saxon army, the Fyrd, were used by William to re-conquer Normandy, ironically.

[Crecybowman]

Interesting that this is listed as 'Saxon' Army, when they were, in fact English! The Angles and Saxons came to Britain in 449 (ish), but by the time of the Battle at Senlac they werereffering to themselves as English. This Saxon tag is an attempt to hide English history by those who would benefit from our demise, and so that children don't link this history with that of their own ancestors.

[coalyard1]

@Crecybowman What do you expect from the BBC !

[Crecybowman]

@coalyard1 Yeah...I know......

[Moranniiiii]

swear all the veterans are dead...

those guys look to young to have actually fought

[unfukkkmee]

CLASSIC ANGLO-BARBARIC VOICE

[MrsZippy105]

i watched this at my school!!! in my history lesson

[Racerlion1]

We watched this iin history in our school :]

[cutegal690]

too much episodes why cant they shorten it !!!!! ( i had to watch it for homework we had to do a storytelling competition with full detail) so annoying

[TheAwsome301]

Watched This in School Today :D

[billieeeee12567]

omfg yea the fake interviews......i watched this at school and this person i know thought they real everyone laughed their heads off

[topperheartramada]

those fake 'interviews' with the participants in the battle are the worst idea in the history of the universe.

[conncork]

I read it in a History book years ago. There were amost always Irish warriors fighting in English armies from the earlest times. Bosworth, Agincourt the Scotish wars etc

[TheMG63]

@conncork You cannot ascribe that idea to a battle that took place centuries before Bosworth, Agincourt, etc, just because they were English battles. I've read some of the most academic books on the study of the Battle of Hastings, and nowhere do they mention Irish warriors. The fact that you read the book years ago might have something to do with it. Some history books are so badly written (especially those with an agenda in mind) that they're worse than useless.

[apaculus666]

@ShowYourWorking Check out the Total War series. Your would like it.

[conncork]

Where are the Irish Warriors that fought in the Saxon army?

[theburdcotter]

@conncork ? ? To what extent were the Irish invoved with Harolds army ? I had never heard that before. Interested Irish man just wondering...

[Im12AndWhatIsDis]

@ShowYourWorking Shogun 2 Total War ;) way better than this

[Zamolxes77]

3:35 Head Hurlers ?

[Roflmaoistable]

@ShowYourWorking You sure imagine how much RAM you would need??maybe like to run a server..

[ImperialShark78]

@Roflmaoistable

just a couple piss ant terabytes

[Grimrippa1]

"You can hardly blame the saxon soldiers for breaking ranks..." No excuse is good enough for breaking discipline. The romans usually won 'cos of discipline and the british empire was built on it. Small armies battling huge odds... Discipline can win the day. No discipline, no victory.

[555emperor]

@ShowYourWorking medieval 2 total war. ;)

[aholly2376]

@ShowYourWorking umm have you ever played a total war game?

[TheJOEDAVEY]

this has really helped with my homework

[ewbecht]

@ShowYourWorking have you not heard of the "total war" series

[Anquetil79]

I´m very proud to be from Normandy. My family name Anquetil is of Scandinavian origins :)

[Andybkk619]

Yeah and I harold got shot in the eye during the battle and it was the last thing I saw with my reight eye lol

[Andybkk619]

wow a video preserved for about 48 years wow i wonder they had video cameras and interviews back than but all in all great war simulation video great thank you to @YTube9404

[tonganmousse]

Miss Nguyen is the best!

Mistik Tank

[rebel2276]

It's ok, from Tanguru's comment, I just pronounce it "Doomsday" for my family paid heavy taxes. But the correct way is "Domesday". Thank you Tanguru!

[Liamisterrytibbs]

@ShowYourWorking

Try Rome total war barbarian invasion ;)

[rebel2276]

After the battle, William the Conquer wanted to thank every soldier that fought with him so he gave them lands. My ancestors were in Shropshire just on the border of Welsh land. The "Doomsday" book was a audit of what you owned, all the way down to the wooden spoon. There is actually two books. You can pay and view them on the internet.

[rebel2276]

Norman, means "North Man". My family ancestors fought with William the Conquer in this battle. Our last name is in the "Doomsday Book". Last name back then was "Proud", then "Proutee" then "Proute" when they came to "America" in 1667. Now it is "Prouty".

[rogerfraserr]

weren't Normans Viking? Why does that first interviewee sound French?

[Northmannia1066TV]

@rogerfraserr The Normans were descendants of Vikings, the Normans Norman speak is a language of Oil, and the pronunciation of many words come from Norman Norse (Viking language).

But today, the Normans spoke French ... even though associations test to safeguard the Norman language, it is only in the Channel Islands that Norman is still used, really.

[LinkSOB]

On 6:36 once those Angle soldiers went all metalhead mosh-pit style -- Harold had to have Homer J. Simpson mad.

[lxgiwylgta]

LOLOL 7:52 it sucks to be one of the last men running for the Normans

[lxgiwylgta]

@ShowYourWorking try medieval 2 total war :D

[Exarsh]

im a french canadian with norman ancestry :D!

hi

[dpsantos1994]

@ShowYourWorking Ever heard of Total War game series? =)

[wallabing]

@ShowYourWorking Medieval 2: Total war

[campbpar]

@ShowYourWorking Pay dat shit.

[kramwam]

@ShowYourWorking you should try the total war series ...... its close to this. and a few of ytubes 9404's videos use the total war game in the simulation.

[123elnat]

@ShowYourWorking

It is. Look up Medieval: Total War II

[mylesbradley1234]

@ShowYourWorking THUMB UP THIS MANS COMMENT!

[kramwam]

@mylesbradley1234 try the total war series. almost exactly like this just not as cool looking.

[mylesbradley1234]

@kramwam :D il cheak it but i will play on easy because im a noob :( peace

[Henry897564]

The saxons are stupid to chase down the left side of the Norman army down the hill when they were retreating because there was a gap so the Normans can attack the saxons at the top of the hill and they can attack the saxons at the bottom of the hill

[xmaple1x]

It God !! He overlooking the battlefield !! XD

[raaspider]

yeah the made up interviews are a tad too gay

[nuubez]

why didn't the cavalry run around the line and hammer anvil the entire army?

[zrah1092]

@nuubez thats basically what they did after the Saxons ran down the hill after them.

[mylesbradley1234]

It was a Norman tactic to act like they were running like cowards to get the enemy to follow them, then they turn around, kill them, AND DO IT AGAIN LOL :D

[madhammudeux]

@coreyyy3

I know they threw weapons and rocks, armies had been doing that since the dawn of history. I was referring to the throwing of heavy pila down the line in an organized fashion. It would have decimated the front line of Norman infantry and possibly caused a panic.

[madhammudeux]

You know what Harold should have done? Adopted the javelin tactic used by Roman infantry. Imagine the devastation that could have been caused by his entire line hurling heavy javelins down the hill, before drawing swords and axes.

The Romans employed that tactic to devastating effect atop a hill vastly outnumbered by Boudica's hoards of Britons.

[madhammudeux]

The made up interviews are terrible. This isn't 'I love the 1060s'.

[odenskrigare]

@madhammudeux

11th century people had their own slang (Saxons used a word like "bollocks" much as we do) and so it is not in the least inappropriate to have mock interviews like this

[artx4321]

@madhammudeux it is lame isn't it

[MsStormcrow]

so cynical, can't you just get enveloped by the story, by the history, why the need to over analyze it?

[PeterVescro]

lol, the little make believe interviews are pathetic

[maddympkv]

yeh...they should have cut that part..

[TheImperialEagle]

Ah who cares Mongols would own them all...

[maddympkv]

or the huns o_O

[Urinesauce]

If they could get past the Saxon shield wall, without getting their or their horses head chopped off with a great axe.

[Mistermax30]

@TheImperialEagle The Mongols were torn to shreds by Arab, Japanese, and Vietnamese armies. They were good at fighting large, immobile forces, and lest we forget their favorite victims, women and children...

[TheDevilsBusiness]

@TheImperialEagle True enough

[Khaos768]

This is the single most idiotic use of archers I've ever seen, by both sides! Harold's army, with the height advantage didn't even use archers and William had his archers fire arrows straight up instead of firing at a high arch! Even a 5-year-old could have done it better!! These guys were both morons!

[irishprice]

that is if you take what this show says to hearth. No1 with generals and other military men as advisors could have led armies this badly. dont you think?

[spinynorman230]

William wanted to kill the ones in front, if he used a high arc he would only hit the ones in the middle and back, if at all. The people in the middle and back, expecting arrows from above, could just throw up their shields in defence. In turn, it was Harold's belief that archers were cowardly and not at all effective, so did not have very good archers, or bows for that matter.

[StemDFpiaK]

sorry my coment was not to aeonflux67 but to bmbberntsen

[aeonflux67]

Lets say one onto one a Norman onto a Roman, the Roman would be stuffed if he lost his shield as the shorter sword means instant disadvantage. But as a group....Romans work better together. They always feared a one onto one with Germanic warriors. But they fancied themselves as a coordinated group. Adrinople even vs Goths was an example of a poorly lead group of Romans, marched way to long in way too much heat and their formations not set up at the time the main Goth cavalry charge was occurred.

[bmbberntsen]

I wuld say the oppesite, the romans were civilians rcrutet for the army while the germanic bacicaly were grown up with fighting and hard lifes.

When it comes to tactics both armies can have bad leaders, tought i gues saxons and normans wuld handle bad leadership better than the romans since they were more individual fighters and not relying on a order for every move. As you say romans were extremly voulnerable with bad leaders since everything they did was by order.

[Dhaune]

but romans didnt train 2 years before they got into the army, and they ceartanly didnt advance in ranks and they werent veterans of 20 years of war and they werent training 12 hours a day, no no no, and those saxon-vikings or norman-vikings were really disciplined and had a great empire right

[bmbberntsen]

And the romans were litle dwarfs of the hight 1.60=D They probably neded to traine so much to survive=D

[Dhaune]

oh ofcourse you know that youre 2234, fucked shit

[bmbberntsen]

what is 2234? if you are talking about hight, we don`t use "feet".

Hahaha are you angry now, are you roman?

[Dhaune]

youre 18 years old, but stink for 50

[bmbberntsen]

18 years old but stink for 50? lol is that the way you talk down there? it is pathetic.

If you gonna insult sommeone you say "I wil rip of youre head and shit down youre neack" ore something=D

[puchy110]

don't you mean "I'll rip off your head and spit out your neck!!!"

[aeonflux67]

bmb - dont forget that in the last decades of the Republic/Empirical days of Roman Empire, the army often recruited locals from the provinces to man the legions. Batavians, and Spaniards etc. They were also more prized for their courage and fighting ability as opposed to the old Latin and Roman peoples. Caesar always favoured his Germanic and Spanish legionaires over the Italian ones. In stature and physical attributes these guys would be similar to the Normans.

[bmbberntsen]

that was also part of theyre downfall when more and more germanic soldiers lost lyalty to the romans. Tought was this the hight of the empire ore the downfall of it.

That they recruted germanic soldiers proves my point when it comes to germanic worriors.

[StemDFpiaK]

the romans were awesome if you look at how much of europe they won and how much they changed things in europe.

[StemDFpiaK]

aeonflux67 <

It makes no sense what you are saying.

A soldier is not iduviduel but a part of a unit.

oh you from Iceland. You have no millitary there maybe that's why.

Romans changed the way of battle. Which germanics, also vikings used to. ex. the shield line formation. Vikings (or Danes at least) made ring fortress' of earth work and wood.

[aeonflux67]

The essential difference between Norman armies and Roman armies is that Normans were funded from a small Feudal base system. This limited the numbers of men the leader say William could field. The Romans were funded by an Empire with all its tributes and taxes and of course could pull more men into service at time of crisis. So you can say that the collapse of Western Roman Empire certainly changed the way warfare was waged for the next 1000 years in the west.

[aeonflux67]

The mass hordes of Barbarians were also changed from Roman times as they were now broken down into their Feudally governed kingdoms and fighters were chosen from the nobles. Nobles didnt want the lower ranks armed and trained to the hilt as that was a threat to them. So really what we have with William at the battle of hastings is a more advanced Feudal system vs a less advanced Feudal system (Saxons)and no one can really afford much more either due to lack of man power or money.

[bmbberntsen]

I have not discussed annything else than battle and who wuld win if you have some what eaqual numbers of men. I tought we were talking about a battle and who wuld win with the different fighting styles.

Offcorse the roman empire wuld have won against the normans if the normans stood alone.

This debate have evolved far from the issue i tought we were debating.

Imagine one legion with normans against one legion with romans. I wuld bet on the normans.

[aeonflux67]

But I still say that 10,000 Romans vs 10,000 Normans would see a Roman win. Tactics, weapons and strategy of the Romans is superior. The Romans would have the advantage in close with the more nimble gladius, the Normans would be cut to pieces with the javelins hurled by the Romans and The Roman shield formation is tighter so the Normans would find breaking the formation tougher. Apart from William, I cant name a single half decent Norman commander. And the Roman archers would be superior.

[bmbberntsen]

"javelins" the saxons trowhed spears axes on the enemy, so that is far from an advantige for the romans, espechely when they can`t manage the same leanght of a spear trow, the saxons and normans also had archers and both used shieldwal to evade it.

[aeonflux67]

Spear throwing Saxons - yes. But not with the same coordination as the Romans used. Throwing spears randomly is not the same as a barrage of light and heavy javelins thrown in synche followed by a 2nd volley. Roman archers were handpicked from the peoples of the Empire. Not locals who might be able to nock an arrow and pull a string back. Roman auxilliaries were the best of the best at using their weapon.

[StemDFpiaK]

lol aeonflux. bmberntsen is hopeless.

listen to him.

"but but but the saxons trow spears and axes."

hehe he really believe what he wants to believe.

[aeonflux67]

Haha yes he is very unshakeable in his view. But you recogise that society really shrunk with the fall of the Roman Empire Stem. The great armies and the battles, advances in thinking, science, invention and collossal progress in architecture all receded. For 1000 years, its small Feudal societies, no one dare question the church so thinking, science etc is dead, Instead of great ampitheatres/public works we get castles. Cold and unimaginative. And small plots of people fighting like barbarians

[aeonflux67]

Little wonder the Vikings are considered as being culturally worth studying even 600 years after Romes fall. But can you say they or the Normans measure up to the Romans in terms of modern contribution to the western world. The Norman Feudalism died and the monarchy is all but a redundant tourist attraction. United Europe, one currency, combined army, shared trade. Thats Roman in its influence.

[DannyJamesRead]

Bullshit

[DannyJamesRead]

Bullshit

[bmbberntsen]

Do you realy think i wil answere you? i have told you i don`t want to have more stupid discussions with you.

[StemDFpiaK]

You make discussions stupid.

[JimbobHarrigan1984]

@aeonflux67 The Romans were'nt known for archery, that is where their use of auxileries came in.

[aeonflux67]

I was also saying that we have to consider this on an equal number basis too. The fact Rome had more soldiers is irrelevant. Its about man for man - Norman vs Roman. Take a similar size force to that William deployed in Hastings vs the same number of Romans. Remember unlike the saxons, the romans have better discipline to hold their formation. Yet the Saxons nearly held on even with their notoriously bad discipline - inexperience & breaking the line to pursue the Normans being the telling issue

[bmbberntsen]

Remember that the germanic were much better individual fighters than the romans and much more stronger built armed with axes that wuld splitt a roman shield, the litle gladius is nimble but becus of the streangt of the saxons ore normans i wuld bet on the normans/saxons wuld crush the roman shield wal and totaly run them over.

The goths runned the romans over with light armor and bad eqipment, the normans and saxons had more disepline than the goths and much more heavely armed.

[StemDFpiaK]

ehh what? the Romans had much more body armor and huge shields than saxons etc.

Do you think goths just came in small group and took rome? Now you talking shit.

They had large army mainly from yugoslavia area and a large cavalry. The Roman soldiers were few left. That's why they lost that battle outside Rome.

[bmbberntsen]

if you put a roman and a norman saxon in a individual fight, the romans wuld not have chance, that i am surten of. Romans were bad individual fighters, theyre streanght is in the dicipline and making the army work as one.

[StemDFpiaK]

dicipline like a modern soldier.

[bmbberntsen]

Wel i am not saying the normans ore the anglo-saxons were an empire so man-power is another issue.

[bmbberntsen]

Is gandalf speaking in the start=D?

[monric85]

ancient and medieval warfare differed very little.a roman or greek soldier in ancient times would not be impressed when he sees a medieval army.

[aeonflux67]

Very true monri85. Thats what I am trying to tell the guys in the thread below.

[orangehollander]

I agree.

[aeonflux67]

The Ancient Romans would have thrashed these two forces put together. Amazing how hundreds of years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire...fighting skills, techniques and numbers of men declined to the point where an Ancient force did it better.

[bmbberntsen]

what? the romans wuld have bin sloughtered. Lightly armored small romans wuld not stand a chance.

Yust look how the goths destroyed the roman empire in the battle in Adrianople and the sacking of rome. The germanic won more battles against the romans than other way around. This is the children of the germanic people who destroyed rome and they are using heavyer equipment.

[aeonflux67]

The only times the Germans won against the Romans was the Romans were poorly lead. As in Teutorburg Forest AD6, or during the times of bad Emperors 3rdC onward. Adrinople was a classic case of badly lead when Valens wouldnt listen to advice or his brothers the Western Emperor who said wait till he arrived with his forces and we shall deal with this together. No he wanted sole glory, rushed in and got himself and his men slaughtered. Romans did beat the Germans more than vica versa.

[bmbberntsen]

Wel the goths won every battle they had against the romans after they crossed denube, the franks took over gallia,the lombards took nearly all Italy.

And in tutenberg forest the victory was so great that:"There were virtually no Roman survivors. Three of the best legions were not just defeated, but annihilated. One sixth of the entire armed forces of the Roman Empire was destroyed."

The romans never managed to fully conqure germania,the germanic tribes crushed the empire.

[aeonflux67]

The Goths werent actually Germans. They came from the East (Bulgaria and beyond)and later merged with the Gallic peoples or pushed them out seeking land away from marauding enemies like the Huns. And Roman size has nothing to do with success. Caesars forces at Alesia were 40,000 Romans vs 200,000 large Gauls. Against the Suevi it was 20,000 of Caesars forces vs 60,000 Suevi Germananics and he wiped the floor with them. Marius vs the Cimbri and Teutones 100BC same thing again. Read ur history son

[aeonflux67]

numbers of men and size of the common Roman soldier(height) was never a limiting factor in their success. Of great importance though was the quality of their leaders - if they were properly lead (Scipio Africanus, Marius, Pompey, Caesar, Tiberius, Tragan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius etc), they were an extremely potent opponent.

[bmbberntsen]

So what are you saying that germans did not have bad leaders? only romans had?

The romans eventualy lost to the germans on every front how many bad leaders did they have?

[bmbberntsen]

The goths were most probably scandinavian as many historians belive all the germanic tribes came from. The womb of nations as written by Jordanes. The goths as many other tribes left scandinavia by overpopulation and war, they went east to what is today bulgaria, when the hunns came they were driven into roman terretory. And the romans lost every battle against the goths. The franks were yust as succesfull on the western border.

[joonte1010]

The ROmans? haha, They were smaller in size, and lightly armoured, They would have got themself slaughtered.

[aeonflux67]

Light armour? Rubbish. The lorica overlapping plates and heavy shield and helmets were top notch defences. The Germans mostly ran in with Chain mail (wealthier ones) or bloody naked torso's. The chain mail of later saxons and normans was a return to the cheaper way of waging war. The Romans returned to it too. But at their peak they had much better armour and protection for their legions till the cost factor cut it out. Mostly mismanagement by the Emperors causing that of state finances.

[bmbberntsen]

I wuld not say they had better armor, a chainmail shirt tend to cover feet and arms, the legioner mostly the torso and head with maby some leggings.

the huscarls mostly were armored to the teeth tought in both armies there were people without good armor.

[aeonflux67]

Dont you think chainmail covering so much of the body slows you down and makes it harder to move in one to one battles? And a gladius can open chaing mail as its a thrusting weapon. While the Norman sword is longer and is a slashing weapon so the Lorica Segmenta would be more effective in combo with a good shield to deflect such a blow while the weight of a swinging Norman sword would leave the Norman vulnerable to a stabbing action by the defending Roman. Wow...would be an interesting battle.

[bmbberntsen]

Yeah it wuld a cool battle, tought romans were as i said small, the shere waight and streangt of the saxon/norman shield wal wuld probably break the front of the roman line,the gladius wuld have great problem with making damage to the heavely armored saxons while a two handed axe wuld crush everything in its path,saxons and normans were also known to cary many weapons for different situations.

By the way you are icelandic, you shuld be on the germanic side;D