Karsten he offered it to the Danes 30 years before that, then ten years before he offered it to the exile, then he offered it to William and finally Harold's supporters claim he offered it to Harold on his deathbed.
AND TODAY MY SOLDIERS, WE WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY, TODAY WE WILL BECOME IMMORTAL, TODAY WE WILL CONQUE... *slips and falls flat on the ground* AhemehemnsmamENGLAND WILL BE OURS!!! *cheering* das rite playin it cool
Sorry, but I thought he fell as he landed on the beach at Pevensey. His men thought this a bad omen and quick thinking, William picked up two handfuls of sand,saying "See. I take England with both hands!"
@@vouge6750 Yes, two breaks, one at 11 am and an other around 14 pm, there were more fleeing and counter attacks than the one showed in this video. The first massacre of the english right wing didnt break them.
Having been born and raised in the area he probably landed near to what we bow call Wilting...and the battle took place at Crowhurst (where the orignal Norman Abbey was built... the one at 'Battle' is the later re-build). What you read in the history books is pretty much a modern, Victorian, interpretation of what happened. That's why no one has ever found a single arrow head at Battle... unlike as kids rummaging in the malfosse at Crowhurst where we used to dredge up sword hilts and shield bosses all weekend. I still have a (half) shoebox of crossbow/arrow heads from my childhood at Crowhurst in the 60s. My local school (only a few miles from Battle) used to say no one knew where the battle was fought... but now you'll be hard pressed to find anyone in Britain who doesn't say "The Battle of Hastings was fought at Battle". People are brainwashed... because the education system is pants, TV documentaries put ratings over facts (despite what they might say!), and English Heritage have invested millions into the bogus Battle Abbey site and are quick to swamp any (fact based!) alternative! Alas...
"Now look under your seats! Look under your seats! It's a crown!!! You get my kingdom! and YOU get my kingdom! And YOU get my kingdom!" - Edward Probably
No, it's crap. However, it is also possible that no such agreement ever existed between Edward and William, but that Harold was seen as a likely successor by William (Anglo Saxon England had an occasion to appoint kings, rather than automatically have the son of a son of a king take the throne) and when Harold was marooned in Normandy, it was a perfect opportunity for the ambitious William to take advantage of. He had Harold swear to accept him as successor to England (Under duress, of course).
@@Markham12thcentury people always forget or perhaps don't know that English kings were elected by the Witenagemot, the gathering of the Saxon nobles. Harold was duly elected by the Saxon nobility as their king, William the Bastard was just a baby back bitch who wanted the throne
@@hunter207 What the Witenagemot was is still something of a source of debate. How much power it held, what it's functions were and even the origin of the name are not well-known, and some of these things likely fluctuated between different kings, although they probably had some ability to affect succession, due to being all the most powerful nobles. There is also the fact that who should have taken the throne after Edward's death was something of a mess. William argued (and possibly believed) Edward had offered it to him, with some sources stating that was the reason for Godwinson's trip to Normandy in 1064. Edward may have favoured his nephew, who was in Hungary. Harold likely got the job due to this lack of clear succession, the fear of Viking invasion, and some political maneuvering. Realistically though, it was the 11th Century. It'd been barely two hundred years since there'd been an England at all, and "seize the throne by force" was still a legitimate way to gain power.
@@John_Smith. Actually we do know pretty well what most of the Witenagemot did and how much power it held, the problem is that it's powers fluctuated from its founding by Æthelberht of Kent in the year 600 to it's dissolution by William in 1066-67. However it is known for certain that it did elect the Kings of England, though more often than not those kings generally ended up being the sons of the recently deceased King. According to Felix Liebermann (1851-1925): "The influence of the king, or at least of kingship, on the constitution of the assembly seems, therefore, to have been immense. But on the other hand he (the king) was elected by the witan. ... He could not depose the prelates or ealdormen, who held their office for life, nor indeed the hereditary thanes. ... At any rate, the king had to get on with the highest statesmen appointed by his predecessor, though possibly disliked by him, until death made a post vacant that he could fill with a relation or a favourite, not, however, without having a certain regard to the wishes of the aristocracy." And the contemporaneous Abbot Ælfric of Eynsham: "No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their necks."
@@hunter207 Mm. That's one school of thought, certainly. The other is generally that the Witenagemot were little more than a formality, a rubber stamp on whoever the last King chose. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between myself. The prospective King likely had to have a certain amount of influence among his peers in the Witenagemot, but at the same time, likely could or would have become King without it. This is complicated by the nature of that relation of course. Is the next King, the King because he has made alliances with the powerful nobles, or has he made alliances with powerful nobles because he's the next King and they want to get on his good side. Either way, I believe that the Witenagemot had little choice but to elect Harold, because he and two of his brothers ran three of the most powerful Earldoms, and were powerful enough to just declare Harold King with or without the Witenagemot. Literally, they ran the entire country aside from Mercia.
thats what i was wondering aswell harold did have archers but i think he maybe lost most of his archers at the battle of stamford bridge thats why he didnt use any in the battle of hastings
@@haroonvali1749 During the time of the battles of Stamford Bridge and Hastings in 1066 the English army did not have specialized archer units in the way that medieval English armies would later develop during the Hundred Years' War (which began in the 14th century). Instead archery was presented by the fyrd - the locally-sourced militia that highly subsidised Harold's armies - who were primarily infantrymen but who were also capable of using bows. The iconic use of the longbow and the development of specialized archer units, such as the English longbowmen, came later, particularly during the Hundred Years' War between England and France in the 14th and 15th centuries. The longbow became a dominant weapon during this period, and English armies began to train and organize archers specifically for long-range archery, which played a significant role in battles like the Battle of Crécy (1346) and the Battle of Agincourt (1415).
Baz i know youre the one that loves history and you have a strong accent, it must suck to have someone else voiceover your love but it was a good decision and the videos have been gold
The thing that impresses me is that clearly the narrator is a pro and Baz must be spending spending money to have him read. Shows that he's committed enough to spend money to bring quality to his channel and stick to his own strengths
It adds to the professionalism, I mean the channel just sounds a lot more professional and that should by itself attract more viewers. This channel should grow quickly with this kind of content.
The composition of William's army really shows the direction that warfare was heading. Harold, who only used infantry, was the past. William, who was mixing infantry with archers, and now CAVALRY as well, was the future. Harold's forces did ride horses, but they didn't FIGHT on them. They would always dismount to fight. William's Norman cavalry, on the other hand, trained to fight from horseback, and they were GOOD. In fact, to my knowledge, they were the first cavalry to be called by the term "Knights".
William "so what did we learn?" Harold *sigh* "never lose the highground" William "never lose the highground" Obi-wan "sheeet i've been saying that for years"
Honestly, Hastings was one of those rare battles that was so close, it came down to which king was killed first. Could’ve just as easily been William felled by a stray arrow. And if so, his army would’ve melted away just as the anglo saxons did. Also, to me, Hastings wasn’t William’s greatest feat. It was maintaining control of both his kingdom and his duchy in the aftermath that’s far more impressive.
This battle was the first one I got introduced to back in Medieval 2 Total War, it was and it still is awesome. Keep making more of this man! I'd love to see you do some of the later Medieval Era battles like Hattin or Agincourt.
10:55 Being leaderless doesn’t necessarily make an army less dangerous: the fleeing English led the Norman cavalry to concealed pits where many perished. The Bretons did the same to the Angevin invaders in 992, so it was a hazard the Normans should have anticipated.
Loving the channel so far! The chat balloons are amazing and the battles are exceptionally well-made. Keep up the good work! Possible ideas: Fights of the Ottomans gaining or losing territories in the 15th-16th century?
Once again amazing. One small detail though,leave the end screen trivia on screen for a three or two more seconds please,it is really intredting stuff and i always read it anxiously. Its a super minor thing though. Exceptional video baz
Good morning! This second part of the story was excellent after the battle of Stamford Bridge. I am Brazilian and I am passionate about these stories from other countries, because it is something of great value and enrichment of each country. Thanks again for this valuable content
The Bretons of the time were famous for using light to medium cavalry (often with javelins). They defeated the Franks and the Vikings shieldwalls multiple times (while being outnumbered) by shooting or charging at the shieldwall then fainting to retreat and surrounding them when they pursued or try again if they didn't (the battles of Jengland and Ballon being the most famous examples). The frankish chronicles described those tactics being used in every conflicts they had with the Bretons. Knowing that, it's hard to believe the story about them retreating because they thought William was dead, then rallying when he heroically stood up and finally surrounding the Anglo-saxons. That sounds suspiciously like what some a Norman author paid by William to turn him into a hero would write. XD What would be more probable? - That it was precisely the Breton side that retreated in fear, then while fleeing for their life managed to recognize William in the middle of a battle and regained courage exactly at the right time and position to encircle the ennemies. or, - That the Bretons, seeing that the shieldwall wasn't breaking, decided to revert to the tactic that worked for them for hundreds of years.
Next time I slip and fall I will absolutely shout, what William shouted. Great Video, I'm very happy I found this channel. keep up the good work, I even give 1$ at Patreon (okay that's not much, but I can't really afford more)
I wonder if William was copying Julius Caesar. When he went to war in Africa he slipped as well and then grasped the soil and said "Africa I embrace you". I don't know how popular the writings of that war were during William's time so I don't know if this was a concidence or if this was where William got the idea. Or I guess this could have been made up, I don't know the sources about this war at all, I don't know much about this period on English history.
These are fantastic videos. Would you consider doing the Battle of Pharsalus? The Gallic Wars would also be very interesting to watch. Thanks, and keep making great videos
BATTLE OF HASTINGS: AFTERMATH After his victory at the Battle of Hastings, William marched on London and received the city’s submission. On Christmas Day of 1066, he was crowned the first Norman king of England, in Westminster Abbey, and the Anglo-Saxon phase of English history came to an end. French became the language of the king’s court and gradually blended with the Anglo-Saxon tongue to give birth to modern English. (Illiterate like most nobles of his time, William spoke no English when he ascended the throne and failed to master it despite his efforts. Thanks to the Norman invasion, French was spoken in England’s courts for centuries and completely transformed the English language, infusing it with new words.) William I proved an effective king of England, and the “Domesday Book,” a great census of the lands and people of England, was among his notable achievements.
Time Team did an episode on battle of Hastings, and they concluded that it didn't take place on the hill where Battle Abbey stands, which is also used as the location in this video, but more likely basically on top of the modern village of Battle, that is a narrow isthmus of solid high ground between what would've back then been lowlying marshes and woodland. No findings whatsoever related to any medieval military activity have been made on the abbey hill, plus for William to deploy his army on what was basically a bog on the bottom of a steep hill would've been suicidal. Another suggested location, Caulbec Hill further to the north, would've been too large for Harold's army to hold in an actual battle, and virtually no findings have ever been made, but it was an excellent vantage point for making observations. It is more than likely that Harold set up a temporary camp there, knowing he could rush his men from there to the best defensive location in the area at the first sight of Normans - the narrow strip of high ground that William would have to traverse if he were to continue on to London. That place checks all the boxes in regard to descriptions given about the battleground, plus it is a strategic location that two able military commanders would have fought over with the forces they had, unlike Abbey Hill or Caulbec Hill. This nitpicking is not to say your videos are not great because they are, but check out the Time Team episode on the subject if you already haven't, it's great and in my opinion made very solid arguments. :)
Crowhurst.... it's the site of the original Norman Abbey. The one that no one denies was built on the site of the battle. As a child we used to play on my grandad's farm and hook out shield bosses, helmet rings and swords from the malfosse. English Heritage have invested millions in perpetuating the modern myth that the battle took place at 'Battle' (the later Abbey site). I loved Time Team, but TV is simply entertainment...and facts come second place to ratings (hence I've not watched any form of mainstream TV for about a decade now). The geography and topography of Hastings were very different 950yrs ago. If you look at what the coastline was like in 1066 you'll see William wouldn't have landed at Pevensey... but probably nearer to Wilting with it's protected inlets that run up to the Crowhurst valley. I have a box of old sword bits in my garage from my childhood on the farm at Crowhurst... rather more than English Heritage and Time Team ever found! Not one hobnail from a shoe, not one arrow head, not one crossbow bolt, (Oh... I have dozens of crossbow bolt heads from my grandad's farm at Crowhurst... with it's 11thC ruins of the original Abbey at the side of the field!). As I got older I realised that what we are taught isn't always truthful... it's tailored and flavoured to whatever makes the most cash for those able to 'nudge' the facts in their direction!
Pedro C. Okay, just wondering as there are a few battles I'd like to see from a more visual perspective, rather than vague descriptions in history books.
Cameron McAllister I've seen Baz answer this in an older video's comment section. apparently, gunpowder weapons are much harder to animate, for several reasons. I think we can all understand why. they want the channel to be up and running before attempting those kinds of battles. so like Pedro C. said, we should probably wait about 2 or 3 years.
I've always been kind of saddened by Harold's defeat here. Having fought off a large Norwegian army only to be invaded again and defeated by a Norman invasion instead, doesn't seem.. fair or right somehow. How history would have been different if the English army had just stood their ground.
Yes. It's a tragedy. ushered in an era of domination and oppression by a brutal foreign aristocracy. Harold was a hero, and in my mind the last King of England who could truly claim any legitimacy.
If he hadn't rushed into battle; bought some more time so he could summon a bigger and better resourced army and pitched the battle closer to London, then maybe the outcome would have been different.
splendid. one quick question: is the hundred year's war (Crecy, Poitiers...) anywhere in your long term targets? or the Crusades (Acre, Antioch...)? are you ever going to show siege battles too? keep it up Baz!
I've got a stockpile of suggestions Baz! Maybe I should just rifle them off. The Battle of Varna, The Battle of Vienna, The Battle of Grunwald, and The Battle of Philippi. And if you wanted to step further in time, The Battle of Rorke's Drift (seen this one a couple times), The Battle of Bunker Hill, Concord and Lexington, The Battle of Waterloo, or The Battle of the Alamo and soon following Battle of San Jacinto.
@@tommyfortress7515 According to Lindybeige (great channel, check him out) it's simply because the term didn't mean "shoot" until the era of firearms. If you shouted "fire" at an archer, he would probably be like "What? There's a fire? Where?".
When calculating ancestors the math works out that every single European is a descendant of Charlemagne. Well and everybody else living at the time, they are our generation zero, meaning the number of any persons ancestors is greater than the population in that period.
Edward was always clear that William was his successor, Harald of Norway’s predecessor was promised the throne by Edwards predecessor, and Harold Godwinson just lied to seize power, was never endorsed by Edward
The Battle of Hastings in 1066 was a turning point in English history, where William the Conqueror defeated King Harold II, leading to the Norman conquest of England. One intriguing detail is that the famous Bayeux Tapestry, which tells the story of the battle, features over 70 scenes depicting the events. This epic tale of conquest is often celebrated in world history documentaries as a pivotal moment that reshaped the English monarchy and culture.
8:17 Whoa! Who was attacking William when he fell off his horse, then? Earls Leofwine and Gyrth attacked the Norman front lines and sent them scurrying. The Carmen says Gyrth attacked William. According to the Bayeux Tapestry, the Breton cavalry then stormed the Earls’ flanks, tore through their centre, killing Leofwine, distracting Gyrth and giving William’s bodyguard a reprieve. A Norman soldier then stabbed Gyrth in the back. The English absolutely had Thegns and Huscarls at Hastings, but many of them died and others were captured in that incident; as we can tell from Domesday Book, Alan Rufus (the Breton commander) placed some of the surviving English Thegns into his inner circle: for example, Colswein and his son Almaer. It’s because Leofwine and Gyrth’s full-out assault on William was interrupted that (1) William survived, (2) the Earls died, and (3) Harold was thenceforth stuck on the ridge with a broken chain of command.
He also failed to mention that early on in the battle the Norman's thought William had been killed and had started to retreat until William rode along the line with his helmet raised so that the Norman's could see he was still alive. Had Harold properly taken advantage of that confusion and ordered his army into the attack, the battle of Hastings might have had a different outcome.
GRAT JOB! Love this series, Now that you finished with this Battles, please, you must do the Escape from Agincourt, Henry the V escaping the French knights at a failed siege in Harfleur, but forced to face the knights at the lands of Agincourt, where his light infantry line faced fiercely the heavy Cavalry, This battle was known as the battle where "CHIVALRY (the code of the knight) HAS DIED"
Agincourt is not an english victory. it was a battle between the French king & French aristocracy of england and the French king & French aristocracy of France. A civil war between two French dynasties the French Plantagenêts against the French Capétien. Because England was a French colony for 300 years: Normands, Blois & Plantagenêts.
@@lecapetien3223 yes, I made this comment long ago, and in that time, i didnt know that. Now I know that the 100 years war was betweet two different noble houses of France, basically the French and the Other French (Burgundians) but with the difference that the "other French" were more empatic with the Briton cause and saw Profit with the English, thus waging a war against their own kinsmen.... crazy isnt it?
I have always read that it was retreating cavalry (or cavalry feigning a retreat) that broke Harold's lines, there may be other interpretations but my entire senior history project was based around 1066 and The Spanish Armada.
9:16 Hmm, instead of ordering the cavalry to threaten the enemy rear and flanks, he sends them in a frontal engagement vs stationary, formed up infantry? In Total War, this would scream "Hey, I'm a bloody noob, please come finish me off!" ;P
Aiden The main point is that Harold's army didn't have flanks at first: they stretched from treeline to treeline. Frontal attack was the only way to approach them.
Moreover, one major issue with Total War is it's about creating an extended combat, not simulating real life battles. Heavy cavalry ruled the Middle Ages because the majority of infantry were poorly trained peasants who would rather flee to save their own lives than stand against a determined armored opponent. Knight-based forces relied on the power and force of the initial charge to force a premature rout, opening up gaps and exploiting an opportunity for encirclement. More often than not the infantry broke, but if they did not break then a situation like the one in the video might occur.
Jengland 851, a case in point. Led by Charles the Bald, well-trained Frankish infantry invade Brittany en route to Rennes. Continually harassed, they head south. Seeing Breton horsemen approach, they form a shield wall. Bretons charge. Franks extend spears, brace for impact. Bretons cast pilae, which embed in shields then bend, rendering shields unusable and soldiers exposed. Horses turn sharply and gallop away, to be replaced by a second wave, then a third. This continues for two days. During the second night, Charles secretly abandons his men. On the morning of the third day, Bretons overrun Franks' camp, kill all, then pursue Charles. They meet at Angers, where Charles has no choice but to concede territory for peace.
Holy shit, without realizing it, I do the same thing when I organize my army structure in Total War games, including the recent Warhammer 2. I like to break my army up into smaller, roughly equivalent forces.. Almost exactly the same way William does in this battle. It makes your collective army more mobile and flexible, while still adhering to the general concept of a "battle-line." Also, the fact that he creates these squads not only corresponding to place of origin as well as being geographically representative (Bretons-West, Normans-Center, Flemish/French-East)... is just so beautiful and is very pleasing to me logistically, tactically, etc. I realize now, more than ever before, that I am a fucking big fan of William the Norman Conqueror.
![COLOMBIA vs. CHILE [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TDjN4W3yy1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Edward needs to stop promising the throne to ppl ffs
BorisXanovavich - Noob Gamer no. not at all
He was just testing out features of his rulership. Like if he played a game of Crusaders Kings 2 :)
when you send out 9 marriage requests at the same time "surely one of them will accept"
He only offered it to William, if I understood correctly. Harold just assumed he would be in line because he was his oldest son.
Karsten he offered it to the Danes 30 years before that, then ten years before he offered it to the exile, then he offered it to William and finally Harold's supporters claim he offered it to Harold on his deathbed.
AND TODAY MY SOLDIERS, WE WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY, TODAY WE WILL BECOME IMMORTAL, TODAY WE WILL CONQUE...
*slips and falls flat on the ground* AhemehemnsmamENGLAND WILL BE OURS!!!
*cheering*
das rite playin it cool
Ahaha, totally. Loved the way he said it in the vid. Playing that line the next time I step off at Heathrow
XD
Sextus Junius Frontinus, in Stratagems, says that Ceasar did the same thing.
Eron ABCJ lol
I wonder if he got that from Caesar
William grasped a handful of soil and proclaimed: "England is my city"
Isn't this what Caesar also did when landing in Africa?
@@Ingestedbanjo he did exactly that
Sorry, but I thought he fell as he landed on the beach at Pevensey.
His men thought this a bad omen and quick thinking, William picked up two handfuls of sand,saying
"See. I take England with both hands!"
No he said "see i grasp England in my hands".
If you want to be picky he didn't say either..
“When the sun was about to set...”
Imagine fighting in a battle all day long. With no lunch break.
That why you manned the plaids. Kilt.
Actually they did take a break
@@vouge6750 Yes, two breaks, one at 11 am and an other around 14 pm, there were more fleeing and counter attacks than the one showed in this video. The first massacre of the english right wing didnt break them.
I'm pretty sure there was a couple of moms there with a Tupperware full of orange slices
Alfred The Great, King Of Wessex And Capri Suns.
>Pevensey to the west
>Hastings to the east
Marched... west... to Hastings? That's a long march, mate.
Ok he took the west road to march east later, but still seems like a mistake to phrase it like this.
He did it to make his men suffer. Right bastard that one.
Very long march xD
Having been born and raised in the area he probably landed near to what we bow call Wilting...and the battle took place at Crowhurst (where the orignal Norman Abbey was built... the one at 'Battle' is the later re-build). What you read in the history books is pretty much a modern, Victorian, interpretation of what happened. That's why no one has ever found a single arrow head at Battle... unlike as kids rummaging in the malfosse at Crowhurst where we used to dredge up sword hilts and shield bosses all weekend. I still have a (half) shoebox of crossbow/arrow heads from my childhood at Crowhurst in the 60s. My local school (only a few miles from Battle) used to say no one knew where the battle was fought... but now you'll be hard pressed to find anyone in Britain who doesn't say "The Battle of Hastings was fought at Battle". People are brainwashed... because the education system is pants, TV documentaries put ratings over facts (despite what they might say!), and English Heritage have invested millions into the bogus Battle Abbey site and are quick to swamp any (fact based!) alternative! Alas...
Lol, but he probably fell off the edge of the Medieval World before making a full circumnavigation
"Now look under your seats! Look under your seats! It's a crown!!! You get my kingdom! and YOU get my kingdom! And YOU get my kingdom!"
- Edward Probably
Bruh
don't mind me putting this comment in my summary
Politics= false promises, and endless tribalism
ur nothing
Yeah right, ! THAT'S gonna work!!!!
- Somebody probably
"some say that shortly before his death Edward regained consciousness and entrusted Harold as his successor."
HAHA okay Harold likely story buddy.
No, it's crap. However, it is also possible that no such agreement ever existed between Edward and William, but that Harold was seen as a likely successor by William (Anglo Saxon England had an occasion to appoint kings, rather than automatically have the son of a son of a king take the throne) and when Harold was marooned in Normandy, it was a perfect opportunity for the ambitious William to take advantage of. He had Harold swear to accept him as successor to England (Under duress, of course).
@@Markham12thcentury people always forget or perhaps don't know that English kings were elected by the Witenagemot, the gathering of the Saxon nobles. Harold was duly elected by the Saxon nobility as their king, William the Bastard was just a baby back bitch who wanted the throne
@@hunter207 What the Witenagemot was is still something of a source of debate. How much power it held, what it's functions were and even the origin of the name are not well-known, and some of these things likely fluctuated between different kings, although they probably had some ability to affect succession, due to being all the most powerful nobles.
There is also the fact that who should have taken the throne after Edward's death was something of a mess. William argued (and possibly believed) Edward had offered it to him, with some sources stating that was the reason for Godwinson's trip to Normandy in 1064. Edward may have favoured his nephew, who was in Hungary. Harold likely got the job due to this lack of clear succession, the fear of Viking invasion, and some political maneuvering.
Realistically though, it was the 11th Century. It'd been barely two hundred years since there'd been an England at all, and "seize the throne by force" was still a legitimate way to gain power.
@@John_Smith. Actually we do know pretty well what most of the Witenagemot did and how much power it held, the problem is that it's powers fluctuated from its founding by Æthelberht of Kent in the year 600 to it's dissolution by William in 1066-67. However it is known for certain that it did elect the Kings of England, though more often than not those kings generally ended up being the sons of the recently deceased King.
According to Felix Liebermann (1851-1925): "The influence of the king, or at least of kingship, on the constitution of the assembly seems, therefore, to have been immense. But on the other hand he (the king) was elected by the witan. ... He could not depose the prelates or ealdormen, who held their office for life, nor indeed the hereditary thanes. ... At any rate, the king had to get on with the highest statesmen appointed by his predecessor, though possibly disliked by him, until death made a post vacant that he could fill with a relation or a favourite, not, however, without having a certain regard to the wishes of the aristocracy."
And the contemporaneous Abbot Ælfric of Eynsham: "No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their necks."
@@hunter207 Mm. That's one school of thought, certainly. The other is generally that the Witenagemot were little more than a formality, a rubber stamp on whoever the last King chose. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between myself. The prospective King likely had to have a certain amount of influence among his peers in the Witenagemot, but at the same time, likely could or would have become King without it. This is complicated by the nature of that relation of course. Is the next King, the King because he has made alliances with the powerful nobles, or has he made alliances with powerful nobles because he's the next King and they want to get on his good side.
Either way, I believe that the Witenagemot had little choice but to elect Harold, because he and two of his brothers ran three of the most powerful Earldoms, and were powerful enough to just declare Harold King with or without the Witenagemot. Literally, they ran the entire country aside from Mercia.
Harold had archers at Stamford Bridge: one shot Hardrada in the neck. The Bayeux Tapestry depicts an English archer at Hastings, too.
thats what i was wondering aswell harold did have archers but i think he maybe lost most of his archers at the battle of stamford bridge thats why he didnt use any in the battle of hastings
ur qaundele dingle
@@haroonvali1749 During the time of the battles of Stamford Bridge and Hastings in 1066 the English army did not have specialized archer units in the way that medieval English armies would later develop during the Hundred Years' War (which began in the 14th century).
Instead archery was presented by the fyrd - the locally-sourced militia that highly subsidised Harold's armies - who were primarily infantrymen but who were also capable of using bows.
The iconic use of the longbow and the development of specialized archer units, such as the English longbowmen, came later, particularly during the Hundred Years' War between England and France in the 14th and 15th centuries. The longbow became a dominant weapon during this period, and English armies began to train and organize archers specifically for long-range archery, which played a significant role in battles like the Battle of Crécy (1346) and the Battle of Agincourt (1415).
Полотенце из Байе это нарративный источник, к нему нужно именно так и относится
History never looked or sounded better. Love it!
exept horrible history was good.
@@scottleft3672 Your opinion
Medieval 2 tutorial mission.
Wait.... there was a tutorial mission in Medieval 2???
2SSSR2 ikr
*feelings*
Yes, there was even a small tutorial campaign about the Conquest of England.
eyyy total war peeps have at thee
Baz i know youre the one that loves history and you have a strong accent, it must suck to have someone else voiceover your love but it was a good decision and the videos have been gold
The thing that impresses me is that clearly the narrator is a pro and Baz must be spending spending money to have him read. Shows that he's committed enough to spend money to bring quality to his channel and stick to his own strengths
That's a very good point. Credit to someone who's prepared to invest in his own creation
It adds to the professionalism, I mean the channel just sounds a lot more professional and that should by itself attract more viewers. This channel should grow quickly with this kind of content.
lol? the narrator is british, therefore he is 'pro'
americans.
Indubitably, good sir. Tally ho!
The composition of William's army really shows the direction that warfare was heading. Harold, who only used infantry, was the past. William, who was mixing infantry with archers, and now CAVALRY as well, was the future. Harold's forces did ride horses, but they didn't FIGHT on them. They would always dismount to fight. William's Norman cavalry, on the other hand, trained to fight from horseback, and they were GOOD. In fact, to my knowledge, they were the first cavalry to be called by the term "Knights".
They were only use to scout, I think the Norse did the same as well. Fair to say that it seems it was a Scandinavian warfare
They were only use to scout, I think the Norse did the same as well. Fair to say that it seems it was a Scandinavian warfare
>Harold, who only used infantry, was the past
But also 1,000 years after Rome, Macedon...
Harold almost won though, he would have if his army didn't chase the retreat
That is why the Huns almost destroyed the Western Roman Empire
I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS
William "so what did we learn?"
Harold *sigh* "never lose the highground"
William "never lose the highground"
Obi-wan "sheeet i've been saying that for years"
rejvaik From a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away!
Honestly, Hastings was one of those rare battles that was so close, it came down to which king was killed first. Could’ve just as easily been William felled by a stray arrow. And if so, his army would’ve melted away just as the anglo saxons did.
Also, to me, Hastings wasn’t William’s greatest feat. It was maintaining control of both his kingdom and his duchy in the aftermath that’s far more impressive.
Saxons did not have archers
@@Kriegter I knew they didn’t have many archers, but they didn’t have any at all?
@@Kriegter wasn't hardrada killed by an Anglo-Saxon arrow to the throat?
@@nima4797 I think thats a common misconception i thought he was cut to pieces by norman knights
@@nima4797 Yup so Saxons did have archers but weird there weren’t any at Hastings
This battle was the first one I got introduced to back in Medieval 2 Total War, it was and it still is awesome. Keep making more of this man! I'd love to see you do some of the later Medieval Era battles like Hattin or Agincourt.
I love your chat balloons! They're hilarious!
no they aren't
bkbj8282 they are you nerd
@@StrongFreeLovin you are a nerd
Agreed, they bring a certain millennial vernacular to battles over a millennium old 😂😂
10:55 Being leaderless doesn’t necessarily make an army less dangerous: the fleeing English led the Norman cavalry to concealed pits where many perished.
The Bretons did the same to the Angevin invaders in 992, so it was a hazard the Normans should have anticipated.
based
Edward probably promised original voice over guy he would narrate another video too.
mambofever lol
Awesome! Your best video so far. The voice actor combined with your great editing skills makes them a masterpiece.
Random Stranger: *holds door for Edward*
Edward: THE KING IN THE NORTH
xD
thanks for writing this comment, your are now the successor of england
@@alimertc 😂😂😂
I can tell this channel will grow in no time! So glad to see more than one video per month :)
These are so good, thank you so much!
Loving the channel so far! The chat balloons are amazing and the battles are exceptionally well-made.
Keep up the good work!
Possible ideas: Fights of the Ottomans gaining or losing territories in the 15th-16th century?
Once again amazing. One small detail though,leave the end screen trivia on screen for a three or two more seconds please,it is really intredting stuff and i always read it anxiously. Its a super minor thing though. Exceptional video baz
Love learning about my local history, live up the road from Pevensey and the castle there. :)
Possibly the most important day in English history? 🏴
Great video! Simple yet informative
Keep up the good work 😎
worst day in english history. its the starting point of hundreds of years of french domination.
Good morning! This second part of the story was excellent after the battle of Stamford Bridge. I am Brazilian and I am passionate about these stories from other countries, because it is something of great value and enrichment of each country. Thanks again for this valuable content
"England is my city!"
-William I, after falling face first onto the English shore.
What a great channel. Very fluid, well animated, and well narrated.
My distant relatives fought in the Battle of Hastings
They came from the village of Noye Sur Andelle in Normandy
Cool
So did mine!!
Mine were given land after, 3-4 miles away from the town I grew up in.
Moi aussi !
Excellent video, clear and with a quality that keeps getting better and better. Thank you guys, really a great job !
The Bretons of the time were famous for using light to medium cavalry (often with javelins). They defeated the Franks and the Vikings shieldwalls multiple times (while being outnumbered) by shooting or charging at the shieldwall then fainting to retreat and surrounding them when they pursued or try again if they didn't (the battles of Jengland and Ballon being the most famous examples). The frankish chronicles described those tactics being used in every conflicts they had with the Bretons.
Knowing that, it's hard to believe the story about them retreating because they thought William was dead, then rallying when he heroically stood up and finally surrounding the Anglo-saxons.
That sounds suspiciously like what some a Norman author paid by William to turn him into a hero would write. XD
What would be more probable?
- That it was precisely the Breton side that retreated in fear, then while fleeing for their life managed to recognize William in the middle of a battle and regained courage exactly at the right time and position to encircle the ennemies.
or,
- That the Bretons, seeing that the shieldwall wasn't breaking, decided to revert to the tactic that worked for them for hundreds of years.
I've been trying to remember the battle because I haven't studied it for 2 years, this was really helpful! Thanks.
Next time I slip and fall I will absolutely shout, what William shouted.
Great Video, I'm very happy I found this channel. keep up the good work, I even give 1$ at Patreon (okay that's not much, but I can't really afford more)
I wonder if William was copying Julius Caesar. When he went to war in Africa he slipped as well and then grasped the soil and said "Africa I embrace you". I don't know how popular the writings of that war were during William's time so I don't know if this was a concidence or if this was where William got the idea. Or I guess this could have been made up, I don't know the sources about this war at all, I don't know much about this period on English history.
Edward III is said to have done the same when he landed in Normandy at the start of the Hundred Years War.
The absolute state of your political compass.
*Falls in the streets of detroit*
"....England is OURS"
"I meant to do that!" pee wee Herman
This var my favorite battle at one time.
more videos please. Your channel is amazing.
Such an historic battle. I'm glad it was brought to light in this epic presentation.
These are fantastic videos. Would you consider doing the Battle of Pharsalus? The Gallic Wars would also be very interesting to watch. Thanks, and keep making great videos
Really love your focus on the historical context and not just the battle strategy! Great video!
Harold: It's over William! I have the high ground!
William: You underestimate my power!
One of the more in-depth depictions of the Battle of Hastings I've seen lately, very nice!
"Odo fought with a mace in order to prevent spilling Christian blood"... I'm sure that went well
Yay! One of my my favorite battles in British history. I was waiting for it. Thank you so much for your great job.
Great job again. Thank you very much. I am a big fan, keep up the good work.
Loved learning this in college, even cooler going back over it all and finding this video
These videos remind me of an old RUclips channel called “ theartofbattle” that I really liked
this is one of the best youtube channels i've ever witnessed. thank you! i love that you used a professional narrator too
BATTLE OF HASTINGS: AFTERMATH
After his victory at the Battle of Hastings, William marched on London and received the city’s submission. On Christmas Day of 1066, he was crowned the first Norman king of England, in Westminster Abbey, and the Anglo-Saxon phase of English history came to an end.
French became the language of the king’s court and gradually blended with the Anglo-Saxon tongue to give birth to modern English. (Illiterate like most nobles of his time, William spoke no English when he ascended the throne and failed to master it despite his efforts. Thanks to the Norman invasion, French was spoken in England’s courts for centuries and completely transformed the English language, infusing it with new words.) William I proved an effective king of England, and the “Domesday Book,” a great census of the lands and people of England, was among his notable achievements.
Excellent video! Worth the wait. Can't wait to see what battles you cover next.
Time Team did an episode on battle of Hastings, and they concluded that it didn't take place on the hill where Battle Abbey stands, which is also used as the location in this video, but more likely basically on top of the modern village of Battle, that is a narrow isthmus of solid high ground between what would've back then been lowlying marshes and woodland. No findings whatsoever related to any medieval military activity have been made on the abbey hill, plus for William to deploy his army on what was basically a bog on the bottom of a steep hill would've been suicidal.
Another suggested location, Caulbec Hill further to the north, would've been too large for Harold's army to hold in an actual battle, and virtually no findings have ever been made, but it was an excellent vantage point for making observations. It is more than likely that Harold set up a temporary camp there, knowing he could rush his men from there to the best defensive location in the area at the first sight of Normans - the narrow strip of high ground that William would have to traverse if he were to continue on to London. That place checks all the boxes in regard to descriptions given about the battleground, plus it is a strategic location that two able military commanders would have fought over with the forces they had, unlike Abbey Hill or Caulbec Hill.
This nitpicking is not to say your videos are not great because they are, but check out the Time Team episode on the subject if you already haven't, it's great and in my opinion made very solid arguments. :)
Crowhurst.... it's the site of the original Norman Abbey. The one that no one denies was built on the site of the battle. As a child we used to play on my grandad's farm and hook out shield bosses, helmet rings and swords from the malfosse. English Heritage have invested millions in perpetuating the modern myth that the battle took place at 'Battle' (the later Abbey site). I loved Time Team, but TV is simply entertainment...and facts come second place to ratings (hence I've not watched any form of mainstream TV for about a decade now). The geography and topography of Hastings were very different 950yrs ago. If you look at what the coastline was like in 1066 you'll see William wouldn't have landed at Pevensey... but probably nearer to Wilting with it's protected inlets that run up to the Crowhurst valley. I have a box of old sword bits in my garage from my childhood on the farm at Crowhurst... rather more than English Heritage and Time Team ever found! Not one hobnail from a shoe, not one arrow head, not one crossbow bolt, (Oh... I have dozens of crossbow bolt heads from my grandad's farm at Crowhurst... with it's 11thC ruins of the original Abbey at the side of the field!). As I got older I realised that what we are taught isn't always truthful... it's tailored and flavoured to whatever makes the most cash for those able to 'nudge' the facts in their direction!
Always nice to know more about this legendary battle.
Do you only do classical battles? Or would battles using muskets, or even early rifles be considered?
Cameron McAllister That will be later in, 2 or 3 years.
Pedro C. Okay, just wondering as there are a few battles I'd like to see from a more visual perspective, rather than vague descriptions in history books.
Cameron McAllister I've seen Baz answer this in an older video's comment section.
apparently, gunpowder weapons are much harder to animate, for several reasons. I think we can all understand why. they want the channel to be up and running before attempting those kinds of battles. so like Pedro C. said, we should probably wait about 2 or 3 years.
Vinvic1 Yup, I totally get it, just wanted to know.
2-3 years? C'mon guys, it's not a rocket science after all... I'm pretty sure when snow melts down in Poland, you'll get some modern battles too!
The whole series is absolutely awesome
North to York
Battle
Then south to Hastings
Battle
And you think your body needs an automobile
Tremendously absorbing and very elaborate video about the Battle of Hastings.
Video: "It's late September..."
My thoughts: "...and I really should be back in schoooool!"
Can't beat a nod to Rod the Mod! Top quippin'
Maggie has a lot to answer for
Great video! Really love that you teach us more about why the battle took place and such.
I've always been kind of saddened by Harold's defeat here. Having fought off a large Norwegian army only to be invaded again and defeated by a Norman invasion instead, doesn't seem.. fair or right somehow. How history would have been different if the English army had just stood their ground.
Bastard Norman tricks
Yes. It's a tragedy. ushered in an era of domination and oppression by a brutal foreign aristocracy. Harold was a hero, and in my mind the last King of England who could truly claim any legitimacy.
@@dreamer2260 👍
If he hadn't rushed into battle; bought some more time so he could summon a bigger and better resourced army and pitched the battle closer to London, then maybe the outcome would have been different.
Facts. I always felt like Godwinson was the real g of this story.
beautiful production
rip king Harold Godwinson 1020-1066 (struck in the eye with an arrow at the battle of Hastings)
you deserve more credit and I love how your videos are kinda like total war battles
splendid. one quick question: is the hundred year's war (Crecy, Poitiers...) anywhere in your long term targets? or the Crusades (Acre, Antioch...)?
are you ever going to show siege battles too?
keep it up Baz!
Yes, and yes :)
Baz you could also cover some Byzantine Empire battles
BazBattles many thanks! :D
From hundred years war we also need Orléans, Patay, Castillon with the use of sieges, cannons and cavalry flanks
niksarass yes, great ideas!
some of the best content on RUclips ! keep up the amazing work
Plot twist: Edward promised all of them so they could have a big battle and he wanted to know who would win
ur mom forgot no mom
Hello baz it would be amazing to do more videos on this era because we watch your videos in our history class. It really helps us learn.
I've got a stockpile of suggestions Baz! Maybe I should just rifle them off. The Battle of Varna, The Battle of Vienna, The Battle of Grunwald, and The Battle of Philippi.
And if you wanted to step further in time, The Battle of Rorke's Drift (seen this one a couple times), The Battle of Bunker Hill, Concord and Lexington, The Battle of Waterloo, or The Battle of the Alamo and soon following Battle of San Jacinto.
Personally, I'd like to see The Battle of Varna
Add "The Battle of New Orleans" during the war of 1812, in the colonies.
Like how you guys link the stories of the significant battles in several videos
This narrator is way better that the old one
What a great series both for kids and grown-ups! Nobody's likely to forget the great battles of history after THIS tuition...
Battle of Austerlitz please :D
I'd totally play a BazBattles strategy game, the art and style is so cool.
Only half way through this first video of yours and you can have my subscription.
Thank you.
8:41 When you don't tell your archers to "fire", but to "loose"
belive it was because the term "Fire!" wasnt really invented or used
@@tommyfortress7515 According to Lindybeige (great channel, check him out) it's simply because the term didn't mean "shoot" until the era of firearms. If you shouted "fire" at an archer, he would probably be like "What? There's a fire? Where?".
Man, those letters and messages are pure gold. You have a new subscriber, sir ^^
My uncle took an ancestry test and it shows that were related to king Harold.
I'm honestly pretty disappointed but at least I have royal blood
Well I mean he beat Harald Hardrada, pretty astonishing feat.
My ancestry test told me I am related to William!
What kind of test is that ? You mean from anccestry DNA?
When calculating ancestors the math works out that every single European is a descendant of Charlemagne. Well and everybody else living at the time, they are our generation zero, meaning the number of any persons ancestors is greater than the population in that period.
@@elwolf8536 Ancestry.com dna test
Fantastic videos. Great depth and the facts at the end of the video are the icing on the cake
5:25 Caesar moment
Excellent quality guys! Keep up the great work! :)
1:38 I like the detail that Edward was drunk when he wrote the letter. Can’t even spell William or Edward right.
thanks so much for this🙏🙏🙏
helped with my h/w alot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I feel so bad for Harold Godwinson. Edward called 3 people a successor and 2 people attacked Harold just for the throne.
Edward was always clear that William was his successor, Harald of Norway’s predecessor was promised the throne by Edwards predecessor, and Harold Godwinson just lied to seize power, was never endorsed by Edward
The Battle of Hastings in 1066 was a turning point in English history, where William the Conqueror defeated King Harold II, leading to the Norman conquest of England. One intriguing detail is that the famous Bayeux Tapestry, which tells the story of the battle, features over 70 scenes depicting the events. This epic tale of conquest is often celebrated in world history documentaries as a pivotal moment that reshaped the English monarchy and culture.
8:17 Whoa! Who was attacking William when he fell off his horse, then?
Earls Leofwine and Gyrth attacked the Norman front lines and sent them scurrying.
The Carmen says Gyrth attacked William.
According to the Bayeux Tapestry, the Breton cavalry then stormed the Earls’ flanks, tore through their centre, killing Leofwine, distracting Gyrth and giving William’s bodyguard a reprieve. A Norman soldier then stabbed Gyrth in the back.
The English absolutely had Thegns and Huscarls at Hastings, but many of them died and others were captured in that incident; as we can tell from Domesday Book, Alan Rufus (the Breton commander) placed some of the surviving English Thegns into his inner circle: for example, Colswein and his son Almaer.
It’s because Leofwine and Gyrth’s full-out assault on William was interrupted that (1) William survived, (2) the Earls died, and (3) Harold was thenceforth stuck on the ridge with a broken chain of command.
He also failed to mention that early on in the battle the Norman's thought William had been killed and had started to retreat until William rode along the line with his helmet raised so that the Norman's could see he was still alive.
Had Harold properly taken advantage of that confusion and ordered his army into the attack, the battle of Hastings might have had a different outcome.
Excellent video! Keep up the great work!
GRAT JOB! Love this series, Now that you finished with this Battles, please, you must do the Escape from Agincourt, Henry the V escaping the French knights at a failed siege in Harfleur, but forced to face the knights at the lands of Agincourt, where his light infantry line faced fiercely the heavy Cavalry, This battle was known as the battle where "CHIVALRY (the code of the knight) HAS DIED"
Em1lic0! Well, until french knights learned their mistakes and eventually kicked the english out of France. Thanks Joan of Arc
Em1lic0! Then Chivarly reborn znd kick english longbow at patay
Why is your avatar a baby assassin?
Agincourt is not an english victory.
it was a battle between the French king & French aristocracy of england and the French king & French aristocracy of France. A civil war between two French dynasties the French Plantagenêts against the French Capétien.
Because England was a French colony for 300 years: Normands, Blois & Plantagenêts.
@@lecapetien3223 yes, I made this comment long ago, and in that time, i didnt know that. Now I know that the 100 years war was betweet two different noble houses of France, basically the French and the Other French (Burgundians) but with the difference that the "other French" were more empatic with the Briton cause and saw Profit with the English, thus waging a war against their own kinsmen.... crazy isnt it?
You saved my lifeeeeee. Thxxxxxxxx.
Battle starts at 8:40
I have always read that it was retreating cavalry (or cavalry feigning a retreat) that broke Harold's lines, there may be other interpretations but my entire senior history project was based around 1066 and The Spanish Armada.
Battle of Manzikert , please do it next
Been waiting that so much! Great work as always, thanks.
I used to be an adventurer like you, then I took an arrow in the eye.
Excelent summary of the Battle of Hastings. Thank you !
9:16 Hmm, instead of ordering the cavalry to threaten the enemy rear and flanks, he sends them in a frontal engagement vs stationary, formed up infantry? In Total War, this would scream "Hey, I'm a bloody noob, please come finish me off!" ;P
but ur right in total war charging heavy cav uphill would be absurd.
antred11 yep, cause video games are just like real battle
Aiden The main point is that Harold's army didn't have flanks at first: they stretched from treeline to treeline. Frontal attack was the only way to approach them.
Moreover, one major issue with Total War is it's about creating an extended combat, not simulating real life battles.
Heavy cavalry ruled the Middle Ages because the majority of infantry were poorly trained peasants who would rather flee to save their own lives than stand against a determined armored opponent. Knight-based forces relied on the power and force of the initial charge to force a premature rout, opening up gaps and exploiting an opportunity for encirclement. More often than not the infantry broke, but if they did not break then a situation like the one in the video might occur.
Jengland 851, a case in point. Led by Charles the Bald, well-trained Frankish infantry invade Brittany en route to Rennes. Continually harassed, they head south. Seeing Breton horsemen approach, they form a shield wall. Bretons charge. Franks extend spears, brace for impact. Bretons cast pilae, which embed in shields then bend, rendering shields unusable and soldiers exposed. Horses turn sharply and gallop away, to be replaced by a second wave, then a third. This continues for two days. During the second night, Charles secretly abandons his men. On the morning of the third day, Bretons overrun Franks' camp, kill all, then pursue Charles. They meet at Angers, where Charles has no choice but to concede territory for peace.
Excellent and very informative video. Keep up the fantastic work.
Holy shit, without realizing it, I do the same thing when I organize my army structure in Total War games, including the recent Warhammer 2. I like to break my army up into smaller, roughly equivalent forces.. Almost exactly the same way William does in this battle. It makes your collective army more mobile and flexible, while still adhering to the general concept of a "battle-line."
Also, the fact that he creates these squads not only corresponding to place of origin as well as being geographically representative (Bretons-West, Normans-Center, Flemish/French-East)... is just so beautiful and is very pleasing to me logistically, tactically, etc. I realize now, more than ever before, that I am a fucking big fan of William the Norman Conqueror.
Something similar happened to me me where I learned that I used tactics somewhat similar to tactics that Hannibal used
I've learnt to do that as well. Have to use command keys, group numbers and the pause button a lot, though. :/
I HAVE BEEN WAITING!!! I LOVE YOU ♥
♥ BAZBATTLES ♥
the French normans changes anglo-saxon history forever
Normans were actually descended from Norsemen who settled in the area
ok...lets get it right William was a norseman(viking descendant) hence Norman.He used french troops on the battlefield
@@Suckmyballsskank crying baby
@@randomname5083 yeah but they were french speakers and were culturally french. Their troops fought in the french style too.
@George S The norse who settled this area intermarried with the local french
please make more! i love these videos!
in french we say "guillaume le conquérant" not william
no one gives a shit about baguettes
Hilarious.
Guillaume c'est wilhem en hollandais = william en anglais !
Well technically your ancesters are partially french so you should care...
SkepTic A big part of the english cultural legacy should care