This History teacher reminds me of Mr. Kher, who was my history teacher, and he taught our class almost the same as this guy. I really loved that class and freshman year went by too fast because of it.
Michael Potocsky-4th hour One thing that this analysis of the Battle of Hastings taught me about the Medieval world is that multiple battle tactics were attempted over and over again, with alterations coming after failure, leading to fights that extended over a very long period of time. The British primarily focused on Roman concepts to strengthen their battle plans, including creating a shield around them. The Medieval world was a blend of creativity, development, and violence.
Love his presentation. I would debate on whether the most common weapon was a spear. The Dane Axe would certainly be present. The question really is how many spears vs axes. Spears as a thrusting weapon does very well in a shield wall as you only need a small space to thrust out. Dane Axes could be mixed in not just for wounding but to hook shields creating an opening for other to attack into.
I would have chosen a spear. Keep the foe at a distance while maintaining a quick second strike capability. Also, riders are at a height that would lessen the amount of inertia an ax could attain. I would want a combo spear and shield...which becomes slightly less effective.
If I were William I probably would’ve held one 1/3rd of my army to the right and Concentrated the other 2/3rd of my army on the enemies right flank . I would dare them to pull troops from there left flank to assist the right . Because if they did I would’ve attacked the weakened section of the shield wall with mu 1/3rd . Or starve them off that hill
Michael Goldberg First hour AP Euro- I learned that in the medieval world and during war the war is much less organized with much less plan, the men who charged out back at them were definitely not told to do so... something like this would not happen today. (sorry this is almost late!)
the main difference between medieval battles and todays is that we have telecomunication today. A commander on a medieval field sees little and gets hoarse really quick. Runners have to relay orders. It's a mess. Combine that with far less professionalized armys (for large timespans) and general glory-hounding, and stuff like this happens. But hindsight is always 2020. You can bet that stupid mistakes also happen in todays fog of war.
Maybe because it's a class of freshmen. Sophomores or juniors...probably more. Or give it a few more years, and more freshmen will have seen the show. What about movies? LOTR only has a few battles, but Gladiator basically single-handedly resurrected the historical epic and there have been lots of movies/tv shows set in the ancient world and a few in the Middle Ages since. Braveheart has not persisted in the popular imagination nearly as well as Gladiator has.
Yes, Braveheart in general is probably the most historically inaccurate movie with pretensions towards accuracy that has ever been made. But Stirling Bridge is an amazing battle. You should do it. In your background to it you could briefly use the movie as an example of bad history on film, even if none of the kids have seen it. For example, you could use one historian's line about the costumes that the kids should find funny: "A film about colonial America showing the colonial men wearing 20th Century business suits, but with the jackets worn back-to-front instead of the right way around."
Harold was coming from the north of England as the Vikings had just invaded it was a two pronged attack. This was the last time this little island was completely over ran new King new laws and a new way of life for the ancient English
@LordCryptid My paper has now grown to 27 pages and I have 3 sources that indicate that there were 3 engagements on the 14th. Check out Bayeux Tapestry - scenes 51 and 52 ( the first attack) . Paras 16 through to the start of para 19 of Gesta Guillelmi by William of Poitiers (Translated by Davis and Chibnall pages 127 to 131). The Carmen de Triumpho Normannico lines 341 through to 372 ( Translated by Kathleen Tyson).
Sorry guys but when Harold died the Huscarls didn't try to leave. They were his household bodyguards and had sworn an oath of loyalty to him. They stayed and basically fought to the death. Nearly all the English aristocracy who were present on Senlac Hill died that day. Waes Hael! 😔
Fun fact: It's easier not to be evaded if you're on a island and control it (more or less) completely. This island is also a nice place to sit and point your fingers at an continental ally who surrendered, after you left him alone in a decisive battle and ran back to said island. Waiting for the big brother to save your ass.... If you are in posession of the famous british humour, you might do that for decades and still find it funny. Having said that, historically they definitely made the best of their island situation.
We brits didnt do too bad when we left our Island either i.e Waterloo, Trafalgar, El Alemain, Tobruk, D-Day (wasnt just the yanks like Hollywood makes it out to have been been) the Dam busters, the Spitfire, etc etc etc
You have got to give it to Harold. Some serious guts required in this campaign and then slug it out to the last. Ultimately the Normans gave Britain that advance needed in technology and stopped the country becoming dominated by the Anglo-Saxons
@@LordCryptid I would say the other 2 real history changers of Battles here would be Brunanburgh that effectively stopped Saxon expansion North and West and Bosworth field that finished the Plantagenets
they did have archers in general but the archers were more or less kind of the militia ... and if you are running from the north of your territory where you had a little brawl with Hadrada to the south to more or less ambush William before he can establish himself you just do not have the time to call them up ...
Ahhhhhhhhhh Hastings.The battle which all history classes teach today.They are not wrong about it being significant either. Williams conquest of England ended the Anglo -Saxon era and brought it up to date with the medieval world and rewrote the laws and system of the country into the powerhouse it would eventually become.But by far the most crucial change which came out of this battle was the Anglo-French relations which persist to this day.
I'm sorry but the biggest change was the fact that the rulers no longer spoke the language of the ruled. Anglo French relations are the result of decisions made by a French King saying the aristocrats couldn't have two masters, they either served the English King or the French one. All this is circa 1400 - 1500. In fact we've only recently celebrated the centenary of the Entente Cordiale (2004) recognising that we were "friends".
by the way when i said Anglo-French relations i meant it in the way that england and france would be more connected, not necessarily through friendship but for most of the time war
Possibly a fear of losing men he had recently marched from the north who had been away from their fields? Or, to save face by ridding his land of another invasion? Had Harold been there earlier things may have differed as well.
@@LordCryptid the march to Stamford Bridge, the Battle and the return march are epic achievements. I can understand him being under pressure but he must have known William was in enemy lands not him, the longer he makes him wait the more his supplies run out and his men grow nervous.
I have now watched a number of your battle videos and although I enjoy them because its good to see an American actually talking about something else other than the American Civil War (shame on your people for allowing the left to destroy the statues of your past great generals like Lee and Jackson by the way) I watch them mostly to see how many facts you get wrong....sorry.
You should keep a running tally. My wife does. However, remember that these lessons are to get 14 year olds interested in military history so I add to the story for effect. Plus, I am going on memory without a script so I get things wrong. You are correct that I have not done a Civil War battle. Not as interesting for me and did not fit into the classes I taught back then.
@@chrisholland7367 The Normans had insignificant Viking heritage whether it was genetically, culturally, linguistically or religiously. When Rollo was defeated by the Franks at Chartres in 911, the king of the Franks authorized what was left of his army (less than 10,000 men) to settle in an area in Normandy, in exchange of baptism, vassalisation and stopping Viking raids coming from the North. Few thousands Scandinavians settled in Normandy and mixed with the locals. One century later, the "Scandinavian blood" was diluted. William the Conqueror, despite being a direct descendant of Rollo, was Breton and Neustrian, as his genealogical tree shows... Moreover, the army of William was one third Norman, the rest was coming from Britanny, Anjou, Maine, Ile-de-France, etc. Thus nor the Normans nor the army that invaded England were Scandinavian at all.
A catastrophe for the Anglo-Saxons, yes. Although to hear Mark Morris explain it England got a lot of good out of the invasion as well, such as a more modern legal code and the abolishment of the slave trade. Nothing is ever black and white.
Im surprised in today's PC culture that you could even teach about any sorts of violence. Or they would have to make both sides African lesbians instead of English and French . I wish I had this class when I was in highschool. I learned about Alot of battles on my own.
complaining about woke revisionism is somewhat rich in the light of current events. You do realize that some teachers are held not to teach anything that makes white students uncomfortable, historic acuratesse be damned?
@@FlorisGerber prove it too me. It's easy to say stuff like that. I've read the "news" articles saying that, than when you look into it that's not the case at all. It just a click bait headline because these people are angry that Marxist critical theory is being applied by teachers and people hate It for good reason. So please, your source for your statement would be nice.
@@JoeySocko I rather think I will not be able to give you any source that you will not decry as fake. I ask you instead: What is your definition of marxism? just out of curiosity?
Good class, enjoyed it. Harold's wife was called Edith Swan-neck. Bares no relevance, but I've always liked that name.
That bears great relevance. It is an epic name.
This History teacher reminds me of Mr. Kher, who was my history teacher, and he taught our class almost the same as this guy. I really loved that class and freshman year went by too fast because of it.
Michael Potocsky-4th hour
One thing that this analysis of the Battle of Hastings taught me about the Medieval world is that multiple battle tactics were attempted over and over again, with alterations coming after failure, leading to fights that extended over a very long period of time. The British primarily focused on Roman concepts to strengthen their battle plans, including creating a shield around them. The Medieval world was a blend of creativity, development, and violence.
This is the battle that every school countlessly teaches.
That shield was so tightly packed the dead couldn't fall to the ground
You can understand why some Roman soldiers no longer attempted to defend themselves.
can you do the battle of Waterloo i think its pretty noteworthy
or to add to that Austerlitz which i think may be more epic than Frederick's victory in Leuthen
Agree to all the above.
Love his presentation. I would debate on whether the most common weapon was a spear. The Dane Axe would certainly be present. The question really is how many spears vs axes. Spears as a thrusting weapon does very well in a shield wall as you only need a small space to thrust out. Dane Axes could be mixed in not just for wounding but to hook shields creating an opening for other to attack into.
I would have chosen a spear. Keep the foe at a distance while maintaining a quick second strike capability. Also, riders are at a height that would lessen the amount of inertia an ax could attain. I would want a combo spear and shield...which becomes slightly less effective.
If I were William I probably would’ve held one 1/3rd of my army to the right and Concentrated the other 2/3rd of my army on the enemies right flank . I would dare them to pull troops from there left flank to assist the right . Because if they did I would’ve attacked the weakened section of the shield wall with mu 1/3rd . Or starve them off that hill
Michael Goldberg First hour AP Euro- I learned that in the medieval world and during war the war is much less organized with much less plan, the men who charged out back at them were definitely not told to do so... something like this would not happen today. (sorry this is almost late!)
the main difference between medieval battles and todays is that we have telecomunication today. A commander on a medieval field sees little and gets hoarse really quick. Runners have to relay orders. It's a mess.
Combine that with far less professionalized armys (for large timespans) and general glory-hounding, and stuff like this happens.
But hindsight is always 2020. You can bet that stupid mistakes also happen in todays fog of war.
What a great teacher
That made my night.
@@LordCryptid its simply true.
Aegon the Conqueror lol...I wonder if you ever use Game of Thrones references to get these kids engaged :)
Fewer students than I suspected watch GOT. But, I should at least show battle scenes that are similar. That is what I will do this year.
Maybe because it's a class of freshmen. Sophomores or juniors...probably more. Or give it a few more years, and more freshmen will have seen the show.
What about movies? LOTR only has a few battles, but Gladiator basically single-handedly resurrected the historical epic and there have been lots of movies/tv shows set in the ancient world and a few in the Middle Ages since.
Braveheart has not persisted in the popular imagination nearly as well as Gladiator has.
I was considering the Battle of Sterling Bridge. But Braveheart does this battle a disservice.
Yes, Braveheart in general is probably the most historically inaccurate movie with pretensions towards accuracy that has ever been made.
But Stirling Bridge is an amazing battle. You should do it. In your background to it you could briefly use the movie as an example of bad history on film, even if none of the kids have seen it.
For example, you could use one historian's line about the costumes that the kids should find funny: "A film about colonial America showing the colonial men wearing 20th Century business suits, but with the jackets worn back-to-front instead of the right way around."
Please note king Harold was hacked to death along with his bodyguards who did not run away. King
Harold was coming from the north of England as the Vikings had just invaded it was a two pronged attack. This was the last time this little island was completely over ran new King new laws and a new way of life for the ancient English
I want to do the Battle of Stamford Bridge next!
How do I get my 21 page paper to you? I sent it to the landowner, the Forestry Commission, and they're doing an investigation - at their own expense!
@LordCryptid My paper has now grown to 27 pages and I have 3 sources that indicate that there were 3 engagements on the 14th. Check out Bayeux Tapestry - scenes 51 and 52 ( the first attack) . Paras 16 through to the start of para 19 of Gesta Guillelmi by William of Poitiers (Translated by Davis and Chibnall pages 127 to 131). The Carmen de Triumpho Normannico lines 341 through to 372 ( Translated by Kathleen Tyson).
Sorry guys but when Harold died the Huscarls didn't try to leave. They were his household bodyguards and had sworn an oath of loyalty to him. They stayed and basically fought to the death. Nearly all the English aristocracy who were present on Senlac Hill died that day. Waes Hael! 😔
Agreed. Probably more accurate to say the Fyrdmen not the Huscarls. My apologies.
@@LordCryptid no worries, I was just being a pedant...apologies from the UK.
Fun fact: It's easier not to be evaded if you're on a island and control it (more or less) completely.
This island is also a nice place to sit and point your fingers at an continental ally who surrendered, after you left him alone in a decisive battle and ran back to said island. Waiting for the big brother to save your ass....
If you are in posession of the famous british humour, you might do that for decades and still find it funny.
Having said that, historically they definitely made the best of their island situation.
Most assuredly so. I tell my students about the pros and cons of islands starting with the Minoans of Crete.
We brits didnt do too bad when we left our Island either i.e Waterloo, Trafalgar, El Alemain, Tobruk, D-Day (wasnt just the yanks like Hollywood makes it out to have been been) the Dam busters, the Spitfire, etc etc etc
You have got to give it to Harold. Some serious guts required in this campaign and then slug it out to the last. Ultimately the Normans gave Britain that advance needed in technology and stopped the country becoming dominated by the Anglo-Saxons
I was considering the Battle of Stamford Bridge soon.
@@LordCryptid I would say the other 2 real history changers of Battles here would be Brunanburgh that effectively stopped Saxon expansion North and West and Bosworth field that finished the Plantagenets
@@davepangolin4996 Funny, I am reading the Plantagenets by Dan Brown right now.
@@LordCryptid There is a BBC series "The Plantagenets" by Prof. Robert Bartlett.... you will love that... think its on Amazon
Is this a normal school?
Birmingham Public Schools in Michigan.
How did king harold hadrada of Norway die than if the English had no archers. I was just wondering. People say he got shot in the neck.
they did have archers in general but the archers were more or less kind of the militia ... and if you are running from the north of your territory where you had a little brawl with Hadrada to the south to more or less ambush William before he can establish himself you just do not have the time to call them up ...
@@MrNeunauge cool
Ahhhhhhhhhh Hastings.The battle which all history classes teach today.They are not wrong about it being significant either.
Williams conquest of England ended the Anglo -Saxon era and brought it up to date with the medieval world and rewrote the laws and system of the country into the powerhouse it would eventually become.But by far the most crucial change which came out of this battle was the Anglo-French relations which persist to this day.
I'm sorry but the biggest change was the fact that the rulers no longer spoke the language of the ruled. Anglo French relations are the result of decisions made by a French King saying the aristocrats couldn't have two masters, they either served the English King or the French one. All this is circa 1400 - 1500. In fact we've only recently celebrated the centenary of the Entente Cordiale (2004) recognising that we were "friends".
Good point !
by the way when i said Anglo-French relations i meant it in the way that england and france would be more connected, not necessarily through friendship but for most of the time war
If Harold had waited a few days he would have a numerical superiority.
Possibly a fear of losing men he had recently marched from the north who had been away from their fields? Or, to save face by ridding his land of another invasion? Had Harold been there earlier things may have differed as well.
@@LordCryptid the march to Stamford Bridge, the Battle and the return march are epic achievements. I can understand him being under pressure but he must have known William was in enemy lands not him, the longer he makes him wait the more his supplies run out and his men grow nervous.
@@gordonmcinnes5055 Really good points, sir.
I have now watched a number of your battle videos and although I enjoy them because its good to see an American actually talking about something else other than the American Civil War (shame on your people for allowing the left to destroy the statues of your past great generals like Lee and Jackson by the way) I watch them mostly to see how many facts you get wrong....sorry.
You should keep a running tally. My wife does. However, remember that these lessons are to get 14 year olds interested in military history so I add to the story for effect. Plus, I am going on memory without a script so I get things wrong. You are correct that I have not done a Civil War battle. Not as interesting for me and did not fit into the classes I taught back then.
This was a catastrophe for England. The English have never liked the French, although the Normans were actually Scandinavians
That's right Normandy was an outomonus region run by viking decendants .Normandy 'the land of the North Men '
@@chrisholland7367 The Normans had insignificant Viking heritage whether it was genetically, culturally, linguistically or religiously. When Rollo was defeated by the Franks at Chartres in 911, the king of the Franks authorized what was left of his army (less than 10,000 men) to settle in an area in Normandy, in exchange of baptism, vassalisation and stopping Viking raids coming from the North.
Few thousands Scandinavians settled in Normandy and mixed with the locals. One century later, the "Scandinavian blood" was diluted. William the Conqueror, despite being a direct descendant of Rollo, was Breton and Neustrian, as his genealogical tree shows...
Moreover, the army of William was one third Norman, the rest was coming from Britanny, Anjou, Maine, Ile-de-France, etc.
Thus nor the Normans nor the army that invaded England were Scandinavian at all.
A catastrophe for the Anglo-Saxons, yes. Although to hear Mark Morris explain it England got a lot of good out of the invasion as well, such as a more modern legal code and the abolishment of the slave trade. Nothing is ever black and white.
Im surprised in today's PC culture that you could even teach about any sorts of violence. Or they would have to make both sides African lesbians instead of English and French . I wish I had this class when I was in highschool. I learned about Alot of battles on my own.
complaining about woke revisionism is somewhat rich in the light of current events. You do realize that some teachers are held not to teach anything that makes white students uncomfortable, historic acuratesse be damned?
@@FlorisGerber prove it too me. It's easy to say stuff like that. I've read the "news" articles saying that, than when you look into it that's not the case at all. It just a click bait headline because these people are angry that Marxist critical theory is being applied by teachers and people hate It for good reason. So please, your source for your statement would be nice.
@@JoeySocko I rather think I will not be able to give you any source that you will not decry as fake.
I ask you instead: What is your definition of marxism? just out of curiosity?
@@FlorisGerber you did not answer mine i will not answer yours.
@@FlorisGerber you have nothing, you lose good day sir!
battle that changed history in the west lol
Yep. The battles featured fit into the areas of study for the class at the time. I am trying to work in more Asia and Africa next year.
LordCryptid
Any Imjin War stuff?