Was William The Conqueror's Retreat Real or Feigned?

'Was William The Conqueror's Retreat Real or Feigned?'
In this video, Dan Snow speaks to medieval historian Marc Morris about what really happened on October 14th 1066, when William, Duke of Normandy, faced off against the Anglo-Saxon king Harold Godwinson. Walking the original battlefield on Senlac Hill, they discuss whether William's 'feigned retreats' were planned at all, and if King Harold really was killed by an arrow to the eye.
This clip is an extended trailed for the History Hit TV documentary '1066: The Year of Conquest'. You can watch the full episode here: access.historyhit.com/videos/...
1066 - one of the most famous years in English history. In a succession crisis like no other, three warlords separated by hundreds of miles and savage seas vied for control of the English throne in a series of bloody battles. From Harald Hardrada's promising victory at Fulford to the pivotal Battle of Hastings, Dan Snow travels across England to visit the places where history was made. With the help of experts, including Marc Morris, Emily Ward and Michael Lewis, he discovers the story behind the battles and the tales from inside the walls of power. This is the story of 1066.
Sign up to History Hit TV now and get 14 days free: access.historyhit.com/checkout
And remember, as KZbin subscribers, you can sign up to History Hit TV today with code KZbin and enjoy 50% off your first 3 months!
For more history content, subscribe to our History Hit newsletters: www.historyhit.com/sign-up-to...
#dansnow #historyhit #1066

[@instathrill8845]

When learning about Hastings at school some 20 years ago, "they said" that the Saxon shield wall atop the hill was so tightly packed in, that when a man died during an attempt to break the wall, his body would remain upright pressed in shoulder to shoulder with the men next to him. I always found that flavour text really awesome, whether it is 100% fact, or artistic pzazz to get a point across about how the Saxon shield wall was giving its all against the invaders, even after death lol.

[@BamBamBigelow..]

I always kinda felt bad for Harold Godwinson, poor dude couldn't catch a break

[@KingGayCockroach]

But isn’t that the point; some men catch all the luck and some do not; and then there are the greatest of them all; those who perservere. That was William; his powerful army getting trounced by a bunch of farmers in a shield wall; and just on the brink of defeat his enemy and the king who he sought to usurp takes a damn arrow in the eye; and boom William perserveres where Harold suffers the ultimate downfall of English history.

[@ianmedford4855]

If he'd just chilled in London for a few days to gather his forces, they'd have likely crushed the Normans. All Harald had to do was keep existing long enough to concentrate the power of England; whereas William HAD to win.

[@thejbomb65]

You wanna feel bad for someone, feel bad for harald hadradda. Chased out of his country, flees to kiyv, joins up with the Varangians Guard, serves with distinction, gets caught in dynastic dispute, all while earning enough plunder to win over his future father law. Goes home and takes back his crown and reforges the North Sea empire and only needs England to complete the conquest. And because for all his experience and training in eastern Roman military styles, he made the mistake of letting his guard down for the first time and it cost him his life. This guy was top of heap, the best soldier of his day even at 60 could still go.

[@thejbomb65]

Hadradda was like a navy seal, green beret and force recon in one person. He had access to and likely would have read every eastern Roman military manual available. On paper he should have steamrolled godwinson and william the bastard with ease

[@billythedog-309]

Yeah, that's kinda what l sort of say like y'know what l mean?

[@jenniferlevine5406]

Awesome! Thanks for the wonderful history lesson.

[@shanesawhutchison9255]

That was excellent, thank you! 🇨🇦

[@maggiebrinkley4760]

Harold was a remarkable King. That march from Stamford Bridge to the South Coast was incredible! If only Harold had waited a while in London to gather more of the Fyrd....

[@eadweardwoden7309]

didnt wait for hes northern earls, edwin and morcar, Harold could of had thousands more men if he waited.

[@maggiebrinkley4760]

Yes, and maybe he could have picked a better battle site. But I suppose that risked William rampaging further over the countryside and consolidating his own position. It's fun to speculate!

[@nicolawebb6025]

He may have been a great leader to inspire the men, but he didn't walk, they did. It's the army that's remarkable

[@coffeebreakchat2450]

@@maggiebrinkley4760 Lost territory can be reconquered. Lost armies are lost for good. Better for Harold to trade space for time. William isnt getting any more men - ever! The more land William takes, the more he has to garrison - draining combat power from his battle line. Wherever Harold is, if he has an army, William has to attack him. William cannot risk Harold getting between his forces and the coastal ports. If the farms have been pillaged and burned, the supply situation for William becomes dire very quickly. Its easy to say Hastings would be lost for the Saxons in hindsight, but I guess at the time they thought they had a fair chance. Optimal strategy for Saxons might have been keeping their main army out of contact while using skirmishers to attack behind the lines. Attrition the invaders while recruiting like crazy. With a large enough manpower advantage on the big day, the Saxons might have had two Hasting sized armies and threaten the Normans from multiple fronts.

[@eadweardwoden7309]

@@coffeebreakchat2450 harold wanted to surprise william and go help his people, it was wessex william was plundering remember, harold should of listen to his mother and stayed in london wait for the northern earls or leave the battle when it began to get dark but he was a warrior, he didn't run, his huscarls stood by his body and died one by one

[@geoffw8565]

He states regarding the battlefield ' we are told it was a narrow place ' Well I've lived not far away and it's not terribly narrow. The site at Crowhurst fits the account much more accurately. The site at Battle has been chosen for the battle site purely because the Abbey is there and for no other reason.

[@andybt3989]

Well said! No way was it on the land near the Abbey.

[@shawnbenson7696]

William deserved his nickname

[@ersheri]

Thanks for this. I always love hearing more about my relative William the Conqueror.

[@zahralovespopcorn]

omg u can be the king

[@thomasbell7033]

When I watch British docs, I can't help focusing on the background of each shot. I'm pretty sure that island is the most beautiful place on earth.

[@v.g.r.l.4072]

Exciting subject and visual setting (including the host).

[@stevetaylor8298]

What! In that scruffy T shirt? Give me a break.

[@weeddegree]

Fighting the Vikings and then the Norman’s.. bit of a trek

[@jonsonkoh3665]

Nice one

[@LiveDonkeyDeadLion]

I first learned how unlucky Harold was in Encarta 95 (remember that CD-ROM?). It’s strange to think how different the history of the world would have been if William had lost. If you’re ever in Bosham, be sure to go to the church there And one final thing, the next time you hear the Royal Navy call themselves the senior service, ask them how well they fought at the battle of Hastings with the English army

[@henghistbluetooth7882]

I do remember Encarta 95. I wish they had en equivalent now. I used to explore it with my dad - and the idea you could click on links was amazing. Just for the. Any thing though, you could ask how well the army did at Trafalgar or the Marines in the Battle of Britain ;). We’ve been around long enough that we’ve had multiple era-defining battles and the army, Air Force and navy have all had their day in the sun. Can’t think of a marines thing though - maybe because they are considered a branch of the navy in the UK?

[@LiveDonkeyDeadLion]

@@henghistbluetooth7882 the marines are classed as the navy, although they did quite well with Gibraltar I seem to remember, certainly a lot better than they did during the battle of the Solent

[@leshart5804]

What would be of more interest is an episode on the battle for London or Exeter

[@katherinecollins4685]

Interesting video

[@myrants5836]

Absolutely. If you wasn't for the Vikings attacking York then Harold's army would have kicked William's backside. Ironically he was of viking decent.

[@jaybee9269]

Harold was a good guy!

[@fghjjjk]

Great grandson of Rollo

[@clucknbell4613]

Harold too was Danish by origins

[@brianhodgson9547]

Totally agree

[@Russia-bullies]

FYI.The Scandinavians at York probably sided with the Normans but that has yet to be proven.The fact that the Normans set sail 1 day after the battle of Stamford Bridge is too coincidental.

[@wellingtonsboots4074]

thank you enjoyed this. I'm trying to imagine how ďifferent it would be if Harold had won.

[@alexanderguesthistorical7842]

To my mind the basic narrative of the battle is actually quite obvious. The battle line of Harold (Shield Wall) was ACROSS THE ROAD (not along the line of the Abbey cloister). Physically stopping William's forces getting to the English establishment IN LONDON. The battle lasted ALL DAY LONG, because the Normans COULD NOT GET THROUGH the English Shield Wall. Then, at nightfall, the Normans had failed to break the English line and simply R O U T E D and began to flee. And the English acted to drive the enemy off the field of battle, just as (I believe) had happened at the previous Battle of Stamford Bridge, with a full charge at the Normans. THE NORMANS HAD LOST THE BATTLE. BUT this is the exact moment captured in the Bayeux Tapestry when William raised his helmet ----- for the simple reason that he alone had spotted the one thing that he had been waiting for all day. A GAP IN THE SHIELD WALL. Which was created by the advancing English, now charging headlong at the Norman forces. William alone, instead of seeing the battle as an English victory, saw the gap in the shield wall as his golden opportunity to get past the shield wall and get to Harold. He raised his helmet to rally his knights who set off up the hill, exploiting the huge gap which had now opened up in the shield wall. Whilst the advancing English led probably by Gyrth and Leofwine were stopped, probably by the Norman infantry (that had not routed) and were hacked to pieces without their shield wall to defend them. Probably on the hill at Starrs Green. Simultaneously, the knights with William swept up the hill, through the gap in the shield wall, barging the Housecarls out of the way, and hacked Harold down, probably by cutting his leg off initially. This is a very similar action to the actions of Richard II in the battle of Bosworth Field, where Richard III detached a force of his cavalry from his main army and charged directly at Henry aiming to "reprise" the actions of his ancestor William the Bastard at Hastings. But alas, Richard was unsuccessful in his attempt, unlike his forebear. The reason why the narrative of the battle is so clouded in "mystery" is the later propaganda of the Normans who could not allow anyone to think that essentially, they had ROUTED on the field at Hastings. Only to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by the swift, decisive and utterly shrewd, split second decision by William himself, to take the one opportunity he had been looking for all day long, to get PAST the Shield Wall and physically attack Harold. This rout had to be covered up, and turned into a "feigned retreat" of the Norman cavalry, which preserved the "invincibility" of the Norman military forces under William the Bastard. In order to understand the battle you have to turn through 90 degrees from the modern "battlefield" to place the English line ACROSS THE ROAD, where Harold had SPECIFICALLY PREPARED the battlefield THAT SUMMER, with ditches on his right flank (the famous "Malfosses") and a wooded slope, with a bog at the bottom on his left flank. All in basic accordance with the findings of the Time Team's investigation into the battle. THIS IS WHY Harold had to "rush down from London" before reinforcements could be drawn up. BECAUSE HE HAD TO GET TO SENLAC RIDGE AND HIS CAREFULLY PREPARED DEFENSIVE POSITION BEFORE THE NORMANS GOT THERE. If the Normans got there before Harold, the position would have been strategically lost to him. And by all accounts, Harold's swift march from London had got him to his prepared defensive position JUST IN THE NICK OF TIME. As the Normans were already camped a short distance away. The probable reason why the modern "battlefield" is canted 90 degrees over to the south west, from the position of the actual Shield Wall on the 14th October 1066 (which ran along the course of the modern Abbey wall) is because this is where the Normans attempted to outflank Harold's position, but got caught, and DEFEATED in the "Malfosses", prepared by Harold in the SUMMER before the invasion. Therefore this is where a great deal of the carnage must have taken place, and been seen by later commentators on the battle to be the place where the actual front line was positioned (erroneously). The actual shield wall position now lying under the southern wall of the Abbey (or thereabout), stretching across the road, and down into the little valley to the north east, which was evidently back then wooded and boggy at the bottom and therefore completely impassable to cavalry. It's all really very simple and easy to understand, if you think it through correctly.

[@bvbinsane1vanity]

You wrote all this instead of watching the video? It’s funny when armchair historians think they know more then the experts.

[@alexanderguesthistorical7842]

@@bvbinsane1vanity So no arguments against my hypothesis then? Just a pathetic snide comment.

[@tomhirons7475]

@@bvbinsane1vanity well said

[@alanb9443]

Dude lol it’s so funny how u caps it 😂😂 someone needs to chill about the battle of Hastings…

[@alexanderguesthistorical7842]

@@alanb9443 When I put words in capital letters (remembering of course italics, my preferred method of assertion, is not available in KZbin), I do so for C L A R I T Y . In order to pick out salient points which are critical to understand in order to understand fully the hypothesis. NOT for emotive reasons. I can only hope that people take my comment in that vein. However some people seem to be too thick to work that out.....

[@ppavery]

What people seem to forget is harolds army had defeated the Viking army at Stamford bridge.

[@TheMymovie]

I think I spotted your team and crew at the re-enactment this year :)

[@white-dragon4424]

I don't know how old this doc is, but they now say that the battle didn't take place there at all, but rather where a painted roundabout now is in another part of the town. They've also found that the part of the Bayeux Tapestry showing Harold clutching an arrow in his eye was added later, that it was actually a sword or spear he was holding.

[@meekmeads]

or the Carmen Balls off

[@shegar]

In Femina by Dr Janina Ramirez, she theorises that the figure with the arrow in his eye isn't even Harold. She says that the primary figure in each scene is placed at the end of the writing - where there is a man on the ground being carved up by a norman knight.

[@jamiehill736]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJ6QmHSIgseKn6M&feature=share&EJGixIgBCJiu2KjB4oSJEQ Here's the hypothesis of the roundabout battle site.

[@rtk3543]

I think it was Time Team that put the battle further round Senlac hill, worth checking out.

[@lllordllloyd]

I remember learning the 'arrow in the eye' was dubious, studying this in sixth class in 1982. And it certainly wasn't new scholarship then. Absent any artifacts, the location is unprovable but a visit to the battlefield and known geography suggests any competent commander would have stood in the site of modern Battle Abbey. It is a superb position from which to fight a defensive-offensive battle. And why would a pious victor not fulfill his promise the build said abbey on the site of victory, as William promised? Sadly, older history is infinitely adaptable to the 'what if' industry.

[@jarlborg1531]

The only finds ever made on that so-called battlefield are broken reenactment props.

[@shanesawhutchison9255]

As the saying goes, (at least here in Canada), “I would rather be lucky, than good”. Cheers. 🇨🇦

[@thelostlegendsoflewesandhamsey]

Harold’s son Magnus was locked in a room in a church called St John’s sub Castro in Lewes right after this battle. Lewes is a forgotten place of incredible importance.

[@Inquisitor_Vex]

@John Carroll brothers =/= son

[@ShiftysArchives]

OMG IVE BEEN TO WHERE THE VID WAS FILMED

[@capnceltblood5347]

Truly mind boggling how a French/Norman force of between 5k and 12k men after losing 2k at the battle of Hastings and 3x that number wounded. Totally and utterly subdued a country with a population of 3.5 Million in 1066... They did in an afternoon what Rome couldn't do with 6 Legions in 400 years of trying.

[@johnhenry4844]

Well the population of England was around 2 to 2.5 million in 1066 not 3.5 but still, England was a feudal nation so the power rested with a few noble families. Many of which either got slaughtered at Hastings or fighting the vikings, and besides England had been conquered before and ruled by Cnut so this wasn’t a crazy idea to the surviving nobility. Also William was still a blood relation to the last king (distant cousin) so it was a easy enough pill for the English to swallow

[@capnceltblood5347]

@@johnhenry4844 I've read and heard very different estimates of 'England's' population in 1066AD. It's varied from 1 million to 3.5 million, all from various 'experts', both dead and alive. That aside. Its still amazing to me how they were so efficient. And the fact that out of the millions of people they could only muster 10K to oppose the Normans.

[@rjwintl]

beating a fatigued army was being in the right place at the right time with fresh troops … no wonder William the Conqueror beat Harold Godwinson

[@afctaylor12]

Seems to forget they were peasant made no difference to them. Each village had a church or monks which act like nhs or social security and most where given land to farm for them self and for there lord there lives where directed by the monks and there lords. In Romen time's they were all independent village with there own laws and slightly different orientation of there religion

[@johnhenry4844]

@@capnceltblood5347 If you asked 99% of Anglo Saxon peasants back then they probably didn’t care, William was already a blood relation to the last king

[@garychynne1377]

heavy

[@chrispbacon4519]

8:40 - Definitely if you look at the Wiki page for the tapestry, you can see the image drawn from it by Antoine Benoît from around 1730 which clearly shows that the "arrow" in the modern, doctored version was originally more likely a spear, held by 'Harold' in a similar way to the knight two to the left of the purported Harold, and that the spear doesn't stick in his head but goes above it, again like the knight's two to his left. The tapestry was later used for propaganda by Napoleon's government, in 1804 while there were plans to invade England, displayed at the Musée Napoléon, so it's possible it was changed then. After the invasion plans were abandoned it was returned to Bayeux. You can actually see in the modern version how the arrow stem from his hand to his eye doesn't marry up well with the part that's on the other side of his hand, with the fletching - it looks bent down. Very interesting!

[@GonzoTehGreat]

Exactly. I think the "arrow" was originally a spear held ready to throw. The soldier is also carrying another spear in his other hand, behind his shield. It's also possible that this particular soldier isn't Harold! People assumed this because it the text above his name reads "King Harold." However, immediately to the right of him, the tapestry depicts a Saxon footsoldier being cut down by a Norman horsemen (as only the Normans had cavalry). Above them the text reads "He is slain", so the footsoldier could be Harold...

[@entarukun]

Love history hit, Dan Snow, and dubstep. But my god stop putting non period music to these battle scenes. It just feels so off

[@13thcentury]

It was fought at Battle? Chances of that. And ten thousand Normans? All those guys with the same name.

[@superbia75es]

Any thoughts on Battle as the actual place of the conflict? I've been there and I'm not convinced. Zero archaeology to support it. I'd love to see a further examination of the Crowhurst theory, it is certainly worth further discussion.

[@johnbrereton5229]

My ancestors fought at Hastings on the Norman side and were rewarded with estates in Cheshire. However, I've always thought that King Harold should have won, and he probably would have. However, he had already just fought and defeated the huge Viking army of Harald Hadrada at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire. Therefore, he and his army were probably exhausted after such a battle and then marching all the way down the country to fight yet another battle at Hastings.

[@eriklamphere1508]

My ancestors fought here as well, I can trace all the way back to Turstin Fitz Rolf.

[@dupplinmuir113]

Feigned retreats work very well in cavalry-versus-cavalry engagements, as the Scythians, Huns, Magyars, Saracens, and Mongols proved. They CAN work for infantry-versus-infantry, if they're planned and practised in advance - you could argue that Hannibal's centre at Cannae carried out such a retreat. However, they don't work for cavalry-versus-infantry because the retreat has to look plausible, and if the horsemen are galloping away in apparent panic the infantry are hardly going to chase them. I suspect the retreats occurred when the Norman infantry were defeated and turned to run - and in medieval battles that's when most casualties were suffered, as at Towton.

[@jep1103]

Went there yesterday...no artefacts found at the battlefield, nothing in the museum.....grest day though

[@garylancaster8612]

Harold was entirely responsible for this defeat. He could and should have stayed in London and waited until the men from the shires came to him. And then marched to Sussex and knocked the living crap out of the Normans. Instead he did exactly what William wanted when he provoked him to come on. Harold had rough parity with William but if he'd waited he could have had twice the men. He did exactly what William wanted him to do. It still rankles with me 1000 years later.

[@coffeebreakchat2450]

A well defended London would have been next to impossible for the Normans to either storm or lay siege to. The supply lines to the Southern ports would have been extremely vulnerable.

[@DJhinckley]

I wonder if HH will ever address the questions surrounding the actual site of the battle. Many have settled on Senlac Hill, but there is so much contemporary evidence to show it wasn't on that site. If antiquarians can get Bosworth so wrong then this was 400 years before that.

[@Trebor74]

I doubt William the conqueror what get the site of his battle wrong

[@TristanGoingNorth]

I used to be an adventurere like you, then I took an arrow to the eye...

[@talithamac]

Thank you for posting this on the anniversary. Guillaume is my 25 x great-grandfather so I'm always interested to find out more about him and his wife, Matilda of Flanders, who seemed to have influenced him quite a lot. He might have won England with the power of his sword but she won the people's hearts with her justice and compassion.

[@solaurelian7638]

lmfaooo corny

[@rabidspatula1013]

Having reenacted on the site for the 950th Anniversary in 2016, can say Senlac Hill it is a profound place. History of the world changed on that spot. Also, GODWINSON!

[@qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm3937]

Doesn’t sound like crowhurst to me

[@andybt3989]

The battle wasn’t there! Would have been too marshy.

[@rollingrockink1]

So there was dubstep playing in the background of real battle?

[@northgreen3755]

What's amazing is that it is likely the battle where Harold fell against William wasn't at battle Abbey at all and that English heritage is charging people money to walk in a field that has no historical significance..

[@Greengeist05]

This does not actually resolve the question posed in the title... click bait?

[@jamesjohnson7556]

Surly having William and his death squad killing Harold in the records would benefit the Norman's more over a random arrow ?

[@drewpeacock9087]

That is what the Normans seemed to have claimed at the time, the arrow is speculated to have been a later alteration

[@TerrapinStation]

My father fought in the battle of Hastings, god rest his soul. He told me just before the battle that they would be sword fighting with their weiners. He was terrified by the possibly of great heat and his men not drinking enough water. It’s hard for me to even talk about it now, I can’t imagine what they must have gone through.

[@StoicHistorian]

I’m so sorry

[@TerrapinStation]

Thank you, it’s been difficult but we’re trying to work through it.

[@MarcDufresneosorusrex]

history was the first multi episode movies before the film and the camera were invented 😊🤘🤘

[@vipertwenty249]

Not a fluke exactly. William knew very well that Harold didn't have to win that day at Hastings - he just needed to not lose that day as he very likely had more troops coming and would outnumber William the next day. William also knew very well that Harold was fully familiar with the feigned retreat. After hammering away at the English army all day, getting nowhere and with barely an hour or so left before sunset William was in an increasingly sticky situation, so, relying on the anger of the English troops, the fog of war and the slow communication along the battle line he tried it and it worked. You can just imagine Harold's fury at his own troops' indiscipline disregarding their training! They called him William the Barstard - they should have called him William the Lucky Barstard.

[@nathanielsavage7932]

I was under the impression that the city of london held out for long enough for William to offer a treaty giving the city of london autonomy to operate slightly different to the rest of the kingdom.. which is the historical presidency that the city of london still operates differently to the rest of Britain!? No?

[@jasonhaymanonthedrawingboard]

Awesome, thanks! I’m glad people are being made more aware of contemporary accounts. In fact its currently being argued who would be Saxon king of England today? If Edgar was crowned? Then there a lot to the story that many don’t know? Malcom 111 of Scotland & Margaret of Wessex. It mean England has a secrecy monarchy?! If you think about it? The harrowing of the north is a direct result. We all hear the story ask kid it was an arrow that got Harold. Truth told of counterpoints is rarely heard. Tops marks stating William had death squads. Even the source that mentions it. When people say death squads are not part of the culture? Truth was they were as much a part of warfare then as it is now. Harold certainly could have fell victim? to the Ayer of a death squad! Perhaps even suffering from a crossbow bolt to the face? Then was brutally dismembered? To Finnish the job. It quite nasty way to go out. There even examples at Repton, of death squads. from the great heathen army. The leader being buried with a boars tusk to go to Valhalla with. The Roman were notorious for death squads the conquest of Gaul being a prime example. Sparta was known to have them. I would doubt the men of 1066 would have been any different. More the attitude they can’t fight you if they are dead. Taking out the leaders meant you could control the resistance. As many Friedman would be relying on the command structure to survive. With that gone? many would have been in a desperate situation. The few that escaped with their live? would have been very embittered by the experience. It not surprising William was dogged by rebellion throughout his reign. William himself escaped multiple death squads as a child so would have been well aware of their use. Harold would have been better meeting William on the Thames. Strategically there was nothing he could of done to stop Williams troop harrying where they landed. The fact he frog March from one battle to the next may have been his greatest mistake. If he meet William on the Thames? He would of had a week or two to recover and pick the battlefield. William would have been stretched and running low on supplies. Harold could have sent raiding parties out to disrupt supply lines. Giving him time to mass an even greater force. Which would have crushed William forces. Perhaps stopping outside London? Racing to meet William cost Harold the crown. Consolidation would have been far better a plan. Hardrada beaten. Harold would have be able to send spies and gathers intelligence. Even been able to restrict cavalry movements. Hastings is a tale of hasty action lead to poor outcomes. I don’t know exactly where Harold would of route his force? If he had given himself the chance to regroup? Might not of easily fell for the fain attack William used? Which ultimately cost him the battle and his life.

[@coffeebreakchat2450]

Yes, I think what you suggest is pretty much the optimal Saxon strategy. Harrying the growing lines of communication between the Southern ports and the northward moving Norman army would have been highly effective. William would have been forced to peel off forces for garrison and protecting the foragers. It would have been exceptionally difficult for William to lay siege to London. Crossing the bridges or river against determined opposition would have been a very tall order indeed.

[@jasonhaymanonthedrawingboard]

@@coffeebreakchat2450 I know in accounts I’ve listened to ? Harold was worried about saving as many kinsman as possible. In that mind set of trying to save as many of his people. He made a fatal error. If he stopped and regrouped after Stanford bridge? He could have met William with a larger standing force? William could have been outnumbered 10-1. It would have been enough to force a retreat? They had similar with the Vikings. it had been a number of years since they face a force on this scale. Inexperience would have been quite prominent among the Saxon ranks. Feudman especially. It one thing having a knock about with fellow countryman it another facing an invasion. The Thames would have been a ideal barrier to the advancing normans. Gods green kingdom would have been spared the ravages? Wallingford would have made for a better battlefield? Harold should have taken note after Stanford bridge? Hardrada’s forces were helped by the lone axeman. So there was precedent Harold himself could have employed? 1 man against 40 men is legendary! The Thames was the old boundary of Wessex north of there would have been Mercia. William could have been pend in to a pocket on the south coast. Between rivers. With small raids picking them apart. Till they had no longer a viable fighting force. William could have been pend to Sussex? Even been surrounded on three sides. It wouldn’t have been easy with supply’s dwindling? If Harold had held out that bit longer? Who knows where England might be today?

[@coffeebreakchat2450]

@@jasonhaymanonthedrawingboard All excellent points. Harold's haste and honour played against him here. Maybe he underestimated the Normans too? London would have been a very tough nut for William to crack, had it been properly defended.

[@jasonhaymanonthedrawingboard]

@@coffeebreakchat2450 yes the Roman side of London’s would have been a nightmare as many of the Roman wall still existed when the Saxon were around. Saxon London was also part of the burgs so at the very least would of a had a palisade. Unless William was aware of the exploits of many of his contemporaries it would definitely been a challenge. Though on more than one occasion William had to play dead to survive. So it would have been interesting to see if he’d play the coffins to get into London? It reminds me alittle of the siege of Paris which many of William forbares would have taken part in. For a many who spent a lot of his early life dodging death squads. Because of the many vassal wish to be kings in there own right. It would have been intriguing to see how it could have gone down if he reaches London alive? Who know? In a lot of the source the speak of William nearly being torn to shreads in the streets of London on his way to Westminster abbey. He didn’t fair to well inside neither. Considering there was riot outside. So many give you some idea how it could have gone down? William got lucky at Hastings. If Harold haste wasnt his prime motivation? He may have seized the day? His lady love would not have been walking the dead for her lost love? London itself was estimated to have anywhere between 150,000-350,000 people. If Harold had managed to mobilise London? William would have not got past the Thames at wallingford. Edgar, might of been able to learn the ropes? Which in itself may of lead to a showdown? I seem to recall Edgar being a surname? It just a guess but illegitimate hiers of the house of Wessex? It was common practice in some places to take the first name of the father as the surname. Especially if there was royalty involved? It would have been interesting to see how it all played out? It funny I know where several branches of the house of Wessex are? I can count myself among them. Ive basically been following in the footsteps of my ancestors. Had some freaky experience round battle. At night with the knight on horseback. Right on the roundabout where they found the only Saxon period axe. Harold would have be aware of the Roman roads and fortifications. If he had been smarter? He might of been able to pick a better battlefield?

[@IAmWBeard]

The dubstep is a nice touch lol

[@steverichards575]

Fluke ? No , the guy who stuck Harold in the eye had been practicing for weeks .

[@spartakas659]

Definitely a fluke as long as that shield wall held it was a Saxon victory all day long. But battle plans don’t always go to plan.

[@sorrysirmygunisoneba]

Harold Godwinson the fighting King - Makes me sad thinking about what could have been if he won. William and the Normans committed mass genocide of the English/Danes in the North. Never forget. Yes Harold lost but he deserves as much of a mention as Alfred the Great in my opinion.

[@domingochavez2552]

Looking at the thumbnail before watching insinuates feigned retreats equal flukes, if that's true, then the entire Mongol empire was a fluke

[@ohsosmooth01]

I used to be a king like Harold. Then I took an arrow to the eye.

[@paulmurphypudsey3304]

Not the true battlefield load s, Harold choose not that field but in Crowhurst.

[@John4700Deere]

Adverts far too regularly on this

[@bushwhackeddos.2703]

If only they the Normans would have known about the Dingy.

[@gammon1183]

Just more Vikings one way or another tbh

[@stevetaylor8298]

William was crowned two and a bit months later, however I believe it took William another nine years to secure most of Britain.

[@leshart5804]

England not Britain

[@andrewwhelan7311]

It took another 250 years to take little old Wales. Edward the first embarked on the most extensive and expensive castle building program ever undertaken in Europe, bankrupting the crown coffers in the process. All this was done to subdue a tiny nation of sheep shaggin hill tribes who to this day remain unbroken. Not bad considering the vastly overwhelming odds against them and centuries of cultural, linguistic and outright genocidal oppression by their neighbours.

[@flouisbailey]

Party on history is only at stake.

[@_robustus_]

I wonder if any of the anglo-saxon nobility have retained title and are among the house of lords? Or did normans take that away?

[@clucknbell4613]

There were some lords, but later they rebelled and were exterminated

[@ikdw3259]

A lot of them died at Hastings. The ones who remained were stripped of their land and titles. Some of them rebelled, but were defeated. There was one who kept his lands after the conquest, Edwin, Earl of Mercia, but was betrayed and killed by his own Norman retinues. There are account of Anglo Saxons sailing to the Byzantine empire after the Norman conquest, many serving in the military and even settling an island there

[@englishhousecarl9019]

A lot of Anglo-Saxon nobles survived the Norman conquest, it's just that all of the powerful nobles (Earls and Kings Thegns) were replaced by Normans. Historians who have researched the domesday book estimate that between 800-1000 English nobles survived the conquest. However all of these nobles would have been minor nobles (knights and minor lords) with only local power. However historians also admit that the domesday book is an incomplete record and there may be many more English landowners that aren't accounted for. Some of those families became powerful in later centuries. House Neville descended in the male line from an English nobleman called Uhtred. House Holland also descended in the male line from an English noble called Siward, who was the son of a man called Ulf. Both of those families became powerful during the hundred years war and the wars of the roses.

[@steretsjaaj2368]

Normans had a more flexible army

[@andybt3989]

Please stop saying they fought on Senlac Hill! The land would’ve been too marshy back then.

[@Hallands.]

To the title question: No!

[@ganikus8565]

The "Normans" forces was made of 1/3 Normans, 1/3 Bretons ( who built the ships for the invasion) and 1/3 of French from the Flanders

[@EroticOnion23]

By "Norman" they meant Norman-led, as in the leader William was a Norman...no one cares about grunts, the leaders make & record history.

[@ganikus8565]

@@EroticOnion23 And since William was half Norman by his father and half French by his mother but called himself a French ... Shall we say the French-led .... Moreover William recorded this battle as "Franci versus Angli " his words speak for themselves.

[@EroticOnion23]

@@ganikus8565 Yes Norman French, like Texan American 😁

[@andrewwhelan7311]

The Bretons were keen to return to their native indigenous lands of the Briton's and expel the Saxon.

[@EroticOnion23]

@@andrewwhelan7311 umm…Bretons are from the peninsula west of France, nothing to do with the islands😁

[@Meine.Postma]

Do a thing on William of Orange during the 80 years war of The Netherlands against Spain and maybe I'll sign up to History Hit. Now it is mostly UK history

[@androidshuffle1968]

Jesus christ how tall is this man?

[@wstevenson4913]

Good question, according to the gospels, Jesus was about 5 feet 2 inches, in his sandals

[@wischfulthinking]

Still no evidence found of the battle.

[@mattmurdoch5575]

in reality, I don't think this was the final battle and the reason why William won. He obviously won the day because of the errors made by the Warriors leaving the shield wall. However, the Normans were still afraid of pushing forward after this into the fields and woods. This was because the English were regrouping and William still needed to push his warriors forward because they were still being killed. After this, when William and his forces moved to Dover they were extremely sick and could not move on. The real failure was with the remaining English leadership. They were gathering for a month afterwards in London to choose the next Kimg but couldn't agree; thousands of warriors travel down from Northumbria and wider England and there was very definitely a large force to defeat the Normans in a second battle. The Normans were weak in this time but the aristocracy effectively chose not to fight a second time and then surrendered to William. William did not win England, England was surrendered by the aristocracy weeks afterwards. I would think the English accepted William because he was sanctioned by the Pope and the English aristocracy had come to an agreement with William as part of surrender So, in the end, the Battle of Hastings was not the winning battle. It was the cowardice of the aristocracy in not leading the thousands of Englishman that turned up to fight again. The true propaganda is maintaining a fallacy that William took England at the Battle of Hastings. He did not. He was given England freely by the remaining aristocracy over a month later on despite the fact that the English could and would have defeated the Normans but were held back . It's the same cowardice and moral corruption that we see in leaders today. The Anglo-Saxon aristocracy thought they would protect their own positions through accepting William as King and that William would honour agreement they made with him. Of course he did not because the Norman culture and the Anglo-Saxon culture were different in terms of expectations around fielty and honour values.

[@coffeebreakchat2450]

A strongly held London would have been almost impossible for the Normans to either storm or lay siege to.

[@peterlynchchannel]

The Norman conquest was such a tragedy. The original England died with it, and never came back.

[@paterliber]

The tale that William waited all summer for the winds to change is laughable. Today we have channel migrants crossing the channel almost every day. He knew Harold had his big army waiting all summer in the south for him to turn up. He knew of course of Harald Hardrada's planned invasion and timed his crossing when Harold Godwinson was in the north and the big army had been disbanded in September to allow the harvests to be collected. William could then land unopposed in the south and would face a smaller army exhausted from the march south and from the battle of Stamford bridge. William was a master strategist and tactician. The tactics of feigned retreat caused the ill-disciplined Saxon fyrd to break shield wall causing it to weaken and eventually collapse.

[@pattylevesque2601]

I know this is gonna sound crazy but it was a full moon and they always indicate an ending and then with the comet being visible that just magnified it like 100× so the ending of a rule makes perfect sense...too bad it was Harold and not William.

[@thomasjamison2050]

Now, now. They both had a claim of a reasonable sort. They settled on terms of the day and so God chose William and who are you to question the wisdom of the Great Spaghetti Monster in the Sky?

[@domdolittle]

You could argue that England became a French colony from that point on, well at least after 1076 when Doomsday kicked in and the victorious Barons from Normandy, Brittany and other parts of France sliced up England to their advantage, their descendants are still the richest landowners, right up to modern times, but then eventually luck and fortitude made England what became Great Britain, although whatever what's 'Great' about Britain certainly came indirectly from the French, even if that's hard to swallow for your pride and explains the prejudice towards anything French nowadays... but perhaps I'm digressing here.

[@BBeowulf]

Such a moronic take

[@NDRonin1401]

No. There, I saved you 13 minutes.

[@cynric5437]

I can give you my view. I’m sorry to say that Will’s victory wasn’t luck. Will brought a dimension to English battles not seen since the Romans left - horses. Harold did his best to compensate by having his troops in Scene 53/54 stand on a ridge. The Huscarls in Scenes 51/52 obviously eschewed the notion and suffered the consequences but still put up a pretty good fight. Just read William of Poitiers account of the battle in the standard text( it’ll only cost you £200). Will, having used the tactic in the skirmish with the Huscarls, reused it with the “main body” ( William of Poitiers words, not mine). So, no luck did not win the battle but the tactics used by the Normans encouraged luck to happen for their side.

[@coffeebreakchat2450]

Depends on how you look at it. There's some luck in most battles. Cavalry had been shown all day to be ineffective against the shield wall. Norman Cavalry wasn't some magic unstoppable force. William tried and utterly failed to outflank Harold's position. They took a ton of losses in the Malfosse. Without the self breaking of formation by the Saxons, probably nothing the Normans did themselves would have helped. The partial rout of the Normans could have easily become a full rout. Certainly having your own troops leg it for real is never part of the plan. William's death or glory charge through the Saxon lines could easily have gone awry and again, wouldnt have been something he planned for. Harold actually had troops streaming in all day. William had all the troops he would ever have. Harold could easily have had more troops under just slightly different circumstances. William could not. William probably had a 3:2 numbers advantage with most of his troops far better equipped and trained than the exhausted oppostion. He needed all those advantages to make up for his stunningly unimaginitive strategies in scraping his last gasp win in extra time. With his large advantage in troop quality & types, not making a breakthrough earlier speaks poorly of his abilities as a commander. William was no Napoleon or Alexander! "In all of Human endeavours, fortune plays its part" - Julius Caesar.

[@chrisschepper9312]

Yeah. It was flukey.

[@thelostlegendsoflewesandhamsey]

William also handed over most of Sussex to the Templars straight after the battle. Were they fighting with him is the question.

[@MrFetalposition]

For the first time in my life I'd love to say "First" but I won't.

[@jaybee9269]

Good for you!

[@scottmcginn2169]

That's Harold stabbing himself in the eye in disgust at the French retreating

[@knightstemplar6243]

The Norman invasion actually in the end did actually benefit all of England in the long run the laws / housing/ equality to some extent and our language

[@lionelhutz5137]

Fluke? Not likely, the Normans were using the feigned retreat to great success in Southern Italy and Sicily 30 years earlier.

[@coffeebreakchat2450]

They'd used feigned retreats many times that day. Nada! It worked in the end because part of the army was REALLY routing! You cant plan for that.

[@ChrisHolman]

1066, the year England was stolen from the English

[@rjwintl]

Yes indeed , would love to have been there as an archer to help my French forebears !!!

[@ChrisHolman]

@@rjwintl Yet had William failed, the many English French wars, 100 years war for example, would not have happened saving hundreds of thousands of French and English lives. France would have been the sole power in Europe had they been united instead of the constant wars that seen territory lost and the battle to reclaim them which ultimately weakened it. My French ancestors would have been FAR better off had the Norman invasion failed. Viva La France!!

[@DidierDidier-kc4nm]

Yes but english stolen Britannia too 400 earlier

[@ChrisHolman]

@@DidierDidier-kc4nm Good point

[@clay119]

​@@DidierDidier-kc4nm no they conquered it

[@szczurek2725]

Nice video, except that it says nothing about the victory, or anything else, being a fluke :/

[@Tahkaullus01]

A long story to answer a pointless question. Of course it was a fluke. Every victory of every battle of every war ever was a fluke. We just hype it up to make the winners _sound_ better.

[@Vanitycraft]

is there any real history on youtube without stupid dramatic music

[@rtk3543]

Nothing new here just old stuff revamped.

[@russelsellick316]

Well the Normans were descendants of a Viking settlement and Harold himself had a Danish mother so in effect all these warlords were Vikings to a degree... Harold was unlucky in many ways.

[@alrh3674]

no flukes in battles Dan, the most sophisticated , state of the art soldiers won. i mean look at the history of the Normans, they beat ev1 and took their land. England, Wales, Ireland, Italy and even the Holy Land. Unstoppable force, hence the Scots saying'lets inter marry, here have some land'. it took a military genius Saladin to oust them eventually, and only coz he outnumbered them 10:1.

[@BBeowulf]

Lmao thanks for the laugh

[@coffeebreakchat2450]

Plenty of luck in many battles actually. Did William plan for a real rout in part of his army? I doubt it. As you say, the Normans had a significant edge in equipment and training. And still thay only just grasped the win in extra time! The death or glory charge of William could easily have gone the other way. The Normans made very heavy weather of it given their advantages.

[@alrh3674]

@@coffeebreakchat2450 kzbin.info/www/bejne/ooWliWSkdtyBl5Y i dont know?? Had they had the discipline to hold the shield wall, maybe they could have matched them? But William knew what he was doing fainting attacks and loosing arrows up in the air, infantry manoeuvres and cavalry charges, and they even stopped 4 lunch! in fact the more a see this demonstration, the more it seems like a cat playing with a mouse.

[@coffeebreakchat2450]

@@alrh3674 I don't know, it seems like a pretty close run thing by all accounts. Everything the Normans did failed, basically, for hour after hour. The attrition rate was certainly in favour of the Saxons for most of the battle. False retreats were well known in this period and had been used by all sorts of armies since antiquity. Nothing revolutionary about that at all. Its likely the Normans had been doing feigned retreats all day, and the Saxons had been having none of it. Being no Alexander or Caesar, William just kept on repeating the same ahem "strategy" all day. The archers were fairly useless here, it seems, firing uphill, at extreme range against guys with shields probably behind earthworks. They likely ran out of arrows. William showed no creativity - he never thought to get his archers closer covered by other units, for example. If it was a walk in the park for the Normans, why did they take so many casualties? Why did they leave it so late in the day to win? Why did it all come down to a final death or glory opportunisitc cavalry charge into the unknown innards of the Saxon position? Good job there were no pits, pikemen or traps behind the lines eh? There was literally no way William could have known there werent. He rolled the dice and won. Oh, good job it didnt rain, eh? It was all won by an easily avoidable mistake by the Saxons plus a winner takes all gamble by William at the end. The Normans had plenty of factors in their favour, but to claim they werent lucky at all is a bit of a stretch.

[@alrh3674]

@@coffeebreakchat2450 And u have pushed me to say it, God was on Williams side.!!!

[@jakekilley9037]

zero chance it was a fluke hed planned for 9 months and set of perfectly supplied everything went right for him literally. a fluke has nothing to do with good plans and execution of said plans

[@DidierDidier-kc4nm]

yes get over it, Norrnans in ten years , managed to conquer an entire country that Vikings and anglo saxons couldn t do

[@waveygravey3575]

I used to be a king like you, then i took an arrow to the face.

[@Djzommer1]

please never overlay dubstep on these, fucking please i beg of you

[@aa-up4sf]

Normans battered the English and took their country. The end.

[@alhollywood6486]

Honestly, I'm amazed at the navel gazing of modern British historians. It's pathetic.

[@GyitMulhaneski-GloriousYears]

Thankfully not Dan Snow on the Battle of Britain. Look it up. 😦📚🚻🚮

[@steverichards575]

Fluke ? No , the guy who stuck Harold in the eye had been practicing for weeks .