How did The Normans Conquer England?
How did The Normans Conquer England?
Across the English Channel lived the Normans. Up in the Northwest of France, above Paris, was a growing Viking settlement in Normandy. Back in 911, when the Vikings were wreaking havoc throughout Europe with their raids and terror, the contemporary ruler of the area, Charles the Simple, struck a deal with his invaders...
♦Consider supporting the Channel on Patreon :
/ knowledgia
♦Please consider to SUBSCRIBE : goo.gl/YJNqek
♦Music by Epidemic Sound
♦Sources :
Bennett, Matthew (2001). Campaigns of the Norman Conquest. Essential Histories. Oxford, UK: Osprey. ISBN 978-1-84176-228-9.
Barlow, Frank (1970). Edward the Confessor. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-01671-8.
Barlow, Frank (1988). The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042-1216 (Fourth ed.). New York: Longman. ISBN 0-582-49504-0.
Bates, David (1982). Normandy Before 1066. London: Longman. ISBN 0-582-48492-8.
Bates, David (2001). William the Conqueror. Stroud, UK: Tempus. ISBN 0-7524-1980-3.
Battlefields Trust. "Battle of Hastings: 14 October 1066". UK Battlefields Resource Centre. Retrieved 5 October 2016.
#History #Documentary #England
Charles giving the Vikings land so he doesn't have to deal with them anymore, what a simple way to solve a problem...gee, I wonder how he got that nickname
11 minutes ago; 8 likes. Sock-puppet accounts or people who know you always post early, and like what you say, but don't show their face?
@@scintillam_dei Dude people just get notifications, it ain't that deep
Vikings used boats to sail in on the Seine river to raid Paris itself. This was an extreme vulnerability and he secured it. The Normans paid tribute in money and warriors to the King, so there was no real downside.
Typical French surrendering...
Im pretty sure the nickname back then meant not simple minded but eh well like straightforward or something like that
Imagine being William at the battle of Hastings after falling to the ground and being presumed dead with nearly all hope lost, then getting back up and winning the battle that would lead to change England forever
IT'S OVER WE'RE SO BACK
Damned cheaters.. I hate it when my opponents don't take their hits!
Like an 11th century Undertaker.
And with the Conquest of England ended, the paradox situation where the King of England is being addressed as the Duke of Normany by the King of France followed soon after. And eventually, it led to the Hundred Years War.
It led Normans losing Normandy in the end. Irony.
@@sadettinarslan5324 they didnt need it anyways tbh XD
@@venezuelaanimations3732 they so didn't need it that after losing it in 1204 they've tried to take it back 4 times until the end of the 100YW
The normans were anywhere except in normandy lol
@@GarkKahn Exodus: Norman edition
It cannot be overstated how monumentally important this battle was. The Norman's cast such a long shadow over Europe for the cultures they influenced and eventually blended into.
Hello does anyone here believe in Jesus?
@@connorlancaster7541 yes
@@netclips6370 Praise the lord he is beautiful. Do you obey Jesus?
@@connorlancaster7541 creepy much?
@@connorlancaster7541 nope, I’m a pagan
Harold Godwinson: “It’s over, William. I have the high ground.” William: “You underestimate my power!”
And then Harold got the Ps2 Alternative ending of revenge of the sith LMFAOOO
@@fristlyextras5002 lol exactly
Very clear explanation of the circumstances leading up to the victory at Hastings.
Missed the point completely, the North of England was under the rule of the Vikings ie Norway and they had the entire region named as the Danelaw, so Harald did not have to bring an army from Norway he used the army he had here. The movement of an army is based upon the amount of time a carthorse can travel, they carry the food and water, if you move faster than the pack you run the risk of starving your soldiers. The English pretender, Harold , had sworn allegiance to William years before, had travelled up from the South of England with his army , fought a battle and then had to travel as fast as they could back down South. The loss of manpower and an army that was diminished in both numbers and strength were never going to be enough to overcome William
@@phillvenn I think you're getting a bit muddled. Harald absolutely sailed his army over from Norway, and the Danelaw had long gone by that time.
Sir D'issigny.a small Norman landlord from the village of Issigny in France followed William the Conqueror to England.Later on the familly moved to Canada then Missouri. One of them created a cartoon character and built Disneyland...his name Walt Disney (d'issigny)
So true
Isigny is in Normandy
Awesome video, just had this at uni in a linguistics class. The battle of hastings was a turning point in so many ways!
pretty cool that I can track my mother's family tree way back to the norman conquest. they "settled" in north-west england a year after the invasion, became local nobility, hung out there for hundreds of years, then one of them moved to the USA in the most backwoods area and became a hillbilly. Hillbilly with a noble surname, lmao.
haha mine too... had a "possibly" down syndrome ancestor almost become king of england before being beheaded.... for being a "traitor"
Could you give a brief synopsis of how you discovered that?
@@joshuataylor3550 basically following the history of the surname. It's rather English and unique. Unlike my real surname that is also unique but can only be traced back to the 1750s before being lost (this account doesn't reflect my real name), my mother's surname has a rich history in England. Some were local Lords - not big wigs but rather big among their community. That made research much easier due to nobility keeping better family trees than the common folk. But found that they were originally from Normandy, with a real Norman surname, before changing it after the invasion. Pre invasion gets tricky as then their family tree starts talking about Scandinavian chiefs and all that so I take that with a grain of salt. Honestly family tree research is so fun given you have a name that's uncommon enough to trace. Still working on my surnames origin. It's tough because the family was from Louisiana during the time of multiple ownership of different countries, so I have to deal with poor record keeping and various spellings.
@@joshuataylor3550 same as this guy, my family name is a derivative of Beauchampe. less common surnames are easier to trace.
Mine is tilghman
Congrats to making over a million subscribers!! Love this channel it's one of my favorite KZhead channels. Keep those awesome videos coming!!! 👍😃
Fascinating, thank you. I finally have context for the Battle Of Hastings.
Excellent presentation, very informative and educational. Subscribed!
Norman: "You know, I'm something of a conqueror myself."
Well detailed and informative videos good job Knowledgia!
Great video man. Really informative
Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!
You must be suffering so badly with this bad cough mustn't you...
Fantastic video keep it up your doing amazing job
I'd love to see a presentation of the first years after the conquest. Such as The Harrying of the North and the complete reorganization of English society.
Genocide is all they did
There really wasn't a complete reorganisation of English society. The majority of nobles and clergy were replaced with Normans and new castles and Romaneque churches were built but the majority of the core governance structures such as the law codes, court systems, currency, minting system, and general societal structure remained the same.
Read the book Hereward the Wake, it tells of the last of the English warriors and how the church failed the people and sold out to the Normans. Its an excellent starting point as t follows Hereward and also Williams movement across England and Wales / Ireland
@@phillvennis it a novel or an essay? Thanks
Nicely explained.
I know you've only mapped out the major kingdoms that were in power at the time but it would have been nice to see what the other kingdoms in e.g. Ireland and Cumbria were at the time. Even if it made the map more complicated I think we'd all be interested.
NORMANDY BEFORE 1066 by David Bates, NORMAN CONQUEST OF THE NORTH by William E Kappelle, THE NORMANS: POWER, CONQUEST AND CULTURE IN 11TH CENTURY EUROPE by Judith A Green (released Feb 2022 - and all her older books are expensive collectors items) EMPIRES OR THE NORMANS: MAKERS OF EUROPE, CONQUERORS OF ASIA by Levi Roach is being released on 23rd June, 2022 - and his biography of AETHELSTAN is the best one available. NORMAN RULE IN NORMANDY, 911 - 1144 by Mark Haggar. I'm yet to find a copy of the Haggar book at an affordable price and the Roach book isn't out for a month, the other three are excellent.
Noted! Will do from now on! Thank you.
colonizer! (haha - but really the poor English were brutally treated by the Normans...)
@@fordprefectiii The ruling class was wiped out but I'd argue that most of the English were better off under the Normans. They abolished slavery, created the rule of law...
Nah I disagree. As someone just learning about this history for the first time, there's already a lot of information to take in. Labelling all the other kingdoms would remove the highlighted focus on what @Knowledgia is explaining and make it much harder to understand. Maybe a link could be provided to a map of the other kingdoms instead?
8:00 what was Williams new “advantage” exactly? The way the battle is depicted is that the English were on a hill and the Normans couldn’t get up to penetrate the shield wall. Then a few overconfident English units chased The Normans down the hill and got cut down but the survivors regrouped atop the hill. So how did William just suddenly smash the English despite them still being on the hill?
repeated charges and feigned retreats thinning the English shield wall down, until eventually Norman cavalry was able to break through. It's thought a hit squad of Norman knights then went straight for King Harold.
One of my ancestors, Odoh FitzGerald was there with William.And thus began the Geraldine dynasty, which lasted until the reign of their cousin, Queen Elizabeth 1, who deposed and dispossessed them after the Desmond rebellions in Ireland. Today, I proudly continue the tradition, in constant combat with my Portuguese boss, aka the tongue, and his cohorts, horseface and the midget, as a humble American meter man. Crom Aboo!
Im really enjoying your content on European history. :)
LOTS of inaccuracies in this video... Firstly The Anglo Saxons weren't "rattled" after the Battle of Stanford Bridge! They were jubilant.... out of the hundreds of Norse Viking ships 350-500+ only 30 returned. This was due it being an extremely hot day so the Vikings thinking there was no chance of such a speedy reply to them taking York that they left all of their armour with their ships. Next the Battle of Hastings itself... normally battles were over in an hour or 3. The Battle of Hastings though went on ALL day into the evening as the Saxon defence was so solid. Which was EXTREMELY rare for these times. You make the Battle seem like an easy win after Harold was killed! The Norman's won by using feint attacks followed by feint retreats, enticing the Saxons to break their own shieldwall by thinking that the Norman's were beaten or retreating.... this way the Norman's cut off smaller groups of Saxons & defeated them. And King Harold Godwinson? Whether from an arrow to the eye? I doubt it, as Norman chroniclers wrote that a Norman elite hit squad was tasked with killing Harold - which they did. Hacking off part of an arm & one leg, then in frenzied victory they struck off his head & mutilated his body - cutting off his genitals. Years later in Bosham Church which Harold's mother had built a high status stone coffin was found containg a skeleton minus its head minus one leg & showing signs of Battle. The Church of England & the Crown both dictated that the coffin shall NEVER be exhumed again.
Disinfographics is a jack of all trades, so you can't expect them to master all.
You literally explain why the saxons were exhausted
The Anglo-Saxon army were actually rattled though.
King Harold Godwinson was advised to NOT attack Duke William immediately but wait a while for the Fyrd to be raised. The Fyrd were fighting men who were farmers etc raised by local theigns. Because the lands where Duke Harold landed were in an area where Harold owned a Manor House farms & kennels & he knew the people there, he felt dity bound to attack immediately. If he had waited a couple of days? His tired army would have been much larger & would have probably won? But he refused to listen to all advice, the rest is history- literally. King Harold's traitorous brother Sweyn who was once Earl of Northumberland was killed at the Battle of Stanford Bridge fighting with Harold Hardrada. His other brothers Tostig & Gyrth were killed at the Battle of Hastings fighting with their brother. The only surviving Godwin males had been held as prisoners in Normandy some years before William invaded. I don't know what became of them?
@@Alex-yz6uq l think they were rattled after the Battle of Hastings! 😬 Not after Stanford Bridge. The Saxons basically traversed the country on HORSE, (they usually always marched) from London & Winchester to York in 5 days - a miraculous fete in itself. The Vikings were rattled to see riders approach them, thinking it was the Theigns of York come to give hostages & tribute...... l think as the Vikings were partying after the Battle of York, celebrating in very hot weather without their armour to find that it wasn't tribute & hostages but King Harold's army arriving in 5 days must have rattled them!? As I've said... it was a slaughter, Viking losses were severe with only 12 or 30 ships leaving England (dependant on who you read). Saxon losses were much smaller. As a military fete? To organise horses to carry the Saxon army & to send messengers ahead to raise more troops to join them along the way, then to defeat one of the largest invading Viking armies to invade Britain in under 6 days, then to march back to face another invasion at the other end of the country? Yes, l think on arriving back in London & learning of the size of the Norman's invasion, then yes at that point the Saxons were rattled! To fight 2 invasions in such a short time!? Unbelievably hard & shows the mettle of the Saxons under Harold Godwinson. If it was just one invasion? Either. Both would have been repulsed. Kudos to Duke William for waiting until Harold Hardrada had invaded before he attacked.
This would make one heck of a movie!
Vikings , the past kingdom .... Very interesting
Since I'm the first, let me thank you for the content you give to us, now I'm gonna see the video
I was just watching a video about this yesterday so good timing I guess
I live in Hastings so have visited the site regularly. Harold had fought with William on campaign against the Bretons while he was a hostage/guest of the Normans, so he knew Norman tactics. I asked a researcher doing his thesis on the battle why didn't Harold prepare the ground to disrupt Norman cavalry charges. Some research is thinking that he had to set up hastily on the high ground, then having to move to block the Normans, as the Normans were moving to take the only passes through the ridge line over the high ground and the road to London, which may also explain why he was forced into battle. This again may be what William exactly wanted, he couldn't wait until the English had full reinforcements arriving from the North.
Hard to prepare such defences when you came all the way from northern england and the enemy is raiding your lands
Didn't the reserarcer mention how much the land has changed over the past 1000 years ? The beaches and high low ground were completely different.. Did he mention the fighting was much further inland than previously thought. Or that battle abbey was not the battle site . GPR results recently confirmed archaeology work .
When the thousand year rivalry between England and France began.
This rivalry is only a French thing. Because they were always trying overtake England as superpower
@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 ?
@@strasbourgeois1 England had the largest empire, not France. This rivalry is only a French thing
@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 Nobody cares who had what. There was a clear rivalry between France and England/Britain. Britain claimed the French crown for itself, and France resisted. This went on till the late 1800's.
im not sure the empires of the 17th and 18th century really had much to do with the battle of hastings. Yes the 100 years war had roots in Hastings and king Rollo, but after 100 years war / Agincourt and all. you just had two powerful intelligent large countries that saw the world and went for it
This was a good video and nicely explained the politics of the North Sea leading up to of Williams invasion. I highly recommend people read Marc Morris’ book The Norman Conquest. It’s an absolute mammoth of a read but it is well worth it!
I appreciate the attention to detail in the background, but I'm really interested in learning more about the aftermath. How did the Normans consolidate control?
Try the history matters video on the Norman’s
@@jackec6375 I will, thanks
By genocide
@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 that is. William is not a revered figure in history.
@@sadettinarslan5324 because he crowned himself as king. He hardly won the battle, until he made a feigned retreat.
Very interesting
The weak reign of Aethelred the Unready and the bad reigns of king Cnut's sons set up a terrible situation for Anglo Saxon England by 1066.
True, it all went tits up in the late tenth century after the reign of Athelstan. I think the Danish expansion was exponential
@@eardwulf785 Athelstan’s descendants were mostly adept rulers who each had a hand in the formation of England including his half brother Edmund I, for example, who was underrated in my opinion (though there were one or two exceptions). I think it was when Edger the Peaceful died things really started to go tits up… ☹️
Your king is here 💪🔥🎉
That one battle changed the history of the world...
I get the feeling this is where the whole Robin Hood and Saxons vs Normans storyline is about to come into play.
To be fair as good as this video is.......the fighting didn't stop for at least another 8 years with constant rebellions and invasions.
There should be a follow up to this. Seriously it's an interesting period. How did William control England would be a good title. I'd recommend Norman Conquest by Marc Morris to research it.
@@Sean12248 'The Harrowing of the North' A scorched earth policy would be putting it bluntly
Exactly, the English were not weak people and they certainly didn’t make it easy for William to keep control of England.
@@eardwulf785 Unfortunately, yes. ☹️
I enjoyed the narrative, it's a pity you didn't have more time to include the first battle of 1066, the battle of Gate Fulford where the Northern Earls were defeated by Hadrada's army before Harold had marched is army North. The area where I hail from in northern England is situated on the Great North Road which Harold Godwinson used to march his army North to challenge the Norse invaders and It just possible that these mostly West Saxons were following in the same footsteps as Athelstans armies on their own march North to meet with the Northern Alliance. It is located upon the southern border of what was once the Danelew, my town has a Roman name but all the surrounding villages have mostly Danish and Saxon place names except mine which has been Normanised and is called Adwick le Street.
And this is the background to the beginning of the year 1066 in Crusaders King III. Cool
There are many details that seemed different from the classical informations i have always heard. Like the way Godwinson died. The disformation of the saxon units The strategy of Williame of either playing dead or really being injured
William’s pretention wasn’t about his bloody lineage. But because king Edward promised him the throne, and Harold Godwinson swore to recognize William as king. True or not, that was the William’s justification to the throne.
plus the pope wanted the invasion
Why would he “promise” him the throne to anyone knowing fully well the potential successor will need the approval of a Witan before they even look at the throne? It was a weak claim to say the least. William was nothing more than a usurper.
I was surprised at the way that part of the story was glossed over.
The great french colony defeated great england, I am not picking sides right now but it is one of the greatest achievement for the french colony
Harold to William: "It's over William! I have the high ground!" William to Harold: "You underestimate my power!"
Thanks
Great vid but the English Church was instrumental in the Normans taking over because the English Church negotiated with William after the battle to ensure that they kept their position in English society. It was a deal that blew up in their face when William replaced all the English leaders within 20 years and Latin and French became the languages of the Church which mirrored what happened to England after the French came to rule.
Have you ever read Bede or other 7th century Christian scholars, they wrote in Latin. Because they followed Roman Christianity. Latin didn't stsrt after the Norman invasion.. It already existed
The French have never "ruled England"
For 300 years 🇫🇷💪@@reidparker1848
History of Europe is interesting.
If you see the bigger picture. Harald Hardradas simultaneous invasion of Northumbria opened the way for Williams invasion of the south. King Harold had to literally turn around and march south with an exhausted army and almost still pulled it off. Says a lot about Harold Godwinson
How do you make these awesome maps? I guess you're using Photoshop, but which sources/brushes/elevation/websites are you using? Please, I need to know :(
Edward the confessor,died without confessing. I so wanted him to say this
As a great fan of the Anglo Saxons I often wonder how England and Britain would have developed if they had managed to stay in power. However the Norman contribution to the English national identity was the seasoning that made us what we later became.
yeah the norman’s were quite nationalistic about english identity
And where would we be if England wasn’t formed? As the historian Eric John wrote in the 20th century: “It was the Anglo-Saxons who made England, the Normans who attempted to make Great Britain. And as yet they have not succeeded so well.” No one has successfully invaded us since though.
Yeah but they integrated into English society. Anglo-Saxon = English. If you have norman ancestry you still aren't English in my eyes
@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 Not exactly the Normans took over the seat of power, in the same way the Saxons and other Germanics did after the Romans left Britain. They beat the Celts in battle replaced the Elites and the lower level Saxons mingled with the surviving Celtic lower classes. Over time the Celtic and Germanic traditions mingled with the Germanic traditions taking the upper hand and the Germanic Eaglisce language became predominate. Within a generation the two groups living in the Germanic controlled area were blended into the people we know as the first English people just because they shared common language and customs. The exact same thing happened when the Normans arrived, the same way the Scandinavians who lived in the Danelaw also joined the mix. None of the successive invaders could totally remove those already on the island so they mixed. The point being according to your statement there are very few true English living in England.
Odd comment, because 90% of the English population are 98% Anglo Celt and 2% Norman. Of which that 2% was Flemish Breton frank norse. Every Welshman has nearly the same amount of Norman but less anglosaxon
Curious to know how so much detail of the actual battles is known.
if i had such History Professor at school, i would be so much more interested in it !
this was definitely one of the most important events in English history
Even more than the British Armada's humiliating defeat at Cartagena de Indias.
@@scintillam_dei the Spanish live in our shadow 🇬🇧 lmfao 1588? Trafalgar? 100 years war (castille, France and Scotland vs England)?
@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 My series on the overrated Brits is my response to your already-covered non-sharp "points."
@@scintillam_dei "overrated Brits" And you expect me watch a Spanish series, no doubt biased for Spain? Lmao. Cope lad
@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 good job
Wasn't it said that the King Harold got struck by an arrow to the eye?
Yeah I think
Many one-eyed guys in history, often national heroes. The Bible says the Anti-Christ's right eye will be "utterly darkened." The one eye on the dollar bill on the pyramid is symbolic of the Anti-Christ on the Tower of Babel. But most of you reading this prefer mainstream history and not thinkning independently, over conspiracy theories even when they are in your face in the dollar bill, and therefore conspiracy facts.
@@scintillam_dei So u are suggesting that the people who are printing the dollar bills are satiniscs?
Yes
It's been debated whether it was true or not.
History's channels , Lands and mortgage 💯💯
5:30 if you remember Medieval 2 prologue You are a legend
I would present a different view of the Battle of Hastings. The English were tired but had a geographical advantage. They also did not need to defeat the Normans then and there as reinforcements would arrive by night, meaning they just had to hold out for the day. Essentially, all they had to do was hide behind their shield wall, which was proving to be almost impenetrable, until nightfall when the first day would end and reinforcements would arrive for the second day. However, the English got greedy with their temporary advantage and broke formation, leading the shield wall weakened.
Did we watch the same video? This is exactly what was said.
I saw the video presenting a battle in which the Normans had the upper hand and the English were already on the back foot. I think the battle was stacked against the Normans because of the English defensive position and having time on their side. I think it was much harder for the Normans to win the battle than the video says.
@@fishpig4391 It was stacked against the English from the start because the Normans had a well rested cavalry whilst the English fought on foot after defeating the Vikings. They were winning the battle anyway, until the Normans enforced the ‘feigned retreat’…
@@thevoiceless8567 Horseback fighting is no good against shield walls as horses will not run at shield walls leaving the norman horseback fighters open to english spears and axes only owing to the english breaking their lines to drive the normans into the sea did the normans overcome the english onset on horseback had the english waited for more fighters to turn up they would have won the normans did not win the english lost
@@thevoiceless8567 Cavalry fares less well against a fortified position on uphill terrain. I agree with your statement that they were winning the battle until the Norman "feigned retreat" and I think that was because of their defensive position. I think they lost because they got overconfident from the "feigned retreat" and broke formation.
Its known as, in England, the LAST successful invasion of England
well it was an invasion of england, nowhere else !!!
Great 👍
Make a video on dzungaria 🙏🙏🙏🙏
I am eleventh a great video but don't you think three was a secret deal between William and Harold lll
"That's why we live in a home not a Ham"
ham is a farm, home is a house
Through poems, love letters, gifts, and presents yeah
Charles beat Rollo at Chartres and then made a treaty. The Normans were French generations after Rollo. Henry I of france of house Capetian knighted William and gave him /kept his title William of Duke. The Normans were more French than Normans at this point . Hence, Norman French .
you are correct but very difficult for english to admit. If you check the William charter to the City of London ans Bayeux tapestry, you will see that william and his people were calling themselves.... french.
After the 2nd generation they were no longer Norman. It's pretty much the international consensus that the Normans became "naturales Angli" and proud of their "Anglorum patria" by the end of Henry II's reign, past that, chroniclers and writers of the era seem to have seen "Normannis" as antiquated legal and everybody is simply called "Angli" instead. Even in tournament records from Richard I's reign, the nobles in England are called English.The Saxons and the Normans merged very quickly after the conquest because they were very similar in the first place. People will happily tell you that Saxon word for food was split between French and Old English. What they don’t tell you is that the vast majority of military terms remained Old English. Knights, yeoman, sword, shield. Even aristocratic titles remained Germanic long after the conquest: Earl, Baron. This is because a lot of young Norman men, very quickly adopted Saxon styles. It is quite funny when you hear the Saxons complain that their young men were cutting their their hair in the Danish/Norman style (back of the head shaved) and the Normans were complaining that their boys were growing moustaches like the Saxons. Saxon and Norman names shared roots, so It was not hard to merge the two. Hrotgar became Roger , Hrothberth became Robert and Athelwulf became Adolf , Hemric became Henry. Similarly , Normans adopted Saxon names like Audrey, Edward, Alfred and Edith. The Norman kings went to great lengths to maintain that they were the legitimate heirs to the monarchy. Henry I married Edgar Athelings grand daughter to merge the House of Normandy with the House of Wessex. Anglo-Saxon (mainly)+Briton+Norman (by the 1200s)=English. If you remove any of it, it is no longer English.
Before the Vikings it was the Romans. I think part of the reason Britain ended up going down the empire route, was because for thousands of years we were the invaded. Doesn’t make it right, but it seems to be what happens, as we can see now.
My series on the overrated British Empire explains the truth about it.
@@scintillam_dei Overrated? Not another sour anti British thing is it?
@@kadourimdou43 Yes it was overrated. All empires for the most part are. The British empire for all it's land mass it's people lived like shit. Even some colonials lived better than the common Brit. It was the same for the Spanish empire. The Spanish lived like shit while those in Cuba and Puerto Rico lived a far richer life.
@@phillip_iv_planetking6354 The living conditions for the average person, isn’t the same as the empire itself. That could also apply to any country on Earth, as the rulers and those closest to them will always have better lives, than the rest of the country. So it’s not saying anything at all. Just another anti British bitch-fest.
@@phillip_iv_planetking6354 Sorry to burst your bubble but most people in the viceroyalties lived like shit.
They were far better prepared and organized, and at the Battle of Hastings they drove a wedge in the middle of the enemy battle line and achieved a breakthrough to attack their flank and break the formation. Then they established strong points to defend from using prefabricated timber castles. Very innovative for the pre-mongol era.
The norman fighters were hotfooted up against the sea by the english and only owning to the english fighting on foot did the normans overcome the english onslaught on horseback had the english been on horseback or gathered more fighters into their line they would have drove the normans into the sea the normans were getting beat throughout the fight the normans did not win the english lost
@@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333 ''The Normans did not win the English lost''.. Uhm, with that logic no wonder they lost!🤔 And that happened 956 years ago.. Here some copium, messire Æthelwulf.
Please give us history on Sir Edward Vernon
I’m actually a descendant of him lol
All I have to say is good video
imagine if many Roman Legionnaire station in England decided to stay with their family and many Roman craftsman. England would be Second Rome.
Would be like an island of civilisation in a storm of germanic fury.
@@Litany_of_Fury precisely. imagine Rome but protected by Sea
It is hard to dismiss the possibility that many Romans living in what is now England did not leave. Indeed, if not the Romans themselves but the Romanized local population stayed. Anglo-Saxons did benefit from a substantial Roman heritage.
Alot did stay actually... its just the the anglo-saxons invaded... So no... England wouldn't be a Second Rome infact they attacked and killed Romans
@@ZAR556 Protected by the sea? They would suffer constant attack from the sea by Frankia, Northmen, Saxons, Frisians and Celts.
You say "it was he (William) and his knight who broke through the English ranks to slay (King) Harold themselves" King Harold was killed by an arrow to the eye, not by the Knights. Otherwise great video about this pivotal moment in English history.
The lucky shot!
Some people in comment doubted that king harold died by an arrow to the eye. I was curious and google it. According to Wikipedia. it was still being debated by some scholars
@@calvanoni5443 Bull's-eye! 🏹🎯👁️
Technically speaking this assumption is based on what appears to be drawn on the Bayeux Tapestry, but it (the "arrow") could also be a convenient crack in the tapestry itself. There is no conclusive evidence or written eye witness testimony which states Harold got an arrow to the eye, it is hearsay based solely on what appears to be drawn on the part of the Bayeux Tapestry which is Harold's final appearance on it
Surnames are indeed interesting. All my immediate family are born in the south of England, yet my fathers surname is Townson. Which is a mutant name of Thompson, Thomlinson, that first originated in Lancashire North east of England. None of us have family up there or ever vist yet, that's where 100% of the people with that surname come from. Mad! I feel like I need to go visit preston or blackpool to see what it's like.
The age of castle building begins
The English had to fight two separate invasions. Won one and almost won the other
Anglo-saxons. Not English.
@@davidladjani108 bruh. Anglo-Saxon = English = England. Without the Anglo-Saxons, English won't exist.
@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 The English are a mix of Anglo Saxon, Norman and a bit of Norse. And of course Celts but that was previously to the Anglo Saxon conquest. Your equation is almost as dumb a saying Franks = French.
@@davidladjani108 the dominant blood in Englishmen, is Anglo-Saxon and Celtic. normans are a minority. You're talking to an Englishman, about England ffs. England was named after the Angles (aka English)
@@davidladjani108 you tryna look stupid?
Was Very easy to conquer England's it's always been conquered
It's funny how many different ways this story is told. I suppose it was 1000 years ago, so it can be understood; but you'd think that there would be one theory that was more prominent than the others.
You should make a video on 'How did The Normans Conquer Ireland', next.
I, as Rollo the 37th, should reclaim your land. Or should i say.... MY LAND!? The DaneLaw will ones rise again in England!
the danelaw was killed off by Normans. Have you never read the Harrying of the North. many of the EnglishDanish elite sailed to Crimea, the conquered Cueta and Balearics before the Byzantium lord gave them lands in Crimea. William hated english and dane the same. Often armies or Lords hate and turn against their relatives. Basically the danes fought danes be they norse english or norman. Same as the war in USA, it was not Britain vs usa but really patriots of the king fighting British who didnt want to pay tax and homage to him
Conquering England wasnt the norm for Normans you could say
You must be a frank beecause you're frank.
They were french
@@leroiarouf1142 the french identity wasn’t even a thing back then and williams the conqueror literally fought two battles against the king of france prior to the norman conquest of england how tf were they in anyways french
@@leroiarouf1142 rollo was danish, northmen norse normans.. Angles English Norse god Ing. French celtic franks spoke italian look like arabs....the scottish are strathclyde welsh and scot irish and english northumbrians and norse...confusing yes.
@@shawnv123 The same William that asked the French king to help him secure his throne? Normans were french, they spoke french, fought the french way. William was less than 10% scandinavian. The term "Norman" didn't even exist at the time, and William's army called themselves Frankish (just look at the Bayeux tapestry commissioned by William's own brother). "Norman" is an invention of revisionist and nationalist English historians of the 19th century.
Harald hardrada claim is kinda flimsy but his right arm is pretty strong.
Note that basically they conquered the Saxons,and by the map shown Cornwall.Strathclyde,Wales,Scotland,The islands,and Ireland were in Celtic or Viking hands
They left out a lot of key factors and nobleman who was very much a part of this war. This was a very much a generic and skeleton version of what truly happened.
Dude.... no. Rollo was wreaking havoc within eastern France... offering Normandy was a military strategy to secure the seine and protect the heartland of France.
Wreaking havoc? more like pillaging monasteries and small towns. Rollo & his mens were defeated in battle by the french king, and the peace setllement allowed him to gain land in France in return to protect the french coast from other Vikings raids.
The Viking’s were defeated in Chartres. Then came the saint clair sur epte treaty that created the duchy of Normandie and made the vikings french . Normands were French who spoke French, were catholics and had french culture. Then came the French conquest of England
Might be my PTSD, but I thought I heard the music from Mount & Blade: Warband - Viking Conquest...
When is Skanderbeg part 2 coming?
If the Anglo-Saxons retained their discipline instead of charging down the Normans they the Saxons would of won.
Yup English history would be entirely different today if the Saxons had won
@@mijanhoque1740 it would interesting linguistically speaking.
@@mijanhoque1740 not really. The Pope would have decreed another invasion and William could have regrouped himself and had troops from Pope's HRE and attacked again. Evil papists always had a go at little old britian
We will win we have not given up
@@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333 literally most us modern English people can't pick up a gun. I can though my family moved to America.
The French conquest of england. Hastings is one of the finest French military victory. along with Poitier 732 or Yorktown 1781. Dieu et mon droit Honi soit qui mal y pense
the normans were not french, they had a leader called duke and were separate from king of franks. duke was duke of normans not franks
@@stigkrakpants3052 The Normands were French. They spoke French, were catholics, had French, Gauls blood along with scandinavian blood. Normandie has always been part of France and has never been an independant kingdom. As the historian Robert Bates states in his book "Normandy before 1066", Following the Vikings settlement in Normandy, Normands spoke French, intermarrying with local French , converted to Christianity and eventually by 1066 became more French than Viking. Normands copied French institutions and were fully integrated in the French kingdom. On the Bayeux tapestry it is clearly described that the French won over the English. hIC CeCIDERUNT SIMUL: ANGLI eT FRANCI: INPReLIO Here were killed at the same time English and French in Battle HIC FRANCI PUGNANT ET CECIDERUNT QUI ERANT CUM HAROLDO HERE THE FRENCH ARE FIGHTING AND THOSE WHO WERE WITH HAROLD HAVE FALLEN EST ET FUGA: VERTERUNT ANGLI And the English have turned to flight On the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, it is also clearly mentioned that Guillaume & his army were French. “Frenchmen had possession of the place of Carnage, all as God Granted them for the peoples's sins.” Orderic Vitalis wrote in his Ecclesiastica Historia ("Ecclesiastical History"): Nothing was given to any Frenchman which had been taken unjustly from any Englishman. The French Chronicler Guy of Amiens in his text “Carmen de Hastingae proelio” wrote: “When France was almost mistress of the field of battle and was already seeking the spoils of war, the Duke (Guillaume) caught sight of the king on the top of the hill fiercely cutting down those who were attacking him[…].”
@@lecapetien3223 the normans were labelled as french because they spoke french and were lumped as all together. But you are wrong they were northmen under a duke not a king. It is the same as berbers were labelled blacks as we knew no different then. Or as pale skinned moors were called blacks when they visited europe. Or a moroccan could be labelled french as they speak french. Are Yanks english?? No they are not. Frogs cannot claim the victory of 1066 for their own same way if cornwall or wales had invaded ireland in the 12th century england could not claim credit of invading ireland. You are as deluded as an Argy thinking the falklands are not british. The english were catholic but that didnt make them french.
@@stigkrakpants3052 < The historian Robert Bates states in his book "Normandy before 1066", Following the Vikings settlement in Normandy, Normands spoke French, intermarrying with local French , converted to Christianity and eventually by 1066 became more French than Viking. Normands copied French institutions and were fully integrated in the French kingdom. So yes, the Normands were French speaking catholic French, as Normandie has always been French and under the authority the French kings. So yes, the French duke of Normandie Guillaume and his French army (1/3 from Normandie, and the other 2/3 from other regions of France) invaded and kicked the ass of the pukelanders. this French invasion of england was the first of the 3 French invasions of england. The 2nd being by Etienne de Blois The 3rd being by Henri II de Plantagenêt this is why it is mentioned on la Tapisserie de Bayeux that the French won over the English. hIC CeCIDERUNT SIMUL: ANGLI eT FRANCI: INPReLIO Here were killed at the same time English and French in Battle HIC FRANCI PUGNANT ET CECIDERUNT QUI ERANT CUM HAROLDO HERE THE FRENCH ARE FIGHTING AND THOSE WHO WERE WITH HAROLD HAVE FALLEN EST ET FUGA: VERTERUNT ANGLI And the English have turned to flight On the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, it is also clearly mentioned that Guillaume & his army were French. “Frenchmen had possession of the place of Carnage, all as God Granted them for the peoples's sins.” Orderic Vitalis wrote in his Ecclesiastica Historia ("Ecclesiastical History"): Nothing was given to any Frenchman which had been taken unjustly from any Englishman. The French Chronicler Guy of Amiens in his text “Carmen de Hastingae proelio” wrote: “When France was almost mistress of the field of battle and was already seeking the spoils of war, the Duke (Guillaume) caught sight of the king on the top of the hill fiercely cutting down those who were attacking him[…].” 300 years of French rule on england ! Dieu et mon droit Honi soit qui mal y pense
Remember, the 100 years war lasted116 years, and had English and Welsh men occupy North frsnce. Keep your revisionism to yourself typical frenchman
Please visit Micahistory 2, it would mean a lot!
Can I clarify - was William the Conqueror the descendant of Aethelred II? If so, was Aethelred II the ruler that was forced to flee by Sweyn Forkbeard? Because IF SO, wasn't William the Conqueror basically/technically taking back the land that his grandfather (or great-grandfather I can't remember) was forced to leave in the first place? Because that would make it a lot more just for him to take over: his forefather originally owned the land but was just forced out, so some years later he eventually took it back. Please clarify if I've got this wrong!!
That's what I'm thinking too. He had more right by blood than the Norway Harald anyway
@@kmbn1967 Right!
The map 8s wrong. Normandy wasjust aDuchy among other fierce strong feudal states 8n France. The Vikings were a tiny minority in Normandy. There was far more frankish, gaulish and even saxons than danish. The dukes allied with Brittany and Maine to fight against the powerful counts of Blois and Champagne, allies of the then symbolic king of France. This is why William died in Normandy. His enemies took advantage ofhis absence to take norman lands.
The english never accept the fact that Normands were french. It is clearly mentioned on La tapisserie de Bayeux. hIC CeCIDERUNT SIMUL: ANGLI eT FRANCI: INPReLIO Here were killed at the same time English and French in Battle
top 500 ppl - bite me swedes
Dinosaurs never existed. "They say they have fossils, so they do." Gullible. "You're stupid for questioning the establishment." You're not fit to judge on smartnes when you believe I'm dumb for free thinking.
The Normans are definitely in the top three European peoples for me
Most important event in all British history
People wrongly believe that the vikings were strong. They raided the Seine valley many times because they suffered defeat after defeat elsewhere in France. If the powerless king Charles granted Rollo Normandy it is because he desperatly need allies against the other powerful independant counties and Dukedoms in France.
They seemed pretty strong to me, for not having a unified army or agenda. They occupied most of England and settled there. They settled in Ireland and Scotland. They were granted Normandy by the French king, they settled all over eastern europe and founded Kiev as a main city. The kieven rus was created and ruled by the vikings. They influenced power politics in constantinople. Among just a few things.. Its true they didnt have a landarmy that swept across and defeated every standind army.. But to call them "not strong" is inaccurate.
@@whatwhat3432523 I mean they were not THAT strong ! Their strength is a myth. It was based on desintegration of the Carolingien empire. If they settled in a tiny part of Normandy it was only because the King had NO authority on his powerful lords. They failed to take Paris despite a first winning battle. They failed to settle in the Loire or Rhone or Garonne valleys. They were defeated by the anglo saxons many times and were forced to submit to them. Adventurous is not synonym of powerful , sorry !
@@antoinemozart243 I dont agree. Their influence on the entire continent is massive, especially in the UK, western europe, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe. They fought just as much amongst themselves as anyone else. And never had one king, just in Norway there were multiple kings.. There never was a standing army of vikings like on the continent. Their influence of commerce was just as impressive as their raids. Therefor they were a massive force to be reckoned with, and indeed powerful.
the english just CAN'T admit they got conquered by the french, YES Normandy (previously Neustria) was given to some vikings settlers,but... I mean whats a few hundred or even thousands of settlers in a sea of millions ? 200 years later u can bet ur pretty little face that the only language they spoke was a version of french (oil vulgar), and that they were as french as one could be considered french at the time... EDIT: @Patrick thx for phrasing it a lot better than i possibly could
Because it’s not that simple. Calling many people in what is now France, “French” is complicated as there was no uniform concept of nationality and identity. The Normans were very proud of their own identity and often fought against France and Brittany. That’s why they’re not typically called French. Although in fairness their culture was very Frankish. Okay people on this thread are being weird about race and eugenics and stuff, so all I’m gonna say is racism is bad, eugenics is awful,anti-Semitism is bad and all empires harmed people. Peace
This is one sided. It's clear the french are obsessed, but we're indifferent. England itself was forged in war: 443 - 927ad, so we know defeat. That said, no one claims the normans are viking, the french pretend we do. We English just remember the vikings for who they were. I have had french women of different backgrounds, and they love being french, why deny her of that cultural identity?? Just as my family was once German/Nord, I am a proud Englishman
I'm a proud Briton because you didn't conquer all of England, no one did. William the bastard, they called him that because of his taste for massacring peasants and women and because he was a bastard didn't conquer Cumbria. It doesn't appear in the Doomsday book because the Normans couldn't tax it. Apparently they sent 4 armies in and got butt kicked every time. Even the Cumbrian wind destroyed one army. Haha. Oh dear. Anyway what is surprising is how few times "France " invaded seeing as it's bigger, with a bigger population and wealthier because the French kings always had their nose up the pope's butt. King Charles VI, a French King, thought he was made of glass. Not all French stuff took otherwise we'd be having 3 hour lunch breaks be munching on frogs and we wouldn't have a marvellous ability for self deprecating introspection. We'd have a crapper sense of humour and we'd have nearly bugger all kick ass rock bands.
@@Yellow-kp9gs That's not the point. The point is that the English have invented the myth of the Normans of William the Conqueror being French-speaking Vikings to avoid having to admit that the Normans were "French/Northern French/Franks", or whatever French-related people you want to call them.
@@Fatherland927 Lol... Nobody is obsessed in France about the Norman invasion of England. And yes, you do claim the Normans are Vikings. This myth is all over the place.
Interesting to note that Cumberland,Westmorland and Lancashire`s Furness peninsula were not yet part of England.
can you do 1066 the English Civil War ?
You made it sound like normandy became independent, but it was still part of the kingdom of france.... And it always make me laugh how the english cope with the facts they got invaded and ruled by france by calling it "normans"
The English don't say much about the war as you pretend. The french were the ones to call them normans. They were also in sicily and Balkan. They led an army of Englishmen to invade france too in 1080
you have it all wrong, france and normandy were as separate as wales and england, although now joined. You could say the same about lowland scotland by saying it should still be part of northumbria. The normans were cultured by France but were Northmen. ''Normandy became independent'' it was invaded then given to the northmen. Same as East Anglia was given to the english by the welsh. Clearly the welsh no longer ruled norfolk and essex!!
they were never ruled by the franks, or by france or by paris. say that to the thousands killed by the ensuing hundreds of years of wars haha
@@stigkrakpants3052 Another clueless comment from someone who can probably barely read a word of Latin. 11th century France was peak feudal France. Fiefs were not "separate" but autonomous, like the duchy of Burgundy or Aquitaine, and together made up the kingdom of France. Every duke, including those of Normandy, was required to attend the king's governing council every year, where decisions about their duchies were made. William's own father-in-law, the count of Flanders, was the regent of the kingdom at the time. As for the conquest itself, the vast majority of the 50+ Norman towns from which originated prominent English families were urban centers dating back to Carolingian times. You are getting mixed up with the coastal settlements of Vikings in the late 800s, who had to intermix with the locals to have offsprings. That's not to mention the 1/3 of French soldiers who came from outside Normandy, some as far as Aquitaine!
@@joeshawnee3890 a third of Willaim's army were bretons ie Welsh, didnt know that did you. Did you know Duke William didnt fly the french frankish flag as he was not a frank nor controlled by the frankish kings
I’ve always had a particular disdain for William the basterd, although I admire the Normans just as much as I do the Romans or say the Parthians, his “victory” over the Anglo-Saxons and England just rubs me wrong in multiple ways, the fact he crowned himself “the conqueror” (amusing really) after barley securing victory over another army that had just came off a separate battle field from an opposing force (Vikings) suffering significant losses, with minimal rest, being force marched south and his troops having zero recuperation and time to ready themselves and they still barley scratched out a win says alot about both subsequent armies and the men/leaders that participated. That basterd has immense fortune/favor or luck that day and strategically yes, struck at the perfect moment which was tactically sound but came with absolutely no honor, renown or glory if you ask me, as he titles himself King and “conquer” in his petulant arrogance.. the whole sequence of events just grinds my gears man, the history textbooks and historical records hail that day and him as something impressive when really it was anything but a act of divine providence and worthy of as much praise as a two armed healthy man besting a one armed exhausted man in single combat. Irks me something fierce lol, to an admittedly unhealthy degree.. conquer, my ass. That basterd is still in my eyes even more of a basterd.
Bastard is indeed the correct word. Any lad that hurts women and children for power, will be remembered as such
DEVS obviously VVLTed.
History is written by the victor
Similar to West claiming victory over Germans in ww2 when it was russians who actually defeated the germans
@@muhammadadeel8639somewhat I guess, you could say that to a degree but the two scenarios are entirely different and I know the West with it’s (history books/overzealous nationalists etc) narrative enjoys over stating and trumping up our role and victory during WW2 and that it may come off as what you are assuming (arrogance, sole winners) but I assure you, most if not all average folks with half a brain or know what the Russians put in and pulled 2/3rds of the total weight/sacrifices of the war overall and achieved victory, mostly due to its unique and precarious circumstances being significantly varied then Britain and Americas roles and participation. We acknowledge the facts and truth regardless of patriotism or other recount projection of the war overly in our favor, despite otherwise.
very nice detail that you kept calling them Northmen instead of Norman
A bit harsh on Harold godwinson here. A king is obliged to protect his kingdom, especially the king's own land, so simply waiting weeks for reinforcement would have undermined his authority and made it impossible to command respect of his country anyway.