Will you be doing more full chronicles about individuals,such as Canute, Edmund Ironside,Ethelflaed,Siward Earl of Northumbria,William Marshal,Subutai,Simon Bolivar,sorry for the long list just a big history person.
@@mktf5582 Yes, definitely! However we focus more on introducing folks to time periods and events rather than individuals. Our friends on The People Profiles do fantastic, in depth videos on individuals throughout history, if thats your jam?
@@alexanderdoddy7590 I'm subscribed to both people profiles and history chronicles,yes they do great people profiles and history chronicles doing smashing,hoping one on a period of Ancient Greece will be soon.
@@mktf5582 Ancient Greece is on the cards sooner rather than later, but won't be in the immediate future. It is a personal favorite of mine (thanks to Total War: Rome many years ago)
Thankyou so much to everyone who is watching, commenting and liking the videos! The channel is at a crossroads. It would mean the world to us if you shared them as well! Whether it's this video on the Viking invasions, or our recent ones about Suffrage it would be a massive help!
I love the work of the whole team ! I discovered your inspiring voice in the Hannibal videos from history marche, and am so happy to be able to hear you narrating once more on this channel. Keep up the good work 👍
Thanks for the well covered topic! I have two questions about the ending: What was the attitude of the Vikings (i.e. Harald Hardrada) to William's claim of the English throne - were they fighting against a common enemy (Harold Godwinson)? And what could have happened if the battle of Stamford bridge went the opposite way and put Harald to face William directly - given that they descend from the same origin as Vikings?
I am by no means an expert - but based on what I know Harald would have seen William as just another rival for the English throne, he was not aware when William was planning to invade and Godwinson was only a common enemy in so far as he was on the throne which Harald and William were both competing for. Dynastically Harald had barely any claim, his claim was based on an agreement made between Harthacnut (king of England before Edward the Confessor) and King Magnus of Norway, Harald’s predecessor, that said that whoever died first between Magnus and Harthacnut, the other would take over their lands. Harthacnut died first so Harald was using this agreement as his claim. I think it is extremely extremely unlikely that Harald would have seen William the conqueror as anything other than a rival claimant and an enemy. Although both descended from vikings, vikings did not necessarily have any affinity with one another, because there was no familial connection thus their only link was that 200 years ago their ancestors would have both been somewhere in Scandinavia. The idea of trans-Scandinavian identity was definitely not in existence at this point. Add to this the fact that William and his Dukedom was essentially French in almost every conceivable way at this time (language, culture, religion, etc.) I think if Stamford Bridge had gone the other way William and Harald would have fought to the death - and I personally think William would have won, unless Harald was able to bring over substantial reinforcements from Norway. I hope this helps! Again, I am not expert so please do research if you are super interested!
Calvin had the long and short of it. Harald didn't seem care, if he knew at all. Likewise, William seemed unaware of Harald's invasion until just prior to leaving Normady or just after he landed in England. Considering they were vying for the same land, they would be unlikely to work together regardless. Godwinson outnumbered the Vikings and had a hefty cavalry contingent, so any victory for Harald would have been costly! I reckon, even if Harald won it wouldn't have ended much different. He wouldn't have had the capacity to take much more of the country, whilst William had heavy horse and fresh manpower to steamroll everything in their path. The absolute best outcome I can see (for the Vikings) is William and Harald negotiating a truce with the vikings keeping York and the Northeast, whilst William takes everything else.
@@tamimi724 You're welcome! Thinking about it.... One change that would have been interesting would be if William had been able to leave earlier (his original invasion date was scrapped due to bad weather). Godwinson had to disband and reform much of his force from Stamford, so if he hadn't had to fight the Vikings first he could very well have crushed William, before Harald landed. So the final fight would have been between the Saxons and the Vikings. Though William was not the type to give up, so unless he was killed he may very well have tried again
Anyone remember the English historian who televised documentaries on TV in the 1970's and 1980's. I thought he was so good, but I can't remember his name.
Yes, though I believe it was through marriage rather than a direct descendant. However, it was many generations and when they arrived there were not that many Saxons, so they are probably blood related in some convoluted way.
Yes this is part of the reason why Harold faced so many claimants to his throne - he didn’t really have any kind of blood claim to the English throne, he was King because he was brother-in-law to Edward the Confessor but primarily because he was an incredibly powerful English noble whose family had been very prominent in Anglo-Saxon politics. He was blood related to King Canute but not to the main Anglo-Saxon royal line. Like Alex said he probably was related to Alfred in a convoluted way but he was essentially illegitimate and this caused many of his problems.
Please support our work and help our channel grow! www.patreon.com/user?u=56812376
Will you be doing more full chronicles about individuals,such as Canute, Edmund Ironside,Ethelflaed,Siward Earl of Northumbria,William Marshal,Subutai,Simon Bolivar,sorry for the long list just a big history person.
@Khail Kupsky Yes that's who i meant.
@@mktf5582 Yes, definitely! However we focus more on introducing folks to time periods and events rather than individuals. Our friends on The People Profiles do fantastic, in depth videos on individuals throughout history, if thats your jam?
@@alexanderdoddy7590 I'm subscribed to both people profiles and history chronicles,yes they do great people profiles and history chronicles doing smashing,hoping one on a period of Ancient Greece will be soon.
@@mktf5582 Ancient Greece is on the cards sooner rather than later, but won't be in the immediate future. It is a personal favorite of mine (thanks to Total War: Rome many years ago)
Thankyou so much to everyone who is watching, commenting and liking the videos! The channel is at a crossroads. It would mean the world to us if you shared them as well! Whether it's this video on the Viking invasions, or our recent ones about Suffrage it would be a massive help!
18 seconds in the video and I'm already a subscriber. I was like oooh so this s the guy I have listened to for years!
Thankyou for the support :)
I love the work of the whole team ! I discovered your inspiring voice in the Hannibal videos from history marche, and am so happy to be able to hear you narrating once more on this channel. Keep up the good work 👍
Thanks! Hope you enjoy the videos!
This is quickly becoming one of my favourite history channels on TH-cam!
Thanks :)
Your the best history norator I've ever heard. Your voice is absolutely PERFECT FOR IT!!!
Thankyou! Glad you enjoyed it
Another great video!
Thanks for watching!
I'm so glad so many young creators r making such high quality content such as this, thank you😁
Thankyou! I'm lucky enough to have a fantastic team who are incredibly talented
Great content, great narrator to listen too!
Deserves way more subs!
Much appreciated!
Amazing stuff as always!
Thanks for watching!
You're speaking style is hypnotic.
Cheers!
Oh I know this voice. It was great to find this channel
Thanks for joining us!
Amazing video
Thanks!
love your subjects videos and your super voice
Thanks for the well covered topic!
I have two questions about the ending:
What was the attitude of the Vikings (i.e. Harald Hardrada) to William's claim of the English throne - were they fighting against a common enemy (Harold Godwinson)?
And what could have happened if the battle of Stamford bridge went the opposite way and put Harald to face William directly - given that they descend from the same origin as Vikings?
I am by no means an expert - but based on what I know Harald would have seen William as just another rival for the English throne, he was not aware when William was planning to invade and Godwinson was only a common enemy in so far as he was on the throne which Harald and William were both competing for. Dynastically Harald had barely any claim, his claim was based on an agreement made between Harthacnut (king of England before Edward the Confessor) and King Magnus of Norway, Harald’s predecessor, that said that whoever died first between Magnus and Harthacnut, the other would take over their lands. Harthacnut died first so Harald was using this agreement as his claim.
I think it is extremely extremely unlikely that Harald would have seen William the conqueror as anything other than a rival claimant and an enemy. Although both descended from vikings, vikings did not necessarily have any affinity with one another, because there was no familial connection thus their only link was that 200 years ago their ancestors would have both been somewhere in Scandinavia. The idea of trans-Scandinavian identity was definitely not in existence at this point. Add to this the fact that William and his Dukedom was essentially French in almost every conceivable way at this time (language, culture, religion, etc.) I think if Stamford Bridge had gone the other way William and Harald would have fought to the death - and I personally think William would have won, unless Harald was able to bring over substantial reinforcements from Norway. I hope this helps! Again, I am not expert so please do research if you are super interested!
Calvin had the long and short of it. Harald didn't seem care, if he knew at all. Likewise, William seemed unaware of Harald's invasion until just prior to leaving Normady or just after he landed in England. Considering they were vying for the same land, they would be unlikely to work together regardless.
Godwinson outnumbered the Vikings and had a hefty cavalry contingent, so any victory for Harald would have been costly!
I reckon, even if Harald won it wouldn't have ended much different. He wouldn't have had the capacity to take much more of the country, whilst William had heavy horse and fresh manpower to steamroll everything in their path.
The absolute best outcome I can see (for the Vikings) is William and Harald negotiating a truce with the vikings keeping York and the Northeast, whilst William takes everything else.
@@calvinh8755 This makes much sense, thanks for the elaborate reply!
Thanks Alex! You are also pointing to some alternative logical sequence, that covered the question well too!
@@tamimi724 You're welcome!
Thinking about it.... One change that would have been interesting would be if William had been able to leave earlier (his original invasion date was scrapped due to bad weather). Godwinson had to disband and reform much of his force from Stamford, so if he hadn't had to fight the Vikings first he could very well have crushed William, before Harald landed. So the final fight would have been between the Saxons and the Vikings.
Though William was not the type to give up, so unless he was killed he may very well have tried again
Great channel!… we need to get you more followers 😊
Anyone remember the English historian who televised documentaries on TV in the 1970's and 1980's. I thought he was so good, but I can't remember his name.
Was the last Anglo-Saxon King Harold related to Alfred the great?
Yes, though I believe it was through marriage rather than a direct descendant. However, it was many generations and when they arrived there were not that many Saxons, so they are probably blood related in some convoluted way.
Yes this is part of the reason why Harold faced so many claimants to his throne - he didn’t really have any kind of blood claim to the English throne, he was King because he was brother-in-law to Edward the Confessor but primarily because he was an incredibly powerful English noble whose family had been very prominent in Anglo-Saxon politics. He was blood related to King Canute but not to the main Anglo-Saxon royal line. Like Alex said he probably was related to Alfred in a convoluted way but he was essentially illegitimate and this caused many of his problems.
First!!!
Only just!
Your voice 🥴🥴
Can't tell what those emoji's are. Is that good or bad?
@@alexanderdoddy7590 it's a very good emoji
@@madhex9011 Thankyou :)