What If The Normans LOST The Battle of Hastings? | The World Would NOT Speak English Today
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- James is joined by Rear Admiral Dr Chris Parry and one of Britain's most renowned Medieval experts Professor Robert Bartlett, to discuss why the Battle of Hastings is the most consequential British battle in history.
Welcome to Times Radio History, and this is History Undone with James Hanson. The show looks back at pivotal moments and asks 'What if?'. We'll be looking at key battles, strategic decisions and political outcomes with leading historians and current military experts and tacticians to see what might have happened differently, and more importantly, what impact those differences might have had on the world today.
#battleofhastings #hastings #history #britishhistory
The Breton cavalry was led by Alan the Red, son of Edo, who came with William the Conqueror in his conquest of England. A few years earlier, William had given military support to Edo, allowing the family to gain control of [Eastern] Brittany. Edo returned the favour, by sending his 5 younger sons, along with men & equipment.
There are medieval records which lay claim to show that that Edo was descended from ‘Goar’, leader of the ‘Alans’ in East Brittany in the 5th century AD.
The Bretons, almost uniquely for the 11th century, fought from horseback [rather than dismounting] and used the ‘feigned retreat’ as a favoured battle tactic; both also features of the Alan/Sarmatians of 500 years earlier.
This ‘feigned retreat’ was used in the Battle by the Bretons and was recorded somewhat disparagingly in the contemporary reports, but succeeded in drawing out the English from their defensive wall of shields.
William evidently held these Bretons in high regard, as collectively, he rewarded them with about 20% of the available land in England, and by the Domesday, Alan the Red was the wealthiest man living in England.
That’s honestly fascinating ! Often the Bretons get overlooked in mainstream telling of the battle. I’ll definetly reasirch more of that
Bretons from the channel Islands are totally different. From Jersey 🇯🇪 to Guernsey 🇬🇬
*In the alternate history line* ----------------- Harold conquers France, forcing the French to speak English -------- *They resist with a silly French accent* 🤣😂😅
What would English history be if the Spanish Armada had invaded and conquered England in 1588?
The crossbeam would go out askew on the treadle.
We would have had a different. Royal family
@@Dadopŕsoblueboots you wud all be speaking with a kind of a lisp.
All2Meme --- England would win it back against Spain 3 - 0
2:03 Given the disastrous Spanish planning, that would never haver been possible. The Amanda could not rendezvous with Parma's Army through the shallows off the Dutch coast.
This show has a history channel circa 1999 vibe. You know, before the aliens took it over. Good stuff! I mean the history on here not the aliens🤦♂️
Very good. I'd say it matters for world history for a lot of reasons. For one thing EVERYONE involved in the history of Britain after that would've been different. Certainly the US, Canada, India etc would be utterly different places. What is good about this version of an alternate history show is that it grounds the audience in the real history.
Good stuff, thanks Gents!
Without a royal family straddling the channel there'd be no hundred years war. If England had fallen into a Scandinavian orbit and been embroiled there perhaps there's no British Empire and no USA.
Robert Bartlett did a great mini series on the Normans.
But the king of England at that time ruled a larger, richer country than the king of France and would have been head of the dynasty people sought to marry into. So it's entirely likely that the intermarriage would still have taken place. And the "straddling" would still have happened.
Furthermore, had William been killed at Hastings it's possible that a reverse conquest might have taken place into the Norman power vacuum
If the Normans had lost I probably would not be here in 2024 as a Molyneux from Lancashire
Hastings. Back when the politicians were on the battlefield with you when they decided you had to risk YOUR life.
Very interesting, but rewind a bit - what would have happened if King Alfred hadn't beaten back the Danes? England is a Saxon construct, if the Danelaw had spread to all of "England" would we now be speaking a form of Norse?
The north of England (and parts of Scotland) have inherited a strong cultural (and minor linguistic) heritage from Scandinavia.
I'm very surprised you didn't discuss the repercussions if William had not been delayed by bad weather and instead Harold Hadrada had invaded first...would Harold G have beaten William first but due to depleted forces lost to Harold Hadrada?...Britain would have had it's Viking influence dominate again?...Yes if course we wouldn't have had the possible future of a different future not linked to France
A big question was that if the existing Anglo-Saxon regime remained, how would the later Kingdom of England be like? How much of the rise of the English colonialism and the British Empire in 1607 could be attributed to 1066?
Professor Bartlett has written some excellent seminal books on the Normans, and back in the day a BBC documentary series. Well worth a read/viewing.
If Harold wins at Hastings, then the 100 years war doesnt happen or is dramatically different
Anyway the english language was born and grew and changed into modern English
With slang added!
Brunanburh AD 937.
Speculation and nothing more. I don't care what supposed expects you have spoken to, it's speculation!
Did Edward the Confessor even have the right under Anglo-Saxon law to choose his own successor? As far as I know the Anglo-Saxon Witan, a council of prominent ealdormen, thegns, and bishops, chose the next king from the extended royal family when a King had no direct heir.
Wales mentioned as not being such a focus for the attention of the aristocracy but it's worth imagining the counterfactual Ireland.
For me, the biggest effect (the switch of English from inflected to analytical language isn't a big deal) is the dissociation of the higher ranks from the rest; this apartness is still with us.
Most of recorded UK history is a series of events which were a coin toss - could of gone either way sending the UK down a very different path😊
Odd how history repeats itself sometimes in obscure ways as well. Almost as if the Norman invasion and subsequent conquest was a sort of Lebensraum of its day and yet overarching since the flooding of Doggerland, this island has curiously always had a transient population to a greater or lesser extent..
I am surprised you did not mention the two Norman castles built prior to the invasion of 1066. Richard's Castle and Ewyas Harold.
I'm curious, Bartlett stated that England was worth 72000 lbs?(of gold presumably) or pounds?( as in modern Stirling). If it's gold that would make England worth roughly 2.8 billion at the current value of gold. Which seems more right to me but i'm not sure.
You guys started by acknowledging the change in the coast line (quite refreshing as most miss this crucial fact) then immediately revert to the old untrue English heritage version of events. The Norman’s landed at bulverhythe a separate peninsula - the greater area was called pevensey not just the little village it is now - and the battle was fought at crowhurst where the old stone wall and old tree (depicted in the tapestry) still are today along with the first attempt at building the abbey. I love this show but as a hastonian I feel some elements are trivialised about this battle where as others get the proper scrutiny they all deserve. Again love the show in general 😂 🎉❤
The Crowhurst location is compelling. Everyone should be aware of it.
@@FiveLiver if you get an ordinance survey map and plot the ancient coast line you’ll see the perfect landing spot that has a valley running north straight to crowhurst - to get to the sight of the abbey they’d of had to traverse swamps and dense forests - I could go on and on ahahah
History undone, about the American Revolution would be interesting
professor Bartlett is the superb on anything medieval, especially the norman conquest
As a priest he's not allowed to shed blood, "So he has an enormous wooden club which he is using because you can break someone's skull or break a leg without shedding someone's blood". As one does.
You know, as a Christian, I wonder why people try to spend so much time getting around one's stated beliefs in loopholes. I don't know if God will see much difference in breaking someone's skull open with a club or stabbing them in the chest with a sword. I think God sees quite a difference between defending your family in your home with your back literally against the wall to fight off a home invader, or travelling to another country with an army of men to make sure that your half-brother becomes king of an island you've never been to before.
But, since I'm no theologian, perhaps I just can't tell the difference between a metal weapon or a wooden weapon in the eyes of God.
I clicked on this vid because you answered the question in the title. This is great because now I don't have to wade through the whole vid to get the answer and, if the answer intrigues me, then I can choose to watch the rest of the vid. Keep it up. Always answer the question in the title or very early in the vid.
This guy did some dark history programs I’ve always been
Looking for him on TH-cam
Very well done. Enjoyed the presentations enormously, thank you
I fall asleep to Chris in these videos every night
We live for combat
Can you do something about Indian history? Fascinating stuff.
then welcome king Sweyn and the new north sea empire.
I doubt Sweyn would have invaded. Harold's army massacred the Norse, then if they also defeated the Normans, Harold would have had a fearsome reputation. Would you honestly invade a country that just stomped two very large invasion forces? the English, for a time, would have some kind of mythical reputation as people not to be trifled with.
@@keighlancoe5933 Isn't it possible that anybody else would have seen it as an opportunity? The defenders of two invasions would have lost a lot of forces and fighting abilities.
@dougerrohmer Possibly, but the English did have a reputation as having some of the fiercest warriors in Europe (they proved that at Hastings, though they lost, their resolute and stubborn defence gained them the begrudging respect of the Normans themselves) not to mention they could call upon quite a large army. Harold didn't even have half the troops available to him in his army as he'd released them to go home to bring in the harvest; he also kept his Northern English fyrd in the North when he marched back down south to fight William. So, the English forces wouldn't have actually been that depleted even after both battles, and Harold would have been able to call up a pretty large army had anyone else tried it.
I guess we would all be speaking Danish instead of english/Norman French.
Not really. The English ended the Viking age in 1066. No Vikings attacked England again after that, they had become too powerful.
@keighlancoe5933 the danes did in the 1070s but William brought them off and they went home.
More like the danes and norwegian would have spoken anglosaxon variants. The North Sea Empire would have been ruled from London.
@haakontangvald-pedersen8374 their languages were so close they could almost be considered dialects of one another anyway. The Norse struggled a bit with the Old English case system, but mostly they could understand the Anglo-Saxons, and vice versa.
@@haakontangvald-pedersen8374 London? You mean York.
One thing is for sure: Both Harold and Wiliam were badass dudes.