All language subtitles for The.Last.Journey.Of.The.Vikings.S01E04_English

This is a story about the people who
came sailing across the ocean.

It's a story about a long and
perilous journey of upheaval,

which came to change populations
and influence politics, trade,

culture, religion
and entire societies.

It's a story about the Vikings,
and how they transformed the world!

For most people, the Vikings are seen
only as plunderers and pirates.

But is that the whole truth?

The process of converting Scandinavia
to Christianity is a long story.

They were skilled tradesmen, in part
because of their ability to travel.

They're going abroad to take
what they seek.

In this series we will dig deeper and
gain more insight

into who the Vikings really were.

And
the truth turns out to be surprising.

THE LAST JOURNEY OF THE VIKINGS

The story of the people
who came sailing across the sea,

is not over yet.

The Vikings, who, in the late eighth
century, sailed their long ships

down to Francia,
will once again cross the waters.

This time, in the year 1066,

it's a power struggle
for the throne of England.

The battle for the throne is
a brutal and bloody story

involving many participants
from several different countries.

In Normandy, It is Duke William who
decides to conquer the throne.

This will be a historic and
revolutionary event.

It will also be known
as the Vikings' last battle.

But why was it the Normans
who finally managed

to conquer England once and for all?

To answer this, we must find out why
William, a Norman,

was relevant as a possible successor
to the King of England,

Edward the Confessor.

THE LAST BATTLE OF THE VIKINGS

After ruling England for 24 years,

Edward the Confessor dies on
January 5, in the year 1066.

Edward's death will start a new power
struggle for the English throne.

In Normandy, Duke William,
is making plans to become king.

But it will not be easy.

Well, there had been a previously
existing relationship

between the royal families
of Normandy and of England.

And through this, William had

a familial connection to
Edward the Confessor.

Edward and William had
common Normanic origins

since Edward was
the son of Emma of Normandy.

She was Richard's sister,
who also was William's grandfather.

William was a direct descendant
of Rollo of Normandy.

And he was Duke of Normandy.

So when Edward the Confessor died,

William expected
to be crowned the new king,

King of England,
which he greatly desired.

But I think perhaps the more strong
aspect of his claim was that

that there is an indication that
Edward actually promised

William the throne
at some point in the 1050s.

The problem with all of this is that
the throne was also claimed

by Harold Godwinson, the son
of Earl Godwin of Wessex,

who was purportedly also given
stewardship or control

over the throne of England by Edward,
near to the time of his death.

Actually, they both were Edward's
distant relatives

and Edward didn't have any children.

Neither of them was completely
unfounded

when aiming for the throne.

So what we have here are two
competing claims.

But also made more difficult by

the suggestion, again,
that Harold had actually sworn

an oath of fealty to William

when he had been made
a hostage in France.

So I guess in William's mind, all of
these things together may actually

give him a fairly good claim
to the throne of England,

especially over someone
like Harold Godwinson.

But this didn't happen.

On his deathbed,
Edward appointed Harold instead.

Harold visited William
in Normandy several times.

They had been considered friends.

But that soon passed as Harold
was crowned King of England.

When Edward dies,

Harold is also approved by the
Anglo-Saxon elites,

which excludes William.

Harold taking the throne

marks the beginning of an
era of political instability

where different parties try to take
advantage of this breach

in succession to take
over England.

There were other claims to
the throne as well.

Among them were
Harald Hardrada in Norway.

He had been promised the throne,
not by Edward,

but by one of his predecessors.

And he was not the only one.

So when Harold was crowned,
he knew that others would try

to stake their claim on the throne
and began preparations

for a coming invasion of England.

The details of
the conflicts that followed

have actually been preserved.

The Bayeux Tapestry is an embroidered
cloth roughly 70 metres long.

It was made probably between
1066 and the 1080s.

This embroidered cloth is
70 metres long.

About 70 cm wide.

And in the middle,
there's a series of events portrayed

much like a modern comic.

Scattered throughout it are written
passages in Latin

that describe the events.
"Here stands Harold."

What we see in this is for example
the supposed swearing of an oath

by Harold Godwinson
to William on royal relics,

which gives William his legitimate
claim to the throne of England.

We see the death of Edward the
Confessor and very soon afterwards,

Harold's coronation as
King of England.

And in response to this, William's
preparation for invasion.

We see him constructing his ships,
bringing all of his forces together,

a very large invasion force of
cavalry, archers, infantry.

We see them crossing the sea to
England and then meeting

Harold's force at Hastings.

And in its depiction of the battle,
the tapestry does prioritise

certain features
of the action over others,

especially it gives a preference
to William's use of cavalry

and the pivotal role this is supposed
to have played in the battle.

It does seem that William is
introducing some cavalry tactics

that are not being used
in England at this time,

which may have given him an
edge at the battle itself.

But I think the actual course of
events on that day at Hastings,

they must be much more complex

than what we see there on
the tapestry itself.

It is incredibly detailed.

You can see what they wore,
their hairstyles,

the horses armour and how they
were marched in rows

as well as the design of the ships.

It is incredibly detailed
and an invaluable asset

for archaeological research
in order for us to understand

the battle of Hastings
and the era itself.

It's also quite amusing to see
because it has everything

from quirky figures to monsters.

You always discover something new
every time you see it.

Although there is a new king in
England, Harold Godwinson,

it is a time of worry
and uncertainty.

This is the calm before the storm.

Following the death of Edward and
the crowning of Harold,

several auguries were seen.

One of these was when
Halley's comet passed the Earth.

Many saw it as
a sign of troubled times.

And in England people worried about
what was to come.

So in the months following
Harold's coronation,

events start to spiral quite rapidly.

Of course, we already know
that in Normandy,

William is intending to pursue his
claim to the throne and he begins

to construct his fleet and gather
his invasion force.

Harold Godwinson knows about this
and he has encamped his army

in southern England waiting for
the invasion to take place.

But if we head north, we find that
William isn't the only person

seeking to claim the
throne of England in 1066.

In Norway we come across a man,
a King, named Harald Sigurdsson,

also commonly known as
Harald Hardrada who himself

has a fairly tenuous claim to the
English throne and he intends

to assert that right.

So just as William is constructing
his own fleet and invasion force,

Harald Sigurdsson is doing the same
and he is actually assisted

and in an alliance with Harold
Godwinson's brother,

an earl by the name of Tostig who had
previously been exiled from England.

So, while Harold Godwinson and his
army are sitting in the south,

in late September, Harald Sigurdsson
and Tostig's invasion force

lands in Yorkshire.

They head towards York which
is the major city in that region

to receive its submission and this
would give them a firm foothold

for their later movements into
the English countryside.

But on their way there, on the
20th of September,

a few miles outside of the city
in a place called Fulford,

they run into two Anglo-Saxon
earls and their forces,

who have mobilised to come and
attempt to stop the invasion.

The battle results in a Norwegian
victory and Harald Hardrada

goes on to receive
a submission of York

and he prepares his forces
to march south.

During this time, Harold Godwinson
has actually got word

of the Norwegian force
and their presence in Yorkshire.

And what he does is he basically
gathers all of his troops

and force marches them to the north.

And a few days later, on the
25th of September,

they come into contact
with the Norwegians

at a place called Stamford Bridge.

Harold meets Harald

and fights against him
on Stamford Bridge.

This is when Harold comes out
victorious.

It is said that the bridge was held
by a strong Norwegian warrior

who single-highhandedly killed over
40 men until a cunning Englishman

approached him,
probably from some kind of boat,

and stabbed him from underneath.

After he was defeated,

they could cross the bridge
and emerge victorious.

The battle of Stamford Bridge was
decisive for a number of reasons.

First, it resulted in
a Norwegian defeat.

Harald Hardrada was slain
in what is often described in the

kind of anglocentric perspective
on the Viking age

as the last Viking invasion
of England.

So this initially seems positive,
because

Harold Godwinson and his army have
seen off one invasion force,

but unfortunately it's while he is in
the north that Harold learns

that William has brought
his forces across the Channel and

landed in the south.

So, having just fought a major
engagement, Harold has no choice

but to turn his army around again
and head south.

And over the course of several weeks,
he makes his way

towards the southern coast.

In order to conquer England,

William has to make a
huge amount of preparation.

Everything must be
perfectly planned and executed.

There is no room for error.

It goes without saying that Harold
Godwinson's army would have

been under-strength and tired
after Stamford Bridge,

but he still had to head south
to meet William's force

on the southern coast.

But I think that if Harold Hardrada
and his Norwegian force

had not landed in Yorkshire and
forced that engagement

with the English,

the outcome of Hastings
might have been very different.

As it was, we know that Hastings was
a long and drawn out battle.

It certainly wasn't over quickly.

And if Harold
and his forces had been fresher,

if Harold had more troops,

maybe the course of history would
have been changed there.

The kind of invasion William led
can't be prepared in a few weeks.

Even if William couldn't
be sure to become king

right after Edward died,

or how Harold would react,

he must have
been planning this for a while.

It shows in the way he uses the
ships to lead the invasion.

Building such a fleet isn't
doable in a few weeks.

Even if he couldn't know for sure
whether he'd succeed the King or not,

he had to be really sure that,
no matter what,

maintaining his royal authority in
England would require a fleet

and a very important
maritime military force.

Before the events on Stamford Bridge,
he must have been quite ready

already to lead the invasion.

He also may have sought papal consent
in order to launch his campaign which

again, would have strengthened
the legitimacy of his actions.

And in trying to understand
exactly how William

brought his invasion force together,

the Bayeux Tapestry
is actually quite informative.

It shows stacks of armour and weapons
being loaded onto his ships,

and also they're used to transport
infantry, archers and cavalry.

This is clearly a very large
and powerful invasion force.

William's troops must now be
loaded onto the many ships

that will carry them across the sea.
Towards the coast of England.

These ships were built low and
could sail onto the shoreline.

To load the ship with necessities,
armour, weapons and horses,

all you needed was a board.

They didn't need to lift the horses.
They could walk onto the ships.

It is likely they had plenty of space
on board for the horses to be

safely stabled, watered
and fed peacefully.

William's cavalry will be of vital
importance at the battle of Hastings.

Because William has decided
to employ a novel tactic.

Norman battle tactics seem
to prioritise the use

of heavy cavalry formations.

In this, their tactics
markedly differ

from those of
Harold Godwinson's force.

In England at the time,

armies arrived on the battlefield
as mounted infantry,

they rode to battle, but generally
dismounted to fight on foot.

This isn't what we see the
Normans doing at Hastings.

It's possible that they're using some
tactics that they've refined

and learned from the Carolingians
and it's clear that the cavalry

play a pivotal role in the battle.

It has been suggested that one of the
tactics used by the Norman cavalry

was the feigned retreat in which
horsemen would approach the enemy,

pretend to wheel and panic
and run away with the hope of

basically drawing out
the enemy formations to chase them.

And this is what we see on
the Bayeux Tapestry.

Elements of the English force...
pursuing elements of the Norman force

and being cut down when they do so.

And this seems to be how the English
are worn down throughout the day.

And if this is the case,
if the priority that the tapestry

gives to the cavalry actually
reflects the historical reality

of the battle, then what we see here
is cavalry being used in quite

an innovative and sophisticated way

and simply in ways that the
English had not used them before.

I think as in all these discussions,
there's no single factor to explain

why the Normans won
at the battle of Hastings.

As always there's many different
issues that we need to consider.

If we're to believe
the accounts of the battle,

then the use of cavalry
and cavalry tactics

certainly seems to have
played a role.

The English did not fight on
horseback,

they were not necessarily used to
encountering cavalry in the field.

And so the Normans' novel and
innovative use of cavalry may have

certainly contributed
to their victory,

especially if there was indiscipline
among the English ranks

which led to them pursuing any
feigned retreat

by the cavalry itself.

But I don't think
it's really fair to say that

these cavalry tactics automatically
gave the Norman force an edge

over the English one.

Simply, as we see in
the fact that the battle

wore on for a very long time,
it was not a quick affair.

It was towards the end of the day
that the English force

was finally routed.

But I think certainly that the use of
cavalry had a role to play there,

especially if there was indiscipline
among the English ranks and they

did indeed fall for the tactic
of a feigned retreat.

That would have probably played quite
an important role in their defeat.

Cavalry can be used effectively
in flat terrain by essentially

trampling the opposition who
would be hard pressed

to defend against large horses.

They could form a shield wall
and use spears to impale the horses,

but many will still break through
and this will break the enemy lines

and the aggressor can attack
with other weaponry.

That was probably what
William intended.

But the battle did not play
out as planned.

I think to really understand
the events at Hastings,

we do have to look back at the events
that immediately preceding it.

We need to remember that just a
couple of weeks before Hastings,

Harold Godwinson had fought
off another invasion force,

this time in the north of England
at Stamford Bridge.

So to have force marched his army
north, to fight a very drawn out

and vicious battle, to then force
march his army south again,

would have had a huge impact on
the ability of the English

to bring a healthy and rested
army into the field.

Harold's forces would have been
depleted, they would have been tired,

and I think he certainly would
have lacked reinforcements

that he would have otherwise
desperately needed.

It is said that the English stayed up
all night, drinking and singing

to raise morale before the battle.

Whilst the Normans prayed and bathed.

And an army that recently fought
in battle, marched for days,

and didn't sleep the night before,
rather spent it drinking,

might not be in perfect condition
for fighting.

Whereas the Normans were well-rested.

Exhaustion by itself is almost enough
to determine the outcome of a battle.

One side simply cannot fight.
They will be conquered.

So several bad circumstances for the
English and good circumstances

for the Normans led to the Normans
winning the battle

and thus all of England.

But all these things considered,

I think it's important still to
remember that the battle of Hastings

was not a quick affair.

It was actually quite a protracted
engagement that lasted

throughout most of the day.

So in all of these things, I think
that luck certainly played a role.

If any one of these factors
had combined in a different way,

then the course of events may
have turned out very differently.

It's also possible that there was
some kind of ideological factor

in the Norman victory at Hastings.

No matter whether we believed the

history given to us by
the Bayeux tapestry

and later commentators or not,

it seems that William clearly
believed that he had a right

to pursue his claim to the throne
of England.

And I think that this really,
psychologically,

would give him the edge
in motivating himself and his forces

to carry the victory on that day.

When the battle is finally over,
William stands victorious.

From now on he will be known
as "the Conqueror'.

Thousands fell in battle.

It is said that Harold's

lover searched for his body on the
battlefield and could only

identify him by a birthmark, because
the body was so badly mangled.

It's a testimony of how brutal the
aftermath of these battles were.

There were bodies strewn over the
battlefield.

Horses were killed. Limbs were cut.
Blood everywhere.

Some wounded combatants hadn't died
yet and lay whimpering on the ground.

Whilst others might have been
piled up on top of each other.

It would have been a horrific sight.

But to this day we still don't know
where the battle took place.

We can usually find remains that
point to the location of a battle.

We should be able to find

arrowheads, parts of broken armour.

Bones, even if they likely gathered
the dead and buried or burnt them.

As well as the animals. Still,
much should remain on the site.

If you look,
you should find these things,

but we don't know the exact location.
We only have a rough estimate.

Sometime after the
battle of Hastings,

the Bayeux Tapestry is made,

depicting the events surrounding
the great battle.

History is written by the victors.

The Bayeux Tapestry was made a few
years after the battle of Hastings.

It's likely William's family or at
least the victorious side

ordered the construction
and design of the tapestry.

We must also remember that it
is a tapestry which portrays

those historical events from the
Normand point of view.

So it aims at highlighting
William's role.

It also aims at legitimising the
conquest of England by William.

We still have a lot of unanswered
questions regarding the origins

of the Bayeux Tapestry, who made it,
what the context was,

and how it was used at first.

Without a doubt it was
someone or a group of people

who were very well informed on the
events during the conquest of England

since it was very detailed.

It was also someone or people with
very precise knowledge

on shipbuilding techniques

and military techniques
on the battlefield,

the cavalrymen
and archers' equipment, etc.

The ending part of the tapestry
is missing.

The tapestry was
rolled up for a long time,

maybe that ending part got worn out
or teared apart.

We don't know what the last scene
was on the tapestry.

It's possible that it was William's
ascension to the throne

and his coronation.

William is crowned at
Westminster Abbey in London,

on Christmas Day in 1066.

He is now the ruler of England
and Normandy.

William brought several Normans from
Normandy and offered them land

and titles in England in order to
maintain his hold on the throne.

He had to exercise a lot of violence
in order to maintain this hold

because many Englishmen
were displeased with having

a Norman king instead of
one of their own.

One of the first steps of the
Normand conquest in England

was to reorganise the territories
and to change the elites.

In that way, he redistributed the
lands among the Normand elites

who went to England with him.

It allowed him to spread his control
over the territories

in a rather effective way.

William's strategy in England was
rather similar to what Rollo

had initiated with Normandy
more than 100 years earlier.

But he went even further.

One of the first things he did was
parcel land to his barons,

in that sense he brought the Norman
aristocracy over to England

and installed them, essentially,
within the system of government.

It resulted in dispossession of lands

as well as the execution of a
number of important people

in the Anglo-Saxon elite.

But despite this, he did face
rebellions - quite a number of them.

And these had to be put down.

This culminated in a campaign into
northern England in what is known

historically as
the Harrying of the North.

While the brutality of this campaign
is debated by historians,

it certainly shows that
William was not afraid to crush

any political opposition with
overwhelming force.

The Church was divided,
even if William

received the blessing of the pope
prior to the invasion.

There was always a
power struggle in the Church

and between local nobles
in different areas

as well as between peasants
and the invaders.

He came and was crowned,
but had to fight to maintain control

over England.

He managed to hold on to the throne
and the Norman rule

lasted unchallenged
for hundreds of years.

To win the battle for the
English crown,

William used his
multicultural heritage.

For instance, he landed soldiers
directly onto the shore

from shallow draft ships...

a tactic that his ancestors
used for centuries.

Perhaps the knowledge of how to
ship horses across the seas,

was also something that the
Vikings had brought to Normandy.

Furthermore, William used his
Frankish heritage,

cavalry and archers,
to great effect.

In addition, his timing was good,

as he arrived not long after
the battle of Stamford Bridge.

And finally, he had luck on his side.

William the Conqueror ruled
England and Normandy

as two separate countries
until his death in 1087.

After his death, the kingdom
was divided between his sons.

His son Robert became
Duke of Normandy

and his son William became
the new king of England.

According to the history books,

the battle of Hastings marks the
end of the Viking Age.

The Vikings have now become kings.

From the end of the eighth century,
when the first raids began,

to the 11th century, the Vikings
made an astonishing journey.

They began by
attacking and looting monasteries,

went on to become colonisers,

and finally,
they seized the supreme power.

If we ask ourselves, "What caused the
disappearance of the Vikings?"

We have to keep in mind that
the Vikings came from

several different nations.

They established themselves
in Europe, in England

as well as the islands of
Northern Europe.

But as Scandinavia was christened,

their values changed to an

ideal not built on the plunder
and slaughter of your fellow men.

Rather the focus was on trading
and maintaining peace.

I don't necessarily
think it's right to talk about

an end to the Viking age.

This is an arbitrary historical
period that we have constructed.

I also believe that what we see at
the time, and the reason why

there aren't any Viking attacks in
the same way they took place

in the ninth and tenth century,
is because globally

forms of power have changed.

There are well-established kingdoms
now, strong political entities,

that have different concerns
and different incomes.

Besides, when the Vikings were
integrated into European societies,

they became Christians
and part of society.

Social affairs became central.

Alliances and relations

became a central part of politics
and power in Europe.

There globally is an evolution

following an opportunistic scheme.

Strategies adapt to the most
profitable scenario in any situation.

In the ninth century,
the political entities are weak

and can't really put up a defense.

It allows the plundering phenomenon
which is quite anarchic

and that evolves into more organised
forms of wealth exploitation.

They grew too big to cling on
to the old ways.

Cities were built.
Power was centralised.

People became dependent
on the larger scope of things.

At that point it was no longer viable
to plunder in foreign lands.

They had to adapt to the new world.

When we think about the events

of this time
that we call the Viking age,

we need to appreciate
the impact that they've

had on the social and political
development of Europe

over the past millennium.

It was the events of 793,

the events of the mid-ninth century

and eventually of 1066 that shaped
the political landscape of Europe.

And I think it's important to
appreciate the continuities

between the Viking age
and the modern day.

It was these processes of raiding,
trade, warfare and colonisation

that effectively shaped the
social and political landscape

of Europe today.

And therefore,
without the Viking age,

I don't think we'd have the modern
world as we know it today at all.

Truly, the Vikings transformed
the world around them.

We have only just
scratched the surface

when it comes to the history of the
people who performed these feats.

There is much
more to be told and investigated.

Subtitles: Lily Ray
www.plint.com