I actually watched and had made a passing comment on this prior to realizing that I didn't have to watch it until this week and that there was an actual blog post required on it. As such, here is my official response to the battle. I really enjoyed this video. It was certainly much more interesting and, for me, captivating than some of the other documentaries, (cough...Illuminations...cough) :) Anyway, I really like how they explained the tactics of both sides and the way they reconstructed some of the feelings and tactics of the battle. Specifically the cavalry charging at Dan and seeing how well a shield wall would hold against charging people smashing into it. What was amazing was how Harold was able to stand up against William's cavalry through something as simple as a shield wall. I also thought it was awesome how they had a couple of people in costume from each side pretending to have actually have been there fighting. The way they were able to talk about the battle as if they had actually been there and been survivors of it was very well done. I found the actors playing the roles of Harold's men to be the most amusing.
First thought: 240p?? Seriously? The Nintendo 64 was 240p. Is this the 90's?
...alrighty. Rant over.
Now for the meat. Honestly, for all the genius of William the Conqueror, Harold was a military mastermind as well. He was faced with dual threats, the Vikings in the north and the Normans in the south, yet he tactfully managed both situations. He recognized the need for speed to catch the Norse unawares, and so he spurred his men onward to an important victory at Stamford bridge. Then he had to turn them around, march them hundreds of miles south to Hastings, and keep enough strength and morale in his army to face a passionate and larger force of Normans. He had to use tactics that would inspire his men and hold back against a hammering force. He strategically chose high ground to minimize the impact of both charges and arrows. By using as shield wall and fighting alongside his front-line men, he bolstered their morale while keeping the army focused and tight. It nearly worked. If the Saxons had not charged after the retreating Norman left flank, they might have been able to hold back William's men despite incredible fatigue and lack of numbers. You have to credit Harold for doing nearly all he could to hold back against such odds.
I agree, Chris. Although the battle was lost, I think strategically, Harold had William beat, and William knew it. So I don't think that Harold was at all totally responsible for the loss, but it was rather the slight inexperience of some of his men, their over-ambitiousness, and their failure to obey their leader's command that ultimately lost them the battle. It's very fair, then to give Harold some great props for lasting as long and as resolute as he did with two impending foes both coming from two different coasts with two different fresh and able armies.
I concur! I think the only thing that Harold might have done better was exercised more control over his men (or at least his brothers who were commanding the third-men).
What struck me most about this was how many key factors in the battle and the preparations leading up to it were decided by chance. If the Vikings had not attacked when they did, Harold would have probably been better prepared to meet the Normans. If William's south wind had come later, the Saxons would have reached the coast before the Normans. If the Bretons had not fled, inadvertently luring the Saxons out, the shield wall would most likely have held. If Harold had not been wounded by a stray arrow, he would have been able to lead his troops. I think this speaks to how close the battle really was. Perhaps if these chance occurrences had turned out in the Saxons' favor, the battle would have ended differently. Perhaps not. In any case, the battle was fought well on both sides, and could have gone either way.
First of did anyone else want the Saxons to win!!!!!! I believe regardless of the military prowess shown by both generals the battle of Hastings was really won by luck. William had picked an opportune (yet lucky) time to land his fleet on the shores of England. With the Saxons still cleaning up the Viking mess in northern England, William practically could have dictated the outcome of his visit. Instead of taking key cities and towns he loitered and tried to draw Harold's army to him. Instead of choosing his own battleground and awaiting the arrival of the Saxons he let them choose the battle ground and then formed his plan of attack. He lost the advantage of conquering, surprise, and preferred ground. No doubt the Saxons were scrambling when they heard of the Norman threat and their tired army did nothing to help the situation but William lost key elements that could have been used to direct the battle as he wished. In this way the Saxons gained the upper hand and try as he might William could not brake through their shield wall. One really begins to wonder at Williams actual military prowess when the deciding factor occurs because of a fluke. Instead of taking advantage of a strategy as old as dirt, it takes the cowardice of Williams finest troops to isolate many of the Saxon warriors and dent the formidable Saxon wall. Now some would say that Williams arrow tactic really won the battle yet the historian says victory was already inevitable and William was looking for a way to hurry it along.
I thought that this video was fantastic! Entertaining and informative, that is how all documentaries should be! What I found fascinating in the video was how two guys tested how strong those connected shields must have been and how terrifying the cavalry must have been. I never thought that shields about a mile long, could be so strong and concrete. It is amazing to me how long the soldiers were able to continually hold off William and his army. It seems to me that It would be fairly simple to break through a wooden wall, but apparently not. What I think made the biggest impact was the ground that Harold had. Because Harold had positioned his army at the top of a gradual hill, William's archer, infantry, and cavalry could not really have as much of an impact as they could have if it was the other way around. Williams cavalry would have been incredible if they were going down hill. I loved how the one guy let the charging horses go around him, testing how his heart rate would increase seeing 20 horses charging right at him. I thought they did a great job trying to relive what William had to face and what Harold had to face at the bloody battle of Hastings. Great video! Need more like it!
Yeah, I thought it was quite clever to sort of reenact some of the various psychological elements of the battle. Like they said in the documentary when they were testing the shields and horse-charge, it was more psychological than anything when it came to actually fighting, and how well you could provoke fear in your enemies. Although, when it came to that shield-wall, I can't believe none of the Normans thought of getting down on the ground and slicing at the Saxons's legs. Probably would have caused some holes in the lines to start popping up if your front line doesn't have any legs to stand on.
Quite a fascinating video! I thought the mix of modern rendition and medieval rendition was fairly interesting, though slightly cheesy at times. I couldn't really buy the 21st century elite troops verses the Saxons. But all pet-peeves aside, I particularly liked the part about the shield wall. Both the historic and modern re-enactments were intriguing to watch. When it came to finally breaking the shield wall, I was rather surprised that the Norman archers didn't think of aiming high-up earlier on. That's what I thought they were going to do right off the bat, but apparently I was wrong! It was definitely an effective tactic once the archers caught on. Unrelated to the battle of Hastings, I also thought the battle fought on the bridge (I'm blanking on the name right now) had all the makings of a heroic movie scene or some such thing. While the lone-Viking defender came to a gruesome end, I thought his last stand was very reflective of all the viking customs we've been discussing/learning about in class. The Viking definitely achieved that goal of dying a heroic death in battle!
I agree, a heroic death indeed! And you have a good point about the archers - althoguh, I'm sure in retrospect, William was kicking himself he hadn't thought of firing the arrows high sooner. But another flaw I noticed was the fact that, at least from what I saw, the Saxons had no calvery whatsoever. Now I'm not sure if I'm just missing something or the video left them out, but if that was the case, then I have no clue why William didn't just ride behind the enemy lines, completely surround them, and sound the charge. Then he would have had those Saxons in a proper pickle early on in the fight.
@ Froddo: I don't know if you have seen Gahndi, but there is a scene it which, when attacked by cavalry, protesters lie on the ground. Horses are strange beasts and for some reason have odd responses to claustrophobic environments (like my dog). Maybe the Saxons had a way of spooking the horses on the edges of their gathering to prevent being surrounded. just a thought.
Hmm...interesting. No, I haven't seen the film but it sounds interesting. However, I do recall the video mentioning something about the Saxon front-line of shields sort of spooking off the Norman horses. Perhaps archers could have mounted the horses and rode behind the Saxon lines, and unleash a flurry of arrows at their backs? Perhaps I am getting too nit-picky. I'm not very well versed in military tactics (Bobbit would be ashamed), so I might be asking some pretty silly questions without even knowing it!
I thought the battle of Hastings was an interesting contrast to the battle of Tours/Poitiers. In the former, you had the Saxons established at the top of the hill with the shield-wall and fending off the invading Normans who were forced to charge uphill. In the latter, Charles Martel and his forces were similarly set up at the top of a hill and ready for the far greater numbers of the Arab force to charge up the hill. The battle of Hastings however, ended in a Saxon-defeat, resulting from two factors: Norman retreats that caused small forces of Saxons to charge after them, and firing arrows high into the air, rather than right at the shield of the Saxons. Conversely, in the battle of Tours/Poitiers, Charles Martel and his force on the hill arose victorious due to the Arab retreats after they heard that their camp had been raided. It's interesting to compare why things went so well for Martel being at the top of a hill, and what went so wrong with Harold and the Saxons.
This documentary was a strange conglomeration of modern interpretive re-enacting, storytelling, epic battle cinematography, and battleship. Despite its categorical schizophrenia, it was interesting. First off, I liked the viking cameo. After focusing on them in Scandinavia, it was cool to learn about their violent rampages through Britain. The legend of the one norseman holding the bridge against the saxons for a while reminded me of the old Roman legend of Horatius holding the bridge over the Tiber against an army. Malcom Gladwell, in his latest book David and Goliath, theorizes that underdogs are more likely to win struggles than their opponents because they lack the pride that prowess so often produces in the strong. We see this at work in the battle of Hastings. While both armies were evenly matched, the Saxon line remained sturdy after several norman charges. Indeed, it seemed to the Saxons that their wall of shields could not be broken. I think they began to grow cocky, for when a section of the Norman attack retreated, Saxon soldiers, believing victory was at hand, rushed after them to finish them off, leaving a hole in their army's line. When the Normans realized that retreating might be the only way to scatter the solid Saxon army, they feigned weakness, and the Saxons fell pray to their own 'strength.'
This documentary was very fascinating, I loved watching them re-enact certain things from the Battle using the police force. (I think thats what it was) It was an interesting touch to go back and forth between real re-enactments and than fake re-enactments (although it was sometimes lame.)
I found this documentary very interesting and entertaining. I enjoyed how it focused mainly on the strategies of battle. I like how it went into depth about the shield wall, and how basically if the shield wall fell so did your army. I found it interesting and amusing when the police did a reenactment of the shield wall. I also found it interesting how the put the aspect of fear into perspective, when they had the calvary charge at someone.
The documentary was actually more interesting than I thought it would be. It's kind of interesting that the strategies back then are still in use today. Police forces use the shield wall to protect them from riots and whatever. I do have to say, the graphics were kinda....well....little lame I guess but that's not why we watched it! =)
Despite the cheese, this video was a massive improvement over Illuminations, and there were several interesting facts in it. I thought that the comparisons and contrasts of both of the candidates for the throne and their respective armies that the video made were engaging, and the “interviews” were at least remotely creative. It also was interesting how the tactic of the shield wall has carried over to the riot police of today.
This video was very cool. As a history fanatic, I loved all the reenactments that were included in this video. I also liked the interviews of the soldiers(did the redhead remind you guys of Ron Weasley?), it made the video very entertaining and engaging :)
I liked this video alot! I enjoyed the reenactments. I also found it fascinating how they used the 'soldiers' to help tell the story. This was a really cool idea that helped gain insight into what these men might have actually been thinking.This video definatly kept me entertained and educated for the whole time!
I have to say that this documentary was one of the better ones we have watched. As Max mentioned, I liked the way it was staged, part “live interview,” part animation, and part live exploration. With that being said, it reminded me, strategically speaking on the Saxon front, of the Battle of Tours lead by Charles “The Hammer.” In addition, I found it fascinating to think what would have happened had the Normans lost the battle, our entire lives would be entirely different or we might not even exist. Furthermore, I did have one question, why were they delayed the first time, it was not due to weather. If this was intentional, I think it is a rather ingenious tactic as it caused enough strain on the Saxons to make an early retreat…Thus, the Normans would have the “surprise” advantage.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI actually watched and had made a passing comment on this prior to realizing that I didn't have to watch it until this week and that there was an actual blog post required on it. As such, here is my official response to the battle. I really enjoyed this video. It was certainly much more interesting and, for me, captivating than some of the other documentaries, (cough...Illuminations...cough) :) Anyway, I really like how they explained the tactics of both sides and the way they reconstructed some of the feelings and tactics of the battle. Specifically the cavalry charging at Dan and seeing how well a shield wall would hold against charging people smashing into it. What was amazing was how Harold was able to stand up against William's cavalry through something as simple as a shield wall. I also thought it was awesome how they had a couple of people in costume from each side pretending to have actually have been there fighting. The way they were able to talk about the battle as if they had actually been there and been survivors of it was very well done. I found the actors playing the roles of Harold's men to be the most amusing.
ReplyDeleteFirst thought: 240p?? Seriously? The Nintendo 64 was 240p. Is this the 90's?
ReplyDelete...alrighty. Rant over.
Now for the meat. Honestly, for all the genius of William the Conqueror, Harold was a military mastermind as well. He was faced with dual threats, the Vikings in the north and the Normans in the south, yet he tactfully managed both situations. He recognized the need for speed to catch the Norse unawares, and so he spurred his men onward to an important victory at Stamford bridge. Then he had to turn them around, march them hundreds of miles south to Hastings, and keep enough strength and morale in his army to face a passionate and larger force of Normans. He had to use tactics that would inspire his men and hold back against a hammering force. He strategically chose high ground to minimize the impact of both charges and arrows. By using as shield wall and fighting alongside his front-line men, he bolstered their morale while keeping the army focused and tight. It nearly worked. If the Saxons had not charged after the retreating Norman left flank, they might have been able to hold back William's men despite incredible fatigue and lack of numbers. You have to credit Harold for doing nearly all he could to hold back against such odds.
I agree, Chris. Although the battle was lost, I think strategically, Harold had William beat, and William knew it. So I don't think that Harold was at all totally responsible for the loss, but it was rather the slight inexperience of some of his men, their over-ambitiousness, and their failure to obey their leader's command that ultimately lost them the battle. It's very fair, then to give Harold some great props for lasting as long and as resolute as he did with two impending foes both coming from two different coasts with two different fresh and able armies.
DeleteI concur! I think the only thing that Harold might have done better was exercised more control over his men (or at least his brothers who were commanding the third-men).
DeleteWhat struck me most about this was how many key factors in the battle and the preparations leading up to it were decided by chance. If the Vikings had not attacked when they did, Harold would have probably been better prepared to meet the Normans. If William's south wind had come later, the Saxons would have reached the coast before the Normans. If the Bretons had not fled, inadvertently luring the Saxons out, the shield wall would most likely have held. If Harold had not been wounded by a stray arrow, he would have been able to lead his troops. I think this speaks to how close the battle really was. Perhaps if these chance occurrences had turned out in the Saxons' favor, the battle would have ended differently. Perhaps not. In any case, the battle was fought well on both sides, and could have gone either way.
ReplyDelete"In my experience, there is no such thing as luck."
DeleteFirst of did anyone else want the Saxons to win!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI believe regardless of the military prowess shown by both generals the battle of Hastings was really won by luck. William had picked an opportune (yet lucky) time to land his fleet on the shores of England. With the Saxons still cleaning up the Viking mess in northern England, William practically could have dictated the outcome of his visit. Instead of taking key cities and towns he loitered and tried to draw Harold's army to him. Instead of choosing his own battleground and awaiting the arrival of the Saxons he let them choose the battle ground and then formed his plan of attack. He lost the advantage of conquering, surprise, and preferred ground. No doubt the Saxons were scrambling when they heard of the Norman threat and their tired army did nothing to help the situation but William lost key elements that could have been used to direct the battle as he wished. In this way the Saxons gained the upper hand and try as he might William could not brake through their shield wall. One really begins to wonder at Williams actual military prowess when the deciding factor occurs because of a fluke. Instead of taking advantage of a strategy as old as dirt, it takes the cowardice of Williams finest troops to isolate many of the Saxon warriors and dent the formidable Saxon wall. Now some would say that Williams arrow tactic really won the battle yet the historian says victory was already inevitable and William was looking for a way to hurry it along.
I thought that this video was fantastic! Entertaining and informative, that is how all documentaries should be! What I found fascinating in the video was how two guys tested how strong those connected shields must have been and how terrifying the cavalry must have been. I never thought that shields about a mile long, could be so strong and concrete. It is amazing to me how long the soldiers were able to continually hold off William and his army. It seems to me that It would be fairly simple to break through a wooden wall, but apparently not. What I think made the biggest impact was the ground that Harold had. Because Harold had positioned his army at the top of a gradual hill, William's archer, infantry, and cavalry could not really have as much of an impact as they could have if it was the other way around. Williams cavalry would have been incredible if they were going down hill. I loved how the one guy let the charging horses go around him, testing how his heart rate would increase seeing 20 horses charging right at him. I thought they did a great job trying to relive what William had to face and what Harold had to face at the bloody battle of Hastings. Great video! Need more like it!
ReplyDeleteI agree full heartedly!
DeleteYeah, I thought it was quite clever to sort of reenact some of the various psychological elements of the battle. Like they said in the documentary when they were testing the shields and horse-charge, it was more psychological than anything when it came to actually fighting, and how well you could provoke fear in your enemies. Although, when it came to that shield-wall, I can't believe none of the Normans thought of getting down on the ground and slicing at the Saxons's legs. Probably would have caused some holes in the lines to start popping up if your front line doesn't have any legs to stand on.
DeleteQuite a fascinating video! I thought the mix of modern rendition and medieval rendition was fairly interesting, though slightly cheesy at times. I couldn't really buy the 21st century elite troops verses the Saxons. But all pet-peeves aside, I particularly liked the part about the shield wall. Both the historic and modern re-enactments were intriguing to watch. When it came to finally breaking the shield wall, I was rather surprised that the Norman archers didn't think of aiming high-up earlier on. That's what I thought they were going to do right off the bat, but apparently I was wrong! It was definitely an effective tactic once the archers caught on. Unrelated to the battle of Hastings, I also thought the battle fought on the bridge (I'm blanking on the name right now) had all the makings of a heroic movie scene or some such thing. While the lone-Viking defender came to a gruesome end, I thought his last stand was very reflective of all the viking customs we've been discussing/learning about in class. The Viking definitely achieved that goal of dying a heroic death in battle!
ReplyDeleteI agree, a heroic death indeed! And you have a good point about the archers - althoguh, I'm sure in retrospect, William was kicking himself he hadn't thought of firing the arrows high sooner. But another flaw I noticed was the fact that, at least from what I saw, the Saxons had no calvery whatsoever. Now I'm not sure if I'm just missing something or the video left them out, but if that was the case, then I have no clue why William didn't just ride behind the enemy lines, completely surround them, and sound the charge. Then he would have had those Saxons in a proper pickle early on in the fight.
Delete@ Froddo: I don't know if you have seen Gahndi, but there is a scene it which, when attacked by cavalry, protesters lie on the ground. Horses are strange beasts and for some reason have odd responses to claustrophobic environments (like my dog). Maybe the Saxons had a way of spooking the horses on the edges of their gathering to prevent being surrounded. just a thought.
DeleteHmm...interesting. No, I haven't seen the film but it sounds interesting. However, I do recall the video mentioning something about the Saxon front-line of shields sort of spooking off the Norman horses. Perhaps archers could have mounted the horses and rode behind the Saxon lines, and unleash a flurry of arrows at their backs? Perhaps I am getting too nit-picky. I'm not very well versed in military tactics (Bobbit would be ashamed), so I might be asking some pretty silly questions without even knowing it!
DeleteI thought the battle of Hastings was an interesting contrast to the battle of Tours/Poitiers. In the former, you had the Saxons established at the top of the hill with the shield-wall and fending off the invading Normans who were forced to charge uphill. In the latter, Charles Martel and his forces were similarly set up at the top of a hill and ready for the far greater numbers of the Arab force to charge up the hill. The battle of Hastings however, ended in a Saxon-defeat, resulting from two factors: Norman retreats that caused small forces of Saxons to charge after them, and firing arrows high into the air, rather than right at the shield of the Saxons. Conversely, in the battle of Tours/Poitiers, Charles Martel and his force on the hill arose victorious due to the Arab retreats after they heard that their camp had been raided. It's interesting to compare why things went so well for Martel being at the top of a hill, and what went so wrong with Harold and the Saxons.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary was a strange conglomeration of modern interpretive re-enacting, storytelling, epic battle cinematography, and battleship. Despite its categorical schizophrenia, it was interesting. First off, I liked the viking cameo. After focusing on them in Scandinavia, it was cool to learn about their violent rampages through Britain. The legend of the one norseman holding the bridge against the saxons for a while reminded me of the old Roman legend of Horatius holding the bridge over the Tiber against an army.
ReplyDeleteMalcom Gladwell, in his latest book David and Goliath, theorizes that underdogs are more likely to win struggles than their opponents because they lack the pride that prowess so often produces in the strong. We see this at work in the battle of Hastings. While both armies were evenly matched, the Saxon line remained sturdy after several norman charges. Indeed, it seemed to the Saxons that their wall of shields could not be broken. I think they began to grow cocky, for when a section of the Norman attack retreated, Saxon soldiers, believing victory was at hand, rushed after them to finish them off, leaving a hole in their army's line. When the Normans realized that retreating might be the only way to scatter the solid Saxon army, they feigned weakness, and the Saxons fell pray to their own 'strength.'
This documentary was very fascinating, I loved watching them re-enact certain things from the Battle using the police force. (I think thats what it was) It was an interesting touch to go back and forth between real re-enactments and than fake re-enactments (although it was sometimes lame.)
ReplyDeleteI found this documentary very interesting and entertaining. I enjoyed how it focused mainly on the strategies of battle. I like how it went into depth about the shield wall, and how basically if the shield wall fell so did your army. I found it interesting and amusing when the police did a reenactment of the shield wall. I also found it interesting how the put the aspect of fear into perspective, when they had the calvary charge at someone.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary was actually more interesting than I thought it would be. It's kind of interesting that the strategies back then are still in use today. Police forces use the shield wall to protect them from riots and whatever. I do have to say, the graphics were kinda....well....little lame I guess but that's not why we watched it! =)
ReplyDeleteDespite the cheese, this video was a massive improvement over Illuminations, and there were several interesting facts in it. I thought that the comparisons and contrasts of both of the candidates for the throne and their respective armies that the video made were engaging, and the “interviews” were at least remotely creative. It also was interesting how the tactic of the shield wall has carried over to the riot police of today.
ReplyDeleteThis video was very cool. As a history fanatic, I loved all the reenactments that were included in this video. I also liked the interviews of the soldiers(did the redhead remind you guys of Ron Weasley?), it made the video very entertaining and engaging :)
ReplyDeleteI liked this video alot! I enjoyed the reenactments. I also found it fascinating how they used the 'soldiers' to help tell the story. This was a really cool idea that helped gain insight into what these men might have actually been thinking.This video definatly kept me entertained and educated for the whole time!
ReplyDeleteI have to say that this documentary was one of the better ones we have watched. As Max mentioned, I liked the way it was staged, part “live interview,” part animation, and part live exploration. With that being said, it reminded me, strategically speaking on the Saxon front, of the Battle of Tours lead by Charles “The Hammer.” In addition, I found it fascinating to think what would have happened had the Normans lost the battle, our entire lives would be entirely different or we might not even exist. Furthermore, I did have one question, why were they delayed the first time, it was not due to weather. If this was intentional, I think it is a rather ingenious tactic as it caused enough strain on the Saxons to make an early retreat…Thus, the Normans would have the “surprise” advantage.
ReplyDelete