There’s an upcoming show called Viking’s: Valhalla coming on Netflix soon which will include these events and stories, its a spin off of the show Viking’s (highly recommend).

@@Izzy-jc2pb Thanks, I'll look out for that!

There is a movie on KZfaq.

It's like Netflix for history! Omg, flashback...

Oh God, I thought I was the only one. I can't fall asleep without hearing that. Can we make a support group or something?

Isn't it refreshing that this time, he isn't talking alone by himself at the stonehenge. now he is talking alone by himself along the coast

Exactly, I was calling it “mini-ptsd”. I also have Horrible Histories flashbacks to that great impersonation they did of him. Ha ha that always makes me laugh out loud.

Haha...yep! I have Dan Snow PTSD as well.... particularly when he's sitting inside a Lancaster or when the video is deemed "not available in your country" the UK!

Oh don't tell me that, I am so pissed for the Kelts not leaving any written records! In the Central Europe, we are still called Bohemia after the Keltic tribe of Boii (Boii Home). We still call our rivers the way the Kelts called them, yet we know of no Keltic king name from Rhine to Danube or Elbe.

Actually in the UK we don't have many records for the crucial period from the departure of the Romans and the creation of Anglo-Saxon Britain

True enough. The land of England, especially, but also Wales and Scotland is still largely owned by descendants of the Norman army who came over with William. House of Lords, inherited wealth, all that rooted in Norman conquest. Descendants of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, and more recent migrants all second class to descendants of Normans and their allies. Grenfell Tower as recent outworking of Norman ravaging of Sussex and, later, the north? Just to show they don't care and they can do whatever they want. "If Eton be a democracy, then I'm going to get me some.... They've got no chins and they always win..."

You must be an American

@@cuebj time to redress, go knock on the local stately home door, and tvvat them with an axe and take it over. that's how they got it.

William of Normandy is my 28th great grandfather on my maternal great grandfather and great grandmother side of the family. I would love to go to England to see this area.

My ancestors were also part of the Norman invasion.

Same all of mine were

Also my ancestors

Also my ancestor Ralph de Pomeroy, said to be a close friend of William.

I loved watching Dan and his father. They used great maps and visuals. I’ve watched him that long.

yes historians love a good bloody atrocity

me too

Humm

Tell me more ?

what would you take out in order to fill in those details?

Think the mention in this video that the wooden fort at Hastings was thrown up quickly, and how the area was not quick to recover after the foraging that they landed at Hastings and then moved inland along the Roman road. Check out the SOTNI channel that goes into this theory in more detail. Due to the trading that went on across the channel, then William would have known all about the land. Why land at Pevensey, then have to do a long loop around the marsh/coastal inlet? Doesn't make military sense, especially if there could have been troops stationed in the Roman Fort. There are rumours that a later churchman, stopped the building of the Abbey, and moved it to a more profitable location. There's even doubt that the preceding battle location of Stamford Bridge is in the correct place, when you analyse the written accounts.

William was an experienced commander of modern, combined arms forces. Harold had to rely almost entirely upon heavy infantry, mainly fyrd militia, but a small corps of professional huscarls. He had far too few archers and no heavy cavalry. In effect he had some light cavalry, actually mounted infantry, since his army used ponies for transportation, but he lacked chargers for battlefield shock cavalry. If not for his having to forced march north to Yorkshire, defeat the invading Norse, then south again, leaving many troops behind, plus losing some in the fighting there, he might well have beaten William's advanced continental mercenaries and retainers. William also was lucky that his huge fleet couldn't sail in August. Harold lost many men among his peasant fyrd, who needed to go home to harvest their crops. Yet, despite their largely amateur status, English heavy, antique shield wall, largely spearman infantry was the best in Europe, as evinced by their victory over Norsemen using the same tactics, and their prominence among the Byzantine Varangian Guards. But under the circumstances, old-fashioned heavy infantry lost out to the new-fangled combined arms force.

@@johntillman6068 - I think what you're describing isn't entirely "combined arms" tactics as much as the WW2-ERA German "Ausfragstaktik," in which the command structure doesn't rely on a single leader calling the shots, but is more decentralized and relies more on the initiative of the local commanders. The Norman's were Vikings originally, and they were used to fighting as groups of small bands(ship's crews) in sync to achieve a goal in the most effective manner. This method worked very well for William the Bastard's followers, who all became English Lord's. This method also was the secret of Nazi Germany's frightful effectiveness in WW2; nobody ever really beat them, what happened is that every army in the world now uses some form of combined arms tactics(whatever you want to name it). Good call on the overview of the tactics used in this famous and epochal battle. The REAL importance of this battle is the English language as we know it, because the English language is the result of French-speaking Norman men-at-arms trying to pick up Saxon(German-speaking) barmaids. Thanks for posting a comment.

I don't think new fangled troops or even any tactics used by William won the battle A lucky arrow in the Saxon king's/leader's eye Harold was in a good tactical and strategic position having willaim penned in near the shore and Harold wasn't losing the battle....and that's all he had to do, not lose, and reinforcements would be arriving for him and not for William. but it's the arrow that changed all that

@@manuelkong10 - The Bayeaux Tapestry was made soon after the battle, but there are contemporary accounts of the battle in which Harald wasn't killed with an arrow to the eye, but was overborne and stabbed in the chest several times. The arrow to the eye account was probably made by the Catholic Church, as it's often been the fate of kings who lied. The account of Edward the Confessor is not always all taken as truth - as has been much of the records of the Catholic Church. The accounts of the church usually go along with what best suited the churches interests. The promise Harald made to William, and the circumstances of the two almost simultaneous invasions, seem very much like the sort of thing that the Catholic Church was in the habit of doing in the Middle Ages(and is one important reason they were called "The Dark Ages). There was once a documentary about this topic, and the entire show(I think that it may have been the old series "Battlefield Detectives) was devoted to this question. What the show decided was that William's heavy cavalry gave him rest periods, while Harald was exhausted by his frantic journey to the north to defeat the Vikings and he and his personal guard were finally overpowered at the end of a long, long day of frantic activity, shorthanded and exhausted.

@@DavidSmith-ss1cg No, the main difference is not a command system, but rather combined arms vs. single arm warfare. Harold’s army was antique, composed practically totally of heavy infantry in a shield wall, essentially unchanged from Ancient Greece. William’s army, by contrast, consisted of heavy horse, heavy infantry and light infantry (archers) in a balanced force. On their palfreys, the knights could also serve as light cavalry. It was the 6th century BC fighting the AD 11th century. Plus Dane axes wielded by the huscarls and mail armor.

Why do you have a st George flag(brought in post invasion) and a rose, associated with the tutor. ;) Just poking fun

The flag is the flag of England and England is mainly of Anglo-Saxon ancestry.. with the old Anglo-Saxons kingdoms Wessex, Sussex, Essex, and Kent. I have been many times in England.... and I felt always like home...

@@albionmyl7735 @Albion my l it's the flag of St George, a Greek Turkish soldier in the roman army. The flag was adopted by England in 12th century. Nothing to do with Anglo saxons. What about the roman Britain's where in Britain before the Anglo saxons raided and settled. And what about the celts before them. And the beaker folk before them, and so forth

@@Ed-wm8dx thats all true... but now it's the present flag of England... Where we can find huge traces of Anglo-Saxon heritage...

@@albionmyl7735 @Albion my l yes, you can choose to cherry pick a specific part of history in a specific geographic location to harken back to, to strengthen your own small place in this large world now if it makes you feel special.

My understanding was that much of Harold's army was made up of peasants armed with pitch forks and such which iirc were known as The Great Fyrd. The impression I have is that the initial reverses suffered by the Normans were real and the undisciplined peasants charged down the hill after them. These peasants were then caught on the flat by such as Norman Cavalry and were slaughtered. Once it was realized they would do that - then - it was done as a lure and the repeated losses to this bulk of Harold's army were important to his defeat. The more disciplined troops of Harold's men would not have fallen for that - but the peasants never learned. .

@@BobSmith-dk8nw I agree with you, but am still puzzled as to how/why William chose to be at the foot of the hill. He and his troops had been in the area for days and knew the terrain. They also knew when Godwinson was coming. Yet, they chose to be at the foot of the hill. As you point out, William and his men were experienced, and would have chosen the better terrain unless they were up to something. A debate for the ages!

@@kevinhathaway7240 The Impression I have - is that Harold could have chosen to attack William where ever he found him - or - he could choose to take up a defensive position and wait for William to attack him. Harold would seem to have chosen to defend, possibly because his army was tired from it's long march south from Northumbria and undoubtedly strung out as well. There may well have been any number of defensive positions Harold could have chosen and he picked that hill at Hastings. William might well have chosen another hill for his camp in case Harold attacked him - but - since Harold didn't attack William - William attacked him. Thus - the Normans having to come up the hill Harold had chosen to defend the top of. Had Harald Hardrada not landed in Northumbria and Harold been awaiting William with his whole army rested and in one spot we probably would have had a much different battle. .

@@BobSmith-dk8nw The reason that I'm reluctant to climb on board with the scenario that you are proposing is because William's forces fought differently than did Harold's. Harold relied upon infantry supported by cavalry. He fought a linear type of battle that worked fine against the Vikings, who were caught resting and had no time to employ tactics, techniques and procedure. However, William employed his forces with cavalry up front supported by infantry. He required a dynamic, fluid battlefield to allow the cavalry to do their job. It is a form of 'economy in force,' which when employed correctly is lethal on the battlefield. We, the US Armed Forces, employ economy of force on the modern battlefield. So William needed room to fight with the cavalry and he also needed chaos. This is why it would appear that his left flank broke and ran. The left flank had the assignment to draw the linear forces of Harold down off the hill and into an area where they could be decimated. Predictably, they went for it.

@@kevinhathaway7240 What you are saying - is that they were able to predict their enemy being stupid. Taking advantage of your enemy being stupid is one thing but counting on your enemy being stupid is a mistake. The other thing is - there was William ... and then there was Williams Army. He was not leading "his" army. He was leading a collection of units from various leaders who had all joined him in hopes of getting awarded a lot of Saxon holdings. So - I wouldn't be so sure about how the Normans planned on doing things and if they had the ability to be clever before hand. Thus, saying that William's forces needed a specific situation to be used at their best - and that he sought to create that situation is a bit much. All in all - getting a group of ... groups ... to all do anything at the same time is a real accomplishment - which tends to mitigate against people being clever. He attacked Harold on the hill - because that is where Harold was. He didn't have any choice about that. Getting Harold's troops off the hill - would benefit his Cavalry but it would benefit any forces to not have to attack - up a hill. This of course - was the REASON Harold was on the hill. We both agree that the Saxons who did come off the hill and got killed because of it - were a real factor in Harold losing the battle. But - what we are really arguing about here - is whether or not the Normans always planned to lure the Saxons off the hill - or - whether or not the initial reverses of the Normans were real. Historically - I've seen any number of times where people claimed to have done something clever and it was all part of their brilliant plan all along - when it wasn't. Here - what William intended and when he intended it - is going to be something reliant on historical sources. Do we have historical sources that say he always intended this? You mentioned before about the Bretons using this tactic. I can certainly believe that once they saw that the Great Fyrd would stupidly try to chase them when they fell back - that they would begin to use feints to get them to do it - simply because enemies are always easier to kill if you don't have to climb a hill to do it. My recollections of how the battle took place - are nothing like yours. If we really wanted to - we could look all this stuff up and go buy books and compare sources but ... I don't really feel like doing that just now ... so I'll be sticking with what I remember about the battle. The paper I wrote on this was over 50 years ago ... so ... I don't have access to that paper any more - much less the sources I used in writing it. It isn't like this wouldn't be a bit of history that would be interesting to pin down - it would - but I can see this being a lot of work and ... I've got other things to do with my time than spend hours ... if not days ... if not longer than that on this. .

Very good points!

Re “Wind blowing the wrong way”. There’s much debate on the issue. Some say there was a perm north wind, some say it was a story concocted by the Normans. My view is that the Normans had lost most of their seafaring expertise. Viking boats could sail to within 12 deg of the headwind and they had oars anyway. But in order to transport horses (which the Vikings never did) they had to remove the seats for the oarsmen. And the “north wind” could be just onshore breezes so, taken all together, they couldn’t reliably launch a 700 ship fleet without a sustained southerly

@@cynric5437 That makes sense. I've done a tiny amount of sailing and understand tacking to sail in the general direction of the wind but this is the kind of thing the transports may have had more trouble with. The other thing here is that it is common for their to be more than one reason why things happen the way they do. .

@@BobSmith-dk8nw I’ve just spent 8 years researching the Battle and almost everything I was taught doesn’t tally with what I found out. Take the departure from St Valery sur Somme. 1 ship went astray while all the others ended up at Pevensey. One source says that the fleet formed up outside the estuary before heading to England with no lights showing. So, imo, they navigated by the pole star a few degrees off the starboard side. Using the same heading but without the wait gets you to just east of Hastings (instead of Beachy Head) so, if the lost ship turned right they would have landed somewhere near Romney Marsh area (which is where the ship was found) while the others landed at the old Roman fort of Pevensey.

@@cynric5437 Yeah. It is really hard to figure these things out sometimes. You've got winds and tides and currents - that all change at different times of the day or month or year ... and who knows how much they've changed in a thousand years. Then you've got people just blundering about having no idea what they're really doing (as opposed to what they _think_ they're doing) and how are you ever going to find that out from historical sources ... "And then - he - having no idea where he was or what he was doing - blundered into trouble but managed to extricate himself ..." Good luck with it. .

Your son born in 2002 was the enemy of Francis the French king???? Either you're on drugs or you need to improve your writing skills!

Yes many times, my advice would have been to say, Harrold for Christ sake please listen to your mother and brother, have a kit-kat take a breather, you've just done one lot of Danes wait for more reinforcements and keep telling the guys in the Shieldwall on the big day to be disciplined don't go charging off wanting to stab up the Normans, just wait for the order.... Then you can go and stab up some Normans, or just wait it out till dusk and the victory is Ours...

Excellent, and we'll written comments.I agree with you, Jackie Reynolds .I feel the same passion, nostalgia for anything I see and wish I was back 1000 years or even 100 years ago. We have always beeeeen curious . . . since birth, Aye!!??!?!?!

Why do you think Will the Con was the rightful king? I thought the Witan was in charge of who would be king rather like the cardinals of the Catholic Church are responsible for the election of the incoming Pope.

Curiosity killed the cat but satisfaction brought it back. The second part of that phrase is often forgotten

Rightful king my ass. Usurper and murderer more like.

@@robert2948 The English succession had been royal screwed by Canute 50 years prior anyway. Don't get me wrong, Canute was a better king than most of the true-blooded 'Anglo-Saxon' ones, but his naked usurpation followed by the sudden death of all his sons left a very precarious position from the English POV. Heck, Edward the Confessor only became king b/c he was Canute's *stepson.* By that point, Emma of Normandy had taken charge of directing the succession, & she convinced her son Harthacnut that his half-brother Edward was the most-natural successor. Edward was sworn in on the promise he'd uphold *Canute's* laws, not Æthelstan's. And poor Edward was stuck in a rock and a hard place. The family of Earl Godwin (who he blamed for his brother Alfred's murder) had wrested a lot of control away from him (four Godwinson brothers each held Earldoms giving their family effective control of at least half of England). And he couldn't oppose them b/c his wife happened to be their sister. He also couldn't set aside his wife with an annulment b/c of her powerful brothers, preventing him from producing an heir (either Edith was barren or he refused to sleep w/ her due to his dislike of her family, whichever you fancy). As a result, it sounds plausible to me that a frustrated Edward promised William the succession in 1051, if only to stick it to the Godwin family. (now, you can argue the crown was still elective at this time & thus Edward wasn't in the position to promise Duke William anything, but, I mean, only technically; the preferred successor of the incumbent still mattered for something & naked conquest could still win the day--just ask Canute). Edward may have regretted that choice; he may even have made his peace w/ a son of Godwin being his successor, but the situation was certainly ambiguous & I have a hard time laying 'blame' for what happened--at the very least, William's claim was better than Harald Hardrada's, right?

Have you seen Simon Ropers KZfaq channel.m

“Germanic England converted to Frankish England after 1066” What do you mean by that? If you define the Normans primarily by their Viking heritage rather than their romanised language and culture, then they were Germanic too. And they weren’t Franks.

@@tp230 Saxons are came from Saxony (Northern Germany) but Normans are came from Denmark.

@@eraysredojevic well the Normans came from Normandy, their leaders being descendants from Norsemen from Scandinavia, who are also Germanic people. Franks are also a Germanic people. So no matter how we look at it, your sentence « Germanic England converted to Frankish England » does not make sense. Both Saxons and Franks were Germanic people. And Normans, although we can argue about their genetic makeup, if you define them only as descendants of vikings, weren’t Franks.

@@tp230 England royal coat of arm and Denmark royal coat of arm is similar to each other. (3 Lion) Normans were Danish origin. Franks were Germanic before Charlemagne period. Sorry your argument is pointless!

Get your facts right----Britain was NOT conquered 1066----there was no'Britain'.

Britain was NOT conquered in 1066!

1066 and the Norman invasion led to Normans taking over all other parts of Britain and Ireland... Strongbow invaded Ireland from Wales, the Cambro-Normans invaded 1 May 1169.... Wiki It

There is a theory of another possible site where the battle took place at Crowhurst just 3 miles from battle Abbey. There is a KZfaq channel called secrets of the Norman invasion which you may find of interest.

"This England!" (also a lovely magazine of the same name, subscribed to by my mother for many years, still have many old copies!)

What I like about it is woman was the grandson of Rollo. Brother of Ragnar lothbrok. And people believe the vikings didn't build anything or stay anywhere. Ha.

@@phillipstroll7385 you know the Show Vikings are kinda unhistorical accuret and rollo wasent ragnars Brothers!

@@historybuilds I've never seen it. But I have read the sagas and they do say he was. So I'll take their word down in their time over yours or someone from today.

They wont, they only make terrible remakes and ultra woke gay superhero movies now days.

@@phillipstroll7385 Start reading a little bit more Rollo I was past Ragnar Lothbrok About 💯 year's

@Ready For Anything. The tapestry was in Latin and it was found in the Bayeux monastery- it was most likely made by English monks

@UCokm8jQ4G65vqfdq-FW0KMg You're an idiot! The embroidery (because that's what it is, not a tapestry) was created in Canterbury by ENGLISH women! Nobody in France would've had the skills to produce such a piece. Its was a project of Odo of Bayeux. And that is where it was taken. But it was made in Canterbury England by English women! How stupid d'you feel now? Calling BS on a historical fact? 😂😂😂

5:23 They literally say it was woven in England, not sure what doco you're watching?

@@kmjsmith It's not a certainty, records on the subject of the tapestry and its origins are quite vague.

@@mikeycraig8970 "Nobody in France would've had the skills to produce such a piece." I'm English and well acquainted with arrogant anglocentrism, but despite having heard this line from Simon Schama describing the tapestry, I've never heard any explanation for why historians would come to such a conclusion that France lacked for embrioderers of any significant skill for this particular work. Did the Norman invaders take all the good embroidering ladies with them to England? Did the French have something against ladies embroidering in the first place where the English did not? Do tell - to me it seems like an anglocentric assumption that they would know every possible place in the 11th century from which the tapestry could have been sourced even in England, let alone in France too.

@@Azrayl Three or four people have said that ..... and they all picked differing places. I would say, that it is not really ON the tapestry in that case.

william the bastard , i think king Harold was a brave warrior king .he fought on two front , a true English hero.

I too am related to a French Knight who invaded England and fought at the Battle of Hastings, he lived and married an English woman an died apparently at 103 years old-which would be an extreme age at that time

Are you related Michael Jordan as well? You cannot rule it out.

Yes, probably but Britons and Saxon's (but mostly Saxon, my heritage)

Wrong location perhaps?

@@robert2948 I would want to see more real data before relying on manufuctured data (like the building of an abbey).

A fletcher is one who adds the feathers to an arrow. Noble indeed.

There was nothing "noble" about William the bastard, a brutal tyrant who sailed to this land on a ship of lies, crushed the people mercilessly, and left a legacy of oppression that continues to this day.

I just feel like the Norman's try and spin it so Harold was a throne thief but I'm pretty sure William was just tryna strong arm his way to the throne no less than hardrada. And since Eddy the confessy loves sucking Norman d*ck so much he was letting him. But the English nobles were not about it and did what they could to curb the Norman's and once he was dead quickly crowned thier choice the English hero Harold instead. Same as Richard the 3rd. He was a good brother and a good king and a great person if u look into it. Yea he prolly killed nephews but in context it was the right call. And I have a theory since he never defended himself thay he didn't kill them people say why not provide bodies. Well cuz then support could rally around around. But if people whispered they were dead then nobody could support them. Duh. They had a stronger claim lol. But he was loyal to brother. I think Henry 7 walked in and found em and after shitting his pants and cleaning up he immediatly killed them. Idk seems more likely to me judging by character. Richard hated the Woodville. And was fighting them. And it was him or them. And most nobles hated them too and supported him. He wasn't after nephews. I think alot of nobles were down with him hidden kids and being king. Again he was a hero and proven leader n they hated Woodville. Just checks with his wntire lifelong personality better than the clear and obvious and known propaganda of the tutors.

Yea I personally feel that Richard 2 was slandered too

william the orange or william the conqueror also known as william the bastrd

As a saxon with a name daring back to the saxon Kings of mercia I really feel for Harold. Running up the country bearing the vikings, then back south to only loose to rollos grandson!.. I wonder what would be different now if the saxons had won???

@@fghjjjk if he beat William he'd undoubtably considered among the greatest kings in English history for one. And so much would be different it's impossible to comprehend. Tho Saxon decended ended up on thone anyway just thru female line. cuz Henry 1st married from house of Wessex . Then his daughter made Henry 2nd and it goes from there.

The oath went more along the lines that Harold wouldn't put up a fuss or oppose William's already-staked claim. Becoming King himself would have violated that oath, assuming any oath was made in the first place.

All evidence points to Pevensey.

ships

@@johntillman6068 There is a local legend in Ninfield that the Normans landed there and indeed at the base of Little Standard Hill a load of ships nails were found by a group of metal detectorists. So, foot soldiers and nobs land at the old Roman fort on the island of Pevensey while the horses were offloaded just the once at Ninfield. Foot soldiers and nobs relocate by boat to the Port of Hastings - a Priory was located on the spot where William's feet touched mainland English soil for the fight sometime during the reign of Richard the Lionheart (1189 - 1199).

There are many reputed sites for the Battle of Hastings. 4 of which you might be familiar with. Battle Abbey, mini roundabout near Abbey (Time Team), Crowhurst (Nick Austin), Caldbec Hill ( John Grehan), Up to 1.5 miles to the East ( Kathleen Tyson - Carmen), Two sites near Netherfield ( Simon ?), Beech Farm ( Simon Colman) and my preferred site which is the ridge just inside Ashes Wood, currently under investigation by the Forestry Commission. The initial skirmish might have happened at the other end of the High Street to Battle Abbey, which is where English Heritage now places the battle.

@@kevincasey5035 Thanks. Good to have archaeologist evidence.

How do yo know there were you.?

"English" meaning inhabitants of England (ie Saxons).

After 1066 English historians call the their Norman conquerors "English" - it always makes me laugh.

@Ballsnya Jaws They have to be some good ramps. Also I thought the Viking boats had flat bottoms and didn’t draw much water. That would be a nasty trip ‘cross channel.

Alexa how did they get horses on small boats in 1066 and were there insurance policies for aquatic equestrian activities

@@Mr0rris0 🤣🤣

They weren’t stupid. They were experts at many things 🤔

@@graceamerican3558 apart from they wernt vikings. But actually normans

Tostig was already Earl of Northumbria under Edward, tho. Harold probably reconfirmed the appointment.

Oh here we go. Any excuse to bang the Nationalist drum. Perhaps we should use medieval tactics to fight these invading hoards. It's a history doc, not an excuse to get on your soapbox. Oh, and great Saxon name Marco.

Riki, that's because English people don't rule the country... Because if they did, it definitely wouldn't be happening and that goes for the last 80 years....

How so?

Was it a seance?

@@cinepost I think the BBC had Kate Adie reporting live from the scene.

Indra. .... no.... But there should have been already!!!!!!

Yes, the motive was to gain land and riches for both the Normans and their Flemish mates and the Pope (the church increased its landholding stake in England by 5% from 20 to 25%... England before the invasion was seen to be the wealthiest nation in Europe at that time... The Normans were apparently carrying the cross banner, this banner was personally blessed and sent to William by Pope Alexander II, the head of the Church to which all Christians belonged. William had got it by persuading the Pope that King Harold Godwinson was an oath-breaker, and by promising to modernise the old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon Church if he won... There was The Great Schism of 1054 whereby the Saxons weren't in keeping with Rome even though they sent Peter's Pence (or Denarii Sancti Petri and "Alms of St Peter") are donations or payments made directly to the Holy See of the Catholic Church. The practice began under the Saxons in England and spread through Europe...

English Heritage's income would be at risk if the scam was revealed.

Aye and robin hood as well

Mike, I suppose you're proud of the Harrying of the North where entire villages were razed and their inhabitants killed, livestock slaughtered and stores of food destroyed.

The defeated never relish their conquers

They had their seed in Anglo Saxon and Celtic wombs. You could be one of their seedlings too. Check if you have an R1a Haplogroup. If you do... You are likely a norman

@@pij6277 lol but im not a European

That is a very stupid and childlike perspective of history

@@juanblanco1267 and whats the stupid and childlike perspective there? Lol