Back in 2007/2008 I actually visited these areas as part of my travels home to where I was born. it was wonderful to see my heritage. I actually visited Crowhurst and Hastings and was so surprised that things were not as I had been taught in Australia about the Battle of Hastings. I then remembere what my mother and Grand father had told me on how Crowhurst was the site of the battle not where the Abbey is at Battle. So when I finally purchased your book I was pleasantly surprised to see you matched everything that they had said. Thankyou for your fight for the truth. It is funny but in 1994 I finished my degree in Cultural Anthropology which has enabled me to see the world differently. Excellent narrative thankyou.
It's an extremely good argument for the battle site, Harold and his men would of know them feilds like the back of their shields, the site is a good defence probably the best in the area and I imagine that's why it very possible could have been chosen
Crowhurst was Harold's manor. His wife and children were present when the property was destroyed by William. This was William saying 'here I am, come and get me.' A direct challenge and a red rag to Harold.
As a mere layman, to me this all seems quite reasonable and convincing to a certain degree. I would like to know if any other experts or historians agree or disagree with the content of this presentation. Very interesting. Hopefully it will be evidence enough to stop turning combe haven into a flooded housing estate with a link road.
Into heritage? Everyone who's interested should check my videos out on my channel. I travel up and down the country in all kinds of weather documenting my trips on Castles, Manor houses, Churches & anything else heritage.
I've read the book and other stuff, and find so much of what you say credible and more precise than any other versions. The logistics and landscapes fit so well into the contemporary versions.
I think that there's a possibility that when they said they landed 'at' Pevensey, they meant to say 'in sight of' Pevensey. Nobody with the hope of securing a landing would have disembarked at the site of an already standing and defensible fortification.
At last an insistent and credible alternative to the convenient and uncomfortable version of history that suited the Abbot in the 12th Century in evading taxes and has been very profitable for English Heritage and generations of historians ever since. This channel deserves millions of subscribers and views. On a completely irrelevant front, the mapping of Europe’s coastal outline compared with that of 1,000 years ago somewhat contradicts the current fad of Climate Change and sea water levels does it not?
Another interpretation is that the knights disembarked at Little Standard Hill where a great deal of nails were recovered. William landed first at Pevensey, re fortified the Roman remains and celebrated a saints feast day before transferring his “flag” to Hastings. Between 1189 and 1199 a Priory was situated on the very spot William came ashore on the mainland ( Pevensey was an island at the time). A tower was built nearby and at the top of the hill a motte was built iaw Norman war custom. IMO, Trinity Mews which now exists as stone building, was where the Normans built said tower.
Totally plausible, modern technology has changed and proved so much. Different battle, but Bosworth was always assumed to be down Ambion hill, yet rescent archaeology has proved it to be elsewhere, because of overwhelming artefact discovery.
I'm very interested in the Norman invasion. I personally feel it's more likely the Normans landed at Pevensey Bay, then moved eastward. Or there might have been different ships landing at two or more different places. The argument for the battle site is good, but why would it have been stated as Battle for so long? Maybe it was fought in both Battle and Crowhurst. They are pretty close.
I think after the Abbey was moved to a better location abit further north it would've been local knowledge for a generation or 2 that the battle was further south, but then throw in all the civil wars, barron wars then of course two rounds of the black death plague I think it would be forgotten in common knowledge and 800 or so years later people just assume since the place is called battle and the abby is there with Harold's death marker on the top of it just became the place where they fought. I hope this might help its just my opinion but seems feasible, also I think you right that the fighting must of been everywhere especially as the saxons started to flee
@@jimcraig9882 William of Malmesbury writing some 70 years after the battle is often quoted saying that Harold "died" at the Battle Abbey site by tradition.
Well worth following up with futher research. Good luck with fundraising to accumulate further evidence, you will need it. Old theories die hard. take care rwmccoy
So Edith Swan neck gave some account of taking care of the wounded at the Battle battlefield what was her account of the sight that we are told was at battle could she also have been wrong then
A second,independant opinion and I'll be convinced.Your argument is persuasive to a point.But you ditches and metal work appear sketchy.Give us more proof on those counts and you'll hve my support unconditionally.As it is,I believe your argument for the landing sites misidentification is valid...the site of the battle? I'm yet to be conclusively convinced.You have my tentative support.
The iron rings excavated are much to big to work as an iron rim of a helmet. The production of rivets and the building up of rivited "Spangenhelmets" are used since roman times (see the Sutton Hoo Helmet: Rivited, Benty Grange: Rivited, Barkasovo-Types: Rivited, the Thames find: Rivited, Der el Medineh: Rivited, all the Badenheim-Narona helmets: Rivited! There is clear evidence for rivited helmets before 13th century!
Into heritage? Everyone who's interested should check my videos out on my channel. I travel up and down the country in all kinds of weather documenting my trips on Castles, Manor houses, Churches & anything else heritage.
Don't like the anti-county archaeologist rant at the end though.Do you REALLY believe someone that has studied this subject professionally and dedicated their working life to scientific and analytical proof would block you simply because of local planning permission? If anything,they are your ally.They're simply waiting for more proof on the ground before investing their extremely slim resources to the whims of an as yet unproven amateur.
would that it could, but a road's being built right where he proposes the landing-site/battle-field of hastings is ... the people behind this road building project aren't letting anyone near (unless they're part of the road crew) for fear that a squatter/protest camp is set up - thus we are unable to do a damned thing about it, due to a new multi-thousand pound road building scheme!
Into heritage? Everyone who's interested should check my videos out on my channel. I travel up and down the country in all kinds of weather documenting my trips on Castles, Manor houses, Churches & anything else heritage.
This should have been mooted years ago,its too late,even if true to stop the link road under progress which is badly needed for those living today to relieve the stinking choked A259 at Bexhill/Hastings.
Back in 2007/2008 I actually visited these areas as part of my travels home to where I was born. it was wonderful to see my heritage. I actually visited Crowhurst and Hastings and was so surprised that things were not as I had been taught in Australia about the Battle of Hastings. I then remembere what my mother and Grand father had told me on how Crowhurst was the site of the battle not where the Abbey is at Battle. So when I finally purchased your book I was pleasantly surprised to see you matched everything that they had said. Thankyou for your fight for the truth. It is funny but in 1994 I finished my degree in Cultural Anthropology which has enabled me to see the world differently. Excellent narrative thankyou.
Fascinating well presented and compelling. Deserves support for substantive exploratory field work!
It's an extremely good argument for the battle site, Harold and his men would of know them feilds like the back of their shields, the site is a good defence probably the best in the area and I imagine that's why it very possible could have been chosen
Crowhurst was Harold's manor. His wife and children were present when the property was destroyed by William. This was William saying 'here I am, come and get me.' A direct challenge and a red rag to Harold.
As a mere layman, to me this all seems quite reasonable and convincing to a certain degree. I would like to know if any other experts or historians agree or disagree with the content of this presentation. Very interesting. Hopefully it will be evidence enough to stop turning combe haven into a flooded housing estate with a link road.
Into heritage? Everyone who's interested should check my videos out on my channel. I travel up and down the country in all kinds of weather documenting my trips on Castles, Manor houses, Churches & anything else heritage.
I've read the book and other stuff, and find so much of what you say credible and more precise than any other versions. The logistics and landscapes fit so well into the contemporary versions.
I think that there's a possibility that when they said they landed 'at' Pevensey, they meant to say 'in sight of' Pevensey.
Nobody with the hope of securing a landing would have disembarked at the site of an already standing and defensible fortification.
At last an insistent and credible alternative to the convenient and uncomfortable version of history that suited the Abbot in the 12th Century in evading taxes and has been very profitable for English Heritage and generations of historians ever since.
This channel deserves millions of subscribers and views.
On a completely irrelevant front, the mapping of Europe’s coastal outline compared with that of 1,000 years ago somewhat contradicts the current fad of Climate Change and sea water levels does it not?
Another interpretation is that the knights disembarked at Little Standard Hill where a great deal of nails were recovered. William landed first at Pevensey, re fortified the Roman remains and celebrated a saints feast day before transferring his “flag” to Hastings. Between 1189 and 1199 a Priory was situated on the very spot William came ashore on the mainland ( Pevensey was an island at the time). A tower was built nearby and at the top of the hill a motte was built iaw Norman war custom. IMO, Trinity Mews which now exists as stone building, was where the Normans built said tower.
Very interesting and informative--I always believed that a battle did take place at Crowhurst prior to the main Battle at battle...
Is there a part tow to this presentation please ?? The video seems to have been cut prematurely...
Totally plausible, modern technology has changed and proved so much. Different battle, but Bosworth was always assumed to be down Ambion hill, yet rescent archaeology has proved it to be elsewhere, because of overwhelming artefact discovery.
I'm very interested in the Norman invasion. I personally feel it's more likely the Normans landed at Pevensey Bay, then moved eastward. Or there might have been different ships landing at two or more different places. The argument for the battle site is good, but why would it have been stated as Battle for so long? Maybe it was fought in both Battle and Crowhurst. They are pretty close.
I think after the Abbey was moved to a better location abit further north it would've been local knowledge for a generation or 2 that the battle was further south, but then throw in all the civil wars, barron wars then of course two rounds of the black death plague I think it would be forgotten in common knowledge and 800 or so years later people just assume since the place is called battle and the abby is there with Harold's death marker on the top of it just became the place where they fought. I hope this might help its just my opinion but seems feasible, also I think you right that the fighting must of been everywhere especially as the saxons started to flee
@@jimcraig9882 William of Malmesbury writing some 70 years after the battle is often quoted saying that Harold "died" at the Battle Abbey site by tradition.
Well worth following up with futher research. Good luck with fundraising to accumulate further evidence, you will need it. Old theories die hard.
take care
rwmccoy
So Edith Swan neck gave some account of taking care of the wounded at the Battle battlefield what was her account of the sight that we are told was at battle could she also have been wrong then
The tree was known to both leader's as well 👍
A second,independant opinion and I'll be convinced.Your argument is persuasive to a point.But you ditches and metal work appear sketchy.Give us more proof on those counts and you'll hve my support unconditionally.As it is,I believe your argument for the landing sites misidentification is valid...the site of the battle? I'm yet to be conclusively convinced.You have my tentative support.
The iron rings excavated are much to big to work as an iron rim of a helmet. The production of rivets and the building up of rivited "Spangenhelmets" are used since roman times (see the Sutton Hoo Helmet: Rivited, Benty Grange: Rivited, Barkasovo-Types: Rivited, the Thames find: Rivited, Der el Medineh: Rivited, all the Badenheim-Narona helmets: Rivited! There is clear evidence for rivited helmets before 13th century!
Into heritage? Everyone who's interested should check my videos out on my channel. I travel up and down the country in all kinds of weather documenting my trips on Castles, Manor houses, Churches & anything else heritage.
Price of your book concerns me...
Agreed. Happy to support the work of the author but is aint cheap..
Don't like the anti-county archaeologist rant at the end though.Do you REALLY believe someone that has studied this subject professionally and dedicated their working life to scientific and analytical proof would block you simply because of local planning permission? If anything,they are your ally.They're simply waiting for more proof on the ground before investing their extremely slim resources to the whims of an as yet unproven amateur.
would that it could, but a road's being built right where he proposes the landing-site/battle-field of hastings is ... the people behind this road building project aren't letting anyone near (unless they're part of the road crew) for fear that a squatter/protest camp is set up - thus we are unable to do a damned thing about it, due to a new multi-thousand pound road building scheme!
What is the story of the devlopment today Anton?
Into heritage? Everyone who's interested should check my videos out on my channel. I travel up and down the country in all kinds of weather documenting my trips on Castles, Manor houses, Churches & anything else heritage.
"GOOD ONE."
This should have been mooted years ago,its too late,even if true to stop the link road under progress which is badly needed for those living today to relieve the stinking choked A259 at Bexhill/Hastings.
When they guy starting dousing I lost all interest of this channel. There isn’t a single proof that there is anything to it, pure b.s.