You're doing a great job with the research. Our history is under attack by some quarters of society but you guys are keeping it alive for the future generations ( and today of course ).
Chills on the horse stirrup, even if it didn't end up being period-relevant. We know from accounts that although they moved the human bodies they found, they left the horses in the ditches. A thousand years ago perhaps, but there are equine skeletal remains, armor and other cavalry artefacts somewhere down there along that upper and lower malfosse line.
Where is the painstaking fingerwork? The mapping photographing and recording, before delicate archaeological artefacts are removed? As an ex-copper I balk at your cack handed methods, fellas.
Most of us are not descendent from the Normans. Although they took conrol of England in 1066 its estimated that only about 8,000 Normans settled here. The English remained predominately Anglo Saxon and still are
Much of what youll be finding are buckles and crossbow heads etc, probably get a permission for the ploughed field at the top or try the main field that doesnt look too disturbed by farming. In all though it really needs to be put to a university with your theory and get a proper investigation.
2 guys with a detector and a spade hauling things out of holes. No attempt whasoever to record it archeaologically, catalogue, bag, record, etc. This is a couple of amateurs playing at time team.. badly
That the battle could have been at either Battle or Crowhurst, rather than further inland, is at least indicative of one military consideration which surely would have been very much in William's mind. While he would, no doubt, have been confident of victory, he had to entertain the possibility of defeat, and the consequences that would entail given that his army was on enemy territory, with a channel barring a return to Normandy. Furthermore, until the Saxon army actually appeared in front of him he could not know what the numerical odds would be. Being a sensible commander, such as he was, surely meant that he had to stay in close contact with his fleet of ships for such an eventuality. We know that Combe Haven was an inlet from the sea in 1066. Crowhurst is up to a mile from what was that inlet, whereas Battle is 3 miles from it. With that in mind, and for me, Crowhurst is already looking a better bet for a battle site. William did not have to advance 3 miles inland. He knew Harold would come to him, and for good measure, as an extra enticement, he ravaged Harold's manor at Crowhurst, knowing that the news would reach him. Giving battle at Crowhurst, not that far from his fleet, also had the added advantage that it did not afford Harold much opportunity to outflank him, which would be difficult for footsoldiers to do pitted against William's cavalry. None of this is to say that the battle did not take place at Battle.Even if the battle had been lost there William had his horses and so could have galloped with a sizeable remnant of his army for the ships. However the Time Team's documentary was interesting as it disclosed what the topography would have been at the time in clearer detail. What we learnt from this is that Harold's army could have massed on the eastern section of the raised ground ( i.e where the mini roundabout is today ) of what was effectively a peninsula. William would have to attack up a slope from the south east where the going underfoot was OK but through a relatively restricted channel. If that was a masterstroke on Harold's part, it was a dumbass thing for William to do (he would have done better to retreat to Crowhurst, where the terrain at least gave even (if not better) odds and wait for Harold to come on to him). However it might explain why the fighting went on for a whole day. On the other hand I don't get where Harold's flank (what flank?) broke and chased after the retreating Normans, as is recorded. As for the site at Crowhurst, I do have some questions. Austin's claimed battle site is off to the side of where he claims the Abbey William ordered to be built, is sited. Actually a little way off the far western flank of what was presumably the Saxon shield wall. If it marks the spot where Harold made his last stand, and died, then that's an odd place for him to end up in relation to the battle. But then again, if the shield wall had been broken, and since it was his Manor, perhaps that piece of land had some personal significance for him, knowing that it was all over. On the other hand the malfosse (in which it is recorded that some of the norman cavalry came to grief) is interesting. And It provided cover for the eastern flank of the shield wall. But then again there seems to have been nothing to stop the Norman cavalry from riding round the fosse and attacking the Saxons from the rear. In all I would have gone for Crowhurst if I had been William, but Battle if I had been Harold. In the event, of course, William won - which might tell us something, or not as the case may be. The only decisive proof of which site the battle did take place at would be the unearthing of a mass grave of the slaughtered dead. Even after a thousand years there would surely be some remains left.
Who else wishes that people with a way of transferring comments to CZcams videos , who take the time to make an account just to leave NEGATIVE comments . would get so lost that not even the best attempts by the best people and equipment, would ever find a trace of them.. Find a life !
At least they are giving their opinion on YOUTube! Where is your POSITIVE comment in support of this video? Your comment was rather NEGATIVE, wasn't it? You're telling us that you NEVER leave 'negative' comments, ever? You never disagree or disapprove of any uploads on CZcams? If you have nothing to say in support of or against what they are doing, then here's a negative comment for you: F*** Off!
Not quite correct snorman. If you'd read Nick Austin's book you'd know exactly what has been found. I respectfully suggest you read it. Plus English Heritage don't have a shred of tangible evidence to uphold their claim that Battle Abbey is the correct site. I'm wondering if you have any issues with that?
A lot of evidence actually. From crossbow bolts, a crossbow, potential mass graves in the bosom of the earth, the 2,000 year old yew tree, a ruined Norman Abbey the plans of which match the ones at Battle, the Norman dwelling at Wilting, the Malfosse, the fact that the Normans wrote that the battle was fought at a place called "Hurst". You should watch the other videos to understand how what we previously thought as the battle site and how what we've been told for 200 years and more is bullsh*t
Not a question of "hiding battles" 🤔 For English Heritage is hard to swallow that the Abbey battle is very likely bollocks. Is that so hard to understand? They should spend money to open more research and find something. In Battle there's nothing at all. They should admit it in due time. The world wont finish. The official site simply does not stand, apart from the fact of their own documents.
Curiosity and enthusiasm will achieve far more than dozens of experts working from the same textbook. Well done.
You're doing a great job with the research. Our history is under attack by some quarters of society but you guys are keeping it alive for the future generations ( and today of course ).
Our history has always been under attack. Winners write the hiStory books.
Love it, nothing like a bit of enthusiasm......who knows they may be on to something. Keep it up.
Keep going, guys! Until we know CONCLUSIVELY where the exact battlefield was, anything is possible... well, almost anything! Don't give up!
I’ve watched all of these now and they were a decade ago. Any updates? Cheers.
There is one vid 1 Yr old so still around
This and subsequent videos are all a long time ago.
What has happened since?
What about those mounds?
Chills on the horse stirrup, even if it didn't end up being period-relevant. We know from accounts that although they moved the human bodies they found, they left the horses in the ditches. A thousand years ago perhaps, but there are equine skeletal remains, armor and other cavalry artefacts somewhere down there along that upper and lower malfosse line.
Where is the painstaking fingerwork? The mapping photographing and recording, before delicate archaeological artefacts are removed? As an ex-copper I balk at your cack handed methods, fellas.
I actually thought the same... hacking with a spade! Good job they WEREN'T artefacts!
you should do a vid walking the battlefield from starting line to finish
As a descendent of the Normans...
We came
We saw
And we kicked arse...
It doesn't really matter that we don't know where we kicked it..
Most of us are not descendent from the Normans. Although they took conrol of England in 1066 its estimated that only about 8,000 Normans settled here. The English remained predominately Anglo Saxon and still are
Maybe turn your pointer to vibrate .... Slowly annoying noise otherwise .... I have the same unit. :-)
Much of what youll be finding are buckles and crossbow heads etc, probably get a permission for the ploughed field at the top or try the main field that doesnt look too disturbed by farming. In all though it really needs to be put to a university with your theory and get a proper investigation.
2 guys with a detector and a spade hauling things out of holes. No attempt whasoever to record it archeaologically, catalogue, bag, record, etc. This is a couple of amateurs playing at time team.. badly
Fuck off
Did you end up getting information on the bone, horse stirrup and helmet ring?
Very intriguing stuff !
That the battle could have been at either Battle or Crowhurst, rather than further inland, is at least indicative of one military consideration which surely would have been very much in William's mind. While he would, no doubt, have been confident of victory, he had to entertain the possibility of defeat, and the consequences that would entail given that his army was on enemy territory, with a channel barring a return to Normandy. Furthermore, until the Saxon army actually appeared in front of him he could not know what the numerical odds would be. Being a sensible commander, such as he was, surely meant that he had to stay in close contact with his fleet of ships for such an eventuality.
We know that Combe Haven was an inlet from the sea in 1066. Crowhurst is up to a mile from what was that inlet, whereas Battle is 3 miles from it. With that in mind, and for me, Crowhurst is already looking a better bet for a battle site. William did not have to advance 3 miles inland. He knew Harold would come to him, and for good measure, as an extra enticement, he ravaged Harold's manor at Crowhurst, knowing that the news would reach him. Giving battle at Crowhurst, not that far from his fleet, also had the added advantage that it did not afford Harold much opportunity to outflank him, which would be difficult for footsoldiers to do pitted against William's cavalry.
None of this is to say that the battle did not take place at Battle.Even if the battle had been lost there William had his horses and so could have galloped with a sizeable remnant of his army for the ships. However the Time Team's documentary was interesting as it disclosed what the topography would have been at the time in clearer detail. What we learnt from this is that Harold's army could have massed on the eastern section of the raised ground ( i.e where the mini roundabout is today ) of what was effectively a peninsula. William would have to attack up a slope from the south east where the going underfoot was OK but through a relatively restricted channel. If that was a masterstroke on Harold's part, it was a dumbass thing for William to do (he would have done better to retreat to Crowhurst, where the terrain at least gave even (if not better) odds and wait for Harold to come on to him). However it might explain why the fighting went on for a whole day. On the other hand I don't get where Harold's flank (what flank?) broke and chased after the retreating Normans, as is recorded.
As for the site at Crowhurst, I do have some questions. Austin's claimed battle site is off to the side of where he claims the Abbey William ordered to be built, is sited. Actually a little way off the far western flank of what was presumably the Saxon shield wall. If it marks the spot where Harold made his last stand, and died, then that's an odd place for him to end up in relation to the battle. But then again, if the shield wall had been broken, and since it was his Manor, perhaps that piece of land had some personal significance for him, knowing that it was all over. On the other hand the malfosse (in which it is recorded that some of the norman cavalry came to grief) is interesting. And It provided cover for the eastern flank of the shield wall. But then again there seems to have been nothing to stop the Norman cavalry from riding round the fosse and attacking the Saxons from the rear.
In all I would have gone for Crowhurst if I had been William, but Battle if I had been Harold. In the event, of course, William won - which might tell us something, or not as the case may be.
The only decisive proof of which site the battle did take place at would be the unearthing of a mass grave of the slaughtered dead. Even after a thousand years there would surely be some remains left.
awesome stuff guys well done !!
You need to return with a drone. I have a small one, very sharp video, can hover, look down, go up to 400ft etc.
Goodun, self powered power washer may have helped! 😉
That's like the M3. A Megalithic droveway.
Whoever the guy with the green juice is, it looks like it tastes like shite. Notice he can’t stomach more than a sip at a time. Beware!
Who else wishes that people with a way of transferring comments to CZcams videos ,
who take the time to make an account just to leave NEGATIVE comments .
would get so lost that not even the best attempts by the best people and equipment,
would ever find a trace of them.. Find a life !
At least they are giving their opinion on YOUTube! Where is your POSITIVE comment in support of this video? Your comment was rather NEGATIVE, wasn't it? You're telling us that you NEVER leave 'negative' comments, ever? You never disagree or disapprove of any uploads on CZcams? If you have nothing to say in support of or against what they are doing, then here's a negative comment for you: F*** Off!
@@johnny_pilot Oh fuck of Johnny.
Your story fits the landscape but there are no finds and no body's, I'd like to accept it but without the finds its too long a shot.
I could buy the theory but ffs guys your methods are brutal and barbaric.
Obviously wrong Normans did not have Radio controlled Aircraft.
Sorry mate, not very convincing
you could be wrong nobody is going to hide a battle and for what reason. plus you have no evidence from the ground to support you and what you say.
Yes he could be wrong but so is the mainstream narratives. The evidence supporting that is hardly solid
Not quite correct snorman. If you'd read Nick Austin's book you'd know exactly what has been found. I respectfully suggest you read it. Plus English Heritage don't have a shred of tangible evidence to uphold their claim that Battle Abbey is the correct site. I'm wondering if you have any issues with that?
A lot of evidence actually. From crossbow bolts, a crossbow, potential mass graves in the bosom of the earth, the 2,000 year old yew tree, a ruined Norman Abbey the plans of which match the ones at Battle, the Norman dwelling at Wilting, the Malfosse, the fact that the Normans wrote that the battle was fought at a place called "Hurst". You should watch the other videos to understand how what we previously thought as the battle site and how what we've been told for 200 years and more is bullsh*t
Not a question of "hiding battles" 🤔
For English Heritage is hard to swallow that the Abbey battle is very likely bollocks.
Is that so hard to understand?
They should spend money to open more research and find something.
In Battle there's nothing at all.
They should admit it in due time. The world wont finish.
The official site simply does not stand, apart from the fact of their own documents.