Why Did the Saxons Lose to the Vikings? Medieval Animated DOCUMENTARY
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 06. 2023
- Big thanks to Ridge Wallet for sponsoring this video! Check out our favorite wallets here: ridge.com/kingsandgenerals Use Code “KINGSANDGENERALS” for 10% off your order
Kings and Generals historical animated documentary series on the history of medieval era continues with a video on the Anglo-Saxons and the Norse - Vikings, as we try to deduce why the Saxons weren't able to defend against the Vikings and would go on to lose in many cases.
Great Schism Between Greek and Latin Christianity: • Great Schism: The Bitt...
How Islam Split into the Sunni and Shia Branches: • Muslim Schism: How Isl...
Rise of the Cossacks: • Rise of the Cossacks -...
Crusades From the Muslim Perspective: • Crusades From the Musl...
Early Muslim Expansion - Yarmouk, Al-Qadisiyyah: • Early Muslim Expansion...
Early Muslim Expansion - Egypt and Iran: • Early Muslim Expansion...
Muslim Schism: • Muslim Schism: How Isl...
Third Crusade: • Third Crusade 1189-119...
Fourth Crusade: • Rise of Bulgaria - Eve...
First Crusade: • First Crusade: Battle ...
Sultanate of Women in the Ottoman Empire: • Sultanate of Women in ...
How the German Empire Provoked Ottoman Jihad in WWI: • How the German Empire ...
Ottoman Battles: • Battle of Kosovo 1389 ...
Why the Ottomans Never Colonized America: • Why the Ottomans Never...
Why the Ottoman Sultans Killed their Brothers: • Why did the Ottoman Su...
Cem Sultan: Ottoman Prince in the Heart of Europe: • Cem Sultan: Ottoman Pr...
Ottoman Pirates: • Ottoman Pirates - Armi...
Turkification of Anatolia: • Turkification of Anato...
Hashashins: • Hashashins: Origins of...
Christian Schism: • Great Schism: The Bitt...
Mos Maiorum: What led to the fall of the Roman Republic?: • Mos Maiorum: What led ...
How Rome Conquered Greece: • How Rome Conquered Gre...
Caesar in Gaul: • Caesar in Gaul - Roman...
Support us on Patreon: / kingsandgenerals or Paypal: paypal.me/kingsandgenerals or by joining the youtube membership: / @kingsandgenerals
Script: Jim Zaat
Animation: Michael Merc, Artem Krikhtenko
Artwork: Vyacheslav Sheo
Narration: Officially Devin ( / @offydgg & czcams.com/channels/79s.html....
✔ Merch store ► teespring.com/stores/kingsand...
✔ Patreon ► / kingsandgenerals
✔ Podcast ► kingsandgenerals.libsyn.com/ iTunes: apple.co/2QTuMNG
✔ PayPal ► paypal.me/kingsandgenerals
✔ Twitter ► / kingsgenerals
✔ Facebook ► / kingsgenerals
✔ Instagram ► / kings_generals Production
Music courtesy of EpidemicSound
#Documentary #Saxons #Vikings
Big thanks to Ridge Wallet for sponsoring this video! Check out our favorite wallets here: ridge.com/kingsandgenerals Use Code “KINGSANDGENERALS” for 10% off your order
Did the Vikings make Ridge Wallets?
anglo saxons beat the vikings, what are you talking about?
could you do videos of japan invasion on china? in ww2? and other modern battles like the syrian civil war and the taliban victory in 2021
@@bruhbruh2290Normans of Viking ancestry defeated Anglo Saxons at Battle of Hasting 💯That's why English has got lotsa loanwords from FRENCH 🥖 ⚜️ Even English dynasties were dominated by French speaking aristocracy 🇲🇫
@Changeur: No it doesn’t work that way I’m afraid, the Saxons didn’t lose to the Vikings. King Harold Godwinson, previously the Earl of Wessex, defeated Harold Hardrada the King of Norway, at the battle of Stanford Bridge in 1066. Just two days before losing the battle of Senlac hill, otherwise known as the Battle of Hastings, to William the Bastard the Duke of Normandy. Hastings is several miles from the battlefield.
The Saxons lost to the Normans, if they count as Vikings then you’re right, albeit unwittingly. Bc they’re not the Vikings in this video and you changed it to the French in any case, who are definitely not Vikings! And they got their ass handed to them by the English and British many times all through history anyway and were saved from the Germans at least twice by us.
So even if you were right about the French beating the Saxons, you’re still on the wrong side of history.
I rest my case and I hope this helps now that I’ve corrected you.
I think the main issue is that Wessex might have been the only kingdom that was able to adequately organize a system to marshall their own forces and react to Viking incursions.
@@E.V.C.E.there wasn’t much left other than structures and the lingering influences that lasted until today
Cos they were more Roman lel
Also, geography. They were the most structured kingdom who had the most time to prepared when the vikings came in full force.
The Vikings ALWAYS lost against well organized societies. Always. It might take 100 years, but they always lost.
They produced a fantastic warrior class, won PLENTY of small battles, and their mobility meant that they usually succeeded in avoiding large, decisive battles against royal armies. However, their culture, and particularly their leadership structure, was in many ways incapable of the sustained cohesion needed to win the multi generational, on again, off again wars that characterized the time period.
@@ianmedford4855yeah they were raiding war bands more than highly organized standing armies.
“The Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons were closely related by ancestry and language, since the latter had themselves only left Denmark three hundred years previously.”
― Ed West
Yea denakrk and Germany.
Yep they were related like p@kis and indians are
I mean the USA isn't even 300 years old and most of its current inhabitants descend from people who left in the second half of the 1800s onward.
Just saying 300 years is a loooong time.
Beowulf and the Sutton Hoo hoard prove that the connection between Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavia continued throughout the period.
@@daarom3472 The USA was different since you had global migration. Millions of people regularly get added to the USA's population from migrants of all colors. Culturally that can lead to small sections being radically different.
Everyone forgets the Saxons were almost proto-Vikings; the were Germanic raiders, ships based, had the same Gods and ethnic background and came from the same areas.
The issue was after the Saxons conquered the Britons, they did go a bit soft. Trading war and plunder for civilisation. Vikings came and repeated the process 300 years after the Saxons did.
If you want to define "viking" as the Norse of the 8th to 11th centuries, then it was a "proto-Viking" culture. Otherwise it was the exact same type of culture which was prevalent among most people living on the North Sea and the Baltic before and after the Viking Age up until the Northern Crusades.
The Saxons actually defeated the Vikings and ended the Viking age.
It's also arguable that Saxons were not as brutal at all in the first place; judging by the amount of suffering they inflicted on their victims...
Generally speaking, invaders often take over the superior culture and learn to coexist with their victims, discovering that a peaceful life can actually be much nicer... It differs depending on the disparity of both cultures and many other factors of course; sometimes a conquered state can just crumble into a pitiful mess of brutal warlords...
Also they weren't prepared or organized. Divided little kingdoms. The north kingdoms didn't have a chance they were hit first not prepared. If Wessex wasn't the most South, they wouldn't have had time to prepare and beat them.
Yep. What the Vikings and their descendants (Normans) did to the Saxons is exactly what the Saxons did to Romano-Britons.
I am elated by the new graphical details and also the old animation details such as that you used in the Kyivan Rus' video et al. Keep it up, you will always be my favorite historian youtuber.
Loved the CG coinage
The fact that historically South England was the richest part of the British isles played a part. Short trade routes with France, a milder climate making for more productive agriculture and wealth from the mines of Cornwall and Devon meant Wessex had enough money to pay the danegeld or wage war even when they didn't control the best british real estate, the Thames valley.
Wessex also had the advantage of learning from the mistakes of it's neighbours, by swapping age old battle tactics not changed in centuries with new and improved ones.
I hope you guys will finally restart the battle of Ashdown and Anglo-Saxon series. You guys start at five years ago.
They should redo it completely like they are doing with the rise of the ottoman empire series
I agree they should
Vikings: *invade england*
Anglo-saxon: your are trying to kidnap what i have rightfully stolen
Right of conquest, bud
In fairness, the Anglo-Saxons were mostly native Briton by blood. Cultural and political domination and intermarriage converted former Romano-Britons to the Anglo-Saxon identity
Reminds me of France who stole the Rosseta stone from Egypt and complained that the British stole the Rosetta Stone from the French
@@robzsarmy5471theres always a bigger fish
@@iggyzeta9755 It gets very interesting looking at the etymology of the kings of Wessex, some have Britonnic names puzzling most modern historians: Cerdic, Ceawlin, Cædwalla. ..
"We have an enemy that can show up any time, basically without warning, and burn down our stuff"
**Gives them a bunch of horses**
"This problem SOMEHOW just got way worse!"
In Anglo-Saxon England, the ealdorman was appointed by the English king to be the chief officer in a shire. He commanded the local fyrd and presided with the bishop over the shire court. As compensation, he received the third penny-one-third of the profits of royal justice and one-third of the revenues from boroughs under his jurisdiction.
By the late 900s, ealdormen often controlled multiple shires at once. During Cnut's reign (1016-1035), they became known as earls (from Old English eorl meaning "noble").[note 1] He divided the kingdom into four earldoms: Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria. Earls were governors or viceroys, ruling in the king's name, keeping the peace, dispensing justice, and raising armies. Like the earlier ealdormen, they received the third penny from their jurisdictions. There were, however, limitations on their authority. They could not mint coins or hold their own courts, and in theory, they could be removed by the king. In rank, earls were below the king and above thegns; they were therefore the king's chief counselors in the Witan.[15] Earls were an "élite within an élite", numbering at most 25 men at any one time between 1000 and 1300.
When Edward the Confessor (r. 1042-1066) came to the throne, he inherited the royal estates of Harthacnut but lacked family lands of his own. As a result, the earls collectively possessed more land than the king, especially Earl Godwin of Wessex. In 1066, according to the Domesday Book, the Godwin family estates were valued at £7,000, Earl Leofric of Mercia at £2,400, and Earl Siward of Northumbria at £350. In comparison, the king's lands were valued at £5,000. This concentration of land and wealth in the hands of the earls, and one earl in particular, weakened the Crown's authority. The situation was reversed when Godwin's son Harold became king, and he was able to restore the Crown's authority.
The Saxons kept losing and then Alfred The Great showed up.⚔️
Then Cnut the Great entered the chat.
@@nelsonw.9483King Edmund Ironside was winning against Cnut and was about to finish his army but he was betrayed by Edric Streona and the Mercians.
@nelsonw.9483 then vikings still got wiped out. Harold was the last army and lost. But by then they submitted to Christianity so weren't really vikings. Just one country fighting another.
@@mrhumble2937 A lot of the vikings were Christian. So much so that most of the famous runestones were post conversion and explicitly Christian, same for the sagas.
Honestly the conversion didnt stop any of the Celts, Germans, Norse, AngloSaxons, Franks and Visigoths from raiding everywhere they could reach in the traditional way. Ironically thats why monasteries were prime Viking targets: their isolation by rivers and coasts protected them from raiding land kingdoms but not the new sea raiders
Alfred lost to. Banished to a swamp, and only saved by a storm
One of their best videos. Right to the point and informative.
Dan Carlins hardcore history podcast summed it up nicely. Saxons were full time farmers and part time soldiers based on their lifestyle while vikings were full time soldiers and part time farmers.
Was this his Twilight of the Aesir?
@@vercingetorix444 It is indeed.
@@Maxrodon full time soldiers and part time farmers? Tell me that you don't know anything about medival agriculture without telling me about it directly lol
The only time a farm has any free time is between seeding and the harvesting
@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl please re-read what I said. I was quoting what was said in a historical podcast.
If you actually follow medival/ancient history, farming doesn’t always stop armies go to war. Romans as an example used slaves to toil and do alot of their farming. The vikings were no different and were people who owned and ran farms but spent
A lot of their time in combat/fighting and using their loot to prosper which included captured slaves to help with the farming. They also had family left behind to run the farms while they were away. Similar to how
Romans with a farming background had family and slaves running the farms while they were in combat. The Saxons on the other hand spent most their time farming, didn’t have slaves in that sense and they would take up arms as a means of self defence..
In other words, Saxons were mostly farmers that resorted to combat as self defence, while Vikings also had farms but saw combat as a way of life.
@@Maxrodon what are you talking about? Vast majority of Roman conquests happened in early and mid rebublic.
Back when roman armies were based on small scale farm owning families.
Roman warfare was partly seasonal during that period as any large scale camping had to happen in spring when forage and fodder would be more available {I am saying partly because romans had armies on the field all year round because they had a clever rotation system around their small farmers such that there always would be someone fighting will others are doing the farming}
That in turn also means that the dilectus {it means the selection. It's how Romans raised armies in the republic} is taking place in winter, which also matters for understanding the process: this is a low-ebb in the labor demands in the agricultural calendar. I personally find it hilarious that Rome’s elections happen in late summer or early fall, when it would actually be rather inconvenient for poor Romans to spend a day voting (it’s the planting season), but the dilectus is placed over winter where it would be far easier to get everyone to show up. I doubt this contrast was accidental; the Roman election system is quite intentionally designed to preference the votes of wealthier Romans in quite a few ways
It was only during the late republic that because of these successful conquests that these small scale farmers got replaced with slaves {the slaves themselves got there because of the successful conquests} so they went from small farms operated by small families to large slave plantations owned by few wealthy men
And because of that social change did roman armies become a much smaller in seize standing armies were the soldiers weren't part time farmers but full time soldiers
Love this video keep up the good work King's and Generals!!
As I've said many times your channel is the very best. Its self evident. Always a joy to hear that bell notification regardless of the specific subject.
I’m currently reading Marc Morris’s book the Anglo-Saxon so I thoroughly enjoy this video. Excited for more content like it coming soon!
I'm doing the same. Chapter 4 at the moment. Morris is such an amazing writer that I went ahead and bought his book on the Norman Conquest.
Have you thought about getting some of Dan Jones' works? Covers the period after that up until the 1500s, I believe.
@@knauxum I haven’t read his book on the Normans but I think I have too now. I’ve got one of Jone’s book, Crusaders but haven’t read it yet
The Anglo Saxon’s eventual defeated the Vikings. The last battle against the Vikings was at Stamford Bridge in 1066 by King Harold and the Vikings were slaughtered. I accept that King Harold was the defeated by the Normans who were sort of Vikings by they did not come from Scandinavia.
King harold used scandinavian huskarls anyway, so in some regards the norsemen won all the battles
@@MisseTisdon’t be silly
@@MisseTis The Vikings were assimilated into the English Anglo Saxon society and we did the same with the Normans eventually. It was at about this time the first Muslims settled in England. Over the years various peoples settled in England and they were all assimilated into our society. As a people we are referred to as Anglo Saxons but in all honesty we are just a mongol race.
@@stephenbuck1280 Sort of correct, but native Brits today are still predominantly native Celtic (and pre-Celtic Britons), with some Germanic mixed in from the Anglo-Saxon tribes and the Norse (around 30%). There was extremely little impact from the Normans, as they didn't migrate as a people but almost exclusively as ruling elites, not mixing with those they ruled over. After that it's the usual bonus mixing with various peoples from all over who settle in a country, we obviously had and still have more of that due to having had a global empire, but it's not really truly filtered into the native population yet. Britain has a long history of many peoples from all over, but it does take quite a sizeable population to actually impact on the native gene pool, something that the Normans didn't have, nor the Romans really.
We're fairly mixed but in terms of our genetics it's not actually had much of an impact, there are certainly far more mixed countries, like Spain for example. We're more culturally mixed than ancestrally mixed.
@@treeaboo Hi. Yeah I get what you are saying but we have seen waves, big and small of immigration ever since. There were a lot of French Huguenots in the 16th century for example. In England there were few Celts left, they were more in Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Cornwall. We now have much larger levels of immigration but the problem is we are unable to integrate them into our society.
absolutely love this channel!! thank you for all this content!
Nice using the great illustrator Tom Lowell’s dynamic painting of Vikings ransacking a abbey village as your inspiration for the the clip at 2:37 & 15:10. See…I was paying attention to the art and narration. Great video by the way!
This is not sarcasm. I genuinely love the CGI snippets looking like what would be considered high quality PC game cinematics from the late 90s and early 2000s. They hit me right in the nostalgia:p
I love you guys, you guys helped me learn my passion for history and truly take hold of it, you guys are amazing! Thank you for all the years of laughs and learning, I hope there is many many more
Interesting comments about the boats! The discovery of an Anglo Saxon ship at Sutton Hoo (imprint of one) showed that the ships were very, very similar even with a 100 years difference. I have doubts that ship design had that much to do with Anglo Saxon losses. Sometimes, it's just the Johnnies & Joes who make the difference and the tactics employed. Especially, terror tactics! The Wikings chopped it up piece by piece and never fought a United Anglo front until Wessex put together their coalition. The Wikings split their army into multiple parts or it's quite possible that Wikings would have conquered the whole Anglo Saxon territory!
But they didn't though, I'm not sure why people always seem to think this. In a lot of pitched battles the Vikings were routed by the Saxons, and of course Alfred and his descendants drove them off entirely in the end
Wessex pushed the norwegian vikings out from England, but the ones that remained became loyal. This channel is a load of hogwash at times.
I expected more from this channel. They took their knowledge from Hollywood and ignored or were unaware of Saxon victories like a lot of people who don't know much history do
@@RamesesBolton Same
This video was likely titled this way to attract the many viking fan-boys. All videos are clickbait to make views and money
@@Englishman-_-Mongolia2022 thought the same as it started, i mean the vikings dominated at first as far as i can understand, but they had the element of surprise and political chaos in England
Great video as always 👏👏 ....
I hope you finish the full video on the Vikings series in full documentary until the Æthelsan's reign 🙇🙇🙏🙏.
The history of saxon is epic , constant wars and conquest and reconquest !! Thanks King and generals for this insane new topic !! Keep Going on
This is absolutely amazing please make more content on the anglo saxon period of england and of the vikings
I've often wondered this, thanks for answering
Hoping for some videos about King Harald Hardrada´s life 😁
As a German.... native Saxon from Westphalia northwest Germany.... I would say it was a matter of Organisation of defense.... our good King Alfred created a system of castles and defense lines against the vikings.... the other kingdoms failed in this case there were bad organized...
I don’t think Alfred was ever king of Westfalia ;)
@@sebe2255 he was Saxon so we have been connected😊
Fantastic video keep it up you're doing amazing things..
I gotta say, I love the quick intro music.
*Hope to see that Cushite Horn of Africa video soon, definitely want to see more* *history videos about ancient Macrobian, Punt, ajuraan, kushite, Adal and many others*
RIP East Anglia. A land of people who repetadly chose the sword over submittance. Some centuries early with the Iceni and Boudicca, which managed to take 70K romans/auxiliares with her and her horde rose up against them. They'll always have my respect.
Wut East ENGLALALAND is gone!? Who took East ENGLALALAND!!????
@@warpigs9069
@@warpigs9069we’re still here! My village has a Saxon name but there a many villages in the surrounding area with Scandinavian Norse origins. We are a real mix of Saxon and Viking here.
I love this video and please keep making videos about this kind of history but I got a small detail that I saw that was a little off. The place where you put Utrecht in The Netherlands (Lotharingia back then) is a little off; that's where Amsterdam is. Utrecht is more central. Just a little detail, but as a Dutchy I couldn't ignore it lol. Anyway, great video. Keep it up!
Fully agree :)
I love the art style of your videos
Would it be possible to do a video on the difference between the Saxon raids and occupation on Roman Britain and the Viking raids and occupation on Saxon Britain? As the Saxons seemed to be a victim of their own tactics from a few centuries prior
Not a bad idea, dropping to the list
The first viking raids were against the Angles not the Saxons as Northumbria,Mercia and east Anglia were all Anglish kingdoms
I hope Kings & Generals covers the Saxon Wars at some point. I believe Charlemagne's actions played a crucial role in bringing about the Viking age.
This was great thank you so much and it does corroborate with the last Kingdom TV series. Very useful❤
another great one!
They didn’t lose to the Vikings, the Vikings lost to the Saxons. Why do people keep getting this wrong?
They did it many times... but ended up a treaty of peace which led to Danelaw....
/\/\ the entire Danelaw is land the Saxons lost to the vikings, and cnut becoming king of England is as big an L as they could've possibly taken.
This channel is amazing.
Just finished watching The Last Kingdom. Great timing with this video👌
Much like most Viking conquests, the Great Heathen Army's gains were either completely reversed or made vassals of and absorbed into the the more robust culture they set out to conquer. Within two generations the Danes in what would become England were completely Christianized and subject to the rule of West Saxon kings.
We honestly make so much more out of Vikings than they actually were in history. They certainly had a destabilizing influence, but in their own time they were essentially pirates, who's primary advantage was their sea-worthy ships with shallow draft that allowed them to land at beaches or row up rivers and attack poorly defended settlements and disappear before resistance could be organized against them.
When they did face armies open battle, they lost quite often, and even when they won, their culture wasn't strong enough to endure in the places they conquered. The most significant effect of the Vikings on history is in fact in the actions of their descendants, most notably the Normans, who truly did change the face of Europe, though they were decidedly Christian and indistinguishable from the West Franks culturally by that time.
You seem to forget one factor. The vikings wasnt a loyal organized group who came from one nation of warriors. They fought eachother just as much as anyone else. And norse settlers in Britain, both from Norway and Denmark fought the vikings in the battle at stamford bridge. Later the vikings ruled England once again, and even more settlers arrived. They also settled, traded in or controlled huge areas in the baltics, russia, ukraine, continental europe from france, spain, italy and England. They adapted quickly to whereever they settled, because they didnt have a home nation with a king who tried to conquer other areas. They planned to stay, and they did very succesfully all over europe. The norse where far more succesful traders and settlers, then they were raiders/vikings. Even though that part left a huge impact on history.
@@whatwhat3432523 Nothing you said refutes what I said. Keep in mind my criticism of our popular conception of Vikings was the characterization of them as some kind of "warrior race." They weren't any more than the Saxons, Franks or Slavs they contended with. I agree completely their activities as explorers and merchants had a far more enduring impact on the world, but that's not how they're popularized in the modern conciousness.
The 'unstoppable' vikings were just pirates who attacked defenseless villages and monasteries. In the vast majority of cases where they met a similarly sized force, they would usually simply sail away, and if they did fight more often than not they lost (and this isn't to say the French or English were superior fighters, its that your general viking raid was not comprised of soldiers; it was bandits, pirates, plunderers; it makes sense that they often wouldn't match up to trained forces). The vikings were 'terrifying' because they attacked defenseless areas without warning and had no mercy for the farmers or monks.
There were of course some serious Scandinavian armies that were very powerful, and some of these had success, and some were defeated. Cnut obviously triumphed for the 'vikings', but there were almost countless instances of the Anglo-Saxons and Franks defeating viking raids that are just footnotes in history. We remember the exceptions largely because they were exceptions and because the vikings were so brutal afterwards. Ultimately the big victories that the Anglo-Saxons won were more important, Alfred with his Christianisation of Guthrum helped speed along the conversion of the Vikings as a whole, and the battle of Stamford Bridge which famously ended the 'viking age'.
Shameful title.
have you examples of other people who were "just pirates" who founded countries, ruled other countries, married into Monarchies all over Europe, build fantastic ships,cities, made lots of trade goods as clothes, pottery, jewelry, weapons among other things, traded more than raided, please list them, because the pirates I know of was not even accepted in their own countries, they were outlaws who stole/raided other ships, they never build or founded anything
@@veronicajensen7690 Scandinavian armies =/= vikings
Could you do a series on the Kingdom of Pontus. I know you have done the Mithridatic wars but what about the beginning of the Kingdom, its early wars, the armies it fielded and the conquest of Sinope etc.
Awesome wallet and KeyCase 💯
They eventually overcame the Scandinavians and regained control, that's the exact opposite of loosing.
William the conqueror was a viking
William the conqueror was a Norman. The name Norman means 'northmen' because over 2 centuries earlier that part of northern France was invaded by Scandinavians, but within around 50 years they were all Christian French speakers who had assimilated most of French culture and customs. By 1066 if you called them Scandinavian they would have been deeply offended and didn't resemble anything "Viking'. I'm from Anglo Saxon decent but that doesn't mean I'm German, Dutch or Dannish.
He was indeed a Viking
Early Anglo chroniclers be like:
"Bout to go fight the vikings, I'll post the chronicle later."
Later:
"Got my ass beat, I'm not posting that shit."
The anglo saxons won ya numpty😂
I hope you do the viking invasion of england again because the first one is very old and now the channel has reached a very high level
That ad segment at the beginning of the video was like the best ad EVER! I laughed so hard and rewatched the ad (!!!) just for the comedy. Absolute brilliance. 😛
"Bulging coin purses make you a target when the Vikings come to town", "Plus, the Vikings won't know they need to kill you first to get inside places."
Ah, The Last Kingdom.
While their ancestry and heritage are pretty much the same, their lifestyle gone opposite ways with the passing of time. Anglo Saxons simply lost their "warlike nature", got used to acting as kings and leaders maybe even aristocrats. They managed to hold themselves to laws, even taking up the cross. While Vikings had the same harsh struggling life from their young age.
Still, we cannot forget that Anglo Saxons managed to deal with Vikings for a long time, sometimes even keeping them in bay. Although their infighting was way too frequent to be able to hold for so long. The reason of their lose can be pretty much summarized like this: Vikings were bloody savages with the need of pillaging to survive, while Anglo Saxons put their kingship and their role on a higher pedestal then the survival of their people. Alfred The Great would be an exception... he had the savage blood tempered with a scholar's mind.
The norse lost most of the battles, the reason the vikings 'won' is because when they won they conquered and when the English won they simply survived. No English armies were invading the homeland of the 'vikings'. This leads to misinterpretation in the military record.
838 Hingston: Egbert of Wessex defeats Dungarth
851 Alcea: Æthelwulf of Wessex defeats the Danes
867 York: Ivar and Ubba Ragnarson kill Osberht and Ælla of Northumbria
870 Englefield: Æthelwulf of Berkshire defeats the Danes
871 Reading: Halfdan Ragnarson and Bagsecg defeat Æthelred and Alfred of Wessex
871 Ashdown: Æthelred and Alfred of Wessex defeat Halfdan and kill Bagsecg
871 Basing: Halfdan defeats Æthelred and Alfred
871 Meretun: Halfdan defeats Æthelred and Alfred
878 Chippenham: Guthrum defeats Alfred
878 Cynwit: Odda of Devon kills Ubba
-
878 Edington: Alfred defeats Guthrum
885 Rochester: Alfred defeats Danes
892 Farnham: Edward of Wessex defeats Sigurd Bloodhair
893 Buttington: Æthelred of Mercia defeats Hastien
894 Stamford: the Danes defeat Aethelnoth
894 Benfleet: Edward of Wessex defeats the Danes
902 Holme: Danish Eohric of East Anglia dies defeating Wessex
910 Tettenhall: The alliance of Mercia and Wessex kills Norse Kings of Northumbria, Halfdan, Ingwaer and Eowils
917 Tempsford: Edward kills Norse Guthrum II of East Anglia
-
917: Æthelflæd of Wessex takes Derby from the Danelaw
918: Edward captured Stamford from the Danelaw
918 Corbridge: Ragnall ua Ímair of Man defeats Ealdred I of Bamburgh and Causantín mac Áeda of Scotland
937 Brunaburh: Æthelstan of England defeats Olaf Guthfrithson of Northumbria, Causantín mac Áeda of Scotland and Owain ap Dyfnwal of Strathclyde
954 Stainmore: Osulf I of Bamburgh kills Eric Bloodaxe
991 Maldon: Olaf Tryggvason kills Byrhtnoth of Essex
1001 Alton: Vikings defeat English
1001 Pinhoe: Vikings defeat English
1004 Thetford: Æthelred of England defeats Sweyn Haraldsson of Denmark
1010 Rymer: Sweyn defeats Aethelred
1016 Assandun: Canute of Denmark defeats Edmund of England
1016 Brentford: Edmund defeats Canute
1066 Fulford: Harald Sigurdsson of Norway defeats Edwin of Northumbria and Morcar of Mercia
1066 Stamford: Harold Godwinsson of England kills Harald Sigurdsson
So to tally it up:
19 Anglo-Saxon victories, 13 Norse victories
I highly doubt that the Vikings were anymore "bloody savages" than the Anglo-Saxons were. After all, our sources are Saxon Monks, people who were disproportionately affected by them, so of course their perspectives would be biased and incomplete. Just because the Norse they encountered were Vikings does not mean that every Norseman had the same upbringing, or even that the majority did. The rest were likely just peaceful farmers and traders who never left their homes. Moreover, the Vikings didn't exclusively come from Scandanavia, many were Frisian, Irish and British.
Nor were the Anglo Saxons a peaceful people caught off guard by violent barbarians; they had been fighting each other and themselves for a few centuries, they had gone through the process of conquering the island from the native British. In fact the fact that they kept fighting often kept them weak, not strong.
These guys were experienced raiders and warriors from their societies, they were just fleeing an overpopulation Scandanavia and combining into a potent professional military force of experienced warriors. With how small armies tended to be at the time, they could overwhelm the enemy and outmaneuver them.
As the video states, they were warlike. They still made War on each other, and the Welsh and Scottish kingdoms around them right up until the invasions
@@TheDirtysouthfan The biggest issue, alongside the biased sources, is that this is like reading about mass shootings and then talking about how "The early 21st century Americans were savage warlords who pit their children against each other in a brutal battle for survival" rather than "America is a country with flaws, like all countries, and in the US those specific flaws lead to rare, but still very real individuals with the desire and means to murder groups of others for generally petty reasons"
ie the Anglo Saxon historians weren't writing about the Scandinavians as a whole, they were writing specifically about Vikings, who were people self selected to be aggressive and cruel people willing to kill others for material gain, both due to that being the reason why you'd go raiding in the first place, as well as the fact that a lot of Vikings were people who were kicked out of their communities in Scandinavia for being violent assholes, since the practice of outlawing worked to make the criminals someone else's problem, rather than dealing with them through either forcing them to reform, or as was common in many other places at the time, simply killing them.
This is psuedo history. The idea that vikings are pagan savages is hollywood aesthetic
Incredible video production as always, But even so it seems every video get better and better everytime.
Thanks for the video. This improves my understanding of my Assassin's Creed Valhalla gameplay :)
The fact that we get free videos on CZcams by Kings & Generals is truly a gift. 👏👏👏
The title is misleading - the Vikings lost to the Anglo-Saxons in the end.
Love it! Ty ✌️
Amazing work as always!
Surely the point is that the Saxons won? They had a pretty rough start for sure, and lost a lot of land, but over time it was taken back. I don’t think England would exist if that had lost, as in to a full assimilation/settlement, similar to what the Anglo-Saxons had done to an extent a few hundred years before. Seems like both sides won some and lost some battles and overall just kind of existed, in their respective parts of the country. Of course in the end Harald was defeated by Harold, though he himself would go on to march all the way back down the country to be defeated by William.
One thing that should be noted was that after the initial Viking invasions, the Norsemen assimilated very well into Anglo-Saxon culture, adopting Anglo-Saxon customs and converting to Christianity. This is important, because not only did the Vikings conquer, they were able to hold on to their territory for nearly a century. In fact, many of the Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of Northumbria and Mercia feared Wessex's growing power, and used their Viking rulers as bulwarks of independence, a trend that continued until the deposition of Eric Bloodaxe in 954. Even then, their legacy remained, and when the Vikings returned in the form of Sweyn Forkbeard and Cnut the Great, many Anglo-Saxon nobles submitted themselves to Danish overlordship under the North Sea Empire.
English didn’t exist until after 1066, with the combination of Anglo-Saxon and Norman cultures..
@@oppionatedindividual8256 ok changed
@@oppionatedindividual8256 Incorrect, England has existed since 927 under King Æthelstan, the name England was recorded before this in the late-ninth-century.
Please read some facts before you spread misinformation.
@@oppionatedindividual8256 Lmao. Yet another person confidently stating incorrect facts in the internet 😂
@@oppionatedindividual8256 stop spreading false information. The English ethnicity began 1,600 years ago, when the Anglo-Saxons mixed with the Britons
Hello, could you provide the source for the coinage devaluation in Northumbria please?
Amazing content
This title seems misleading. The Saxons won some battles and lost some battles to the Vikings. How does that translate into 'Why did they lose'? Harold Godwinson beat Harald Hardrada in 1066 and ended the Viking age.
It is very misleading, you are entirely correct.
Great! Maybe you could do more Videos in that style. For example why was the Sassanid Empire unable to defend against the Arabs?
The song in the end was pretty fire.
Where can we find the music they use?
I hope we get this level of animation detail in the next post Caesar civil war video!
Danes and Norsemen? The Norse peoples ARE Danes, Swedes and Norwegians. Yet you say Danes and Norsemen as if they were different. I get that you mean Danes and Norwegians (a k a Northmen). But why not just say Norsemen if you want to include them both, aswwell as the Swedes for that matter, who actually also raided in England which many Swedish runestones recount.
Everyone knows the reason Wessex survived is because of Uhtred, son of Uhtred. :)
Destiny is all!!!
Great Work
You read my mind! I've been watching your videos here and there for a couple of years (thoroughly enjoying the topics I watched). However, I decided to subscribe yesterday to see if I could find some videos on Anglo-Saxon England and, by Thunor, just the topic I was hoping for has arrived today!!
Small nitpick, your map shows Utrecht where Amsterdam is, Utrecht is a little bit more to the southeast. the "-cht" of Utrecht is in the right spot.
It's like when Turco-Mongolic nomadic tribes conquer land, become city dwellers and new migrations of Turco-Mongolic tribes conquer them and repeat.
more viking history please!
This video was excellent! I hope one day we can get a video about Mercia and the Mercian supremacy!
They didn't?
It's hell I'm both Viking and Saxon decent I'm constantly at war with myself 🎉
I'm of Anglish decent so I'm at war with both of you lol 😂
Amazing graphics
If you ever played Crusader Kings 3, you know how damn annoying the non stop viking raids are. Even if you drive them out, they just come right back again.
I find it weird that the Saxons terried the Romans for their succesful piracy raidings on the coast of Britannia yet the Saxons themselves are terrified by the Danes, which probably their descendants.
Just Christians. 🙄
Because they did the same thing just in different orders? The Saxons raided and invaded the settled in Roman Celts, then settled in themselves, aside from lots of cheeky infighting, and are then 200-300 years later attacked by a group doing the same to you, not helped by the lack of organised resistance due to the infighting. When more organised resistance occurred it didn’t look so good for the Vikings. But to be honest this was all a very long time ago, battles were lost and won constantly and it seems like the fortunes of armies were all over the place, going from huge victories to major defeats.
Because you underestimate how much change in culture 300 years can have. that's like a dozen medieval generations. And with objective unbiased education not exactly being at the top of the list for Saxons i doubt many knew about their raiding past
Not descendants but close enough I guess
They kept losing till they adapted. Alfred the Great stopped the Vikings in their tracks. Ethelflaed and Edward began the process of the destruction of the Danelaw.
Only because they were fighting amongst themselves as much as anyone else while Alfred made a concerted effort. A bad narrative
@@50shekels It was not as if the Ango-Saxons were any better. The kings of Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia and Wessex all fought against each other with some of them even joining hands with the great heathen army to destroy their rivals.
Wessex would have fallen to the Danes too, had Alfred given up after his defeats at Wilton and Chippenham. Even with all the infighting among the Danes, Guthrum was powerful enough to defeat Alfred in multiple pitched battles.
It was via careful planning and the support of the thegns that Alfred was able to surround the Danes and force them into submission. His military reforms and diplomatic maneuvering laid the foundation for the reconquest of the British Isles by his children.
What a glorious age. Literally a heroic era.
Based
Oh nice! The narrator actually said the name ''Ívarr'' correctly. Almost every other time I've heard people say it it's always been ''eye-var''
I am pretty sure the Saxons ended the Viking age at the battle of stamford bridge.
Virgin Anglos vs Chad Vikings
Why?
Anglo-Saxons won. Realistically it doesn’t matter.
Other way around. Saxons won the majority of battles
Where are the vikings now?? Lol
@@RamesesBolton your kings got blood eagled by chad vikings 😂
Good video ⚔️
Question: When will you continue the early ottoman series?
The Saxons didn’t lose to the Vikings. King Harold Godwinson previously the Earl of Wessex defeated Harold Hardrada the King of Norway at the battle of Stanford Bridge in 1066. Just two days before losing the battle of Senlac hill, otherwise known as the Battle of Hastings to William the Bastard the Duke of Normandy. Hastings is several miles from the battlefield. The Saxons lost to the Normans, if they count as Vikings then you’re right, albeit unwittingly bc they’re not the Vikings that you’re talking about in this video.
I rest my case and I hope this helps now that I’ve corrected you.
I suppose this depends on whether you count the Danish conquest under Swein Forkbeard and then Canute. Harthacanute and Harald Harefoot could not make it stick, and England was already established anyway as a distinct kingdom of its own, even if the kings were Danish. So, maybe it doesn't count then? I think you're right though, the Saxons lost to the Normans, not the Vikings.
@@johnmurray2995 Yes there were losses to the Vikings, but that’s not the same as having lost overall. That’s how it works I’m afraid. One day if you and everyone else can grow a few brain cells, you might be as clever as me.
@@flashgordon6670 and maybe if you developed better reading comprehension you'd be able to understand that's what I said.
err... they didnt...
Awesome more viking vids!
Thank you!
The Vikings were such warrior beasts... Berserkers indeed.
The saxons were worse they came to britain took nearly everything the vikings failed in the long run we tall English not Danish i think the winners in the Ennd were the Anglo saxons
@@richardjohnston3359 Saxons* Britain* Vikings* talk* end* Anglo-Saxons*
I wouldn't count language as a proof of who were better warriors in the past. Vikings invasion of Britain is well-known, arguably blown out of proportions. The Saxons invasion of Britain is not well-known, despite modern Britain inhabitant being Anglo-Saxons.
It doesn't make Vikings and Saxons better or worse. My OP was only stating that Vikings were amazing warriors.
They're overrated
I think a massive oversight is just how intertwined the Anglo-Saxons and danish had become especially during the late Viking age.
It wouldn’t be uncommon to see Anglo-Saxons at a danish kings court and even English huscarls being used in wars. a lot of aspects of English feudalism were adopted and solidified by Christianity and the Catholic Church. We really like to glorify the Viking influence on England but the reverse also happened significantly also.
Even some danish princess and young nobles would be given an education in England making them accustomed to English ways of life and warfare. Just think of how diverse king Cnut and his empire would have been.
These are individual anecdotal pieces that do not compare to the leviathan influence the conquest of the entirety of your country would have on your people. Linguistically and culturally many of the remnants of Danish culture still permeate English society and one need not look further than the etymology of many English words to see the influence. Even the nobility of England were often married off to Denmark, and the incumbent English royal family claim descendancy from William the Conqueror who himself was the grandson of a Danish viking. Even for a relatively short time under the boot the English began to assimilate towards their overlords
@@50shekels I think you have this idea that the Danes were some sort of superhuman race that dominated absolutely.
The Danish influence of England in the east is there but the east Anglian king Guthred converted after a decisive defeat only 10 years after his forces landed with the great heaven army. his kingdom vassalized to be part of England. Meanwhile Queen Aethelflaed of Mercia daughter of alfred the great was defeating Danish army's and routing them back to jorvik softening them up until a united england under her nephew aethelstan united all 7 Petty kingdoms under 1 crown.
the Danes and even Norse had their share of defeats by raiders also. Danish coasts where extremely vulnerable to devastating Slavic Wends (raiders) that used horses to devastate vast swathes up rivers and were a threat for far longer than Danes were to the English, not converting until the mid 12th century either.
@@50shekels There seems to be a lot of influence both ways. William of Normandy was of “Viking” descent but realistically was very far removed from what people consider “Vikings” stop smoking that pop-culture stuff man.
@@shymebc Danes are also Norse, it is a General term for all Scandinavians, Anglo-Saxons were also Danes plus Dutch and Northern Germans , the dna of Danish Vikings and Anglo.Saxons are the same (if you want to talk about "race" although the right word is tribe)
@@veronicajensen7690 Scandinavian and north Germanic culture was nearly identical sharing a root culture.
near identical helmets like that at Sutton Hoo have been found in southern Sweden.
By the end of migration period is when the two cultures diverge from Anglo-Saxon to Scandinavian.
The north most of the north Germanic were resettled by Danes.
whilst the Frisians who share a VERY similar language to pre-Norman England migrate to Britain in lower numbers and their land is devastated by weather, their land becomes the Netherlands forming the Dutch, who were a Germanic people also.
Its a mess.
Ive always been a fan of this channel but Vinland(anime) got me back here
Hats off, Kings and Generals, you never fail to delight us!
You're doing a million dollar job. Keep it up. This is the way
I think you'll find they didn't lose. The heats aren't important it's the final that counts!
Did they?
No
Is the map shown here available anywhere? It's awesome
_Sceatas_ is pronounced roughly as _shatters_ (and thus _sceat_ as _shat_ ) according to my MA supervisor, an English emeritus professor who specialises in mediaeval technology. Otherwise: Very interesting and well produced, as one has come to expect from this channel.