How Did King Harold Really Die? | The Bayeux Tapestry Uncovered 

The (now lost) director’s commentary.

No, he was killed and his body was later identified by his mistress .

If he did escape dressed as a nun, I like to think he ran away in a haphazard pattern, while Benny Hill music played him off.

@@kev3d This is great 😂😂

Used to be a great warrior like you until I took an arrow to the knee.

That’s my impression too. But that he was cut down by multiple men after his brothers were killed

The two seem to be wearing the same outfit to support this conclusion too.

That's what I think.

I thought so as well, the arrow didn’t kill him, a group of Norman knights finished him off.

Been researching the Battle for nigh on 10 years and I’d rather put scenes 51b and 52 (and part of scene 53) at the roundabout at the top of Battle high street (skirmish). Main battle took place a further kilometre away at a place called Ashes Wood. The owners, the Forestry Commission, are supposedly investigating.

There are other quite interesting arguments that the battle took place further to the south around the village of Crowhurst. The inability of other proposed sites to account convincingly for the location of the Mill Fosse has always caused me to question whether they were the correct site. I think too that I am correct in saying that rather strangely in all these years the traditional site at Battle has never turned up so much as a link of chain mail an arrow head or spur or indeed any archeological evidence to support the widely held beief that it is indeed the battlefield.

@@kevingray3550 I can give you a rundown of the accepted and alternative sites, of which mine is different in that I propose two distinct sites. There's Battle Abbey ( English Heritage, nothing found), Caldbec Hill ( Grehan and Mace, nothing found), Crowhurst (Nick Austin, nothing relevant found ) Mini-roundabout near Abbey (Time Team, pre15th century axe found nearby), Ridge, east of Battle (Kathleen Tyson , nothing found ), Beech Farm ( S Coleman, Ed the Con coin and late Saxon stirrup found but are inadmissible evidence), Junction of A271 and B2096 (S Mansfield, nothing found), Junction of B2096 and Netherfield Hill Road ( S Mansfield, nothing found). So the only person with bragging rights at the moment is S Coleman. Hopefully when the Forestry Commission has finished searching their wood perhaps I'll have something to shout about.

So,the archaeologists are saying that king William,who was there, sort of forgot where he fought the battle and built battle abbey on the wrong site?

@@Trebor74 There is one 12th cent source that places Harold’s death at Battle Abbey, “ The Chronicle of Battle Abbey”. Unfortunately, it’s considered a load of lies and the Abbot concerned was excommunicated at the time ( circa 1152). The only other 12th cent source to mention the whereabouts of Harold’s death was William of Malmesbury, who wrote “ by tradition, Battle Abbey was built on the spot where Harold was killed”.

He’s almost always called William the Conqueror, never Duke William. That’s an Americanism and isn’t correct.

@@mazzaf7575 oh, i'm sorry...what exactly Was he called on the eve of the invasion, and all the years before since dad robert left him the dukedom and before he sailed the channel to conquer england?

​@@catspaw3815 Before William was named William The Conquerer, he was called three different names: 1: William, Duke of Normandy 2: Duke William 3: William The Bastard (Yes, that's what he was actually called.)

@@lilnoggin7601 Oui. Le Batard

And William was a thoroughly nasty piece of work---a standout in a world full of nasty pieces of work.

Out of curiosity.. Are you the John Rogers of video walks fame? If so, then are we getting another one soon please? 👍

In the Carmen it states William led the hit squad himself along with eustace II of Boulogne, Hugh of ponthieu (son of Hugh II of ponthieu) and lord giffard

Was only one battle, Stamford bridge. Fulford was fought by the earls Edwin and morcar

@@Trebor74 True enough, but I was never sure if any of Edwin & Morcar's men marched down to Hastings with Harold. It would be natural after Stamford Bridge to want to replace your losses.

A mistake like that is minor to the artistic inconsistencies of the tapestry. When Harold is offered the crown, the crown he wears in the next scene looks completely different from the one he was offered.

And how many people worked on it?

@Real Aiglon Thank you so much - fascinating, and answers so many questions!

You don't "win" a battle and then lose it. You either win or lose.

@@skepticalbadger That's missing the point. I am intimating that the English "won" from a perspective that A) they held the field at what SEEMED like the the end of the battle at dusk. B) The Normans (in my view) were routing and C) The English gave chase as they sensed they were victorious, which they would not have done otherwise. So I am arguing that from the English perspective, they sensed that they were victorious and had won the battle - for about 3 minutes after the Normans routed. In addition, I believe the very reason for including the scene of William removing his helmet was to draw attention to how unusual this course of action was. In most battles of the time, once a rout had begun, that would definitively been the end of the battle. This is why the English gave chase in the first place, as in their minds, they had clinched victory. It was the unique personal characteristics which led William to see this moment not as a portent of defeat, but a moment of sublime opportunity, which was captured in the scene in the Tapestry and led directly to the Normans "snatching victory from the jaws of defeat". I am not suggesting that the English actually WERE factually victorious. It's a fine distinction, but understanding this (I believe) is the key to understanding the key events within the battle as show in the tapestry and from the literary sources.

@@alexanderguesthistorical7842 I think you have a very good point my dear friend. I never actually thought that but looking at it makes more sense. Thank you for your input.

@@alexanderguesthistorical7842 I think from close to 1000 years away it would be hard to say having not been there. Harolds army was his second best which contributes on the level of how well trained his forces were. The Normans were actually a force of mercenaries drawn from al over Europe and generally both well trained and equipped. They also brought a force that was not we known on English battle fields. Cavalry. From an infantry point of view it is difficult to tell if a retreating/ repelled cavalry unit is retiring in good order or routing. Something noted in almost every historical use of cavalry. In short it looks a disorganised mess. Infantry routes are a different matter. Unused to seeing cavalry retire it is very possible the lesser trained and tired infantry on Harolds side took this as a sign and chased the retiring Normans. Sadly we will never know.

@@suburbiapheonix7960 Actually, no. I don't believe that is correct. I believe that with the correct understanding of the geography of the battle it is entirely possible to re-construct a cohesive narrative which conforms to the evidence we already have in the Bayeux Tapestry and the literary sources. 1) The shield wall itself was not oriented as per the conventional interpretation, with the shield wall occupying the ridge which now has the Abbey cloister upon it. It was oriented 90 degrees to the EAST, in a position which BLOCKED THE ROAD to London for William. This supposition is in-line with the Time Team's investigation into the battle where they had the shield wall placed at the modern road island towards Starrs Green. 2) Harold's position (shield wall) crossing the road was IN BETWEEN defended positions; left flank, heavily wooded area in a marshy depression impassable to cavalry. Right flank; defended by PRE-PREPARED DITCHES, cut by Harold in the summer time (before the battle). Harold's position was therefore massively impregnable even holding it with the small military force that he had collected. 3) The shield wall would not have broken ranks and forfieted the safety of the main defensive position, unless they sensed that they were safe to do so. In fact, the infantry was said to have been cut down by the Normans on a small hillock away from the main shield wall line - critically along with Gyrth and Leofwine, Harold's brothers and both second in command of the English forces. So the second in command of the English forces MUST have been complicit in the action to chase down the fleeing Normans. This flies in the face of the "lax discipline" theory. So I would re-iterate my supposition that all day long the shield wall held out despite massive attacks from the Normans. At dusk, the battle had effectively been TACTICALLY LOST by the Normans who began to FLEE. Sensing the moment of victory at hand, both Gyrth and Leofwine led the charge to chase the Normans off the field as was standard practice for the time. This left a gap in the shield wall. William then lifted his helmet to rally his troops to lead a split second decision to penetrate the gap in the shield wall and get to, and KILL the king. Which is exactly what hey did. The Normans then, had to essentially cover up (after the battle) the fact that they had LOST the battle in a tactical sense, and were only saved by the quick and resolute thinking of their commander William the Bastard. As that would have threatened the martial reputation that the Normans had of military invincibility. Yes. It all makes perfect sense. And tallies with the sources perfectly.

*you're

​@@VintageYakyu = 🤓

they were french, they called themselves french, it's not about what you think. after 3 centuries it was like this@@johnwallace2802

​english cope is incredible

Why then do they both have different coloured leggings?

Harold had a big problem about the timing of the battle and that was how an Anglo Saxon army was raised. Service was time limited and Harold had already used most of that time repelling the Viking invasion in the north where he had used his best troops. The forced march south to meet the Normans had most of his troops either exhausted or eave the army having done their time. Thus it was a very mixed bag of infantry that met the Normans that day of a mixture of trained and untrained levy. Harold had also hoped by blocking the road North the Normans might decide to fortify rather than give battle allowing time to pass and his main army to be available again. Another thing that is often wondered about is if the Normans had landed before the Viking host and the Battle at Senlac Hill taken place first with Harolds best troops on the field. The victor would have had to face a second battle and forced march but maybe with less urgency. Either way the destruction of the North would have been by an invader. The 'what if's ' are endless regarding 1066.

Harold didn't fight at fulford bridge. Neither did his army.

Shame he's a racist know-it-all bigot

Aww why is it fake? Is it because it debunks your false narrative of a black presence?

@@IrishCinnsealach Hello how are you doing today? Yes your correct all the kings and queens and nobility were black at that time so that had to be a fake my brother

@@tommyjohnson6410 😂😂😂 still suffering from delusions I see.

@@IrishCinnsealach i got some facts for you

@@tommyjohnson6410 so why not give them instead of typing you've got some?