The True Story of 2 of England's Most EVIL Kings | Æthelred the Unready & William the Conqueror 

Glad you enjoyed it!

Agreed under william the Normans force was a war machine, brutal but great man

@@historyprofiles i think its fair to say this was th strt of the nrth south divide....evn to this day the upper classes speak with a vocabulary thts derived frm french

My English family traces our ancestors back to a knight who fought for William I at the Battle of Hastings. Confirmed it with church records in Normandie. 😁

Thank you so much! It really means a lot!

Thank you so much it really means a lot! That’s so sad, I’m so sorry my condolences. Your kind words really do mean a lot to me though! Thank you so much for supporting the channel!

Thank you again, viking England is one of my favourites! Hope you enjoyed man! Keep going! Your doing amazing!

I’m just a stranger on the internet but read your comment when I don’t look at them much. I wanted to send my condolences, thank you for your service, and wish you luck. You’re obviously a good dude, I hope things look better for you soon! (and I agree - love his channel!)

Thank you so much for watching Elke!!

​@@historyprofiles My pleasure! Working and listening, also the ads! 👍🏻 Great video as always. Thank you Ollie

Fair point, but at the time the Danes and northern had set up communities in the Dane law from the year 845 and the St Brice’s day massacre was 150 years after, do you know how many generations of people that is that would have settled there? At the time England was a nation for all tribes, as many living in the danelaw was Anglo-Scandinavian obviously being mixed so many would consider it evil, it wasn’t the settlers fault the Vikings came back to England and raided. The armies were then paid off and aethelred took out his wrath on innocents

Because he was a weak king

Ethelred did nothing wrong.

​@@historyprofiles doesn't change much. The Danes were still foreigners who let's not forget descended from people who massacred English people.

And now England is once again under foreign rule

Thank you so much! Your comment really means a lot! I’m glad your enjoying the content! More on the way!

Thank you so much for watching! I hope you enjoyed it! Yes not many people do highlight that, Edward the confessor was basically a Norman, he spent the first half of his life in the Norman court, so he definitely related to the Norman lords more than the Anglo-Saxon ones

Thank you so much! A lot of work went into the video so your comment really means a lot! ❤️

Welcome aboard! Thank you so much for watching!

Thank you for watching!!

Fair point, but at the time the Danes and northern had set up communities in the Dane law from the year 845 and the St Brice’s day massacre was 150 years after, do you know how many generations of people that is that would have settled there? At the time England was a nation for all tribes, as many living in the danelaw was Anglo-Scandinavian obviously being mixed so many would consider it evil, it wasn’t the settlers fault the Vikings came back to England and raided. The armies were then paid off and aethelred took out his wrath on innocents

Sounds more spiteful than great

​​@@historyprofiles Frankly I respect Sweyn Forkbeard more than Æthelred II aptly named Unræd ("poor counsel," as in doesn't listen to sense, chooses bad advisers.) Not a good trait in a king. It snowballs into poor decisions, immature & poorly thought out strategies, emotional choices of tactics, but his point was if they'd attack his villages, he'd attack their settlers. Æthelred "the Unready" comes from deliberate alteration of Unræd, shifting blame from the advisers to himself & rightly so bc a king needs to be able to hear wiser minds. Sweyn was wise, an excellent strategist, perceptive & a seasoned warrior capable of drawing on his own experience & knowing whose input was sage. He read & led men well, carried out goals. It is his goal & effective strategy that was a problem for the Anglo-Saxons. It had been peaceful, yes, but in the 980s the Danes began raiding again, from within the Danelaw into surrounding areas, & were welcoming Ostmen landing & using the Danelaw as a base, including parts of Yorkshire & Northumberland. As more raiders a'viking came it escalated into the 990s & from 991 & his loss at the battle of Maldon Æthelred was paying Danegeld to the Danish king, in other words, his lands were in effect occupied, his reign being held for ransom. Pay or be annihilated bc the Danes had far more troops the could bring including the wilder Norsemen /Norwegians. Norse raided in swoop & leave style. Danes had the objective of settlement & conquest, establishing a base then trade center & settlement then expansion of area of control. The Swedes were less actively doing this at the time. There was the threat of far more men including the fiercest Norse allies, which were most feared. He hadn't exactly paid the army off. It was akin to a protection racket & he was under their thumbs. While the settler community was trading & not raiding they were sheltering the raiders & it escalated into enough fighters there to make the raids increasingly incessant & then the battles, which he finally lost to the Danes at Maldon. It never was that all Danes were Vikings, but they were of the culture, it was their normal, just everyone had their own jobs, bc a community has multiple needs. They had always intended to take the island or a vast majority of it, they just did so in stages & Sweyn did end up king. The Danelaw was in effect Danish occupation & every member of it aware & for it, their leadership king of both the Danelaw & what's now Denmark - no difference to them, all one territory on different lands. Denmark still holds lands not in Denmark & held others til modern times. He had to fight back, they were making sudden attacks on the villages surrounding the Danelaw, & going farther & farther both in distance & violence. The two groups were fighting each other, over his land, as the Danes were occupying with the precise purpose of gradually clearing lands for expansion as people feared the raids & those surviving packed up their stuff & migrated farther inland. Æthelred's people were losing their land, his kingdom was losing its land, & he was paying the Danish kingdom for the privilege & he knew the Danelaw was the base of operations, we'd call it today, for that ongoing objective. His people were getting whooped & uprooted, at best, & angry with him for not having already wiped out the Danes & Danelaw. The root of the poorly advised reputation was that he had sought to coexist with the occupiers who had claimed that land through extreme violence. Danes & Norse were feared for a reason. Intermarriage with them began before it was just descendants, but during the initial violent seizing of lands, & the Anglo-Saxons for the most part saw that as treasonous or seeking to profit by joining the fierce invaders. To this day the percentage of Viking DNA is very high in parts of Yorkshire, Northumberland & Durham, & the Scottish islands especially Orkney. It's terrible when any leader aims for annihilation rather than cooperation. & It's the times, too, though, Viking age. Meanwhile in other lands, same armies or hit & run raiding leading to battles. Sweyn saw Æthelred as weak bc of his attempts at peace, his tolerance of their presence, & the way in which he went about it, unsure of himself, not an Alpha, too hesitant, supremely unprepared to immediately repel invasion. Æthelred knew Danes were landing, Vikings,& tried to ignore it, to his downfall & eventual assault on the settlerments. So this was WEAK. Attempted avoidance of meeting the stronger of those peoples! He did it while many fighting men were away, calling it strategic. It looked like fear, & was. Sweyn goaded Æthelred & they all did - the fighting men within the community & those landing from mainland Dane lands, & the settlement. Æ. was mocked. It's his ego that responded in this way out of reaction not tactics. He wasn't seen as fierce but I'll advised not just by others but his own thinking. He's belittled, just as Putin is called a megalomaniac mass murderer but not a sharp wise mind, impaired & of course characteristics that are different from Æthelred too. But no respect for life, no sense, no mature diplomatic cunning & sense. I digress. There was a symbolic gesture finally in around 987 of several men burning the boats. It's where "you'll never take the island if you don't burn the boats" comes from. The Danes were always going to conquer the majority of the island & leave the edges for Scottish, Welsh & Cornish, the Celts they respected more. The Anglo-Saxons though, they were there to rule over. And they did. He was trying to stop them, poorly. And stupid men seek to annihilate not align& ally with. Sweyn would not have been able to ally with such an irresponsible & childish man though bc the action you rightly call out was a desperate tantrum by a weak leader. My only issue is that he was indeed a weak mind & I think it's important we recognize genocide as a weak minded action bc it still is going on in multiple places & half the people in "civilized" areas will support it. All Æthelred could have done was to allow the Danes to rule for the survival of his people who would not then have been raided & killed bc Danish Vikings would coexist when settling. Æthelred's 1st error was in overestimating his ability & acting in panic against a far stronger force. His peasants could not possibly have consistently held the land & loss was inevitable & knowing that a wise man saves lives & lets time lead to opportunity later. Dead men have none. He aimed it at them instead of seeing it through the eyes & losses of his people. His obvious lack of strength of mind led to those increasing raids in the first place. He hesitated then took action that resulted in a mass landing & the Danish king kicking his ____ & taking the kingdom. The man was just a fool & yes, they're dangerous. But I can't see him as a fierce warrior. Stupid careless man with troops. & I'm really just adding insult & belittlement to your take on this to double the allegations of the guy thoroughly sucking! 😂 He was even worse! He didn't think Scandinavia would arm the Danelaw, & send hordes of boats full of men?! He had spies in their lands! He was arrogant as insecure men always are! But he did have reason to attack, he should have faced the fighters immediately though & accepted the outcome bc he led to far more hardship & agony & loss of life by postponing.

​@WildWoodsGirl65 actually it is perfectly evolved but rejects the divinity within every human being. You cannot justify not killing without believing in God or at the very least believing in the potential divine action of men. The origin of that idea is with judaism.❤

​@RougeSanta sounds very revisionist take to me. History interpreted through a DIE lens.

Hope you enjoyed it!

Thank you so much for watching! Hope you enjoyed the video!

I enjoy ALL of your videos mate 🙏🏾

Thank you so much for watching!

Thank you so much for watching!! I hope you enjoyed!

@@historyprofiles I did

Fair point, but at the time the Danes and northern had set up communities in the Dane law from the year 845 and the St Brice’s day massacre was 150 years after, do you know how many generations of people that is that would have settled there? At the time England was a nation for all tribes, as many living in the danelaw was Anglo-Scandinavian obviously being mixed so many would consider it evil, it wasn’t the settlers fault the Vikings came back to England and raided. The armies were then paid off and aethelred took out his wrath on innocents

I love these facts, Harold needs his own video to point out the treachery of his brother Tostitg! Harold Godwin son is one of my favourite English kings, just a shame he lasted so little time on the throne

ALBA CABRATH!

It was a thousand years ago. Let it go.

😂

Backstabbing bastard, hahaha

You can be talented and evil at the same time. William could have won the war in Northumbria without the harrying of the north. That’s why his own chroniclers said that god would not forgive him. In his wrath he ordered that common folk be cut down; their homes burned and fields reduced to ash. I don’t think you understand the scope of what happened there. Nearly every field in the north on England was reduced to ash, and 75% of the population was killed. William was an amazing warrior and administrator, but his frustration with Edgar arthling who the northerners saw as their true king and their unwillingness to submit is what caused Williams fury. Yes the northerners resisted his rule, but morality isn’t subjective to time. There has always been good and bad. And in his fury William chose the latter

@@historyprofilesno he couldn’t. He HAD to kill everyone. It was the only way to be sure his rule would be solidified and his dynasty secured. Sometimes you have to do a great evil for a greater good. That is what it means to be king, the ability to compromise your morals for the benefit of the realm and your family. Dude was just a product of his time. Sometimes you just have to commit to the role.

@@mosellakepoint9088 that makes no sense though. He spared Edgar ethling and exiled him, so the line of Wessex lived on. Therefore the threat was always there for his line to be overthrown. It’s a difficult argument to be honest I get your point though. The harrying broke the spirits of those left and the rest died.

​@@mosellakepoint9088No that's not what it is to be king William the conqueror was just evil and a real king was his son Henry I

William was simply evil and wasn't talented he didn't do things because that's what a king is supposed to do he did them out of spite and cruelty and when your own chroniclers don't like that means you're horrible

Scripts are being written research is getting done! I’m a one man band so give me time!!! Which one would you rather prefer though?

@historyprofiles Whatever You prefer Sir. Trust Your great judgment and knowledge about medieval history! My youngest son wants to study high and low medieval history, cause of Your phenomenal content, so we really apreciate Your work! We take it all, as it comes! Thank You once more! Best chanel on RU-vid, no doubts about it.

@@NomadX7 that’s amazing!!! It’s crazy to think I have an impact like that! That really made me smile! Thank you so much for watching and showing the content to your kids it really means a lot!!

Morning. More impact that You might imagine! We love the editing also so keep up the great great work! Thank You.

I'm sure it will be very interesting. I lived Portugal for 14 years. I will look forward to it. As learnt much about Portuguese History. More than a brief overview, but not as detailed as this channel delivers.

Yes! He only lost marginally at Hastings was a very close encounter! Could have gone either way!

You might not be alive today if you have a distant relative to any of those involved in the Battle

@@historyprofiles He should have refused to engage the Normans in battle immediately and raised a larger army. It was a bad idea to face them immediately following the battle of Stamford Bridge. Easy to say with 1000 years of hindsight however.

wuld it be fair to say tht if he had england wuld be a fairer more equal society 2day? more like other germanic / Scandinavian states?

indeed she was

Thank you so much for watching!!!

So do over 25% of people of European ancestry. The number of people who share this as though it’s some kind of flex is mind blowing.

Indeed! The Anglo Saxon shield wall was pushing the Norman’s back at one point! However under the conquerer the Norman’s were a war machine. His cavalry tactics in the end manages to win the day by outflanking the old shield wall tactic. This that day William was immortalised

@@historyprofiles 🛡⚔️

William came in backstabbing after the viking battle. Bastard move.

What about the st Bruce’s day massacre and him saying in a charter it was a just extermination? Sounds wicked to me, he was called the unready because every time the Vikings came to England he paid them instead of assembling a force to fight a pitched battle

@@historyprofiles because he was badly advised, I just think he's more weak than evil. People don't curse his name like John.

​@@bruceplenderleith838he was badly advised and evil imagine having 10k killed and you say that person wasn't evil

@@SandileNgwenya-gv7nx are you kidding me they invaded these islands, murdered whole monastery's destroyed whole villages. Saxons and Vikings fought three wars. Edward The Unready is not considered a bad king, but what do I know I just grew up by one of their biggest battle sites

​​@@bruceplenderleith838 You're completely right about that! From what I've read about Æthelred, he did order the killing, but it was only after he got that suggestion from his council. He didn't just wake up one day and decide to order it. Plus, the archeological evidence we have suggests that the massacre wasn't as bad as it is described as. And the vikings that were killed were either mercenaries or just newly settled ones around Oxford. Now I can say that no, the massacre wasn't good and it could've been avoided. But we also have to note that it was in 1002, when killings like that were a normal Tuesday. Plus the killing was only a last resort after many, MANY viking raids. So yeah, we can't call Æthelred evil. Just very, VERY weak! (The source I got this information from was Levi Roache's "Æthelred the Unready" book) (Also I apologise for my bad spelling and grammar, English is not my first language)

You are correct, the Anglo Saxon chronicle mentions the Siege of Rochester castle so it must have been a fortification of some sort before the Norman castle we know today was built

You and every other white American.

Actually this should be a lessob n to not rebel too much or protest too much about lifes Even the best of rulers have their tyrant side Do notp povoke them to unleash their worsts just because we complaint too much

haha I hope you enjoyed it! That's so cool though!

My cousin did a lot of genetic tracing in my mom’s side of our family and we too, are! Back to Rollo the walker! William had a very tough upbringing after his father died. That was where he became metal as hell.

Hello Cousins 👋

Longshanks was a hard man in brutal times. He was like most kings of that age. I'm not defending him; I'm a Fraser, a direct descendant of The Bruce and proud of it. But we can't judge people 800 years ago by modern standards.

With good reason. At least Edward I, II, and III. Edward IV had more than enough problems in England to keep him out of Scotland. But, the England- Scotland conflicts were no more vicious or brutal than any other wars during the Mediaeval Period. Me, I'm a Fraser. Of Lovat. My immigrant ancestor to America was "transported" after the 1715 Rebellion. A younger brother of Simon The Fox. I'm directly descended from the "Edwards" as well as MOST Kings of the Scots/ of Scotland, from Kenneth MacAlpin to James V. Most of the Dunkelds, all the Bruces, and all the Stewarts. I'm as closely related to William Wallace as anyone else now living, as I'm directly descended from 2 or 3 of his siblings. Funny thing: the eldest son of my immigrant ancestor, a Daniel Fraser, was with his father as a 12-yr- old boy in "The Fifteen." But, his father got him released and sent home to Inverness. Since most of the Lovat Frasers had stayed out of that fight, young Daniel wasn't treated well. After his period of SLAVERY, his father brought him to North Carolina. The rest followed soon after. ANYWAY. Daniel was in his 50s when the French & Indian War/ 7 Years War broke out, but still healthy and fit. His cousin, Young Simon Fraser, came over with his regiment of Highlanders, mostly Frasers. He got Daniel commissioned as a Major in the British Army - not militia, like George Washington. They fought together and remained dear friends until Daniel's death. I am now the "caretaker" of his sword and a few other things. He also received HUGE Land Grants for his service. This young Simon returned as General Fraser in the American Revolution, but the friendship was over. Daniel's son, my direct ancestor, was a rifleman in the Continental Army. In one battle, he could've easily killed General Fraser, but instead shot off his hat, then yelled greetings to him saying that shot was because of his father. Next time it'd be through his head. They never crossed paths again.

Very true, ivar the boneless turned Dublin into one of the slave trade capitals of the world at the time. They did bring a lot of pain and death to Europe and beyond. Their legacy is one of conquest, murder, the establishment of dynasties and their differing religion (before their conversion to Christianity)

Very true!!! Thank you for watching!

😂😂😂😂 that’s actually funny, left Edmund with a divided country and a Viking invasion!

​@@historyprofilesyep edmund had a up hill struggle left to him. Regia anglorum the viking age is our core period.

@@WarDogMadness I love that! Love re-enactments too! Thank you for keeping history alive!

Down to luck. The Scots successful campaign in Yorkshire included a night attack on the English camp at Stamford Park. The young Edward III hid under a collapsed tent. 😂

The video dosnt really cover Harold that much or go into his character, mainly the stories of aethelred the unready and William the conqueror! When the rebels of Northumbria rebelled against William causing the harrying of the north is what the video is mainly about! I’m covering Harold godwinson this week though! Going into a bit of earl godwins story and the complete story of Harold godwinson and his rise to power

Who would you rank as the most evil?

Care to elaborate?

A remark likethat requires elaboration

John or Henry viii in terms of mortality. Incompetence Henry vi

@@historyprofiles It does seem to be a curiously modern take that William the Conqueror, who committed ethnic genocide but presided over an otherwise peaceful reign, is viewed as evil, whereas Edward III and Henry V, who started wars that killed thousands and thousands of people for base territorial gain and glory, are viewed as morally reasonable people and men of their time. I would regard all these kings as being immoral, especially Henry V who invaded France despite the French having been willing to grant him major diplomatic concessions without him needing to lift a sword. He chose war and death in huge numbers on both sides, and I fail to see how he should escape judgement simply because he won a lucky victory at Agincourt and did not do his killing along ethnic lines. The kings that are traditionally considered "bad" kings - Richard II, John, Edward II, seem like lesser evils frankly, despite them not having provided anything like good rule. In terms of good English kings, in all honesty Alfred the Great stands out to me, even as a non-Englishman.

😂

Ridiculous comment.

Unfortunately there’s hardly any artwork in chronicles for 10th and 11th century England. I added the images of every chronicle and manuscript I could at the time, such as the image of Sweyn conquering England. I like to add other images though for the imaginative feel, not keeping every image the same and making the video more visually appealing

@@historyprofiles Yes, that's understandable, but I think there is a danger that some viewers will get misconceptions as to what was going on in differing periods, it's amazing what people take in, even unconsciously.

@@rjlchristie i completely understand your point. Will be more mindful in future videos

@@historyprofiles I think that if you do this in future videos, it would be a good idea to add captions explaining that this is artwork from chronicles from later centuries. People living in the 14th century apparently either didn't seem to appreciate that people had different clothing/armour/weapons in previous centuries, or, if they did, chose not to portray that in chronicles. Personally I find it hard to believe they can have been completely ignorant of historical change, and perhaps they decided to portray historical knights as modern day knights for other reasons. There must have been physical examples of, say, 13th century armour in the 14th century, on statues, tomb effigies and so on, so people must have been aware, not to mention stories from older generations, and we know that armour evolved rapidly over this period, so they must have had knowledge of this change, but chose not to portray it in artwork for some reason. In the same way Biblical scenes are often curiously depicted with people dressed in a classic medieval fashion, and yet (albeit later, Renaissance) artwork shows they knew that biblical figures did not look or dress like your average contemporary European. It's a fascinating topic.

RU-vid can delete comments on its own if there deemed inappropriate! No idea though Hope you enjoyed the video!

​@@historyprofiles yeah the vid amazing bro.

Actually they had settled in England for over 150 years at that point, many of them settled in the danelaw after Alfred’s treaty with guthrum and generations of Anglo-Scandinavians had been living in England by the time aethelred come to the throne some 100 years later.

Rishi sunak isn't taking any revenge for India and he is losing the election next month

@@SandileNgwenya-gv7nx 6 millions of muslims ,not a a reveng for you?.