>win a single battle. >gain 90% warscore. >entire country is yours 2 months later

>win a single battle
>gain 90% warscore
>entire country is yours 2 months later
How did this happen

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Londoners have always been crypto-Jews and they quickly sided with him, after a nominal show of opposition. Once that happened, it was game over.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s like domesticating animals. You simply insert yourself as the alpha at the head of the hierarchy. The lessers are born to follow the leader, who is now you.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bassically lol. Think of it like a oligarchy. A small elite gets taken out and replaced but it's back to bussiness with different elites. The spaniard did that in the new world. The Norman in England. Romans in many places. Turks in Anatolia.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A small elite gets taken out and replaced but it's back to bussiness with different elites
        Basically every power swap in history.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Think of it like a oligarchy.
        Nah. Oligarchy is much less resistant. Oligarchy fights with other people hands, you can seduce those mercs. Feudal fights with his own hands.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Beat concentrated enemy army
    >Scatter your vassals across the country with keeps
    >Norman heavy knights are incredibly effective at destroying any scattered resistance, and have safe place of refuge at their respective keeps
    >Starve like 1/3 of the country into submission in the subsequent years after 1066
    It's just that easy, England wasn't ready for the Feudalism+Keep tech

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it was pretty much a case of it being hard to raise new armies back then due to the way the system work and the available tech at the time meaning often times you just need to decisive victory to win a war quickly, it was only when large scale centralization that you saw it become much harder to win a war in a single battle, and then when the farming revolution followed by the industrial revolution happened it pretty much became impossible for those types of scenarios to happen if both states are on equal footing

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    didnt the english king die in combat? iirc that's pretty much why his victory was so total

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's not just that, the main nobles who could have taken his place were also at the battle and were either captured or killed too.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This definitely sealed the deal. Back in a time where so many would have believed that this or that was the will of God, it would have been easier to accept that William was in fact God’s chosen king simply because he won and because Harold died on the battlefield. That, and William actually carried a Papal standard with him during the battle, since the then-Pope recognized William as the proper heir of Edward the Confessor. That was a very significant endorsement.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        With his death on the battlefield, the idea that Harold’s short-lived kingship was in fact illegitimate (something William of course insisted) was probably much easier for the common people to accept.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Real life isn’t an EU4 meme and most of the Saxon senior nobility was dead. There’s a reason they made an actual child king after Hastings. Kind of hard to mount an effective military effort when you have no leaders.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Greetings from Somerset. I hate Normans so much it's unreal.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >warscore

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't the English also have to repel an invasion from Norway like 2 weeks earlier?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, but Hardrada died, so the Norse menace was gone forever. Such a cool guy, though. I'd listen to his podcast.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Medieval politics focused on nobles fulfilling their obligations to their king.

    Hastings saw Harold Godwinson rout an army of Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge. But this was a bloody battle and then Harold Godwinson made the move of disbanding his army. He then had to reform his army when he heard of William's landing to the South. This meant his army was scattered, tired, and what he brought with him was effectively his core/elite forces.

    Hastings was bloody for both sides but the Anglo-Saxon forces were completely routed. This left no real viable alternative (thought they tried) for the Anglo-Saxons to rally behind. Harold Godwinson and his brothers were dead. Communications were shit. The best of the English soldiers were dead or scattered. And the English had no real castles, relying on motte and bailies which while good for subjugating bandits were not effective at resisting a Norman host.

    The other aftermath of Hastings was a good chunk of the Anglo-Saxon nobility and their men-at-arms were dead. This made it easier for Norman lords and their soldiers to take control of the countryside. Peasants did not really give enough of a shit to resist their lords since the Norman Conquest, for the most part, did not dramatically change the day-to-day life of the peasantry. So the only class that cared to resist the Normans, the Anglo-Saxon nobility, were dead and no one was left to resist.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Very interesting post anon.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Willy had a claim on the throne and defeated any counter claimers, simple as

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How did this happen
    It didn't
    It took William 4 years to fully pacify England, which involved a genocidal campaign against areas of resistance

    >Harrying of the North
    >Contemporary chronicles vividly record the savagery of the campaign, the huge scale of the destruction and the widespread famine caused by looting, burning and slaughtering
    >Records from the Domesday Book of 1086 suggest that as much as 75% of the population could have died or never returned.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Godwinson's hold on power was extremely tenuous and he likely was not seen as very legitimate.
    Anyone that beat him would have been given the crown because he didn't appear to be particularly popular.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. A lot of people don’t know about his father, Godwin, and what he did. Godwin was an unscrupulous and completely self-interested ladder climber, and it was he himself who had Edward the Confessor’s brother kidnapped and blinded, from which the prince died, and from which young Edward barely escaped with his life. And why did he do this? Because Godwin had decided to support Cnut over Æthelred. Godwin had also been so zealous and ambitious that he amassed enough wealth and land to become the most powerful earl in England, and after Cnut and his sons died childless, when Edward the Confessor was called to the throne, Godwin was able to throw his weight around and to strong-arm King Edward into marrying his daughter, Edith.

      While Godwin could all but force this, he couldn’t force Edward to impregnate her, and thus she never conceived, which really doesn’t strike me as a coincidence. It’s more than likely that King Edward hated and never forgave Godwin — why would he? And we often forget that Edward spent basically half his life in Normandy living under the protection of his relatives there. It’s hard to imagine him being on good terms with Godwin and his kin. And most notably, Harold maintained that his right to the throne came from Edward’s deathbed decision. If I remember correctly, William was Edward’s acknowledged heir (they were cousins after all) for years on end before he died. So apparently he has a last minute change of heart after years of maintaining a position, and then Harold has himself crowned the very next day (highly unusual)? Yeah, totally normal, and definitely not usurpation.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The leader died, so they had to elect a new one but he didn't have the support the other one had.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >all the anglo-saxon Harold supporting nobility accumulates in one place to face William
    >they get utterly crushed and most of them die or are made prisoners
    >no unifying figure to rally behind nor middle men feudal holders to actually command their vassals to recruit peasants into new armies
    >the lower nobility survives but has no one to lead them into a united force and gets genocided and gradually replaced by normans during the next decade

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To use an analogy it would be as if the entire upper and middle tiers of the american command hierarchy got killed and only town majors and minor national guard officers survived.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is how feudaliam works. That is material and spiritual institutions to allow small gang of bandits to oppress and exploit many. You remove that gang and insert yourself into their place and it done, oppressed by system design has so many disadvantages they can only accept it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *