William the Conqueror

What does Veeky Forums think about William the Conqueror?

Fun facts are appreciated as long as there are citations present.

He really was quite the bastard.

Did he do anything wrong?
Was the conquest benefitial or detrimental?

There was something I've never understood about the campaign leading up to Hastings.

By all account, both WIlliam and Harald are pretty good tacticians, but in light of that, William's actions leading up to Hastings have always confused me at least.

So William lands near Pevensey at around Pevensey on about September 28th. He then constructs a motte and bailey, raids the surrounding countryside, but makes little move to strike deep into England or march on London, seemingly content to let Harald come to him.

Harald does so, marching down from on north where he was fighting the other Harald. He takes up position at the hill on Hastings, a short way away from where William is encamped. William apparently makes no move to react to this, except to attack the next morning.

Like I said, this never made much sense to me. William didn't seem to be in a rush much earlier, didn't go north to meet Harald nor turned to trike at something that would force Harald do engage him (London perhaps) But he ttacks Harald's army in just about the only sort of terrain that gives Harald a chance against his cavalry suprmacy, which would be something I would normally attribute to feeling constrained for time and wanting to settle this quickly.

Anyone have any ideas as to how to reconcile this?

If I remember Harold just force marched his army like 100miles right? While Williams are gonna be very fresh

Also they have just fought another battle not long ago

I'm referring to the fact that he actually was a bastard. As in the illegitimate son of the Duke of Normandy.

He was French.

For all it matters the invasion was followed by most of Englands wodden churches Mystically burning down and getting replaced by stone Churches of continental model.

True, but

A) I'm not sure if William knew Harald's location when he landed, or how long it would have taken him to find out.

B) If he does know Harald is up north, why not march on say, London before he gets there, and now you get to fight him after a long forced march AND have the biggest city in the country (such as it is), and hopefully fight him somewhere flatter and with fewer trees.

a screen shot of picture on your fucking phone
kill this thread

single best thing to ever happen to england ever

He destroyed one of the most unique cultures of Europe and genocided hundreds of thousands of Englisc people. A deplorable human who deserved the grisly and lonely death he was given.

London had walls though.

well thats depressing.

Taking london is not an easy task though, if he did that his army would be tired and there's no guarantee that he could take the city before harald came back.

He destroyed a shitty inferior "culture" and gave them superior French culture that allowed England to become relevant

There is nothing interesting about him.

He turned England into a backwater shithole, England under Alfred the great was the most prosperous state in Europe after karl the great's empire

citation?

He's a great (x20) grandfather of mine.

20ish*

William was the man who united all the disperate cultures of Britain under one banner.

I'm sure he fucked a lot of women user

Why didn't Harald just wait to recuperate? Surely it would have been better to cede some land in the short term and retain an army, possibly bolstering it and rallying more support? Draining William slowly guerilla style?

The fact that William had a major rebellion after he won might suggest that the English were in a position of relative strength?

This is a myth, there were "rulers of Britain" before William.

Harald had to work around this bizarre system of feudal obligations; he could only get his men to serve for 45 or 60 days at a time. Now, I'm not sure how long the period between recall was, but for instance, William timed his crossing of the channel to when Harald had to decommission his fleet because their obligations were up.

So while he "should Have been able to wait, in practice, owing to the structures of his government and how it mobilized for war, it couldn't.

And it's worth noting that it wasn't just Alfred, but his descendent as well. Aethelfaed continued his dedication to learning and literacy.

England under the, well, English was astoundingly literate and learned for the time.

It's not so bizarre since the English had no standing army, Rather they would raise a fyrd under the huscarls to fight when it was required.

At all other times there was no King's army "patrolling" the land and therefore the English were much freer than their continental counterparts.

It's also worth noting that many aspects of Common Law and checks against authority and power started with the English of this time.

Also:
>you will never read the countless saxon books lost in the cotton library fire

But having the final parts of The Ruin burnt away is hauntingly poetic.

Yeah, but it's not like standing armies were common on the continent either, Germany, Poland, Iberia, et al were also relying on feudal systems of obligation in the 11th century. But they usually seemed to have a bit more flexibility, ti would have been practically a form of revolt to leave the campaign because your time was technically up but there was an enemy army encamped 40 miles or so from the capital.


I didn't mean to imply that a feudal system of obligation was bizarre, but the way it was implemented in Anglo-Saxon England was certainly not the norm, and a large part behind why they ultimate lost.

How was it for the Welsh and Scots?
I know the Irish had something similar going for them for a while.
This makes me sad that CKII or total war will never be complex enough to count factors like this in.

Thanks for the replies.

>He destroyed a shitty inferior "culture" and gave them superior French culture that allowed England to become relevant
One of the most stupid things I've ever read on this board.

I don't know why but the whole conquest of England always sounded hilarious as hell to me.

I found the 1st Crusade fraught with blunders, yet leading to ultimate success quite hilarious.

Ur not alone f a m.

Not quite to the degree that the King was on the road to universal literacy. Or rather, that's what he really wanted. He was rather strange when it came to Literacy though. Despite learning Latin in his late thirties he would be saddened by its decline (Vikings + monasteries = decline in latin) while also championing the writing of English works.

Also the goddamn Anglo Saxon Chronicle.

wasn't he a bastard