Thanks to /u/A-username-for-me for the run and everyone else who commented in the last thread
Next get is in the year 14,000
Just a question. Is it possible to go that far back. I have personally traced a line all the way back to Rollo and I'm able to grace his family all the way back down to my 4x Great Grandpa. But idk how true it is.
How far back an you go before almost everything is Fake? How far back would take you to just mythological and mde up people?
As far as I know William the Conqueror’s claim to the throne was predicated on two things - his relation to Emma of Normandy and a supposed promise made by Edward the Confessor.
Were these seriously the basis for his claim to the throne? And if so, why were they considered to be strong enough for the Pope to support his invasion?
I was reading up a bit on Duke William of Normandy's pre-1066 life, and learned quite a few interesting things about his relationship with local lords and even King Henry I himself. From what I understand, once William assumed the role of Duke after his father Robert's death in Palestine, he was more of less an "outlaw duke" for nearly a decade while he and his allies attempted to consolidate power. There were several Norman barons and counts who either wanted him dead or another claimant to take his place.
He escaped an assassination attempt and pleaded with Henry to help him put down his vassals rebellion, which he did, and they won the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes together, more or less cementing his status as Duke of Normandy (though much fighting remained). It seems like Henry helped him with a few more years of fighting as well, to protect his vassal.
Where I start to get confused, is when Henry turns on William, and attacks him in the Battles of Mortemer and Varaville. I only found a single wikipedia entry about these, and they weren't linked to an official war or rebellion of any sort, it basically just mentioned William winning decisively. I do understand early French kings were sort of babysitters in a sea of more powerful semi-autonomous vassals, but this seems drastic to outright attack him.
My question is basically this: How can a King attack his vassal (seemingly randomly; I understand he thought William was getting too powerful but is that really a justification?) and not have it be considered an all out war? Did William essentially consider himself independent once Henry attacked and he was no longer under feudal obligations to the king? If that were the case, I don't see why he would later consider himself a vassal of the King of France post-conquest. I'm just having a hard time reconciling the hostilities between lord and king, in a scenario where it's just skimirishes that ultimately don't mean anything legally or politically. It must have had some sort of ramifications in early medieval french law, no?
Thanks for any insight at all! I love French medieval history and want to learn as much as I can.
Continued from here. Congrats to /u/GarlicoinAccount for the assist, and thanks to all the counters in the previous thread.
Clearly, the second army to invade would be in an obvious advantage as the victor of the first battle would suffer casualties regardless of the outcome. This was evident when at the battle of Hastings, William faced a Godwinson army that was weakened from the Battle against Hardrada at Stamford Bridge the month before.
So was William aware of Hardrada's plans and waited for him to attack first, or was it just a coincidence?
How long did it take William to actually sail from France to England? Did the whole army cross at once?
The Battle of the bastards
King George I was born as a German in Hanover. He became the king of Britain through a marriage. We all know that he couldn’t speak English. So did he introduce German words into English?
If he didn’t, what was the reason that William The Conqueror can bring in French vocabulary while King George couldn't?