Dear SLAL (not-related with ASOIAF) as a chilean im not very acquainted with UK history, I’m trying to understand what were the major factors in Willem the Conqueror victory over the saxons english nobles. Could you help me with a little details or a useful link? I would be very grateful. I expect that you understanded me, thanks and great blog!

warsofasoiaf:

I understand you just fine.

Well, one of the big things to understand is that King Edward the Confessor, when he died in 1066, didn’t have a clear heir. It was rumored that he roused himself from his coma long enough to commend the kingdom and his family to Harold Godwinson for protection, but that’s hardly a declarative: “Hey everyone, Harold Godwinson is my heir. Harold Godwinson, of the house of Godwin should inherit the throne.” When King Edward died, the
Witenagemot (an assemblage of the major figures of England both ecclesiastic and secular) elected Harold, but this was contested by two figures: Harald Hardrada of Norway and William the Conqueror of Normandy.

Harald based his claim off a verbal agreement between King Harthacnut (the predecessor to King Edward) and King Magnus of Norway uniting their two lands upon their death if one of them had no heir. He also allied with Harold’s brother Tostig, who had Northumbria taken from him thanks largely to the Northumbrian dislike of Tostig’s high taxes which he used to pay his housecarl mercenaries. Harald enjoyed initial success against the earls of England, but Harold marched rapidly from London (shades of Eddard being able to move so quickly to beat Jon Connington at Stoney Sept) and surprised Harald’s force at Stamford Bridge, winning a great victory and killing both Tostig and Harald Hardrada himself. However, his army was bleeding, and he’d face another threat.

William the Conqueror was from Normandy, which is where Edward the Confessor spent much of his time in exile before ascending the English throne. William based his claim that Edward had sworn that William would succeed him. William landed while Harold was in the north, and he was able to bring a good number of Norman nobles eager for lands in England. Harold moved to intercept, and the battle was drawn at Hastings. Harold seized the high ground, and William attempted to use feigned retreats to lure the English out of their shieldwall to better employ his cavalry. During the battle, Harold died. It’s not clear how Harold Godwinson died, but most accounts suggest that he took an arrow to the head (the Bayeux tapestry says the eye, others to another part of the head, either way, those tended to be fatal).

There are a few reasons why Harold lost at Hastings. One, Harold had little cavalry, affording him few tactical options against the more diverse Norman force. For two, and what I believe to be the most important factor, is that the English kept taking William’s bait and advancing from their position to be swept and encircled by William’s cavalry forces. Three, Harold had to deal with two separate invasions which exhausted his manpower. And finally, the random chaos of the battle that caused Harold to die was certainly bad news for the Saxon factions. Sometimes, you just get a bad break.

Hope that helps. You might want to ask @racefortheironthrone for his take. He’s a professional historian. I’m an amateur.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

So one factor not mentioned has to do with rest. Harold did an amazing job force-marching his men from Stamford Bridge to Hastings, but it left him with a tired and hungry army – and tired and hungry soldiers are particularly vulnerable to running out of energy in the midst of a battle.

Regarding the cavalry, they weren’t actually a problem as long as the Saxons held the high ground and remained in formation – the Norman cavalry, which didn’t have the couched lance and tended to throw lances instead, simply bounced off the shield wall and there’s lots of depictions of horses falling backwards down the hill with a spear or an axe buried in their heads. Indeed, the retreat of the Bretons shows how ineffective the cavalry were in the opening phases of the battle. (This is a major reason why I think Roose Bolton threw the Green Fork – there’s no feigned retreats to give him an excuse for abandoning the high ground).

But discipline was the key factor. As long as the Saxons held the high ground, they won – the moment they left the shield wall and ran down the hill, they died. Harold was the key figure keeping the Saxons in position, ordering that on no occasion should they chase the Normans. He had problems making this stick with the less professional elements of his army, especially when the rumor of William’s death created what looked like a perfect opportunity, and of course, once he died of a random arrow shot, command completely broke down, much of the army fled and was chased down, and only stood their ground and fought to the death.

Maester Steven, may I please ask if you have any thoughts on how the original Clark Kent’s time (1938) and place of origin might have shaped his way of thinking? (In the same way as your excellent article on Steve Rogers helped put Captain America in a historical context).

Well, I’m not as well versed on Superman as I am on Cap, but…

It’s not an accident that two second-generation Jewish guys from Cleveland create a character whose backstory heavily borrows from the Moses story, as Superman is an alien refugee who lands in the American Midwest and becomes the greatest adherent of “the American Way.” And it’s not an accident that in an early issue, Superman arrests Hitler and Stalin and hands them over to the League of Nations to be put on trial.

It’s also not an accident that in the Great Depression, Superman’s initial foes aren’t Brainiac or Lex Luthor but war profiteers, wife beaters, crooked politicians, and gangsters. The whole point of Superman is that he’s a supremely powerful person who uses his powers to defend ordinary people.

Do you know which road is connected to the King’s Gate, Dragon Gate, and Old Gate of King’s Landing? I know 1) Lion Gate/Goldroad 2) River Gate/Southern Kingsroad and Roseroad 3) Iron Gate/Rosby Road 4) Gate of the Gods/ Northern Kingsroad. The other 3 elude me. Any ideas?

You’re right, it’s a bit confusing. The King’s Gate is connected to the Tourney Grounds, but it looks like there’s a road leading west, which I would guess leads along the Rush to the ford nearest to the city as an alternative to using the ferries.

According to the Wiki of Ice and Fire, the Dragon’s Gate is connected to the Kingsroad, but that’s contradicted by the info about the Gate of the Gods. There is a mention in the Princess and the Queen that during the riots, “Rhaenyra and a small band of followers slipped out through the Dragon Gate, intending to make their way up the coast to Duskendale.” Which suggests that there might be a direct road from Duskendale to King’s Landing as well as the Rosby Road.

The Old Gate, being in between the Gate of the Gods and the Iron Gate and thus in between the Kingsroad and the Rosby Road, is a puzzle. My guess is that there may be or have been a direct route to Maidenpool from King’s Landing.

How often do you think first-born sons entered the Kingsguard, Citadel, or Faith? Jaime and Barristan are the only people I can think of off the top of my head but I am sure there were others. Do you think first-born sons with the talent or temperament for those positions were discouraged from joining them?

Pretty rarely, I would think. After all, if you’re a talented young man, your family is going to argue strongly that your duty is to apply those talents to your House first and foremost.

In your EDPs, you recommend city charters in every one of the regions (except maybe the Iron Islands). The question is: Why would any Lord Paramount (or the King) encourage the creation of such charters? You wrote in response to one ask (long ago) that these charters made the residents “free burghers rather than serfs or vassals”, “the city/town and its residents were no longer part of a feudal fief, and thus didn’t have to pay feudal taxes”, etc.

There’s a couple reasons.

First and foremost, money. While the residents themselves don’t pay feudal taxes (or sometimes fewer of them, or only to the liege lord rather than the whole chain of subinfeudation), the people who travel to the town aren’t afforded the same luxury. And since cities are hubs for trade, there’s a lot of money to be made from import duties, port fees, warehousing fees, and other taxes.

Second, goods and services. Aside from your village blacksmiths or village carpenters or whatever, the vast majority of peasants are engaged in the production of agricultural goods and other raw materials. Cities, on the other hand, is where you get specialized manufacturing on larger scales – textiles, metalworks, glass, etc. A domestic source for these kind of goods means that it’s cheaper to get those kinds of goods for yourself, and it means a more favorable balance of trade for the goods you can’t get at home. So to put your military cap on for a minute, if you’re trying to equip an army, cities with their more advanced economies are invaluable.

Third, political organization. While this is potentially a double-edged sword for feudal lords, one of the advantages of having cities is that they govern themselves to some extent. This means that the lord, who already has to administer a fief with an extremely limited staff, doesn’t have to spend time governing them and has someone on the ground they can turn to enforce laws for them. For example, you’re probably going to be able to raise more in taxes (or payments in lieu of taxes) than you would from the peasants under your own control and with less effort, because people are more willing to pay when they’re taxing themselves. Likewise, a city or town militia means higher-quality infantry – at the very least, you know they’ve done some drilling and have standard equipment – than your standard peasant levy.

RFTIT Tumblr Weekly Roundup!

Hello folks, it’s that time of the week again. Work has begun on Catelyn I, although that probably won’t be finished this week. Still having some problems with the podcast, unfortunately. So what do we have on the Tumblrs instead? Partitioning one of the seven Kingdoms. Does the Faith consider homosexuality a sin? Part II Potential changes to the Small Council. How would a permanent Great Council…

View On WordPress

Matt Asks:

Not a ASOIAF question, but considering your avatar…Do you think Martellus is right when he claims that had the Baron proclaimed himself emperor instead of insisting on a lesser title that the Fifty Families of Europa would have played along?

I think there would have been less friction, but probably not a lasting peace. To take a similar example from world history: when Napoleon ended the Republic and proclaimed himself Emperor of France and married into the Hapsburgs, it made France more of a normal player in the politics of European monarchies.

But that didn’t mean that people stopped going to war with France – after all, the historical rivalries, geopolitics, economic conflicts, etc. were all still there. But the tenor of the wars changed a little, and occasionally France was able to get the Austrians or the Prussians or the Russians on-board for a while, which was less the case back during the Republic.

I have come questions regarding the permanent parliament-like Great Council. 1) How would it be organized? Do only the Lords Paramount get seats, or their primary vassals as well? 2) Would these Lords be required to attend in person, or will representatives suffice? 3) Would this Council be held on a daily basis? 4) Can someone get a seat on both the Small and Great Councils?

1. Don’t know, exactly. Tradition so far is that it’s all of the lords in Westeros, full stop.

2. Well, traditionally they have, but you can’t look after your fief and attend, so if there were a permanent system, you’d need some mechanism of sending a representative – probably a younger brother or son or an uncle or cousin.

3. Probably not. If medieval to early modern Parliaments are any judge, they’d meet for a couple of months (fifty days being the minimum under the Triennial Act of 1641) out of the year, because people need to travel to get there and back, see their families, etc.

4. Well, if someone on the Small Council is a lord by right as opposed to by courtesy, they have a right to sit on the Great Council.

Is it a bit strange that the unnamed Septon in Arianne II believes that the Stormlands are cursed with violent storms because of the wrath of Elenei’s parents, because that implies that Gods other than the 7 exist and are quite powerful? After all at least some followers of the Seven tend to look down on followers of other religions-hence all the “heathen Northmen who worship trees” talk.

It is, a little. There may be a couple different explanations for this:

It’s an example of religious syncretism at work. Possibly this Septon in question was from the Stormlands, and the Faith there adapted to the pre-existing religion somehow – sometimes there’s acceptance of “lesser gods,” or subordination into sainthood, or they say “the old gods died long ago.”
It may be an example of religious moderation. Yes, the radicals believe only the Seven are true, but most of Westeros swears by the Old Gods and the New and kept the godswoods after they found out what happened to Erreg Kinslayer, and there are temples to other religions in Oldtown, which was the center of the Faith for thousands of years, because even priests understand that trade brings in donations.

Does the “Right of Pit and Gallows” give lords the authority to decide the law in their holdings, like a modern legislature, or merely the authroity to interpet continent-wide Westerosi law on a disgressionary basis, like a modern judge?

Here’s what we know – the right of pits and gallows is the right to imprison and execute, respectively. How the lords execute that right is unknown.

We know two other things of importance: first, we know that liege lords can act as courts of appeal, and the king as the supreme court, because we see that in Eddard XI. Second, we know from the WOIAF that Jaehaerys I established a single royal law code, and if it exists, it must be used somehow.

So here’s my best guess: maesters in the Citadel are educated in the law from Jaehaerys’ code and the various precedents of interpretation. They advise the lord as to what the law is (and depending on the lord, they might be the judge in all but name) but don’t have the power to make the lord follow it. (Although, as the keepers of the ravens, they do have the power to potentially inform on their lord…) However, a decision that violates the code might well be reversed by that lord’s liege lord, because it’s technically treason and would (if found out about) bring the wrath of the Iron Throne down upon the lord might their liege who failed to uphold the king’s laws.

On the other hand, that all depends on whether anyone with influence gets the word out. If a lord decides to hang a common peasant who the law says shouldn’t be hung, the chances of a successful appeal or reproach to the liege lord are extremely slim, unless some other knight or lord makes it an issue. (For example, if a lord hangs another knight or lord’s peasant (like Dake from Sworn Sword), or the peasant in question happens to be a servant of someone important who takes offense) A merchant or very rich peasant might have enough money to pay a maester to draft a formal complaint or to bribe the liege lord into hearing their case, so that’s riskier. A knight or lord, and now you may very well be talking about either an appeal or a rebellion.