How did William the Conqueror overturn the course of world history in 1066? What wasw his main motivation? Did the whole of Western civilization really take a different path in 1066, or is his importance overrated??#anglocucks#angloslaughterhouse#anglostheprotomutts#rulebrittania#normanblood#1066
No, and getting the throne of Englvnd he was promised also had a Papal decree sanctioning his actions, and probably not, and yes.
>>537731465England was a rich country thanks to the wool trade. We weren't so good at defending our border, just like today, and William marched in and took us over. Right up until Henry VI English and French territories went hand in hand. Control one and you control the other. English kings ruled Normandy and western territories right down to the south west. William of Normandy and the Vikings, Saxons and Angles all shaped English history which led to the industrial revolution which shaped the world. Aside from wool England had great timber for ship building, better weaponry in the longbow and better ammunition, enabling England to build a global empire. Pic unrelated.
>>537732783>>>537731465 (OP)>England was a rich country thanks to the wool tradeThat postdates William's invasion.English GDP in the XIth century was abysmal, with single italian city states rivaling it [citation needed] such as Venice, Pisa, Amalfi, Genoa, Milan.>longbow Yew was imported from the continent to make effective longbows.
>>537731465The Normans built great castles all over England, including the Tower of London, and England was never invaded again. Ship building enabled us to defend our coast so that when the Spanish tried to invade in 1588 we fucked them up. We used standard size canon balls for the canons, unlike the Spanish who had different size balls for different cabins so they weren't interchangeable.The longbow defeated the French in hundreds of battles.Before William England was divided into regions and king Harold was weak. He was killed straight away by William's army which led to the swift conquest of England in 1066.
>>537733559>The longbow defeated the French in hundreds of battles.and yet they won the hundred years war
>>537733559You are a fucking kike. Fuck William, that nigger was a piece of shit who ethnically replaced the Saxons with Normans, making laws against attacking them, making the werguild go to himself rather than the victims, Made hunting illegal because he liked hunting so much . He only succeeded after Harold defeated the greatest warrior at stamford bridge, camped and forced him down souththen shot him in the eyeHarold Godwinson was the true, and last king of England. Fuck The Normans.
>>537733532England was making wool from before Christ. The Romans improved production techniques and also taught us pottery and jewelry making. These trades made England relatively rich between the first and eleventh centuries.Pottery, housebuilding and jewelry declined after the Romans left in the 5th century but wool never declined because the English climate is perfect for the species if sheep that produce the best wool.Yew grows in England too. Some specimens are a thousand years old.
>>537733815Henry II was the greatest king of England, 1154 to 1189.
>>537731465OH WOWANOTHER FAT FAGGOT OPHERBS
>>537733844not seeing any point in your post. Wool existed but wasn't exported or a source of "massive wealth" in the 11th century and English Yew was so inferior to Continental Yew that the English Sovereigns imported it for their Longbows, especially Italian Yew.
brutally mogged yoursstay seething
>>537731465He obviously wasn't real. There is zero historical evidence for him beyond a few French-sounding place names and surnames England. And no that stupid tapestry isn't evidence and is centuries newer.It is another retelling of the Jesus story. Harold "Godwinson" (so son of God) makes triumphant entrance into London/Jerusalem then dies on a hill with a spear in his side or arrow in eye, both of which are only perspective.These are likely celestial events that humanity (white) watched with astonishment and terror.
>>537734437So much fantasy in this thread. Do you know how we know about Anne Bolynn? One source. One single solitary source, the letters of Eustace Chapueys, Imperial Abassador.Never mind that all it took to introduce this absurdity was presumably a 19th Century discoverer, handily coming across all this detail like a novel plot.And that nonsense is five hundred "years" newer than the Conquest. Literally a pre-historic event.
