Twas Feudalism
He certainly made it a more organised place to govern.
Harald Hardrada's claim to the English throne is based on tenuous connections and military might rather than legitimate hereditary rights, making him a contentious choice. In contrast, William, Duke of Normandy, had a stronger claim through his familial ties to Edward the Confessor and the backing of influential English nobles, which granted him greater legitimacy. Additionally, William's strategic vision and military organization, demonstrated in the successful invasion of England, positioned him as a more capable leader to unify and govern the realm effectively. Thus, William's claim is rooted in a combination of legitimacy and proven leadership.
AnswerIn 1066 the Normans came to power by conquering England. William the Conqueror. AnswerThe power of the Normans began in the late ninth century and was firmly established in 911 AD when the leader, Rollo, or Robert I of Normandy was invited to govern the county where they lived as a vassal by the French King Charles the Simple. Prior to that, Rollo had been a raider, who harried the French. He and some of his warriors had settled in what became Normandy, and made themselves wealthy by raiding French towns and cities along the rivers. When Charles the Simple defeated Rollo in battle, he knew that the defeat would not end the raids, so he gave Rollo the County (later Duchy) of Normandy in exchange for protection against raiders.Normandy was a rich province, and quickly built power of its own. It was always subject to the King of France, but when William the Conqueror saw an excuse to take England in 1066, he did.There are links below.
After the Battle of Hastings in 1066, William the Conqueror faced several challenges. These included securing his control over England, dealing with ongoing rebellions and uprisings, and establishing a new feudal system to govern the country. Additionally, William had to navigate diplomatic relations with other European powers who opposed his claim to the English throne.
New England, Philadelphia, and Virginia.
I have no idea! Maybe a republic?
Spain let the conquistadors govern the lands they conquered.
He certainly made it a more organised place to govern.
To govern, they divided their empire into provinces. Each province had a Roman governor supported by an army.
Harald Hardrada's claim to the English throne is based on tenuous connections and military might rather than legitimate hereditary rights, making him a contentious choice. In contrast, William, Duke of Normandy, had a stronger claim through his familial ties to Edward the Confessor and the backing of influential English nobles, which granted him greater legitimacy. Additionally, William's strategic vision and military organization, demonstrated in the successful invasion of England, positioned him as a more capable leader to unify and govern the realm effectively. Thus, William's claim is rooted in a combination of legitimacy and proven leadership.
To govern...
in governing conquered people the persian were much more humane than the assyrians.
Democracy
because they had nothing to do.
if he didnt use fear or violence the people wouldnt be scared of him. so king william used fear like if you dont let me be your king i will burn all your houses down
govern it
with pi