Why was William successful Essay Example for Free

Why was William successful EssayWhen William was crowned King of England he had actually only captured the Southeast. The heartsease of England was all facilitate Anglo-Saxon. In 1066/1067 William, according to the Normans was the legitimate King of England. He had got Edward the Confessors promise that he would be King. He as well as had a kinship with Edward, which do it that more than easier to become King. It didnt hurt Williams cause when Harold obviously usurped the throne and took it for him self it gave William a legitimate reason for invading. Then after William had gained control of the Southeast the rulers of England submitted to him at Little Berkhamstead.Then they allowed him to be crowned King of England with an Anglo-Saxon Service. This shows their acceptance of William as their King. BUT William had made a mistake. He assumed that once he had been crowned King everyone would follow him as their King. William had non gone West of Faringdon and North of Be dford. It just so happened that the remainder of Harolds family was in the West and Edwin and Morcar (the Northern Earls) who were in the North. Both of these groups had not really submitted to William as their king and were willing to start a rebellion to die William becoming even more powerful.The rebellions started because when William went back to Normandy. He had to leave regents in his place to rule for him. He chose Bishop Odo and William fitzOsbern. These two people were kinsmen of Williams and so he knew that he could trust tem. But according to Oderic Vitalis behaved in a violent and cruel fashion and so because of the violent and cruel fashion in which they behaved rebellions started to spring up. The setoff rebellion was in Exeter and involved Harolds family. This is the first time that William shows his policies for rebelling against him.William reacts decisively and with great force. He marches to Exeter, construct castles along the way. When he got to Exeter he b rings out a hostage and blinds him in front of the walls so that everyone could examine it. Then he lays siege to the city. After 18 days the city submits. All William does is to build a castle in the city its self and garrison it. This is Williamss policy He will act with strength (the blinding of the hostage) and he will build castles. The violence scares the people and the castles en trustworthy that the area around them is secure.So far William has been successful against the rebellions against him because he has got superior technology (castles which the Anglo-Saxons have not come up against before) and because he has acted decisively and with violence. He has scared the common people that he has come up against so ofttimes that they will not do it again. 1068 was a far more serious year for William. This took place in the Earldoms of Mercia and Northumbria. Edwin and Morcar decided that they had had enough of William and that they were going to join the Welsh. William once again marches up as unshakable as he could, only stopping off to build castles.The key one being at Warwick which he entrusted to Henry of Bomont. Initially he manages to make peace with Edwin and Morcar, and he pardons the Earls. Whilst all this has been happening Edgar ? thling had decrepit William and had gone to Scotland. Once in Scotland he persuades the King, Malcome, to marry his sister and so joining them together. The Northumbrians with the Scots conquer York. So William once again sets off, again building castles wherever he goes. William then marches on York and captures it. The only thing that he does is to build a castle in York its self.There were many more rebellions on 1068, and all of these William squashed and then built castles all oer the area, thus making sure that all the problem parts of England were covered with Castles. William seemed obsessed by the idea of covering the face of England with castles. That also coupled with the face that he took charge pe rsonally were ever he could and got to the heart of the revolt as quickly as possible meant that there was not really too much damage. The rebellions of 1067 1072 failed, in my view, because of the incident that they were all so spur of the moment and so dispersed form one another.If they had joined up together and planned together, then they might have had a chance. Especially of they had joined up with the Vikings that came and invaded in 1069. The Vikings gave William the most trouble, but because William already had a series of castle sin place all over the country it wasnt as bad as it could have been. William completely destroyed the area around York, so that the Vikings and his other enemies could not make use of it. He destroyed them so badly that the effects were still apparent in the Doomsday book, written many years later.Williamss ferocious suppression of the north of England in 1069 1070 in response to the English and Scandinavian resistance is often regarded as the darkest deed in his reign. William at long last had to pay the Danes to go away so that William could deal with the English rebels him self. So William was successful against the rebels in 1067 1072 strictly because he was more ruthless than they were and because he had access to greater technology, mainly castles building. William terrorised the English so much that they didnt dare rebel again.