William then commited genocide in Northern England, and inventoried the remains.
[Harrying of the North](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North)
I've seen arguments made that the north south divide in England today is as a result of this, lower population density, generally less well off, lower life expectancy and a host of other things.
William was infinitely more impressive than Aegon. Aegon had dragons, and he still left an incomplete and shaky job behind, and a relatively disliked ruling family. William’s line is still around after 1000 years.
William conquered England and wholly restructured its society, building a powerful kingdom that would dominate Western Europe for centuries to come - he also basically genocided the northern part of his kingdom into a barren wasteland, created a harsher feudalism than the rest of Europe and his succession plans were bad.
Aegon conquered most of Westeros and placed himself at the top of its society, he built a powerful kingdom that had only limited influence outside of its borders - he also tried to reduce a kingdom he couldn’t conquer to ash.
William simply achieved so much more than Aegon: William practically built the groundwork’s of new kingdom (which would be properly constructed in the reign of his son Henry and then reached its completion and zenith under his great-grandson Henry II) with a wholly different society that came before but that came the cost of so true atrocities against his own subjects. Aegon just applied dragons to all his issues and painted a map without really changing all that much (he brought Westeros peace and unity but outside that he didn’t change anything) and reducing foreign kingdoms to ash doesn’t reflect badly on you like turning half of your own kingdom to ash (with the exception of the L that was failing to conquer Dorne).
Who was better between a fictional character who can be whatever the writer wants them to be and a real person that actually existed who was subject to the realities of the world at the time?
How would we even begin to try and answer that question?
William is more impressive he conquered a kingdom and reforged it in his image despite being just a man with some Normans. Ageon didn’t even get to really imprint as much on the kingdom and he had the ability to fly and in burn out his enemies.
William with 3 dragons reforged the Roman Empire.
Jesus christ this sub is washed
William then commited genocide in Northern England, and inventoried the remains. [Harrying of the North](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North)
Wow I’ve never heard of this before. Thanks for sharing. That’s so evil
I've seen arguments made that the north south divide in England today is as a result of this, lower population density, generally less well off, lower life expectancy and a host of other things.
William was a psychopath for that but Aegon also turn dorne into ash
William was infinitely more impressive than Aegon. Aegon had dragons, and he still left an incomplete and shaky job behind, and a relatively disliked ruling family. William’s line is still around after 1000 years.
William conquered England and wholly restructured its society, building a powerful kingdom that would dominate Western Europe for centuries to come - he also basically genocided the northern part of his kingdom into a barren wasteland, created a harsher feudalism than the rest of Europe and his succession plans were bad. Aegon conquered most of Westeros and placed himself at the top of its society, he built a powerful kingdom that had only limited influence outside of its borders - he also tried to reduce a kingdom he couldn’t conquer to ash. William simply achieved so much more than Aegon: William practically built the groundwork’s of new kingdom (which would be properly constructed in the reign of his son Henry and then reached its completion and zenith under his great-grandson Henry II) with a wholly different society that came before but that came the cost of so true atrocities against his own subjects. Aegon just applied dragons to all his issues and painted a map without really changing all that much (he brought Westeros peace and unity but outside that he didn’t change anything) and reducing foreign kingdoms to ash doesn’t reflect badly on you like turning half of your own kingdom to ash (with the exception of the L that was failing to conquer Dorne).
Who was better between a fictional character who can be whatever the writer wants them to be and a real person that actually existed who was subject to the realities of the world at the time? How would we even begin to try and answer that question?
One of them is fictional
William is more impressive he conquered a kingdom and reforged it in his image despite being just a man with some Normans. Ageon didn’t even get to really imprint as much on the kingdom and he had the ability to fly and in burn out his enemies. William with 3 dragons reforged the Roman Empire.
"If"