Review Detail of Geraldrold in NOTHING HERE FOLKS 3
Review detail
The synopsis is bull**** this story does not play in england and is in no way historically accurate. Its a good slice of live and village building story. How a lord over 3000 citizens calls himself king is beyond me though.
NOTHING HERE FOLKS 3
PaperbackWriter
Liked by 7 people
LIKEReplies12
Thank you so much for your great insight that you had shared recently. It was an eyeopener and yes, I agree with you that the town of 3000 was considered as a kingdom to them. Give me even a 1000 physical townfolks before me and I would be wowed by it. Cheers~
Khavos_Rudd:It was common for Dark Age era barons to live like 'kings' over any patch of dirt they controlled. Even in cases - most of them - where they paid nominal subservience to a local lord, it was only a case of interests being preserved. One reason William the Conqueror toured England and destroyed castles and forts was because in the event a local baron decided to defy the king, a seige would take months to resolve. Picture that times 100 different barons forted up inn their castles and deciding they were tired of taking orders. Effectively, even a town with a population of 3000, so long as there stood a castle over it during an age where seige engines and equipment were lacking, meant they were kings. I recall reading somewhere that the ratio between defenders and attackers in a seige situation went anywhere between 4 ~ 10 times in order to carry out a successful seige. That meant that if a particular baron decided to keep 200 men in his castle - a large proportion being bowmen if this is England, crossbowmen in France - then any prospective conquerer might have required between 800 and 2000 men to achieve success. Now, take those numbers and factor in logistics during that age. Disease given an army out in the open. Exposure to the elements...Plus, if it was England, consider how long it took to make a passing - if not expert - archer. Then the money to pay soldier salaries and provisions. Plus keeping a sufficiently large force back home to prevent being backstabbed... I really wonder how William the Conqueror managed it all. Personally, I feel he should have been awarded the title of 'The Great' for his achievements. That being said, the first chapter does state that it was the town that had a population of 3000 and that taking it would mean the destruction of the kingdom. a Again, this view was not wrong. It was in very rare cases where the fall of a kingdom's capital did not mean the end of a kingdom. Most of the leading factors of the kingdom would be found within capitals. The reason Rome was such a valuable prize to the barbarians long after the Empire's capital had moved to Constantinople was because Rome, historically, was the spiritual, cultural, and social heart of the Empire.
3 stars is too harsh???? Just because everyone gives 5 stars without reading anything doesn't mean they deserve 5 stars... 1 star is **** and 5 stars is omg this is literally the best book ever written.. It would have been 4 stars if the synopsis didn't lie
Stone_Monkey:Aren´t you a little too harsh
Stone_Monkey:You misunderstood I didn't think it was harsh to grade it a three, however giving it a three only because the synopsis isn´t entirely accurate is a little unfair in my opinion at least.
I'm saying that the world building score tanked all the other scores. Some of those were also not 5 stars
Stone_Monkey:Sorry, I don´t really understand what you mean.
It was common for Dark Age era barons to live like 'kings' over any patch of dirt they controlled. Even in cases - most of them - where they paid nominal subservience to a local lord, it was only a case of interests being preserved. One reason William the Conqueror toured England and destroyed castles and forts was because in the event a local baron decided to defy the king, a seige would take months to resolve. Picture that times 100 different barons forted up inn their castles and deciding they were tired of taking orders. Effectively, even a town with a population of 3000, so long as there stood a castle over it during an age where seige engines and equipment were lacking, meant they were kings. I recall reading somewhere that the ratio between defenders and attackers in a seige situation went anywhere between 4 ~ 10 times in order to carry out a successful seige. That meant that if a particular baron decided to keep 200 men in his castle - a large proportion being bowmen if this is England, crossbowmen in France - then any prospective conquerer might have required between 800 and 2000 men to achieve success. Now, take those numbers and factor in logistics during that age. Disease given an army out in the open. Exposure to the elements...Plus, if it was England, consider how long it took to make a passing - if not expert - archer. Then the money to pay soldier salaries and provisions. Plus keeping a sufficiently large force back home to prevent being backstabbed... I really wonder how William the Conqueror managed it all. Personally, I feel he should have been awarded the title of 'The Great' for his achievements. That being said, the first chapter does state that it was the town that had a population of 3000 and that taking it would mean the destruction of the kingdom. a Again, this view was not wrong. It was in very rare cases where the fall of a kingdom's capital did not mean the end of a kingdom. Most of the leading factors of the kingdom would be found within capitals. The reason Rome was such a valuable prize to the barbarians long after the Empire's capital had moved to Constantinople was because Rome, historically, was the spiritual, cultural, and social heart of the Empire.
Khavos_Rudd:It was common for Dark Age era barons to live like 'kings' over any patch of dirt they controlled. Even in cases - most of them - where they paid nominal subservience to a local lord, it was only a case of interests being preserved. One reason William the Conqueror toured England and destroyed castles and forts was because in the event a local baron decided to defy the king, a seige would take months to resolve. Picture that times 100 different barons forted up inn their castles and deciding they were tired of taking orders. Effectively, even a town with a population of 3000, so long as there stood a castle over it during an age where seige engines and equipment were lacking, meant they were kings. I recall reading somewhere that the ratio between defenders and attackers in a seige situation went anywhere between 4 ~ 10 times in order to carry out a successful seige. That meant that if a particular baron decided to keep 200 men in his castle - a large proportion being bowmen if this is England, crossbowmen in France - then any prospective conquerer might have required between 800 and 2000 men to achieve success. Now, take those numbers and factor in logistics during that age. Disease given an army out in the open. Exposure to the elements...Plus, if it was England, consider how long it took to make a passing - if not expert - archer. Then the money to pay soldier salaries and provisions. Plus keeping a sufficiently large force back home to prevent being backstabbed... I really wonder how William the Conqueror managed it all. Personally, I feel he should have been awarded the title of 'The Great' for his achievements. That being said, the first chapter does state that it was the town that had a population of 3000 and that taking it would mean the destruction of the kingdom. a Again, this view was not wrong. It was in very rare cases where the fall of a kingdom's capital did not mean the end of a kingdom. Most of the leading factors of the kingdom would be found within capitals. The reason Rome was such a valuable prize to the barbarians long after the Empire's capital had moved to Constantinople was because Rome, historically, was the spiritual, cultural, and social heart of the Empire.