"Roman vs Norman conquest of England" Topic

An American asking here…. I was watching a show the other day about the Battle of Hastings. The narrator stated that England was conquered in a single battle. It made me ask, if that is true, why was William's experience in conquering England so different from the Roman's? The Normans won England in a single battle and yet the Romans had a protracted campaign. Why the difference? Did the fact that England was united under Harold make them more susceptible to a single loss vs each tribe in the Roman times?

Curious why the difference…

There were multiple British kingdoms (ignoring "Scotland")at the time of the Roman invasions. One single Kingdom (ignoring "Wales" and "Scotland") when William invaded. There were various "revolts" against William – so it's not quite right to say conquest in a single battle.

Lucy Worsley has done a documentary that tells the story of how much more fighting remained after Hastings, albeit not major pitched battles. There's also the book "The English Resistance: The Underground War Againt the Normans" by Peter Rex.

One must remember the great revolt in the north of England against William. More Normans/French knights were killed than fought at the battle of Hastings!
This lead to the 'Harrying of the North' where Williams army scoured the north of England killing and burning, which made it a virtual wasteland for decades.

Awake! Awake! Hereward the Wake!

But yes, Britain in Roman times was a region. England in 1066 was a kingdom, and could be conquered as such.

All great points.