The Cultural Power England Has is Unreasonable
You might say that England had the world's largest empire.
Briefly. And during this time there were several other European colonial empires.
You might say that it's because of Hollywood's cultural hegemony. They've only had their hegemony for 100 years. Not only is that being broken, but most countries don't consider something less than 200 years as old.
Before Henry VIII, the only thing about England that was at all notable with Europe was:
Animal Husbandry
Chivalry
After Henry VIII, England was known for battleships.
But, when it came to Chivalry, there were two main chivalric romances:
The Paladins of Charlemagne
The Knights of the Round Table
Charlemagne is called the Father of Europe. He created most of what we consider European, and is the reason Europe is Christian.
Before anyone tries to argue about Byzantium, remember that their best military force were pagan vikings that literally had the right to loot the emperor's chambres when he died.
Arthur is someone we can't even prove existed, and the timeline would only make sense if Merlin was teleporting about space-time willy-nilly. Of course, according to the stories, Merlin DID teleport about teleport about space-time willy-nilly, or at the very least have a very different relationship than we do.
The best knights are usually limited to:
Richard the Lionhearted
William "the marshal" Marshal
el-Cid
Richard had knights basically act like space marines. Knights normally have 6:1 advantage again enemy forces, (both on foot, or both on horse), in the open. Richard basically added a 0 to that. The woman he married initially rejected him. He rode over to where she lived and pulled her off her horse. How did she react? By telling her father she would not marry anyone else.
William the Marshal was the third some of a minor noble. When he was young, he was ransomed. His father refused to pay his ransom. William survived by befriending his captors, and proving his martial abilities. As a kid. He went on to become the hottest commodity in Europe, with everyone offering him bribes of brides to settle in his fiefdom. And he did this by winning tournaments. While tournaments were rugged, (and often fatal), they also had better record keeping than messy battles. This means William Marshal is the one we have the most historical evidence for how well regarded he was, and how widespread that was.
For el-Cid, most of the Reconquista was a series of wins and loses. This is how most war works. Even WWII was almost won or lost with several individual events. el-Cid was all wins. Not quite as impossible as Richard, but even Richard lost sometimes, (once to William the Marshal). el-Cid was pretty much solid wins. Like, the team that gets to the finals, and the playoffs are so uninteresting, because it's so obvious who's going to win.
The French love Balian, but the problem with that is that they are French.
England is, (or at least was), a libertarian paradise. France is a managerial technocracy. They excel at big, bloated bureaucracies. England and France has a long standard feud, but the moment you look at the history, it's a question about why England ever stood a chance. And not only did they stand a chance or barely survive, but win against France more often than they lost. Hell, the one time France managed to conquer England, England became even MORE libertarian.
Most cultures throughout history when given the choice between freedom and safety pick safety. Safety only lasts as long as the government holds it's promise, while the free can keep their own safety.
When England stands up, the world stands down. The love of freedom is so powerful that it resonates in countries that made the opposite choice. It's gotten to the point that freedom is considered the default moral opinion nowadays.
Of course, instead of fighting against freedom, the modern response is usually "but..."
