17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: − + + + + − +
add
==Conquest==
==Conquest==
The Normans spoke French, not English, and imposed a new leadership class on England, giving all the land to their own nobles.
The Normans spoke French, not English, and imposed a new leadership class on England, giving all the land to their own nobles. The first three Norman kings had to confront and suppress rebellious Englishmen, unreconciled Welsh and Scots, foreign enemies on the continent, and deal with the internal rivalries among the Normans themselves. These kings were soldiers and were brutal and violent when necessary. As itinerant warlords they kept their new subjects under control through force and intimidation rather than through charters and legal formalities. The new institutions that emerged came out of English roots rather than being created by the Normans.
Dramatic changes did occur in three areas. In terms of land ownership, the Normans introduced tenurial relations among the upper classes—that is, knight service in return for land. This was feudalism and it fundamentally altered politics, government, and law. The second area of drastic change was the much greater "manorialisation" of the countryside, whereby the peasants came under the control of the great manors. The third area where Norman influence predominated is architecture, with gothic becoming the favored style for churches.
==Interpretations==
==Interpretations==
Historians looking at the meaning of the Conquest until recently were at opposite extremes. One school says the Conquest made little difference: the changes were not very great for most people, and the essential English character soon reasserted itself in all fundamentals despite the use of the French language by a new leadership class. At the other pole are historians who argue the Conquest brought abrupt and profound changes. Some argue the changes improved England, moving it from weak, directionless Anglo-Saxon leadership to a strong Norman leadership. Some say the changes were great and for the worse, imposing on the defenseless English peasants harsh and rapacious rule, which took the English centuries to overcome.
Historians looking at the meaning of the Conquest until recently were at opposite extremes. One school says the Conquest made little difference: the changes were not very great for most people, and the essential English character soon reasserted itself in all fundamentals despite the use of the French language by a new leadership class. At the other pole are historians who argue the Conquest brought abrupt and profound changes. Some argue the changes improved England, moving it from weak, directionless Anglo-Saxon leadership to a strong Norman leadership. Some say the changes were great and for the worse, imposing on the defenseless English peasants harsh and rapacious rule, which took the English centuries to overcome.
In recent decades, scholars have avoided black-and-white and emphasized nuances and local variations. They study the ways in which Anglo-Saxon and French institutions and practices worked together to establish the fundamentals of later medieval English society, economics, government, law, religious institutions and practices, art, architecture, and language.
In recent decades, scholars have avoided black-and-white and emphasized nuances and local variations. They study the ways in which Anglo-Saxon and French institutions and practices worked together to establish the fundamentals of later medieval English society, economics, government, law, religious institutions and practices, art, architecture, and language. Huscroft (2009) concludes that the effects of the Conquest were moderate, because the peoples of eleventh-century Britain and Normandy had much in common.
==Further reading==
==Further reading==