Difference between revisions of "Norman Conquest"
(add) |
(add) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==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== | ||
Revision as of 08:49, September 10, 2009
The Norman Conquest of 1066 AD is a famous event in the history of England, and is the last time that England was successfully invaded by a foreign power.
The battle of Hastings
When Edward the Confessor, King of England, died on January 4, 1066, a three-way struggle for the throne ensued. Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex, and already the most powerful man in the kingdom, was proclaimed king. But Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, and William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, both believed they had a better claim. After a tense year of military preparation on all sides, the first to invade was Harald Hardrada, who landed in Yorkshire. King Harold marched north to meet him and destroyed the Norwegian army at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, September 25, 1066, killing Harald Hardrada in the process. It was one of the most decisive English victories ever, but the following day, amidst the celebrations, Harold received word that Duke William had landed with his army on the south coast. He immediately set off with his army on a forced march from York to Hastings, and the exhausted English army met the Normans in the Battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066. The forces were very evenly matched, and the battle went on all day, until finally at dusk Harold was hit with an arrow in the eye and died. Leaderless the English fought on into the night but the situation became increasingly hopeless and Duke William won the battle. For the next few weeks William laid waste the countryside around London, finally forcing the English Witan (i.e. parliament) to accept him as king. He was crowned as William I, the Conqueror, on December 25, 1066.
Conquest
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
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. 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
- Huscroft, Richard. The Norman Conquest: A New Introduction. (2009) 369 pp.