The Normans: History Of England’s Conquerors – Willam the Conqueror and King Harold of England

The Normans that invaded England in 1066 came from Normandy in Northern France. However, they were originally Vikings from Scandinavia. From the eighth century Vikings terrorized continental European coastlines with raids and plundering. The proto-Normans instead settled their conquests and cultivated land. Over time they assimilated into medieval European society, abandoned paganism, and upheld conventional Christian norms.

Click here to see more posts in this category.

At the beginning of the tenth century, the French King, Charles the Simple, had given some land in the North of France to a Viking chief named Rollo. He hoped that by giving the Vikings their own land in France they would stop attacking French realms. From there they would cultivate land, join the feudal economy, and be a source of manpower the king in times of warfare.

The land became known as Northmannia, the land of the Northmen. It was later shortened to Normandy. The Vikings intermarried with the French and by the year 1000, they were no longer Viking pagans, but French-speaking Christians.

They still held to their Viking enthusiasm of conquest abroad, howerver. In the year 1030 a group of Normans conquered land in Italy. By 1099 they had taken over most of Southern Italy.

Although the Normans are best remembered for their military achievements—particularly in the Crusades—they also showed remarkable skill in government, especially in Italy.

The Normans established many schools, monasteries, cathedrals and churches in both Italy and England and after conquering England built many castles to defend their new land.

Good sources for history of the Normans include the buildings, many of which survive to today, writings of the men of the time, and the Bayeaux Tapestry, which shows the Norman invasion and conquest of England.

“The Normans: A History of Conquest”

For the full “History Unplugged” podcast, click here!

The Normans: Art of the Normans: They Bayeux Tapestry

(See Main Article: Art of the Normans: They Bayeux Tapestry)

The Bayeux Tapestry is a piece of embroidery measuring approximately 231 feet by 20 inches. Worked in colored wool on bleached linen, it tells of William of Normandy’s rightful claim to the English throne and his subsequent invasion and conquest of England in 1066. The style of the stitching indicates that the Tapestry was made in England.

History has recorded that the Bayeux Tapestry, was probably commissioned of the Embroiderer’s Guild by William the Conqueror’s brother, Bishop Odo of Bayeux, to celebrate the Norman conquest of England in 1066.

More recently, embroidery students have argued that the Bayeux Tapestry is an amateur piece of work that was in fact stitched by the ladies of the court of the Normans.

Read the evidence below and decide for yourself.

The Normans: The Embroiderer’s Guild made the Bayeux Tapestry

• The size of the piece and the speed at which it was made suggests that it could only have been made by professionals.
• Bishop Odo became Earl of Kent after the Conquest.
• Canterbury, Kent was home to Europe’s leading school of embroiderers.
• Odo of Bayeux is shown in many of the scenes both as a clergyman and as a soldier.

Odo of Bayeux (left) is shown with his brothers. William (centre) and Robert (right)

For more detailed analysis visit 1066.com

The Normans: The Ladies of the Court made the Bayeux Tapestry

• In France the Bayeux Tapestry is known as Queen Matilda’s Tapestry. Matilda was William’s wife.
• It is worked in a very quick and simple stitch called ‘laid work’ that was not used by the Guilds of the day.
• Patches of unpicking and re-working are clearly visible. The Guilds would have taken care to cover any sign of re-working.
• The figures shown are very simply drawn.

Detail from the Bayeux Tapestry showing how blocks of wool have been laid onto the linen and stitched in place.

William the Conqueror: Overview

(See Main Article: William the Conqueror: Overview)

William, the illegitimate son of Robert, Duke of Normandy, was born at Falaise Castle, Normandy, in 1027 or 1028. He was known as William the Bastard.

When his father died in 1035, William was named as his successor.

By the time that he was twenty-seven, he had earned himself a good reputation as a strong leader. He defended Normandy well from repeated attacks by the French and was feared as a military leader.

William’s Claim to England

William was a distant cousin of the English King Edward the Confessor and claimed that Edward, who had no children, had promised him the throne of England. He also claimed that when Harold Godwineson had been shipwrecked off Normandy, he had sworn to support his claim.

When Harold Godwineson was crowned King of England, William, with the approval of the Pope, began planning an invasion to take what was rightfully his.

Harold’s Claim to England

Harold was born around 1020, to one of the richest men in England, Earl Godwin. After his father’s death he became a loyal supporter of Edward the Confessor and married the daughter of the Earl of Mercia.

Harold claimed that when his ship had been blown into Norman waters, he had been taken prisoner and had been forced to support William’s claim to secure his release. He also claimed that Edward promised him the throne on his deathbed and that he was the rightful King of England.

The Normans: William the Conqueror Timeline

(See Main Article: William the Conqueror Timeline)

The Normans: The Events Leading to the Norman Conquest of 1066

(See Main Article: The Events Leading to the Norman Conquest of 1066)

“Why the Battle of Hastings in 1066 and the Norman Conquest of England Changed Everything—Jennifer Paxton”

For the full “History Unplugged” podcast, click here!

The Normans – Harald Hardrada & Stamford Bridge

(See Main Article: Harald Hardrada & Stamford Bridge)

Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, like William of Normandy, believed that the English throne should be his, not Harold Godwineson’s.

The Normans – Background to Hardrada’s Claim

Edward the Confessor, who had died childless in January 1066, had seized the English throne back from the Norwegian Harthacnut in 1042. Harthacnut was the son of the Viking King Cnut who had ruled England from 1016 – 1035.

Hardrada claimed that Harthacnut had promised the English throne to King Magnus of Norway. Magnus was an old King and had chosen not fight Edward the Confessor for the throne. Harald Hardrada succeeded King Magnus to the throne of Norway and when Edward the Confessor died he decided to take the English throne for himself. Hardrada began planning his invasion.

The Normans – September 20th 1066 – Battle of Fulford

Harald Hardrada, with a fleet of more than 300 ships, and the support of Harold Godwineson’s brother Tostig, sailed up the river Humber and landed just south of York. Two powerful Earls in the north, Edwin and Morcar, hurriedly mustered an army. They were heavily beaten by the invaders.

The Normans – Harold Godwineson’s Problem

Harold Godwineson knew that if Hardrada were to be defeated he had to take his army north to fight him off. However, Harold was also aware that William of Normandy’s invasion force was ready and would sail as soon as the wind changed. If he marched north he would have to leave the south coast unprotected and his army would be forced to march hundreds of miles north, fight a battle, then march back to the south coast and the possibility of another battle.

25th September 1066 – Battle of Stamford Bridge

Godwineson decided to march north and fight off the Norwegians. He believed that he could reach the north, defeat the Norwegians and return back south before the wind changed. After a rapid march north, Godwineson’s army caught the Norwegians by surprise at Stamford Bridge. The result was a firm victory for the English.

Both Harald and Godwineson’s brother, Tostig were dead as were hundreds of Norwegian soldiers. Godwineson ordered a huge banquet to be held at York to celebrate the victory. However, the celebrations were cut short when news reached Godwineson that William of Normandy had landed on the South Coast.

Medieval Life – Feudalism and the Feudal System

(See Main Article: Medieval Life – Feudalism and the Feudal System)

The feudal system was introduced to England following the invasion and conquest of the country by William I, The Conqueror.

The feudal system had been used in France by the Normans from the time they first settled there in about 900AD. It was a simple, but effective system, where all land was owned by the King. One quarter was kept by the King as his personal property, some was given to the church and the rest was leased out under strict controls.

The King: Leader of the Feudal System

The King was in complete control under the feudal system (at least nominally). He owned all the land in the country and decided to whom he would lease land. He therefore typically allowed tenants he could trust to lease land from him. However, before they were given any land they had to swear an oath of fealty to the King at all times. The men who leased land from the King were known as Barons, they were wealthy, powerful, and had complete control of the land they leased from the King.

Barons: Executors of the Feudal System

Barons leased land from the King that was known as a manor. They were known as the Lord of the Manor and were in complete control of this land. They established their own system of justice, minted their own money, and set their own taxes. In return for the land they had been given by the King, the Barons had to serve on the royal council, pay rent and provide the King with Knights for military service when he demanded it. They also had to provide lodging and food for the King and his court when they traveled around his realm. The Barons kept as much of their land as they wished for their own use, then divided the rest among their Knights. Barons were very rich.

Knights

Knights were given land by a Baron in return for military service when demanded by the King. They also had to protect the Baron and his family, as well as the Manor, from attack. The Knights kept as much of the land as they wished for their own personal use and distributed the rest to villeins (serfs). Although not as rich as the Barons, Knights were quite wealthy.

Villeins

Villeins, sometimes known as serfs, were given land by Knights. They had to provide the Knight with free labor, food, and service whenever it was demanded. Villeins had no rights. They were not allowed to leave the Manor and had to ask their Lord’s permission before they could marry. Villeins were poor.

What Were the Crusades?

(See Main Article: What Were the Crusades?)

The Crusades that were known as “Holy wars,” were military campaigns of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. Pope Urban II was the first pope who inspired people to the take part of the first crusade of 1095. The Pope’s speech was so motivational; thousands of people took a cross and fastened it to their garments, hence the name “crusade”. The idea behind the first crusades was to restore Christian access to the Holy Land. The first crusade was very successful and ended with the capture of Jerusalem.

200 Year Struggle

After the first crusade took place, a 200-year long conflict ensued. The Christians established several Latin Christian states in the Holy Land, while the local Muslims fought back to regain what they considered to be theirs. The Crusaders had other Christian allies in the Byzantine Empire, but relations soured during the Third Crusade and escalated in the sack of Constantinople. By 1291, the Christian rule of the Holy Land had come to an end when the Mamluk dynasty in
Egypt destroyed Acre, the last stronghold.

What Was the Black Plague?

(See Main Article: What Was the Black Plague?)

The Black Death, also often called the “bubonic plague” was an epidemic of disastrous proportions that is said to have killed up to 50% of the European population in the 1300’s and around 12 million people in China in the 1800s. According to historians, the Black Death came from the East (Either China or Mongolia) and reach Italy in 1348, during the spring. So many centuries later, it is hard to determine the exact cause of death, which is why several theories exist. The most widely adopted theory is that it was caused by rats, but other theories claim that it may have been a viral infection.

Bubonic Plague

According to the “bubonic plague” theory, the disease was a bacterium, Yersinia pestis spread by fleas that lived on infected black rats, which typically live in close proximity to humans. Once a colony of rats has been killed off due to the disease, starving fleas would jump over on humans. Symptoms are flu-like, with headache, fever, weakness, and swollen lymph glands or “bubos,” hence the name “bubonic.” Humans would show their first symptoms three days after infection and 80% of those died within five days after onset. The Bubonic plague still exists in pockets today, but thanks to modern medicine, only 1 out of 7 of those that become infected die. The fact that the Black Death claimed larger portions of the population in the countryside than in urban areas supports the fact that it was spread by fleas.

The High Middle Ages

(See Main Article: The High Middle Ages)

The High Middle Ages were a period of incredible technological innovation, architectural design, and artistic production. Nevertheless, myths about the period’s backwardness and ignorance remain. Below is an excerpt from a book by medieval and Renaissance scholar Anthony Esolen on myth and fact about the High Middle Ages.

We all know what the High Middle Ages were like. My freshmen know. They’ve learned it from the infallible authority known as High School Platitudes.

First, the High Middle Ages were dark. People lived in squalor. Beset by terrible fears, they burned kindly old ladies peddling herbal remedies, calling them witches. They made no progress in the natural sciences. They knew nothing of the world beyond their time and place, and had no desire to know. Their studies were narrow and dogmatic, and the few great minds of their era plied their intelligence to discover how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Life was so miserable that most people, especially the dirt-peasant majority, lived only for the next world, placing all their hope in a heaven beyond the stars.

Let’s set the record straight. From 962 (the crowning of Otto the Great as Holy Roman Emperor) to 1321 (the death of Dante), Europe enjoyed one of the most magnificent flourishings of culture the world has seen. In some ways it was the most magnificent. And this was not despite the fact that the daily tolling of the church bells provided the rhythm of men’s lives, but because of it. Because the people believed they lived in a comic world, that is a world redeemed from sin, wherein the Savior had triumphed over darkness and death, they could love that world aright. They were pilgrims at heart, who yet passionately loved their native lands, their town walls, their hillsides, their many colorful festivals, their local food and drink. They enjoyed the freedom of hope. They were not pressed to death with the urgency to create a heaven upon earth, a longing that ends in despair, or the gulag.

You won’t hear this tale on television or in school. A powerful Church should be a regular monster, destroying intellectual endeavor and enforcing dreariness upon art—long before academe made artistic dreariness a mark of sophistication. Forswearing instant gratification (not that everyone in the High Middle Ages did forswear it) should produce a continent of mopes, or seething villains, or something miserable which Americans with their dropout factories and nearly three million incarcerated men know nothing of. Besides, because we all believe in inevitable social progress, everything must have been terrible in the past, at least compared to today. Why, I feel myself progressing morally with every tick of the clock; don’t you? Mainly, the High Middle Ages must have been bad because they were middle.

Marx Misreads the High Middle Ages

The myths about the High Middle Ages are passed down to us, in part, from Karl Marx.

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another.

Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (79)

No, they didn’t. Take the medieval journeyman. He benefited from training he had received as an apprentice, and when he produced a work of sufficiently impressive quality—literally, a master-piece—he too would become a full member of a guild. In fact, the guild system is exactly what Marx’s contemporary, Pope Leo XIII, a great opponent of socialism, recommended for the workingman, whom Marx held in scorn.

Warmer is better

The third factor is a subtle one. We hear a lot about global warming these days, and since I’m no geologist I won’t venture an opinion, except to say that in history the great threat to man has not been warming but cooling. It’s obvious why. If you shorten the growing season by a few weeks and make the summer highs a little cooler, you remove millions of acres of land from the plow. You put stubby grass and mosses where cattle used to graze on the savannah, and you turn into savannah what used to be prime land for growing cereal grains.

The cooling helps explain the barbarian invasions: they and their cattle were cold and hungry. And, as I’ve noted, one winter they had a Rhine River frozen solid, so they could cross where they pleased, and the Roman legions, already stretched thin, could do nothing about it.

Cooling weather causes the occasionally failed harvest. But if harvests are only fair, any outright failures will deplete your stores of grain. People grow sickly. Life expectancy drops. Population shrinks. The cities—dependent upon storable grain—empty. Town life withers away. People cannot afford the division of labor that allows for scholars, accountants, merchants, sculptors, actors, whatever. Back to the land, they go: for man needs bread.

But when one or two of these factors had disappeared or been overcome, Europe was ready for its grand resurgence. Consider its cultural advantages. Christianity had scrubbed away most of the late Greco-Roman prejudice against manual labor. Recall Benedict and his monastic rule. Monks, whatever their background, worked the land. They cleared the thick, damp German forests of trees and stumps. They drained the marshes. They dug wells, built granaries, planted vineyards, and communicated technological innovations among themselves, in a network extending across Europe.

The monks retained a healthy respect for hierarchy and law. Imagine what it might be like to build an economic hot spot where nothing but black firs and mosquitoes had been, without a clear and effective chain of command. At the same time, they inherited the Christian revelation that Christ came for all men, not only for the rulers. Their model of hierarchy and equality, or equality expressed by obedience and Christ-like service, exerted a powerful influence upon the villages that grew up around the monasteries, and then upon medieval life generally. For Christ Himself was obedient, even unto death upon a cross, and therefore, says Paul, every knee shall bend to Him, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. So despite wickedness and selfishness, which we will always have with us, the people of the High Middle Ages knew that the soul of a peasant was no less worth saving than was the soul of a duke. That meant that, as harsh as serfdom could be, the continent could never quite slide back into slavery. The irrepressible movement in the High Middle Ages is towards freedom.