The Normans
While the Viking Danes attacked and established themselves in parts of Britain, other groups of Scandinavian raiders harassed what is now France. They were known as Normans (from “Northmen” or “Norsemen,” after the Vikings from Scandinavia), and as a result of repeated harrying of the French kingdom, they were eventually able to settle down permanently in France too. The last Carolingian kings who ruled France were powerless, and in 911 at Saint-Clair-sur-Epte, king Charles III the Simple (879-929) agreed under strong pressure to yield the northwestern coastal Channel region around the mouth of the Seine River to a Northman chief. This warlord, named Rollo, became a feudal vassal who payed homage to the king of France and swore to defend the territory entrusted to him. In this way Charles III ensured a buffer land between his vulnerable kingdom and further raiding Vikings. From being landless sea rovers and freebooters, Rollo and his men became settled landowners. They adopted the Christian faith, married local women, and mingled freely with the native Frankish inhabitants. The wild and ferocious plunderers turned from adventurers into farming rulers, and little by little Germanic Scandinavian and Latin French societies blended together into a Norman breed. The Anglo-Saxons and Danes in Britain had encountered a Latin civilization, which was still very feebly rooted, and they left a strong Germanic mark upon it. But the Normans confronted by Rome in the form of latinized France were swallowed up by the Latin spirit with surprising speed. After less than a century the Norman Vikings spoke nothing but old French, had adopted French customs and behaved more or less like good Christians. Under the firm leadership of strong dukes succeeding Rollo, the territory prospered, the fief was enlarged and developed into the dukedom of the Northmen, better known as Normandy, with a political capital, Rouen, and a religious center, Bayeux. The Duchy of Normandy
Was one of the great large fiefs of early medieval France, and when the Normans invaded England in 1066, they were more French than Scandinavian. The Normans adopted the ceremony and hierarchy of continental chivalry and feudalism much sooner than did the English. After the fall of the Carolingian Empire and due to the insecurity caused by the Viking incursions, feudalism had developed as a result of the need for local defense, but by the 11th century it was regulated with more precision, and social classes were controlled by strict rules. Under the Duke of Normandy stood the barons who ruled territories, and who in turn had power over smaller lords and knights, owners of land the tenure of which involved military service. At the Duke’s summons, the barons had to present themselves with their knights armed and mounted, ready to remain in the field for forty days. This was a short time but suited to short campaigns in the summer.
For half a century before 1066 England and Normandy had been drawing closer together. The king of England, himself Edward the Confessor, was more Norman than English and French/Norman speech, habits and customs were prevalent at his court. But how came it that a Duke of Normandy, in the 11th century, conceived the idea of making himself king of England?
The Conquest
Guillaume le Batard (William the Bastard) was born in 1027, the illegitimate son of Duke of Normandy, Robert the Magnificent, and a tanner’s daughter from Falaise, named Arletta. He was acknowledged by his father and succeeded him in July 1035. He inherited the duchy when only a boy, and the desperate struggle for survival that preoccupied his early years reinforced his natural tendency towards ruthlessness and resolution. He married Matilda, the daughter of Count Baldwin of Flanders, who transferred a vague descent in the female line from the Anglo-Saxon House of Wessex. He was also second cousin of the childless Edward the Confessor but, genealogically, being a bastard, he had no rightful claims to the English crown. But William of Normandy was a hard man in every sense, a ferocious warrior, and a harsh, stubborn, ambitious, ruthless and cunning ruler who claimed, after Edward’s death in early 1066, that he was entitled to become king of England. The Normans still had the Viking taste for adventure. A day’s sail could carry them to England. It was a temptation. We are, however, somewhat in the dark as to the basis of his claim. To achieve his goal, William and his counselor Bishop Lanfranc engineered a diplomatic machination against the only possible rival, Harold Godwinson, Edward’s brother-in-law and earl of Wessex. There is a story that William had visited the court of Edward the Confessor in 1051 and had become his vassal on the condition that, should Edward die childless, he was to designate William as his successor. In fact Edward was not allowed to offer the crown, which was dependent, not on himself, but on the choice of the Witan (the traditional Anglo-Saxon council of influential nobles and bishops who elected the king of England). In 1064 William extorted under unclear circumstances a promise along the same lines when the unfortunate Harold was
Shipwrecked in Normandy and taken prisoner. But Harold did not regard himself bound by an oath given under duress, and again the choice of a king of England was not in his hands but in the Witan’s. When Edward died, there was no question at all of William of Normandy. The Witan showed no hesitation and elected the bold and well-beloved Harold Godwinson. Everything in Harold’s career suggests that he would have made a ruler in the best Saxon-Dane tradition — brave, vigorous, honorable and generous. However, his position on the throne was challenged by two rivals and by two nearly simultaneous invasions.
Immediately after Harold’s coronation, William of Normandy, who always subtly lent a moral covering to his desires, presented himself as a victim and instigated a well-staged propagandist campaign against Harold, who was accused of felony for having violated both feudal law and a solemn oath. William’s bad faith is beyond doubt, but the facts as presented seemed to press strongly against Harold. As was usual in those times, the quarrel was solved by force. Pope Alexander II knew how the oath had been obtained and what William’s claims were really worth, but he wished to reform the Church of England, and therefore favored William’s claim. The
Norman knight. The Normans developed a strong, heavily armored cavalry. The use of stirrups (introduced in the 9th century) and a well-designed saddle gave the horseman a stable balance on his mount, making it possible to couch a long spear tightly resting under his arm. The additional force of the horse’s impetus could be brought behind the spear, delivering a formidable blow.
Papacy condemned Harold and blessed in advance any expedition that William might undertake to assert his rights. The conquest of England — in fact an act of pure international brigandage and aggression — therefore took on the character of a sort of holy war. For so difficult a campaign the ordinary 40-days’ feudal military service would not have sufficed, but as the expedition had been well advertised, many knights
Norman weapons and armor. The principal weapons used were the heavy two-handed axe (1), spear and javelin (2), bow and arrow (3), sword (4), dagger (5), and wooden mace (6). Body armor was an indication of social rank and wealth. The main armor garment was a hauberk of chain mail (made of small metal rings linked together in a pattern to form a protective mesh). A conical metal helmet with nasal (nose piece) was worn in battle. The legs were protected with mail coverings laced up the back, or puttee-like hose. Further protection was provided by a wooden shield very often kite-shaped. Some shields were painted and decorated but genuine heraldic designs didn’t appear until later. For the sake of mobility, the horse went into battle unarmored.
And adventurers not only from Normandy but also from France, Anjou, Britanny and Flanders, flocked to William’s standard. All these adventurers were promised profits in the form of money, plunder and land in England. While William’s half-brother, Odo Bishop of Bayeux, recruited men throughout Western Europe, a fleet was built. These important events in the history of England are depicted in a remarkable work of art known as the Bayeux Tapestry. On September 28, 1066, a fleet transporting some 12,000 soldiers, of whom
5.000 were horsemen, landed unopposed on the shore of Pevensey, East Sussex.
William of Normandy was not the sole invader of England in 1066. The death of King Edward the Confessor in January 1066 had triggered a succession struggle in which a variety of contenders from across northwestern Europe fought for the English throne. Another claimant was the king of Norway, Harald Hardrada. Aided by Tostig, Harold’s own brother, Hardrada landed with
15.000 troops in Northern England. Harold dashed north, defeated the invaders at the battle of Stamford Bridge, near York, on September 25, then rushed back south to fight William. The main battle of the conquest was fought on
October 14, 1066, at Senlac Hill, approximately 6 miles northwest of Hastings. Harold was killed in the fight and his army defeated. The superiority of cavalry (supported by archers), already well established in Europe, was confirmed by the memorable battle of Senlac. The defeat was so conclusive that Saxon England disintegrated.
Within a few weeks the Witan had no other choice than to accept William as their king. London opened its gates to him, and William was crowned on Christmas Day, 1066, at Westminster. Guillaume the Bastard had become William I the Conqueror, “lawful” sovereign of England.
Norman England
Defeating an army in battle is one thing, but imposing one’s rule over a whole country is another matter. The transition from an invading army to lawful rulers was difficult and painstaking, and the period right after the invasion saw the fruits of the victory at Hastings hang in the balance. The Norman conquest of England was not completed until about 1072, by which time several regional revolts in the north, in East Anglia and at Exeter, had been suppressed with extreme ruthlessness. William, then both Duke of Normandy and King of England, was able to turn his full attention to the governing of his new kingdom. William’s policy in regard to England exhibited profound statesmanship. He introduced the Norman feudalism to which he was accustomed, but took good care that it should not weaken his personal power. William ensured the supremacy of the crown without interfering with English customs, and declared that he did not propose to change the English customs but to govern as Edward the Confessor, the last Saxon king whom he acknowledged, had done. The English who had refused to join him before the battle of Senlac were declared traitors, but were permitted to keep their lands upon condition of receiving them from the king as his vassals. The lands of those who actually bore arms against him at Senlac, or in later rebellions, including the great estates of Harold’s family, were confiscated and distributed among his faithful followers, both Norman and English, though naturally the Normans among them far outnumbered the English. William avoided giving to any one person a great many estates in a single region, so that no one should become inconveniently powerful. Instead he granted several pieces in different parts of the country. The only exceptions were the great lords of Hereford, Shrewsbury, Chester and Durham, who had to be strong in order to guard the Welsh and Scottish borders. In 1085 the famous Domesday Book, a detailed description and record of all the wealth in England, was begun in order that taxes could be collected. Lanfranc, William’s new archbishop, reorganized the English Church. Finally, in order to secure the support of the smaller landholders and to prevent combinations against him among the greater ones, he required every landholder, vassal and subvassal in England to take an oath of fidelity directly to him.
It is clear that the Norman conquest was not a simple change of dynasty. William was ruthless, it is true, but he was a great administrator who gave England the first foundations of a stable and effective form of government. Had the conquest never happened England would probably have become part of the Scandinavian world. For all its cruelty the conquest opened the floodgates of European culture and institutions; it brought England closer to Western latinized Europe and created strong links (later rivalry) with Normandy and France. Although the Normans transmitted large parts of the Saxon heritage, a new element was added to the English people. We cannot tell precisely how many Normans actually emigrated across the Channel (perhaps between 6,000 and 10,000 of a total population of one million?), but their influence upon the English court and government was significant. A century after William’s arrival the whole body of the privileged nobility, the bishops, abbots, and government officials, were practically all Normans. For a short time these newcomers remained a separate people, but before the twelfth century was over they had become for the most part indistinguishable from the great mass of English people amongst whom they now lived. They had made the Anglo-Saxon people stronger, more vigorous, more active-minded, and more varied in their occupations and interests.
An important point resulting from the conquest of England by the Normans was that William I and his successors were, as Dukes of Normandy, tenants and subjects of the king of France, and at the same time independent kings of England. As they were more powerful than their suzerains and sovereigns, the weak French Capetians from Paris, the result was protracted rivalry and practically constant conflicts and wars with France until the 15th century. Conflicts had already started during William’s lifetime. The Duke of Normandy and King of England was mortally wounded at the siege of Mantes in France whilst fighting against his feudal overlord, the king of France. William I died on September 9, 1087, aged 60, and was buried in St. Stephen Church in Caen, Normandy. Another important change was introduced: the crown was no longer elective but hereditary. Before his death William left Normandy to his eldest son, Robert, and England to his second son, William Rufus. Henry, the youngest son, was given cash. The period of 1087-1106 is best viewed as a three-way struggle between the brothers as they attempted to reunite the two territories, a conflict into which England was occasionally dragged through the intrigues of the cross-Channel aristocracy, who found themselves in the uncomfortable position of having bonds of loyalty to warring lords.
World History
