2012/02/18

Brief Views on the Medieval Monarchs of England

The first 'official' monarch of the medieval period in England was Henry II. This monarch, as well as the next several succeeding ones, were really quite interesting people and made decisions and lived lives that were really interesting. Unfortunately for most of us, he have heard of very few of them except in our current social context. One example is Disney's animated version of 'Robin Hood' which paints King Richard in a pristine and beautiful light and makes Prince John into a two dimensional character with only bad and cowardly qualities.... not necessarily dishonest images, but certainly not the vibrant and colorful tapestry of the image that historians have been able to gather from the documentation. These small paragraphs are really in some ways a tease as I too haven't given you the complex, full images. But hopefully as you read through some of these small snapshots on the different monarchs and their challenges and successors, you will find yourself intrigued enough to want to take the time to learn more... I promise you that you would not be disappointed. :)

Henry II was considered to be very charismatic and he had a great impact on England. He was an unusual English monarch in that he was half 'French'. So he spoke French and was heir to a great deal of lands and titles in the land of France. His mother, who was daughter to the English king Henry I, made sure that he had a good understanding and familiarity of England. At the time that Henry came to power when he was 21 years old, the English 'Baron' was really the power in England. These barons had either taken over royal castles or created illegal castles so that they could have control over many areas... causing the leading ruler's power to really be broken up into the differing barons and not the monarchy itself. One of Henry's first decisions was to get the royal castles back under his control... and to have all illegal castles destroyed. Another thing which was a really big deal was that Henry made it possible for a king to use writing to be able to make decisions without having to actually be in the area. The Chancellor Office was created by Henry who had changed some parts of the law creating a document that was produced was called a 'writ'. This document would be created and it would carry the king's new law and was signed with a large and impressive 'seal' and then could be carried all over the nation-state. So Henry II no longer had to go places to have his word obeyed or known- he could send it and only need to enforce it physically if an area showed disagreement or balking. He attempted to put a great friend, Thomas Beckett, in the position of Archbishop of Canterbury so that he could have control over the church in England... or at least not be controlled by the church in his borders. Unfortunately, he got his wish... and his best friend was put in the position of Archbishop. But Thomas Beckett soon became his bitterest enemy and thwarted Henry II at every turn when it came to the autonomy of the church. Their disagreements became so bitter and angry that Beckett was eventually killed in his own cathedral in England by some of Henry's own knights leaving the blame- whether appropriately or not- on the head of King Henry. For a decade Henry also had to fight to control his lands against France and the disloyalty of his own sons who didn't want to wait for his death for power of their own. In summary, it can truly be said that Henry II had really solidified kingly power in England. King Henry did whatever it took to keep power under his control and even spent a decade fighting his own children whose ambition had started to rival his own. So he ended up fighting France and his children to keep his throne until his death. (Truly the battles between the king and his ambitious children could not have been comfortable or pleasing to the general populace.)

Richard I was his father's successor, and as such, he spent a decade 'ruling' England. However, he was only actually 'physically' in England for about six months of his reign. He had spent about a decade fighting his father Henry II for more power and whether he simply got used to fighting, he liked it too much, or really had no wish to sit around ruling, Richard chose to continuing fighting skirmishes or wars during his reign. So England was truly ruled during this time by an 'absentee' king- what Richard seemed to need England for was for money to finance his wars and adventures abroad... and that's it. Richard I also fought in the Crusades in the Holy Land and he eventually died from a mortal wound from his fighting. (His reputation for someone who disliked Jews led to some massacres of Jewish people on occasion and when he did eventually produce a writ stating that the Jews be left alone, it was very loosely enforced in his absence.) His chosen heir was his younger brother John who would then become king of England upon his death. Richard I was given a nickname that he would be called throughout his life by many and it was given to him even before he became king due to his reputation of great leadership in battle and as a formidable warrior; 'Coeur de Lion' or Richard the Lion-heart.

In a sense, John was always going to be in a difficult position coming into power after his brother Richard I. Unfortunately for John 'Landless', he was designated by future generations as the 'model of a bad king' for his pains. :) England had enjoyed almost a whole decade without a King on its shores and so an attentive monarch would not necessarily have been a thrill. However, John was also not strong in other positive ways and had a few personality traits that were quite difficult and are not positive or acceptable in a good leader such as pettiness, spite and vindictiveness. John also lost several of England's French territories to the strong and able leader of France and so for the first time since the time of William of Normandy, the English king was only the ruler of the land of England itself. John also appears to have been willing to sell out anyone and anything to protect himself – even the whole of England at one point in his rule. While past kings had claimed absolute authority, none of them had welded it with such a vengeance toward its people and John's ability to utilize any and all ways available to squeeze cash and revenue out of his subjects won him the reputation as a greedy and miserly leader. He used his power to strip his enemies of property and land... and what made you an enemy could be as simple as a disagreement with the king. John depended more on 'his' men than the nobility causing jealousy and anger between himself and the nobles. (At one point, John had so angered the Pope Innocent III that the pope ordered John 'deposed' from his throne and suggested a crusade to other monarchs to remove John from it- King John only got out of this by severe bribery to the Pope including an annual tribute and an agreement that the Pope was John's 'overseer'.... quite a compromise indeed ;) King John was quite willing to use any advantage he saw over his enemies or those who threatened him. Certainly few rulers have been able to get all of the most powerful of their lands to mutiny against them... that is an honor that John can share with very few.

We can thank John I for the document that we call 'Magna Carta'. The words 'Magna Carta' means 'the great charter' and it was a document that was signed into law around 1225 in England. This document was one of the ways that the English aristocracy tried in reign in the abuses of power by King John and it specified certain rights (such as the idea that a freeman could only be punished through the actual law of the land.) This document is the very first document that was ever forced onto a member of the English monarchy in an attempt to actually limit the King's powers and the monarchy's ability to punish members of the noble class for perceived (or actual) slights. It is important due to it's almost revolutionary idea that a king/monarchy should have some limit to their powers and authority... that even an absolute monarch had a few lines that they couldn't cross. King John's reaction to the Magna Carta and it's limits on his power was to sign it due to the threat of force, but then appealed to the Pope (his overseer)... who then nullified it causing great anger and war with the nobles in England. (It's a little funny how John would use anything and anyone to his advantage... and he still died a natural death. Funny, that.) While the Magna Carta might have been started due to King John's power abuses and arbitrary use of power, the next several kings had to deal as well with some form of the Magna Carta. Many of the rights listed in the document are known to us now as the basic human rights that every human being has the right to expect from their government. (whether all human beings do or not is a different story altogether...)

In addition to the Magna Carta, there were other things did the English aristocracy do to gain power over the king. The Magna Carta was reissued several times and when possible, many nobles would act as regents to young kings and simply not seem to notice that the king had grown up. During the time of Henry III, the nobles forced the king to accept a 'constitution' with an elected 15 man committee... he did fight it with a military, but was unsuccessful and had to turn over his son to the nobles to make sure that King Henry kept the rules of the new laws. He became simply a figurehead. Nobles began to discuss not just the tasks that they used to over the centuries such as taxes, but the affairs of the kingdom as well.

Edward III had quite an impact on the English government, but almost anyone might have after his father's weak and difficult reign. Luckily for England, he used much of his ambition for what the majority might have considered for the country's good. Edward III was a great military man and he managed, through his battles with Scotland and France, to form England into a formidable military power. Edward ruled for around fifty years, overcoming many difficulties including the arrival of the Black Plague and his initial coup d'état at the age of seventeen against his own regents. His ambitious claim to the French throne would begin a period of war in England with France for almost a century. Edward was very good at charming those he needed to and he also recognized that he needed to work with the aristocracy so he developed ways of pulling the nobles and the monarchy close together. It is thought that he even enjoyed working with the aristocracy. He developed and encouraged more 'peerages' and also created the 'Order of the Garter'. While King Edward fought, the Parliament would fund the wars and sign the treaties giving the English nobility an the English people themselves a full stake in the success of the monarchy and the state... a fairly new idea as most battles in the past were more about the leader and didn't cause much emotion in the populace unless it affected their lives personally.

Edward III successor was his grandson Richard II. But Richard's successor would not be of his choosing... In some ways, Henry IV gained the throne from his cousin Richard in small steps. These two men grew up together and had been great friends- they were both grandsons of Edward III. However, their minds and political wills developed very differently over time and they rarely agreed as adults. Twice, Richard II pardoned or exiled Henry Bolingbroke. King Richard's ruling style was very autocratic and with a nobility that was rich from England's wars with France and used to helping with the governing... Richard II would find that his ruling approach would not be accepted by the aristocracy. He was almost overthrown once by the nobles which included Henry (who he pardoned) and with patience, then used time and more power to overcome the nobles who had tried to revolt. Henry Bolingbroke came back from his exile when his father died and Richard II kept the lands and inheritance that should have gone to him... he was justly annoyed. With the help of several nobles and their armies, Henry was successful in his rebellion and he trapped King Richard in one of his Welsh castles. Henry Bolingbroke tricked King Edward into coming out into the open and then made him his prisoner.... and under force, Edward abdicated his throne to God alone. Henry then took power and was declared Henry IV, after stating that God had allowed him to take the throne from Richard, he was God's first choice. Henry IV then locked Richard II in Pontefract castle and allowed the deposed king to starve to death to secure the throne for himself and his heirs. This is important because King Henry helped cement the idea that England's king could simply be 'won' and not actually directly inherited... which would cause the crown to become a symbol of bloodshed and the sword for some time to come.... the 'Hundred Years War' would continue until around 1453.

(It might also be true that Richard's rule was so difficult for his subjects, especially with the heavyhandedess and the hatred that the people felt for one of his advisers (John of Gaunt) that the people were happy to help Henry take the throne. However, as John of Gaunt was dead and Henry's father... that doesn't make a lot of sense to me at least... )


Henry V may have only ruled for almost a decade, but that was a decade of great and ambitious work. King Henry had no doubt that the crown should be his and he immediately set about to bring together the country again that have been thrown into upheaval and fractured during the time of his father. He pardoned all his father's enemies and those who had fought for King Richard. He then claimed the French crown and when his claim was rejected, he gathered an army and headed to France. His conquests came close to winning him France and the peace treaty that was signed gave Henry the right as heir apparent to the French throne- he married Catherine of Valois, the French king's daughter, a few days after the treaty was signed. By the time of his death due to dysentery a few years later, England was a strong country; a country filled with people who felt strong nationalism and loyalty to the monarch, a country with 'legitimate' control of France, ruled by kings who wrote and governed entirely in English, and a country that was truly now a strong united nation-state. (This was the first time since the Norman Conquest that a government in England used English for all official and non-official documents.)

I will end by saying that Henry V is one of my favorite kings, but I think that is because I really liked his wife Catherine of Valois... or I guess I like her story and I like wondering about it and how her actions changed history for the entire future monarchy. I also find it difficult to really understand his death due to such a simple disease after all his ambition and struggle and motivation... it doesn't feel OK to me. Not that God or nature ever asked me. :D

So after these small tidbits of history, who are you most interested in learning about? If you wanted a better biography of any of these people, who would you want more information on? If you share, I might just oblige you.... :)

2012/02/14

My Popular Hits 2010-2011

It has been a few years since I started this blog and so much has really changed since then. My home, my family, my friends, the church, my life, my health…. so much is so different and, in many ways, new. This blog was started to help connect to family due to their encouragement and suggestions. But it has opened so much more opportunity for me. This blog still helps me keep in touch with family and I do feel less alone, but I have also made some friends from different countries and enjoy those small friendships. I have learned about other cultures and I have found deeper relationships with some family members than I have ever had before. This has been a wonderful blessing to me…

Last week, I got an email from my blogger account that congratulated me on reaching over 50,000 views. It is a stunning thought. I do not feel like I even really know one hundred people… and yet so many thousands have crossed the path of some of my thoughts. It is a feeling that is both overwhelming and a feeling of pure awe. So while I am sure I have a small group of followers and I am sure that most of the time… I can be quite boring, rambling, etc…. I thought I would take a few minutes to list the top ten posts that I have written that have been viewed over the last few years. I hope you enjoy! :)


1. Peter the Great: The Modernizer of Modern Russia (7794 views- first published 4/15/2011)








2. Ivan the Terrible: The First Czar of Russia (6025 views -first published 3/30/2011)








3. Debunking Some of the Myths of Medieval Daily Life (4121 views - first published 3/8/2011)









4. Some Snapshots of Life on Gondwana (3141 views - first published 8/18/2010)




5. Thoughts on the Document 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen' (1757 views - first published 9/19/2011)






6. The 'Worst Shark Attack Ever' - An Example of Human Failure and an Easy Scapegoat (1431 views - first published 6/24/2010)





http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
The Life and Art of Carl Heinrich Bloch (1090 views - first published 3/13/2011)






8. The Rise of Moscow after the Mongol Conquest (937 views - first published 2/21/2011)



9. Random Thoughts on Oral History, Interviews, and Technique (827 views - first published 2/23/2011



10. The Subjugation of Kievan Rus : The Tartar-Mongol Conquest and its Influences / Ramifications (827 views - first published 2/23/2011)






Is there a post that is your favorite? A post that maybe you really enjoyed but didn't see on the 'most viewed' list? Anything you are willing to share...? :)

2012/02/05

2012 Poetry Corner #2 : Freedom

There is a peace in being free
A stillness I have never known
The opportunity to be
Still, silent, aware





There is confusion in being free
So much I do know know
This isn't where I thought I'd be
Old, tired, alone







There is a grief in being free
My soul feels battered and bruised
But loss brings opportunity
Slow, sure, divine





There is a relief in being free
I can chose my own way
What I do is up to me
Whims, promptings, choice





There is stability in being free
For my schedule is almost my own
What the future holds, I cannot see
Change, clarity, being



So soon I will be free
And I will own what's left
May I move on and clearly see
Joy, possibility, love

2012/01/25

Brief Views on the History of the Black Death

The start of the spread of the Black Death actually has a rather ignoble beginning. A group of Christian Italian merchants who had been expelled from their native city of Tarna had come to stay in the Muslim trading posts of Caffa. These two groups had a bit of religious difficulty with each other and soon a small skirmish turned into a full-on war. It was one year into the siege in which the Muslims (with help from the local Mongol army) were attempting to out-root the Christians from Caffa that the plague arrived- it killed so many in the Mongol army that they were forced to stop fighting. However, the Mongol prince came up with a successful plan... and it was at this time that the remaining troops loaded their catapults with the dead bodies of his soldiers that had died of the plague and were then thrown into the city walls. The rotting corpses tainted the air and poisoned the water causing death in the city. A few of the still able individuals with resources were able to gather in their boats and attempt to sail away to safety... taking local rats accidentally on board with them. These rats carried fleas infested with the plague and soon the sailors were dying as they traveled. No port would allow the boat to dock when it was seen the boats were filled with the dead and dying... and when they reached in Mecina in Sicily, they barely stopped long enough before they were sent out again. It was in this brief respite however that there was time for several rats to get ashore. This very brief encounter is what was thought to have brought the Black Death from the East to Europe. We now know that the Bobak marmot is the creature that has always brought the plague to people.... by coughing on fleas... which spread it to rats... which spread it to us. All the great human plagues can be traced back to this animal in Mongolia who are particularly susceptible to this illness.


Europe was in a rather bad position for a contagious disease to arrive on its shores. By the time that the plague arrived in Europe, overpopulation was the norm. The long wars that had weakened the people and their lands were not completely ended in 1348, famines and harvest failures had left people hungry and undernourished, and it goes without saying that the instability probably caused great amounts of stress and fear that lingered on in the people even in times of peace. Overpopulation, especially in cities, made it easier for the plague to spread as people interacted with each other and then more people, as the filth and sewage of the cities that was not properly treated and left everywhere which left the people at more risk... as the poor used the clothing and possessions of the dead and the dying. As people became more fearful and terrified, the rich would gather possessions if they could and would flee away from the towns with the plague... but of course they would travel with it in their possession continuing the movement and the spread... accidentally bringing more and more people and communities into the path of the plague. One of the other quick ways that the plague travels to new victims was by ships and usually within days of a ship docking the plague was found everywhere nearby. One a sad note as well, the Catholic church had labeled cats as animals who belonged only to witches or where familiars of Satan... so the cat population, which could have helped control the rat population, was extremely low in Europe at his time.


There are actually two types of plague and they are spread through the human population in slightly different ways. The two types of plague are respiratory/pneumonic and bubonic plague... neither of which were very enviable. Bubonic plague was characterized by boils and blisters as well as fever that would appear which would weaken the person and the blisters/boils would grow larger and more painful until by around the fourth day, the person usually died. Very few that came down with the plague would live to tell about it later so we have very few firsthand autobiographies- the few we do are hard and difficult to read. Pneumonic plague is characterized by high, consistent fevers and respiratory difficulty, bleeding and breakdown. Pneumonic plague is much deadlier than its sister bubonic plague.... as well as much easier to transmit to other victims. The disease was spread by the infected fleas which would then bite a human host. Pneumonic plague could also be spread through the expelled air of an infected person.


It would be remiss at this point to suggest that the only terror of this time was the plague. The group that became known as the flagellants certainly can be accused of making things worse for the majority of the people. The flagellants were a group of religious extremists who believed that by causing harm and self abuse to their bodies, they could stop the plague by this form of 'penance' and would purge the society around them of sin. The Pope at first encouraged these 'sects', but these groups soon condemned the Pope for the failure of the plague to cease... and the Pope realized that this group was a risk to public order and his position. The Pope would then write to all the leaders in Europe to ask them to deal with the flagellant sects. Fairly quickly, most of the flagellants would be suppressed and wiped out in the several kingdoms which did effectively wipe out the majority of the sect members across Europe. At one point, the flagellants accused the Jewish populations of poisoning the wells and causing the plague causing several pogroms and massacres of these minority populations. So these sects didn't tend to cause anything but harm.... the fear and terror, as well as social unrest and massacres that they caused in many ways could have helped spread the plague as people ran from the unrest to other areas or brought the sick more closely together to protect themselves from the more immediate threat.


One impact that the Black Death had on the medieval societies was how people reacted to the church and to how God was seen. The Black Plague had a huge impact on the Catholic church. The difficulties caused by the flagellants was a black mark on the church that was difficult for the organization to shake... especially as the flagellants started to use the Church as a scapegoat for the death and the plague. Far more difficult to shake however, was the new attitude that the survivors tended to keep- that the established church was not necessarily absolute in power. People still strongly believed in God and their beliefs had even been strengthened due to the suffering causes by the plague. But all hierarchy- whether church based or politically based- was seen with a look of skepticism that had never been fostered before in the minds of the common man. People started to question the church as well as the general order of the world and tradition. It changed the relationship between the surviving poor and the surviving rich as the shortage of labor would give peasants more bargaining power. Europe was no longer overpopulated.... and it would take well over one hundred years for Europe to truly recover from the devastation of the Black Death.

2012/01/23

Brief views on the history of Medieval Britain - from Edward the Confessor to William the Conqueror

This post is a small series of chronological paragraphs that give brief images of around fifty years of history of Medieval England. I hope you enjoy and if you have time, take the opportunity to do your own research and enjoy the full view of the Bayeux tapestry. :)


The Normans are not originally from the country of Britain. The Norman people are actually descendants of the Vikings that came and conquered the land around the 9th century. As Charlemagne’s empire was disintegrating, one viking leader helped cement his power and rule over the land that became known as Normandy.... and it would be this ruler in whom one of his descendants would come to rule England as well – William the Conqueror.


While Edward the Confessor was considered (and is still sometimes considered today) to be the typical Anglo-Saxon king, he was very much a Norman king. When King Cnut died in 1035, there was a bloody civil war between the surviving elite and powerful in the English kingdom. Edward became the king almost by default as he was the only male member left of the Saxon royal family after this gruesome struggle. When Edward- forever known afterwords as Edward the Confessor- was now the sole 'ruler' of England in 1043 at the age of 36, he quickly found he needed some help from the few powerful people left in England as he knew almost nothing about the country. Edward's mother Emma was Norman who took him to Normandy to escape the wars between the Saxons and the Danes... and so this is where he grew up and lived for 30 years. This is the place and culture that shaped him- he spoke Norman French, learned a fierce independence... and lived in a word of almost constant warfare between the titled and their vassals and a world of Catholicism and piety. When he was king, he felt forced to accept the help and guidance of some of the powerful nobles of England, but there is also evidence to show that he also had Norman confidants as well. At his death in 1066, his crown was passed to Harold II... who would keep it for less than a year.

One thing that Edward had done to confuse the succession and to make a very strong statement to some... was to not have children. He had felt forced to marry Edith Godwin, but he would not sleep with her and so she would remain childless. This was the only way he appeared to find to get revenge on Earl Godwin (who had arraigned for Edward's brother to be murdered before Edward's reign) and the earl's scheming and interference. Another thing he appears to have done is to offer his throne to William of Normandy when he (Edward) died. If Edward truly sent Harold Godwinson to Normandy to give William the letter offering the throne of England (which it appears that he might have), that would also muddy the waters with the heir apparent bringing a letter giving away the 'birthright' so to speak and later with Harold's advancement to a knight when William would swear to protect Harold and Harold would also swear to be William's man. So Edward was to die without any truly clear successor. Whether that was truly his choice or simply indecisiveness we will not ever know for sure.

When Edward the Confessor died, there were two men who felt that they had legitimately inherited the throne. Harold Godwinson felt he had a best claim to the throne. He was the eldest son of the Earl of Wessex (Godwin) who had been the most powerful man in England during the reign of King Cnut and became the second in power during the reign of King Edward (to the King's anger and disgust). Upon his (Godwin's) death in 1053, his sons would continue the strong behind the scenes ruling of England.... and these sons included Harold Godwinson. One of the daughters of Earl Godwin named Edith had been forced onto Edward the Confessor in marriage which created another clear tie to the throne. So Harold had been the lead man behind Edward and with his family and political ties, he could easily have assumed and seen himself as the only legitimate ruler. Last, but not least, King Edward had touched Harold's hand on his deathbed... which Harold was more then ready to accept as a sign of Edward's approval and Harold's legitimacy to the throne. William the Bastard was well known to Edward as it appears they may have grown up together and even have been childhood companions. As he reached his adult majority, William quickly and methodically gained absolute power over the land of Normandy.... frankly, it sounds as if he was really darn lucky to have achieved his adult majority at all! According to some sources, Edward then offered the throne of England to his childhood friend William, the Duke of Normandy. As the King had 'offered' the throne to William, we can certainly see why he would feel that he had the most legitimate claim to if. William was also the supreme ruler of France.... Harold was simply a man who ruled in the 'silence' behind the actual king... William also had a faint family connection- he was related to the wife of King Cnut. Lastly, William also had the support of the Pope- a mighty support indeed.


In some ways, Harold Godwinson sealed his doom before he ever took the crown. This cane be seen in his treatment of his brother Tostig. Harold's brother Tostig was the Earl of Northumbria and was not considered a 'good guy'. Earl Tostig was so infuriating to his subjects that his actions eventually provoked a rebellion. The local nobles who won the fight declared Tostig an outlaw and named another man as a replacement for the Earl. Harold was sent by King Edward to try and solve the crisis and Harold soon realized that the answer to the solution came in one of two tough solutions: he could support his younger brother and potentially start a civil war... or he could throw out his younger brother and hope that in the future these nobles would support him for a bid for the crown. He chose the later solution- making a bitter enemy of his brother which in the end would cost him his life. (This choice might have also been a bit more difficult as it is suggested that Tostig was a favorite of King Edward so when Harold made this choice, it may have been expressly against the wishes of the King.) This 'ill treatment' by his brother would not be forgiven by Tostig. Tostig would bring the king of a nearby country (Harold Hardrada) and a large army back with him to England in an attempt to remove his brother Harold from the English throne.


Harold Hardrada (or Harold III) was the King of Norway and his reputation was as a unconquerable, ruthless warrior- no one wanted to tangle with this individual! Harold was also the owner of a slight claim to the English throne himself- the Norman ruler before him had made an agreement with the English ruler that they would give their lands to the surviving leader (it is believed. ) When the English ruler died, Magnus of Norway did not press his claim and allowed Edward the Confessor to take the throne. King Harold decided to use this 'fact' to press his suit.... although it is thought that Harold would not have actually pressed his claim without the encouragement of the revengeful brother of England's king (Tostig). Unfortunately for both King Harold and Tostig, this battle would end with the loss of both of their lives... and the temporary success of King Harold of England.


In the year 1066, England suffered quite a political upheaval. This was the year of the famous 'Battle of Hastings' and the year that the rule of the Saxons ended in England... to be taken over by the Normans (also known as Vikings). The English King, Harold II, died on the battlefield fighting the Duke William II of Normandy (also known as William the Bastard although he was never called this to his face. :) If you had been a powerful or rich personality before the battle, you were now a Saxon whose property and money had been taken by the new government and part of the race of the 'conquered'... which meant that you were also considered of a lower status than the Normans. This change really altered the way of life for most of the English people. Many were displaced and many died of battle, plague, famine, etc... For instance, it is known that about half of the English nobility died at the Battle of Hastings. In the next few months and years, King William and his army pillaged and ravaged the rest of the country into an almost total submission. Many parts of these cultures were different from each other which would also have affected the native English- surnames were used by the Normans while Anglo-Saxons used place names.... the idea of keeping estates intact and leaving it to the eldest son was also a Norman tradition. The Normans had different verbal accents, ways of looking at other people and at property, and would use available resources to depress and control the Saxons over all other Normans... including resources such as the legal system that the Saxons had developed before they were conquered. It was truly an occupation in the usual sense of the word. (I wonder if it felt a little bit like how some of the Iraqis might currently feel... or some of the population of South Africa a few decades ago...? I am not sure I could really understand this feeling as I have never lived it...)


William I, also known as 'the 'Conqueror', 'of Normandy', and (quietly of course) 'the Bastard', was truly nothing like many of the other known conquerors such as Cnut. While Cnut tried to change nothing about the culture or the lives of his subjects in England so his rule didn't really effect very many people in his kingdom, William would have found that task impossible even if he was willing to try it. He, for one, had promised land and spoils to his army which would cause the expected numbers of refugees and displaced people in England. After the Battle of Hastings, the next few months were spent with the stereotypical 'rape and pillaging' in an attempt to truly subdue his new 'subjects'. Over time King WIlliam built huge castles all over the country where loyal Normans well placed to help control any rebellious subjects and keep down revolts- these places could be seen as places for terror and torture to anyone who ran afoul of William or his allies. When he considered it necessary, intentional famine and massacres were also tactics used by William and his armies to quell and subdue revolts. In a phrase, King Cnut's presence was really never felt in England.... while you probably could never forget or get through your day without a thought of King William.


William of Normandy was really one of the first leaders who recognized that knowledge was really power. He used his power to gain information which was collected into a book called the 'Doomsday Book'. This king used his power and the fear he gave his subjects to force them to accept Norman culture. He made huge changes in the way that buildings were made and built cathedrals and other building in a fairly massive style in comparison to the past. He ruled over some changes to the English language as well as shifts in the nobility and their power. By his death, he had put his mark on most of the institutions of medieval England.


This book was a large grouping of all the information of the English 'kingdom'. It took almost six months to collect the information from across the country- which is amazing considering the time and a brief nod to the remnants of the government and civil service that the Saxons had left behind. Each village and group had to document everything they had – every animal, every assets... quite literally everything so that nothing could be hidden from King William. Housed in two 'books', everything written in this book was considered law and there was no appeal to the tax assessors. This helped King William heavily tax his subjects because it was so much more difficult for his subjects to 'hide' any assets. The book even lists the worth of the documented assets so that it would be difficult to change the worth later. This book also gives the king information about the numbers of men, slaves, etc... giving him very valuable information for potential military service, etc... These books were called the Domesday book because it was said that 'the book's decisions were as final as the last judgment'.