The Rise of Universities in the Middle Ages and the World of Gregory Chaucer

So when I was at work today, I heard two customers chatting about the past and an author that one of their children was studying. They mentioned the ridiculous refrain that people in the Middle Ages were all uneducated unthinking idiots (not my word by the way.) As part of the discussion that these two individuals were having, they discussed both the idea that the medieval people thought the world was flat and that Chaucer is a bore. I don't know if my studies have truly given me a unique perspective on this time in history or if I simply take that knowledge for granted and assume that other people know it as well. But, I soon found myself holding a pile of prescriptions in my hand, standing behind the corner of the wall and avidly listening to the conversation while pretending to rearrange toothpaste – that must have been pretty silly to watch. :)

When these to men shook hands and appeared to go their separate ways to finish their errands, I found myself really thoughtful. It is so clear looking at older maps and studying the early scientists that well before the Middle Ages- the time frame that is generally accepted is 500 AD- 1500 AD and this time frame may be considered to include the Dark Ages and is also known as the Medieval Period. Depending on how you look at this time and what has been documented of its history truly colors how you see it and judge its people and history. I don't think that addressing whether people at the time thought the world was flat is useful- there is so much evidence that has been collected over the years that strongly suggest that we moderns who believe these ideas about the people/past are really 'culturally snobbish' and ignorant of our ancestors and our collective past. I did think I would take the time to talk a little bit about Chaucer and his work as well as the rise of education and universities during the Middle Ages... because the idea of higher education/degrees and a college/university themselves were developed during the Middle Ages and are not products or children of the Renaissance or later modern times.

Gregory Chaucer was probably born in 1343 in London, England. While we do not know much about any of the other poets and writers of this age, Chaucer is an exception due to his decades of work in his government – as a courtier, a diplomat (who was captured by the enemy and ransom paid by King Edward III during the Hundred Years War), and a public servant. So many aspects of his life are actually quite well documented giving us a great portrait of this man's life and the world he tried to describe in his works. He studied law, traveled around Europe and married... being blessed with a few children. Hi writing career includes several works and translations- not only the famous 'Canterbury Tale' – most that are believed to have been written between 1374-1386. His famous work is very different from other literary works of the period and far from being boring, it gives us images into the lives and occupations of different people during this time. In some cases, historians feel they have been able to actually determine some of the individuals that were used by the author for characters. Gregory Chaucer also is known for his metrical innovation as well as the first user of many English words in his works- these words were probably in common use at the time and many are still in use today. He is also credited to helping to standardize the Middle English language and is known as the 'Father of English Literature' – his writings in it were uncommon at the time as most writing in England was written in either French or Latin. It is unknown exactly when he died or even how he died- there is some speculation that he was murdered for political reasons during a regime change, etc.... One interesting tidbit of information was that Mr Chaucer owned a building in London that (while unknown if Chaucer was in it at the time) would have given him a great view of the Peasant's Revolt and it's leaders passing under his windows at Aldgate... that would have been an interesting thing to see!

So, some of Chaucer's work is able to tell us about a lot about his society's problems in the fourteenth century! The Canterbury Tales helps us to see some of the problems that Chaucer's society needed to deal with at the time... or at least we can understand what problems he saw around him. One focus in his work is on the Catholic churchman and the corrupt practices of these men and the church. (It goes without saying that Chaucer is probably describing the vast majority of churchmen, but not an absolute truth.) Two characters in the book are members of the Catholic church who sell indulgences or whose jobs are to bring people to the church for excommunication and repentance- characters that both are portrayed as greedy, selfish, and even guilty of the same charges that they bring against others... suggesting they are corrupt and dishonest as well. Other characters that represent church members, such as the monk, the nun, etc..., tend to also suggest corrupt and spiritually lacking individuals with the exception of the nun. So it seems clear that concerns about the Catholic church were fairly widespread and not easily fixed during this time. (I make the assumption that they are not easily fixed if they are so widespread and 'in the open'.) Chaucer's writing when looking at the story of the Knight suggests that violence was too often resorted to for 'noble' or 'pure' reasons... which in the grand scheme of things were useless and ridiculous motives. Many of the stories also suggest problems in society between the different classes of people in the society as hierarchy is starting to be eroded in public thought and expression.

One important thing to note about the culture of reading and writing during the Late Middle Ages is that is that education was still something that was only 'trickling' down a little bit. The vast majority of people did not know how to read or write. Some of the poetry and music movements of the time gave the educated few more opportunities to express and enjoy a change in the culture that made it acceptable to talk about relationships and love in society. In the past, music and poetry was really a bizarre form of propaganda in the sense that the cultural writings , etc... tended to focus on war and the heroes of war, their deaths, etc.... Talking about love or relationships was quite taboo and for this idea to come out into the open society was quite new and also helped change some societal attitudes. Love poetry was also used to develop acceptable patterns of behavior for the society at large which gave rise to some of the behaviors that we see as chivalry. Fables and fairy tales became popular at this time... and it is this period that we can thank for Grimm's fairy tales and Aesop's fables. In fables, various characters of medieval society were thinly disguised as animals and were very entertaining... still are actually. :)

It was during this time that the idea of universities was envisions and began to take shape. Universities were first envisioned by the emperor Charlemagne who saw the need to have a large group of educated men (priests) that his communities could draw from for leadership... so he wanted to develop a program in which all the cathedrals and monasteries in his lands would provide a free education for any male child who was intelligent enough and motivated enough to complete the study (not just from a wealthy family). However, Charlemagne died before his dream became a reality. Some schools had been established and these schools managed to continue.... even through the worst of times they would continue to train priests. These schools basically taught two distinct groups of teaching. There was the 'grammar' school which taught grammar, rhetoric and logic and then the 'humanity' portion which included math, geometry, astronomy and musical studies. All of these studies were necessary to work in many capacities in the church so all were considered essential. Around the year 1000, some schools began to add more elements of education to their grammar and humanity studies. Universities began to not only try and teach knowledge that was known, but they also tried to learn and extend knowledge itself. Mathematics and classical studies as well as the study of law was expanded. By the time of Pope Gregory VII in 1079, in which he issued a papal decree for all cathedrals and monasteries to establish schools for the training of clergy, education and the idea of learning for people interested was on the rise. So the first universities were established in Italy (Bologna, Modena, Siena, and Padua), England (Oxford and Cambridge), France (Paris, Toulouse, Orleans, and Montpellier) and Spain (Palencia, Salamanca and Coimbra). The city of Paris developed a few great centers of learning that were associated with their monasteries. Qualified teachers could apply and become part of the teaching faculty there. The terms professor- reserved for the teachers that lived within the monastery- and associate professor- for the teacher who lived outside provided the words that we still use today in a slightly different context at our modern universities. In Paris, students at universities could pick which lectures and courses they took and they would settle in an area that was closest to the desired regions. Professors would then rent halls to lecture in and this area in Paris became known as the Latin Quarter- due to the common language of the people living, teaching, and studying there. The idea of a university separate from the Catholic church and the monasteries began to form as the Chancellors and leaders in their local areas in the church would try to control all subjects and knowledge taught under their jurisdiction. (This is a struggle that will still continue today between the Heads of Universities and the professors themselves). Around this time, students were not just taught to 'regurgitate' the knowledge that was taught to them, but also to use logic and reason to interpret and use it.... which began the public 'debate'. In fact, science was a heavier portion of a degree in those days and was required course work... not mainly electives. Due to a small but nasty incident of violence between students and teachers and others, the first truly separate university was developed in Paris and was called the University of the Masters and Students of Paris. This university fought and gained many rights that all colleges and universities take for granted today... such as the rights to pick curriculum, the right to choose their own faculty, etc...

This was also the time of the rise of the Humanists. The Humanists were individuals who thought that humanity itself was a grand miracle and to study humanity and its culture and accomplishments would help you to be a better person in your life and society around you. If you went to a university at that time, there was very little difference in the few degree programs that were offered in the beginning because the classes that you would take were the 'humanities'- language and grammar, history and law, poetry and classical writing as well as philosophy. (When you get a liberal studies degree today, you are getting many of the same kind of ideas that you would have received in the past... with updates of course :) It was thought that well rounded educated people would be better equipped and able to participate in their communities and civil obligations. It was also thought that the more educated and capable you were, the more likely you were to not only live a good life, but to influence those around you to do go as well and to help people around you to become better. I don't disagree with them at all really. I think that sometimes we can get too focused on a small part of education and lose our 'humanity' in that, but otherwise I think that education only helps us to help ourselves and others.

So, far from boring, I guess I tend to find this time in history fascinating. So much or our modern world was shaped by this time period and those who helped develop it. I speak a language that began to be developed during this time, attend colleges that came to exist because of the fights and challenges and hopes of past generations, and I am even getting a degree based on the medieval ideal... although I will say that the degree has changed a bit over the centuries. :) Can you imagine a world without these changes... a world where we all write mostly in Latin with Greek and French as secondary languages... a world where only those of more privilege birth are able to afford education at all and a world where you are very must limited by your birth and place. While our modern world still has some of these limitations, our ancestors have managed to remove some of the barriers that would have restricted us. I f you have attended a university in your life, would you be willing to comment on how it has benefited you, what it means to you in your life, etc....? I would love to hear your experiences! :)

Brief Views of the Early Medieval World Part II: The Decline of the Roman Empire, Monarchs, and Islam

This post is the second part of some brief paragraphs on different aspects of the medieval world and the people and religions that helped to create the world we enjoy today. I hope you enjoy....

It was during the medieval time that the Islamic religion rose to greater prominence. Islam actually has the same roots as Christianity and Judaism as these three religions can be traced back to the Patriarch Abraham. Islam was a family-oriented religion stressing ties to family over ties to clan and giving men the ability to have more than one wife. This helped protect women in this society that had not had a male protector and probably also helped increase the birthrate helping create more expansion internally for the religion itself. The religion of Islam as well was born with both political and religious arms which would make it harder to eliminate and giving it sufficient 'room' for rapid expansion... In contrast, Christianity had several centuries of persecution and discrimination due to its religious only status until Christianity was able to gain a political foothold as well. Another explanation for the rapid expansion could also be the rapid military expansion of the Arab empire soon after the death of the founder and prophet of Islam, Mohammed. Another positive quirk about Islam is that its leaders rarely felt the need to force people to convert and areas ruled by Muslim leaders tended to have a high degree of religious tolerance- a far cry form what we may sometimes see today in Muslim communities... and may also be why the areas that Islam originally 'conquered' stayed Muslim from that time until today as conversions were sincere and not necessarily forced on the populations around them. That said, religious tolerance was not absolute and while Islam was a minority, Islamic rulers would tax members of all other religions living in their communities and cities. It also should be noted that Islam and Christianity have a few similar doctrines, such as one God and a strong moral code, which were very attractive to people during that time. Also, Islamic leaders tended to keep many things about their population's day to day life the same. The Byzantine empire didn't change a lot under their leadership as the leaders kept much of the previous culture and just used and defined it on their own terms.

There are almost too many intellectual gains made in the Muslim world during this time to list! It is a fact that the Arab societies in the Eastern part of the empire became places of learning and scientific advancement... achieving far more in these areas than anything in the western portion of the empire. Many advances in medicine and science that we have learned about from the medieval time period came from the eastern empire... not the west. Many of the ancient texts that both scientists and historians study for knowledge were preserved and saved in the Eastern empire- the western empire was more likely to burn or destroy ancient texts rather than save them. This was brought about by the needs of the new Arab leaders who needed to try and control populations with diverse languages and cultures. It was due to these challenges that the need for translations began in earnest so that the rulers of the empire and the local governments could have access to the knowledge that they felt they needed. By the mid eighth century, Muslim communities were flourishing and these communities were growing and thriving in knowledge in the areas of education, literature, science, mathematics and even medicine. An example is that the works of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle would have been made accessible to anyone in the eastern empire due to the widespread reading and translation of his works, but at the same time the West had changed so dramatically and become so dependent on surviving that very few people would have even heard of Aristotle or his work- education really can't be considered important if you can't feed yourself. Education was prized and the oldest university that is still functioning today is over 1100 years old and is called the Qarawiyyin in Morocco. And it was mostly from Islamic Spain that the Western world would slowly begin to get this knowledge and intellect.

The Merovingian dynasty that controlled the Frankish throne had been struggling with the chaos caused by its civil wars for several years by the time that the Carolingians arrived on the scene. However, a unique position in the Merovingian government gave the Carolingians an edge in their quest to control the aristocracy and control the throne. This unique advantage was a position within the Merovingian court called the 'mayor of the palace'. When the position had been created early in the dynasty, it was filled with the man who would be in charge of the king's household and the 'mayor' was also responsible for managing all royal affairs in the king's name- this also included granting land and other favors to the noble classes to keep them loyal to the king. But over time the power of the kings weakened and the monarchy became less secure and absolute. It was in this climate that the individual in this position gained more power... and this power would eventually be greater than the power of the king he served. Many of the individuals in this position were Carolingians and this position tended to be passed down from one Carolingian to another. It was using this position that the individuals in this position would use the prestige and powers it contained to make the nobles and the aristocracy loyal to them and not the king. And it was a man in this position as 'mayor of the palace' named Charles Martel that would eventually increase the size of the kingdom and win his heirs the right to the kingship by defeating the advancing Muslims in 732 AD. His win for Christendom was able to win him the support of the Pope and the Catholic church who then helped establish his legitimacy as the ruler. Charles Martel's son, Pippin the Short was then named King on his father's death... and the Merovingian dynasty ended with a quiet 'sigh'....


Charlemagne, another member of the Carolingian dynasty, successfully linked politics and religion in his reign and used religion as a way to help him cement his power. Upon his conversion, he was a 'zealous' missionary and followed a strict policy of 'conversion or die' to all of the people that he fought. As part of his 'foreign policy', Charlemagne continued the policies of his father towards the church and he became the 'warrior' arm of the church- their protector, etc... He used religion to prop up his rule with elaborate rituals and as well as the 'support' of the Pope. One example was his coronation by Pope Leo III on Christmas day in 800- this showed everyone that he was 'God's choice' for ruler and also linked him heavily with the church. Some have noted that his reign was a reign of pure conquest... 'by the sword and the cross'. Another example was Charlemagne’s decisions to convey meetings of church officials as well as privileged laymen to consider his agenda and when it was agreed upon he expected not only the laymen but the bishops of the church to help enforce this agenda. Some of his reforms were to strengthen the Catholic church's hierarchy and clarifying their powers- this seems like quite a big deal for a secular ruler to help set the agendas and form he rules that a different spiritual organization would follow. He also built lots of churches and made not following the Catholic faith a capital offense. This ruler truly wanted to create a stability in his lands that had not existed for several decades and he used three major ideas to do so; culture, Christianity, and the good traditions of the Roman past.

It was very important to Charlemagne to connect himself to the good legacy of the Roman empire. Some parts of it, such as education, the use of Latin, the Christian church, and even the peace and unity that were known and romanticized about the thoughts of the Roman empire. He stressed the traditions of this time and saw value in education and classical knowledge. In fact, Pope Leo III called Charlemagne a 'great and peace giving emperor' at the later's coronation...giving Charlemagne a symbolic title and beginning the time we now call the 'Holy Roman Empire'.

Charlemagne's new title of Holy Roman Emperor gave him the respect of the Byzantine Emperor. He was also an admirer of the knowledge held by the eastern empire and copied the eastern architecture for buildings and attempted to start a large educational system. It is also known that Charlemagne at one point has hopes of adding the Byzantine empire to his territory and tried to marry one of the royal women in the eastern empire to strengthen his position. As the emperor of the eastern part has ambitions to also own the 'western' lands again, the relationship between Charlemagne and the Byzantine Emperor must have been fairly tense and distrustful at times. At one point, the tension came to actual warfare, but for the most part, both of these empire co existed peacefully after an agreement was reach between both emperors.

Charlemagne's relations with the Islamic empire are actually a little complicated. The Islamic Empire had control over the pertinent parts of Africa and of Spain. Charlemagne's agreement and ceding of some land to the Byzantine Empire gave this ruler a large empire that had no access to the Mediterranean sea and was surrounded by the Byzantine and Islamic empires. The Islamic empire when looking at a map appears to have been bigger than both Charlemagne's empire and the Byzantine empire combined... and the Islamic empire had a lot of wealth and resources. Much thought and care was given by Charlemagne to a 'buffer zone' between his empire and Spain to try and keep peace between these two kingdoms. The main reason that Charlemagne didn't have to fight the Islamists in his time was that Charles Martel had stopped their continued aggressive conquests of Europe in the land known as France several years before the reign of Charlemagne. His approach seemed to be to mostly to try to leave them alone and try to be prepared in case they didn't.

Brief Views of the Early Medieval World Part I: The Decline of the Roman Empire, Monarchs, and Christianity

This post is a bit convoluted.... well, I thought I would warn you early. :) It is a hodgepodge of information about the different rulers of early medieval Europe and the rise of Christianity... and the gradual decline and fall of the Roman empire. (There are some historians that suggest that the Roman empire didn't actually collapse, but instead continued on in the rise of the Roman Catholic church... there certainly seems to be some good evidence for this perspective... but I digress.)

There are many important legacies that Diocletian and Constantine gave to the medieval world. Both of these men were emperors of the Great Roman empire as it was beginning to 'fall' or decline. Both of these men ruled in a time of crisis for the empire and it was their decisions to try and save the empire and their reforms that really helped to shape the land known as Europe in the early Middle Ages. One of the major difficulties that these emperors faced was trouble with the Roman army. The empire itself was too large to be easily defended and military service was no longer considered to be an honorable career choice. It was not an easy life – quite hard as a matter of fact- and so finding people to do it when it was no longer honorable either and no good promises of land, pensions, etc... became quite challenging. So outside warriors would be hired but as with any people who are hired for money, they are more loyal to the people around them and those that pay them... so not necessarily loyal to the roman emperor himself. Other difficulties that they faced was the diminishing amount of slave labor and the inequality of the economic system in the different areas of the empire. As the Roman empire stopped fighting wars because they had conquered so much, they no longer had huge amounts of captives to make slaves. And some areas of the empire had managed to achieve economic stability while others really depended on these economically wealthy areas to sustain them. This sharp division of secure economies, cheap labor shortages, and the added burden of differing groups of people attacking the large and under-protected borders of the empire would have created quite a crisis for these emperors to deal with. Diocletian came to power from his position in the Roman army – a good example of how joining the army did create opportunities for the underclasses as he was from a peasant family in the area that is now the former Yugoslavia. He managed to cement absolute power for himself (which many leaders for the last 100 years had not) and he used that influence and power to push back on the barbarians who were raiding and compromising the borders and the towns near them. He reconstructed the government of the empire into a position of absolute power that was 'divinely' appointed. Using ceremony and created 'pomp and tradition/ceremony', Diocletian created a persona of the competent Roman ruler which Constantine was to continue with great success. He also created a class system which required all peasants to be bound to the land they had been on. Diocletian divided the empire into two large parts that could be more easily controlled. Constantine would continue every policy of Diocletian and added more reforms of his own. He himself became a Christian and made it the majority religion in his lands by force over paganism. Constantine the Great gathered much power and control over the fledgling Catholic church and even help to establish official church doctrine – an example is the Council of Nicea called in 325 CE to establish 'standard' beliefs for the church.

Together the general accomplishments of these emperors was to stabilize the borders and to create economic and social opportunity. The restructured governments helped keep their subjects in line and a more peaceful existence in the kingdom. In some cases, they were able to win back lost territories and to restore area to the empire They also were truly able set up the empire in such a way that 1/2 of it lived on in success for almost 800 years after the other half 'fell'. That is an achievement in itself. :)

There were a few different things that allowed for the development of a strong Christian church with specific orthodoxy and hierarchy. One thing that helped was the suppression of these early Christian groups, but was also due to the suppression and exiling of many Jewish groups. The religion that we see as Christianity in the beginning was seen as a form of Jewish heresy... Jesus Christ was Jewish, many of the laws followed the Jewish laws, etc... When Rome attempted to split up Jewish communities to give the government more power over the Jews, they inadvertently spread this heresy to a much larger area and made it much more difficult to destroy. The idea and development of church hierarchy came from the events up to and after the death of the Christ. When Jesus Christ was on the earth, he was the prophet and unquestioned leader. Upon his death by crucifixion and his 'resurrection', the first 'male' he saw was Peter the apostle. It was this experience and the words of Jesus that Peter was to be 'the rock upon the church's foundations' that caused Peter to become the new leader of the fledgling church. The organization of the twelve apostles was still used and as Peter or other apostles died they were replaced. Within the next few centuries, tradition about the resurrection of Jesus began to change a bit to state that Jesus only spoke with the apostles after his resurrection and no one else which was used to give the growing leaders of the Catholic church- the pope as the man who inherited his leadership for Peter the apostle, the bishops and cardinals who inherited the positions of the apostles and other high placed missionaries such as Paul- legitimacy as the heirs of these great founding 'fathers'. And as the church grew in membership, size and diversity, it became important to church leaders as well as secular leaders to control and standardize the beliefs of the Christian church. When some of these standards or orthodoxy had been established, it gave both secular and political leaders more power to deal with the other differing beliefs. New laws and persecutions would cause believers to either adhere to the new orthodoxy... or suffer for non-compliance. When necessary over time, more 'orthodoxy' would be added to help control other splinter groups (or groups with differing Christian ideas) over the years.

Christianity was so appealing to converts for many reasons. One thing that is clear is that it was most appealing to people who were unhappy and dissatisfied with the current government or civilization around them. This can be seen in the high percentages of converts who were members of alienated classes – women, slaves, immigrants and free people without a lot of rights or money. Christianity maintained a belief that all members of this spiritual order were 'equal' whether you were a slave or a member of the aristocracy which would attract many who were in the lesser classes. In many ways in the Roman empire, belonging to the official religion was seen as a form of patriotism so belonging to this 'Jewish splinter group' was not looked kindly upon. Christianity also offered spiritual guidance, a moral code, and a much better potential afterlife for its believers than the abstract philosophy and emotionless expression of the Roman pagan religion. Some historians also believe that due to the similarities between one of the pagan religions (Mithraism) and Christianity, people were more likely to convert to Christianity because its major beliefs and ideals were already known to the population and were not new ideas. One last idea that is believed to have converted followers to this religion is that Jesus Christ was a real person and as such, evidence for what he said or did could be found. Most other religions had no large amounts of evidence that could conclusively back them up.

The Roman empire was a empire of vast proportions of land and differing geography... and it was a land full of diverse people. The only unifying force was the government itself and this force would be less 'unifying' the farther you lived from it and it's influence. There was nothing that really connected any of these different groups or people to each other except their differences... which were more conductive to division and war rather than peace and unity. Clovis I may have had a few reasons for conversion including belief, but he was shrewd enough to recognize that as he continued to conquer lands and build his own empire, he needed something to unify these diverse groups of Franks in able to be able to rule them effectively. He was successful in both of these goals. He conquered the land of Gaul which we now call France and toppled the last roman emperor in 486 CE. By forcing conversion to Christianity, his people now had a common spiritual outlook and a way that they could be more easily controlled. It was also rumored that he had looked at other Christian religions (Arianism), but he chose the Catholic church and he became (as far as we know) the first Catholic ruler. And as a member of the rising Catholic church, he would also have the church heirerchy's support for his rule.

During the decline of the Roman empire, the Germanic tribes to the North gathered strength even as Roman officials continued to call these Germanic groups barbarians and uncivilized. The amusing irony is that while these Germanic groups did eventually overthrow the roman emperor.... the fact that the western empire lasted as long as it did was because of the military might of these groups that had become the majority members of all the armies for the Roman emperor in the Western empire. The groups that today we would call 'Germanic' would have been similar in culture, religious practices and in language- but those would be the only similarities. Under Clovis I, these tribes became united and incorporated other groups of people into their cultures. When these groups were not unified, each group had a leader who served in the capacity of the leader of religious function, military commander, judge... basically a king in most ways although the leader of these small groups was usually elected or agreed upon in some way by the eligible members of the tribe. With the success of Clovis and Christianity that brought about the unification of these groups, the leader quite literally became a king and was no longer 'electable' by his people. The society of the German peoples was hierarchical with laws that were more lenient for wealthier or more noble offenders, and women would only gain any form of class from their closest male relative- such as father or husband. Warfare was fairly 'rare' and most forms of violence were for easy gain- such as raids on neighboring villages before unification. Economics was mostly agricultural and hierarchical as well with peasants bearing the brunt of the labor and food production.

Most historians mark the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE when the emperor was overthrown by a German Chieftain. Certainly describing this slow and petering decline as a 'fall' seems slightly inaccurate. The study of the ending of the Roman empire in the west reminds me of a cancer patient. The problems started small and and then spread... and even with a few great rulers who were able to make reforms in attempts to eradicate the cancer, it continued to spread until the last gasp of life was gone and the empire was no more. At least when I hear the word 'fall' I imagine a group, city or territories being quickly and forcibly taken over by another large and powerful group.... a very clear defining line between the before and after so to speak. With the Fall of the Western Roman empire, there is no true defining line except for potentially where the 'last gasp' came- at the fall of the last emperor to Clovis and his army. Those are just my thoughts though. Another part of the gradual separation of these two large empires was the rise of the strength of the Islamic religion that started to become prominent both religiously and politically in the eastern part of the empire, which caused more separation between the two emperors and their people.

The Eastern Roman Empire had so many advantages over the Western Empire so its ability to survive for almost 800 years more is not necessarily remarkable. For quite a few years before the collapse of the Western empire, the leader in the East was the stronger emperor due to his empire's superior economy. The survival of the Western empire during its last few years was really based on the generosity and willingness of the Eastern empire to provide it with money, military help, etc.... So it comes as no surprise that the Western empire would fall if the emperor of the Eastern part of the empire decided not to continue the aid... which is what eventually brought the downfall of the Western empire. The Eastern empire had a steady tax base, fewer problems with outsider invasions and was generally more urban that the Western empire.

Two rulers of the Byzantine Empire really had several outstanding accomplishments during their rule – Justinian and Theodora. One thing of note is that Justinian used a lot of military might and kept his focus on reclaiming the lands around the 'Roman' lake or Mediterranean Sea. It had been lost before his rule and it was not an easy thing to gain back.... but he was successful during his reign. Justinian also helped reform Christianity and the church. One focus for Justinian was to pursue and force the idea on the people that an absolute emperor should be the status quo. Unlike many of the kings or 'emperors' in the west, Justinian was educated and was deeply religious and he used his power, position and the wealth of the empire to create beautiful churches. His total reformation of the law, known as the Justinian code, became the basis for civil law in the empire that is actually still used in many ways today (over 1000 years later.)

Before the disputes that would lead to the split of the early Christian Catholic church, the leaders of both the east and western churches would discuss orthodoxy and different church issues. One major religious dispute that was to help cause the eventual split between the two parts of the Christian church was based on who was the ultimate leader of the Catholic Church. At this time, there was a patriarch of Constantinople and a patriarch in Rome- both men argued that they were the true heir of St Peter (Peter the apostle) and therefore the true 'Pope' or Patriarch of the Catholic Church. The apostle Peter had been martyred in Rome and so the Patriarch of Rome felt that the head of the church should be in Rome where the apostle had died and where his grave was. The Patriarch of Constantinople disagreed and felt that since the first Christian Emperor (Constantine) had declared the city of Constantinople the 'New Rome', the patriarch of that city was the true heir to the apostle. Also, the city of Constantinople was in the stable part of the Eastern empire... whereas Rome was in the disintegrating and unstable Western empire. Other differences included differences in language and circumstances based on the slow estrangement of the western empire from the eastern empire... in a sense, the two sides became different enough that they began to distrust one another. In the Western empire, the pope was the head and all loyalty went to him whereas in the east disputes were only brought to Rome if the patriarchs in the east could not solve the dispute... clearly a different situation. Another was a dispute over the whether the Holy Spirit comes from the Father only or whether it comes from both the Father and the Son. Over time, There were several 'petty' disputes as the patriarch in Rome refused to agree with decisions made by the patriarch in Constantinople. These differences would continue until the Christian Church 'split' and became two churches. The first part would become the Roman Catholic church and would be led by the Pope. The church in the east would be headed up by the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople. In a sense, this schism was very much more of an human and emotional schism, not a schism based on doctrine or church policy.

Charlemagne, a member of the Carolingian dynasty, successfully linked politics and religion in his reign and used religion as a way to help him cement his power. Upon his conversion, he was a 'zealous' missionary and followed a strict policy of 'conversion or die' to all of the people that he fought. As part of his 'foreign policy', Charlemagne continued the policies of his father towards the church and he became the 'warrior' arm of the church- their protector, etc... He used religion to prop up his rule with elaborate rituals and as well as the 'support' of the Pope. One example was his coronation by Pope Leo III on Christmas day in 800- this showed everyone that he was 'God's choice' for ruler and also linked him heavily with the church. Some have noted that his reign was a reign of pure conquest... 'by the sword and the cross'. Another example was Charlemagne’s decisions to convey meetings of church officials as well as privileged laymen to consider his agenda and when it was agreed upon he expected not only the laymen but the bishops of the church to help enforce this agenda. Some of his reforms were to strengthen the Catholic church's hierarchy and clarifying their powers- this seems like quite a big deal for a secular ruler to help set the agendas and form he rules that a different spiritual organization would follow. He also built lots of churches and made not following the Catholic faith a capital offense. This ruler truly wanted to create a stability in his lands that had not existed for several decades and he used three major ideas to do so; culture, Christianity, and the good traditions of the Roman past.

Hope you enjoyed this post and learned a few things to boot. Stay tuned for Part two in a few days. :)

Brief Views and Discussions on the Dark Ages

This post is very much a bit of a hodgepodge about different aspects of the time that many historians call the 'Dark Ages.' I have tried to cover some of the important rulers which made the history of that age as well as some ideas about the culture, understanding, and perceptions of the populations living during this time.... this would not have been a very comfortable time to try and live through from the information I have gathered in my studies....

The term 'Dark Ages' was originally coined by the famous Italian scholar Petrarch who appears to have invented this term. When he compared this period of time to the early classical period of Rome, he saw this portion of the medieval period as the 'Dark Ages'... in comparison to the bright light of the earlier classical age. With the fall of the Roman empire, it would become apparent to other people and other generations over time that life had been different for past generations... and probably better. People would have seen the good roads, the monuments, the buildings, the bridges and the aqueducts which no longer worked. And they would look at these buildings and then also help break down those same grand buildings to build shacks, hovels, and other needed facilities... it must have seemed a bit unreal. However, this period of history would dramatically change the way that Europe would eventually come to be seen in our modern world. Certainly one of the bad things of this period was the challenges of daily life. People did not have or could not expect to have the basic level of security or order that had been available in the past. Political problems would quickly escalate into bloodshed- all forms of warfare between civil war, clan feuds, and political war were nearly constant as well as vendettas and so even the non combatants and the people who wished to live peacefully would have found it very difficult... or next to impossible.


One important man of this age was named Aleric the Goth. He was a Visigoth warrior who had begun his career by working with the leaders of the Roman empire to help protect the northern borders of the empire. Over time, Aleric realized that the only way he was going to advance in the 'military' ranks of the Roman empire was to put more pressure on the leaders of the empire to promote him. Roman governors and other leaders are known to have treated the Goths and other hired mercenaries extremely poorly... and in many ways forced these groups to begin to fight back against their Roman oppressors. Aleric the Goth used his knowledge of Roman warfare from supporting the Romans to his advantage and began a campaign with his men against Roman rule and Rome itself. For two years, his army surrounded the walls of the city of Rome in an attempt to starve Rome and its people out. He was eventually successful and the gates were opened to him and his Visigoths. Even though Aleric and his army were only in the city for a few days, he left the city of Rome basically dead from the two year seige and Rome's continued ability to continue to rule the empire was vastly harmed. (It must be noted that the ability of the Roman leaders to control the empire was already having a bit of difficulty by this time...)

The Huns were the first of the major conquering groups during the Dark Ages. Huns were a bit different from the other two groups in the sense that they were really able to assimilate those they conquered so that finding specific artifacts that can clearly be classified as 'Hun' is almost impossible. When you or your lands were conquered, it appears that most people joyfully (or at least successfully) joined the conquering group and began to follow the culture, etc... of the Huns. Archeology shows that many German groups appear to have assimilated quite successful with the Huns and that some of the cultural patterns which are very clearly attributed to the Hun populations.... which it is thought you would only do if you liked the group you were imitating. However, it must also be noted that when the Huns attacked and conquered much of the lands that we now consider 'German', millions of people did flee in terror from the advancing 'Golden Horde'... The Vandals began their military conquests during the last of the strength of the Huns and they were able to be so successful because Rome was so stretched militarily (in fact the Vandals started their careers as refugees running from the Huns... ironically enough.) The leaders of the Roman empire were already distracted and fighting with the Huns had diverted most of the Roman resources to the task of keeping the 'Golden Horde' under control. This allowed the Vandals to take territory that the Romans didn't have under heavy protection. So the Vandals were able to easily conquer and lay their own defenses for future attacks ...making any attempt to re-conquer the land by Roman leaders more costly and difficult. The last groups to enter the military fray were the Goths. The Goths and the Vandals can be seen as similar in some respects as the most important reason that these groups were attempting to conquer was for their own survival. Food was scarce and so the need to conquer other lands was really wrapped up in needing the food of the conquered for themselves... without the ability of the Vandals and the Goths to conquer some areas of the Roman empire, these groups would have potentially died out fairly quickly due to starvation or other environmental difficulties such as exposure. Attila appears to have ruled his people by bribery and also treating them almost as 'family' giving of his riches for loyalty and the comfort of his subjects (much less likely to revolt if you are comfortable. :) The Goths and the Vandals appear to in many ways work together and are united under more desperate circumstances.

When Clovis I, leader of the Franks, had managed to conquer a great deal of territory, he realized that one of the best and uniting forces that he could choose to help keep his subjects loyal and to give him more political allies was a common religion. The religion that he would eventually chose would be to convert to Christianity. Each land he conquered was filled with Romans (in which the majority of Romans were Catholics) and other smaller 'Christian' groups (usually considered heretical by the Catholics.) By converting to Catholicism, Clovis I was able to help cement his power and to hold the loyalty of new subjects and the conquered because they shared this common link of religion. He also found ways to unite people by accepting the people he conquered as equals in the groups. The conquered men would be drafted into his military to fight and their families and wives would become part of his 'clan'. However, before I make him sound like he should be named the 'uniter', his actions and ambition contributed a great deal to the turmoil of this age. He subscribed to the idea of “the Ordeal” and to become his prisoner was a painful and challenging experience... if you survived it. He continued to fight to conquer more land throughout most of his life causing much bloodshed, terror and death. He was one of the 'Barbarian' warriors who were consumed with conquest at all cost. And when Clovis died, he split his territory into four parts so that each of his sons could rule a share. These sons would fight with and kill each other to enlarge their shares.... continuing that chaos.

The Mediterranean Sea was called the Roman Lake around the time of Emperor Augusta and this name was kept for several decades and even centuries after the emperor's death. This name was deemed appropriate because Rome counted all land around the Mediterranean Sea as its territory and under its control. There wasn't any problem with piracy during this time due to the strength of the Roman government and military and trade was extremely easy and controllable. With the collapse and crumbling of the Roman Empire, full control of the 'lake' was lost. One of the Byzantine emperors, Justinian, had a dream... or was at least highly motivated... to bring back the goodness of the past empire and to gain back lost territories that had been conquered by others. Ultimately, both Justinian and his empress Theodora wanted full control back of the Mediterranean Sea. The Italian Campaign was very successful for Justinian and he was able to reconquer some of the lost territory. Justinian also built a huge and magnificent cathedral to Christ during this time. His battles gave him control of Egypt, Italy, North Africa, Turkey, Greece and Palestine.... which finally gave him control of the 'Roman Lake.' However, due to the arrival of bubonic plague, pandemic population loss ensued causing huge difficulties with the economy and he military. Justinian himself caught the plague and was one of the lucky survivor's...unfortunately, his mind itself was damaged by the disease. When the emperor Justinian died, his dream of controlling the Mediterranean Sea died with him. The new leaders of the Byzantine Empire decided that they could not financially sustain what had been the empire under Justinian and they forced their military forces to retreat from the regained territories. The break between the western part and the eastern part of the Roman empire was officially complete.

One major thing that the monasteries did during this time was that these institutions helped protect ancient books. Ancient books were collected and saved in monasteries and were copied by monks who learned to read and write behind the hallowed walls. The monasteries themselves really were the only places that continued education and formal teaching... almost no reading or writing was possible or taught outside of the monastic orders. Monasteries also became the major forces in the areas that they were located as these organizations tended to be the wealthiest institutions in the community. Monasteries and their leaders tending to have political authority and would help with commerce. One monk named Bede wrote a book about the history of the world from the time of Julius Caesar to his own time- giving us an important link about the culture and life during that time. By the seventh century, there were few people outside of monasteries who were still literate. Benedict of Nursia was a monk who ended up starting a dozen monasteries that followed a list of strict rules that he developed called 'The Rule of St Benedict.” By making many monasteries more united in rules as well as religion, these groups would become a stabilizing force for themselves as well as the land and people surrounding them.


One of the most popular leaders during this time was a man named Charles Martel. He was the commanding officer of the French army in 732 AD, the Muslim Moors threaten the Christian land of France after traveling from North Africa to Spain. The Moors came to the land of France for conquest as well as missionary work for the prophet Mohammed and the Koran.... not to mention that the Moors felt that Europe would be easy to conquer because the leaders of the European countries had worn themselves and their resources out by fighting themselves. Charles Martel knew the Moors were coming and he felt quite desperate to defend the land of France and to defend Christianity itself. So he made a few very unpopular decisions. Knowing that his army was at a disadvantage to his rivals due to lack of money, he took land and money from the Catholic church. He then used these 'stolen' resources to train and arm a strong army and he set up his army in a place that was to his advantage in the predicted path that the Moor armies could be expected to travel. Both armies looked so well formed that when the armies of the Moors and of France met, they actually spent six days looking at the other army... and it wasn't until the seventh day that the Moors attacked. Charles Martel's army was said to stand 'like a wall' in front of the attacking army and keep the majority of the enemy army occupied. Charles then sent some of his troops to the Muslim camp to plunder it. This intrusion into their camp caused many of the Moors to head back to their camp to try and protect their stolen plunder... causing confusion in the Moor's army on the principal battlefield. This would lead to the death of the Moor commander and gave the victory to the French and to Charles 'The Hammer' Martel. He became known as the savior of Christianity in Europe due to his victory in this battle.

Emperor Charlemagne was very different from other rulers of his time. He ruled a vast amount of land- an amount that hadn't been held in such a large solid mass since the Roman Empire. Charlemagne tried to single-handed lead this large group of land and people under his control. He launched over fifty military campaigns- all of which was successful-and these lands were added to his control... and the survivors were forced to accept Christianity or die. If you were caught later worshiping different gods, you were executed. He didn't lose any military conquest that he started and he also reinvigorated learning and education by building schools- becoming the first king in centuries to attempt to become literate... he was known to have been passionate about learning. He ruled for thirty two years and in a great political achievement, he was then crowned Emperor by the Pope in St Peter's Basilica on December 25, 800 AD. Emperor Charlemagne would then rule for another 14 years until his death of natural causes in 814 at the age of 72. Some things that made him different from the other rulers of his age was his vast military successes, his understanding of the benefits of education and literacy, and his strong religious views that were carried out without fail toward all in his power or his path. There was no tolerance for any other views except for Catholicism and any outward attempt to show belief for something else was quashed immediately. All of these things would have a profound effect on the people he ruled.... making Catholicism secure in the hearts and minds of the surviving people, nationalism strong, and a people who truly felt that their leader cared for them... giving this leader and his prosperity an edge other contemporaries didn't have.

When Charlemagne conquered the Saxons in 782 AD, he condemned 2500 tribal leaders to death for worshiping 'false gods.' This massacre and beheading of these Saxon leaders was a clear statement to all other groups... and became known as the 'Bloody Verdict of Verdun'. The statement is that anyone who does anything that is not Christian- if you disobey the king, if you refuse to be baptized, if you are caught performing pagan rites, if you cremated someone at their death instead of performing a Christian burial... all of these things were automatically death sentences under Charlemagne. It must be stated that what was considered to be Christian or not (heretical) was really up to the interpretation of the individuals that had power such as political and Catholic leaders... which could change depending on the viewpoint or needs of the leader.

During the last years of Charlemagne's rule, the Vikings began their savage and rough piracy. While the Vikings did attack and destroy places in many countries including Iceland, the Middle East and North America, Britain was the Viking's favorite haunt due to that land's vulnerability to sea invasion... which was the Vikings greatest strength. The largest group of Vikings ever gathered attacked Northern England was led by Avar the Boneless. His armies continued to try and take over Britannia even after his death. In the south of the country, Alfred the Great was aware of the Vikings and their most probable eventual attacks on his lands. He studied and figured out what strengths of his enemies were and then used his resources to attempt to thwart the Vikings. He built fortifications and fortresses where the people would come and hide for protection from the Vikings when attacks would come. Once the people were in fortresses, they were safe from the Vikings and the attack wouldn't be profitable to the attackers. This allowed the Vikings to wear themselves out over years trying to fight Alfred... who then was able to eventually conquer these groups who would then leave his lands... or they would assimilate into the local populations. Now matter what the Viking military groups did, they were really unable to get much due to the great planning of Alfred the Great. England went through over two decades of violence as the Vikings continued to attempt to take over the people and the land. This devastated the land as well as the people with the constancy or war and death.... that was rarely interrupted by security or peace.

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'.