Simon Schama - A History of Britain: "Beginnings"

A friend of mine gave me this amazing DVD series on the History of Britain. As I have spent the time perusing it, I took notes for future reference. Most of these notes are in the voice of the narrator and, while in order, only provide a brief summary of the episode and not a full transcription. I am really enjoying this series and intend to do a summary of every episode... although that may take me a few months. Here are my notes for the first episode titled "Beginnings."





From its earliest days Britain was an object of desire.

By 1000 BC things were changing fast. All over the British landscape a protracted struggle for good land was taking place. Forests were cleared so that iron age Britain was not, as was once romantically imagined, an unbroken forest kingdom stretching from Cornwall to Inverness. It was rather a patchwork of open fields dotted here and there with woodland copses giving cover for game -especially wild pigs.

And with tribal manufacturers came trade. The warriors, druid priests, and artists of iron age Britain shipped their wares all over Europe trading with the expanding Roman Empire. In return, with no homegrown grapes or olives, Mediterranean wine and oil arrived in large earthenware jars. So iron age Britain was definitely not the back of beyond. Its tribes may have all led lives separated by custom and language and they may have not had any great capital city, but taken together they added up to something in the world.

And so, in the written annuals of Western history, the islands now had not only a name-Britannia- but a date of 55 BC when Julius Caesar launched his galleys across the channel.

The person we usually think of who embodied British national resistance to Rome- Queen Bouducca of the East Anglian tribe of Iceni- actually came from a family of happy even eager collaborators. It only took a policy of incredible stupidity, arrogance, and brutality on the part of the local Roman governor to turn her from a warm supporter of Rome into its most dangerous enemy.... Her great insurrection ended in a gory, chaotic slaughter.







Hadrian's wall

A world of garrisons and barracks had now become a society in its own right. From the middle of the second century it makes sense to talk about a Romano-British culture. Not just as a colonial veneer imposed on a resentful natives but as a genuine fusion.


And, when in the year of 410 Alaric The Goth sacked Rome and the last two legions parted to prop up the tottering empire, that chill developed into an acute anxiety attack. This is one of the genuinely fateful moments in British history.

Eventually though the Roman adaptations became ever more makeshift; the fabric of Roman life increasingly threadbare until it did indeed fall apart altogether. The island was now divided into 3 utterly different realms. The remains of Britannia hung on in the west. North of the abandoned walls and ports the Scottish tribes for the most part remained pagan, and England, the land of the Anglo-Saxon and Judes, was planted in the east all the way from Kent to the kingdom of Bernicia.

The history of the conversions between the 6th and the 8th centuries is another of those crucial turning points in the history of the British Isles. While the legions had long gone, the shadow of Rome fell once again on these islands. This time though it was an invasion of the soul and the warriors were carrying Christian gospels rather than swords.

We have to remember that the most famous of the early missionaries to Ireland -Saint Patrick- was in fact a Romano-British aristocrat. (The patrician as he called himself) So there was nothing remotely Irish about the teenager who was kidnapped and sold into slavery by Irish raiders sometime in the early 5th century. It was only after he escaped (probably to Brittany) and ordained... then visited by prophetic dreams that he returned to Ireland... this time the messenger of God's gospel.





Bede was not just the founding father of English history; arguably he was also the first consummate storyteller of all of English literature. He was not exactly well-traveled- he spent his entire life here in Jarrow. It was his masterful grip on narrative that made Bede not just an authentic historian but also a brilliant propagandist for the early church.


The Viking raids that they knew could strike hard and fierce at any moment. In addition to land the Vikings were keen on one other kind of merchandise - people whom they sold as slaves. On the positive side there is one thing that the Vikings managed to do however inadvertently. They created England. By smashing the power of most of the Saxon's kingdoms, the Vikings accomplished what left to themselves the warring tribes could never have managed - some semblance of alliance against a common foe.

Through Alfred the Great, England got something that it hadn't had since the legions departed; an authentic vision of a realm governed by law and education. A realm which understood it's past and its special destiny as the Western bastion of a Christian Roman world. By the spring of 878 Alfred had managed to piece together an improvised alliance of resistance. During Alfred's lifetime the idea of a United English kingdom had become conceivable and even desirable.

Alfred's grandson would be crowned the first king of England in Bath.





pictures from: mine, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patric, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great

Short Perspectives on Feudalism, Manorialism, and Serfs

This was a difficult post for me as this is not an easy or benign topic.... While the concepts I will discuss can be seen in simple terms, they are in many ways complex and unique from other situations. Imagine trying to describe a social system such as capitalism in simple terms and you might realize some of the difficulty that a historian faces in these situations... and I will not pretend to be a true historian, simply a loyal fan as it were. In this post, I will attempt to discuss the differences between Manorialism and Feudalism (for there are differences) and what the different aspects of being a serf or being a Lord would be as well as some of the challenges that Europe faced during this time. Enjoy... :)

There are a few differences between the manorial system and feudalism. Manorialism is a system of forced agricultural labor and the human relationships are between the aristocrats and their forced laborers- the peasants. The economy is based on agriculture and little to no cash money is used. The manor, a landed estate which was privately owned, was in the center of the manorial land with the land that was given to the serfs surrounding it. This system gave some stability to the peasants and the aristocracy together. Feudalism was more of a political structure and gave rules to the relationships between the aristocracy. It was a system that worked with the power distribution between the nobles and was a system that basically made checks and balances between the 'equals' of the nobility. Whereas, manorialism really was a part of a system that gave rules for relationships that were 'unequal' – that of lord and serf... or CEO and janitor to use a common metaphor. And that system was feudalism.

The manorial system was actually an important part of feudalism, which was the system of living that was used to control and govern almost all peoples in Europe at one time. Manorialism was the basic principle that organized the rural economies in feudal Europe. In a form of 'trickle down' politics, a lord of a manor was given certain legal power over those who worked on his manor. He would benefit from the forced agricultural labor of the peasants who worked his land and he had some legal obligations towards those same peasants such as protection of them and the land. If you were a lord, in many ways you got a pretty sweet deal and it was in this way a lord would continue to develop wealth and more power from exploiting the obligatory free labor of the peasants. There really wasn't anywhere for the peasants to go... as there were simply too many of them.

The obligations or duties required of a serf were very different from the obligations of his liege lord. Serfs, of which the majority of peasants were, were bound to the soil or land of a Lord. They were required to stay on, live on, and work the land with very little say about it. If the noble sold the land or gave it to someone else, the serf went with the land- in that essence, a serf was truly property. (The only ability that a serf had to legally leave the land was if he was able to get permission from his 'lord'.) One benefit that a serf did have was that he could pass on his 'land' to his children... however, that didn't change that fact that the land and his children were owned by the Lord of the Manor. A serf was required to work the land and pay rent for it to the lord (which was usually paid in agricultural products.) A serf also had to pay dues to the manor if they wanted to cut wood, use the common bakery or mill, etc... Other work that the Lord of the Manor could require from a serf was misc labor services in the manorial land (the land the lord kept for his use) for a certain number of days- fix fences, roofs, etc... The usual number of required days was three a week. The Lords were the authority and the lawmakers of the manor. They were the judges over disputes, the disciplinarian of crimes, and the Lord was expected to above all protect his serfs from harm... such as marauding vikings or other groups. The Lord would also be obligated to try and fix damage due to natural disasters such as fire or flood and to protect the Catholic church in his lands as well.

Another aspect or social 'level' of Feudalism is the vassal. A vassal was an individual with a slightly different 'job' than a serf. A vassal was 'given' land by a lord in exchange for an oath of loyalty and the obligation to give the lord military support and protection. A vassal could 'give' his land to his heirs if they were old enough, but the vow would need to be renewed to the Lord at that time... the vow would have to be remade with each person and was not 'inherited'. Once the vow was made, a vassal was obliged to give military service, give advice and counsel to the lord about military or manor matters, to give aid if the lord incurred unusual expenses such as military campaigns and of course, to provide hospitality to the lord if he was to come for a visit- they were to be treated as royalty! In exchange, the feudal lord would give the vassal (most times) land that the vassal could use to make income and even have his own serfs. Vassals would also be required to provide military soldiers to the lord if their holdings were big enough. A vassal tended to be a lesser noble, but still not of the peasant class...

This system and social structure was fairly stable for a long period of time. Those in power kept it and the peasants would (like most of us) try to find a way to be successful in a limiting and oppressive environment. It was only with several natural disasters that this system would have its first severe challenge. One of those challenges was in the year of 1315 and is quite notable as the beginning of a deadly famine in northern Europe. Europe at this time was a mostly agricultural economy and so any kind of food shortage would have large ramifications for the population. This famine was devastating enough that the combined northern states of Europe would take several years to fully recover. There are several factors that helped contribute to the devastation that this famine had. One factor was weather itself... the spring of 1315 was mostly bad weather (rain and cool temperatures which didn't allow for a good beginning growth in the crops. This in turn led to almost universal crop failures all across the northern European continent – and as the economy and eating was based upon these crops, this was a very scary thing indeed. Peasants already found that the majority of what they were able to grow had to be given in taxes to the church or to the lord of the manor. If they didn't grow enough to have extra... they would have nothing to eat or even to save as seed to grow the next year. A crop failure during this time would have had devastating effects. Add to that the fact that the population at this time was at an historical high... so there were many more people percentage-wise to feed with the same land and techniques of growing then there had been in the past. This meant that even with a small shortage of food, some people would necessarily go hungry. By 1316, all the peasants would have found themselves hungry with no food reserves and this in turn would force them to resort to desperate means- whether it was crime, poaching, killing of needed animals, etc.... some even resorted to cannibalism and some members of 'elderly' populations would starve themselves to leave more food for the younger people. Other factors that contributed to these problem were that many kings during this time didn't really have an effective way of dealing with any major crisis affecting the country they governed. The Catholic church would also take some of the blame for the famines as prayers and other 'interventions' were not successful. So this famine would help erode the power and unquestioned authority of both kings and popes because neither group could or did deal effectively with the crisis.

So how did these natural disasters affect manorialism? The large scale deaths that came with the famines and almost continuous wars had taken their toll on the poor and those who were simply trying to survive through the never ending crises. During these times, many kings had started to really collect and cement an absolute power that had only been seen a few times in the past during large empires. This absolute power took away from the power of the 'lords' or nobles and gave the kings the might to control their domains and their land... whereas in feudalism, a knight might feel a lot more loyalty to the lord he knew than the distant king. The growth of towns as a different and successful economic policy also gave alternatives to the rural economy. But the disasters had also killed ALOT of people... so labor was no longer overabundant. Instead, those who gave labor now had more options (in theory). Yes, a peasant was legally obligated to stay on the land for the lord that he worked for, but if you could escape to a town and get work there you could eventually get your freedom. You could escape and go work for another lord who would pay you better wages than your current lord because the noble was desperate for labor. Trade had developed and you could make your living from more than just tilling the ground for someone else. Also, as the population began to grow again people began to move out of the manorial lands to other close land and these peasants would not be considered serfs. Money and trade would change how you could get paid for your labor. So, as the peasants started to make changes, towns and trade grew and change happened economically around the country. Also, as the 'Kings' became true absolute monarchs, manorialism was undermined and slowly defeated.

Feudalism itself was undermined and defeated in a few steps- most of the same steps that destroyed manorialism as the manor system was an essential element of this system. Feudalism itself is a system that helped to establish stability in oaths of loyalty and honor to other nobles or kings. By ending many of the wars between the noble class, it was better for the countries themselves as well as the peasants who tended to take the brunt of noble 'ambition'. The rise of towns, free men and the return of money to the economy eroded the strong, unyielding relationships that were so important in feudalism. Lords no longer had full control over all the economy on their lands and cities, etc... they might not have any control over at all. A moneyed economy allowed nobles to train and hire armies so that not only were the armies more effective, but they were not taking from the people who were growing food and had no wish to fight. The rise of education during the High Middle Ages as well as the previous disasters also eroded some of the need for feudalism by changing the mindset of ordinary people which influenced people to start to question tradition, hierarchy and the Catholic church. In essence, feudalism as a system was too rigid and unyielding to be able to survive and adapt to the subtle changes in the society that it was trying to control.

Whew! Again, this was a very short and simplistic way of looking at this subject... What are your thoughts?

Brief Views of the Vikings and their Culture

Until the 1880's, historians knew very little of Vikings and their society and culture except for the stereotypical – large horned helmets, murderous and ignorant barbarians, etc... It was during this time in Norway that some archeologists found an amazing discovery in the ground at several burial sites - large ships filled with goods and military items, etc... clearly a tomb and luckily for us, very well preserved. This gave historians the evidence to suggest that this people had an elaborate burial system, clearly that they believed in a very active afterlife, and the goods themselves would show a more complex culture that was previously believed. And when excavations had begun, it was not necessarily believed that these ships that were discovered were able to be seaworthy. Research and experiments show us that these ships were extremely seaworthy and easily used... giving us more insight into their past culture and lives. This post will hopefully give the reader some brief images and understanding of the complexity of the Viking civilization and some of the leaders of these differing groups. (Some aspects of their culture reminded me a bit of the early Egyptian society actually.... not to change the subject. )

Life was very different for the groups of Vikings who living in the times before 'raiding' became part of their culture. They were considered a sedentary society based on agriculture. The societies were organized around small villages or clans/groups- it is guess that these were based on families, but this is really just a guess. Peace was the norm although disagreements and war between different groups was not unknown. The economy was based on raising animals and growing food and this was truly the basic economic unit of this society. The shot growing season was a time of tremendous pressure to grow and produce the food for the longer, cold period of time.

So... what made the Vikings become raiders...? In this culture, a king was a man who owned a large farm who would have his 'workers', farmers, slaves, etc... Raids became 'necessary' as the amount of food and farm land needed for these growing populations became too scarce to support the larger numbers. This 'military tactic' was first used on the surrounding groups as the stronger preyed and slaughtered the weaker groups... taking the resources and substance to support themselves. (They would basically attack, kill, take everything.... and then leave.) However, this really wasn't sustainable as eventually weak Viking groups would no longer exist. Wealth and resources would again be scarce and so some members would start to look out to the seas and the lands beyond for their potential of resources and wealth. One truly scary aspect of the Viking raiders is that all the different groups were independent of each other. While historians tend to talk of 'Vikings' as a noun (a solid group), this word really describes in some ways a verb.... groups that have some outward similarities, but have no loyalty towards other groups, no political ties, and no understanding or wish to work with each other. So any groups who needed to fight the Vikings would be unable to negotiate, bribe, etc.... to stop the violence.... any treaty would only be with that particular raiding group. The only agreement they would have was they might agree to fight together to conquer other groups... and that was about it. Their traits of greed and terrorism were also hard to combat by their victims.


The Viking long boat gave the Vikings a real edge against other groups of people and became a very significant part of their culture and success. These boats, once developed, allowed for a vessel that was able to be produced in as little as 4-6 weeks that could travel safely in the North Atlantic ocean. Smaller versions of this ship could be made that were light enough to travel in waterways that large vessels couldn't travel safely in... such as rivers. It was this ship that allowed these groups to become a serious fear to the rest of the 'reachable' world. These boats were really a great technological feat for this time creating a ship that has low draft and high maneuverability. These boats are narrow and needed very little water to travel in. Rivers then became significant waterways because this allows these groups to use these smaller ships to get inland quickly and with little warning to the on-land populations. This allowed the Vikings to attack areas that were populated by people who were not used to attack from its waterways leaving these populations especially vulnerable.

While most groups throughout history were attracted to gold, these Viking groups found silver very attractive. And as such, monasteries would have easily been seen as the best places to attack. After all, the monasteries would be the most wealthy groups in almost all of the lands of England and Europe. And, most importantly, monasteries would not be heavily armed and were well trained in 'passivity'. If you have choices of groups to attack, these would have been the most attractive- you were more likely to get huge amount of wealth and resources with much less risk or injury or death to you and your allies.... why would you attack anywhere else that was less wealthy and will more risk of damage/death?

The first known monastery to have been attacked was the monastery of Lindisfarne on the northern most coast of England in the year of 793 AD. This attack was considered a milestone for the Vikings (the first major Viking sea raid) and was recorded in a historical document called 'the Anglo Saxon Chronicles' in words of pain, fear, and anger. This attack was so successful that as word traveled throughout the Norse world, other groups of Vikings started building ships to come and conquer and steal the wealth in Europe that was easily 'taken'. This really started the onslaught of Europe by these groups.

The idea that these Viking had no common leader or king is extremely significant. When you have a group such as the Huns led by Attila, you have more potential ways to end combat. One leader can be bribed or can be worked with though diplomacy or mediation. If a group with one leader needs to try and work with several leaders of several groups, he is very much at a disadvantage. Each of these leaders has no loyalty to each other and has no reason to abide by any agreement made with the other leaders.... which pretty much removed any possibility of non violent means of ending the conflicts. And once fighting had commenced, stopping the violence is again very difficult as there was not the benefit of one leader to call a halt to the fight. So fighting could and would continue long after the 'conquered' had attempted to surrender. This scenario reminds me of groups of children on a play group and how they can be pretty much uncontrollable until a feared teacher calls them into line.... the Vikings would not have had the feared 'teacher.' So the death and violence could literally continue until all enemy combatants including infants were dead. It is no exaggeration that the Vikings were terrorists and used terror, like other past and future leaders, to psychologically convert the people they wanted to conquer.... and the spreading of the stories of their acts of violence to begin the 'psychological' conquering of future European groups/cities.


One of the most well known Viking leaders was a warrior called Ragnar the Dane. Ragnar quickly became known as a notorious and vicious military leader during his career. He was ambitious and he completed the first major river conquest by the Vikings. In 885 AD, he took a fleet of 120 ships down the Seine river towards Paris. Once there, he conquered the French military forces by the river and marched them inland... then 'hanging' until dead all survivors which were estimated at around 111 individuals. As Ragnar matched to Paris, it's leader Charles the Bald attempted and was successful in bribing Ragnar and his army to leave his city alone by paying an extremely huge ransom of six tons of gold. (This was a sign that the 'Reign of Terror' caused by the Vikings was really working as Paris was actually really well defended, but Charles was unwilling to even take the risk of fighting the Ragnar and his Viking army.) This bribe did cause Ragnar to leave, but the stories of the amount of wealth that was available passed across the continent like wildfire and was the cause of even more Viking groups traveling to the European continent for their share of these vast and seemingly endless amounts of riches and wealth. And since each group had its own king, no other Viking leader felt the need leave the inland cities alone. Soon every river in Europe was being used by the Vikings to conquer every city within reach of these waterways... which was pretty much all the cities in Europe at that time.

The Christian religion played a huge role within the differing Viking groups. As it was with other populations around Europe during this time, Christianity became a tool used by the various Viking leaders to subdue and tame their people as well as the conquers. It is thought that Leif Ericson was the major missionary to the different viking groups of this religion – there is some thought that a Viking King in Noway asked him to specifically convert the outer-lying colonies to Christianity. He is fairly successfully although many tribesmen were reluctant to convert from their pagan traditions. Over time, Christianity was followed by the vast majority of Viking tribesmen and groups... and it was the only successful idea that unified these separate groups... as they still had no common kings/leaders or reasons to unite with each other.

Another important Viking leader was Harold Hadrada... who was a half brother of King Olaf- the king of Norway.. At fifteen years old, Harold was known to be fighting in some of the civil wars at the time. (Norway was in the midst of a civil war between the differing groups and the war had pretty much become a war between King Olaf and another leader, King Canute the Great.) After Harold was injured in the civil war when he is sixteen and King Olaf has been killed (about 1030), he is exiled from his homeland and he heads out and finds protection for himself in the city of Kiev in Kievan Rus (Russia) – ruled at that time by Yaroslav the Wise. He learns more lessons in the craft of war and becomes leader of a military force that is used by Prince Yaroslav to keep down insurrections among his people. His work and military prowess for this Prince of Kievan Rus was great and he was only able to leave his 'protection'.... by sneaking out of the country.


When Harold had become wealthy and powerful, he quietly left Keivan Rus and headed back to Norway... and within a year of co-rule with his nephew, he became the only ruler of Norway. Anyone who was suspected of treason or disagreement with Harold Hardrada was killed and he ruled his people through force... through the simple message of 'submit' or die'. He then took the knowledge that he learned in Kiev of trade and commerce and promoted it in his lands understanding that his people would be strongly united under him if the population were wealthy and prosperous. He developed a major trade center in the city of Oslo which sold goods from all over the currently known world. Unfortunately for the country of England, Harold's ambition did not fade over time and eventually an alliance was formed with the traitorous brother of the current king. The alliance with Tostig Godwinson gave Harold the excuse he was looking for to sail out and try to conquer England. The English army is extremely strong and formidable and Harold's vanity and confidence is so strong that he makes a huge tactical error and loses the fight.... and his life. Some historians see this particular battle and the death of Harold Hadrada in 1066 as the end of the 'Viking Age'.

In conclusion, what is the legacy that the Vikings left behind? One benefit of these numerous raids to the Vikings that is not commonly thought of is the tremendous amount of differing cultures and societies that they were exposed to in their quest for conquest and wealth. The legacy of the Vikings to our current world is quite vast. They leave the lasting legacy of the tales of their triumphs, ferocity, terror, and brutality. The lands that they settled in became very discreet lands with their own cultures- Norway became a solid country, Russia does as well... each with its own identity, cultures, etc.... England would fall to the Normans which would then become its own country. These individuals and groups would assimilate into the lands that they moved into and their culture would intertwine and merge with the culture around them. The practice of raiding caused the heavy fortification of Europe as well as significant feelings of 'nationalism'... something that hadn't really been seen before. The Vikings also give us the legacy of significant social and political changes, unifying with other populations by the presence of Christianity, the significant development and changes across Europe in ship building, and their legacy of improved economic growth and trade. While these groups brought lots of negatives to the areas that they interacted with, our world is truly richer because of them.

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'.