DOCSLIB.ORG

INTRODUCTION Anglo-Norman England Has Long Been a Fertile

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
INTRODUCTION Anglo-Norman England Has Long Been a Fertile INTRODUCTION Anglo-Norman England has long been a fertile subject for the study of medieval military history. Its preeminence is due in large measure to the events of 14 October 1066, during which William, duke of Normandy, wrested control of England away from Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings. The result was a wave of changes that permanently altered the land of the Anglo-Saxons. Many of these changes directly influenced the methods by which the English crown conducted warfare, including the advent of a baronage and the importation of a feudal system of military obligation, both introduced after William’s coronation on Christmas 1066. William brought a policy of conquest and domination to England that defied compar- ison to the former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The Old English kings fought primarily defensive battles to preserve the Heptarchy against Viking and Danish expansion from the ninth to the eleventh century. In these endeavors the Saxons were only partially successful; the strong West Saxon-Kentish state built by Alfred (879–899) grew to include lands in the uncertain regions of Northumbria and Mercia, but the advent of the Danelaw and the return of Viking invasions in the late tenth century eroded the stability of the country. By the eleventh century Edward the Confessor (1042–1066) and his earls were struggling to maintain England’s borders in the rebellious west and north. In the years after Hastings, William solidified his reign through military operations such as the 1070 ‘harrying of the north’ with the Scots, as well as diplomatic moves that gained him the fealty of Welsh princes in 1081. Furthermore, because William retained his ducal rights to Normandy, under his rule England’s interests were formally linked to the Continent. Following his death in 1087, the Anglo-Norman royal line would mirror the hereditary success of the French Capetians, and until the deposition of Richard II on 29 September 1399 England’s crown enjoyed, with only one exception,1 1 This was the reign of Stephen of Blois, the nephew of Henry I (1100–1135), who ruled during the ‘anarchy’ in which he struggled with Henry I’s daughter and co-claimant Matilda; her son, Henry fitz Empress, gained the crown in 1154 and restored the original line of succession, albeit through a female. There were also 2 introduction direct familial succession through its Anglo-Norman, Angevin, and Plantagenet kings. These and other achievements followed the Norman conquest of England. William the Conqueror’s victory at Hastings has captured the imaginations of student and soldier alike, for it was one out of a rel- atively small number of major, decisive battles fought during the Middle Ages. Harold’s defeat meant the loss of life and crown as well as the transfer of England to an already-powerful duke, and few moments in history were encapsulated in the course of such a singular event. William’s career in Normandy and Brittany before 1066 set the stage for England’s entrance into the context of conti- nental warfare. The first proper encounter between the Anglo-Saxon infantry and the Norman bowmen and cavalry in 1066 has likewise been regarded as a case study for the conduct of eleventh-century warfare, and the tactics applied at Hastings have been the foci of Anglo-Norman military study for decades. William’s disputes with the Capetians and other local rulers in Brittany, Maine, and Normandy did not disappear after his coronation; king or not, he was still legally a vassal of Philip I of France (1060–1108), so the governance of these other provinces remained points of contention.2 Yet the English crown offered resources enough for William to improve his military footing and retain his holdings in Europe, and for the first time England became directly involved in continental politics. William’s sons William Rufus (1087–1100) and Henry I both intervened in continental lands with varying degrees of success, but the military nature of those struggles departed significantly from the decisive Battle of Hastings. Instead, long campaigns were settled bloodlessly in treaties, pitched battles were forsaken in favor of land-scourging tac- tics, and castles replaced armies as the effective measure of territo- rial control.3 These changes and others have encouraged the historical study of warfare during the remainder of the Anglo-Norman period and beyond. The present study addresses a portion of this timeframe succession disputes between William Rufus and his brother Robert Curthose (1087), Robert and his other brother Henry I (1100), and between John and Arthur of Brittany (1199). 2 For his warfare pre-1066, see D. C. Douglas, William the Conqueror (Berkeley, 1964), 133–55; and J. Gillingham, “William the Bastard at War,” in ANW, 143–60. 3 S. Morillo, Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings, 1066–1135 (Woodbridge, 1994), 1–2..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • King Stephen's Reign
    KING STEPHEN’S REIGN: A REASSESSMENT OF THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE HENRY FAIRBAIRN Introduction IT is well known that the English coinage, unified from the late tenth century under royal con- trol, fractured into a series of official, irregular and baronial coin types during the reign of King Stephen (1135–54). This was caused by the arrival from Normandy in 1139 of Henry I’s daughter Matilda and her half-brother Earl Robert of Gloucester, which precipitated a civil war that lasted until 1153. The last major study of the coinage of Stephen’s reign was under- taken by Mark Blackburn in 1994.1 Despite his masterful survey of the numismatic corpus as it existed in the early 1990s, the increasing popularity of metal-detecting has expanded the volume and variety of the present corpus of these coins significantly. Therefore, an analysis of these new coins and the implications of this upon our existing understanding of the period is needed just two decades on. Stephen inherited a strong, centralised and long-established monetary system. The late Anglo-Saxon kings from Athelstan onwards enshrined in law that only officially-struck royal coins were to circulate within the territories under their control and they ensured that imported foreign coin were converted into English coin at the mints.2 King Edgar’s reform of the coin- age in c. 973 saw a uniform design for all English coins. The obverse showed a standardised portrait of the king with his name around the circumference; the reverse displayed the name of the moneyer and the name of the mint.
    [Show full text]
  • Anglo- Saxon England and the Norman Conquest, 1060-1066
    1.1 Anglo- Saxon society Key topic 1: Anglo- Saxon England and 1.2 The last years of Edward the Confessor and the succession crisis the Norman Conquest, 1060-1066 1.3 The rival claimants for the throne 1.4 The Norman invasion The first key topic is focused on the final years of Anglo-Saxon England, covering its political, social and economic make-up, as well as the dramatic events of 1066. While the popular view is often of a barbarous Dark-Ages kingdom, students should recognise that in reality Anglo-Saxon England was prosperous and well governed. They should understand that society was characterised by a hierarchical system of government and they should appreciate the influence of the Church. They should also be aware that while Edward the Confessor was pious and respected, real power in the 1060s lay with the Godwin family and in particular Earl Harold of Wessex. Students should understand events leading up to the death of Edward the Confessor in 1066: Harold Godwinson’s succession as Earl of Wessex on his father’s death in 1053 inheriting the richest earldom in England; his embassy to Normandy and the claims of disputed Norman sources that he pledged allegiance to Duke William; his exiling of his brother Tostig, removing a rival to the throne. Harold’s powerful rival claimants – William of Normandy, Harald Hardrada and Edgar – and their motives should also be covered. Students should understand the range of causes of Harold’s eventual defeat, including the superior generalship of his opponent, Duke William of Normandy, the respective quality of the two armies and Harold’s own mistakes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle of Hastings
    The Battle of Hastings The Battle of Hastings is one of the most famous battles in English history. What Caused the Battle? In 1066, three men were fighting to be King of England: William of Normandy, Harold Godwinson and Harald Hardrada. Harold Godwinson was crowned king on 6th January 1066. William and Harald were not happy. They both prepared to invade England in order to kill King Harold and become king themselves. Harald Hardrada attacked from the north of England on 25th September. However, he was killed in battle and his army was defeated by King Harold’s army. King Harold was then told that William of Normandy had landed in the south and was attacking the surrounding countryside. King Harold was furious and marched his tired troops 300 kilometres to meet them. Eight days later, Harold and his men reached London. William sent a messenger to London. The message tried to get Harold to accept William as the true King of England. Harold refused and was angered by William’s request. Harold was advised to wait before attacking William and his army. His troops were very tired and they needed time to prepare for the battle. However, Harold ignored this advice and on 13th October, his troops arrived in Hastings ready to fight. They captured a hill (now known as Battle Hill) and set up a fortress surrounded with sharp stakes stuck in a deep ditch. Harold ordered his forces to stay in their positions no matter what happened. The Battle of Hastings On 14th October, the battle began.
    [Show full text]
  • Gloucestershire Castles
    Gloucestershire Archives Take One Castle Gloucestershire Castles The first castles in Gloucestershire were built soon after the Norman invasion of 1066. After the Battle of Hastings, the Normans had an urgent need to consolidate the land they had conquered and at the same time provide a secure political and military base to control the country. Castles were an ideal way to do this as not only did they secure newly won lands in military terms (acting as bases for troops and supply bases), they also served as a visible reminder to the local population of the ever-present power and threat of force of their new overlords. Early castles were usually one of three types; a ringwork, a motte or a motte & bailey; A Ringwork was a simple oval or circular earthwork formed of a ditch and bank. A motte was an artificially raised earthwork (made by piling up turf and soil) with a flat top on which was built a wooden tower or ‘keep’ and a protective palisade. A motte & bailey was a combination of a motte with a bailey or walled enclosure that usually but not always enclosed the motte. The keep was the strongest and securest part of a castle and was usually the main place of residence of the lord of the castle, although this changed over time. The name has a complex origin and stems from the Middle English term ‘kype’, meaning basket or cask, after the structure of the early keeps (which resembled tubes). The name ‘keep’ was only used from the 1500s onwards and the contemporary medieval term was ‘donjon’ (an apparent French corruption of the Latin dominarium) although turris, turris castri or magna turris (tower, castle tower and great tower respectively) were also used.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Anarchy and the State in IR Theory: the Contributions of Classical Anarchism*
    Rethinking Anarchy and the State in IR Theory: The Contributions of Classical Anarchism* Alex Prichard University of Bristol © Alex Prichard School of Sociology, Politics, and International Studies, University of Bristol Working Paper No. 03-10 Dr Alex Prichard gained his PhD from Loughborough University in 2008. His research brings to light the international political theory of the anarchist Pierre- Joseph Proudhon, and will be published by Routledge in 2011 in the 'New International Relations' series as The International Political Theory of Pierre- Joseph Proudhon: A World Without Sovereigns. He is founder and convenor of the PSA Anarchist Studies Network and is co-editor of 'Contemporary Anarchist Studies', a new book series to be published by Continuum from 2010. Dr Prichard was a teaching fellow and research officer at the University of Bath (2008-2009) and is currently an ESRC Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Bristol. He will be a teaching fellow in International Political Theory at the LSE from September 2010. *Please do not cite without the author’s permission. Comments welcome to [email protected] Rethinking Anarchy and the State in IR Theory: The Contributions of Classical Anarchism Abstract: In this paper I intervene in an ongoing debate between Colin Wight and Alex Wendt regarding the nature of the state. The current debate revolves around whether the state is an agent or a structure and seems to have become stuck as regards to the ontological status of groups. For Wendt the state is a person; for Wight the state is a structure that constrains and enables individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • The Medieval English Borough
    THE MEDIEVAL ENGLISH BOROUGH STUDIES ON ITS ORIGINS AND CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY BY JAMES TAIT, D.LITT., LITT.D., F.B.A. Honorary Professor of the University MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY PRESS 0 1936 MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY PRESS Published by the University of Manchester at THEUNIVERSITY PRESS 3 16-324 Oxford Road, Manchester 13 PREFACE its sub-title indicates, this book makes no claim to be the long overdue history of the English borough in the Middle Ages. Just over a hundred years ago Mr. Serjeant Mere- wether and Mr. Stephens had The History of the Boroughs Municipal Corporations of the United Kingdom, in three volumes, ready to celebrate the sweeping away of the medieval system by the Municipal Corporation Act of 1835. It was hardly to be expected, however, that this feat of bookmaking, good as it was for its time, would prove definitive. It may seem more surprising that the centenary of that great change finds the gap still unfilled. For half a century Merewether and Stephens' work, sharing, as it did, the current exaggera- tion of early "democracy" in England, stood in the way. Such revision as was attempted followed a false trail and it was not until, in the last decade or so of the century, the researches of Gross, Maitland, Mary Bateson and others threw a fiood of new light upon early urban development in this country, that a fair prospect of a more adequate history of the English borough came in sight. Unfortunately, these hopes were indefinitely deferred by the early death of nearly all the leaders in these investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • 1966 – 900Th Anniversary of the Battle of Hastings
    SPECIAL STAMP HISTORY 900th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings 1966 The story of the stamps to mark the 900th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings began with a letter of 5 November 1962 to the Postmaster General (PMG) from the ‘1966 Celebrations Council’, constituted in Hastings to prepare events to celebrate the anniversary. The letter suggested that ‘this famous anniversary in the history of our country’ be commemorated by stamps. The reply from the GPO, dated 9 November, was non-committal. The Council was informed that the policy regarding special stamps confined them to ‘outstanding current national or international events and Royal and postal anniversaries’. Even though the Battle of Hastings resulted in the death of the last Saxon King of England and marked the beginning of the Norman Monarchy, the 900th anniversary was clearly seen by the GPO as an historical, rather than royal, anniversary. Such anniversaries were excluded by the policy unless of outstanding historical importance and marked by notable current events. The GPO therefore asked to be kept informed of the events the Council proposed to stage, in order to decide whether this occasion warranted an issue of stamps. Planning of the anniversary celebrations was in its infancy and the Council had only undeveloped ideas. These included re-enacting King Harold’s march from Stamford Bridge and the Battle of Hastings itself. The feeling within the GPO was that the planned celebrations ‘had the air of a local publicity drive’ and, as such, did not merit an issue of stamps. On 14 November 1962, Captain H Kerby asked in Parliament whether the PMG intended to issue stamps to commemorate the 900th anniversary of the Battle of Hastings.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of England A. F. Pollard
    The History of England A study in political evolution A. F. Pollard, M.A., Litt.D. CONTENTS Chapter. I. The Foundations of England, 55 B.C.–A.D. 1066 II. The Submergence of England, 1066–1272 III. Emergence of the English People, 1272–1485 IV. The Progress of Nationalism, 1485–1603 V. The Struggle for Self-government, 1603–1815 VI. The Expansion of England, 1603–1815 VII. The Industrial Revolution VIII. A Century of Empire, 1815–1911 IX. English Democracy Chronological Table Bibliography Chapter I The Foundations of England 55 B.C.–A.D. 1066 "Ah, well," an American visitor is said to have soliloquized on the site of the battle of Hastings, "it is but a little island, and it has often been conquered." We have in these few pages to trace the evolution of a great empire, which has often conquered others, out of the little island which was often conquered itself. The mere incidents of this growth, which satisfied the childlike curiosity of earlier generations, hardly appeal to a public which is learning to look upon historical narrative not as a simple story, but as an interpretation of human development, and upon historical fact as the complex resultant of character and conditions; and introspective readers will look less for a list of facts and dates marking the milestones on this national march than for suggestions to explain the formation of the army, the spirit of its leaders and its men, the progress made, and the obstacles overcome. No solution of the problems presented by history will be complete until the knowledge of man is perfect; but we cannot approach the threshold of understanding without realizing that our national achievement has been the outcome of singular powers of assimilation, of adaptation to changing circumstances, and of elasticity of system.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is History?
    Year 7: Unit 1 – What is History? Timeline KEY TERMS The Romans invade England and begin their Someone’s view of an event. These points of view can be different depending upon 43 AD Interpretation 350 year rule. your experiences or situation. Sources are pieces of information that help historians to learn about the past. For 793 The Vikings first invade England. Source example, letters, diaries, photographs. They were made at the time. 1066 William of Normandy conquers England. Chronology This is the arrangement of dates or events in time order. 1215 The Magna Carta is created. BC means ‘Before Christ’ and refers to the years before 1AD. Also known as BCE BC The Black Death reaches England and kills which stands for ‘Before Common Era’. 1348 one-third of the population. AD means ‘Anno Domini’ which is Latin for ‘in the year of our Lord’. This refers to the AD Henry VIII begins to break away from the years after 1AD. 1533 Catholic Church and starts the Church of England. Decade A decade is a period of ten years in time. The first time Britain set up control in Century A century is a period of one-hundred years in time. 1607 another country (Jamestown in America). The Medieval period is also known as the ‘Middle Ages’. This was a period between Medieval This started the British Empire. the 6th century to the 15th century. 1914- The First World War. This refers to a source which was made at the time of an event. For example, a diary Primary Source 1918 written by a soldier during the First World War.
    [Show full text]
  • (Schools History Project) the Norman Conquest, 1065
    Qualification Accredited GCSE (9–1) Candidate Style Answers HISTORY B (SCHOOLS HISTORY PROJECT) J411 For first teaching in 2016 J411 - The Norman conquest, 1065 - 1087 Version 1 www.ocr.org.uk/history GCSE (9–1) History B (Schools History Project) Candidate Style Answers Contents Introduction 3 QUESTION 6(a) High level response 4 Commentary 4 Medium level reponse 4 Commentary 4 QUESTION 6(b) High level response 5 Commentary 5 Medium level reponse 5 Commentary 5 Question 7 High level response 6 Commentary 6 Medium level reponse 7 Commentary 7 Question 9 High level response 8 Commentary 8 Medium level reponse 9 Commentary 9 2 © OCR 2017 GCSE (9–1) History B (Schools History Project) Candidate Style Answers Introduction This resource has been produced by a senior member of the GCSE History examining team to offer teachers an insight into how the assessment objectives are applied. It illustrates how the sample assessment questions might be answered and provides some commentary on what factors contribute to overall levels. As these responses have not been through full moderation, they have not been graded and are instead, banded to give an indication of the level of each response. Please note that this resource is provided for advice and guidance only and does not in any way constitute an indication of grade boundaries or endorsed answers. 3 © OCR 2017 GCSE (9–1) History B (Schools History Project) Candidate Style Answers Question 6(a) In Interpretation A the historian Robert Bartlett argues that the ‘Harrying of the North’ had a powerful impact on northern England.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynastic Marriage in England, Castile and Aragon, 11Th – 16Th Centuries
    Dynastic Marriage in England, Castile and Aragon, 11th – 16th Centuries Lisa Joseph A Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Masters of Philosophy The University of Adelaide Department of History February 2015 1 Contents Abstract 3 Statement of Originality 4 Acknowledgements 5 Abbreviations 6 Introduction 7 I. Literature Review: Dynastic Marriage 8 II. Literature Review: Anglo-Spanish Relations 12 III. English and Iberian Politics and Diplomacy, 14 – 15th Centuries 17 IV. Sources, Methodology and Outline 21 Chapter I: Dynastic Marriage in Aragon, Castile and England: 11th – 16th Centuries I. Dynastic Marriage as a Tool of Diplomacy 24 II. Arranging Dynastic Marriages 45 III. The Failure of Dynastic Marriage 50 Chapter II: The Marriages of Catherine of Aragon I. The Marriages of the Tudor and Trastámara Siblings 58 II. The Marriages of Catherine of Aragon and Arthur and Henry Tudor 69 Conclusion 81 Appendices: I. England 84 II. Castile 90 III. Aragon 96 Bibliography 102 2 Abstract Dynastic marriages were an important tool of diplomacy utilised by monarchs throughout medieval and early modern Europe. Despite this, no consensus has been reached among historians as to the reason for their continued use, with the notable exception of ensuring the production of a legitimate heir. This thesis will argue that the creation and maintenance of alliances was the most important motivating factor for English, Castilian and Aragonese monarchs. Territorial concerns, such as the protection and acquisition of lands, as well as attempts to secure peace between warring kingdoms, were also influential elements considered when arranging dynastic marriages. Other less common motives which were specific to individual marriages depended upon the political, economic, social and dynastic priorities of the time in which they were contracted.
    [Show full text]
  • Mid-Point - Read Each Statement and Decide If It Is True Or False
    Mid-point - Read each statement and decide if it is true or false. 1. Harold Godwinson lost the Battle of Stamford Bridge. 2. Harald Hardrada lost the Battle of Stamford Bridge. 3. William of Normandy won the Battle of Stamford Bridge. 4. William of Normandy won the Battle of Hastings. 5. William of Normandy was an inexperienced General. 6. William of Normandy was an experienced General. 7. William ordered the harrying of the north. 8. William ordered the harrying of the south. 9. The Feudal system had four parts with the peasants at the bottom. 10. The Feudal system had five parts with the peasants at the bottom. Mid-point - Read each statement and decide if it is true or false. 1. Harold Godwinson lost the Battle of Stamford Bridge. 2. Harald Hardrada lost the Battle of Stamford Bridge. 3. William of Normandy won the Battle of Stamford Bridge. 4. William of Normandy won the Battle of Hastings. 5. William of Normandy was an inexperienced General. 6. William of Normandy was an experienced General. 7. William ordered the harrying of the north. 8. William ordered the harrying of the south. 9. The Feudal system had four parts with the peasants at the bottom. 10. The Feudal system had five parts with the peasants at the bottom. Mid-point - Read each statement and decide if it is true or false. 1. Harold Godwinson lost the Battle of Stamford Bridge. 2. Harald Hardrada lost the Battle of Stamford Bridge. 3. William of Normandy won the Battle of Stamford Bridge. 4. William of Normandy won the Battle of Hastings.
    [Show full text]