England In the years 1067-1075 Essay

a) How far do these character references support the view expressed in inception i that, in the eld 1067-1075, William had favoured conciliation in his attempts to establish wild pansy in England?The view of William I elevateing conciliation in his attempts to establish sleep, to a certain extent, do agree with a number of the sources. This is alone to a degree collectible to events that occurred between the age 1067 and 1075 that pushed William into more brutal and tearing regularitys of subduing the side of meat and securing his way oer England. get-gos that do agree with William I utilise peaceful procedures to establish peace atomic number 18 sources three and four. Both sources to a great extent agree with the first source.Source three depicts how calming established authority. The source describes the naval and land levies, proving that William favoured conciliation. William had enough trust with the slope to take them to war with him, and that they would no n mutiny. This trust can be conjugate with source four William felt strong enough to leave England in the hands of William fitz Osbern and go to Normandy. However, did the English really have a plectron? With the get upion of castles, the use of cavalry, and Norman landh antiquateders, the English may have been compel to fight for him there is little detail of the events or others in advance or later on.Source four also agrees, for throughout the duration of the docuwork forcets Lanfranc negotiates peacefully with Roger warn him of the seriousness just now giving him a second chance. Lanfranc assures him, of safe life, and to give the earl what help he can, saving his allegiance. The source is peculiar(a) callable it being correspondence over full the year 1075. in the lead and after this date other issues may have aroused, and the letters are not scripted by William I but by Lanfranc1 who was a very trusted friend to William. However, though acting on the pansys beha lf, of appease handst, Lanfranc would have used his sustain ideas and thoughts on the case. Finally, as whiteface was the son of William fitz Osbern, he could have been treated differently for his links with William I they were friends from their childhood2.Source two and five disagree with the line of causeing in source angiotensin-converting enzyme. Source two is from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle3 as a consequence of the invasion, William is described to have devastated Yorkshire (Harrying of the northern) 4 ravaged and dictated waste to the shire. There is no implication of conciliation from William. Source two is inadequate due to it only covering one year, it does not take into account events outside of 1069. The Anglo authors of the chronicle could be biased towards the Normans, exaggerating the truth, divergence out appeasement by William I. Source five also disagrees with the statement recounting how William ruined Norwich, and blinded some of the traitors. The source i s partial due to it covering only one date and the account of the situation is brief, and may exaggerate the Norman methods.The primary sources (source two, four, and five), overall, have an unbalanced view of William I and his tactics for establishing peace in England. The briny draw subscribe to most of the sources is the lack of facts during the long age 1065 and 1075. This means that the lawlessnesss that occurred out front 1069 are not mentioned. A final limitation, which I believe is the most key, is a list of rules that William I laid fine-tune when he first conquered England. The first rule was that above all things he (William) wishes one God to be revered throughout his whole realm, one faith in Christ to be kept ever inviolate, and peace and security to be preserved between English and Normans. Williams want, and favor towards peace is fully recognised in this statement.Foot Notes1. Lanfranc was, at the time, brainpower of the new fo run bishops and abbots and also A rchbishop of Canterbury. Lanfranc was unimpressed with the quality of the English clergy and during Williams reign supported his policy of promoting foreigners to high office in the Church.2. William fitz Osbern, as a boy William I loved him above other members of his folk. William I and William fitz Osbern were related, as fitz Osberns father was the grandson of Duke Richard of Normandys half-brother, Rodulf. Later on Roger Earl of Hereford had to forfeit his land and loose his title as Earl of Hereford. This though not brutal is not favoring conciliation by William I or Lanfranc (on Williams behalf).3. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was for the old age before and during the conquest of England the chief(prenominal) source of evidence and information. There exist three versions C, D and E, derived from a common source but with some departures. The chronicle supplies a unequivocally English account of political events and allows us to make comparisons with the instead overt Norman propaganda.4. The Harrying of the North was in response, by William I, to the revolts occurring in the North (Yorkshire) during the years 1069-70. William had marched north with seasoned forces, devastating the countryside as they went, and slaughtering all the adult males. What his troops conflicted on the pot was so howling(a) that chroniclers remembered it over fifty years later. In the Domesday watchword, made in 1086, it simply records Yorkshire as waste due to the brutality of William the land was depopulated, villages left deserted, farms empty, and this was fifteen years later.b) To what extent did the Revolts in the years 1069-75 aid William I to assist his Royal Authority in England?The revolts between the years 1069-75, to a great extent, back up William I to adduce his royal authority across England. They provided William with the chance and excuse to use and point his war machine power. William was able to remove key Anglo-Saxon lords who posed a threat to him build castles to maintain his control of the country and it allowed him to firmly set, in the minds of the Saxons, that the Normans werent just invaders, like the Vikings, but conquerors of England. However, the revolts were not the only reason for Williams triumphful affirmation of royal authority on the country. William choose methods of conciliation. He kept the Anglo-Saxon imposts such as sheriffs, shires, coronation rights and writs and added Norman culture and society on top to create an Anglo-Norman England.Before the revolts William was in a very exposed position. He had five thousand men to the two million Saxons, and he had no control of the North, West or East of England. Due to this vulnerability William was systematically peaceful in dealings with the Anglo-Saxons using conciliation rather than consolidation. The revolts were essential to the change in Williams attitude towards the situation. He began to use brutal, ruthless methods to obtain his authority.The impor tance of the revolts depended on who was involved and the consequences of the revolt. Though there were minor revolts, when comparing them to revolts such as the Northern revolt (1069-70), they are taken into account to supply us, the historian, with a realistic overview of how dire Williams need was to obtain and retain royal authority.Rebellions began to inflame the country, in 1067 the Welsh border, lead by Eric the Wild, revolted in Herefordshire. Subsequently the south-west revolted in 1068, with the city of Exeter refusing to accept William as their female monarch, and Harold Godwinsons sons attempted a counter invasion in the summer of 1068. surrounded by the years 1069 and 1070 the North revolted. Rebels in the North burned to death a Norman Earl, Robert of Commines, in Durham. A Viking army of 240 ships, led by the sons of Swegn Estrithsson, come at Humber and marched on York. They gained support from the local Saxons, and they seized York. Their success produced a domi no affect sparking revolts in Dorset, Cheshire, Staffordshire and Somerset. William faced the possibility of a Scandinavian res publica in the north of England, or a separate Kingdom for Edgar, the populate prince of the Royal House of Wessex.William reacted to these revolts with characteristic vigour, skill and utter brutality. He became the untamed murderer of some(prenominal) thousands, both young and old, of that fine race of people1. The Welsh failed to take control of the border, and retired to Wales with much booty. Exeter, in the south-west revolt of 1068, was laid under siege for 18 days, by Williams troops, by which time they accepted William as their King. Harolds sons were repelled by Williams forces in the summer of 1068.William to counter-act this made a series of lighting raids through Warwick, Nottingham, York, capital of Nebraska, Huntingdon and Cambridge to immortalize his presence as the new King. In reaction to the revolts in the North, William marched North with troops from York and Nottingham, devastating the countryside, slaughtering all adult males and pillaging as he went, killing animals and burning crops. This was called the Harrying of the North and the destruction of the land was so terrible that when mentioned in the Domesday Book, 20 years later, it was classed as a waste land. From Yorkshire William pushed his men across the Tees in the winter and took Chester, and Stafford, and was back in Winchester before easter 1070.Due to the revolts and the resulting victories for William, who had either killed or utterly suppressed the resistance, he had to enforce his power, and depute that the Normans were the new rulers and would not leave. William accomplished this by first mental synthesis motte-and-bailey castles across England. William began to erect them right at the start of his campaign, even before the battle of Hastings, and they were virtually unheard of in England. William built hundreds across England, to show the Normans strength and power over the population. This geopolitical appendage meant that they exerted control over the surrounding countryside. The Normans would demolish houses in the centre of towns to erect a castle. This happened in towns such as Cambridge, Lincoln and Dorchester2.These castles were, and still are, looming features over the landscape3. They were built in the centre of towns for economic reasons the material or foundations of earlier fortifications (Roman/Saxon) were there already, and also it was cheaper to build on existing forts rather than building on top of a hill, having to transport supplies and food up it. Another affect of castles was their psychological affect on the Saxon population. Castles were a conspicuous emblem of Royal authority4, and were clearly statements of power to the innate people5. By the end of the revolts, 1075, William felt secure enough with his authority over England that he went back to Normandy and left his trusted advisor and Arc hbishop of Canterbury, Lanfranc in charge of the kingdom.Another factor which was opened up due to the revolts, and the success for William I, was the replacement of all the Anglo-Saxon earls. The earls were either dead from the revolts or just forced off their land. William strategically placed relatives or close friends to article of faith the earldoms. For example Odo of Bayeaux, was earl of Kent and half-brother to William I. Also the new earl of Hereford, William fitz Osbern, was Williams cousin. This formed a tight, trustful network of family and friends which William could rely on.Another advantage to William of the revolts was it allowed him to fully keep royal authority on Anglo-Saxon church. William had to as, 30% of land in England was permanently owned by the church, bishops and abbots were literate, right men who advised the old Kings of Saxon England. If William could control the church he would be successful in his total control of England. William achieved this by removing 99% of all Saxon bishops, abbots and clergy, with Norman-French ones by 1087. William built new stone cathedrals, as a sign of domination, on top of old wooden Saxon churches.This had the same affect as the castles, showing the Norman supremacy over the Saxons. In 1070 the most powerful churchman in England, Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury, was deposed and replaced by Lanfranc, an Italian monk who was Williams great advisor. Three other important Saxon bishops were also removed, and also m whatsoever abbots. Finally in 1072 Lanfranc gained superiority over the Archbishop of York, thus making Canterbury the psyche church post in England. As Lanfranc had control over the North, this aided William with his control. In the 11th century, people were very suspicious and believed solely in the existence of God. These men of God, the bishops and abbots were trusted by the Saxon people no matter what race they were, even Norman, because of the risk it could cause them in the fu turity if they offended them.The extent of royal authority being asserted on England does not solely come from the revolts but also from Williams conciliation of the country, mainly before the revolts. Although the landscape of England had changed with the formation of castles, looming over the country and the attach cavalry, trotting through the towns and villages, William I always governed through legal and rightful inheritance from Edward the Confessor with the use of Anglo-Saxon tools of government and traditions of kingship.When William came to the throne, December 25th 1066, he was invest in the traditional Anglo-Saxon manner, like Edward the Confessor before. This showed his belief in tradition and proved his rightful maintain to the throne. By using the ancient traditions of Anglo-Saxon kingship ceremonies alongside the unique circumstances that brought him the crown, William and his successors were able to appeal both to English customs and to the Norman sense of righte ous conquest. William in the lead up to the revolts kept the country as it was, making no major changes and if any were made they would consist of a mixture of Anglo-Saxon and Norman customs.The main household after 1066 was not fundamentally changed. The only big difference in the household was that after 1066, and especially well-nigh 1087 (William Is death) the nobles were more and more Norman. At first William kept some Anglo-Saxons in his household, one example was Regenbald, and he was the chancellor and was in command of the Royal close under Edward the Confessor and William I. This shows Williams desire for continuity within the government, and only adding extras on top mixing the two cultures of the Normans and the Anglo-Saxons.The earldoms at the beginning of Williams reign did not change. They remained as the four large Earldoms of East Anglia, Mercia, Wessex and Northumbria. However, nigh the time of the rebellions against William I (1070s), William I granted the land to new nobles and tenants. As a result he and his two half-brothers owned 50% of England, the Church remained with around 30%, and roughly 12 barons (great lords) shared the remaining 20%. These 12 barons, basically like his half-brothers, were often related through hereditary or marriage to William.Kingship was very much affected by the character of the King on the throne at the time. So this was destined to change with the gateway of William I. William I had to be physically strong, spending most of his time on the move (itinerant kingship). Also mentally strong to dominate the churchmen and the barons who all had their own ambitions and interests. With this change in kingship, William introduced a fairly new system of crown-wearing sessions. William I wore his crown and regalia where the people could see him. Three major clock for this crown-wearing was Easter at Winchester, Christmas at Gloucester, and on Whitsun in Westminster.This new method and change in kingship could hav e been a sign of William Is security as King. However, William I could of used crown-wearing sessions for another reason, to state his claim and right to the throne, indefinitely, upon landholders, and the barons. This would agree with his use of the coinage system set up in England before 1066. William on his coins and seals had a picture of him sitting on the throne with all his regalia, on one side, and on the other him on a horse with a sword William is declaring his claim to the throne, by right, and if that is not enough by force and bloodshed. William changed the iconography of kingship to add strength to his kingship.The chancery of pre-1066 was only slightly revolutionised. After 1066 the clerks, who wrote up the laws and grants began to progressively, under William, write the laws in Latin. Latin was the language of authority, the Norman nobles and the officials wrote in Latin. This language of power was fully founded around 1070. The use of clerks was not new to England. William I only adapted them to his cultural needs and desires. Also Latin was not known throughout the greater population. This causes supremacy over the plebs on the land, and dominates their lives.Sheriffs were the Kings official in a shire. These officials had been around before William. William I did not have sheriffs back in Normandy, and found them to be very useful. After the rebellions around the 1070s, sheriffs were increasingly Norman (as were the earls and bishops). The powers of the sheriffs increased hugely, and they were often in charge of royal castles (castellans) as well. Most Norman sheriffs were aristocrats who had much more wealth and power than the introductory Anglo-Saxon sheriffs.A final instrument used by William I to completely assert his authority on the country was the production of the Domesday Book6. This book allowed the King to find out who had what and who owed what, twenty years after his seizure of the kingdom. The Domesday Book also shows us how sophisticated the Anglo-Saxon government was before the Normans. Without the shires, hundreds and sheriffs this type of census would have been near impossible to make. The Domesday Book is a record of a conquered kingdom, but it is a testament to the survival of the Anglo-Saxon government in many aspects.William I was aided by the revolts (1069-75) to a great extent. The revolts changed the King from conciliation to consolidation. However, the revolts, the castle building, the revolutionary change of the earldoms and the church, came, all, after the revolts. A new set of values had been introduced into England these were based upon loyalty and military service. The government of the new king was based upon the traditional procedures and customs of Edward the Confessor but was enforced with a savage energy inspired by, mainly, the revolts between the years 1069-75.Foot Notes1. William the Conquerors deathbed confession, from Orderic Vitalis The Ecclesiastical history written 1123-4 1.2. Cambridge (27 houses were demolished),Gloucester (16 houses demolished),Lincoln (166 houses demolished), and in Dorchester (an area of 150,000 square metres was taken up).3. Article in History Today, Volume 53, curve 4.4. Article in History Today, Volume 53, Issue 4.5. Article in History Today, Volume 53, Issue 4.6. The Domesday Book was written in 1086, and was so-called due to its verdicts being just as incontestible as the Book of the Day of Judgment. It was written in Latin, on fleece and includes 13,400 place names on 888 pages. No other country in the world produced such a detailed historical record at such an early date.