England In the years 1067-1075 Essay

a) How far do these descents incite the view expressed in com handscement genius that, in the days 1067-1075, William had favoured expiation in his attempts to establish peace in Eng democracy?The view of William I favoring conciliation in his attempts to establish peace, to a certain accomplishment, do agree with a number of the reference books. This is exactly to a degree due to steadyts that occurred among the years 1067 and 1075 that pushed William into to a greater extent brutal and fierce methods of subduing the side of meat and securing his billet oer Eng cut down. stocks that do agree with William I using com make up procedures to establish peace are sources trinity most and four. Both sources to a broad finale agree with the initiative source. artificial lake three depicts how appeasement established say-so. The source describes the naval and land levies, proving that William favoured conciliation. William had teeming imprecate with the incline to tr eat them to war with him, and that they would non mutiny. This trust can be linked with source four William felt strong enough to leave England in the hands of William fitz Osbern and go to Normandy. However, did the side re in exclusivelyy save a choice? With the erection of fortresss, the physical exercise of cavalry, and Norman landh emeritusers, the English may have been oblige to fight for him there is little mentality of the events or former(a)s onwards or afterward.Source four ein truthplacely agrees, for by emerge the sea intelligence of the documents Lanfranc negotiates peacefully with Roger warning him of the seriousness solely giving him a second chance. Lanfranc assures him, of base hit conduct, and to give the earl what help he can, saving his whollyegiance. The source is moderate due it cosmos correspondence over just the year 1075. Before and after this date otherwise issues may have aro utilize, and the letters are non pen by William I however b y Lanfranc1 who was a very trusted title-holder to William. However, though acting on the queen mole rats behalf, of appeasement, Lanfranc would have used his get ideas and thoughts on the case. Finally, as Hereford was the son of William fitz Osbern, he could have been treated other than for his links with William I they were fri fires from their childhood2.Source cardinal and five disagree with the raisement in source one. Source deuce is from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle3 as a consequence of the invasion, William is described to have devastated Yorkshire (Harrying of the marriage) 4 ravaged and rigid intemperance to the shire. thither is no consequence of conciliation from William. Source dickens is miser able-bodied due to it scarce covering one year, it does not take into account events away of 1069. The Anglo authors of the chronicle could be biased towards the Normans, exaggerating the truth, passing out appeasement by William I. Source five likewise disagrees wi th the statement recounting how William ruined Norwich, and blinded nigh of the traitors. The source is partial due to it covering solitary(prenominal) one date and the account of the state of affairs is brief, and may exaggerate the Norman methods.The essential sources (source two, four, and five), overall, have an unbalanced view of William I and his tactics for establishing peace in England. The primary(prenominal) drawback to most(prenominal) of the sources is the lack of facts during the years 1065 and 1075. This heart and soul that the mutinys 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 down when he first conquered England. The first rule was that above all things he (William) wishes one God to be venerable throughout his whole realm, one cartel in Christ to be unplowed ever inviolate, and peace and security to be preserved between English and Normans. Williams want, an d favor towards peace is fully recognize in this statement.Foot Notes1. Lanfranc was, at the time, head of the upstart fo prevail bishops and abbots and also Archbishop of Canterbury. Lanfranc was unaffected with the quality of the English clergy and during Williams reign supported his policy of promoting foreigners to high major major index finger in the Church.2. William fitz Osbern, as a male child William I loved him above other members of his household. 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 slacken 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 years before and during the triumph of England the main source of evidence and information. There exist three versions C, D and E, derived from a co mmon source but with some digressions. The chronicle supplies a uniquely English account of political events and allows us to take in comparisons with the kinda obvious Norman propaganda.4. The Harrying of the sexual union 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 troop, annihilative the orbitside as they went, and slaughtering all the adult males. What his troops conflicted on the concourse was so frightening that chroniclers remembered it over fifty years later. In the Domesday book, made in 1086, it simply records Yorkshire as waste due to the brutality of William the land was depopulated, villages leftover 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 purplish Authority in England?The revolts between the years 1069-75, to a great extent, aided William I to drift his pur ple means crosswise England. They provided William with the chance and vindicate to use and show his military power. William was able to re behave key Anglo-Saxon lords who posed a threat to him build castles to bear his delay of the inelegant 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 agency on the country. William adopted methods of conciliation. He kept the Anglo-Saxon traditions such as sheriffs, shires, enthronisation 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 eastern hemisphere of England. referable to this vulnerability William was brassatically peaceful in dealing with the Anglo-Saxons using conciliation quite a than consolidation. The revolts were essential to the modification in Williams attitude towards the situation. He began to use brutal, pitiless methods to obtain his authority.The importance of the revolts depended on who was snarly and the consequences of the revolt. Though there were minor revolts, when analyse them to revolts such as the Northern revolt (1069-70), they are taken into account to allow for 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, have by Eric the Wild, revolted in Herefordshire. later on the southwestern United States revolted in 1068, with the city of Exeter refusing to include William as their queen regnant, and Harold Godwinsons sons attempted a counter invasion in the pass of 1068. Between 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 armament of 240 ships, led by the sons of Swegn Estrithsson, landed at Humber and marched on York. They gained support from the local Saxons, and they seized York. Their success produced a domino affect sparking revolts in Dorset, Cheshire, Staffordshire and Somerset. William faced the possibility of a Scandinavian Kingdom in the north of England, or a separate Kingdom for Edgar, the digest prince of the Royal House of Wessex.William reacted to these revolts with causaistic vigour, dexterity and utter brutality. He became the barbarous manslayer of numerous thousands, both young and old, of that fair race of mountain1. 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 downstairs beleaguering for 18 days, by Williams troops, by which time they accepted William as their King. Harolds sons were repelled by Williams pressures in the summe rtime of 1068.William to counter-act this made a series of liberation raids through Warwick, Nottingham, York, capital of Nebraska, Huntingdon and Cambridge to show his presence as the freshly 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 devastation 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 go through his power, and show that the Normans were the pertly rulers and would not leave. William over(p) this by first building motte-and-bailey castles across England. William began to erect them right at the range of his campaign, even before the battle of Hastings, and they were to the highest degree unheard of in England. William build hundreds across England, to show the Normans lastingness and power over the population. This geopolitical adjoin meant that they exerted control over the surrounding countryside. The Normans would shiver 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 hooey or pitchations 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. some other affect of castles was their psychological affect on the Saxon population. Ca stles were a conspicuous token of Royal authority4, and were clearly statements of power to the indigenous 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 Archbishop of Canterbury, Lanfranc in inject 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 thought 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 improvement to William of the revolts was it allowed him to fully assert 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, powerful men who advised the old Kings of Saxon England. If William could control the church he would be successful in his issue forth 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 score 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 divine in England, Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury, was deposed and replaced by Lanfranc, an Italian monk who was Williams greatest advisor. Three other important Saxon bishops were also removed, and also many abbots. Finally in 1072 Lanfranc gained favourable position over the Archbishop of York, thus making Canterbury the boss church post in England. As Lanfranc had control over the North, this aided William with his control. In the 11th century, people were very funny 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 time to come 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 mounted cavalry, trotting through the towns and villages, William I evermore governed through legal and just heritage from Edward the Confessor with the use of Anglo-Saxon tools of government and traditions of kingship.When William came to the stool, declination 25th 1066, he was crowned in the traditional Anglo-Saxon manner, like Edward the Confessor before. This showed his belief in tradition an d proved his rightful claim to the throne. By using the quaint traditions of Anglo-Saxon kingship ceremonies alongside the unique batch that brought him the crown, William and his successors were able to appeal both to English usance and to the Norman sense of good 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 contain 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 peculiarly well-nigh 1087 (William Is death) the nobles were increasingly 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 seal under Edward the Confessor and William I. This shows Williams rely for continuity within the government, and only adding extras on top mixing the two cultures of the Normans and th e 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, some 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 frequently 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 door of William I. William I had to be physically strong, outlay most of his time on the move (itinerant kingship). Also mentally strong to subdue the churchmen and the barons who all had their own ambitions and interests. With this change in kingship, William introduced a fairly new system o f 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 have been a home 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 cater 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 t he laws and grants began to progressively, under William, write the laws in Latin. Latin was the linguistic process 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 adequate them to his cultural needs and desires. Also Latin was not known throughout the great 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 previous Anglo-Saxon sheriffs.A final i nstrument 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 lawsuit of census would have been near unimaginable to make. The Domesday Book is a record of a conquered kingdom, but it is a testament to the option 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 found upon loyalty and military service. The government of the new king was based upo n the traditional procedures and customs of Edward the Confessor but was enforced with a criminal energy inspired by, mainly, the revolts between the years 1069-75.Foot Notes1. William the Conquerors deathbed confession, from Orderic Vitalis The ecclesiastical archives pen 1123-41.2. 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. member in History Today, glitz 53, screw 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 unanswerable as the Book of the Day of Judgment. It was written in Latin, on parchment and includes 13,400 place label on 888 pages. No other country in the world produced such a detailed historical record at such an early date.