http://prof-methos.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
prof-methos.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2006-01-24 04:27 pm
prof-methos.livejournal.com) wrote in fandomhigh2006-01-24 04:27 pm
Entry tags:
History of Medieval England - Tuesday 6th Period: Lecture 3: The Battle of Hastings
[[OOC: Sorry for such a long lecture. But I think you'll find it entertaining.]]
All right, everyone. I hope that you haven't been abusing your writing hands too much, because I am going to do so today. Without further adieu...
Europe in about the year 1000 CE was a world in the midst of change. Three major things happen at roughly the same time that contributed to a continent-wide shift in culture.
First, and in many ways the most important, is that the climate of Europe changed. It entered a warming spell. Growing seasons came earlier and lasted longer, leading to the increased production of food. More food with equal effort meant that fewer people had to devote every waking moment to bare survival, and more and more people could devote their attention to other things.
Another thing that contributed to an increased food store was that someone realized a plow animal could pull a much heavier plow if the weight was borne on their shoulders rather than their forehead. Heavier plows meant that soil was turned under from deeper in the earth. Deeper soil meant that soil that hadn't been planted in before was now in use, with more minerals to enrich growth. All of this meant more food.
Most likely as a result of improved food stores, Viking raids in Northern and Northwestern Europe ceased. At the same time in Central Europe, the Magyar tribes stopped raiding the Slavic areas. Some of them settled into what would become Hungary.
So. No more Viking raiders. Right. But to deal with the threat, the social structure of Europe had changed drastically. Before, the land was considered to belong to the people who worked it, and a king was considered to be the lawgiver and warleader *of the people*. If you look back to kings in the Early Middle Ages, they are almost invariably titled, "King of the English" or "King of the Franks", not "King of England" or "King of France."
But with the Viking raids, there was a need for a standing military to defend the people who were too busy trying to grow enough food to eat to defend themselves. Gradually, it took on the characteristics of an aristocracy, and a shift began where they were not just responsible for the safety of people in a specific area, but they *owned* a specific area and thus were responsible for the safety of the people under their care. When the Vikings were raiding, the distinction was irrelevant; a fighting force was needed on a consistent basis, and whether they served or ruled the agricultural class was less important. With the cession of constant raids, it became relevant, but the genie could not go back into the bottle. A military aristocracy was here to stay.
All of this leads to the "F" word: feudalism. Feudalism has become a very unsexy concept in medieval studies for a very good reason: the monolithic, unilateral form of feudalism taught in lower division Western Civ classes -- such as this one -- *never existed*. It is, however, a handy way of boiling several hundred years of history over six or seven distinct and separate nations into one easily accessible concept that generally applies.
If there weren't enough disclaimers in the foregoing sentence to scare you, then you have a stronger stomach than I do.
As a refresher, feudalism is a structure of... I guess "government" would be the best description, wherein all the land of the nation belongs to one person -- the king. The king retains ownership and control of all of the land, but subdivides it to various nobles -- the aristocracy -- who administrate it on his behalf and who protect it on the behalf of the people who live on the land. The aristocracy subdivides it down to a lower level. This subdivision can happen for several more levels until it gets to an individual plot of land held by a peasant -- or a peasant and his family -- who actually work that land.
The reality of the situation is that it never worked that cleanly or easily. In France, Germany, Italy and Spain, the political situation usually consisted of several major lords who controlled small kingdoms and who theoretically owed fealty to an overlord but were powerful enough to challenge that lord on a regular basis.
England was in a slightly different situation. Given their separation from the rest of the continent, they had retained much more of the original Germanic Anglo-Saxon law code than even the German territories. The king was not a hereditary overlord, but usually a member of a chief aristocratic family that a council of nobles known as the Witan Council *elected*.
In the 900s in England, this didn't always work perfectly either. The short version is, by 1042, only one member of an Anglo-Saxon royal family was left.
Edward -- known to history as King Edward the Confessor, "Confessor" being a title that mean he was persecuted but not martyred for his faith, although it seems far more likely that he was sainted for being a devout son of the Church and being famously pious -- had escaped to his mother's native Normandy when he was 12. Twenty-six years later, he was appointed heir by his younger half-brother who promptly died under unusually non-unusual circumstances -- he wasn't actually murdered. At 38, Edward returned to England, but found being King didn't necessarily mean that he was in charge. The most powerful noble in the realm was Godwin, a Saxon Earl. Godwin had been responsible for the assassination of Edward's older brother. Political reality forced Edward to marry Godwin's daughter.
Godwin's ambition was to see a grandson of his on the throne of England. But Edward thwarted his powerful father-in-law; he refused to sleep with his wife. No sex, no kids, no royal grandsons for Godwin.
Now, this can get confusing, so bear with me. At one point during Edward's feud with his father-in-law, Edward promised the throne of England to his cousin once removed, William, the Duke of Normandy. The important thing to remember is that *Edward had no right to do this*. The throne of England was not his to dispose; the Witan Council, of which Earl Godwin was a power and influential -- think the Mafia -- member, was responsible for electing the next English king. They would be unlikely to support a claimant whose best claim to the English throne was that his great-aunt had been Queen of England to two different Kings.
Edward retracted his offer to William, but William, unsurprisingly, didn't want to give up his claim. In 1064, Earl Godwin and his son Harold were shipwrecked on the shore of Normandy and offered the "hospitality" of William of Normandy's court. They weren't allowed to leave until they had promised William that they would support his claim to the English throne. Being practical people who *also had no right to dispose of the English throne*, they agreed and were allowed to go home.
Edward the Confessor died on January 6, 1066, one week after the dedication of the monument to his piety, Westminster Abbey. He was buried before the high altar of the Abbey, and his tomb is there to this day. Earl Godwin had died a couple years before, and the Witan Council, fully aware that William of Normandy considered the English throne his, appointed Harold Godwinson King of England.
Plus, there was another equally serious threat. Various Norse/Danish kings had raided over in England over the years, a few times taking control of the country. One of them had married William of Normandy's aunt, who was the widow of a murdered Anglo-Saxon king of England. His name is Harold Hardrada, and we're going to stick with Hardrada to spare our brains.
So Harold Godwinson's inheritance was not a cushy job. He had to prepare for war on two fronts from the very beginning of his reign. And pretty much everybody knew it; the nobles, the peasants in the countryside, the clergy.
So it was no surprise when a comet appeared in the skies over England that summer, people swore it foretold disaster.
William of Normandy and Harold Hardrada both spent the spring and summer of 1066 preparing to invade England. Hardrada got there first, and Harold Godwinson marched to meet him in battle. He defeated Hardrada on September 25. Then, without pausing, he turned his army around and marched back south to face the Norman threat he knew was coming.
William of Normandy landed in England on September 28. Harold paused in London to gather reinforcements and rest briefly before dashing for the coast. The two armies met on October 14.
It was, by all reports a bloody and long-drawn-out battle, with heavy losses on both sides. While history now discounts the probability of Harold dying from an arrow in the eye, there is a certain metaphorical truth to it. The Normans effectively used archers in addition to their cavalry, while the Saxon army was largely infantry.
Harold's death on the field of battle effectively ended any hope of stopping William. The Witan immediately elected a new king, but they did not have the military might to back him up. Harold had been an outstanding battle commander; second best was not going to stop William.
That does not mean that, by the time William was crowned on Christmas Day 1066, England was passively under Norman rule. William instituted a more structured form of feudalism in England, rather than the one that had organically grown on the Continent, with himself as the top of the pyramid and the men who had followed him from Normandy his immediate subordinates. To them he divvied up the land, but it was invariably up to the individual nobles to pursue their claim, by force of arms if needed -- and it was usually needed.
But the political power in England was now centered on the Normans. The power structure spoke Norman French and used a law system that had a radically different basis than Saxon law. The Saxons became the disenfranchised, and by all rights should have faded away the same way the Celts, the Beaker people, and all previous groups in England had.
But they didn't, although it took a few hundred years for English law and language to become predominant in England again.
Methos surveys the class, smirking at anyone whose eyes were glazing over.
Homework is due here.
[[OCD threads are up, comment away!!!]]
All right, everyone. I hope that you haven't been abusing your writing hands too much, because I am going to do so today. Without further adieu...
Europe in about the year 1000 CE was a world in the midst of change. Three major things happen at roughly the same time that contributed to a continent-wide shift in culture.
First, and in many ways the most important, is that the climate of Europe changed. It entered a warming spell. Growing seasons came earlier and lasted longer, leading to the increased production of food. More food with equal effort meant that fewer people had to devote every waking moment to bare survival, and more and more people could devote their attention to other things.
Another thing that contributed to an increased food store was that someone realized a plow animal could pull a much heavier plow if the weight was borne on their shoulders rather than their forehead. Heavier plows meant that soil was turned under from deeper in the earth. Deeper soil meant that soil that hadn't been planted in before was now in use, with more minerals to enrich growth. All of this meant more food.
Most likely as a result of improved food stores, Viking raids in Northern and Northwestern Europe ceased. At the same time in Central Europe, the Magyar tribes stopped raiding the Slavic areas. Some of them settled into what would become Hungary.
So. No more Viking raiders. Right. But to deal with the threat, the social structure of Europe had changed drastically. Before, the land was considered to belong to the people who worked it, and a king was considered to be the lawgiver and warleader *of the people*. If you look back to kings in the Early Middle Ages, they are almost invariably titled, "King of the English" or "King of the Franks", not "King of England" or "King of France."
But with the Viking raids, there was a need for a standing military to defend the people who were too busy trying to grow enough food to eat to defend themselves. Gradually, it took on the characteristics of an aristocracy, and a shift began where they were not just responsible for the safety of people in a specific area, but they *owned* a specific area and thus were responsible for the safety of the people under their care. When the Vikings were raiding, the distinction was irrelevant; a fighting force was needed on a consistent basis, and whether they served or ruled the agricultural class was less important. With the cession of constant raids, it became relevant, but the genie could not go back into the bottle. A military aristocracy was here to stay.
All of this leads to the "F" word: feudalism. Feudalism has become a very unsexy concept in medieval studies for a very good reason: the monolithic, unilateral form of feudalism taught in lower division Western Civ classes -- such as this one -- *never existed*. It is, however, a handy way of boiling several hundred years of history over six or seven distinct and separate nations into one easily accessible concept that generally applies.
If there weren't enough disclaimers in the foregoing sentence to scare you, then you have a stronger stomach than I do.
As a refresher, feudalism is a structure of... I guess "government" would be the best description, wherein all the land of the nation belongs to one person -- the king. The king retains ownership and control of all of the land, but subdivides it to various nobles -- the aristocracy -- who administrate it on his behalf and who protect it on the behalf of the people who live on the land. The aristocracy subdivides it down to a lower level. This subdivision can happen for several more levels until it gets to an individual plot of land held by a peasant -- or a peasant and his family -- who actually work that land.
The reality of the situation is that it never worked that cleanly or easily. In France, Germany, Italy and Spain, the political situation usually consisted of several major lords who controlled small kingdoms and who theoretically owed fealty to an overlord but were powerful enough to challenge that lord on a regular basis.
England was in a slightly different situation. Given their separation from the rest of the continent, they had retained much more of the original Germanic Anglo-Saxon law code than even the German territories. The king was not a hereditary overlord, but usually a member of a chief aristocratic family that a council of nobles known as the Witan Council *elected*.
In the 900s in England, this didn't always work perfectly either. The short version is, by 1042, only one member of an Anglo-Saxon royal family was left.
Edward -- known to history as King Edward the Confessor, "Confessor" being a title that mean he was persecuted but not martyred for his faith, although it seems far more likely that he was sainted for being a devout son of the Church and being famously pious -- had escaped to his mother's native Normandy when he was 12. Twenty-six years later, he was appointed heir by his younger half-brother who promptly died under unusually non-unusual circumstances -- he wasn't actually murdered. At 38, Edward returned to England, but found being King didn't necessarily mean that he was in charge. The most powerful noble in the realm was Godwin, a Saxon Earl. Godwin had been responsible for the assassination of Edward's older brother. Political reality forced Edward to marry Godwin's daughter.
Godwin's ambition was to see a grandson of his on the throne of England. But Edward thwarted his powerful father-in-law; he refused to sleep with his wife. No sex, no kids, no royal grandsons for Godwin.
Now, this can get confusing, so bear with me. At one point during Edward's feud with his father-in-law, Edward promised the throne of England to his cousin once removed, William, the Duke of Normandy. The important thing to remember is that *Edward had no right to do this*. The throne of England was not his to dispose; the Witan Council, of which Earl Godwin was a power and influential -- think the Mafia -- member, was responsible for electing the next English king. They would be unlikely to support a claimant whose best claim to the English throne was that his great-aunt had been Queen of England to two different Kings.
Edward retracted his offer to William, but William, unsurprisingly, didn't want to give up his claim. In 1064, Earl Godwin and his son Harold were shipwrecked on the shore of Normandy and offered the "hospitality" of William of Normandy's court. They weren't allowed to leave until they had promised William that they would support his claim to the English throne. Being practical people who *also had no right to dispose of the English throne*, they agreed and were allowed to go home.
Edward the Confessor died on January 6, 1066, one week after the dedication of the monument to his piety, Westminster Abbey. He was buried before the high altar of the Abbey, and his tomb is there to this day. Earl Godwin had died a couple years before, and the Witan Council, fully aware that William of Normandy considered the English throne his, appointed Harold Godwinson King of England.
Plus, there was another equally serious threat. Various Norse/Danish kings had raided over in England over the years, a few times taking control of the country. One of them had married William of Normandy's aunt, who was the widow of a murdered Anglo-Saxon king of England. His name is Harold Hardrada, and we're going to stick with Hardrada to spare our brains.
So Harold Godwinson's inheritance was not a cushy job. He had to prepare for war on two fronts from the very beginning of his reign. And pretty much everybody knew it; the nobles, the peasants in the countryside, the clergy.
So it was no surprise when a comet appeared in the skies over England that summer, people swore it foretold disaster.
William of Normandy and Harold Hardrada both spent the spring and summer of 1066 preparing to invade England. Hardrada got there first, and Harold Godwinson marched to meet him in battle. He defeated Hardrada on September 25. Then, without pausing, he turned his army around and marched back south to face the Norman threat he knew was coming.
William of Normandy landed in England on September 28. Harold paused in London to gather reinforcements and rest briefly before dashing for the coast. The two armies met on October 14.
It was, by all reports a bloody and long-drawn-out battle, with heavy losses on both sides. While history now discounts the probability of Harold dying from an arrow in the eye, there is a certain metaphorical truth to it. The Normans effectively used archers in addition to their cavalry, while the Saxon army was largely infantry.
Harold's death on the field of battle effectively ended any hope of stopping William. The Witan immediately elected a new king, but they did not have the military might to back him up. Harold had been an outstanding battle commander; second best was not going to stop William.
That does not mean that, by the time William was crowned on Christmas Day 1066, England was passively under Norman rule. William instituted a more structured form of feudalism in England, rather than the one that had organically grown on the Continent, with himself as the top of the pyramid and the men who had followed him from Normandy his immediate subordinates. To them he divvied up the land, but it was invariably up to the individual nobles to pursue their claim, by force of arms if needed -- and it was usually needed.
But the political power in England was now centered on the Normans. The power structure spoke Norman French and used a law system that had a radically different basis than Saxon law. The Saxons became the disenfranchised, and by all rights should have faded away the same way the Celts, the Beaker people, and all previous groups in England had.
But they didn't, although it took a few hundred years for English law and language to become predominant in England again.
Methos surveys the class, smirking at anyone whose eyes were glazing over.
Homework is due here.
[[OCD threads are up, comment away!!!]]