Gone Medieval - After 1066: The Harrying of the North

Episode Date: September 9, 2025

Dr. Eleanor Janega unravels the blood-soaked aftermath of the Battle of Hastings and the Norman Conquest of England. Joined by Professor Levi Roach, Eleanor delves into the harrowing campaign, known as the Harrying of the North, where William the Conqueror brutally suppressed the north of England through widespread destruction and terror tactics. They explore the political impact, the subsequent revolts, and how these events reshaped the English social landscape. MORE:Battle of HastingsWilliam the ConquerorGone Medieval is presented by Dr. Eleanor Janega. The audio editor and producer is Joseph Knight. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music used is courtesy of Epidemic Sounds.Gone Medieval is a History Hit podcast.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe. You can take part in our listener survey here: Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries with a brand-new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world,

to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Hello, I'm Dr. Eleanorianica and welcome to Gone Medieval from History Hit, the podcast that delves into the greatest millennium in human history. We uncover the greatest mysteries, the gobsmacking details, and the latest groundbreaking research from the Vikings to the Normans, from kings to popes, to the Crusades. we delve into the rebellions, plots, and murders that tell us who we really were. And how we got here.

1066. It's probably the most famous date in English history. One of a few medieval moments firmly etched into cultural memory. It immediately conjures up images of clashing swords and charging cavalry. Of hailstorms of arrows, raining, down on men, heavy laden with shields of oak and timber, of hearty English resistance against wave upon wave of Norman aggression. It was in that year that the very fate of England was decided amidst the mud, blood, and horror of the battlefield at Hastings. You've got to admit that's a

compelling story, and it's one which is currently the subject of BBC's epic new drama, King and Conqueror, chronicling the years leading up to 1066 and the political intrigue that led to a fraught three-way contest for England's crown. It takes you through exactly where you think it would, with Harold Godwinson, King of England, lying dead with an arrow in his eyes. Sorry, if that's a spoiler, but you've had about a thousand years to catch up. But this week on Gone Medieval, we are going further. Maybe you're watching King and Conqueror, or perhaps even looking for to next year's anticipated exhibition of the Bayou tapestry, and wondering what happened next? And let me tell you, the story does not stop in 1066.

So over the next two episodes, Matt and I will be delving into the aftermath of the Battle of Hastings to answer some of English history's most important questions. How did William take to his newly won crown and kingdom? What did the English have to say about it? And how did the Norman Conquest reshape England in ways that can still be seen today. Today, we begin by exploring the herring of the North, a merciless campaign waged by William the Conqueror

four years after his victory at Hastings. Designed to bludgeon the rest of Northerners into meek submission, it has been described by some historians as a genocide, and was key in William's mission to gain control of England and subdue those who might oppose his swift ascension to kingship. Then, on Friday,

Matt will be opening up the Domes Day book, one of medieval England's formative documents to look at how William transformed from conqueror to a accountant, to survey the length and breadth of England in a way not attempted again until the Victorian age. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Throughout the week, we're going to be joined by Levi Roach, esteemed medieval historian of Anglo-Saxon and Norman England, author of Empires of the Normans, and most importantly, friend of the show, to walk us through those turbanian. turbulent years after 1066. Levi, it's great to have you back. Thanks for having me back on. You know, if you won't stop writing interesting books, I'm not going to stop bringing you on. And, you know, Empire of the Normans, I think is one of the ones that I come back to over and over again when I'm thinking about these guys. So it's a lot to cover. Let's jump right into it. I don't know if you've heard of this guy called Harold. He's dead. Yeah, I heard a bit about him. Yeah, a little bit, a little bit. So William,

One, at Hastings, he's been crown king. And that means that now he needs to consolidate his victory. It's not just a matter of winning a battle. What is it that he does, first of all, in order to say, guess what, guys, there's a new boss in town? So William's been quite fortunate in a way in that he's killed Harold at the battle. So that's already something big on his side. His biggest threat are descendants of previous monarchs.

So Harold's family and or descendants of Edward the confessor, because he's setting himself up, of course, as Edward's legitimate heir. So he's quite fortunate in that his biggest threat, Herald, has died. So that means that resistance is automatically a bit fragmented. And people are potentially looking in terms of who they should turn to. Perhaps the most obvious individuals, a chap called Edgar the Atheling, who is a descendant of the same line of Edward, the confessor, who he may well have been favoring as his heir at the time.

But he's only about 15. So the problem is, this is why he's been passed over by the... English in favor of Harold, is that he's just that bit, bit too young. And you have William right there who's just won this massive victory. So although there's maybe the potential for resistance around Edgar, probably quite sensibly, the English realized the writings on the wall, and so start submitting to William as he marches towards London. And so he's then able to effect more or less a coup in the aftermath of the battle. Eventually, the vast majority of English magnates realize they're going to need to submit to him at least temporarily. And so he's

able to march to London, he takes their homojet, Burke Hampstead, so on his way in, but they do come to him, they acknowledge him as monarch, and then he's able to go to London to be crowned king there. So he's managed that essential first step of not only winning the battle, but achieving the throne. The question thereafter, of course, is will he be able to hold it? Well, I guess that brings me to my next question, because we definitely see this submission as he's marching to London. And I know the hearts of men. are unknowable and all of this. But do you think that this is a genuine submission,

or is this kind of a... All right, well, look, we are a bit scattered. We've had to fight off, rather a lot of invasions recently. Let's just roll the dice and see what happens with William. Or do you think this is them saying, I don't care. Like, let's just get a king on the ground. Yeah, fine, you're the king, you know. For I think the vast majority, it's quite calculated, as you suggest.

It's a case of we're not going to win this by resistance at this moment. So if we want to resist this, now's not the time, chaps. We need to plan this carefully. He's won this major battle. He's got rid of Herald. If he's not going to win the war, if we're going to prevent that, we need to be very strategic in terms of how we oppose them. So there are probably some who may be planning opposition almost from the start. And I think the vast majority will be taking kind of wait and see attitude.

So right now, offering William our allegiance is our best bet, since the alternative is probably death. However, if that calculus changes, or as or when that calculus changes, so too will our own actions. So I don't think this is a case for the vast majority of English of suddenly seeing the light deciding, William, actually, you are Edwards' rightful heir. Our bad. So sorry it's taken us this long to realize this. Please come and be our king for forevermore. It's much more case of, okay, yeah, you've earned this throne. We'll acknowledge you. but very much with a sense of, yeah, for the time being, or as long as it's our best bet. And we see this with other kinds of monarchs come in and conquer like this. You can win a kingdom by the sword, but you can't rule it continually by the sword.

And England has seen conquerors come and go in recent years. So it's seeing Canute come 50 years previously, successfully, and set up a regime. It's very possible William will do the same, and indeed he goes on to. But they've also seen people like Knut's father, who two years for Canute successfully conquers England and dies just as he's about to be crowned conveniently. So there's so much in play here, and William's not a young man. So it is entirely conceivable that William just drops dead and everyone celebrates and they find an alternative to him. I mean, I suppose also we start to see a bit of testing the waters almost immediately.

I mean, by 1067 already, we've got lots of revolts happening in the south. We've got the godwines show up almost immediately. Can you tell us a little bit more about the rebels, grievances and whether or not these revolts are actually genuine threats to William. So when we're looking at the early revolts to William, the question is who's being motivated in terms of this and why are they doing this? And the people who've lost out most decisively here are those who otherwise have a claim to the throne. So the Godwins and the Godwinsons and, of course, any descendants of Edwards' own line, so Edgar the Athling. They're the ones who had realistic

hopes of being king and certainly if not being earls and major figures who suddenly are a threat to the new regime and have no real place in there. And so the biggest early rebellion is in the southwest, which is an area where the Godwin family has traditional strength. Githa, who is the mother of Herald, has substantial property in Exeter. And so it ends up being this bastion of initial resistance in the Southwest. The family's also previously gone into exile in Ireland as well. So there's that kind of hope of for potential support from across the seas, and some of them have gone into exile over there. So we get this first major rebellion, which She crops up pretty soon after the Conquer and his wife Matilda go back to Normandy.

So they've won their kingdom. He's been crowned in the new year. Time to go home, chaps. He's not an Englishman. He doesn't particularly like the weather. He's a very sensible man. Why be in England when you can be in Normandy? And so he goes back to Normandy for a holiday like any of us would do after a hard year's work,

conquer a kingdom. But while he does this, that's of course the perfect moment. And that's when rebellion starts brewing. And so what William does, and this is something we see repeatedly with rebellions, is he seems to get wind of it quite quickly and he moves very, very swiftly and nips it in the bud. And this is his real success. Seems to be probably more strategic than tactical. It's not that he gets to the battlefield and defeats all these people in open battles.

He actually avoids open battles for most of his career. It's that he gets there very, very quickly. He comes straight back to England, almost as soon as he gets wind of this, marches down to the West country before things get too bad. besieges Exeter. Geith is able to make an escape, so he's not able to kind of tidy things up completely. but after a couple of weeks of siege, Exeter submits. The interesting thing here is this early submission is a conditional one. So it's conditional on William acknowledging their rights.

There's no sack of Exeter. And this suggests that William is not completely in control of these events. It shows that he wants to work with the people of Exeter. He doesn't want to sow seeds of discord. So it's quite a striking early example of an element of accommodation. And at these early stages, of course, William is needing to win some support. the same time as to show that he means business. So he makes a deal with the people of Exeter. Exeter is not sacked. And indeed, the following year, he issues a very famous, quite lavish

charter to the cathedral at Exeter, acknowledging its right. So there's a kind of an accommodation made between him and at least Exeter as the most important city in the southwest and south and west of Winchester. So a really strategic center he needs to control, and they start building a castle in Exeter. Classic William Norman thing. I've got these lands now to start consolidating. So that's kind of his first moment of threat. Later that summer, also an effort is made by some of the Godwinners to come over. They are defeated, though. But the biggest that probably is that initial moment around Exeter in 1067. Yeah, and he does this great Norman job, you know, the castles immediately begin showing up. And I think that that is a really interesting point because now we

sort of think of castles as inextricably bound up with the Middle Ages. And this is a place that just didn't have them. Precisely. Castles are relatively new anywhere, really. Even in France, they're not old. They've been popping up in Normandy since about the turn of the century, but not much before them. So castles are increasingly becoming a feature of the landscape and a feature of aristocratic life. And these are quite important in terms of all sorts of dynamics, in terms of how resistance can be offered for the power of aristocracies, this tradition of naming themselves after specific places.

But for William, it offers the linchpin for controlling English. because the difference between a fort, which England had plenty of before, is that they're much larger, these burrs of the Anglo-Saxon built. So you need quite a few men to defend them. Castles are small. And so are designed so that a relatively small group of well-trained men can hold them for at least long enough to be relieved. And so these start becoming these lynch-pins of Williams' control, but also of aristocratic domination. And they're every bit as much visual as they are strategic. So Exeter Castle is not seriously besieged thereafter.

Most of his castles that he and his men build never face military threat. But they're also a visible sign in the landscape of, we've been here, we are in control. And so this is how he's going about enforcing his rule and also rewarding his men, because some of these are directly royal castles, but also significant numbers of these end up being held by his own henchmen. So it's a nice opportunity to show your strength, but also provide a towhold for all those men who've helped you conquer England, who are themselves waiting on their rewards. And so that's the other thing that's going on as the background of music to this is that Englishmen are being replaced at times in where possible by Normans and Frenchmen in key positions of power and authority, and particularly in the aftermath of rebellion. It's really annoying, isn't it? Because I spend all this time telling people that, oh, there is not really any such thing as the feudal system. Everything is much more complex than that.

And bloody William comes in here and he's just doing the thing. I'm like, hey, stop it, William. I don't want people to believe in this. But, you know, he's the one. Perhaps the exception through, though, I think the thing that's important to acknowledge is the first castles built in England are not built by William. We already have Norman Earls under Edward the confessor, who is himself half Norman. So in a hypothetical alternative world where there's no Norman conquest, I think England goes the way the Scottish kingdom later does. It becomes francophone with a French-speaking aristocracy, but gradually and with more native tradition surviving.

So your desire to make it messy and not just Norman conquest is true. What it does is it accelerates, massively catalyzes this process. So what happens in a generation would otherwise have taken maybe 100 years. Okay, well, thank you for backing me out, Levi. Always have you back. But then, so we have this series of rebellions in the south. William is fairly easily able to put these down. It involves building some castles and a lot of backing and forthing, tooing and froing from Normandy.

But the north's a little bit harder for William to subdue. I guess what great place to start here is when we say the north in this period, what do we mean by that? So we mean basically anything north of the Humber. And these are areas that had not been ruled very strongly by the pre-conquest English kings themselves. I mean, north of the Tyne areas are not even included in Doomsday Book as being part of England. So what we think of now as being England as having very set borders and frontiers is, of course, a product of historical processes. And there is an alternative reality where part of part or all of England north of the Humbert doesn't become part of that. So you need to be thinking of the southern half of what's this earldom of Northumbria being under relatively loose royal oversight. And the northern half, even less so, is more kind of sub-kings, vassal states, kind of individuals with a high degree of personal agency. So this is an area where the royal rites never run firmly, where earlier English moments themselves didn't come frequently, where they often had problems. So it was for Edward, the confessor. It was Seward, who ruled the North for him for many, many years very competently. But once Seward dies, he has a problem with it. He puts Tosty, who's the brother of Harold Godwinson in there. That doesn't work.

So the Northerners are quite sort of distinctive, quite independently minded already in this period. So that kind of Yorkshire tradition of independent thinking is something with very, very strong roots. And so that's one of the reasons why it's a much harder nut for William to crack, because the heartlands of this kingdom are in the south. And so it's much easier from control London, Winchester, place like that. Even Exeter is not too far from Winchester. But note that within the south, it's in the southwest, the extremities that rebellions are happening. The north, as you know, is perhaps the biggest problem.

The other area where he has real issues is the West Midlands, because again, that's further away, and their rebels can seek support from the Welsh, who are not under his control at all. And so the main areas of resistance after 9-6-7 end up becoming the West Midlands and the North, with occasional efforts in the southwest again. Yeah, it's rather like, it's like, you know, the Velocel Raptors in Jurassic Park, always testing the fence. How about now? How about now? Are we able to kind of make any inroads against William?

And to be fair to William, I mean, he does seem a lot more interested in hanging out in Normandy and drawing on England like a bank account. So it makes sense from my standpoint why the nobility would be testing these things out, especially, as you say, when we already have this pretty long history of people occasionally taking over England, then dying. It doesn't really come to much, you know. Exactly. William's a middle-aged man by medieval standards. He's not particularly interested in spending a long time in England.

It was a crown to be one for him. He ends up having to spend a lot longer in England in the early years than he wants to. Because when William has his own way, he goes back to Normandy. England, he wants to and can rule from afar. But it is those areas that are furthest away geographically, but also where there's other players politically. So West Midlands, near Wales. And of course, the other thing with the north beyond it being an area where royal power is

historically weak, it's also right by the growing kingdom of Scotland or Kingdom of Alba, as it's someone still known. So there is an increasingly unified, increasingly powerful monarch in what it would become Scotland, who is an alternative. And again, he is someone who rebels start looking to. and indeed pretty soon around the time of these rebellions, we don't know exactly when, Edgar the Athling, goes to the court of the Scottish monarch Malcolm. And so there's the lightning rod for rebellion. Malcolm, of course, wants this precisely because William is now a big threat to him, is more powerful. What can he play against that? Well, hey, I've got the alternative place on your throne. Because even before we get Edgar up at Alba's court, we have the North kind of trying out rebellions, don't we? There's a few really early on in Williams reign, no? Exactly. So the West Midlands already in 1067, possibly some support in the north. And then the big, big first rebellion after the initial one in 1067 in the southwest, the next really kind of big wave of rebellion comes in 1068 when William goes back to Normandy again. Whenever he goes back, that now is your chance.

originates in the West Midlands around Edwin and Morkar, who are English earls who've gone over to William, but who are being cold-shouldered. And one of the things he's been doing is inputting Norman sheriffs underneath them to clip their wings. So whereas previously they've been given kind of vice regal powers kind of within their domains, he's interested in cutting them down to size. They, of course, don't like this at all. And so that's where they then start fomenting rebellion in alliance with some of the Welsh monarchs, but also then pretty soon with Scottish, support, and they're able to then galvanise the north into that big rebellion in 106-8. And so that's the next time that William gets news of this Normandy and says, oh, shit, has to decide because there's a rebellion in Maine as well, which is part of the reason why he's also in Normandy,

but decides that actually Maine can sort itself out. We can get that later. England's much more at risk here goes over. And again, is able to arrive much quicker than they anticipate and largely nip it in the bud and then starts building castles in the West Midlands and up into the north. building York Castle, things like this. So he then goes on this route up through to the north to secure these areas after that next big rebellion in 10-6-8. Then eventually we get to this Edgar problem. We've already mentioned him a couple of times.

Can you flesh out the character of Edgar Aethling and tell us a little bit about where he came from? So Edgar the Atheling is the son of confusingly Edward the Atheling. They're both called Edward. I know. Anglo-Saxon naming patterns are notoriously repetitive and boring and predictable. So Edward is his father and he is a descendant of Ethelred the Unready, a direct male descendant who had been Edward the confessor's father. And so this is the sidebratch, if you are, the only remaining sidebratch of the Anglo-Saxon royal family. It's been suggested that when Edward himself dies in 1066 that he's already trying to favor Edgar as his own air, trying to keep the line alive, and he just dies a bit too soon, that if he has a few more years on the throne, he can fully set him up. Certainly he brought Edgar's father back to England with the plan, quite clearly of setting him up as his heir, and then he dies before they ever get to meet each

up. So he arrives in England, the succession is solved, so hopes Edward, because the big problem he has throughout his 20-year-year-plus rain is that he doesn't have any airs, and pretty soon it becomes clearly he won't. And so everyone constantly is circling around. and wondering what will happen next. So he needs to solve this problem. He thought he had the solution, but the solution dies. The next solution might well then be his son, who's Edgar, but he's still a bit young. And then Edward himself dies a bit too young to really set him up as successor. So that kind of is what opens the door for Harold. And Harold's taking of the throne quite possibly, indeed, perhaps probably is a coup. That's one of the reasons why he's probably crowned so swiftly on the

heels of Edward the confessor's own death and burial. I mean, possibly at the same mass. certainly within, you know, a few moments of it, he's on the throne. So there's definitely something to all of this in terms of what's going on there. And so because of that, Edgar is of absolutely Pucka line. And other than any of Harold's family has the strongest claim, indeed, arguably over any of them. So he's the one one whose ancestors have actually been fully acknowledged Kings of England, the only player around in the years after 1066. And so So he is in that sense, in terms of legitimacy, the biggest threat to William and any rebellion that gets big enough under his ages. And that one in 106 state in the West Midlands is being fronted by as something for him. And that's why the Scottish monarch is on board. And it's quite possibly in the aftermath of that. We don't know the timings, annoyingly about this as to when he goes to Scotland. But it may well be actually after that fails that he goes to Scotland. That would be good explanation for how and why. But equally, it could be that he went earlier and that's why Malcolm joins. But either way, there's him up in Scotland. Scotland wanting to undermine William any possible way.

Elements in the English regime led by Edwin and Morcar, who want to kind of resist this in the West Midlands and then the north in between the two joining in. Do you think that this is like a realistic possibility of Edgar achieving anything when he's trying these out? I mean, it's easy, I think, now to see all of this as just kind of a forlorn attempt at the throne. But is this a genuine threat, in your opinion?

I think it really is, yes. So if you're in England, I don't know, in London in 106, say, I think if you're a betting man your money, probably still on William, he's put down the last rebellion, he's in a strong position. But, you know, odds aren't that long on this. It's worth a punt, particularly if you're in those regions, quite possibly. And again, the calculus works in all sorts of different ways. For Edwin and Morkar, they're not benefiting from the new regime anyway. In a sense, I think they can see the writings on the wall. So it's worth a long shot. It's worth a bit of a Hail Mary in this kind of position. American, you all appreciate the analogy here, I'm sure, in terms of what they're trying to achieve. But it's worth taking a higher risk, I think, venture for them. And again, for Edgar, he doesn't have anything else to do at the Scottish court other than just, you know, drink lots of wine and perhaps womanize. Yeah, which is fun for a few years, but I'm sure it's going to get boring. But, you know, but he's someone who's been raised with expectations of rule and doesn't have anything really to be doing in Scotland. So, again, it's worth the risk for him and for those involved.

And he seems to have kind of a pretty strong understanding of what the traditional patterns of support are for Kings of England because he goes over to Sweden and asks them for help as well. No, do you think this is a smart move on his part? Absolutely. So the other major threat, other than Edgar or the Godwin family, are the Scandinavian monarchs, particularly the rulers of Denmark, because they have historic claim through Knut. line. Of course, famously, Harold Hardrada had contested the throne in 1066 himself on the same basis, but it's the ruler of Denmark who's actually the one who people are looking at thinking because Knew had been king of Denmark, hey, as or when he gets his acting gear, gets a Navy over here. Could this not be the end of it? And well into the 80s, the Norman monarchs are still worried about Denmark, that again, we tend to see these things very teleologically. And of course the

Normans are going to dominate. Of course, they're going to go on. And of course, this connection with Normandy is going to go into the loss of Normandy to King John. But to people on the ground, that's not clear at all. Canute's come over and conquered this kingdom. His two sons have been on the throne, and then his line has been replaced again. Who's to say that's not going to happen in this case? It's entirely conceivable. William divides his kingdom on his death, gives Normandy to his elder son and gives England the newer conquest to his younger, seemingly treating it as less secure, more valuable, but also less important in some sense to the dynastic line. But he divides him. He doesn't try to keep these unified.

So there is very much a sense that this line can be replaced, that there's alternatives where Normandy is not part of this equation. So a lot still in play, particularly in 10-6-8. If you're there in the moment, Williams barely won this throw. There's a lot still to go for him to really have it become secure. Yeah, I'm a real Harold Hardrata kind of person. I really wish that he had been the one to do it. I think that his claim was really strong, actually.

It's not just the last of that. I'm a Viking and I think I can conquer this. Come on, chaps. Yeah, go on. Come on, guys. It's at least a bit more honest than Williams one, which is, look, I'm the legitimate heir. And by the way, I've come with a massive army. And once I've defeated yours, please do acknowledge my legitimacy.

It came to me in a dream. You know, he totally promised. Sign me up. How does William respond to this really open rebellion? It's got a lot of people who are coming from around the North Sea in order to back up Edgar, what's willing me to do about it? So the 106-8 one is big because it's got Edgar, and that is then a kind of step up from Exeter. And so that's where he's responded swiftly, come in and fortified those areas, basically not seen off most of the active threat.

But you get the sense that he's starting at this point to lose patience. So if Exeter was able to submit, he then goes around much more aggressively in the aftermath of that, tidying things up. But really it all comes to a head in 1069 the very next year because that's when the Danes start getting involved too. So what there is is Williams pacified the West Midlands and the North, or thought he has as he had Southwest. But once he's back in Normandy, he sends to the north Robert de Comines, so a new Norman individual to take over from Gospatrick running the show there. And upon his arrival, he's killed. And this creates the next rebellion. So straight out of the last rebellion, then comes the next.

So his response to that had been to remove the previous officeholder, the Sheriff Gosspatrick, to replace him with somebody he could trust in the aftermath of this round of previous rebellions. But the very arrival of Robert triggers the next round of rebellions. And it's in this that then the north now takes the lead. So if previously it was the west-middle and spreading into the north, now the north in 10-6-9 is the focal point. And so there's this initial rebellion that is in direct response. to the appointment of a new sheriff. William, as he does in the two previous years, comes back from Normandy, puts Holiday on pause, a bit like modern politicians recalling Parliament

or something like that, you know, no more time for Holidays, chaps. This is getting serious. Marches up north and takes to work, but crucially, in this case, sacks the city. And it's said to have led a major sack of the city, according to some accounts, even desecrating the cathedral. Regardless of whether or not we trust that, it's clearly a massive step up from Exeter. No negotiations. You don't get to set any terms for me. I'm coming. I'm angry. You're going to come to heal. And so he sacks York, reimposes his will then. But it's in that same year, 10-6-9 then, after he's retreated back from the north, that then the Danes arrive. And they arrive on the east coast of England and go up towards the north. And so what we then get is the rebellion is renewed later in 10-6-9. And so if William's gone from being frustrated in 10-6-7, with Exeter, to annoyed with York and the North in early 1069. In late 1069, he is royally pissed off. And so when that then further set of rebellions, that third rebellion that the North now

has been involved in, the second in that calendar year, it's in the aftermath of that he then comes north and imposes his will absolutely with this event known as the herring that I know is what we're really in a sense here to talk about or get build up to. That is that moment where we have the so-called herring. And so he sacks York again, second time in the year, is said to have done so much damage William of Momsbury reports that it could still be seen in his day. William is writing in the 1120s. So these are events in the late 1060s. He's saying a whole generation later, you could still see the damage and the effects of this. And he ravages the countryside. And this is the really crucial bit of the herring. I mean, it's not just that he's,

He sacks York. Okay, he sacks York. He's pissed off with York. But he ravages the countryside, killing livestock, killing peasants where they go. And the crucial thing here is less the immediate loss of life with sacking York and with killing some of the peasants in the countryside, though that's pretty nasty and not pleasant if you're one of them. But it is more the damage done to the land itself, which is systematically damaged, and in terms of the killing of the oxen. And so trained oxen, in terms of the need to replace those, those are not something that can happen overnight. And so we can see in Doomsday Book, 20 years later, we can still see the effects of the herring. Large areas of the North are worth substantially less than they had been

at the time of Williams' conquest. And so this is really the politics of terror. This is a calculated attempt to invoke terror in the population of this is what happens when you mess with William. He's lost all patience. You've crossed the line. And he's showing just how nasty he can be. And so far more, according to all our accounts, die of starvation than ever do at the swords of his men. And again, that's very conscious. He's going to starve them. He wants the people to suffer. They have caused him too much ill.

And of course, also strategically, if there's no food, how are they going to raise another army? It's really horrible stuff. Oderick Vitalis, you know, might be exaggerating something. But he says about 100,000 people die of starvation. As you've already said, we know from the Domesday book that a lot of places have just sort of collapsed, population-wise. And I think that's a really good point that you've made about the oxen as well, because it's the equivalent of destroying everybody's tractors.

It's the equivalent of destroying machinery for medieval people. It's not just, oh, my beloved livestock have been killed. This is the thing that we need to plow. Yes, precisely. So it's doing damage that cannot be replaced except for over multiple generations in terms of some of this. So you're talking about things that even a year or two or a small injection of cash cannot fix. And again, this is very calculated and very knowing. And opinions have kind of varied on how

bad that herring was. There has been a desire to kind of row back on some of the accounts. They're probably stylized, certainly. They are. And the archaeologists have rightly made words of caution that we don't actually see that much of an archaeological signature of this. But the most recent, at least historical work, particularly David Bates' excellent biography of the Conquer, is inclined to go back to some of those ones and saying, no, no, William can be pretty bad when he wants to be bad. And actually, when we combine this with Doomsday Book, maybe we do need to acknowledge that this really does have this lasting legacy. So I tend to incline that there's something to that, that this is wanton destruction. And the final kind of moment of this, the coup de grace,

if you will, is that then he holds court and wears his crown in York with kind of the city burning around him, one almost imagines, or his rubble and cinders around him. him. And so here he is evoking majesty in the center of destruction he has wrought. And I think if you're looking for an image of what eventually the Norman Conquest becomes, to me that really is the image. The Norman Conquest at the start involves a fair bit of the sword, but is trying different things. He's nice to Exeter, which, you know, nice for those of us who live down here. But by the time you're getting to York and 10-6-9, no more compromises at all. And it's telling that after that, rebellions basically stop. I mean, there is fairer word the wake and

Elian a little bit, but nothing that actually threatens him again. 1067 threatens him. 1067 threatens him. 1068 threatens him. 1069 threatens him. Three major rebellions. He never faces anything on that scale again. And I think by late 1069, William is very secure on his throne, if largely through terror, but people have realized he is not a man to be crossed. And for the most part, they don't cross him thereafter. Levi, you just mentioned Harrow of the Wake. Can you tell us a little bit about him? Yeah, so Harroward becomes this heroic figure, supposedly of English resistance, is the last of the major, perhaps in inverted commas, rebels. And his rebellion piggybacks off of Danish threats of invasion. And so again, those Danish attempts to invade England, and of the

attempt then to raise a rebellion and join forces with those. And his rebellion ends up becoming focused around the Isle of Ely. So in the Fenlands, that being a nice relatively secluded spot you could go hide out in. And it's able to recruit from some of those dispossessed elements of the aristocracy of the likes of Edwin Morkar and their followers who have lost out in these previous rounds of rebellions and have now been removed from their posts. So it is able to generate some significant local response. But in contrast with the other major rebellions you've been talking about in the southwest, the West Middellans and the North, it is not actually a material threat to William. He doesn't actually rush super fast to go deal with it. It is localized and it's

emblemized by the fact that Harroward's leading it. I mean, who the hell is Harroward? He's not a previous Earl. He has no claims to the kingship. He's relatively small fries. So I think that is the last gasp of these rebellions, but is also the one that troubles William Leastie. He's the last of a dying breed, someone who's not willing to accept my rule, but is not a material threat to me. So they are eventually defeated. It's something that William can't ignore forever because it's a bit of a pain in the arse for him. But it's not something that's an immediate trouble for a minute. So in that sense, the rebellions to William in some sense almost go out with a bit more of a whimper than a bang. The very last of them, the famous heroic one is actually the one that

has no realistic chances of success unless the Danes really come over and force and are highly successful, in which case the Danes take over and Harward's a nothing anyway. I think Harrowd is very romantic, and that's why we tend to think about it and celebrate him and what he managed to do. I think that we're much more able to imagine ourselves as a hairword, right? None of us are going to be a norm in general, but maybe we could start a rebellion in a swamp. Yeah, well, I think it's because he's the last one. So that sense of, you know, oh, could he still be alive?

There's myths around him. But there is also that sense. I think the fact that he is not of such elevated class makes him more approachable. He's an everyday man. He has export this to the democratic middle ages where someone like you or I, Eleanor, could raise the rebellion and tell the man what for. And realistically, the chance of that these days probably isn't great and certainly then wasn't at all. And so I think the things that draw us to him are the very things that actually made him not much of a threat in the period at all and a bit of a kind of an interesting coda.

How do you come down on the idea that we could classify the herring of the North as a genocide? It's difficult, and to be frank, want to talk more with modernist colleagues who are really experts in genocide, as it's not an area that I've read up enough on in terms of definitions. I guess it depends probably if you're trying to define the north and the regions around there as their own ethnicity. Probably a lot of it comes down on that because there's no question that William is trying to disenfranchise the English. But he's not trying to exterminate the entire English population. That's clear. He is replacing them everywhere amongst the aristocracy. And his decision to do so is clearly informed by these rebellions.

Before 1067, I don't think he's sitting there thinking every single English nobleman pretty much almost down to man will be replaced. By 1069, I think he is thinking that he can't trust any of them. So that's, I think, an evolution that is a result of these processes. So I don't think he's trying to get rid of all of the English. But if you're considering the North and Yorkshire its own ethnicity, that's certainly some there would like to do. I'm open to it. There's no doubt that it is a desire to kill on a mass level well beyond anybody who can be an immediate threat to him. I think that is beyond question.

That is the intention of these actions. They are brutal. They are nasty. They are not anything most sensible modern commentators would wish to condone. Sadly, as well, one must acknowledge it was brutally effective at the same time. And it is one of those ones that reminds you also of that side of medieval rulership, that this was not a fluffy business. I mean, it is really devastating stuff when you read about it. And as you say, becomes very successful.

you know, just don't mind all the corpses, you know, just step over those, it'll be fine. He's put down this rebellion, used rather a lot of terror in order to do so. How does he then consolidate this control? He's raised York in many ways. What does he need to do next in order to make sure that he can capitalize on this success? Well, what he's now starting to do is very systematically place new earls into positions of power and authority, above all ones who are some of his most trusted men from Normandy. So he's placing them in places like the West Midlands. So the earldoms of Chester, of Hereford, and things like that are coming into existence.

So we're getting families like the Montgomery's and things like that, being placed into these families, into these positions of power and authority. And often individuals who served with them at Hastings and or people who were close associates of his before. So some of the people who were actually holding the Fort Normandy while he's away. But these are families he's relied upon and been friendly with since his youth. He's putting also people into positions of power and authority or family. members, Otto of Bayeux, who is also made Earl of Kent. So we're getting this move to now systematically replace all of the upper echelons of society. And by the time we have doomsday survey, that's complete. But actually, a lot of it's done by the early 1070s, really. He's starting to

really root and perhaps get rid of these people. So Edwin and Morcar are gone. And the list goes on. Goss Patrick's getting rid of him was part of the problems that he had. But because he's won, his replacement stick and are able to stick. And basically, I think for the populace, those who might rebel, there's not many aristocrats left to lead them, and those who are sufficiently scared, that nobody's now being successful. And the odds of success after 10-6-9 are very low. So I think before then, the calculus is a different one. This might have been a slight long shot. I think odds were always on William's side, but only a slight. There were realistic hopes of what you could achieve. After that, there's no real way, other than maybe the Danish king coming over and defeating

him in battle. Nobody locally is going to manage to galvanize that level of support. And so the rebellions end up fragmenting. People are scared of their lives and look to their livelihoods and survival as they do in these scenarios. So William survives by dint of success in battle, success putting down these rebellions, and then instilling fear. Because if you can't rule through love, you need to rule through fear. What about from a church perspective? Because I think One of the things that we tend to see in this period of time is a proliferation very specifically of cathedral building. Yeah, so we also see a similar change in the ecclesiastical landscape. So it's harder to get rid of bishops and archbishops, but not impossible. And William is able to use church reform as his brush to sweep the English church.

And so one of the things that quite possibly before he ever comes to England, certainly soon thereafter, following his conquest he uses to justify is that the English church is a bit of an outlier. So there's lots of bishoprics based in relatively rural centres. And that goes against canon law because they're meant to be in cities. And so there's various traditions of the English church there, irregular viewed from a French or continental perspective. And for William, it's very easy to then paint these as signs of the rot. That something was rotten in the state of England. It needed somebody to clean it out. I'm that person to clean these Ogian stables.

And so church reform is something that's certainly been part of his vision from early on in his claims to conquest. and quite possibly something he's already using to drum up support well in Normandy, because it fits with his ideas of designation, divine right to rule. This kind of all fits together nicely. The English are contumacious rebels because they didn't accept me as their monarch. They are bad churchmen. They have stigand as archbishop, who's never been acknowledged by the papacy, who doesn't have the pallium because he replaced uncanonically his predecessor,

Robert of Jumej. So there's actually a lot for him to work with from the reigns of Edward, the confessor and Herald. And so he's able to paint a picture of himself as this necessary. reformer. And this then allows him to systematically replace habits and bishops. And so every major bishopric receives a Norman or French prelate after its then bishop dies. But also a number are deposed. So he's able to depose a few. Only the kind of most established, most highly regarded, like Wolfstun of Worcester, who of course goes on to become a saint, really survive that cull. But it's very small numbers. And what helps him as well is there were already some Francophone churchmen in

Edwards, right? He'd preferred them too. So in a sense, he's building off of existing traditions, but he is able to make almost as clean a sweep of the church. And so we get new bishops, we get new abbots pretty much across the board to go alongside the new earls, and they all want to build new churches. And that's then where we also then see this. The expression, the architectural or visual expression of this is then church building. If the military might was the castle, the Romanesque cathedral is then the alternative. And again, a bit like the castle.

The very first one is actually Westminster under Edward the Confessor. So it is something that's happening a little bit already, but again, it happens across the board that basically every major cathedral church is rebuilt within about two generations of the conquest. And again, I think that's inconceivable without the conquest as this moment that then draws this line in the sand. It's very competitive as well. These churchmen, they want to build bigger and better. And so we get some massive ones like Winchester is a great example. Absolutely massive. Really shoddly done.

So some of the early ones where they're trying to build so big, Winchester's a nice example of both what they can and can't achieve. And quite a few of them fall down in the early years. But there is this sense of overweening ambition, bigger, better, newer, more continental, more Norman. So importing this nice Romanesque architecture, build it like back at home in Normandy, this chaps in England is how you do it. That's kind of the message they're promulgating. I absolutely love the ones that fall over. Like St. Albans is one of my favorite cathedrals because I like how a bunch of it just falls over.

And then you've got to redo it in the 14th century. I think it's cute. Yeah, it's one of those things that's also overlooked with this, is there's this wave of Romanesque building. but the earliest ones aren't the best, actually. A lot of the early ones aren't very good because they're rushing this, and they're aiming for size over quality. They really are clearly thinking bigger is always better. And it takes a while for them to kind of settle down and realize, hey, you know, that looks to be like Ely or Durham. Now, that's actually what we want to aim for.

Big's good, but also, you know, quality craftsmanship, stately. So it does the English Romanesque kind of evolves into itself. But there is this really competitive urge. I think it is something that's born also of conquest and of these people being often Norman or at least Frankphone aristocrats of families that are aggressively aggrandizing. They have brothers and cousins conquering things. So just as the early Norman earls of the West Midlands almost immediately start trying to conquer Wales. So these prelates are in a sense empire building. They're trying to build bigger and better churches. And you can do a kind of chart of the church

building. And for a while, every single new one is slightly bigger than the previous one in terms of when they're completed, so you can literally see them just like ever so slightly trying to beat one another and get ever so slightly bigger in terms of these sorts of things. But I think it is born of that same kind of spirit that is fueling these conquests and fuel the Norman conquest itself. I think it's really such a canny way of doing things as well because it immediately gets the church on side because it's this acknowledgement, oh yes, Rome, we wish to be in submission to you, wink, wink, nudge, and also look at all this money we're spending on churches.

Isn't that crazy? So you're not going to have any interference. Yeah. Do we mention Peters Pence? We'll send you some cash where we're happy to do so. But yeah, no, it gives them a very nice, strong rationale for what they, realistically, certainly I think for William, he wants to do already. So I think there's certainly for him a cynical element.

Some of the people are doing this, I'm sure, believe this. And I think for many, they couldn't actually separate the secular and the ecclesiastical motives, in a sense. The fact that England was sinful was demonstrated by the Norman conquest. What clearer evidence do you need? So we are the rod of God's wrath. But it does then nicely fit into wider empire building too. Once you have the archbishops of Canterbury claiming primacy, wanting control over Wales

and Scotland, just when conveniently some of the Norman Earls are also trying to gain control over their neighbors. It all kind of falls together very neatly for the conquer and his leading advisors. I mean, Lord knows the man knew his way around a monastery. I will give him that. The one at Khan, come on, get out of town. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, he and Matilda.

Tha Etia and Latrinate. It's so good. I feel weird because I'm talking about this guy who is a war criminal. I think we could definitely agree that now these are war crimes that he engages in. Of course, there's no such thing at the time. And it's certainly terrible what he does. But we have these legacies from it that are beautiful that kind of blossom out of this brutality. And it's, you know, that's dialectics baby.

You know, that's the medieval kind of urge on one hand and the other in some ways. Yes, I dare say that one could drop various Stalinist quotes or something like that or sayings about needing to crack eggs to make omelets. I mean, I think for modern sensibilities, this is rather a lot of egg for an omelet that impressive as it may be is almost inexorably tarnished by it. But at the same time, yes, I think for people at the period, it is. And there would be those around Anselm of Canterbury, people like that who would see these things as problematic, but perhaps in part necessary. What is notable is that Williams known, I think, for being pious in his own way. But there's never any suggestion that there's going to be a cult of William. Edward the confessor becomes a confessor saint.

William, nobody thinks is a saint. William is a bad man and he wants you to know he's a bad man. That is part of his efficacy, frankly, is people who've crossed William already in Normandy have learned the hard way. In England, they have to come to learn that. Three years following the conquest, they've learned it. and more or less they stopped messing with them. You know, I suppose that's why he has to build so many monasteries,

because you've got to get a couple teams praying for your soul after all of this, I think. Okay, so trying to sum up is something as big as this, you know, because this is big generational pattern shifting. This has knock-on effects for architecture and who rules and the epigenetics of the population. Could you say that there is a legacy of the herring of the North? Absolutely. So certainly if you were to extend this to William's response to the rebellions writ large, 1066 to 10669, it ends up initiating the biggest replacement of England's ruling elite that it has ever seen,

or that part of Britain has ever seen, frankly, that there's never been a regime change as stark in Scotland, in Wales, in any of those kind of region. So it really is in terms of that unprecedented, and this isn't like certain other medieval conquests of kingdoms where you replace the person on top and maybe a few of the leading magnates. You are replacing well over 90% of the aristocracy. It is extraordinary. It doesn't happen overnight. It's a response to these rebellions, and it is by the end of them, then William's determination,

no longer to rely upon the English. But that is absolutely astounding and can't have. help but have a legacy. And I think if we're looking then specifically at the herring, it reinforces an existing trend, but very starkly that one of the North being distinct from the South and the North being imposed upon by the South. If you will, the North is almost colonial England, that if we're thinking that colonization is often something that's happening within these kingdoms before they do it somewhere else. Do you think that this is one of the reasons why we consider that there is a north-south divide here in England still?

I think it almost certainly reinforces it. I don't think it creates. It will be lovely to be able to claim that it's as tidy as that, because there's already a stark divide under the English monarchs before then. But I think it does perhaps make it irreparable in some sense in terms of that. There is this one. And it certainly, it's perhaps luck of the draw that the southwest rebels first, but it does play into that sense that Westminster will look kindly upon the south of England

and the home counties and the south. But when the north comes knocking, you know where to go. Levi, this has been just such a pleasure, as it always is when you stop by. Thank you so, so much for coming to talk to me. Thank you for having me on. My thanks again to Levi Roach. Be sure to check back in on Friday to hear him chatting with Matt all about the glorious and intricately mundane detail of the Domes Day book.

And of course, thank you for listening to Gone Medieval from History Hit. Remember, you can enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original TV documentaries, including My Show Meet the Normans, which covers the lead-up to William the Conqueror in great detail, as well as ad-free podcasts by signing up at historyhit.com forward slash subscription. You can follow Gone Medieval on Spotify, where you can leave us comments and suggestions or wherever you get your podcasts,

and tell all your friends and family that you've Gone Medieval. Until next time.