Gone Medieval - Origins of the Normans

Episode Date: May 1, 2024

Because of William the Conqueror’s victory at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, the Normans have remained a familiar and important name in British history. But who were they? And how did they come to change culture across the European continent?In this explainer episode of Gone Medieval, Dr. Eleanor Janega tells the fascinating story of the rise of the Normans.This episode was edited by Ella Blaxill and produced by Rob Weinberg.Enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original documentaries that are released weekly and AD-FREE podcasts. Get a subscription for £1 per month for 3 months with code MEDIEVAL - sign up here.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. When I say the term Normans, odds are, as an English speaker yourself, the first thing that comes to mind is probably the story of William the Conqueror. You know, his military prowess, the cleverly time journey across the English channel, you know, 1066 is a universally known date. We do understand that the conquest changed the fabric of life in English,

changed the people in power, who owned the land, religious institutions, buildings, and even landscape, language, and names. And that's why this is a familiar story. But it's also just one story about a group of people who would come to dominate multiple regions across Europe. A group who, according to the 11th century monk Gauphredo Malatera were. Especially marked by cunning, despising their own inheritance in the hope of winning a greater, eager after both gain and dominion, given to imitation of all kinds, holding a certain mean between lavishness and greediness, that is perhaps uniting, as they certainly did, these two seemingly opposite qualities. Their chief men were specially lavish through their desire.

of good report. They were, moreover, a race skilful in flattery, given to the study of eloquence so that the very boys were orators, a race altogether unbridled, unless held firmly down by the yoke of justice. They were enduring of toil, hunger, and cold whenever fortune laid it on them, given to hunting and hawking, delighting in the pleasure of horses and of all the weapons and garb of war. So who were the Normans? And how did a bunch of errant Vikings come to change culture across the continent? I'm Dr. Eleanor Yonaga, and today on Gone Medieval from History Hit, we'll be talking about

the rise of the Normans, one of medieval Europe's most interesting cultural groups. Normandy, the landmass, was always a fairly prosperous area. The Romans held several villas there, and Ivo had a forum and was an important pilgrimage site. The Romans eventually retreated, and the area was then settled by Germanic tribes from the east. Eventually, the area fell under Frankish control, from which we get the term France now. The Meravingian dynasty, which controlled the Frankish kingdom for centuries, took its shine to the area, and it became a royal residence. As a result, many monasteries were established there, which is testament to the fact that they had quite a lot of money. Monasteries were repositories for information and a way of showing that your air are established.

area was Christian and well connected. And this is how Mont Saint-Michel, for example, which was then Montemps, was established in 708. But the area also had a problem and had always had a problem. It was susceptible to attacks from the water. The Romans had faced this issue with raids from Saxon pirates, eventually forcing them out of the area. And this is part of the reason that Mont-Sain Michel had been built on an island that was tidal. It was a form of protection from invaders. And soon the invader problem got worse when Vikings began to show up.

These raids began sometime between 790 and 800, and particularly hit the west coast of France. The Vikings, or Northmen, which were called in French Northmani, were there specifically attracted by the monasteries. They knew that monks had a lot of wealth and treasure, and they also knew that because they were religious, they weren't set up to fight. Further, because they weren't Christian, they also didn't really have to worry about any religious concerns about robbing a few monks here and there. It was around this time, the early 9th century, that Louis the Pius, Charlemagne's son, was king. This went badly for the people who lived in what would become Normandy.

Louis was often distracted by infighting with his family, and away in Aachen, the Roman imperial capital, fighting with his brothers. so he never managed to launch a full defense of his kingdom. He lost control of several coastal areas of France altogether, and the Vikings had learned a valuable lesson. The Carolingian rulers had so much land to look after that they couldn't really see to everything that was happening. As a result, the Vikings intensified their rates. By 8.41, the Vikings in particular began to hit what would become Normandy.

They do huge amounts of damage to the important port city of Rouen and the beautiful monastery at Jumiege. And at this time, they're kind of doing normal Viking stuff. They go back to Scandinavia in the winter and they do their raiding in summer. But by 8.51, this stops. The Vikings had been going further and further down the seine and they actually put siege to Paris. In 8.51, they decided that instead of going back to Scandinavia, they'd just go ahead and stay there over winter. And by January 8.52, they managed to burn down Fontenelle Abbey,

forcing the monks there to flee along with the relics of their saints. This creates a major crisis for the Carolingian rulers. The Carolingians justified their rule by talking about their connection to God. They were meant to be the representatives of God's authority on Earth. So how then is it that a bunch of pagans were able to directly attack their lands and also harassed the clergy when the Carolingians were supposed to be in charge. But the Carolingians were also still fighting with each other. And more to the point, by now the king Charles the Bald was fighting with Brittany,

which was a separate kingdom from France. In order to alleviate his issues, he signed a treaty with the Bretons, asking them to fight against the Vikings in his place. That was a very clever piece of statecraft, but it also didn't stop the Vikings from coming. However, it did shift the problem to someone else for a bit. Meanwhile, somewhere in Scandinavia, a boy named Rolo was born, probably known then as Holfer. We don't know exactly where in Scandinavia he was born,

because at the time there was rather a lot of back and forth about who ruled who. So we don't know if where he was born is what we would call Danish or Norwegian today. The legends about him are also quite common. contradictory. A history of the Normans written by the 10th century monk, Dudo of Saint Quentin, says that Rolo's family were powerful Danes, and that Rolo's brother, Gurum, got in a fight with an unnamed Danish noble. After their father died, Gurum was killed by the enemy, and Rolo had to flee to Denmark. Meanwhile, 11th and 12th century chronicles say that Rolo sailed boldly away from Norway

with his fleet to the Christian coast. And according to William of Malmesbury in the 12th, century, Rollo was born of noble lineage among the Norwegians. Later, Snorri Sterlson's Icelandic sagas in the 13th century would say that Rollo was known as Hrolf the Walker, a man so big that no horse could carry him. The point is that Rollo is an outsized character because of his deeds in France, but we don't have great records for him until he does this. And to be fair, that's pretty standard for the time. We can't always know about every single person until they do something really incredible. And 1,200 years ago, Rolo said about doing just that.

Dudo's chronicle reports that Rolo sailed to Ruin in 876, and not only besieged it, but took it entirely, defeating Robert of the Breton march in the process. It was then reported that Ruehn was almost leveled, but eventually the Breton simply gave up and seed several stretches of coast to Rolo and his men. As part of this, he also comes to control nearby Bayou, and there he married Papa, the daughter of Berengur, the Count of Rann. Soon, their son William Longsort was born. Now, that's a nice Pat story that does what we expect nobles to do, but it may or may not be true, given that this was written after the fact by someone who was trying to legitimate a line of succession. Still, it makes sense.

want to truly control a piece of land rather than just sacking it, it helps to intermarry with the local aristocracy so that they have some skin in the game. This is a part of a larger movement of Danish attack and settlement at the time. Rola was friends with Guthrum, who around the same time was besieging East Anglia and eventually became king in 878, creating the Dane law. So therefore, Rolo understands that there is precedent for sacking an area, intermarrying with locals and setting up something new altogether. Meanwhile, Rollo continued to attack further and further down the CEN. He laid siege to shot in April or May of 9-11. This was a common target for Viking raids and had been attacked and burnt down in 858, but as a result, they had

prepared themselves for further incursions. After burning down, they had rebuilt and strengthened their city's defenses. Rollo decided to laid siege in the traditional way. He burnt everything in the surrounding area to deprive the town of any supplies going in, and that set up kept to wait them out and attack them with artillery, even if he couldn't get in. Eventually, the king, who by then was Charles the Simple, decided to counterattack and send a relief army to assist the city. Legend has it that the bishop of shot went out onto the walls dressed to say mass, but instead of wearing his usual garb, he wore a piece of the Virgin's tunic, which was supposedly a legitimate piece of Mary's clothing.

When Rollo's men began to shoot arrows at him, they were then blinded by a miracle. In reality, they were probably just looking at some guys on the wall when a bunch of troops ran out from behind them, and were eventually joined by the cavalry forces the king had sent as relief. But one way or another, they surrounded Rollo's forces. However, the canny Northman escaped and eventually made it back to Ruin. Even though Rollo had technically lost, this was a major turning point in his fortunes. Charles was tired of fighting Rollo all the time, and instead of continuing to attack, he entered into peace negotiations.

The result was the Treaty of Sinclair Sir Upt. In the treaty, Charles granted all the land around the mouth of the Seine and Rouen to Rolo. But there were some provisos. First of all, in exchange, Rolo had to convert to Christianity and swear fieldy to Charles as the king of West Francia. He was also asked to marry Gisela, Charles's daughter, who was at that time still a child. Because at this time, Papa was already dead. Rola was a free agent, and this seemed like a pretty good deal for rather a lot of land. There is a legend about how proud Rola was when entering into this agreement, however.

And according to Dudo, he refused to kiss the king's foot when he was made a vassal, which was part of the standard ceremony. Instead saying, I will never bow my knees at the knees of any man, and no man's foot will I kiss. Instead, he got one of his warriors to do it, who raised the king's foot to kiss it instead of getting on his knees, making King Charles fall over.

As you've probably guessed, this is, again, probably not true. But it shows us how the Normans were keen to emphasize their own power and how independent they were in histories they commissioned. Now, this might seem like a weird thing for Charles to do, you know, give a random Viking a bunch of land. But Rollo had been there for decades, and it would have presented a huge issue to get him to leave. Provided he became Christian,

it would be much easier to simply stop all the fighting back and forth. Even further, it also meant that Charles was able to task Rollo with defending the area from other Viking incursions. Besides, Charles had big problems in other parts of the Carolingian Empire, and he simply couldn't do everything himself. Soon, Charles was in even more trouble and was eventually deposed by Rudolph of France. Rollo, true to his word, rode out to aid Charles, but was intercepted by emissaries from Rudolph.

They promised Rollo even more land if they allowed Rudolph to take the throne without issue, and even more land again was given to the Norsemen, including Bessin and Mon. We don't know if this agreement was partly happening because Rudolph wanted Rolo to help Christianize and settle other Vikings who were living in that territory, or if the Vikings in questions were Rolo and his friends. But either way, they ended up controlling Brittany and the continent peninsula as part of the deal. So Rudolph had done something incredibly canny here. there were a ton of Vikings living rather paganly in the area, and in one fell swoop he manages to bring them under his domain

and Christianize them all. Not a bad deal. We aren't exactly sure when Rollo died, but we think it might have been sometime around the year 9.30 when he stops appearing in records. His son, William Longsort, who he had had with Papa, then took his lands in 927. One of his first challenges was that William had to face down a rebellion of his fellow Normans,

who felt that William was just a little too French. The leader of the rebellion was Riod of Evo, and he wanted to be led by someone who seemed a lot more Viking. This is particularly interesting because it tells us how quickly it was possible to change the character and culture of a people. William was already something new. He wasn't like his Viking father who happened to the people. take over an area. William was specifically Norman. He was also a pretty impressive warrior himself, and he won a decisive victory against Rio at Ruan. And by 933, William Starr was on the rise. He was granted even more land, specifically most of Brittany, including the Continent Peninsula

and the Channel Islands by King Rudolf when he showed up to do him homage. The Bretons were not particularly happy about this outcome and resisted. But William led a hugely successful campaign against them. Several Breton castles were subsequently raised to the ground, and the delightfully named Alan II, the Duke of Brittany, fled to England. William also made strategic marriages to extend his power. He married into the family of Herbert II, the Count of Vermandois, consolidating even more land.

As a part of this, he married his sister off to the capital. out of Pueto. These were interesting strategies because Brollo had been an enemy of Herbert, and it shows how William was able to adapt to French dynastic concerns and make his gains beyond the battlefield, unlike his father. However, the Bretons still wanted their land back, and various battles raged back and forth. Eventually in 942, William was killed in an ambush by the Bretons as he rode to a peace conference. his 10-year-old son, Richard I, succeeded him. Because Richard was still a minor, and a minor who happened to control a substantial amount of very important land,

King Louis IV took hold of him and put him in custody of the Count of Pontview. He also started to give his lands away. Louis claimed that this was done to teach Richard courtliness, but to be fair it was an outright power grab. The Normans revolted against this and marched on the king's palace. He was forced to show Richard to the crowd and turn him over to them. This is a particularly interesting incident because it shows how the idea of a Norman family ruling the area was already entrenched enough that people could be rallied to the cause. But many of the supporters were still people like Bernard the Dane with express Viking connections. Louis claiming the boy needed to learn courtliness also.

shows that the Normans were still very much considered as others who weren't truly Gallic. Sure, you could have a young man who had tons of land and power, but was he really fancy enough to be consorting with the French court? In 946, Richard was 14, and he immediately celebrated by attacking Louis IV, along with men sent by Harold of Denmark. This was a hugely successful military endeavor, and they took enough hostages that the king was forced to acknowledge Richard as the Duke of Normandy and return his lands. Hugh, the Count of Paris, then arranged a marriage between his daughter and Richard, showing that he was aware that this was a very powerful contingent at court. However, Louis wasn't done. In 947, he managed to convince Otto I,

first, the Holy Roman Emperor, to help him attack Rouen. Richard was able to repulse both the combined might of the French army and the Holy Roman Imperial forces. This is proof of how desirable this land was, and how the Normans were still seen as outsiders that could be attacked and taken advantage of by rulers from the continent. However, their Normanness meant that they were a cohesive group who prided themselves on their military power and their ability to stand up to even the most powerful rulers. Moreover, Richard had a good idea of what needed to be done to consolidate power.

He focused on his rule in Normandy and on consolidating power and reuniting the lands his father and grandfather had won. He established his second son, Robert II, as the Archbishop of Ruan, and made good marriages for his eight other children. By the time of his death in 996 at 64 years old, there was a real idea of normandness that hadn't existed before. This was a consolidated duchy with a heritage and a dynastic family. It wasn't Viking and it wasn't French. It was something else entirely.

His son Richard II, the good, then took over and immediately began annoying the English crown. It was his policy to allow Vikings who had attacked England to come to Normandy and sell whatever they had stolen. He even provided them with sanctuary. This was in contravention of a treaty his father had signed with Ethelred the Unready that said that they wouldn't aid Vikings. Ethelred, as a result, attacked the Continent Peninsula in retaliation and demanded that Richard be kidnapped and brought to England. But by the time this happened, the English were already completely defeated. In order to restore peace, Richard married his sister Emma to Ethelred, giving birth to two sons, Alfred and Edward the Confessor. This went pretty all right until Canute the Great attacked England and forced Emma to marry him after Ethelred died.

Alfred and Edward were then sent to Normandy to be raised, while Emma got on with her marriage, eventually giving birth to the future King Hartha Canute as well. During this time, Richard was also doing dynasty making. He was the one who commissioned Dudo's history of the North Normans that I kept referring to earlier on for information on Rollo. So he understood the importance of myth-making and cultural heritage. He also knew enough to make sure his family carried this on. And with that, we have a fully-fledged and well-thought-out Norman ideal. Normans are powerful enough that they intermarry with royalty. There is a cohesive idea of Normanness that will inspire rebellion if it's threatened from the outside.

and there's a lot of outside. The Normans still see themselves as a type of Norse person. They tend to work alongside Danes and they have no trouble supporting the Vikings in their endeavors. But they are also specifically connected to their rich and well-placed duchy. Their power makes them a target for attack, but also for marriage, and they are therefore a specific force to be reckoned with. When Richard II died, there should have been an easy success. to Richard III his son, but instead war immediately broke out.

Robert I, the Magnificent, who was Richard II's brother, attacked him in 1026 at the town of Falaise, as he believed that his inheritance of Imois was too paltry. Richard prevailed, but upon return to the capital at Ruin, he died in incredibly suspicious circumstances. He had no heirs, and the Duchy passed to Robert. This established something of a precedent. What had been a United Duchy began to break out in small wars between the various Norman nobles. A new set of more powerful warlike Normans began to come to the fore. Some even began to leave the Duchy and see what they could do around Europe.

Robert, meanwhile, used this time to pursue vendettas. He attacked his uncle, Robert, the Archbishop, who had supported his brother against him. He also attacked his cousin, the Bishop of Biontas. forcing them both out of Normandy. He also involved himself in political struggles outside the duchy, helping Henry I of France in a fight against his mother, Queen Constance, who wanted his younger brother to inherit the French throne instead. Robert was then given the lands of Vaxon in response. Not a bad bit of tit for tat. But around 1034, Robert appeared to tire of all the chaos. He named his son William,

a bastard as his heir, and went to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He also gave back all the churchlands that he had confiscated in fights with his family. He went on to die in Jerusalem, and the eight-year-old William, then in Nicaea, was given his titles. This then is the context that William, who we would come to know as William the Conqueror, was born into. Normandy was an incredibly fractious place where people were constantly fighting. His own father possibly came to the throne through Fratricide. His claim to Normandy was tenuous because he was a bastard, but he had two key supporters, his great-uncle Robert the Archbishop, who seems to have forgiven his father, and King Henry I of France.

Still, the situation was vaguely chaotic. Because he was just a child upon his father's death, he was now being used as a symbol for power and could be passed from house to house to press advantages. And passed from house to house, he certainly was used. was as various claimants were killed. First, Alan of Brittany, then Gilbert of Briand, then Turchill, then Osborne, who was killed in William's own chamber while he was asleep. In late 1046, some opponents wanted to remove the young William from the ducal throne altogether. Guy of Burgundy led a revolt where they attempted to seize the young William at Valon. But William

escaped and fled to the protection of King Henry. In 1047, William backed by Henry, rode gloriously back into Normandy, and defeated his opponents at the Battle of Valestun. This not only marked William's return. It set a precedent for what his next few years would look like. In retaliation for, you know, all the treachery, William attacked Guy of Burgundy's castle at Briand. He was eventually victorious, taking control and exiling Guy in 1050. This is of note because it shows us William's stubbornness and willingness to keep a grudge. If you wrong him, he is willing to spend years to redress this. Meanwhile, in England, a Norman was on the throne.

William the confessor, the son of Emma of Normandy and Ethelred the Unready, had taken the throne after the death of his half-brother, Hartha Canute. William had been educated and raised in Normandy, because whenever another Viking would take over, it wasn't safe for him at court. When he returned in 1041, he made specific Norman decisions, like building the Norman-style Westminster Abbey. He also brought along with him a lot of Norman councillors and fighters. By 1051, Edward seems to have been nervous about the fact that he did not have an error and may or may not have summoned William to England where he seems to have selected him as his successor.

William was the grandson of Edward's maternal uncle, Richard II of Normandy. A tenuous connection, yes, but a connection all the same. This came about because Edward was in a fight with Godwin, the Earl of Wessex, his father-in-law. Edward had exiled the powerful Godwin from England and was casting about trying to establish an heir to the throne. But Godwin returned in 1052, and they reached an agreement whereby Godwin's lands were returned, and William removed some supposed Norman influences such as the Norman Archbishop of Canterbury and replaced him with an English bishop.

Meanwhile, back on the continent, things were continuing to be unsettled. King Henry, probably worried about William's growing power, turned against him in 1052, teeming up with Jeffrey Martel of Mon to attack William. In 1053, some Norman nobles and the Archbishop of Rouen also rebelled against him, worried about his power. By 1054, the king had decided to exploit these rumblings and attacked William directly in conjunction with his half-brother Odo.

William was forced to split his army in two and take on attacks from both Yvro and Eastern Normandy. William and his supporters defeated both sets of attackers. The rebellious Archbishop Mugher was deposed. Three years later in 1057, Henry gave it one more shot, and William again did. defeated his invasion at the Battle of Varavel. Both King Henry and William and his supporters had learned that the Normans were a force to be reckoned with, and the Duchy was never invaded again in William's lifetime. William would continue fighting around Normandy, picking up lands where he thought there were possibilities of gaining the upper hand.

For instance, he took over the Bishopric of Le Mans in 1065, which secured the Western Norman border. He also engaged in periodic raids of Brittany, which Harold Godwinson may have even taken part in. During this time, it was alleged that he took an oath to uphold William's claim to the English throne. Now, this could simply be Norman propaganda, but it's also absolutely a claim that was later made. So either way, Harold Godwinson was already in the mix, and already kind of saying that William was supposed to be where he was. Meanwhile, while William had been busy in Normandy, England was also kicking off. Earl Godwin had died in 1053, and Harold Godwinson took over his earldom, making him incredibly powerful. Then, in 1065, Edward the Confessor died.

And again, we don't know exactly what happened here. It was claimed in the Vita Edwardi, or Life of Edward, that on his deathbed, Edward had named Harold his successor, in the presence of his wife Edith, Harold. Stigand the Archbishop of Canterbury and Robert Fitzwitmar. Duly, Harold was crowned on the 6th of January 1066 in Westminster Abbey, which had been built by Edward. Now, that was all well and good, but William maintained that the promise he had received from Edward in 1051 was much more legally binding. Further, they claimed that Harold swore an oath to uphold William as heir, making everything else null and void. Of course, Harold Hadrata of Norway also felt that he had a claim based on an oath. In this case, one where his uncle, King Magnus I, had made a pact with Hartha Canute

that if either of them died without errors, the other would succeed the throne. Now, in one way or another, William convened a council in Normandy. William of Poitiers claims it was to debate about the relative merits of invading England, but it's fairly doubtful and probably propaganda to make it look. look like William was a democratic guy. It's a lot more likely that he instead just made an announcement that it was going to happen. So William and the Normans spent the summer gathering troops and ships for said invasion. And eventually their forces set sail from Valerie Sousan.

The force was made up of Normans, but also some mercenaries, some Bretons, and a general bunch of people who thought it might be to their advantage to club up with one of the hardest guys on the continent. They all set sail in September. By this time, Harold was up in the north attending to the invasion of Harold Hadrata and seeing to the Battle of Stamford Bridge. So far, so legendary. You know the drill. He then marched down for the Battle of Hastings. And now, I just don't feel like you need to hear the 10 millionth rundown of the Battle of Hastings.

I think you know the drill. The two sides attack. Someone does or does not get an arrow in the eye. One way or another, William comes out on top. And that's when he gets into the far more interesting, in my humble opinion, battle for consolidation of power in England. The first thing he did was move to secure Dover, then Canterbury, and then Winchester. These were incredibly canny moves because they were all sides of specific importance to Englishness.

Dover was important for sailing ships over. Canterbury meant you had religious control of the country. and Winchester held the royal treasury. William then marched on London, which he reached in November, burning most things he saw on the way. The English, in response, scrambled to make a new king, Edgar the Agling,

but he ended up conceding by December. On Christmas Day, 1066, William was therefore crowned the king in Westminster Abbey. He then said about managing what he was going to do with the kingdom. Three earls, Edwin of Mercia, Morcar of Northumbria, and Wailoff of Northampton had their lands and titles reaffirmed. This was also secured usually through marriages. Walthoff was married to William's niece Judith, so he wouldn't dispossess him. Edwin was offered a marriage to one of William's daughters. Edgar the ailing was even given land, which was pretty nice of William to do, to be honest.

The bishops were also left alone. However, lands were stripped from Harold and his brothers as well as those who had fought against William at Hastings. Well, that makes sense. If someone's going to fight against your invasion of a kingdom, you're not exactly going to reward them afterwards. In March, William returned to Normandy, but took the three earls, Edgar and Stigand and the Archbishop of Canterbury, with him. They were basically hostages. He then left his half-brother Odo, the bishop of Bayou, in charge, with William Fuliam. Fitz Osborne and gave them both Earldoms, Kent and Hereford, respectively.

This is important because it shows that what William really wanted from England was basically prestige and money. He was very, very happy to have a kingdom and a title which elevated his status on the continent. But he was still quintessentially Norman. He didn't want to be English. He just wanted to control it and the money that could be made from it. Meanwhile, Odo and Fitzausborn had their hands full. The again fantastically named Edric the Wilde attacked Hereford where Harold's mother Githa was being held. William thus had to return in 1067 to siege Exeter. At the time Harold's sons were attacking the coastline for bases in Ireland as well. By 1068 there was yet another revolt. This one was kicked off by the earls Edwin and Morcar, who were supported by the new Earl of

Northumbria, Gosspatrick. Edwin was grubbling that he hadn't got the marriage William had promised, but he was probably also put out with the growing power of Fitz Osborne, whose lands abutted his. William marched through the territory and built Warrick Castle, at which point Edwin and Morcar submitted, but William was not done. He got going to York and Nottingham, building castles in each place. Then he turned south, establishing castles at Lincoln, Huntingdon, and Cambridge, putting loyal men in each of them. Then he went back to Normandy. These are not just romantic gestures.

Now we love to look at a castle and imagine what life would like to be inside. But castles are specific political statements about who is in control of a territory. They're also threats of violence. A castle is a place where powerful people who have a monopoly on illicit violence keep those instruments of power.

At any moment, if a Norman castle is in your area, it's a statement to the local English people that Normans with weapons and horses can ride out and submit you to their power. Now, we might enjoy these castles as beautiful landmarks and part of the countryside, but they were very specifically a political threat. In 1069, Edgar the Ailing decided to try a revolt

with support from the Danish king's fen in York. William then returned once again to York and completely ravaged the city, wearing his crown in the city's ruins on Christmas Day 1069. He then proceeded with what we call the herring of the north, burning the countryside and setting his enemies to flight. As a result of this, he then built Stafford and Chester castles. Edgar was then forced to flee to Scotland. Here we can see the violent potentiality of those castles that William

established come to fruition. When each castle was built, he was not making empty threats. He meant that if he was ever threatened, he would use them to rule even the ashes surrounding them if necessary. For William, this is what it meant to be king of England. And the thing is, all this violence worked. Even the papacy had recognized William as the king. He received papal delegates at court in Winchester.

meaning that the whole thing was basically a done deal as far as all the rulers of Europe were concerned. As a part of this, the long-suffering Archbishop Stigin, along with the other English bishops, was deposed, and Normans were put in in places of authority instead. William also founded Battle Abbey in penance for, you know, taking over the entire country violently. But this didn't stop periodic revolts. In 1075, a group of Earls revolted, taking advantage of William. absence to try a new and better revolt. William didn't even bother to show up to put it down, because by this point his defenses were so good he didn't need to leave Normandy.

He did, however, return to respond to Danish raiding, and while he was there, he decided to have the conspiring earls put to death as a bit of a treat. This is interesting because it shows us who William perceives as a threat. People of Norse background are worth showing up for. Englishmen, not so much. Much as William saw himself as a Norman who happened to rule England, he didn't attempt to consolidate his realms into one place with one set of laws. To him, he was King of England and the Duke of Normandy, and those two roles had different meanings and different sets of laws.

This was partially a clever way of getting round the fealty that he owed to the French king in Normandy. There he was a vassal. but not in England. If he had decided to bring England under the Norman legal code, then that might have made it seem like England was subordinate to France. And he definitely didn't want this. So as a part of this, William didn't want to overthrow the system in England at all. And England had a very complex bureaucratic system

that was much, much more complex than what went on over in Normandy. See, England was divided into shock. which were then divided into hundreds of Wapern takes, where each had a royal sheriff as an administrator who applied laws and collected royal taxes. There were also specific taxes he was very happy to take on, like the Danegeld, an annual tax based on the value of land holdings. Someone would assess how many hides of land someone held, and then they would be taxed for each, usually about two shillings per hide, but up to six in times of an emergency. And this money was a huge boon and meant that there was a fairly good account of what taxable land was out there before Williams set out on an even bigger undertaking. The creation of the Domes Day book on Christmas Day in 1085. For the Domes Day book, each county had a total survey of each landholder grouped by owners.

They were meant to describe the holding, who owned the lands before the Normans came, what the value of the land. lands was, what it should pay in tax, and usually the number of peasants who were unfree and were attached to the land. And all of this was completed by August 1086. It's a massive undertaking that completely boggles the mind. We would be completely unable to undertake something like this in only eight months now, with the benefit of technology and a completely literate society. and it goes to show how well set up English bureaucratic systems were at the time and why someone like William would want to take over. After receiving the Domesday book, William then headed back to Normandy, surprise,

where his son Robert was making trouble and allying with the French king. He attacked the French at Vexan again, and sometime in the course of seizing months, he was injured. Knowing he was on his deathbed, his holdings were then split. Normandy, he left to his eldest son Robert, the one who had been stirring up all the trouble. His younger son William was then left in charge of England and sent there immediately with a letter to the Archbishop confirming this decision. William also ordered that all his prisoners be released, and he died on the 9th of September 1087. His sons, like any good Normans, immediately fell to war about his decision, each tried to claim the other's land. For us, this is an incredibly interesting strategy

because it shows that William thought of his lands as definitively separate Normandy as being his true and most important inheritance. His elder son had received the duchy and his younger, the kingdom. This also tracks with his decision to keep the laws and coinage separate and his desire to live and die in Normandy whenever possible. When we talk about Norman invasion then, we are indeed talking about an invasion of a foreign power that wishes to remain just that. Any holdovers and style of rule were done for easy transmission of power and money.

And this separation would hold even when the thrones of England and Normandy were brought under the rule of William Sung Henry. For the rest of the Middle Ages, English Kigs would style themselves in letters as the Rex Anglorum at Dux Norman Noren, the King of England and the Duke of Normandy. The two offices were held by one person, but they would never be one thing. It's these intricacies that make the Normans so interesting. Yes, there are battles upon battles. Sure, there are arrows to the eye and daring movements of horses across water.

But it's cultural understanding and cultural cultivation that makes them truly fascinating. The Normans were fighters, sure, but they were also statesmen and bureaucrats who had a very of what they wanted to do with their power. To me, this will always be their legacy. Thank you all so much for listening. This has been Gone Medieval from History Hit. And if you've liked what you've heard, don't forget to rate, review,

follow the podcast, and tell your friends about it. If you fancy suggesting an episode, you can drop us an email at Gone Medieval at HistoryHit.com. My co-host Matt Lewis will retake the Gone Medieval Throne on Friday. And as always, I'll see you again next Tuesday. Until next time.