England In the years 1067-1075 Essay

a) How far do these witnessers bridge e realwhere the view expressed in blood genius that, in the geezerhood 1067-1075, William had favoured conciliation in his attempts to establish peace in Eng fine-tune?The view of William I favoring conciliation in his attempts to establish peace, to a certain consummation, do agree with a number of the reference books. This is unless to a degree due to fifty-fiftyts that occurred amid the years 1067 and 1075 that pushed William into more than brutal and untrained methods of subduing the slope and securing his permission oer Eng work. openings that do agree with William I using tranquil procedures to establish peace are sources tether and four. Both sources to a great goal agree with the get-go source. man-made lake ternary depicts how appease custodyt established ascendancy. The source describes the marine and land levies, proving that William favoured conciliation. William had plentiful avow with the side of meat t o load down them to war with him, and that they would non mutiny. This trust can be linked with source four William felt strong enough to leave England in the hands of William fitz Osbern and go to Normandy. However, did the English re tot allyy pee a choice? With the erection of castles, the economic consumption of cavalry, and Norman landh venerableers, the English may have been hale to fight for him there is little point in time of the events or modernistic(prenominal)s earlier or afterward.Source four in any case agrees, for by means of show up the period of the documents Lanfranc negotiates peacefully with Roger warning him of the seriousness provided giving him a second chance. Lanfranc assures him, of in effect(p) conduct, and to give the earl what help he can, saving his allegiance. The source is extra due it be correspondence over just the year 1075. Before and after this date other issues may have aro utilise, and the letters are not create verbally by William I but by Lanfranc1 who was a very trusted title-holder to William. However, though acting on the poofs behalf, of appeasement, Lanfranc would have used his cause ideas and thoughts on the case. Finally, as Hereford was the watchword of William fitz Osbern, he could have been treated other than for his links with William I they were fri kiboshs from their childhood2.Source 2 and five disagree with the maintainment in source one. Source cardinal is from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle3 as a consequence of the invasion, William is described to have devastated Yorkshire (Harrying of the uniting) 4 ravaged and fit(p) blow to the shire. there is no discount of conciliation from William. Source ii is curt due to it yet covering one year, it does not take into account events distant of 1069. The Anglo authors of the chronicle could be biased towards the Normans, exaggerating the truth, expiration out appeasement by William I. Source five as well disagrees with the stat ement copulation how William ruined Norwich, and blinded slightly of the traitors. The source is partial due to it covering solely one date and the account of the location is brief, and may exaggerate the Norman methods.The primal sources (source two, four, and five), overall, have an unbalanced view of William I and his tactics for establishing peace in England. The important drawback to about of the sources is the lack of facts during the years 1065 and 1075. This agency that the disgusts that occurred in the first place 1069 are not mentioned. A final limitation, which I believe is the most key, is a list of rules that William I laid down when he first conquered England. The first rule was that above all things he (William) wishes one God to be idolise throughout his whole realm, one corporate trust in Christ to be unploughed ever inviolate, and peace and security to be preserved between English and Normans. Williams want, and favor towards peace is fully bringed in this statement.Foot Notes1. Lanfranc was, at the time, brainiac of the impertinent fo decree bishops and abbots and too Archbishop of Canterbury. Lanfranc was unimpressed with the quality of the English clergy and during Williams reign supported his policy of promoting foreigners to high postal service in the Church.2. William fitz Osbern, as a son William I loved him above other members of his household. William I and William fitz Osbern were related, as fitz Osberns father was the grandson of Duke Richard of Normandys half-brother, Rodulf. Later on Roger Earl of Hereford had to forfeit his land and light his title as Earl of Hereford. This though not brutal is not favoring conciliation by William I or Lanfranc (on Williams behalf).3. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was for the years before and during the supremacy of England the main source of evidence and information. There exist three versions C, D and E, derived from a common source but with some(prenominal) inconsistencys. The chronicle supplies a uniquely English account of political events and allows us to film comparisons with the earlier obvious Norman propaganda.4. The Harrying of the northwards was in response, by William I, to the revolts occurring in the northwestern (Yorkshire) during the years 1069-70. William had marched north with seasoned military, scourge the landed estateside as they went, and slaughtering all the adult males. What his troops conflicted on the mass was so knockout that chroniclers remembered it over fifty years later. In the Domesday book, made in 1086, it simply records Yorkshire as waste due to the brutality of William the land was depopulated, villages left-hand(a) deserted, farms empty, and this was fifteen years later.b) To what extent did the Revolts in the years 1069-75 aid William I to assist his royal stag Authority in England?The revolts between the years 1069-75, to a great extent, aided William I to depone his over-embellished pronouncement ac ross England. They provided William with the chance and confession to use and show his military proponent. William was equal to re feed key Anglo-Saxon lords who make up a threat to him build castles to curb his dominance of the dry land and it allowed him to firmly set, in the minds of the Saxons, that the Normans werent just invaders, like the Vikings, but conquerors of England. However, the revolts were not the only reason for Williams triumphful affirmation of princely representation on the country. William adopted methods of conciliation. He unploughed the Anglo-Saxon traditions such as sheriffs, shires, enthronisation rights and writs and added Norman culture and society on top to create an Anglo-Norman England.Before the revolts William was in a very exposed position. He had five thousand men to the two million Saxons, and he had no control of the North, West or easternmost of England. collectible to this vulnerability William was organizationatically peaceful i n dealing with the Anglo-Saxons using conciliation preferably than consolidation. The revolts were essential to the revision in Williams attitude towards the situation. He began to use brutal, ruthless methods to obtain his authority.The importance of the revolts depended on who was problematical and the consequences of the revolt. Though there were minor revolts, when analyze them to revolts such as the Northern revolt (1069-70), they are taken into account to communicate us, the historian, with a realistic overview of how dire Williams need was to obtain and retain royal authority.Rebellions began to inflame the country, in 1067 the Welsh border, go forth by Eric the Wild, revolted in Herefordshire. by and by the southwestward revolted in 1068, with the city of Exeter refusing to accept William as their queen mole rat, and Harold Godwinsons sons attempted a counter invasion in the summer of 1068. Between the years 1069 and 1070 the North revolted. Rebels in the North b urned to death a Norman Earl, Robert of Commines, in Durham. A Viking staff offices of 240 ships, led by the sons of Swegn Estrithsson, landed at Humber and marched on York. They gained support from the local Saxons, and they seized York. Their success produced a domino affect sparking revolts in Dorset, Cheshire, Staffordshire and Somerset. William faced the possibility of a Norse Kingdom in the north of England, or a separate Kingdom for Edgar, the defy prince of the Royal House of Wessex.William reacted to these revolts with functionistic vigour, learning and utter brutality. He became the barbarous liquidator of legion(predicate) thousands, both young and old, of that fine race of wad1. The Welsh failed to take control of the border, and retired to Wales with much booty. Exeter, in the south-west revolt of 1068, was laid down the stairs beleaguering for 18 days, by Williams troops, by which time they accepted William as their King. Harolds sons were repelled by Willia ms forces in the summer of 1068.William to counter-act this made a series of visible light raids through Warwick, Nottingham, York, capital of Nebraska, Huntingdon and Cambridge to show his presence as the new-fashioned King. In reaction to the revolts in the North, William marched North with troops from York and Nottingham, devastating the countryside, slaughtering all adult males and pillaging as he went, killing animals and burning crops. This was called the Harrying of the North and the ending of the land was so terrible that when mentioned in the Domesday Book, 20 years later, it was classed as a waste land. From Yorkshire William pushed his men across the Tees in the winter and took Chester, and Stafford, and was back in Winchester before Easter 1070.Due to the revolts and the resulting victories for William, who had either killed or utterly suppressed the resistance, he had to perform his violence, and show that the Normans were the new rulers and would not leave. Willia m complaisant this by first building motte-and-bailey castles across England. William began to erect them right at the deduct of his campaign, even before the battle of Hastings, and they were nigh unheard of in England. William construct hundreds across England, to show the Normans military capability and power over the population. This geopolitical bear upon meant that they exerted control over the surrounding countryside. The Normans would bang up houses in the centre of towns to erect a castle. This happened in towns such as Cambridge, Lincoln and Dorchester2.These castles were, and still are, looming features over the landscape3. They were built in the centre of towns for economic reasons the substantial or effectations of earlier fortifications (Roman/Saxon) were there already, and also it was cheaper to build on existing forts rather than building on top of a hill, having to transport supplies and food up it. some other affect of castles was their psychological affe ct on the Saxon population. Castles were a conspicuous symbol of Royal authority4, and were clearly statements of power to the indigenous people5. By the end of the revolts, 1075, William felt secure enough with his authority over England that he went back to Normandy and left his trusted advisor and Archbishop of Canterbury, Lanfranc in channelize of the kingdom.Another factor which was opened up due to the revolts, and the success for William I, was the replacement of all the Anglo-Saxon earls. The earls were either dead from the revolts or just forced off their land. William strategically placed relatives or close friends to precept the earldoms. For example Odo of Bayeaux, was earl of Kent and half-brother to William I. Also the new earl of Hereford, William fitz Osbern, was Williams cousin. This formed a tight, un risible network of family and friends which William could rely on.Another return to William of the revolts was it allowed him to fully assert royal authority on Anglo-Saxon church. William had to as, 30% of land in England was permanently owned by the church, bishops and abbots were literate, powerful men who advised the old Kings of Saxon England. If William could control the church he would be successful in his agree control of England. William achieved this by removing 99% of all Saxon bishops, abbots and clergy, with Norman-French ones by 1087. William built new stone cathedrals, as a foreshorten of domination, on top of old wooden Saxon churches.This had the same affect as the castles, showing the Norman supremacy over the Saxons. In 1070 the most powerful churchman in England, Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury, was deposed and replaced by Lanfranc, an Italian monk who was Williams greatest advisor. Three other important Saxon bishops were also removed, and also many abbots. Finally in 1072 Lanfranc gained transcendency over the Archbishop of York, thus making Canterbury the nous church post in England. As Lanfranc had control over the North, this aided William with his control. In the 11th century, people were very suspicious and believed solely in the existence of God. These men of God, the bishops and abbots were trusted by the Saxon people no matter what race they were, even Norman, because of the risk it could cause them in the future if they offended them.The extent of royal authority being asserted on England does not solely come from the revolts but also from Williams conciliation of the country, mainly before the revolts. Although the landscape of England had changed with the formation of castles, looming over the country and the mounted cavalry, trotting through the towns and villages, William I invariably governed through legal and rightful(prenominal) heritage from Edward the Confessor with the use of Anglo-Saxon tools of government and traditions of kingship.When William came to the mint, declination 25th 1066, he was crowned in the traditional Anglo-Saxon manner, like Edward the Confessor bef ore. This showed his printing in tradition and proved his rightful claim to the throne. By using the antediluvian traditions of Anglo-Saxon kingship ceremonies alongside the unique pile that brought him the crown, William and his successors were able to appeal both to English impost and to the Norman sense of sinless conquest. William in the lead up to the revolts kept the country as it was, making no major changes and if any were made they would rest of a mixture of Anglo-Saxon and Norman customs.The main household after 1066 was not fundamentally changed. The only big difference in the household was that after 1066, and oddly almost 1087 (William Is death) the nobles were more and more Norman. At first William kept some Anglo-Saxons in his household, one example was Regenbald, and he was the chancellor and was in command of the Royal seal under Edward the Confessor and William I. This shows Williams zest for continuity within the government, and only adding extras on to p mixing the two cultures of the Normans and the Anglo-Saxons.The earldoms at the beginning of Williams reign did not change. They remained as the four large Earldoms of East Anglia, Mercia, Wessex and Northumbria. However, just about the time of the rebellions against William I (1070s), William I granted the land to new nobles and tenants. As a result he and his two half-brothers owned 50% of England, the Church remained with around 30%, and roughly 12 barons (great lords) divided up the remaining 20%. These 12 barons, fundamentally like his half-brothers, were lots related through hereditary or marriage to William.Kingship was very much affected by the character of the King on the throne at the time. So this was destined to change with the entre of William I. William I had to be physically strong, expending most of his time on the move (itinerant kingship). Also mentally strong to dominate the churchmen and the barons who all had their own ambitions and interests. With this ch ange in kingship, William introduced a fairly new system of crown-wearing sessions. William I wore his crown and regalia where the people could see him. Three major clock for this crown-wearing was Easter at Winchester, Christmas at Gloucester, and on Whitsun in Westminster.This new method and change in kingship could have been a cut of William Is security as King. However, William I could of used crown-wearing sessions for another reason, to state his claim and right to the throne, indefinitely, upon landholders, and the barons. This would agree with his use of the coinage system set up in England before 1066. William on his coins and seals had a picture of him sitting on the throne with all his regalia, on one side, and on the other him on a supply with a sword William is declaring his claim to the throne, by right, and if that is not enough by force and bloodshed. William changed the iconography of kingship to add strength to his kingship.The chancery of pre-1066 was only slig htly revolutionised. After 1066 the clerks, who wrote up the laws and grants began to progressively, under William, write the laws in Latin. Latin was the wrangle of authority, the Norman nobles and the officials wrote in Latin. This language of power was fully founded around 1070. The use of clerks was not new to England. William I only adequate them to his cultural needs and desires. Also Latin was not known throughout the greater population. This causes supremacy over the plebs on the land, and dominates their lives.Sheriffs were the Kings official in a shire. These officials had been around before William. William I did not have sheriffs back in Normandy, and found them to be very useful. After the rebellions around the 1070s, sheriffs were increasingly Norman (as were the earls and bishops). The powers of the sheriffs increased hugely, and they were often in charge of royal castles (castellans) as well. Most Norman sheriffs were aristocrats who had much more wealth and power than the previous Anglo-Saxon sheriffs.A final instrument used by William I to completely assert his authority on the country was the turnout of the Domesday Book6. This book allowed the King to find out who had what and who owed what, twenty years after his seizure of the kingdom. The Domesday Book also shows us how educate the Anglo-Saxon government was before the Normans. Without the shires, hundreds and sheriffs this figure of census would have been near out of the question to make. The Domesday Book is a record of a conquered kingdom, but it is a testament to the endurance of the Anglo-Saxon government in many aspects.William I was aided by the revolts (1069-75) to a great extent. The revolts changed the King from conciliation to consolidation. However, the revolts, the castle building, the revolutionary change of the earldoms and the church, came, all, after the revolts. A new set of values had been introduced into England these were base upon loyalty and military servi ce. The government of the new king was based upon the traditional procedures and customs of Edward the Confessor but was enforced with a brutal energy inspired by, mainly, the revolts between the years 1069-75.Foot Notes1. William the Conquerors deathbed confession, from Orderic Vitalis The ecclesiastical accounting compose 1123-41.2. Cambridge (27 houses were demolished),Gloucester (16 houses demolished),Lincoln (166 houses demolished), and in Dorchester (an area of 150,000 square metres was taken up).3. denomination in History Today, al-Quran 53, moment 4.4. Article in History Today, Volume 53, Issue 4.5. Article in History Today, Volume 53, Issue 4.6. The Domesday Book was written in 1086, and was so-called due to its verdicts being just as unanswerable as the Book of the Day of Judgment. It was written in Latin, on parchment and includes 13,400 place name on 888 pages. No other country in the world produced such a detailed historical record at such an early date.