Why should we give a crap about the Normans?

by Madeleine Krieger

Keywords: Normans, Norman Conquest, Marc Morris, talk, discussion, review

On a blustery Saturday morning last weekend, I made my way down south of London for the first time, to attend a talk being given by historian, author, and broadcaster, Marc Morris. The date was significant, because September 28th was the 953rd anniversary of the Norman landing in England. They pulled in their ships at a place I’d never heard of until a few weeks ago, Pevensey.

A small town then and a small town now, Pevensey is an idyllic patchwork of fields, cottages, and stony ruins of the fortresses that have been built and rebuilt there since at least the second century. There is one road through the village, and you walk along the walls of the third century Roman fort as you make your way to the small centre of the town that boasts two pubs, the Norman castle, and a small Tudor style hotel, which was hosting the talk.

We were served tea, coffee, and a lovely selection of cakes prior to the talk beginning and as I looked around the room I realised fairly quickly that I was the youngest person present by at least twenty years until an adorable seven year old girl walked in with her parents. It was her birthday, and she wanted to spend it learning about the Normans and then going around the castle, so really, I just want to say, she was the hero of the whole day. Major props to you mini historian! Marc’s talk was split into two fairly identifiable sections; the first was a general introduction to the Normans and our sources, spending a good amount of time on the Bayeux tapestry, and second putting forward his answer to the question ‘Why does 1066 matter?’.

I had a very narrow understanding of Norman influence in England from my time at university, where I actually had a chance to live in a Norman castle for a year, attend masses in a Norman chapel, and walk by a massive Norman cathedral nearly everyday. These Norman architectural relics were very much part of the fabric of my everyday life, so I am ashamed to say I knew hardly anything about the conquest or the Normans as a people. Therefore Marc’s introductory material was very useful if, like me, you are not at all familiar with the Normans.

That being said, the majority of the first half of his talk seemed to come directly out of the introduction to his book, The Norman Conquest. Having picked up said book to skim read in preparation for this talk, his material regarding the Bayeux Tapestry as a source and the key chronicles of the period was all fairly fresh in my mind and so did feel a little remedial. I didn’t mind the rehashing of the background though because, as previously mentioned, I am a Norman novice, so this part of the talk helped to solidify some of the basics in my brain. As this part of the talk was so similar to his written works I will not spend the time regaling too many details, as he puts it much more coherently and eloquently than I could in his own work. I will simply recommend you pick up a copy and have a look for yourself!

The latter half of his talk was concerned with the query, ‘Why did 1066 matter?’.

I’m not aware of a large faction of people, in or out of the historical community, that feel the Norman conquest of 1066 was of no consequence, but it can be valuable to step back and ask ourselves, why should we care?, every now and then. The Norman conquest, for starters, had a noticeable effect on the physical fabric of England. Morris insisted that, despite attempts to prove otherwise, the Normans did introduce castle building, as the general public recognise it, to England.

Previous inhabitants of the British isles certainly built defensive structures and fortresses, as is clear in Pevensey where the Norman castle is happily nestled inside the outer defences of a Roman fort, but the classic medieval castle is a product of the Norman conquest. According to Morris, approximately half of the castles in England can be traced back to 11th century Norman roots. Some, like Pevensey castle, were built over pre-existing defensive sites because it was convenient to reuse the available materials or, if the earlier structures were Roman, because the Norman lords were consciously trying to emanate and outdo the power of the Romans.

This Roman influence can also be seen in Norman ecclesiastical architecture, another of Morris' tenets of why 1066 should matter to us. Within twenty years of the conquest, only 1 out of 15 bishops in England was an Englishman, the rest had been replaced with Norman lords. This was also the case for their cathedrals and churches. All fifteen cathedrals were entirely rebuilt in the new Norman Romanesque style, which had been developing in the Norman territories on the continent since the 1040s. This style was significantly more grand than earlier English architecture which while functional, invoked a sense of, in Morris’ own words, “I could do that.”

There were also less visible changes that swept through England after the Norman conquest. The most immediately significant at the time would have been the reduction in population. When you combine the body counts of the physical battles fought over the conquest, the not infrequent rebellions stemming most persistently from Northumbria, and the deaths resultant from King William's destruction of crops and lands in the north, Morris believes it would not be unreasonable to attribute hundreds of thousands of deaths to the Conquest. Clearly, loss of life on that scale would have been devastating for the generations of those living through that war.

The final significant difference in English life after the Conquest came in a change of attitudes and perceptions. Morris was quick to point out the idea that the Normans introduced 'feudalism' to England is problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which is that historians can't agree on a standard definition of the word. To the great amusement of the audience, Morris went on to stress that pre-conquest England was not some idyllic, egalitarian, Shire-like society where everyone was more or less equal with the exception of a few gardeners.

Prior to the Norman arrival, there was a notable portion of English society, 10-20% depending upon geographic region, living in slavery. The Normans had actually abolished the slave trade in their territories prior to 1066 and upon conquering England, began to phase out the institution. There was also a shift in the attitudes of the upper classes amongst each other. William and his Norman lords operated on a different code of conduct than their English counterparts which Morris characterised as 'chivalry'. This was not the literary concept of later centuries but simply a more restrained approach to inter-nobility violence. Those who surrendered to William were granted the opportunity to change sides and retain their lives and potentially other properties whereas previously under English or Danish kings they likely would have been executed or murdered despite a surrender. William put on earl to death in 1076, and two centuries would pass before another aristocrat was put to death by a king in England.