William I, King of England, is most commonly known for successfully invading England in 1066. By doing so, he not only introduced a new royal house, he also changed the English language by introducing French elements to it. This article will look at the resistance to William I, and his response.
Three months after the Battle of Hastings, on Christmas Day 1066, William I was coronated at Westminster Abbey, as King of England. His crown, however, did not grant him social acceptance by the English people. He spent the first few years of his reign asserting dominance all over the country. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the most comprehensive record of Anglo-Saxon history available to us, the citizens of London wanted Edgar the Aetheling to be king, “as was his proper due by birth.” Support for Edgar also grew amongst the Church, with the Archbishop of York also supporting the 17-year-old, prompting William I to launch a wave of military campaigns to subdue England.
The Anglo-Saxons living in the South East of England are described as being “slain” and as having their villages burned. Initially, there was little resistance to William I’s campaign to subdue the Anglo-Saxons. Most towns were unprepared for the attack of William of Normandy. Most notably among these was Dover, which “lost all confidence in its natural defences and fortifications”, and Canterbury, which was “shook with terror”. It seemed that William’s journey across the country would be an easy one, but the declaration of Edgar Aetheling as king hindered his plans.
A faction of citizens, with the support of the Witan, the advisory body to the English king, was formed to act as a militia for Edgar. Given that William likely would have lost many troops after the Battle of Hastings and the minor conflicts that followed, he was stopped from taking control of London forcibly. William, as he would do a few years later in the Harrying of the North, employed a “scorched earth” policy, marching around the city, and cutting the city off from the hinterland, meaning that access to food was severely limited.
Eventually, the city’s officials, which consisted primarily of bishops, conceded to William I, at the town of Berkhamsted. Here, Edgar the Aetheling’s pursuit of the crown ended. In order to appease the new king, they offered hostages and, according to William of Poitiers, the king’s chaplain, “sought pardon for any hostility they had shown him”.
William I’s encounter with the citizenry of London is a prime example of the lengths he was willing to reach to conquer a particular territory. This lesser-known historic event mirrors a later revolution-quelling of his: The Harrying of the North.
In 1069, Robert de Comines, a Norman who had been made Earl of Northumbria, and hundreds of other soldiers, were massacred at Durham; English rebels also besieged the Norman castle at York. This sudden uprising prompted William’s journey northwards. He defeated the troops, chased them into the city and slaughtered the inhabitants. The Harrying had begun. William re-built the castle at York and began a policy of violent oppression in the rest of northern England. William’s regime of totalitarianism included orders that all crops be burned and that the livelihoods of the entire region should be destroyed. The population was drastically reduced as a result of slaughter, and the majority of those who survived died as a result of starvation. There are many accounts of cannibalism amongst peasant rebels. For this reason, there is much debate amongst historians as to whether William I’s actions were justified.
It is unfortunate that one of the most important periods in medieval history, the northern English resistance to William I and the conflict that was caused by it; a large proportion of what we know about William I’s actions comes from the likely biased accounts by the king’s entourage of political and religious officials. Unfortunately, there are few accounts of the Harrying from the perspective of the English rebels; likely because the rebels were poorer, and therefore less educated. This is not to say that there are no prominent chroniclers that criticised William’s actions; fifty years after the Harrying, the chronicler and monk, Vitalis, wrote that God would punish William for his cruelty.
If we had more records of the rebellions from the perspectives of the rebels themselves, not only would we have a better understanding of what happened, we would be able to understand why William felt it necessary to commission the writing of the Domesday Book. We might also be able to give a better assessment of William and his character.
English resistance to William I after the Battle of Hastings helps to illustrate the level of resentment towards William I and the House of Normandy. In the first few years of William’s reign, he was able to turn England from a nation united against him into a nation united under him, even it was via unethical methods.
Three months after the Battle of Hastings, on Christmas Day 1066, William I was coronated at Westminster Abbey, as King of England. His crown, however, did not grant him social acceptance by the English people. He spent the first few years of his reign asserting dominance all over the country. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the most comprehensive record of Anglo-Saxon history available to us, the citizens of London wanted Edgar the Aetheling to be king, “as was his proper due by birth.” Support for Edgar also grew amongst the Church, with the Archbishop of York also supporting the 17-year-old, prompting William I to launch a wave of military campaigns to subdue England.
The Anglo-Saxons living in the South East of England are described as being “slain” and as having their villages burned. Initially, there was little resistance to William I’s campaign to subdue the Anglo-Saxons. Most towns were unprepared for the attack of William of Normandy. Most notably among these was Dover, which “lost all confidence in its natural defences and fortifications”, and Canterbury, which was “shook with terror”. It seemed that William’s journey across the country would be an easy one, but the declaration of Edgar Aetheling as king hindered his plans.
A faction of citizens, with the support of the Witan, the advisory body to the English king, was formed to act as a militia for Edgar. Given that William likely would have lost many troops after the Battle of Hastings and the minor conflicts that followed, he was stopped from taking control of London forcibly. William, as he would do a few years later in the Harrying of the North, employed a “scorched earth” policy, marching around the city, and cutting the city off from the hinterland, meaning that access to food was severely limited.
Eventually, the city’s officials, which consisted primarily of bishops, conceded to William I, at the town of Berkhamsted. Here, Edgar the Aetheling’s pursuit of the crown ended. In order to appease the new king, they offered hostages and, according to William of Poitiers, the king’s chaplain, “sought pardon for any hostility they had shown him”.
William I’s encounter with the citizenry of London is a prime example of the lengths he was willing to reach to conquer a particular territory. This lesser-known historic event mirrors a later revolution-quelling of his: The Harrying of the North.
In 1069, Robert de Comines, a Norman who had been made Earl of Northumbria, and hundreds of other soldiers, were massacred at Durham; English rebels also besieged the Norman castle at York. This sudden uprising prompted William’s journey northwards. He defeated the troops, chased them into the city and slaughtered the inhabitants. The Harrying had begun. William re-built the castle at York and began a policy of violent oppression in the rest of northern England. William’s regime of totalitarianism included orders that all crops be burned and that the livelihoods of the entire region should be destroyed. The population was drastically reduced as a result of slaughter, and the majority of those who survived died as a result of starvation. There are many accounts of cannibalism amongst peasant rebels. For this reason, there is much debate amongst historians as to whether William I’s actions were justified.
It is unfortunate that one of the most important periods in medieval history, the northern English resistance to William I and the conflict that was caused by it; a large proportion of what we know about William I’s actions comes from the likely biased accounts by the king’s entourage of political and religious officials. Unfortunately, there are few accounts of the Harrying from the perspective of the English rebels; likely because the rebels were poorer, and therefore less educated. This is not to say that there are no prominent chroniclers that criticised William’s actions; fifty years after the Harrying, the chronicler and monk, Vitalis, wrote that God would punish William for his cruelty.
If we had more records of the rebellions from the perspectives of the rebels themselves, not only would we have a better understanding of what happened, we would be able to understand why William felt it necessary to commission the writing of the Domesday Book. We might also be able to give a better assessment of William and his character.
English resistance to William I after the Battle of Hastings helps to illustrate the level of resentment towards William I and the House of Normandy. In the first few years of William’s reign, he was able to turn England from a nation united against him into a nation united under him, even it was via unethical methods.
Comments
Post a Comment