Theme 3: Conquests Compared Flashcards
Brief contextual overview of the period directly before the Danish Conquest
1013 - Swein had invaded: doesn’t have to fight a battle, ‘wave of submission’, the attacks had been demoralising
Crisis in England after Swein’s death - should they invite Aethelred back or his sons? Aethelred allowed back with strings attached, Cnut expelled
Why might chronicle evidence about tribute payments be misleading?
Figures may have been altered to suit the chronicler’s narrative - e.g. 994 chronicle says £16,000 but treaty says £22,000 - maybe understated by chronicle to show increase
Some figures of tribute payments more than the English tax system would have been raising annually
Fact to show extent of Viking attacks on England
Only two periods during Aethelred’s entire reign where Vikings were away for more than one winter: 994-7, 1007-9
Brief explanation of the political crisis during Aethelred’s second stint on the throne
- Civil war in England - murder of chief thegns of the 7 boroughs (uncertain what these 7 were), very prominent northern leaders. Murdered by Eadric earl of Mercia (king’s chief minister at this point), evidently with king’s blessing
- Prompts Edmund into rebellion against his father - married widow of one of these thegns, recognised as king by people in boroughs
- At the same time Cnut arrived in the south and starts ravaging - south submits first - Cnut as king of Wessex and gains submission of Eadric
How did the civil war in 1015-16 come to a close?
- By Easter 1016, Cnut has ravaged the 5 boroughs and Northumbria - Edmund left politically isolated - rides south and tries to reconcile with his father (who then dies)
- Edmund becomes king and raises an army from London
- Summer of 1016 - 2 inconclusive battles, Edmund begins to win, pursues Cnut into Kent, convinces some supporters of Cnut to come back to him, pursues him into Essex but Cnut wins battle
- Partition deal - Wessex goes to Edmund, Cnut gets the rest
- November - Edmund dies, Cnut becomes king of whole country
What was the settlement agreed when Cnut ascended to the throne?
- England divided into 4 - Wessex to Cnut, East Anglia to Thorkell, Mercia to Eadric
- Cnut unhappy w initial deal - kills Eadric and others
Historiographic overview - debate about why England could not resist the Danes
- Stenton’s view (early 20thc) - accepts organisational shambles and blames this purely on Aethelred
- Late 20thc - Keynes challenged Stenton’s claims - attempts to rehabilitate Aethelred. New chronology for his reign based on charters rather than the chronicle (looks at men surrounding Aethelred). Keynes accepts the chronicle’s criticisms of Eadric (goes further suggesting he’s responsible for murders - Aethelred’s key mistake was trusting him)
- Stafford - Aethelred was a tyrant, points to debates in England about allowing him to return, less significance on Eadric
Who remained a dynastic threat to William after the Norman Conquest?
Edgar Aetheling remained a dynastic threat to William (last living member of the House of Wessex), supported by Edwin and Morcar in the immediate aftermath of Hastings
What did William do to try to present his reign as one of continuity?
William consecrated by Ealdred at Westminster - location imp as it was built by Edward the Confessor and therefore laid at the heart of West Saxon politics (wanted to show himself to be the legitimate king, a continuation of the Confessor’s line)
How did William immediately show his military strength?
Immediate aftermath of 1066, William demonstrated his military strength - moved quickly to capture southern ports in England to ensure his connections across the Channel were preserved
Key feature of early stages of Norman rule was the construction of many castles - e.g. Dover built in 1066 - extremely prominent physical markers of the huge political change that had taken place
Meant that William had forces organised at several key locations whenever he needed them (castles were under control of castellans, who all had their own forces of men to defend the castle and local area)
Instances of opposition to the Norman Conquest
- 1066 - AS chronicle states that Edgar Aetheling had joined forces w the Welsh and marched on Hereford, supported by the Scottish king Malcolm
- 1068 - rebellion in the North (triggered by the appointment of Robert de Commines - not of local origin, not aware of local customs —> Robert murdered in Durham). Edgar supported by Northumbrian forces, which targeted York
- 1069 - Chronicle describes how sons of King Svein of Denmark sailed to the Humber, linking w the Aetheling and prominent Northumbrians - joint force headed to York and raised the new castle there to the ground
- ^ most dangerous year of William’s reign
How did William react to opposition/rebellion?
- reaction - unrestrained brutality, ravaged north of England (’scorched earth’ tactics)
- Orderic Vitalis - reported that ‘nowhere else had William shown such cruelty. Shamefully, he succumbed to this vice, for he made no effort to restrain his fury…’
Example of continuity in governmental processes after the Norman Conquest
By late AS period, government had become v sophisticated - William used both these systems and his own innovations (e.g. 1067 writ confirming the liberties of London in the exact same style as the Anglo Saxon kings - even continued to use Old English)
^ slight modifications - addressed English and French people of his kingdom
Continued use of counties, sheriffs etc…
Evidence that by the end of the AS period, there existed the office of Chancellor, responsible for the production of official royal documents (previous chancellor continued his work for a short period after the Norman conquest - shows William building upon English knowledge)
Example of changes in governmental processes after the Norman Conquest
By 1070, Old English replaced entirely by Latin in royal documents
After 1072, William was increasingly absent from England - had to rely on trusted NORMAN officials (e.g. Odo of Bayeux and Lanfranc, ArchB of Canterbury)
Evidence of widespread displacement of English landowners after the NC
According to Domesday Book, the native English only held about 5% of the country’s lands
Impact of the Norman conquest on religion
Religious establishments across the kingdom rushed to secure existing possessions - E version of Chronicle reports that in 1067 William ‘gave away everyone’s land’
^ churches underwent comprehensive process to document everything they owned - At first, the landholdings of churches seem to have broadly been respected (although disputes did arise quite frequently)
Huge cathedral construction began under Norman rule - at Durham they made use of a revolutionary technique called rib vaulting, allowing masons to build higher than ever before
Huge replacement of bishops and abbots - William also relocated sees from less densely populated areas to major urban centres (e.g. Dorchester to Lincoln in 1072 and Sherborne to Salisbury in 1078)
Example of William putting Norman interests above those of the native English
Murdrum fine - if a Norman was murdered and the murderer was not identified, the whole shire would be fined
Where did both Cnut and William establish churches?
On the sites of their battles (atonement) - Cnut at Ashingdon (consecrated in 1020) and William at Battle (consecrated in 1093)
Cnut founded a minster, rather than a monastery, probably due to the fact that it would be quicker and cheaper to build. Consecration ceremony could be viewed as a reconciliatory meeting between the king and the locals (other such meetings also probably took place -the Thorney Liber Vitae suggests a similar occasion took place at Thorney Abbey)
Cnut also attended the dedication of the new church at Bury St Edmunds
Another example of Cnut practicing royal atonement
Cnut also visited the tomb of Edmund Ironside, draping the tomb with an embroidered clock. Also likely paid respects at Aethelred’s tomb, alongside his wife, Emma.
William did not show the same respect to Harold’s tomb - he forbade Harold’s mother from collecting her son’s body from the battlefield (although it was exhumed and reburied due to appeals from the canons at Waltham Abbey)
Differences in Cnut and William’s forms of royal atonement/symbolic kingship
‘Generally, Cnut emphasised royal atonement, whereas William was keen to represent the grandeur of kingship, although both kings did engage in both forms.’
Counter-evidence about the importance of the minster at Ashingdon
No charters record any major gifts to the minster at Ashingdon, nor was the minster present as a notable landholder in the Domesday Book
Arguments about William’s expressions of the grandeur of his kingship
William chose to make physical demonstrations of his kingship, to symbolise his own grandeur and the firm imposition of Norman rule. Notably, in the face of rebellion in York, he publicly wore his crown on Christmas Day to mock the Aetheling’s claim to the throne and emphasise his own status as king Another way in which William made physical displays of his status as king was through a series of grand architectural projects, castles and churches alike. Some key examples of this would include Durham Cathedral, in which masons made use of a revolutionary technique called rib vaulting, and Dover Castle, which was a striking physical display of the strengths of the Norman regime.
Historiography about Cnut and William’s displays of symbolic kingship
Recent historians Bolton and Bates have argued that both kings were presented as emperors (as revealed through prose and poetry, which used phrases such as imperium and Caesar)
What does Carpenter identify as the three pillars of the Anglo-Saxon state?
Carpenter identifies three ‘pillars’ upon which the Anglo-Saxon state rested: a sense of Englishness, strong kingship supported by reliable administrative structures, and an integration of the church, gentry and nobility into the workings of government.
Evidence of A-S kingship becoming more proactive in the implementation of law and order
The Anglo-Saxon kingship was becoming more proactive - there was a group of crimes, like homicide, treason and arson, that only the king had the right to try and punish. All adult men had to swear an oath of loyalty to the king. There was also a travelling royal court.
Why was the AS administrative system so effective?
The administrative system of the Anglo-Saxon kings was vital is governing effectively - the kingdom was divided into counties (32 by the year 1000). Each county was further divided into hundreds.
Counties and hundreds had courts, which were central to maintaining the peace and resolving property disputes. They were also presided over by royal officials (e.g. of royal power being imposed upon the people from above)
Royal revenue in the AS state
The king’s revenues mostly came from his lands (raising around £6,000 p.a. by 1066). There was also a land tax (unique to England), through which every hide was expected to contribute a certain number of shillings in tax - this tax was mostly used to pay off the Danes (the biggest of these payments being £72,000 to Cnut in 1018). Another key advantage of England’s financial system was a strong, centralised currency.
State of the AS military
The Anglo-Saxon kings were able to muster significant military power, but had the key weakness of raising armies only comprised of foot soldiers and no cavalry. The English forces at Hastings fought entirely on foot. There was also a lack of fortification in England, with there being evidence of only one pre-Conquest structure which could be categorised as a castle (at Goltho in Lincolnshire)
Carpenter’s assessment of the strength of AS political structures
While there is evidence of strong political structures, these did not function well under weak kingship (e.g. the Confessor reduced the number of hides from which he could derive geld). There was also the issue of overmighty families, exemplified by the fact that by 1065, Harold’s lands were £2,000 more valuable than the king’s (although this issue disappeared at Harold’s ascension)
Carpenter’s assessment of Harold’s political position
Harold inherited an unstable political position. His alliance with Morcar and Edwin was far from secure, and his brother Tostig plotted revenge for Harold’s complicity in the rebellion that deposed him. He was also threatened by the dynastic claims of Edgar Atheling, a great-grandson of King Aethelred. Edgar’s position was weakened by his lack of land and influence, but another claimant to the throne, William of Normandy, did not have this same problem.
Why was William of Normandy a threatening claimant to the throne?
William’s claim was based upon the fact that he had been made heir by the Confessor in 1051. This claim was strengthened by the fact that Harold had allegedly sworn over holy relics to accept the Duke’s claim.
William was also a successful warrior, having achieved military victories on several occasions before his Conquest (e.g. he won a great victory at the battle of Val-es-Dunes in 1047 and was even able to fend off the King of France and the Count of Anjou in the next decade). Within his duchy, he established a sort of hierarchy which demanded homage from other nobles and established that their holding of land from William was conditional on them supplying military service when it was needed. He worked closely with his half-brothers, Robert, count of Mortain, and Odo, bishop of Bayeux, in contrast with Harold’s shaky relationship with Tostig.
Did William receive the submission of important political figures immediately after Hastings?
After Hastings, Archbishops Stigand and Ealdred, as well as Earls Edwin and Morcar rejected William’s demands for submission, instead nominating Edgar Atheling to be king. This provoked William to march on and pillage London, which resulted in Stigand swearing allegiance to William at Wallingford, followed by Ealdred, Edwin, Morcar and Edgar himself.
Evidence of William’s immediate harshness (in terms of land)
A writ to the abbot of Bury St Edmunds shows William demanding the lands of all who ‘stood in battle against me and were slain’, including Harold (although this was something of a political necessity as he needed firm control over his kingdom and land with which he could reward his followers)
This panicked many English landholders who tried to gain favour with William to retain their lands - some had to pay for the privilege.
Statistic to show the extent of devastation brought about by the Harrying of the North
in the Domesday Book, 33% of Yorkshire is recorded as ‘waste’
Domesday Book evidence of changes in landholding
Many English landowners were dispossessed - in the Domesday Book, only four Englishmen (Edward of Salisbury, Gospatric, Thorkell of Warwick and Colswein of Lincoln) are recorded as being major landholders. Much of the aristocracy disappeared - e.g. Harold’s family, which had been the dominant power in England for decades, vanished from the records.
^ key contrast with Cnut’s conquest, after which most of the lands of England were restored to their previous owners (due to the fact that Cnut rewarded his followers with money rather than land)
Did the changes in landholding after the NC heavily impact peasants?
Peasants weren’t necessarily opposed to their new Norman overlords - when barons like Henry de Ferrers or Ilbert de Lacy adopted their newly granted lands, they were met by swathes of Englishmen offering faithful service to be able to retain access to their land.
Impact of the NC on Church lands
The Church managed to keep much of its influence after the conquest - the Domesday Book records 26% of land in England to be ecclesiastical.
How did William distribute the land of his new kingdom?
- he kept a vast amount for himself (around 17%, or £12,600 worth)
- he redistributed much of the land between his Norman followers (vast distribution: Palmer assessed the total number of Norman landholders to be over 8,000)
How did William strengthen the feudal system after the NC?
e.g. new powers to manipulate the inheritance of land (no pre-1066 references to wardships)
Ways in which Norman rule was different to AS rule
Absentee kingship (after 1072, William only returned to England on 4 occasions - this accelerated the development of institutions to ensure strong governance in the king’s absence)
The role of the king in local affairs was enhanced by the use of the writ to order courts to hear legal cases
William established royal forest law (e.g. in the New Forest in 1079), creating a new source of income
He instated earls in Kent and on the Welsh borders to guard the frontiers of his kingdom - these became the only earldoms, preventing the possibility of over-mighty officials
Was coinage impacted by the NC?
William retained the Anglo-Saxon coinage (as it was much stronger than the Norman counterpart), but also standardised the weight of the coin and exploited their symbolic power
Did the NC impact the power of the Church?
The Church retained its importance as a source of royal power, but William consolidated his influence in ecclesiastical structures through his close relationship with Archbishop Lanfranc and his replacement of English bishops and abbots. By the end of his reign, only three important prelates were English (and there was only one English bishop by 1087 - Wulfstan of Worcester)
There was much attention paid to improving the administration of England’s dioceses - several sees were moved to more densely populated areas, such as Dorchester to Lincoln in 1072 and Sherborne to Salisbury in 1078.
Why had Aethelred’s reign begun in the context of political chaos?
Edgar died in 975 unexpectedly - two sons, Aethelred and Edward, could have taken over.
Aethelred succeeded his father (supported by his mother, Queen Aelfthryth, as well as Aethelwold of Winchester and Aelfhere of Mercia). Edward (the martyr) was supported by both archbishops and Aethelwine of East Anglia.
By the end of the year, Edward was generally accepted as his father’s successor - murdered at Corfe by Aethelred’s supporters
Examples of Viking activity in Aethelred’s reign
During Aethelred’s reign, Viking raids restarted. The raids of the 980s were largely launched from within the British Isles (e.g. Gothfrith Haraldson had claimed the Isle of Man, from which he invaded North Wales) or nearby Normandy
991 - raid concentrating on East Anglia and Essex culminated in the battle of Maldon (in which the ealdorman of Essex, Byrhtnoth, was killed)
Thorkell, leader of a raiding army active in southern England between 1009-1012, established a base in north Kent, from which he raided Wessex, East Anglia and Northumbria.
Why did Thorkell cease to be a threat (for the time being)?
September 1011 - Canterbury besieged (resulting in a payment of £48,000 to the invading army and the murder of the archbishop)
^ Thorkell was a Christian himself, so it was likely the murder of the archbishop that compelled him to enter Aethelred’s service
Brief timeline of Svein’s activity
1013 - Svein Forkbeard reappeared in England, establishing a base at Gainsborough. The English magnates came to recognise him as ‘full king’
1014 - Svein died, Cnut chosen by the Danish army as his successor. Aethelred reappears in England and drove Cnut from Gainsborough
How did Aethelred deal with the thegns who had supported Svein?
Aethelred chose to punish the northern thegns who had supported Svein’s conquest. In 1015, Sigeferth and Morcar were killed.
Brief explanation of the time between Aethelred’s death and Cnut’s accession
April 1016 - Aethelred died, Edmund succeeded him (during his short reign he defeated Cnut at Penselwood in Dorset, London, Brentford and Otford - also an inconclusive battle at Sherston). In the final battle between them at Assendune, however, Cnut was victorious.
November 1016 - Edmund ‘Ironside’ died and the English magnates accepted Cnut as their king
1017 - Cnut crowned by the archbishop of Canterbury. By the end of the year, he had had Eadric killed
Why was it something of a political necessity for Cnut to delegate power?
1019 - Cnut became king of Denmark as well as England
By the mid-1020s, he had also conquered Norway (entrusted to his wife Aelfgifu as regent for their son Svein)
^ there was a need to delegate power across his vast territories - led to rise of great earls like Godwin in Wessex and Leofric in Mercia
Explanation of the events immediately after Cnut’s death
1035 - Cnut died. He had sons from two wives. Harthacnut was in Denmark fending off the Norwegian invasion (but his claim to the throne was being asserted by his mother, Queen Emma, and Godwin). Harold, son of Aelfgifu, had the support of Leofric of Mercia and the thegns of the west and the north.
^ attempt at compromise - it was agreed at a meeting in Oxford that Harold would hold Mercia and the North, while Harthacnut would control the south. Harold quickly rose in influence (southern mints began to strike coins in Harold’s name rather than Harthacnut’s), causing Godwin to change his allegiance
1036 - Emma’s sons from her first husband, Aethelred, began to assert their own claims to the throne (Edward unsuccessfully launched an attack from Normandy, as did his brother Alfred, who landed in Kent only to be intercepted by Godwin)
How did the chaos after Cnut’s death resolve itself
1037 - Harthacnut was ‘deserted’ as he had spent too long in Denmark. There was still some resistance to Harold, such as from the archbishop Aethelnoth, who refused to crown him
1040 - Harold died, Harthacnut accepted as king. He punished Earl Godwin and Lyfing, bishop of Worcester, for their roles in the murder of Alfred (but Godwin was too well-established to be removed)
1042 - Harthacnut died, and Edward (the Confessor) was welcomed as king
Status of Godwin during Edward the Confessor’s reign
The early years of Edward’s reign saw Godwin’s family grow even further in influence and wealth (e.g. married Godwin’s oldest daughter, Edith, in 1045)
However - his reputation was besmirched by his son, who abducted the abbess of Leominster (the family became controversial)
Why might chronicle evidence of Aethelred’s reign be overly harsh?
the Chronicle was likely written by someone from the eastern shires, probably London, so thought poorly of Mercian and West Saxon councillors like Aelfric of Hampshire and Eadric of Mercia
Examples of tribute payments
Aethelred is widely criticised for his frequent payments of danegeld to the Vikings -
- 991 - £10,000 paid to the army that defeated Byrhtnoth at Maldon
- 1002 - £24,000
- 1007 - £36,000
- 1012 - £48,000
Example of Cnut’s propaganda
Cnut’s propagandists attempted to manufacture a long history of Cnut’s dynasty (similarly to how the English royal house could trace its descent from seventh century kings) - this was not particularly effective, however, as his historical ancestry could only be traced back to his (pagan) great-grandfather, Gorm the Old.
Reason (beyond Cnut’s control) for why the personnel of government changed after the DC
Many of Aethelred’s thegns died in the battles of 1015-16, so the English establishment was filled with Scandinavians
Evidence that Cnut did not change Church personnel after the DC
no record of any Danish bishops or clerks in English sees - all Scandinavian settlers were laymen
How did court culture change after the DC?
A. Williams dismisses the idea of a Scandinavian court (diff to Norman conquest in which the vast majority of the English nobility were displaced)
However, there were new Scandinavian terms to describe offices (stallari/stallers, huskarl/housecarls and lithesmen)
Evidence that the changed names of court positions did not mean that the court culture dramatically changed
Often just different names for very similar roles
e.g. huskarl functioned very similarly to retainers - account of housecarls being sent by Cnut to ravage Worcester in 1023 - comparable with Aethelred’s attack on Rochester in 986
Examples of Danes being offered important titles
Cnut appointed 3 Danish earls to the shires of the Mercian ealdordom - earl Ranig, for example, may have been given Herefordshire as early as October 1016
Example to compare Cnut’s tendency for violence to William’s
e.g. the Chronicle depicts how the Danes spent three months in 1010 laying waste to East Anglia - in a similar manner to the harrying of the north
Example of Cnut’s followers gaining lots of land
Osgod Clapa held land in Suffolk, Norfolk and potentially in the Isle of Wight and Oxfordshire
The monk Hemming recorded that in Worcestershire, many Englishmen lost their estates - accuses soldiers Hakon and Hrani of occupying English lands
Evidence that the seizure of English lands was not vast after the DC
in the Domesday Book, around 400 hides (of 1,200) of Worcestershire remained under the control of the church - in comparison, the estates Hemming describes as passing to the Danes amount to around 20 hides
Evidence that Englishmen still had significant roles in government and administration after the DC
the leases of bishops Lyfing and Ealdred contain a handful of Scandinavian names, outweighed by 23 English ones (although this did vary - the charter S 961 had 13 Scandinavian names compared with 7 English)
Example of someone involved in the NC being awarded with an important role
Odo bishop of Bayeux had provided 100 ships for the conquest
^ left in charge of England when William returned to Normandy in 1067
Evidence of the implications of vast changes in landholding after the NC
Legal dispute in 1199 in which two Kentish families claimed land through an English ancestor. Pre-conquest tenure was not considered relevant in this case as models of landholding had changed so drastically.
Role of Englishmen in William’s court
Norman administration depended on English expertise of the systems of government, so lower ranks of royal service were performed by Englishmen who understood the intricacies of the administrative systems)
^ Englishmen holding land of the king were known collectively as ‘taini regis’
While the royal court was dominated by Normans, local administration was usually entrusted to English officials
Weaknesses in Aethelred’s response to Viking attacks
- Unlike Alfred, who built a strong defensive network (burghal system, navy, reformed fyrd/army), Æthelred lacked a consistent military strategy.
- Viking armies grew larger (some between 5,000–10,000 men), including professional warriors from Scandinavia
- Æthelred struggled to mobilize forces at the right time and place, often allowing Vikings to raid with little opposition.
Notable military failures under Aethelred
- 991 – Battle of Maldon: English forces under Byrhtnoth defeated; led to first major Danegeld payment.
- 1009 – Thorkell the Tall’s invasion: English forces failed to intercept the Viking fleet, and Ealdorman Eadric Streona may have undermined resistance.
- 1013 – Swein Forkbeard’s conquest: King of Denmark took control of England, forcing Æthelred to flee to Normandy.
Why was the St Brice’s Day Massacre such a big mistake?
In 1003–1004, Svein Forkbeard launched devastating raids in revenge for the massacre.
^ key example of Aethelred’s poor strategic decisions
Failures of Aethelred’s leadership
Æthelred was heavily influenced by corrupt advisors, especially Eadric Streona, who repeatedly switched sides - 1006: Eadric orchestrated palace coups, removing competent military leaders.
Overview of revisionist interpretations of Aethelred’s reign
Recent scholars, such as Simon Keynes, Ryan Lavelle, Ann Williams, and Levi Roach, have challenged this traditional narrative.
Their research highlights:
- The efficiency of Æthelred’s administration, particularly his ability to collect taxes and issue royal charters.
- The unprecedented scale of Viking attacks, which overwhelmed even well-governed states.
- The role of internal noble factions, particularly Eadric Streona, in undermining Æthelred’s rule.
Evidence that Cnut did not significantly change the composition of the English aristocracy
- the work of Sir Frank Stenton illustrates the continuity of Anglo-Saxon political, administrative and religious systems into Cnut’s reign
- Cnut also introduced few Danish earls into the highest ranks of the landholding class - Englishmen continued to be more prominent than Danes
- as there is no evidence of rebellion, historians have assumed that the native English aristocracy prospered under Cnut
Counter-evidence to the point that Cnut did not drastically change the composition of the English aristocracy
1016-1019 - Cnut killed several prominent aristocrats (Northmann, Aethelweard, Beorhtric, the Aetheling Eadwig)
^ also outlawed Ealdorman Aethelweard and exiled Thorkell the Tall (an Earl Godric disappears from the records entirely)
By the end of this tumult, all of the ealdorman who had served under Aethelred (except Leofwine) had been killed or permanently exiled
^ within a very short time period, the ealdormanly aristocracy was almost entirely replaced
Evidence that changes in thegns was already commonplace before Cnut’s reign
Prior to Cnut’s conquest, many thegns perished -
- approx 16 fell at the Battle of Maldon in 991 and a further 5 recorded dead at the Battle of Ringmere in 1010
- 1015 - Morcar and his brother Sigeferth were killed on the king’s orders
- At the Battle of Assandun in 1016, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that “all the flower of the English nobility was destroyed there.”
Cnut’s conquest did not bring an end to the killing - had Eadric Streona killed for fear of treachery
How can law codes reveal changes in patterns of landholding?
Changes in law codes reveal tumultuous state of landholding - new laws emerged pertaining to inheritance, suggesting a breakdown of traditional inheritance practices
Evidence of changes in the Witan
Examinations of royal charters reveal a major change in the personnel of the Witan following Cnut’s accession
^ the ealdormen recorded in Aethelred’s charters were never mentioned in Cnut’s charters after 1017 (except Leofwine)
Of the ninety thegns recorded in royal charters between 1006 and 1019, only 12% appear in charters issued by both Aethelred and Cnut
Evidence of governmental sophistication in AS England
- The Burghal Hidage (c. 10th century) – A defensive system of 33 fortified towns (burhs) that required extensive planning and taxation.
- The coinage system under Edgar (959–975) – Regular recoinages every 6-7 years indicate tight royal control over the economy.
- The Danegeld tax – A national tax first levied under Æthelred II (978–1016), demonstrating England’s ability to conduct large-scale fiscal policy.
Historiographic debate about the sophistication of AS government
- Earlier historians (e.g., V.H. Galbraith, Stenton) – Suggested that Anglo-Saxon government was a weak, decentralized system, overshadowed by Norman innovations.
- Recent historians (e.g., Keynes, Campbell) – Argue that England was highly centralized for its time and should be compared to Carolingian France, rather than feudal France.
Example of the Normans building upon an AS mechanism of government
Anglo-Saxon rulers already used inquiries and surveys, and the Normans merely expanded these systems. - Ethelred’s fourth legal code (c. 1008) appears to respond to an inquest, indicating that pre-Norman rulers used local inquiries for governance.
Historiographic debate about the Harrying of the North
- Some historians (Palliser, Roffe) argue it was an unprecedented act of cruelty, designed to depopulate Northumbria. (an almost genocidal campaign)
- Others (Bates, Kapelle) argue that it was a military necessity—rebels used guerrilla tactics, and William aimed to eliminate their support base.
Traditional View (Stenton, Freeman):
- The Harrying was an effective military strategy to crush northern resistance.
- Necessary to ensure long-term Norman rule.
Critical View (Palliser, Roffe, Dalton):
- The destruction was far worse than necessary and amounted to genocide.
- Long-term economic impact—reduced northern England’s productivity for generations.
The role of castles in Norman control
Rapid Castle-Building (1068-1070):
- Warwick, Nottingham, York, Lincoln, Cambridge, Huntingdon.
- Used to secure strategic towns and trade routes.
Historiographic Debate:
Older View: Castles were an innovation brought by the Normans.
Revised View (Dalton, Kapelle): Some pre-Conquest Anglo-Saxon burhs functioned similarly, though not as widespread.
