England questions

[Weebeast]

What's Britain like before, during and after Norman Invasion in 1066? What were the major kingdoms and what did the borders look like during 1060's in England?

Thanks.

[Samurai Waki]

This site should answer most of your questions, on the political background of England/Scotland/and Wales...and every other little corner of the British Isles prior to 1066.

http://www.history.kessler-web.co.uk...BritishMap.htm

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That site looks very dodgy. It tries to pin down Arthur and Uther, which is always a bad sign.

I suggest you ask some more specific questions that are easier to answer.

Very basically England was England and that is what the Normans invaded in 1066.

[Incongruous]

Well Alfred the Great all though he did not rule all of England was the first monarch named King of all the Englisc (yes that c should be there).

Prior to the danes the most powerful English(Angles Saxons and Jutes) kingdoms were Mercia (which was ruled by the great king Offa who was known all the way to constantinople. Cient was the first English kingdom founded supposedly by Hengest and Horsa, there was also Northumbria which I think was an Anglian kingdom. Frome here came the great Bede from Lindasfarne the greatest centre of Western European knowledge (Bede actually worked out the ebb and flow of the tides depended upon the moon and pin poited there occurance aswell). There was then East Anglia and Wessex. Wessex was increadibly lucky that the Vikings destroyed Mercia for that was the dominant kingdom at the time. The overall leader of West Lothian was given the title of Bretwalda.

The first man to become king of all England and Emperor of Britain was Aethelstan, during his reign England becam the pre-eminent kingdom of most of Europe. By 1066 England was Western Europes walthiest nation and home of the oldest monarchy in Europe, the Cerdicings.

William's grandson Henry the First married the last heiress of the house of Wessex (the Cerdicing clan), putting upon the throne an English prince once again.

If anyone finds any mistakes thanks for telling me

p.s Aethelstan was also a great friend of Charlamagne.

[ajaxfetish]

England itself was pretty well unified by that time, and very prosperous, though if you want to go back farther there are plenty of internal divisions.

To the north Scotland was united as well, but independent of England, with frequent border fighting (as there was through pretty much all of the two nations histories until the unification--and possibly since?).

To the west Wales was divided into several small warring kingdoms that gradually became more unified with time. More border fighting here. Across the sea Ireland was similarly divided.

I'm having trouble finding a decent period map online, but I'll keep an eye out for you.

Ajax

[Justiciar]

How far before?

Most Kingdoms were ruled and populated by Angles, mate. The Saxon kingdoms were pretty much stuck in the south untill the Danes arrived. Opportunist scum that they were. Not that I'm biassed or anything.


Anyhoo..

Scotland is ruled by Malcolm III who shoved Macbeth of the throne with Edward the Conffessor's help. Edward the Conffessor dies without an heir, so his brother-in-law Harold is 'elected' (bull) to the throne, pathing the way for the subsequent war of succession. Gruffydd ap Llywelyn of Gwynedd rules a united Wales (and some parts of the Mid-West) though is later defeated by Harold II of England. After his defeat Wales breaks apart again. Scotland is at peace with England for most of the time prior to William's ascent.

Harold has to deal with a few issues; including his brother Tostig's rebellion (ending in Tostig's exile to Norway). King Harald of Norway (with Tostig's aid) goes ahead with his claim to England's throne (just as good as any of the others) and succeeds in defeating Edwin and Morcar (earls of Mercia and Northumbria respectively), taking the area around York. This results in the battle of Stamford Bridge which is puffed up by propaganda no end. William, final getting a favourable wind lands in England and defeats Harold at Hastings (who went straight ahead with a tired and depleated army.. ejit).

William becomes King; his corronation marked by the massacre of cheering civilians outside Westminster Abbey who were understandably mistaken as rioters (I'd probably have done the same, tbh). The south of England submitted almost instantly, but he had problems elsewhere, with Harold II's sons trying to invade, rebellions popping up every here-and-there, and a host of attempted invasions by Denmark and Scotland (the latter in support of Edgar (the Exile) Aetheling, the legitimate King of England, the brother-in-law of Malcolm III), and numerous problems back in Normandy.

Due to the invasions of the Scots and Danes William takes up a 'harrying' policy with the North, marching an army up-and-down burning fields as they go, so that invading forces couldn't sustain themselves. He ends up forcing Malcolm into vassalship. The instant consequences of this are supprisingly few, asside from a decade or so of famine. He then faces the revolt of the earls, again feulled by Edgar Aetheling, who finally submits. You've probably heard about William's death by hernia and eventual explosion of his corpse at his funeral? When William II came to England's throne Malcolm's vassalship was done and he went to war, but only succeeded in losing chunks of Scotland before dieing at Alnwick. Duncan II seems to have been taken hostage during that war.

I'm not entirely sure about borders, though during William I's reign he did gain some influence in Wales, and Scotland grabbed and ultimately lost the Lothian area (and perhaps some of Cumbria) during William II's reign. All-in-all, not that nice a place to be. Where was at that time, I suppose?

[Weebeast]

Thanks for the replies.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Justiciar, Harold Godwinson was elected by the Witan, the problem was his claim was dodgy but anyone with a claim could be made king. It didn't have to be direct decent.

There is some doubt as to whether the Normas actually introduced Feudalism but they certainly formalised it, creating the Knight>Lord>Earl>Duke>King relationship which cut out the Thegns (Thanes) and merged them with the kinights.

After the conquest the consequences for the peasants were rather worse, they went from being free farmers to serfs, little more than slaves, with very few rights and tied permentaly to the land. The Normans enclosed the common land of Saxon settlements and divided it up and assigned it to the (Norman) Lords.

Generally the invasion was a bad thing and some would say that socially it put England back 400 years or so.

[econ21]

Generally the invasion was a bad thing and some would say that socially it put England back 400 years or so.

Is that a consensus view among historians? Maybe I am too influenced by a Whig perception of history, but I find it hard to buy the notion of a country regressing 400 years. I wonder what the figures on population and, say, adult stature suggest about living standards before and after 1066?

Politically, it could be argued that the Normans made England. Before the invasion, it seems to have been a relatively young kingdom that was weak both with regard to internal division and external threats. Afterwards, it seems to have maintained its integrity - avoiding further conquest or partition due to internal upheaval.

[Justiciar]

I know Harold was elected, mate. But both he and his father seem to be the kind of men that wouldn't quibble over the concept of rigging the witan. The chances are he didn't, since he'd been running the country for so long that the noblemen knew he'd be well suited for the job. I do like the occassional conspiracy though!

England was definately on shaky legs before the conquest, and Norway would likely have persued it's throne under Harald, regardless of William's decision. Most of it's problems prior to Edward's death were internal, as you suggested. There was, however, some level of peace and financial stability; though by all means it still lacked any influence in Europe at large. William was a ruthless turd, which is good, he needed to be to hold onto his new possession. During his reign however England probably cost him more than it earned him, esspecially with the constant rebellions. I wouldn't say that the Normans made England at all. Once the victor of the little succession war came out; regardless of who it might be; they'd all have faced rivals abroad and within their new kingdom. All that William really did was give England land across the channel.. or t'other way around, in truth.. oh aye, and cavalry. Afterwards England did face "internal upheaval" and "external threats". Constantly. Though in time it ceased to come from England itself, as the few remaining Anglo-Saxon aristocrats either depended on William and his heirs or had died in the fighting. Both internal upheaval and external threats came with Normandy.

I wouldn't say the invasion put England back 400 years. It just forced Norman culture deep into Anglo-Saxon society; which Edward had gradually been trying to do ever since he came to power. Possibly the most evident impact the conquest had on the English people was that it seperated it's commoners from it's aristocracy in a much harder way than even the Danes had done. Hell, during William II's reign to be English or in anyway associated with them was a taint and a sin. If the 'British' are obsessed with class it either started or advanced dramatically after Hastings.

Also, I doubt William would have succeeded without French and Papal support. I'm not entirely sure how he managed that.. he probably offered land to the church and tickled Philip with the thought of ruling England as a vassal state. Either way, I can only laugh at Philip for helping him, since William and his heirs would be a thorn in France's side for a few centuries.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is that a consensus view among historians? Maybe I am too influenced by a Whig perception of history, but I find it hard to buy the notion of a country regressing 400 years. I wonder what the figures on population and, say, adult stature suggest about living standards before and after 1066?

Politically, it could be argued that the Normans made England. Before the invasion, it seems to have been a relatively young kingdom that was weak both with regard to internal division and external threats. Afterwards, it seems to have maintained its integrity - avoiding further conquest or partition due to internal upheaval.

Its my view. as to health, that definately declined after the conquest but it had to do with overpopulation. Medieval technology would only alow England to support around a million people, apparently. As Justiciar said the big thing was the seperation of conquered and conquerer. As to social regression, well before 1066 Ceorls (Free men) had some rights and could even become Thegns but after the invasion they were all lcoked in as serfs. Not to mention the king was elected, even if it was only by a select few.

William had a promise from Ed the Confessor but it didn't mean didly squat because the king didn't chose his successor. Any hint of democracy on any level pretty much went out with the Normans and didn't really come back in until the 1300s, I call that a regression.

[Incongruous]

As I stated England in the time of the Confessor was Western Europes richest kingdom. It was far from having shaky legs. Until the last five years or so many have somply belived England to be backwards prior to 1066. This was not the case. England had been the centre of European learning only a few centuries before. The Vikings wer no longer a threat and Hardrada was dealt with sevearly. William was damned lucky that Harold being a brave man had been fighting up front and was killed by a Norman knight. William was simply ruthless, dissembowling Harold once he lay dead.

[Justiciar]

To be honest I haven't heard that England was all that wealthy before. Where did you learn this?

[Rank Bajin]

Well, I suppose I am a bit late to enter this thread and that most of the original poster's questions have been answered, but some of the points raised here do deserve to addressed. Especially from a less Anglocentric point of view. This thread needs it, I'm afraid.

Bopa the Magyar:

There are no doubts that Athelstan's England was the strongest power in Britain, as the battle Brunanburh showed, but the title he claimed rex totius Britanniae i.e. King of Britain, showed how much an ego he had. As powerful as he was was, he still was not powerful enough to conquer the Albans (what is what the Scots called themselves, back then) and bring their lands under his direct control, as the events leading up to Brunanburh do tell. On paper, he could be called King of all Britain, and somewhat deservedly, but in reality he did not have the military strength which was absolutely necessary for the right to claim that title.

Just as Justicular, I am interested where you got the information that England, pre-conquest, was the wealthiest kingdom in Western Europe. I don't have any doubts that she was much better off before the Normans landed, but the idea that she was the wealthiest? I don't think so.

Also, about Lindisfarne: I can't deny that when the Venerable Bede was there she went through a great period. But the claim that Lindisfarne was the greatest centre of European learning is well, quite absurd. If any place has a greater claim for being the centre of European learning during that time, it most definitely has to be Ireland.

The thing which is hardly brought up, is that Lindisfarne was set up originally by Irish/Scottish missionaries, from Iona, in the reign of the Northumbrian king, Oswald (AD 634-642). He himself was Christianised by the Dalraidian Scots, during his earlier exile. It was he who later introduced the Irish missionaries to convert them from their pagan ways. Before they arrived, the Northumbrians were really (if we are being honest) a bunch of illiterate pagans, well in need of the civilising ways of the Irish scholars. As even Bede attests (he greatly admired the Irish) it was the work of St Aidan who truly enlightened them. It was Irish monks who initally educated the Northumbrians and many of the other English kingdoms (kings, nobles and commoners alike) and it was ultimately due to them that Lindisfarne began to flourish in the first place. The likes of The Lindisfarne Gospels and even Beowulf duly show their Irish influence in great many ways.

The sad thing is that the Irish influence in 'civilising' the English isn't really known much today. The idea that the Irish (a people well known by the English from 1066 onwards as a backward bunch of bog-wogs) greatly influenced them, is thus a big no no and couldn't even have possibly happened. It is a joke really, that this is totally glossed over by a great many of English historians, but it is not surprising really as it would be pretty... embarrassing.

Justicular:

You are right in a way that Malcolm III was aided by the English in kicking Macbeth off the throne of Alba. But it should be noted, this was done with Earl Siward of Northumbria's aid. This was actually a private enterprise with Edward the Confessor probably knowing nothing about it.

The thing that should be brought up is that the Earl of Siward only aided Malcolm for the first year. After the battle of Dunsinane, the English lost quite a large number of their men, especially Siward's son and nephew. It was after this battle the English returned home. All that his English support did, was win him much of the southern part of the country: Strathclyde and Atholl (where the people must have welcolmed him anyway, as he was the proper heir to these areas) and he was crowned as the King of Cumbria, which was what his Strathclyde subjects called their territory. The rest of Alba was still under the control of Macbeth.

It actually took Malcolm three more years of hard fighting to even defeat and kill Macbeth, and following that, MacBeth's own heir, Lulach, before he even secured himself as the King of Alba. The three years fighting was done without direct support from his English allies. Malcolm's own rank-and-file would have been from his own territories: Atholl and Strathclyde. Malcolm was both the direct heir to both the House of Atholl and of the Kingdom of Strathclyde, thus, he was their recognised lord. That probably explains why Macbeth fought his first battle during Malcolm's invasion force, the battle of Dunsinane, so far into Alba, and quite far away from the territories where his support was the weakest. The people of Atholl and Strathclyde must have risen for Malcolm, during his invasion. This may also explain why the English force withdrew after the first year. Malcolm already had good support from the aforementioned areas, and the weakened English force would not have been particularly needed as much after.

Lastly, I wonder where you got the idea that Malcolm III lost 'chunks of Scotland' (especially the Lothian area) to the Normans? All what Malcolm III lost, in his dealings with the Normans, was Cumberland and maybe the ending of the age-old Scottish claims of ruling Northumbria. All Scottish territory north of the Solway and Tweed never came under direct Norman rule. So where did you get your information from?

And sorry, if might have suited William the Conquerer and the English sources especially, to view Malcolm III as his vassal after the invasion of Scotland in 1072. But I doubt very much that Malcolm III himself did so. His actions from then up to the time of his death at Alnwick - where, it should be noted, died by Norman treachery than by a clean death in battle - don't even suggest, in the slightest, that he considered himself 'William's man'. As what do all his invasions of England and constant intrigues with William's internal enemies suggest to you?

If he was truly his 'vassal', in the proper usage of the word, he must be considered as the strangest vassal ever.

[Incongruous]

I got my info off variuos books, most notably David Starkie's Monarchy and Micheal Wood's In search of The Dark Ages.
In relation to Aethalstan, he had no need toconquer the Scot's for they submitted to him. Charlamagne I believed considered him an equal and after his death many Frankish scholars praised Aethelstan as a most powerful of kings (I can't find where it says this in Wood's book so I'll post it later sorry ). As for Lindasfarne, well virtually every historian that I have ever read in the last seven years has praised it as for a period of maybe twenty years as the centre of European scholarship and science. As for it's Celtic influence, Bede wrote scornfully of the Celtic inhabitants of the rest of Britain. As for Beowulf, that story is from the Anglo-Saxon homeland, though it might contain some Gealic influence. As for the Geals and other Celts "civilizing" England, that's a bit of an over-statment. For up until 1066 England was ruled in a typically Germanic Anglo-Saxon way, when they invaded Brittainia, unlike their continental counter-parts they stripped away virtually all Roman political structure and society.

I am sorry to have slightly over-stated Englands wealth, but it was certainly richer than most of Western Europe and home to Europes oldest ruling house.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rank Bajin, Irish influence in Lindisfarne is widely recognised today, however there was a little thing called the Synod of Whitman, which turned Lindisfarne Catholic.

[Justiciar]

I don't doubt that Malcolm thought himself his own man, but William forced him into vassalhood at some point, you recognise that, right? As to Malcolm's supposedly limited help coming from Siward, good point. Like Bopa suggest though.. don't wag the Anglocentricism card at us and then claim we owe our culture to Scots-Irish monks. Before you say it, I'm not denying that they played a part in converting the English to Christianity or founded Lindisfarne, or even that they were a bunch of clever sods. I doubt, however, that these godly Ionian fellows suddenly turned Northumbria from some tiny chunk of land populated by hairy, unwashed, primitive ejits to a cultured and educated kingdom. Literacy often came with Christianity because it demanded the use of Latin, tbh.

[BDC]

A book I read suggested that the Normans (once the initial few decades of destroying) did quite a good job, eliminating true slavery completely and making England very productive by the early 1200s.

Can't remember the name of it though. Was mostly about the lead up to Magna Carta. Had lots of funny quotes from the time, mostly along the lines of "the English are the best people in the world but they drink too much". Nothing has changed really...

[Incongruous]

Oooh Oooh tell me tell me whats its title?

[Rank Bajin]

Bopa the Magyar:

I don't deny that Athelstan was a powerful and influential king. After Alfred, I would say he was England's greatest ever monarch. But that is not the source of my argument.

I am sorry, but submission does not equal conquered. For Athelstan to claim that he was the King of Britain, doesn't really wash. The Scots, under Constantine II, may have submitted, but they submitted after a long campaign, which the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle itself stated 'that Athelsatan returned without any great victory'. Even under the enforced 'submission', Constantine II had plenty enough independence to organise the alliance with Owain, King of Strathclyde and Olaf, King of Dublin, and then invade deep into England in the campaign which ended at Brunanburh. The fact that the battle of Brunanburh happened, really goes to show how much Athelstan 'ruled' over Britain.

As I said, he may have called himself King of Britain and it may have looked good on paper, but in reality, it was an empty claim. Scotland was never conquered by him, and as they were outwith English control, was always a constant source of trouble for all of Athelstan's successors. But, that much is pretty obvious.

Also, you are right that Bede wrote scornfully about the other inhabitants of Britain, who were Northumbria's old enemies. But his scorn is directed at the Britons, the Picts and on a lesser note, the Dalriadian Scots. But on the native Irish themselves, Bede viewed them much, much differently. I will quote Bede's own words on them. He described them as 'an harmless race that had always been most friendly to the English.' If anyone has even read Bede's works, he praises the Irish scholars and missionaries quite alot. He was well aware how much his very own people owed them. Even read up on the highly cultured King Aldfrith of Northumbria (AD 685-705). The Irish well influenced this monarch as his very own education attests.

Wigferth Ironwall:

I am well aware of the Synod of Whitby in AD 644, but you are very, very wrong indeed, if you believe that this resulted in the end of all Irish influence in the English kingdoms. It was nothing of the sort. It was not until the the mid-ninth century that the Synod of Chelsea did declare that no Irish monks or priests should be allowed to preach to the English. It doesn't take a mathematician to tell this happened 200 years after the Synod of Whitby, thus it took a very long time before the English were fed up with the Irish. During that whole 200 year period, England was pretty much awash with many Irish monks and scholars, who came to convert and teach the English masses. As Bede himself said 'many nobles as well as common sort of the English race' even went to Ireland to study in the famous Irish monasteries, universities and schools of medicine. Ireland, back then, was really the place to be for education, as the amount of English travellers to Ireland suggests.

Sorry, but the Irish contibution in the conversion of the English and the education of their rulers, cannot be underestimated. As the 19th Century French historian, the Comte de Montalembert (The Monks of the West) stated: 'Ireland was regarded by all of Europe as the principal centre of learning and piety. The Anglo-Saxons were the one of all nations which derived most profit from the teaching of the Irish schools.'

Justicular:

As I have stated above to Wigferth Ironwall, the Irish influence in Christianising and educating the Northumbrians cannot be denied. If you want to know, I doubt very much that the Northumbrians, Pre-Lindisfarne, were a bunch of wild savages, but they were certainly illiterate and pagan.

I don't have any doubts that, much later on, the English cast off the Irish influences and came up with their very own ideas. But that is the nature of all cultures: we all learn from each other and come up with our own ideas as well.

But, as I said, it was the Irish who gave the English the knowledge of literacy and thus the impetous to learn in the first place, and that is my very point. In a way, it can be said that the English owe the Irish a very great debt in bringing them out of their shell and to spread their wings.

On the subject of Malcolm III:

It depends on what you mean by Malcolm's vassalhood status? Lets look at the facts:-

When William the Conquerer invaded Scotland in 1072, due to Malcolm III's meddling in Northern England and intrigues with his brother-in-law, Edgar Aetheling, according to The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 'there he found nothing that he was any better for'. This suggests Malcolm, when faced with William's overwhelming force, withdrew before it and adopted a scorched-earth policy. In the end Malcolm's forces met William's forces at Abernethy on the Tay where, according to the Chronicle, he 'made peace with King William and was his vassal and gave him hostages'. If we accept the Chronicle (which to be honest, is a pretty biased work) this really suggests an abject surrender.

What happened at Abernethy actually looks more in the nature of a compromise reached under a stalemate. William, in truth had actually been unable to achieve the kind of significant military success that had brought him control of England. He had also failed to even penetrate as far north as even Athelstan had done in 934. Due to the scorched-earth tactics of Malcolm, he would soon have to retreat, as many of his own men were short on food. William greatly needed some form of concession to justify his expedition. On Malcolm's side, he himself, could not oppose William's superior force openly but was very keen to to get rid of him as soon as possible. It was due to these reasons that brought them together to treat for peace.

The agreement reached, represents an occasion when each side probably placed a very different interpretation on what the agreement actually signified. It was clear that Malcolm submitted to William's superior force but what was applied was open to different interpretation. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle clearly suggests that the Normans interpreted this as a formal feudal submission, which acknowledged William, King of England as the superior lord of Malcolm, King of Alba. In contrast, Malcolm probably viewed the submission as a practical and temporary acknowledgment of English superiority with no long-term consequencies (i.e. At the end of the day, William and his force were going to bugger off back over the border and out of sight and thus with Malcolm still free to reign in his own realm). This arrangement, must have been viewed by the Scots in exactly the same light as the temporary submission of Constantine II to Athelstan in 934 meaning that is was not worth its paper. The difference of interpretation, which was partly cultural in origin but also political, would result in many problems in the future as we know.

In the short term, the Treaty of Abernethy confirmed that Malcolm had been forced to acknowledge William's military superiority. The presence of William's army, so far into Scotland was ample witness to this. The surrender of hostages by Malcolm in the shape of Duncan, his eldest son from his first marriage, recognised this tempoary inferiority. It also appears that Malcolm was also forced to expel Edgar Atheling from his kingdom.

As we can see, this looks pretty one-sided but in reality, it hides the full story from view. The Treaty of Abernethy was not even a complete success for William. There are, quite plainly, restrictions on what William was able to achieve, which are important signs of limits on his own power. For example, Malcolm was not compelled to hand over Edgar over to William (Which was the ultimate reason why he invaded Scotland in the first place. He sorely wanted him in his hands.). In addition to this, Malcolm remained married to Margaret, Edgar's own sister, and also he kept his infant son Edward, who thus had claim to the English throne. The fact that Edward never became William's hostage, explains much. Duncan was certainly not as valuable as Edward.

So, the Treaty of Abernethy suggests that it was not, in the slightest, a simple abject surrender. As we know in the future, Malcolm III was very much a thorn in the flesh to William. He still had plenty freedom to roam about and was pretty much an independent threat to Norman-occupied England up to the time of his death.

So, do you still think that he was a vassal, in the name of the word?

[Justiciar]

When you put it that way, I suppose not. But I'm not getting picky. Worthless as it may have been, he did accept William as his overlord. Whether or not he had his fingers crossed with no intention of following up on it is (by no means truly so, but to such an extent that denying it is sort of silly) irrellevant.

That said.. could you throw some of your sources at me? My knowledge of Anglo-Scottish relations during the 1066-1200 timeframe is, as you'll have noticed, not exactly strong.

Can I just point out, also, that English monarchs were using titles to suggest that they were the rulers of Britain long before Aethelstan, as you'll probably know.

[Incongruous]

Just to be clear, the English form of Government before 1066 was most definatley Germanic as was society. Aethelstan as I said was overlord of Britain, just because you are someones vassal deosn't mean you don't scheme and attack them. The fact is the Scot's were constanly defeated by Aethelstan.

[Rank Bajin]

Justiciar

But that is the thing, Malcolm III as seen as a 'vassal' of William, rests on pretty weak foundations. Malcolm III was probably one of the most pertinaciously persistent raiders of the northern English counties in the history of these islands. William the Conqueror could subsequently cow Malcolm, but he could never stop him, even through Malcolm's own marriage to Margaret, the heiress of the House of Wessex, would no doubt have made this a very, very desirable end. Indeed, any attempt to provide an account of Anglo-Scottish relations in this period from the view of Norman 'overlordship' and Scottish 'homage' cannot withstand the comparators it invites.

Both English and Norman kings had a good history of destroying or putting to flight 'overmighty subjects' who irritated or threatened them, even those with major power bases: Gruffydd ap Llywelyn in 1063, Earl Morcar in 1071 and the House of Rollo in Normandy in 1106, being three major examples. Malcolm III was the exception: he could be intimidated and even temporarily subdued, but he was always there, and always did return to the fray. So that is the question: was his vassalhood status not even worth the paper it was written on and was it actually 'sexed up' by William's own chroniclers?

Another point which makes my argument even clearer is that when William the Conqueror's own son, William Rufus, invaded Cumberland in 1093 and took it over from Malcolm III, Malcolm himself went south to negotiate with William in person. Malcolm came south with the intention to argue over William's actions and that if he would hand Cumberland back over to him. It is pretty revealing that when William set his terms to Malcolm, it was that he would only restore Cumberland back to Malcolm if he agreed to a full homage from him.

That William, himself, would resort to such a condition is very telling. Why, on earth, would he insist on imposing a condition to which an acknowledged right is already possessed? Could it be be that that Malcolm's own vassalhood status was more spin than actually substance? I know what I believe.

Anyways, as you asked, here are the selection of sources I have used.

Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland AD 80 - 1000 by Alfred P Smyth

Medieval Scotland - Kingship and Nation by Alan Macquarrie

Lords of Alba: The Making of Scotland by Ian W. Walker

Of the three, I would heartily recommend Lords of Alba: The Making of Scotland, for Anglo-Scottish relations during this period. This a very new book and covers Scotland during the whole period from 800 to 1124. It is not even an insular book on just Scotland, as it actually covers much of the political events happening in the rest of the British Isles during this period and on their relation to Scottish events. I found it a very refreshing work, as it covers much of the British political events from a less Anglocentric point of view (as most English historians writing on this subject largely ignore Scotland. This is a great pity really).

The only trouble you may find with this book, is that is still in hardback and costs £20 at the present time. Saying that, I found the book well worth it and it has certainly opened up my mind on much of the 'crap' that surrounds the whole period.

Bopa the Magyar

The thing is that Athelstan never, ever ruled over Scotland. Athelstan, after his enforced submission of Constantine II, buggered off back to England without that many safeguards to keep the Scots under check. Scotland, under Constantine was still very much independent and, as the Brunanburh Campaign shows, can't be said to be under Athelstan's thumb at all. It also should be noted that after Brunanburh, there still was no follow up by Athelstan to bring the Scots to heel. The question is this: why was that?

Afterwards, Scotland was so stable, that Constantine himself resigned his kingship (He was pretty old at this time) and retired to an abbey in 943. This was six whole years after Brununburh. Even when Athelstan eventually popped his clogs his own successors, basically, negotiated with the Scots in the years after it as if they were equals, not vassals. (And please, if anyone brings up the "Edgar being rowed up the Dee by the 8 sub-kings" incident, I'll actually pish myself laughing. This tale was actually invented in the 12th Century. It is a joke that even 'respected' historians repeat this twaddle).

Bopa, if you want to know, I have no qualms whatsoever with the claim that Athelstan was the most powerful king in Britain at that period. If he actually called himself 'The most powerful of the kings of Britain' I would have no complaints at all, as it was most patently true. But the concept that he was the 'King of Britain' is quite laughable. His remit ended when it reached Scotland. The Scots, themselves, were very much independent of his own control and so, his claim to 'rule over all of Britain' is quite false.

Lastly, what do you mean that the Scots, were constantly beaten by Athelstan? The only time that the Scots were in hostilities with him was for a three year period (with quiet periods between), from Athelstan's invasion of Scotland to the battle of Brunanburh. The Scots lost battles surely, but they were never, ever cowed for long and proved themselves a serious enough nuisance long after.

The funny thing about the English-Scottish hostilities at this time, is that it was a complete reversal of what happened beforehand. The Scots were actually allies with the English - They both had the same enemies: The Vikings. Athelstan's ego was the catalyst which upset, what was, a fruitful relationship up to that point.

[Justiciar]

Ta'. I wonder if there are any first hand accounts of those conflicts from a truly neutral, bias-free perspective.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't be at all supprised if William's propaganda machine tarted his victory over Malcolm up.. they seem to have done a fair bit of that.