England questions

[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.

[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.

[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?