More Background to the Normans

The Normans themselves are a fascinating subject for study. A quick read of the first 2 or 3 chapters of Crouch's book provides a wealth of background to support the study of England from 1066. I have yet to cross the Channel with William in my reading but will get to that soon enough. I wanted to use this post to add some more background to William, the Normans and some of the events of 1066.

What is striking about the Normans between the original settlers under Rollo and William the Conqueror is how swiftly they became assimilated into French/Frankish culture. Within 3 generations (by the end of Richard I Count of Rouen's reign) the Normans were to most intents and purposes French. We need to be careful with such assertions because it would be wrong to suggest that they had completely abandoned their viking roots. chroniclers then and later went to great lengths to sanitise their viking ancestral roots, removing or glossing over suggestions that they were murdering and pillaging savages; but these sanitised roots were acknowledged. Some of the Normans' ruthlessness and warlike vigour can be put down to their viking ancestry.

The assimilation of the Normans as French is seen in several ways. Their adoption of Christianity, indeed their growth as fervent defenders of Christianity and their ambitious and ostentatious building of both castles and religious buildings. Their inter-marriage with many of the leading princely and royal families. William's father Robert was a cousin of Edward the Confessor, King of England. The Norman ruling family had married into both French royal houses - the declining Carolingians and rising Capetians. The development of a clearly defined and powerful court of nobility owing allegiance to the Counts of Rouen and subsequently the Dukes of Normandy. This Norman nobility was made up of both Native French and naturalised Vikings and mixed Viking-French. During the reigns of Richard I and II the Norman rulers went to great lengths to establish their authority along traditional French lines of legitimacy; chroniclers were employed to construct an image of the Norman dynasty as a line of Christian Dukes and lawgivers of great moral integrity; Norman rule was also consolidated on more firmly legal grounds through the use of formal oaths and a more formal feudal type system, moving away from ruling more through military might.

One point of note here is that this assimilation is similar, though more advanced than that of the Vikings in Britain. Large areas of Britain were settled by Vikings and although for many years these areas remained quite separate from Anglo-Saxon England, eventually they became much more assimilated; the old Danelaw became an anachronism rather than a reality. The main difference is that the Vikings did not rule England, whereas the Vikings, or more accurately their descendants, did rule Normandy.

I want to finish this post by talking a little bit about some of the events of 1066 and addressing some of the missing points and oversimplifications I am uncomfortable with from the 1st episode of the BBC series "The Normans".

The first, and perhaps most important, point to address is the sense that the Norman victory at the Battle of Hastings was inevitable. It wasn't. The other points I will raise will serve to support my view here. When Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, sailed up the Rivers Humber and Ouse and landed at Riccall, down stream of York in September 1066 it hastened a chain of events which would end with Harold Godwinson's death at Hastings lest than a month later. Hardrada was a powerful ruler by military might. He had a tenuous claim to the throne of England and he was supported by Tostig, Harold of England's brother. They had already spent the last couple of weeks ravaging Northumbria and had decided to winter in York. To get there they had to pass the army of the Northern earls, Edwin and Morcar. This they did in the Battle of Fulford on 20th September. But Hardrada wanted York on his side so he refrained from sacking the city on the promise of delivery of hostages for good behaviour. The hostages were to be delivered at Stamford Bridge on 26th September. All this was fairly routine for the time. Hardrada expected no trouble and even left roughly 1/3rd of his army at Riccall when he went to Stamford Bridge.

What had happened in the meantime shows that Harold Godwinson was no pushover. He was a general of great ability and much renown, his skills having been honed during his service on behalf of Edward the Confessor in campaigns in Wales and East Anglia. Harold had likely heard of Hardrada's landing on the day before Fulford. He acted immediately, gathered the core of his army, the Huscarls or household troops and raced north gathering the rest of his army (the shire levies or Fyrd) as he went. The army travelled some 190 miles in five days - a phenomenal rate for an army primarily on foot. Harold reached York late 24th September and entered the city. From there he marched to Stamford Bridge to await the Vikings. Hardrada was understandably surprised by this alarming turn of events and the ensuing Battle of Stamford Bridge destroyed the Viking army; it is said that only 24 out of the hundreds of boats the Vikings had arrived in were needed to carry the survivors home.

We already know that King Harold's victory celebrations were short lived because the wind had finally changed and William had sailed to England with his invasion fleet. Had the weather not delayed William for so long and therefore had Harold still been lying in wait for him, William's crossing of the Channel and landing in Kent would have been a very different story. Opposed amphibious landings are very dangerous. But the fyrd had been sent home weeks earlier, so William landed at Pevensey unopposed.

Having heard of William's landing, Harold had hurried back south. Much of the victorious army from Stamford Bridge was left behind but the Huscarls and Harold had marched south as swiftly as they had north. Now Harold had to gather an army from his southern fyrd. We know that Harold did not hang around and moved quickly on to oppose William near Hastings. Harold made the choice to strike swiftly and try to surprise William rather than wait until he had raised a much larger army. This neatly shows how the decisions taken can have a huge impact on the outcome - for every decision there is a series of effects. Even so, the outcome of the Battle of Hastings was far from a foregone conclusion. There were many things to favour Harold's decision to move swiftly. Yes, waiting for more numbers would have given Harold overwhelming superiority of force, but it would leave William free to move around and to gather supplies. It would also give him time to entrench his position and bring over reinforcements. whereas if Harold moved south now he would severely limit William's freedom of maneuver and would deny the Normans access to the harvest supplies their army would shortly be in need of. Winter was fast approaching and with it would come storms that would make it very difficult for William to resupply his army by sea and would render his position untenable. Also, the strategic initiative lying with Harold, William would be forced to respond in order to maintain his freedom of movement so Harold could simply occupy a position and expect William to take the burden of attack. In some ways it was to be sheer bad luck that snatched victory from Harold and handed it to William; it is supposed to be Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia who said "all skill is for nought if an angel pees in the touch-hole of your musket" - a lucky Norman arrow (supposedly) struck down Harold and ended the Anglo-Saxon monarchy in England.

The Battle of Hastings, fought on Saturday 14th October 1066, was to be one of the longest medieval battles fought; it lasted some 6 - 9 hours, a phenomenal effort for what were really only quite small armies, one of which was exhausted from its exertions of the previous 3 weeks topped off by a 60 mile march in the last 3 days. The Battle pitched the 2 foremost military systems of Europe against each other. The Anglo-Saxon English army led by Harold was perhaps the most powerful infantry army of its age (not specifically the army which gathered at Hastings). There was little imagination in the fighting but the the solid and stubborn shield wall was a very tough nut to crack. The Normans in their turn were the most powerful cavalry army of the age, backed up by archers and infantry; its use required flexibility and imagination. But numerous battles through history have shown that when each type of army was used properly it could defeat the other type. So what we have here are two very different but very closely matched forces, each commanded by a leader of tried and tested ability.

Ultimately the Normans won. But for a long while it looked to be going the other way. I will not describe the detail, though I think year 7's and older could be really quite fascinated by a good narrative account.

This blog post has really been more of a filler, attempting to expand a little on the origins of the Normans and to give a little more flavour to some of the events of 1066. I hope that I provided a strong argument to support the rather unexpected nature of the Norman victory and the fact that by most standards Harold could and should have won.

What I would like to do in succeeding posts is to explore how William turned victory at Hastings into conquest of England, for once again this was not an inevitable outcome of the victory, and then to explore how the Norman dynasty and Britain developed. at regular intervals I will pause to consider how to teach what I have covered.