Norman Conquest and Consequences
1066 is a date lodged in the minds of Englishmen everywhere, but were the Anglo-Saxons really barbaric and the Norman’s civilized? What was the result of the clash of two cultures a millennium ago?
The Invaders
The invading Normans, as most historians describe them, were barbaric by comparison. The flamboyant clothing of the English nobility was shunned in favor of more practical dress that served for hunting and sports as well as for battle. By and large, the Norman court was illiterate-William the Conqueror never learned to read or write. Poetry and literature were scorned as “priestly” pastimes, and religion served a political purpose. William the Conqueror deliberately used the church to discredit King Harold. Although Catholic historians often mention the duke as having been a friend of the church, his aggressiveness suggests that he was far from a saint. Understandably, being strongly connected with the mainstream church, the Catholics of Normandy were extremely devout-in word if not in deed.
Two hundred years earlier, a group of Norsemen (Vikings) had conquered the territory of Normandy, giving their name to the land. By the time of William the Conqueror, these Norsemen had become Normans, but their language, although ostensibly a dialect of French, still contained much of the old Scandinavian speech, and the Normans were as warlike as their fathers had been. Before William conquered England, he had conquered several parts of France and even ravaged Sicily.
The Norman army had one of the more modern cavalry armies of Europe. Chivalry, the great knightly code, was still in its infancy at this time, but William’s most important troops were already his knights. Chivalry was merely another excuse to make war-which is essentially what it remained throughout the Middle Ages. At Hastings, only two thousand Norman cavalrymen destroyed an eight-thousand-man English shield wall.
Finally, Normandy was an utter autocracy. There were no advisory councils, and barons were expected to give their undying support to the duke, whether they agreed with him or not. This was a thoroughly feudalistic society-and a relatively brutal one.
The Results
Out of the joining of these two very different nations came the England and the English culture we know today. It is impossible to guess what England might have been had things gone differently, because the last nine hundred years of English history are the result of William’s victory.
We can, however, study what happened after his conquest. There can be little doubt that the initial effects of the Norman victory were catastrophic. Villages were razed, thousands of peasants were mercilessly slaughtered, and most common people were soon living in a kind of poverty heretofore unknown. No longer could a peasant take his complaint to a council, but must instead face a lord who didn’t speak that peasant’s language.
In fact, some the more lasting effects of the Norman invasion can be seen and heard every moment of the day. The conquest certainly brought England out of isolation and into contact with mainland Europe and its ideas, yet it also permanently stratified English society and political structure along class lines, and it “re-sanctified” the legitimacy of the hereditary nobility that endures in English custom even to this day. Moreover, the very fact that you are reading this article in a language called “English” is testament to the lasting impact of the conquest. Previously, Old English was a predominantly Germanic tongue. After the Normans arrived, Old English began to absorb words from Norman- and High French, as well as from Latin. The mish-mash that resulted is the language we now speak.
Liked it


-
Post CommentS.Y. Lee
On October 11, 2011 at 8:25 pm
As a tertiary student in English history, I must protest the objectivity of this article. There are far too many generalizations (such as, I quote, “Poetry and literature were scorned as “priestly” pastimes”); and the authenticity of several statements in here is rather suspect. In fact, if we were to refer to several credible sources for the aforementioned example (like the writings of historians Baugh, Freeman, Holzkneckt and Shelly), one could even argue that the literary movement had persisted, healthy and strong; into the Middle Ages. What had changed was the introduction of vast quantities of French literature; which was only natural in that the royal patrons of poets and their ilk were now of Norman heritage. That there were notable works from these times, including Samson de Nanteuil’s “Proverbs of Solomon”, Henry II Wace’s “Roman de Brut” and “Roman de Rou”, should be enough proof.
I will not contest the presence of negative consequences amongst the conquest’s effects. Like any other forcible takeover of a nation observed in the past, it brought about much bloodshed, turmoil and suffering; especially through the atrocities committed in the Harrying of the North, the like of which is seldom witnessed even in the war-riddled history of England. However, the fact remains that it should be the interest of any ethical site dedicated to public enlightenment to refrain from projecting personal sentiments upon their contributions, whatever the subject; lest it risks compromising its reputation.