What was the impact of the Norman Conquest? With the Norman Conquest there certainly came change, impacting certain areas of government and society, some clear and some more superficial, yet despite this there was underlying continuity from the Anglo Saxon era in other areas. There was clear change in areas such as the military, geopolitics, land tenure and social life under the Normans took on a different pattern. The underlying continuity can be seen in the administration system, justice and religion. Indeed it could be argued that this underlying continuity ensured that the potentially revolutionary change remained evolutionary. The social life of the vast majority of the English population changed quite considerably under the new “Conqueror King”. William was much more ruthless than previous Kings, with many contemporary commentators noting that he was “stronger” than any past kings. This ruthless nature was shown in his savage policy of wasting where many villages were burnt to the ground. This is especially seen in the “Harrying of the North”. These were a series of campaigns undertaken by William in the 1069-70 Winter to bring the rebellious North to tow. A previously independent part of the country was now subjugated under Norman rule, and this wide spread destruction dealt with the previously ever lingering problem of the North being separate from the rest of the country. This savage way of dealing with rebellions set a precedent for the rest of the country. If anyone posed a threat or opposition they would be dealt with in the same ferocious way. Indeed it would seem that the vast majority of the population were subjected to a more stringent, merciless rule than ever before The introduction of the forest laws also facilitated great social change. Any land declared as royal forest/land could not be lived in, or used for hunting or rearing animals without paying a cost. The crime for not paying was vicious mutilation, blinding and even death. Evidently this was very unpopular with the English population, and it led to the emergence of Robin Hood stories of men who defied the king and his forest laws. As well as this the sporadic rebellions which occurred throughout the country and the development of stories of heroes such as “Hereward the Wake” who defeated the Norman aristocracy were practical manifestations of this increased unpopularity for the King. These social changes were a direct result of William’s personality and policies, so it can be safe to say that it is unlikely that these changes would have emerged without a conquest. Of course some changes in other areas would have emerged had the conquest come about or not, as Anglo-Saxon England was already shaping itself in a continental fashion before the arrival of the Norman. This is shown in areas such as the administration system with the emergence of the exchequer and the abacus, which were Chinese exports. However this social change does seem to be a direct cause of the conquest and it could be said that the conquest significantly altered the path of English social evolution. Another important change which was initiated by the Normans rather than already developing in the Anglo-Saxon era was that of geopolitics. With the Normans the North of England became less insular and more integrated into the rest of the nation than in Anglo-Saxon times. Indeed the Harrying of the North would have played a key role in this Northern integration. As well as this there was a movement away from Scandinavia in military and economic importance. Scandinavia did still pose a threat militarily but less so than in Anglo-Saxon times, with the introduction of castles, warding off potential invaders. England became more involved in French conflicts rather than Scandinavian ones. Economically vast swathes of trade would have been received from Scandinavia pre conquest in materials such as blubber. However this trade focus turned to France in the hundreds of years after the conquest. Without these Norman connections, which came with the conquest, facilitating trade, it is fair to say that the development of French trade connections, although it could have possibly emerged independent from any Norman influence would have occurred much more slowly. The Normans brought two major changes to military life, the most important being the development of castles. As many castles dotted up throughout the country after the Norman’s invaded, they fulfilled some important roles. One of these was to ward off any potential invasions. An invader would now have to split up his troops to deal with these castles, which could withhold sieges facing up to one thousand men, when they themselves only had one hundred men inside the castle. The invader would have to send off thousands of troops to deal with the castle, so that by the time the forces reached the open battle stage, the invasion was doomed to failure. Hence for many hundreds of years invasions were a comparably, to the Anglo-Saxons, very little problem for the Anglo-Normans. Castles also provided William with a means to control and subdue uprisings throughout the country. He could place garrisons of men to control local villages and towns, and also place Normans in these castle, giving them financial and jurisdiction rights over local areas. They increased the reach of royal Norman control across England. It was the castles that allowed the Normans to sustain control throughout England with only around four thousand men, when the population was around one million. A less substantial military change was the introduction of cavalry, which had been a key factor in the Battle of Hastings itself. The Normans soon realised that although the cavalry seemed useful at first it did not suit English terrain and therefore the use of horses gradually petered out. Another important observation to make regarding military life was that the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy consisted of only part time fighters. The Normans however were full time warriors. Having descended from the Vikings they would have had warrior blood running through their veins. Again this is another reason for the Norman victory at the Battle of Hastings and partly the reason why the Normans were able to crush rebellions so easily. Perhaps with the Normans a more military orientated culture would have been introduced. In areas of law and landholding there was more evolutionary rather than revolutionary change. The basic structures of law stayed the same with shire and hundred courts continuing to be used frequently. However the Normans did develop the legal system in a number of ways. The Normans introduced primogeniture where the first born rather than all the heirs, received any inheritance. The Norman practice of ordeal by battle replaced the more superstitious Anglo Saxon tradition of branding someone with a hot iron. If their wound healed they were innocent, if not they were guilty. Mudrum was when if one Norman was killed by and Englishmen the whole area was fined, and it was part of William’s attempt to control rebellions. However it is important to note that this was a custom developed by King Cnut, and was used in a more widespread fashion by the Normans. There was also more clerical independence as William allowed crimes by the ecclesiastical society to be tried in church courts, in his attempt to win favour with the confrontational natured church. However this increased ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which was perhaps in the long run, the start of a slippery slope, on which the Anglo-Norman monarchs’ gradually lost control over the church. This led to figures such as Anselm openly standing up against the King, and showing their allegiances to be with the Pope instead. In the legal system, rather than bringing vast sweeping change the Normans evolved an already efficient system which they made more efficient. The issue of land holding took on a similar pattern to that of law. However unlike law, the changes in land holding could not sustain themselves. William as King amassed a much greater amount of land than any Anglo-Saxon king had ever enjoyed. The Domesday account recorded the Norman King to have 17% of all land. More land gave the King a greater status as land was a status symbol at the time, as well as giving him a greater feudal position and more feudal control over his subjects and greater wealth and independence of moment as a consequence. There was a much a greater gap between the amount of land and power of a Norman king and his barons and knights, than there was between an Anglo-Saxon King and his thanes. This ensured that a Godwin type figure did not emerge to challenge the King for a long time. As well as the King having more land, so did his barons and knights as he gave out much more land. This all created a much more hierarchical feudal system with even more wealth channelled upwards that under the Anglo-Saxons, forming wealthier and smaller elite. This does seem like revolutionary change however it could not sustain itself and became more revolutionary for two reasons. One reason was Bastard Feudalism. As land passed along generations, initial ties of loyalty which were very strong between King William and his barons, were lost. People saw land as their own, and no longer deemed that they owed any services to the King. Secondly the King’s successors gave out large grants of their land. So much so that by 1300 the amount of land owned by the King had decreased from 17% to 2%, and with it much power had been lost. Perhaps the underlying continuity from Anglo-Saxon times, regarding the way in which the system worked, that is land for service and the idea of patrons and clients meant that the potential change was never fully able to manifest itself. It eventually resulted in the late Anglo-Saxon phenomenon of a larger lesser elite, returning to defy these potentially revolutionary changes. Another very important issue to consider is the church. It retained its basic power and influence, keeping 20% of land and continuing to have a key role as land holders, royal advisers and in the running of local towns and communities. The fact that the church had such a large powerbase made it very important that the Normans established their control over this. They did this in many ways. One such way was to replace the English bishops and abbots with the Norman aristocracy. In 1070 archbishop Stigand was finally removed and replaced by Lanfranc and in 1069 Ealdred of York died and replaced by Thomas of Bayeux. Normans taking over these two positions were particularly important as York was the religious centre of the North and Canterbury the religious centre of the whole country. By 1080 there was only one English bishop left in the whole county. This new Norman ecclesiastical society could now look after Norman interests in the courts and in the governance of the country. After the conquest old Anglo-Saxon style cathedrals were also demolished and replaced by Romanesque Cathedrals which were in the Norman style. However Romanesque buildings were clearly on the way in before the Normans invaded, evidently highlighted by one of the iconic buildings of the English nation, Westminster Abbey, built by Edward the Confessor. Both the actions of importing a new aristocracy and the building of new churches were done to suit the aspirations of the Norman elite within England and were signs of Norman domination. There was also some change in church structure under Lanfranc with the introduction of regular church councils. These were attempts by the Normans to bring the church into line with their beliefs and desires, such as a more stringent church. From these councils came laws such a celibacy and not being married, being a necessity for priests, showing you how William tried to bring about a stricter church. The church’s role and influence throughout the country stayed the same, but what changed was that it was the Normans who were making use of this influence rather than the Anglo-Saxons. The best example of Anglo-Saxon continuity can be seen in the administration system and the government. Continuity in this area was stressed by William in the symbolic action of having an “English coronation” and promising to follow the traditions of Edward the Confessor. Despite this there was some superficial change in personnel, as Normans took up roles in positions higher up than the Saxons. They assimilated into the administration system and left the mechanics of it the same. Indeed William had a great deal of respect for the sophistication of the Anglo-Saxon system and it would have been one of the factors which he considered when invading. He could use the effective hidage tax system, shires, hundreds and the monetary economy to efficiently channel money upwards to the new Norman aristocracy which was to take over. He could also use the shires and hundreds to keep local villages under royal control. Therefore there was no reason for William to change the already very efficient administration system, especially compared to the continent. Normandy had a comparably backward economy with barons minting their own coins. There was very little royal control over the circulation of money. One change by the Normans to the Anglo-Saxon system, which strengthened this hierarchical desire, was the replacement of old English with Latin. This made the government and administration less accessible and contributed further to the idea of having a Norman aristocracy sitting on the top of the feudal pile. Some examples of England developing a more continental fashion, independent of Norman influence, can be seen with the introduction of the exchequer and the Chinese abacus. These were innovations that would have made the accounting of finances more effective which had emerged from China, spread their way through Europe and were now coming into contact with England. In the government and administration there is underlying continuity but lots of superficial change. Some of this superficial change was inevitable with Norman domination such as more Norman personnel; however other change such as the abacus and exchequer emerged on a more long term less superficial basis. In conclusion despite significant change there was underlying continuity from Anglo-Saxon times that mitigated against the Norman Conquest bringing revolutionary change. Much of the change occurring was part of the natural gradual shift to a more continental England which would have occurred had the Normans invaded or not. However you cannot ignore the fact that the Normans did have a great impact in some areas of life, in particular social changes, although some of their changes were more superficial such as the great personnel changes that took place. Overall I think that rather than revolutionising England, the Normans assimilated themselves to fit into English life, and with this assimilation they also adapted some aspects to suit their needs and desires.