One of William’s responses to these threats was brutal suppression, as infamously demonstrated in the ‘harrying of the North’. Although this method was ultimately successful in suppressing the violent northern rebels as well as preventing the success of the 1069 Danish invasion, it could also be argued that through this inhumane and savage action against the Anglo-Saxons, William created more problems than he solved. He not only lost papal support but also caused further rifts between the Britons and their Norman ruler. He was widely criticised with Oderic Vitalis saying,
‘…for this act which condemned the innocent and guilty alike to die by slow starvation I cannot commend him…such brutal slaughter cannot remain unpunished.’
William’s military is another key factor in explaining his success at controlling the Anglo-Saxons. His army not only won him victory at Hastings but was also responsible for successfully gaining control of south-east England in under two months. It’s diversity (for example it’s combination of both naval and land forces), created a strong defence system against potential external invasions and internal rifts. Although Swein Estrithson’s summer invasion of 1069 was inevitably weakened by an apparent lack of purpose or policy, William’s military adaptability as well as the Norman savagery displayed was essentially the main factor in preventing a potential Danish success. Williams’s superior army consisting of cavalry forces, infantry men, engineers and archers, not only gained him victory at Hastings but were also a contributory factor to his success at maintaining his throne.
William also showed a different tactic in defeating the Danish, that of diplomacy. After gaining York, the Danes refused to leave Britain and William ordered his army not to put them down by force, instead sending in messengers to remove them by negotiation. The Danish Earl, Osbeorn, was offered a large sum of money and given ‘permission for his army to forage at will along the sea-coast, on condition that he would leave the country, without resort to battle, at the end of the winter’ (as described by John of Worcester, 1069). Other examples of William’s diplomatic missions include his arranged marriages to carry favour with English magnates (for example, William’s niece to Earl Waltheof) and the redistribution of previously Anglo-Saxon owned land to his Norman supporters. However, this also caused wide-spread resentment towards William resulting in further rebellions, therefore potentially damaging his position in England rather than securing it.
His major tool used to secure himself in power was undoubtedly the castle, the construction of which occurred from his arrival in England in the summer of 1066, onwards. These castles were not only designed to subdue the minority of aggressive Anglo-Saxons but also to defend England from potential Danish invasions. Castles were used for both attack and defence and are quoted as being ‘the most potent symbol and instrument of domination and oppression in conquest Britain’ (Golding). Unsurprisingly, most castles were built along the frontiers, the north and other places of strategic sensitivity. They not only controlled and defended specific points but also were the sites from which Norman expansion proceeded. One example includes the castle at Montacute, on which the estate was economically and militarily dependant on, increasing Norman control.
William used many devices to establish his authority over Britain. Some were undoubtedly more successful than others, and some potentially created rather than solved problems. The role of the castle is undoubtedly one of the most important, a defence mechanism against which the Anglo-Saxons had no chance of defeating William or challenging his reign.
