How far must we consider the Norman Conquest as a Military victory
How far must we consider the conquest a military victory? When the Normans arrived on the shores of England in 1066, it is considered one of the key dates in English history. Even though the country had been subject to the arrival of foreigners for centuries beforehand, it was these invaders who managed to establish a firm government and lineage of kingship that lasts in some respects to this day. While there has often been debate amongst historians as to the causes and effects of the Norman Conquest, it is my wish to establish whether the Conquest rested purely on the military might of these invaders, or whether it was their supposedly new ways of governing England that enabled them to remain in the country on a permanent basis. Whilst there are some who put forward the argument that "the most significant change reflecting overseas movement came in the twelfth century with the government of Henry I, the civil war of Stephen's reign and the reorganization of the kingdom by the Angevin Henry II"1, it is my belief that the Conquest was "not considered complete until 1075"2at the point where it became clear that the Normans would not be overthrown and their rule was accepted by the people. When thinking about the Norman conquest, a great deal of importance is placed around and upon the battle of Hastings and the way in which William I imposed his rule upon the English (such as
The system of serfdom in Medieval England.
The system of serfdom was administered in Medieval England from the eleventh to fifteenth centuries. In this time, serfdom was a way of life for the peasantry class and deviation from this was limited. The ruling class who owned the land were the beneficiaries of this system but could not withstand the disadvantages that serfdom had. The disadvantages are the reason for serfdom's decline and consequently, its demise. The advantages were mainly hegemonic in the sense it rarely sided with all individuals of society. However, in some respect, there were advantages of serfdom which were met by the peasantry. The disadvantages of serfdom in Medieval England deal with social and economic destitution of select individuals. The serf, who was bound to the manorial land, was in the least desirable position of this system in terms of freedom. Many serfs were in a constant battle to survive and usually had family's to feed as well. They lived in a manorial system which meant they lived on land that was owned by a lord whom which the un-free serf was ever indebted to. The serf was under the obligation to perform numerous labor duties for the Lord while maintaining his own piece of land and consequently, pushing the limits of his physical and emotional well-being. He was left with little pay for his duties and the amount of land he received from the lord was usually insufficient to
English Property Rights vs. French Peasant Farming & Productivity
English Property Rights vs. French Peasant Farming & Productivity The view that England's advantage in terms of agricultural productivity was related to its system of property rights and agrarian institutions is far from new. It was Arthur Young in the late 18th century that famously cited enclosure as the major factor in the differing levels of agricultural productivity the two countries. To Young big was beautiful and the agglomerated and enclosed farms of England were far superior to the "infinitesimally small" peasant farms of France. Young furthered his arguments by suggesting that partage, the opposite of English primogeniture, augmented the creation of inefficiently small farms. On the standard of living of the peasants who inhabited these farms, he remarked: "In general they are poor and miserable, much arising from the minute division of their little farms among all children". On the subject of agrarian institutions Young was equally scathing. He described the open field system as "The Goths and Vandals of the open system" as well as referring to French agricultural practices as barbarous. The classic, pre-revisionist response to this question is an unequivocal yes. However a revisionist school has countered the tradition of Young and others. A reassessment of old data and the formulation of new data have led to opposing answers to this question. In this
The History and Importance of Chinese Literature.
China’s Glorious Literature History Word Count: 2037 (excluding references) ________________ China’s Glorious Literature History When talking about Literature in the world, China has a unique distinction of being the only country that has had literature written consecutively for three thousand years in just one language. The Chinese language is said to be one of the most meaningful of languages, and the fact that its history in literature is so intriguing, comes to no surprise. Every letter in the Chinese alphabets stands for an idea or a symbol that has been engrossed in the wonderful literature of the infamous Chinese writers, artists and philosophers who graced the great land over the years (Larson, 1998). This paper will talk about the beauty of Chinese literature and the people who made it beautiful. Chinese lay a lot of importance on their literature. Literatures from countries around the world are fast being forgotten with time but Chinese literature is a different story altogether (de Bary, Theodore et al., 1999). Their literature has only one language that has not evolved in all these years. Every letter of the language symbolizes a piece of their illustrious history and tradition. The essence of the Chine literature hence, is till date enjoyed and cherished by the people of China. It has helped in maintaining cultural continuity for thousands and millions
How economically marginal were women in Western Europe between 1000 and 1300?
How economically marginal were women in Western Europe between 1000 and 1300? The question of the economical position of women in medieval Western Europe between 1000 and 1300 is one of debate among historians due to the transitional economic climate of the period, this period is also seen by some historians as a prelude to the late middle ages when women were excluded from work. At the beginning of the tenth century until the end of the fourteenth century, a wave of economic development spread through Western Europe and opportunities for women opened up in a vast number of trades and vocations, however at the end of 1300, women's involvement in work and thus contribution to the economy was beginning to decline. Due to the lack of education available to women, sources written by women on their lives are scarce; therefore judgements made are based on what can be deduced from sources written by men, leading to women being viewed as economically marginal throughout history. However, I will argue that throughout this period women, from the whole social spectrum, did contribute to the economy, although not in proportion to their percentage of the population, they did play a significant role in the developing economy of medieval cities. The lives of noble women throughout the middle ages are well documented as they had access to education and many women indulged in writing
To what extent did the Black Death contribute to the decline of Serfdom?
- 4155641 To what extent did the Black Death contribute to the decline of Serfdom? The magnitude and deadliness of the Black Death meant that it would forever be studied by historians. The effects were widespread and varied and have led historians to question how far the Black Death contributed to many of the changes which coincided with this pandemic. Serfdom, the social position in which peasants were bound to the Lord’s land and placed under strict rules which they had to obey through law, was common place throughout Europe during the years before the Black Death. The subsequent decline of Serfdom during this period, the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century, has led historians to question whether, and if so how far, the Black Death contributed towards this decline. Historians such as Dodds and Britnell have outlined the importance of the Black Death as a cause to the decline of Serfdom, as it created upward pressure on wages and gave Serfs the bargaining power they needed to achieve changes.[1] Hatcher does not believe such strong emphasis should be placed on the Black Death, and sees it more as a mere accelerator to changes already occurring.[2] Alternatively, historians have maintained that other reasons caused the decline. Henneman contends it was the political development which allowed the changes to occur[3], whilst Lerner stresses the importance of the
To what extent did commerce flourish in this period?
To what extent did commerce flourish in this period? Before considering how far commerce thrived in this period it is necessary to examine what is meant by this term. The dictionary defines commerce, as "The large scale buying and selling of goods and services". This, however, is a modern interpretation of the word. To truly understand the relevance of this word in the period being studied it is important to think about this term in the correct context. In the modern sense commerce and trade is carried out with the ultimate aim of generating a profit. Usually through acquiring a large number of a particular object cheaply at wholesale price and subsequently selling the objects on individually for a vastly increased price. However in the early middle ages this was not the purpose of trade. Instead it was much more a case of exchanging something that was readily available or not needed for something which was harder to acquire. The fact that these other objects were harder to acquire, or at least not as readily available, meant that they were considered valuable by people at the time. In the societies of medieval Europe objects of value were considered to give rank or status within society. Kings or tribal leaders would publicly display objects of value as a symbol of their leadership. Due to the fact that these objects were hard to come by their origins were usually
vikings raids essay
Why were the Viking raids so much more politically disruptive in England than in Ireland? The Viking raids of the 9th and 10th centuries are among the best-known episodes of early medieval history. These fierce attacks from Scandinavia fell on the British Isles, the Atlantic and North Sea shoreline of the Carolingian Empire, which included most of what are now France, Germany and the Low Countries, and to the east on what became Russia. They took a heavy toll on the fragile political development and stability of Europe. While they were considerably disruptive throughout Europe, it was in England that they left their lasting impression. Because of the violent tendencies of their attacks, it is very easy to often disregard the incredible influence they had on every aspect of life in the countries they raided. The extensive Danish settlements in eastern England had a major influence on the development of the English language as many of our words we use today are derived from the Old Danish tongue. Place names too, both in England and Ireland, are owed to our Scandinavian invaders and are the most important source of evidence about the extent of Viking settlement in Britain and Ireland. All this aside, it was in the political arena where they left their long lasting impression. Ireland and England were both affected enormously by the famous raids, but it was in England that the
The Making of Peoples
The Making of Peoples However obvious it might seem, the making of barbarian peoples was strongly influenced by their interactions with the Romans and the impact that they had on them. Within the empire, the two processes: the so-called a~barbarisation' and a~Romanisation' were supposed to lead to not the formation of barbarian peoples, but to integration of barbarian tribes into life under Roman rule. By the end of the Empire, the society was a unique mixture of Romans and barbarians, which was rather chaotic. Those barbarians who formed the kingdoms after the collapse of the Empire did not live within her borders for long. The Roman Empire was the perfect example for the barbarians to unite and create their own kingdoms. And it was also the Roman Empire who influenced them not to become a part of it, but to strive for their own kingdoms. Therefore, it was the Roman Empire that was in the basis of the formation of the new kingdoms. First of all, it was not only the Romans who had impact on barbarians. As well, the barbarians had strong impact on Rome: on the army, the society and even the games. Some historians, such as Vegetius and Arthur Ferrill, blame the process also known as a~barbarisation' for the collapse of the empire. This process lead to many consequences, a number of which were negative. For example, the barbarisation of the army made the Roman soldier resemble
What were the consequences of the Roman Law reception in Central Europe?
What were the consequences of the Roman Law reception in Central Europe? The word reception, used in the context of the question at hand, generally denotes the transplantation or penetration of some or all of one law into another. Arguably the main reason for this occurrence is that the originally existing law has for one reason or another been exhausted and is in need of reform[1]. However, this is rarely the sole reason. For something that is such an important cornerstone of society, the evolution of law in Central Europe – and indeed the rest of the world – is not as rigid as one might think. It is instead often quite a fluid, piecemeal process that is punctuated by sudden larger progressions, such as the creation of a major legal text or a groundbreaking legal case. It is also a process which is influenced by many factors that vary from country to country, culture to culture, and so on. It is for this reason that, in order to answer the question, we must first look closer at the specifics of this reception if we are to avoid confusion and vagueness. The Roman Law reception in Central Europe was a gradually evolving process that crept its way across the legal systems of the lands of the Holy Roman Empire throughout the late middle ages and the renaissance period. The old native laws that it replaced, or at least inter-mingled with, were largely customary, traditional
