|
|
Ryan Renfro
The Norman Conquest of England in 1066 has been traditionally held as the great watershed in English history. It was the event that separated the old Anglo-Saxon past from that which would evolve into the modern nation of England. This view has, however, been called into question by historians emphasizing the continuity between pre- and post-Conquest England, calling into doubt the notion that the Norman Conquest was really as momentous a change as is commonly held. One of the most sweeping changes, it is argued, was the introduction of feudalism and knightly society. Historians wanting to downplay the significance of the Conquest have looked toward Anglo-Saxon England for parallels in military structure in their attempts to emphasize continuity. Although they have made significant findings showing pre-Conquest England to be a more feudal and ‘post-feudal’ society than was previously believed, one still has to deal with the large amount of change due to the Normans, particularly concerning the institution of knighthood. Although there was continuity from the Anglo-Saxon period, many of the defining aspects of England’s knightly society following the Norman Conquest were introduced by the Normans.
In order to understand the significance of post-Conquest England, one must first get a grasp on the Anglo-Saxon kingdom. Although not as highly ‘feudalized’ society as Normandy in the years leading up to 1066 or England following the conquest, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom possessed a number of elements that would allow it to be called feudal. Before undertaking a more in depth look at these elements, it is perhaps useful to give a definition of ‘feudalism.’ Feudalism is roughly a form of social organization in which a vassal owes allegiance and military service to a lord in return for that lord’s protection and the use of his land through a personal bond and agreement between the two parties. The use of the term ‘feudalism’ can at times be problematic since it rarely, if ever, existed in a pure form and instead one finds historians writing about different ‘feudalisms’ which existed in different times at different places. Both pre- and post-Conquest England display some degree of feudalism, although it is generally agreed that the Normans brought with them a more developed form of it. This is significant because feudalism is one of the key elements in the knightly society of the Anglo-Norman monarchs.
Returning to the Anglo-Saxon kingdom, one finds a number of institutions that are argued to be the roots of knightly society in England. Of particular importance were the housecarls, who possessed a social function much like that of the knight. Housecarls were a sort of household warrior or retainer whose origins lay in the Danish warriors. They were an exclusive class of highly-trained warriors, serving the kings from Cnute to Harold Godwinson and forming the “spearhead of the Old-English army.”[1] As Hollister points out, the term housecarl is often used interchangeably with thegn, although it seems to have had an exclusive meaning and referred to a “close… knit organization of professional warriors” as well as the more general thegn.[2] It is the housecarls who most resemble the knights who where to come following the Conquest in that they both were the warrior elite of their society.
Thegns, who inhabited the second tier in the fighting classes before 1066, were part of a dependent military tenure system very similar to the feudal system of the knights.[3] The word thegn derives from the verb thegnian, meaning ‘to serve.’[4] This idea of the warrior as a servant of his lord had parallels in Norman society and was only strengthened with the Conquest. The modern English word knight derives from the Old English word cnicht, itself related to service as well. Stenton famously pointed out that although Norman knights were previously known as miles, which could have been adopted into the English language, the word cnicht was applied to them instead. This implies that the Norman miles were not something completely foreign to the native population.
There is continuity not only in the institutions of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom but of the ideals as well. English society had been divided into three categories since Alfred’s reign at the latest: those who work, those who fight and those who pray.[5] Such notions can be found in the writings of Archbischop Wulfstan of York and Abbot Ĉlfric of Eynsham, who declare this organization to be “the proper and necessary ordering of a Christian polity.”[6] The knights’ role as those who fight was little different than that of their predecessors, the thegn and the housecarl. The role of those who fight, i.e. a class dedicated solely to combat, had thus existed in England for over two centuries and was not introduced by the Normans.
Considering the large amount of evidence pointing in favor of continuity from the pre-Norman period, it may seem unlikely that one can in any way state that the knightly society of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries was a Norman transplant. Yet the Normans introduced a number of critical elements which brought about that knightly society. First, and most obvious, where the technical advances brought by the Normans. The English fought on foot, and even those such as housecarls who could afford horses dismounted once they reached the battlefield. The Bayuex Tapestry shows them on foot, armed with axes and mail hauberks. The Normans on the other hand are depicted on horseback, either charging with lances locked under their arms or with sword and kite shield. Although this may seem an irrelevant detail, the use of the heavy cavalry charge is viewed by historians such as David Edge as pivotal element in the development of knighthood. Not only did its introduction vastly increase the costs of belonging to the warrior elite, the price of maintaining at least two horses on top of the vast assortment of other equipment being more than many could afford, but it equally increased the effectiveness in war of the elite class. That the introduction of cavalry to England was central to the development of knightly society becomes apparent if one looks at words associated with knighthood. Chivalry, the virtue most closely connected with knighthood, is of French origin and is also related to the word cavalry. Heavy cavalry is one essential element, and for some the defining element, of knighthood that was clearly a product of the Norman Conquest.
Another fundamental change brought about by the Normans was in the system of recruitment. Prestwich writes that “the feudal recruitment system was unquestionably Norman rather than English.”[7] According to the Orderivus Vitalis, William I established a system centered on knight service in return for land.[8] This means that William made agreements with his vassals in which he handed out lands in return for a certain amount of knight service. Whereas the old fyrd system had been, according to Hollister, a national one, William’s system was a feudal one in which details of obligations were agreed upon arbitrarily between individuals.[9] Thus the tendancy after 1066 was for relations to become more feudal. Although much of the old system did remain following the Conquest, largely due to the records produced by the Normans such as the Domsday book, the Normans brought with them a new system and instituted it without destroying the old system.[10]
Although the institutions and systems of a society are important aspects, one should not overlook the actual members of that society. This is perhaps where the greatest change in the martial class of England took place, since Normans replaced the old Anglo-Saxon and Danish fighting classes. In this respect the knightly society of Norman England can be said to be almost entirely Norman since that was the ethnicity of the majority of the members. French was the language of the court, not English, and although a number of historic pieces of literature such as Gawain and the Green Knight and Sir Orfeo were composed in English, much of the knightly literature came from France. It was through the Normans and their connections with France that the literature of the Troubadours and other French poets such as Chrétien de Troyes, much of which ironically about the Arthurian legends, was brought to England. This literature played an important role in knightly society and came to England as a result of the ties formed during the Conquest.
Although many of the basic structural elements of knightly society were already in place or developing during the years immediately preceding the Conquest, the Normans brought with them the distinguishing factors of knightly society. Even though many aspects of knighthood were in their infant stages in 1066, Normandy was at the forefront of their development. One way of viewing the situation was that there were many of the most basic elements of a feudal society in Anglo-Saxon England. When the Normans arrived, they took note of these structures and used those that were profitable to them, while at the same time imposing their more advanced forms of feudalism. The continuity between the Anglo-Saxon and Norman periods is often overemphasized because the Normans would have brought their institutions with them regardless of the existing Anglo-Saxon ones. What the Normans brought with them to England was the beginnings of what can truly be called knightly society.
Bibliography
Abels, Richard P. Lordship and Military Obligation in Anglo-Saxon England. London:
University of California Press, 1988.
Brown, R. Allen. Origins of English Feudalism. London: George Allen and Unwin
Ltd., 1973.
Cross, Peter. The Knight in Medieval England 1000-1400. Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton
Publishing Ltd., 1993.
Hollister, C. Warren. Anglo-Saxon
Military Institutions on the Eve of the Norman
Conquest. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1962.
Hollister, C. Warren. The Military Organization of Norman England. Oxford: The
Clarendon Press, 1965.
Prestwich, J.O. “Anglo-Norman
Feudalism and the Problem of Continuity.” Past and
Present. Kendal: Pitus Wilson & Son Ltd., No. 26 November, 1963.
Strickland, Matthew, ed. Anglo-Norman
Warfare: Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon and
Anglo-Norman Military Organization and Warfare. Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk:
The Boydell Press, 1992.
[1] Hollister, C.
Warren. Anglo-Saxon Military Institutions on the Eve of
the Norman
Conquest, p. 12.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Prestwich, J.O.
“Anglo-Norman Feudalism and the Problem of Continuity.”
Past and
Present, p. 39.
[4] Abels, Richard P. Lordship and Military Obligation in Anglo-Saxon England, p. 142.
[5] Ibid, p. 132.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Prestwich, p. 40.
[8] Hollister, C. Warren. The Military Organization of Norman England, p. 27.
[9] Ibid, pp. 23-24.
[10] Ibid, p. 27.