How Successful Was William The Conqueror
Although William the Conqueror had defeated Harold at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, an even bigger challenge had presented itself. William was now outnumbered in a land he had very little knowledge of, and would face several rebellions in the first decade of his reign. William was aware of this challenge, building castles in towns which presented any threat as a symbol of his power. Despite these measures, it would take William almost a decade, until 1075 to gain full control of England, which he did so due to several different factors, including his new motte and bailey castles, the weakness of English rebels and his own leadership in the face of rebellion.
Upon landing in England, one of William’s first actions was to set up a readymade motte and bailey castle at Hastings. This would be the first of over 80 constructed by 1100. These …show more content…
massive, imposing buildings, built upon large mounds of dirt were unknown to the Anglo-Saxons, and as such were used as highly effective defensive and psychological strongholds for the Normans, who constructed them wherever there were any signs of trouble.
Castles were important if William was going to gain control of England, as they allowed points from which troops could be dispatched for patrols of the surrounding areas. The introduction of castles to England also meant the Anglo-Saxon rebels had to adapt to a new style of warfare, the siege, which was a costly and time consuming style of warfare. This new style of fighting may be one of the reasons the Anglo-Saxon rebellions in the North and South West failed, despite having relatively strong leaders.
The presence of these castles acted as a psychological symbol of the Norman’s conquest of Britain, and as such would have lowered morale in the populous, possibly stopping rebellions before they even began. To further impose his rule of England, William had two stone strongholds built at Chepstow and Chester, and began building the massive Tower of London in the 1070’s, as well as this, all castles were held by important Norman magnates, which show their significance in the Norman’s control of England.
Although castles were very important in imposing William’s control of England, another important factor was the lack of a strong rebellion from the Anglo Saxons, bar the rebellion in the North in the late 1060s. This lack of rebellion was due to most of the Anglo-Saxon elite, who were often very skilled warriors were killed during the Battle of Hastings, meaning there was no strong leaders to lead a rebellion. After the Norman invasion, the few remaining English elite were either changing their loyalty to William, in a bid to keep their power and land, or were taken prisoner by William, and taken on a victory tour of Normandy, meaning they were unable to start a rebellion whilst he was away.
Another problem any Anglo-Saxon rebellions was a lack of communication or co-ordination.
Had the Anglo-Saxons coordinated a country-wide rebellion, by sheer numbers they may have been able to take back control of England and instate Edgar the Atheling, who had a strong claim to the throne, as the new King. Instead, the Anglos Saxons revolted in different regions at different times, allowing William to systematically stop each one, rather than be overwhelmed by many going on at roughly the same time all over the country, which allowed him to gain control over each region one by one. Another problem that the Anglo-Saxons faced, which made it easy for William to gain control, was that although they had gained foreign support from the Danes, during the East Anglian rebellion in 1070, they weren’t very loyal, and were easily bought off by William as he realised they were an important factor in the rebellion. This was a massive loss, as the Danish support meant the English could receive reinforcements, and meant William would be distracted, as they were set to attack in the north, away from Ely, in a hope to stretch William’s
troops.
The final English revolt occurred in 1075, and was led by three earls, with support of the Danish. However, this failed to pose any real threat to William, who never even left Normandy to respond, instead leaving Archbishop Lanfranc to stop it. The rebellion was over before it had properly begun, with one of the earls having doubts, and confessing the plot to Lanfranc, who tried to stop the rebellion diplomatically. In the end, however, the Danes never turned up, and the earls now faced two strong Norman armies. The earls separated, with one escaping to Brittany, and the other being imprisoned by the Normans. This rebellion signalled the end of Anglo-Saxon resistance, and William had finally gained full control of England, after almost a decade.
Even though the Anglo-Saxons were unable to launch a successful rebellion, without William’s leadership and tactics in stopping these, the Anglo-Saxons may have been able to overthrow the new Norman elite. William was able to work deal with rebellions both diplomatically and forcefully, often with brutality, which would have discouraged any further rebellions, as the Anglo-Saxons faced massive consequences for rebellions, as seen with the Harrying of the North, in which William burned and destroyed much of the North, causing massive starvation and thousands of refugees to the south or Scotland.
As soon as William had defeated Harold at the Battle of Hastings, he knew he had to now focus on establishing his control of England. He did this by employing terror tactics, attacking Canterbury and Dover, a key port, both of which surrendered without any resistance. Although using force may have been a bit much, this was probably used to show the Anglo-Saxons his power and what he was prepared to do to keep control of the country he believed to rightly be his. William then moved on to London, however, rather than facing further attacks from other Anglo-Saxon troops in the city, he encircled the city, cutting off communications with the North, and managed to gain the surrender of Edgar the Atheling, and other Anglo-Saxon leaders. Had William simply stormed into London, he would have faced resistance from a further army, which, with his exhausted troops, may have been unable to defeat, and been pushed back to the coast into a forced retreat.
William was also able to easily squash rebellions, with both brute force and diplomacy, often buying out the Danes, who would often support the Anglo-Saxons. William’s sheer brutality in stopping rebellions, which is shown after the rebellion of the north, which was the most dangerous point for William’s reign, who responded as such, destroying the North’s farmland and town, killing livestock and burning down villages. This destruction was so widespread that twenty years later, in the Doomesday book York was described as being one third waste. After laying waste to the North, William spent his Christmas in the ruins of Winchester cathedral, wearing his crown to show his authority over the people of England.
William also used surprise to stem rebellions, and was not afraid to take massive risks to gain control of England, crossing the Pennines during Winter, making his troops carry own using his authority and personality. This risky move was successful, and William managed to stop rebels in Chester and Stafford easily. This move crushed the spirits of the Northern rebels, and there would be no more rebellions in the North during William I’s reign.
Overall, I would say that Castles were the most important factor in William’s control of England, as they acted as both a point from which troops could be dispersed, but also as a psychological symbol of the Norman’s power, and may have stopped some rebellions before they began out of sheer intimidation. The lack of Anglo-Saxon resistance and William’s leadership, however, were also important factors into William’s control, and with a strong co-ordinated country-wide rebellion, the Anglo-Saxons may have been able to drive the Norman’s out of the country, however due to the relatively small and spread out rebellions, William was able to easily stop each one, allowing him to set up more castles, establishing his control of the country, which was further backed by him giving away land to Norman nobles.
Upon landing in England, one of William’s first actions was to set up a readymade motte and bailey castle at Hastings. This would be the first of over 80 constructed by 1100. These …show more content…
massive, imposing buildings, built upon large mounds of dirt were unknown to the Anglo-Saxons, and as such were used as highly effective defensive and psychological strongholds for the Normans, who constructed them wherever there were any signs of trouble.
Castles were important if William was going to gain control of England, as they allowed points from which troops could be dispatched for patrols of the surrounding areas. The introduction of castles to England also meant the Anglo-Saxon rebels had to adapt to a new style of warfare, the siege, which was a costly and time consuming style of warfare. This new style of fighting may be one of the reasons the Anglo-Saxon rebellions in the North and South West failed, despite having relatively strong leaders.
The presence of these castles acted as a psychological symbol of the Norman’s conquest of Britain, and as such would have lowered morale in the populous, possibly stopping rebellions before they even began. To further impose his rule of England, William had two stone strongholds built at Chepstow and Chester, and began building the massive Tower of London in the 1070’s, as well as this, all castles were held by important Norman magnates, which show their significance in the Norman’s control of England.
Although castles were very important in imposing William’s control of England, another important factor was the lack of a strong rebellion from the Anglo Saxons, bar the rebellion in the North in the late 1060s. This lack of rebellion was due to most of the Anglo-Saxon elite, who were often very skilled warriors were killed during the Battle of Hastings, meaning there was no strong leaders to lead a rebellion. After the Norman invasion, the few remaining English elite were either changing their loyalty to William, in a bid to keep their power and land, or were taken prisoner by William, and taken on a victory tour of Normandy, meaning they were unable to start a rebellion whilst he was away.
Another problem any Anglo-Saxon rebellions was a lack of communication or co-ordination.
Had the Anglo-Saxons coordinated a country-wide rebellion, by sheer numbers they may have been able to take back control of England and instate Edgar the Atheling, who had a strong claim to the throne, as the new King. Instead, the Anglos Saxons revolted in different regions at different times, allowing William to systematically stop each one, rather than be overwhelmed by many going on at roughly the same time all over the country, which allowed him to gain control over each region one by one. Another problem that the Anglo-Saxons faced, which made it easy for William to gain control, was that although they had gained foreign support from the Danes, during the East Anglian rebellion in 1070, they weren’t very loyal, and were easily bought off by William as he realised they were an important factor in the rebellion. This was a massive loss, as the Danish support meant the English could receive reinforcements, and meant William would be distracted, as they were set to attack in the north, away from Ely, in a hope to stretch William’s
troops.
The final English revolt occurred in 1075, and was led by three earls, with support of the Danish. However, this failed to pose any real threat to William, who never even left Normandy to respond, instead leaving Archbishop Lanfranc to stop it. The rebellion was over before it had properly begun, with one of the earls having doubts, and confessing the plot to Lanfranc, who tried to stop the rebellion diplomatically. In the end, however, the Danes never turned up, and the earls now faced two strong Norman armies. The earls separated, with one escaping to Brittany, and the other being imprisoned by the Normans. This rebellion signalled the end of Anglo-Saxon resistance, and William had finally gained full control of England, after almost a decade.
Even though the Anglo-Saxons were unable to launch a successful rebellion, without William’s leadership and tactics in stopping these, the Anglo-Saxons may have been able to overthrow the new Norman elite. William was able to work deal with rebellions both diplomatically and forcefully, often with brutality, which would have discouraged any further rebellions, as the Anglo-Saxons faced massive consequences for rebellions, as seen with the Harrying of the North, in which William burned and destroyed much of the North, causing massive starvation and thousands of refugees to the south or Scotland.
As soon as William had defeated Harold at the Battle of Hastings, he knew he had to now focus on establishing his control of England. He did this by employing terror tactics, attacking Canterbury and Dover, a key port, both of which surrendered without any resistance. Although using force may have been a bit much, this was probably used to show the Anglo-Saxons his power and what he was prepared to do to keep control of the country he believed to rightly be his. William then moved on to London, however, rather than facing further attacks from other Anglo-Saxon troops in the city, he encircled the city, cutting off communications with the North, and managed to gain the surrender of Edgar the Atheling, and other Anglo-Saxon leaders. Had William simply stormed into London, he would have faced resistance from a further army, which, with his exhausted troops, may have been unable to defeat, and been pushed back to the coast into a forced retreat.
William was also able to easily squash rebellions, with both brute force and diplomacy, often buying out the Danes, who would often support the Anglo-Saxons. William’s sheer brutality in stopping rebellions, which is shown after the rebellion of the north, which was the most dangerous point for William’s reign, who responded as such, destroying the North’s farmland and town, killing livestock and burning down villages. This destruction was so widespread that twenty years later, in the Doomesday book York was described as being one third waste. After laying waste to the North, William spent his Christmas in the ruins of Winchester cathedral, wearing his crown to show his authority over the people of England.
William also used surprise to stem rebellions, and was not afraid to take massive risks to gain control of England, crossing the Pennines during Winter, making his troops carry own using his authority and personality. This risky move was successful, and William managed to stop rebels in Chester and Stafford easily. This move crushed the spirits of the Northern rebels, and there would be no more rebellions in the North during William I’s reign.
Overall, I would say that Castles were the most important factor in William’s control of England, as they acted as both a point from which troops could be dispersed, but also as a psychological symbol of the Norman’s power, and may have stopped some rebellions before they began out of sheer intimidation. The lack of Anglo-Saxon resistance and William’s leadership, however, were also important factors into William’s control, and with a strong co-ordinated country-wide rebellion, the Anglo-Saxons may have been able to drive the Norman’s out of the country, however due to the relatively small and spread out rebellions, William was able to easily stop each one, allowing him to set up more castles, establishing his control of the country, which was further backed by him giving away land to Norman nobles.