William the Conqueror

[Sphinx777]

William I (November 8, 1027 – September 9, 1087), better known as William the Conqueror (French: Guillaume le Conquérant), was Duke of Normandy from 1035 and King of England from 1066 to his death. William is also referred to as "William II" in relation to his position as Duke of Normandy. In particular, before his conquest of England, he was known as "William the Bastard" (French: Guillaume le Bâtard) because of the illegitimacy of his birth.

To claim the English crown, William invaded England in 1066, leading an army of Normans to victory over the Anglo-Saxon forces of Harold Godwinson (who died in the conflict) at the Battle of Hastings, and suppressed subsequent English revolts in what has become known as the Norman Conquest.

His reign, which brought Norman culture to England, had an enormous impact on the subsequent course of England in the Middle Ages. In addition to political changes, his reign also saw changes to English law, a programme of building and fortification, changes to the vocabulary of the English language, and the introduction of continental European feudalism into England.

William the Conqueror


​

 

[Sphinx777]

The Bayeux Tapestry is a 50 cm by 70 m (20 in by 230 ft) long embroidered cloth—not an actual tapestry—which explains the events leading up to the 1066 Norman invasion of England as well as the events of the invasion itself. The Tapestry is annotated in Latin. It is presently exhibited in a special museum in Bayeux, Normandy, France, with a Victorian replica in Reading, Berkshire, England.
​

Bayeux Tapestry


​

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Cool. I have a book about the tapestry.

Kenith

 

[wildthing]

I didn't get a chance to watch the u tube thing but did they mention that there are sections missing from it?

 

[Sphinx777]

​

 

[bigbadwilf]

I went and saw it when I was in France one particularly wet summer. I remember seeing a bit about them thinking that they were missing about 20 feet or thereabouts.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

William The Bastard was a despot who change England for the worst. Before the Norman conquest the English were freemen not ''serfs'' (which is really another name for slave), English law was generally fair and the best in Europe -William made it so the rich owned everything and brought in such punishments as ''Trial by Combat'' and cutting the noses, tongues and ears off of English resistence fighters -, Kings were elected by the Witan (which William disbanded to make Norman rule hereditary), the English had a good standard of living, the Anglican church was less corrupt than the church under Norman rule and peasants could actually hunt food without being condemned as poachers. The Harrowing of The North is an example of Norman barbarism; the act of genocide by these oppressors was unheard of at the time. Don't let me get started on the proto-genetic racism that the Normans brought to England either

The effects of Norman rule are still seen in present day England. Today we can still see the castles built to suppress the nation, we still have a lot of French loan words in a once beautiful language (no offence to the French) and we still have an upper-class of Norman descent. Really, England would be in a better state had King Harold won ay Hastings; for a start we wouldn't have purely hereditary rulers but an elected king and we would still have the Witan which was a lot fairer and a lot closer to the people than the Norman-inspired parliament.
.

Also, English law is primarily based on the legal system of the Old English though legal terms are now mainly in Latin. The additions that the Normans brought to English law have long since been removed because they were very cruel, corrupt and unusual.

 

[LondonMatt]

Agree about William, its often forgotten that Anglo-Saxon England was the wealthiest, best run state in Europe with a thriving vernacular culture.

William was lucky at Hastings, it was a close run thing as was and the Normans would have been slaughtered if they'd faced the full Saxon army rather than Harolds exhausted Huskarls and elements of the Fyrd he'd hastily gathered on their forced march down from Yorkshire where they'd annhilated the major threat of 1066, the Viking army of Harald Hardrada, the most feared warrior of his age.

 

[Sphinx777]

Agree about William, its often forgotten that Anglo-Saxon England was the wealthiest, best run state in Europe with a thriving vernacular culture.

The history of Anglo-Saxon England covers the history of England from the end of Roman Britain and the establishment of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the fifth century until the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. The fifth and sixth centuries are known archaeologically as Sub-Roman Britain, or in popular history as the "Dark Ages"; from the sixth century larger distinctive kingdoms are developing, still known to some as the Heptarchy. For most of this period England was split between areas controlled by the Anglo-Saxons and by the British. The arrival of the Vikings at the end of the eighth century brought many changes to Britain. Danish raiders attacked places throughout Britain but their later settlement was restricted to the eastern part of England, while Norwegian raiders (via Ireland) attacked the west coast of both England and Wales. Eventually the Anglo-Saxons gained control of the whole of England though there was a short intermission of Danish control. Relations with the continent were important right up to the end of Anglo-Saxon England, traditionally held to be the Norman Conquest.

​

 

[Dharma Wheel]

Actually you shouldn't use ''England'' for any land owned by the Britons as ''England'' means land of the Angles (well, Anglo-Saxons also). A better term would be southern Britain.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

Agree about William, its often forgotten that Anglo-Saxon England was the wealthiest, best run state in Europe with a thriving vernacular culture.

William was lucky at Hastings, it was a close run thing as was and the Normans would have been slaughtered if they'd faced the full Saxon army rather than Harolds exhausted Huskarls and elements of the Fyrd he'd hastily gathered on their forced march down from Yorkshire where they'd annhilated the major threat of 1066, the Viking army of Harald Hardrada, the most feared warrior of his age.

Indeed. Every you have stated is true. The English lost at Hastings due to the sad fact that the Fyrd and the elite Huskarls were very exhausted; even then, only a small error sealed a defeat as the English army held the Normans at bay for many hours until they charged after the retreating Bretons down the hill.

In fact, Stanford Bridge was the most impressive victory of the age and should have been remembered rather than Hastings.

 

[BjorkIsCool]

After he became King didn't he continue to live in Normandy mainly? He viewed being the Duke of Normandy as being more important than being the King of England.

Didn't the other Dukes of France rise up against the Duke of Normandy (one of William heirs) and force him to flee, and he became just the king of England then?

Is the current Queen of England a direct descendant of William?

 

[Sphinx777]

Battle of Hastings



​

 

[PHenry42]

William The Bastard was a despot who change England for the worst. Before the Norman conquest the English were freemen not ''serfs'' (which is really another name for slave)

The Normans may have brought in serfdom, but the Saxons practiced actual slavery, so idk.

 

[Brak]

And to think, Mexicans still hold a grudge against the U.S. for invading them 150 years ago.

Seriously...the English didn't do Normandy and France any favors by occupying them for a good hundred years not long thereafter. I think that sword cuts both ways.