▲ 121 points
back
83 comments
The author of TFA and a few others like it is Marc Morris. To get his viewpoint at greater length, see his The Norman Conquest: The Battle of Hastings and the Fall of Anglo-Saxon England (2012).
Since at least the 19th century, there has been sharp controversy among English academics over whether the Norman invasion was a good or bad thing. Morris is strongly on the "good" side. For a view from the other direction, try the short and readable The Norman Conquest: A Very Short Introduction by George Garnett (2009).
It's kind of weird to think of historians coming down on "good" and "bad" sides. But even if they do, it's hard to imagine anyone looking at the reign of William and saying "yeah that was awesome". At least from the point of view of the losers. I don't imagine even the slaves enjoyed the Harrying of the North.
"Mixed" seems reasonable. "Good" seems a lot to ask.
The day of William's coronation in London, Christmas Day 1066, the city was on edge. It had surrendered peacefully to William after he had slowly, systematically cut off every road to the city.
When the city people cried out in celebration at the new king William's men — being Normans, Bretons, Flemish and other continentals — did not understanding what was said in English. They misinterpreted the crowd as if they had assassinated William. Suddenly they attacked the townspeople and set fire to nearby houses.
The cries of alarm and the smell of acrid smoke could be heard and smelled from within the church as William was crowned king.
Eventually peace would be restored, but that moment was forever emblematic of the uneasy reign William would have over England.
A skeptical read would be that the economics of Norman style feudalism heavily relies on the peasants to work the land. Obviously you need the peasants to stay in their place. If all the warrior caste have the same perspective, you can't be carting off the population and selling them off overseas, without some major friction. And if you are trying to "take" some land from another warlord, it's not going to be very economical for you to sell off the peasants, cause then who is going to work the land?
The Normans were pretty harsh in their treatment of rebellious areas - the "Harrying of the North" being particularly brutal:
Yeah but that region wasn't as economically important. And it had a critical problem where it was the border region with Scotland and a preferred entry point for the Danes. Depopulating the area makes sense from a medieval military perspective because invaders won't have crops and infrastructure to pull from as they transverse the region. Other states in this time period had similar state-directed depopulated areas on the border for the same reasons.
What are some other examples? That's such a fascinating practice. Was it done in the ancient world as well? What about in other places (Asia, Americas)?
Off the top of my head, China’s Great Clearance [1] and the Desert of the Duero in Spain [2]. IIRC the area north of Hadrian’s wall was also kept depopulated.
The Habsburg Military Frontier [3] could probably qualify too but the area was somewhat populated by soldier-settlers.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Clearance
The British did it to the Boers about a hundred years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_...
tl;dr: "Genocide is good, actually."
I'd go slightly further than "pretty harsh". It was basically ethnic cleansing. Albeit an incomplete and fairly moderate one as these sorts of genocidal things go
A really thorough ethnic cleansing is generally more difficult without modern government structures and mass media to really gin up the hate: in Rwanda, ordinary Hutu slaughtered half a million Tutsi in three months -- 2/3 of the entire Tutsi population at the time -- and they did it with garden tools[1].
That kind of death used to take a standing army backed by decades, if not centuries, of training and discipline: Caesar's slaughter of the Helvetii is the first that comes to mind, maybe followed by the Qin wiping out the Song during China's Warring States period.
Song was eliminated by Qi. I imagine you are referring to the Battle of Changping where the Qin buried 400,000 of Zhao’s surrendered armies.
A very interesting article, especially in that historians still aren't sure why war-based slavery died out completely in Britain in only 60 years -- between 1066 and 1120. You have to wonder if there was mostly an economic reason for it, like making more money from renting to serfs than owning them and having to house and upkeep them (as the article suggests). I can't believe the angels of lords' better natures was the catalyst. The uptake of Christianity thereabouts begat 800 years earlier with Charlemagne; that's a heck of a long gestation to develop a moral conscience.
The timeline overlaps with the Peace of God movement and the Gregorian reforms which legal historian Harold Berman calls the Papal Revolution in his book Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Also coincides with the beginnings of renavatio that Charles Taylor mentions in A Secular Age. You could argue though that perhaps it took some time until the population fully Christianized; it is precisely in this time period we start seeing the use of familiar Biblical along with a set of standardized Germanic first names all across Europe while old Germanic naming conventions start to disappear.
Thanks for this Berman reference.
The article stated that Williams tutor urged him to end the sale of slaves. William complied and also made him archbishop.
I understand analysis of structural forces is a thing. But the great persons of history had a fair impact too.
> You have to wonder if there was mostly an economic reason for it, like making more money from renting to serfs than owning them and having to house and upkeep
You wouldn’t be enslaving your own peasant but rather buying foreigners or capturing people outside of your territory in raids etc.
If the slave populations were self-sustaining I’d assume just banning the slave trade would had a significant effect
> that's a heck of a long gestation to develop a moral conscience.
True, but there were many reformist movements around ~1000 AD and the church was finally able to assert its independence from secular authorities around that time. Before that it had somewhat limited power to force anyone to do anything so they just usually went along with stuff like slavery, polygamy etc. while occasionally criticizing it.
Around 800 AD with Charlemagne. He was not 800 years before 1066, or even 1120.
Sorry. Meant Constantine (350 AD) -- far more significant to the rise of Christian morals than Charlemagne.
Um, Charlemagne was emperor from 800 to 828, only a bit more than 200 years earlier, not 800. Still plenty long enough though.
Well, they hadn't invented progress yet, there was no hurry.
Promising an end to slavery is a great way to conquer a place. Napoleon followed the same game plan, and in a way, so did Lenin.
Can someone explain what the deal was with selling slaves to Ireland? It makes it seem like Ireland was some wealthy nation buying slaves.
At the time, Ireland was indeed a wealthy country, having made its fortune selling leather to the Romans three centuries before, because the semi-nomadic Irish cultivated large herds of cattle roaming on unfenced plains, while the settled Britons kept sheep. This permitted the establishment of a culturally sophisticated Gaelic Order so stable that it was able to assimilate the invading Vikings and the first wave of Normans, who actually went native and began speaking the Irish language.
Ireland had viking settlement activity in the 800s and 900s. Newly formed settlements/kingdoms were consumers of slaves to further develop. But also, maybe they were named simply because Irish viking rulers had close ties with York, and therefore, there was more trade between nearby and politically close viking kingdoms.
The local Irish had a long tradition of engaging in slave trade (and raiding) themselves, though e.g. St. Patrick
Ireland was colonized by the vikings from the 8th century onward, who continued their long history of seaborne trade even after they abandoned the practice of raiding for which they are more famous. So they had the liquid wealth (primarily gold and silver) and the cultural willingness to acquire slaves. The viking settlements became the first large towns in Ireland, and supported the first sophisticated cash economy on the island capable of generating the liquidity for purchasing slaves from abroad. While the native Celtic Irish also had a history of slave-holding and raiding (see, e.g., the life of St. Patrick), they produced and held significantly less liquid wealth than the viking settlers and never established the large scale trading communities necessary for slave markets to emerge. As a result, pre-viking native Irish slavery did not involve large scale cash-based slave trading.
Also worth mentioning that the scale of the medieval British slave trade was likely small relative to the total populations of either England or Ireland, because it disproportionately consisted of the sale of young women as concubines. Note that there is a difference between the size of the enslaved population and the size of the slave trade. While as much as 30% of the population of Anglo-Saxon England may have been enslaved and the vast majority of those were economic slaves, only a small portion were ever bought or sold on the slave markets, and an even smaller portion sold to the foreign market.
There was simply less demand for purchasing economic slaves because Ireland did not have a robust cash economy for agricultural goods that would have generated the revenue necessary to acquire slaves. That is, acquiring economic slaves for cash only makes sense if those slaves can be used to generate further cash. Concubinage was an exception because in economic terms it is a form of consumption rather than investment. Economic slaves were more likely to be acquired via raiding or conquest, which effectively converts a surplus in defense spending into an economic investment.
Which isn't to say economic slaves weren't bought and sold, just that demand for them was weak and likely the trade only existed because acquiring them was a "free" byproduct for a seller who acquired them while conducting raids aimed at acquiring liquid wealth and potential concubines. As in, a viking group may have raided a village with the specific intent of seizing any valuables and young women, but figured that they might as well take the young men too because they could at least get something in exchange for them. Demand for agricultural economic slaves was low because the productivity of early medieval agricultural workers was extremely low. Once the Christian church turned against concubinage and extra-marital relationships in general, the demand for slaves disappeared, reducing the incentive to raid and thus the incidental production of economic slaves. Which is a corollary of the argument the OP article proposes for the decline in Norman slavery.
Bottom line, a relatively narrow class of wealthy traders and viking raiders in Ireland would have been purchasers in the slave markets, even though the country as a whole wasn't especially wealthy and did not need to be for the slave trade to exist.
The Normans were the great "levelers" of society. Yes, they may have raised up the slave, but they also deprived many others of their historical rights, say, of "sake and soke."
Sake was the right to hold low court on your own land.
Soke was the right to pay your taxes and infeudate yourself to the lord of your choice. There was an entire class of Anglo-Saxons known as "sokesmen." They practically disappeared overnight, historically-speaking.
Normans placed severe restrictions on your infeudation. None of this "I'll withhold my allegiance simply because my local baron is a tyrant" thing. Nope. Doesn't matter. Good, bad or evil, you owe your fealty to the local ruler.
So, while the Normans may have been a relief for the very, very bottom, they were very, very bad for the equivalent of the "middle class" of commoners.
As I read, this is pretty much what the article says. The very very bottom may have been as many as 30 % of the total population.
I was clarifying because the word "sokesman" doesn't appear in the article.
Nor does "cottar/cotter [cotarius/cotarii]" nor "bordar [bordarius/bordarii]" nor even "villein [villanus/villani]." There are a many levels of commoners in Domesday, almost all of whom suffered greatly under the Norman yoke.
Estimates vary, but...
35% of Domesday population were villeins
30% cotters and bordars
12% freeholders
~5% burghers (townspeople)
Which would leave ~20% at maximum to be slaves (servii).
but did "the middle class" exist back then?
I thought "middle class" arose out of the bourgeois class later on?
It's like when I realized that slaves under christianity were not horribly abused as they were part of the church but simply didn't own very many things
slavery became awuful around things like deciding black people were closer to animals so it was ok to exploit them but really they were competing, or rather, trying to keep up with steam-based looms which were much faster at processing cotton so pick that cotton faster *cracks whip *
> "the middle class"
I assume small landholders, yeomen etc. and such would be the equivalent of the middle class in such a society.
> slaves under christianity were not horribly abused as they were part of the church
I'm not sure that's strictly true. It of course varied by time and place and the Church tried to somewhat limit the worst abuse.
Also a clear workaround was to enslave infidels. Muslims enslaved Christians (and basically depopulate many coastal areas across the Mediterranean), in turn Christians were fine with enslaving Muslims (all though they didn't necessarily have that many opportunities) and East European pagans were fair game to everyone.
As an Eastern-European, I can definitely say that after year 1000 we were not pagans, but Christian-Ortodox, but it’s true that the Genoese and the Venetians trading us around the
Black Sea called us “schismatics”, i.e. just one step above pagans.
If being raped, castrated or stoned to death was not horribly abused, I don't know what is.
> but did "the middle class" exist back then?
Not as we would recognize it today, but there were always merchants, craftsman and petty gentry that would have a measure of freedom and earning that serfs did not have the ability to achieve.
when I read Road to Wigan Pier I realized that the 20th Century British term "middle class" had an almost unrecognizable meaning compared to what Americans think of as "middle class"
So the first thing you need to figure out, to answer the question "did the middle class exist back then" is: which cultural definition of middle class are we even using to begin with?
Hot take: slavery was actually always awful.
Hard agree. It is true that being a slave in one culture is much better experience than others. But that’s only a matter of degree.
Example: You intentionally killed someone and are convicted of it. You have done a bad thing. The how and why only determines your sentence, not whether or not you committed a crime
This is certainly a popular modern narrative.
>‘I prohibit the sale of any man by another outside of the country,’ says the ninth law of William the Conqueror
preventing "hands drain" so to speak. They did Doomsday book, kind of stabilized the land ownership and revenue/taxes extraction based on it, and the land needs hands to produce the revenue.
I really want to send the author to, say, Saudi Arabia to lobby for erecting slavery memorials.
I wonder how colloquial "scumbags" is in the translation from norman english.
Isn't this a quite common pattern in history repeating itself? Including the reaction of the historians, to gloss over it?
The pattern that, a cohort of a society that under previous rule didn't have any right nor representation, acquire that as a side-effect during invasion of competing faction. Often under brutal circumstances, but the effect can be clearly seen if you how a society change during such over-hauling effect.
Japans invasion of South-east Asia comes to mind. Mostly for their own benefit, installing puppet-government, but it seems to be a contributing factor to decolonization of SEA of European influence. Depending on the source you read, this is probably glossed over to great deal.
I assume you can probably find similar cases in places like Spain (Reconquest), Christianization of East/North Europe, Islamic conquest of Middle East/Indus etc.