To What Extent Was Norman Rule in England Colonial?

 by Diarmuid B

Among Anglo-Norman historians there has always been a description of England being a Norman Colony, part of a Norman empire. The use of technical terms where ‘empire’ and ‘colony’, and their counterparts ‘imperialism’ and ‘colonialism’, have been defined, these historians have provided neither consistent information nor parallels with modern imperial and colonial historians. Throughout the reign of William I, he created a relationship with England that was colonial; through his use of land taking and settling of the country he invaded he created a colony, and the period of the Norman domination of England, would suggest that William of Normandy’s initial strategy of colonising England to enhance his overall power and position changed during his reign and those of the subsequent Norman dynasty.  Norman control of England varied across the 88 years that they reigned over the country, from Colonial control to a more present reign, allowing England to develop into an independent country.  Colonialism is defined as ‘The policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers and exploiting it economically’[1], this provides three areas of study: political control, occupation, and economic exploitation. Whilst it is apparent, from William’s initial actions that he wanted to impose colonial rule over England, his later steps seem to encourage the idea that he changed his aim to a more independent England, most evident in his move to split his kingdom between his sons Robert Curthrose and William Rufus. However, in an assessment of the Norman colonial methodology we must look at examples through the Norman control of England from the start in the build-up to Hastings through to the end of Stephen in 1154. Throughout the Norman period England developed massively; towns flourished, most notably London[2], through new practices, the church underwent a massive reformation, and the development of the Feudal system, assisting in both the governing of and the economic development of the country. These all occurred amongst great political instability, but the continued desire of Norman monarchs to force the nations development, points towards a change in view to a more balanced society in which England underwent a ‘revolution’ to become a separate entity.   Throughout my essay I am going to address the extent to which England was ruled as a colony and how this initial intent changed, focussing on three areas: political control, occupation (more social aspect), and economic settlers, relating back to the three stages of colonialism as defined.

Political Control:

The control that the Normans enforced in their political climates was not new. William surrounded himself with trusted advisors, much like Edward did during his reign, and ousted his enemies and potential threats to his control. He continued to replace all through his reign and enforced his control through rewarding soldiers with land rather than money, giving him greater reactionary power throughout his new kingdom. William treated his new leadership with great hostility, becoming ruthless to any potential threat to his control whilst continuing to stay in Normandy. In order to secure his position whilst away he installed Regents, such as: Lanfranc, Odo and FitzOsbern, to command the country, but also removed key English barons taking them to Normandy with him, for example: Stigand, Edgar, Morcar, Edwin and Waltheof, these Barons were an extreme threat to William as they had supported Harold and attempted to place Edgar as king after Harolds defeat. This shows that he thought of England as secondary to Normandy, not staying for long periods, but also in the placement of a ‘Governor’ in the form of the Regents as it is evident that William wanted to enforce his own political ideology into the country and create a stable colony of Normandy whilst being able to remotely control it.

The Normans brought methods of enforcement with them, through the use of castles, relatively new for English society. This provided two methods of control: firstly, was the statement their construction made and secondly the capabilities that they held. When castles were constructed, they reinforced the power that the Normans had over England, most evident in the destruction of properties during their construction for example 166[3] were destroyed in the construction of Lincoln castle in 1068, this provided a visual scar into the landscape and acted as a continuous reminder of the power the Normans held in the governance of England, ‘To underpin his occupation he built hundreds of castles across the kingdom garrisoned by mounted troops’[4]. This gave the message of ‘We are here, and we are in charge’[5] a very colonial idea and empowering to the belief of Norman superiority over the Anglo Saxons. Castles also garrisoned troops, allowing for swift reactions to any uprising, and again portraying a sense of overwhelming force, much like we see in British control of India, in order to keep local groups in check. No town was more than 20 miles, one days march, from a castle providing the ability for rebellions to be crushed quickly before gaining any traction and enforcing the hierarchy in rural areas. These enabled new laws to be discharged into the communities limiting rural societies in their traditions before Norman occupation, a hallmark for the feudal system that William of Normandy imposed after his invasion. William established Forest Laws in 1079[6] allowing him to make use of the variety of prey to be found around the countryside, also limiting the places peasants could get food, providing economic reliability on the economic structure that William had linked into Normandy’s vast stores. These laws caused great resentment, and to English Chroniclers the New Forest became a symbol of William’s greed, ‘He was fallen into covetousness, and greediness he loved withal’[7]. This idea of entitlement relates to a colonial idea as William was able to harness the already bountiful sources of the English forests and in return, linking to the economic control he had, manipulate the peasantry to rely on a controlled source. The Forest law was seen as significant as it showed the power the King had and his position above all others whilst also increasing the amount of land, he had control over directly. This control indicates the belief that England was seen as a colony by William through the new traditions he introduced and the expansion of the older ideas, such as the feudal system, all these show that England was a treated as a colony of Normandy and an extension of Williams growing empire.

Similarly, to this Williams relationship with the English church, while on the outset seems him to be caring, is fundamentally a religious crusade to replace the broken system with an improved Norman image. The new structure that William I brought to the church enforced the rules that they should follow and creating a more catholic church, one that was not full of abuses such as: Nepotism, Simony, and Marriage. The new ideology behind Williams church was well founded and allowed for a more positive effect on the communities who followed it. As the church was such an influential institution at the time it allowed Williams power to be shown and his approach to control highlighted. This is colonial as the new order and systems that arose with the new people implemented into the church was a change to the previous arrangement of the church creating a new level of political society in the country and a higher order of Norman clerics over the Anglo-Saxon ones.

 

Occupation:

Norman occupation was inextricably colonial: replacing Anglo-Saxon people with Normans, removing rights to certain amenities, and creating new hierarchies in the urban and rural communities. William’s efforts to affect communities to position his view and instil Norman ideas and values into the Anglo-Saxon communities through their Nobility, structure and religion enforcing the new regime through harsh scorched earth tactics and introducing a new language into the courts and higher circles of society. The occupation of England follows on from the political changes as it shows the continual want by William for colonial control over England and no give in his ideas of the regime.

An element of identifying colonial tendencies is settlement of a new nation. Following his successful invasion William began implanting Norman people into English society through their induction in the courts. In 1065 there were six earls all Anglo-Saxon, however by 1068 there were 10 Earldoms all of which were commanded by Norman Earls, all loyal to William, this splitting up of old kingdoms ensured that William had stable control, especially in unstable regions, for example the Marches on the Welsh borders where there were three Earldoms established: Chester, Hereford, and Shrewsbury[8]. This did two things: firstly, it secured his position throughout the country, preventing rebellions from being likely as the power one single noble possessed was lessened by a smaller holding, and secondly it moved his people into the country, allowing a Norman methodology to be implemented throughout, and trusted people to be installed in positions of authority. This move is a prime example of colonialism as William was moving away from the people there before his arrival and settling his own people to take control of the country by placing the Normans in possession of Earldoms, in turn this secured his land as he rewarded fighters with smaller holdings under the Normans to give further control at lower levels.

The new Norman approach shifted down into the communities of the country as they were impacted by William’s changes. Whilst for many the only change they noticed was the swapping of landlords it was far harsher for some towns after the invasion, Warrick, and Nottingham[9] were destroyed in order to make way for large emplacements in order to defend the new territories, and some regions were impacted more than others. Throughout England land was broken up into smaller sections, this made it easier to govern, however this allowed William to weave more Norman control into the country as at smaller levels he still had key figures to guide and control, making his approach to settlement very crucial in his conquest. The urban environments felt the most change, in comparison to the rural areas, as they were shaped around that castle they housed. Many houses were destroyed to make way for the construction of castles, in London 152 houses were destroyed to make way for the White Tower, as well as some being given to the French settlers, for example 145 houses were seized from Anglo-Saxon families and given to Normans in York[10], again referencing a larger French influence and hierarchy into communities during their occupation. William also approached his rule with an iron fist, meaning he reacted harshly to any sign of revolution. At the start of his reign his men ravaged the land from Berkhamsted to London[11], making it infertile and rendering the people reliant on Williams support, similarly the Harrying of the North in 1069[12], in reaction to a rebellion, William scorched the earth creating a famine lasting for years. This shows a colonial system as William is installing Norman people into the significant towns and claiming land for Normandy expanding his influence across the country through the replacement of Barons, Earls and Thegns.  These methods changed towns and regions forming a warning to others to respect the new members of their communities and to accept the new regime. William also improved towns through religion marking their status with Monasteries and Cathedrals. William’s approach to the church was a crucial aspect in his succeeding as King in England, as without the church’s support it would be hard to rule the country. Soon after he took the throne William replaced Stigand, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, with Lan Franc. The see was deprived as William did not see him to be fit to carry the position, due to much corruption seen throughout the church. By instilling Lan Franc in the see of Canterbury William gained control of the church and used Lan Franc to start securing his position in it. This can be seen to be a colonial move as William I is replacing the highest-ranking church official with a Norman cleric and in doing so is removing the ability of the state and church to be separate as they align their views under the new rule, Lan Franc’s position allowed William to remain in Normandy for long periods of time as he saw England as a secondary nation to Normandy and a colony of his empire.  Subsequently, Lan Franc initiated a religious alignment with the Norman Church, through a series of reforms, expansions, and re-appointments. Through the early years of his installation LanFranc began asserting Canterbury’s primacy as head of the church, this benefitted William as it meant he had control and could recreate the Norman Church on a larger scale, whilst still bringing England back under direction from Rome. Lan Franc and William started a campaign of reform to the church around new Norman values. This forms an argument that William's motives for invading were based on a religious idea, backed by the papal support during the endeavour, and that he was on a ‘crusade’ to bring a righteous form of Christianity to England. The five councils, that met between 1070 and 1076[13], focused on removing the five sins of the church: Pluralism, Simony, Nepotism and Marriage, all of which were addressed in the first council. The council of Winchester involved the replacement of two bishops due to their corruption; this was overseen by three papal representatives who brought the church back into the eyes of Rome. Whilst this seems as though it is a separate issue from colonies it was fundamentally about replacing the Saxon people with Normans, a characteristic of colonialism and an indisputable argument that the Norman approach to England was highly colonial.  

Soon after the Norman conquest there were three main languages that were spoken following the French invasion in 1066: French, Latin, and English. During the period languages were a symbol of class, for example, Latin was prominent in three spheres- Church, Law, and education. English however was the native language for the peasantry of England and the vast majority of inhabitants. French took over the nobility, mainly as a practicality as William replaced many Anglo-Saxons with French Nobles, as a reward for their loyalty, and so enabled them to all communicate efficiently. The introduction of French is an example of how William mobilised language in order to colonise the country as he is forming a new level of society, those who speak French and enabling them to settle easier and above the Anglo-Saxons.

Williams' approach to the occupation of England was colonial because of the way he approached the people and environment of the country. Through his attitude to rebellions and his want for a new language to be spoken they all relate back to projecting Norman influence into society and placing Norman people into the new land he has claimed.

 

Conclusion:

In conclusion I believe that William I is the one example of a King during the Norman period who treated England like a colony. Following his death in XXXX William split his territories between his second eldest son, Robert Curthose, and his third eldest William Rufus, this suggests that he saw the two as different prizes for his sons and so would not England to be a colony of Normandy. This also engages the idea that William Rufus was not a king of an empire but King of the Colony. He therefore can’t be seen to rule England as a colony as he does not attempt to fulfil any of the criteria that William I, has to allow historians to make the judgement that his invasion of England and subsequent governance was colonial. The extent of Norman rule in England was extreme during the reign of the conqueror, however it faded out after his death due to the separation of Normandy and England. The question can also be asked as to if the way William ruled England was new or not as many leaders had done similar things to him in their rule, for example Edward the Confessor changed out his councils to have French nobles in rather than English, this shows that whilst Williams rule may have been colonial it was not a new idea for the country and so the extent of Norman rule in England being colonial was only surface level for the nobility as not much changed in the eyes of the peasants as they had experienced this approach before.

---

[1] Colonialism, https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/, [Accessed 22/06/23]

[2] Development,https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/The-sons-of-William-I,[Accessed 22/06/23]

[3] Lincoln, https://www.visitlincoln.com/about-lincoln/history-heritage/, [Accessed 2/07/23]

[4] Medieval England, Toby Purser, Published 2004, Accessed 2023

[5] Effect of William on Urban areas, https://www.visitlincoln.com/about-lincoln/history-heritage/aviati, [Accessed 2/07/23]

[6] Forest Law, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_forest, [Accessed 2/07/23]

[7] Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/ang11.asp, [Accessed 2/07/23]

[8]Marches, https://www.castlewales.com/march.html, [Accessed 03/07/23]

[9]Harrying the North,https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/harrying-north, [Accessed 03/07/23]

[10] Page 284, Early Medieval England 871-1107, Andrew Holland and Nicholas Fellows, Published 2015, 2023 [Accessed]

 

[11] Page 242, Early Medieval England 871-1107, Andrew Holland and Nicholas Fellows, Published 2015, 2023 [Accessed]

[12]Harrying the North, https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zsb7frd/revision/3#:~:text=The%20winter%20of%201069%20%2D%201070,large%20parts%20of%20the%20north, [Accessed 04/07/23]

[13] Page 281, Early Medieval England 871-1107, Andrew Holland and Nicholas Fellows, Published 2015, 2023 [Accessed]