READING GUIDE, WEEK 7: Vikings and Lordship
Part I: the Vikings and their Aftermath
A. Annals of St Bertin, 855-861 (handout)
The Annals of St Bertin were written by the monks of the monastery
of St Bertin (in Belgium) over the course of the 9th century. The
entries were recorded annually on the basis of notes and travelers' reports
kept and collected by the monks. Take notice of what sorts of things
the monks chose to record. These particular years were some of the
worst of the Viking (or Danish, or Northman) invasions. Notice, too,
that by the 850s, Charlemagne's kingdom had been divided among his three
grandsons, Charles the Bald (ruler in the west), Louis the German (ruler
in the east), and Lothar (holder of the imperial title and ruler of the
center strip). The Charles who appears frequently in these annals
is Charles the Bald (r.840-877), king of the West Franks (although other
Charleses appear as well).
1. What subjects occupy the annalist's interest? How did he define
history (ie., what makes history for him?)
2. How effective were the Carolingian kings against the Vikings?
3. What strategy did the Vikings take? Why might this have been
hard to defend against?
4. Did the Vikings return to Denmark each winter? If not, what
does this suggest about royal power in Francia?
5. Who were the "Saracens" (see year 856)?
6. What parts of the Frankish kingdoms were at risk to the Viking invasions?
7. How loyal were Charles the Bald's subjects? Can you explain
their behavior?
8. The annalist includes plenty of examples of "signs", "portents"
and other similar phenomena. Why? What does this tell
us about his (and his society's) mentality?
9. What sorts of responses were available against the Vikings? Were
they all military responses?
10. Did the Carolingian kings help each other against the Vikings?
Why or why not?
11. How should we make sense of the first paragraph of the annal for
859? (Be sure to read the footnote)
12. What seemed to have motivated the Vikings?
Part II: Local Lordship and Personal Bonds (‘feudalism'?)
The readings for this day attempt to uncover the reality of feudal
lordship in the 11th and 12th centuries. "Feudal lordship" may require
some explication. "Feudal" refers to the practice by which aristocrats
gave out "fiefs" [in Latin, feoda] to their supporters in return
for military service. Note that these supporters were aristocrats
(vassals), not peasants. Peasants never held fiefs. The disbursement
of fiefs served to create a hierarchy of lordship - the king had the counts
as his vassals, the counts had castellans as their vassals, and the castellans
had knights as their vassals. Peasants and serfs enter this picture
at all levels. Every aristocrat, no matter where he stood in the
hierarchy, possessed properties (he either owned them outright or held
them as fiefs of some other lord); on each of those properties would live
and work a certain number of peasants. The specific obligations and
rights of those peasants vis a vis their lord would vary considerably from
estate to estate (most of the time, the obligations and duties were customary).
We call both sets of relationship - between lords and lords and between
lords and peasants - by the same word, "lordship".
A. Fulbert of Chartres: on the mutual duties of vassals and lords
(1020) (Geary)
1. What were the obligations of a vassal towards his lord? What
should he do? What shouldn't he do?
2. What were the obligations of a lord towards his vassal?
3. Fulbert speaks of the reciprocal nature of the relationship - what
does this mean?
4. What bonds tie the lord and vassal together? What do they do to
formalize the arrangement?
B. Agreement between Count William V of Aquitaine and Hugh IV, lord
of Lusignan (early 11th century) (Geary)
notes: "commendation" is the act by which a lord gave a fief to a person
and accepted homage and fealty in return; another phrase for this action
is "to become the man of [someone]".
1. Since the Count William of this document is the same as the Count
William of document A, is there anything in this agreement that might have
sparked William to ask Fulbert for advice on the duties of lords and vassals?
2. This "agreement" is told from the perspective of Hugh. What
are his complaints about Count William?
3. How well do the relationships described in this document agree with
the theory outlined in document A? Why do they differ?
4. Castles were new to the 10th - 11th centuries. What role do
fortresses and castles play in this story?
5. How were disputes settled in the world of William and Hugh? By law?
By force? By agreement? What enforcement powers exist in this world?
6. What general rules for the obligations of lords and vassals can
be drawn from this text?
7. One of the major sticking points between Hugh and William is the
fact that Hugh has several lords. Find an example of this.
Why might multiple lords pose a problem or threat?
C. A French Customal (for Méron), 1080-1082 (on-line)
1. What were the sorts of "taxes" or customs that peasants had to pay
to their lords?
2. Why were animals so important to the peasants?
3. From this list, can we gain an idea why lords (in this case an abbot)
were so jealous of their lordly privileges?
D. An English Manorial Court, 1246-1249 (on-line)
The previous text described what ought to happen on a typical manor.
In this text, we learn about what happened when those customs were not
obeyed. Remember that this is not a royal court; it is a manorial
court. Each lord had the right to hold a court in his lands.
Thus the peasants in these cases would have had their complaints and problems
heard by the lord (or, more probably, his flunky). Notes: to be "in mercy"
is to owe a fine. "To be at one's law" is to be impleaded, or accused;
"to make one's law" is to demonstrate you were in the right. "Heriot" is
a death-duty (a tax that someone's heirs had to pay out of the deceased's
goods).
1. What sorts of things brought peasants to court?
2. What were the offenses that were most heavily punished?
3. From these cases (ie., what does appear in the lord's court and
what doesn't appear in the lord's court), can we learn what were the competencies
of a manorial court? Ie., does it seem like the lord didn't have the right
to hear and judge certain cases? If so, what were they?
4. What does it mean to "raise the hue"? Other documents tell
us that to not "raise the hue and cry" was almost as serious an offense
as the initial crime. What does this tell us about "police" procedures
in these types of manors?
5. Can we learn anything about social status and the family structure
of peasants from these sources?