READING GUIDE (Week 8): Vikings/Lordship
[Note: from now on, I will deliver to you a sheet such as this on a weekly basis. Use it in the following manner: 1) read over these questions before you do the reading (they will give you an idea of what to read for); 2) as you do your reading, take notes, making sure that you understood the questions and have an idea of what the answers are; 3) when you come to class, be prepared to answer these questions, or to talk about why you found them difficult to answer. Obviously I cannot anticipate every question you might have on this sheet, so be sure to jot down any points from the reading that you found exceptionally interesting, difficult, or otherwise worthy of discussion]
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?
B. King Alfred, Dooms (in Geary)
Alfred was one of the most significant kings of England. He is
generally credited with having unified the various kingdoms existing in
the British Isles under his own rulership. His dynasty, the Kings of Wessex
(southern England), thus ended the older Germanic practice of multiple
kingdoms and kings. After Alfred, it was assumed that there would be only
one king in England, and that this king would rule all of the country (saving
Wales and Scotland, of course, which were still separate). What makes
Alfred even more interesting is the fact that he achieved this success
in the face of extreme adversity; indeed, in the winter of 878 the strong
Viking armies that had been terrorizing much of England had utterly defeated
him and forced him into hiding in a remote swamp (the famous Isle of Athelney).
But Alfred emerged from the swamp, rallied the men of Wessex, and defeated
the Danish leader, Guthrum, thus beginning his campaign of unification.
Terms: "Doom" is an old-fashioned word for law, so Alfred's Dooms are in
fact Alfred's Laws. A ‘reeve' is an administrative official. Kings
had reeves to oversee their lands, but so did earls and other nobles.
1. How was law made in Anglo-Saxon England? Who could make it?
Was it changeable? When? Why?
2. How do Alfred's laws compare to the Salic Law, or to the capitularies
of Charlemagne?
3. How effective is royal authority? That is, what gives these laws
their force? (Why would anyone follow them?)
C. Alfred's Treaty with Guthrum, 886-890
This treaty was signed several years after Alfred's miraculous revival
in 878. It shows him beginning to expand his influence. Remember that Guthrum
was a Dane (Viking), and that he had much of eastern England under his
sway.
1. With what kinds of things does this treaty concern itself?
2. What was Alfred's intention in signing the treaty?
3. Note the beginning of a national identity - does Alfred distinguish
men of Wessex from men of East Anglia? What divisions are acknowledged?
D. Asser, Life of King Alfred (beginning Geary, p. 229)
Asser was a monk from Wales who wrote his life of Alfred while the
King was still alive (in 893; Alfred died in 898; Asser died in 909).
Like Charlemagne, Alfred tried to combine the military and scholarly responsibilities
of kingship. Unlike Charlemagne, however, he actually succeeded in
both: Alfred was learned in Latin and seems to have personally initiated
translations of important Latin works into Old English for the edification
of his people. Geary has omitted most of the military sections of
Alfred's life (his defeat of the Danes, etc.), and instead focuses on the
king's spiritual and intellectual growth, as well as his style of rulership.
1. What are the qualities of a good king according to Asser?
Was Alfred a good king?
2. How did Alfred view Christianity? What relationship did he see between
kingship and religion?
3. Did Alfred value education? Why? For whom?
4. What role did Alfred play in justice?
5. How does Alfred compare to Charlemagne?
C. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 865-900
The Anglo-Saxon chronicle was really a set of Annals kept by monks
in Alfred's kingdom of Wessex. For the years in question here, it
includes many details about the Vikings and Alfred's reforms. A "borough"
[or ‘burh'] is a fortified town. An ‘ealdorman' is an important official.
1. Beginning in 865 we learn of the ‘heathen army'. This is usually
called the "Great Army", and was composed of an extremely large, well-organized,
and well-led force of vikings intent on conquering parts of England and
settling down. Healfdene (pron. "halfdan") was one of its leaders. By 875
the Great Army had conquered much of England and had been joined by three
kings, one of whom was Guthrum.
2. What military innovations did Alfred invent in order to fight the
Vikings?
2. What role did the boroughs play in Alfred's defense of his kingdom?
3. Note the important events of the year 878. What happened to Guthrum
once he was defeated?
4. Compare the text of the Chronicle with the maps in Hollister to
get a sense of Alfred's gradual extension of royal authority over all England.
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)
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)
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 (handout)
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 (handout)
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?