PAULA READS: THE NORMAN CONQUEST by MARC MORRIS

"An upstart French duke who sets out to conquer the most powerful and unified kingdom in Christendom. An invasion force on a scale not seen since the days of the Romans. One of the bloodiest and most decisive battles ever fought. This riveting book explains why the Norman Conquest was the single most important event in English history. Assessing the original evidence at every turn, Marc Morris goes beyond the familiar outline to explain why England was at once so powerful and yet so vulnerable to William the Conqueror's attack. Why the Normans, in some respects less sophisticated, possessed the military cutting edge. How William's hopes of a united Anglo-Norman realm unravelled, dashed by English rebellions, Viking invasions and the insatiable demands of his fellow conquerors. This is a tale of powerful drama, repression and seismic social change: the Battle of Hastings itself and the violent 'Harrying of the North'; the sudden introduction of castles and the wholesale rebuilding of every major church; the total destruction of an ancient ruling class. Language, law, architecture, even attitudes towards life itself were altered forever by the coming of the Normans. 
Marc Morris, author of the bestselling biography of Edward I, A Great and Terrible King, approaches the Conquest with the same passion, verve and scrupulous concern for historical accuracy. This is the definitive account for our times of an extraordinary story, a pivotal moment in the shaping of the English nation."

I had heard many good things about this author who had written three other historical non-fiction books so I was very much looking forward to reading this and hoping that it would give a balanced view of both sides of the conquest, the English and the Norman. Everyone who knows me his aware that I am very much down with the English as far as the Conquest of 1066 is concerned and have read many versions in order to find a discerning view of the invasion and the years that followed so I can at least attempt to empathise with the Normans, even if only in a small way. Some of the books I have read have strived to show the facts without appearing to be biased one way or another, but no matter how dryly the evidence is presented, they struggle to show the Normans in anything but a bad light. Faced with the evidence as it is, even in this book, the Normans were indeed the "Nasty Normans", confirming once and for all that my sympathies fall completely on the right side, though I am sure that was not what the author intended.

The opening pages of this book show useful maps of England and Normandy at the time of the Conquest and there are also family trees to assist the reader in knowing who is who. Mr Morris shows no preference for either side, in his introduction he states that he has tried to be as balanced and fair as he possibly can. He himself states that he has no particular fondness for either side, choosing to describe the Normans as coming across as "arrogant, warlike, inordinately pleased with themselves and holier than thou." He also calls the 11th century English as binge drinking slavers and political murderers.

Binge drinking English

Marc Morris's analysis of the events during and after the Conquest is a balanced view that can be trusted. He examines all the evidence of the time and explains the pros and cons of what is available, weighing up the strengths and the weaknesses in the evidence and its supporting evidences and leaves the reader to make their own minds up. As a historian, Mr Morris must remain impartial to give a balanced view and he does this despite  what the Normans did to the conquering English, without become emotive. I found it difficult, however, not to be moved especially when reading about the plight of the Northerners who were left with no means of feeding themselves after William's Harrying of the North. I felt angry at the displacing of English land owners and the insensitivity of the Norman clergy toward their English counterparts and the insulting attitude the Normans had to the English culture. If anyone had thought highly of William and his avaricious Normans, I challenge them not to be affected by the evidence. Despite what other historians have had us believe, Morris proves that the Harrying of the North DID happen and was not an exaggeration by any means. The Norman Conquest was the wholesale oppression of a subjugated people and although William did not start out with the intention to degrade and enslave a nation, it certainly ended that way by the end of his reign.

Arrogant and Warlike Normans

If you asked me what I like most about this book, it would be that Mr Morris leaves no stone unturned in his investigation and picks apart the primary sources piecemeal and provides intelligent answers. I would highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to read more about this exciting, and pivotal period of history.

PAULA'S PEOPLE: INTERVIEW WITH HISTORIAN AND AUTHOR MARC MORRIS

I have the privilege of interviewing historian Marc Morris. Marc is the author of The Norman Conquest, Castle, A Great and Terrible King . All books come highly recommended! Here Marc speaks to me about all of them. 

You say yourself that you cut your teeth on studying and writing about the 13th century; what then drew you to the Conquest and what were the differences you found in studying each period?

Well, although my thesis was on the thirteenth century, I'd define my specialism as 1066-1307 - that's the period I taught for a few terms in Oxford and London. So it was a case of looking for a large topic within that time period, and the Conquest seemed the obvious choice.

The differences were considerable, for reasons I touch upon at the top of the Conquest book, and boil down to the massive amount of evidence that survives for the thirteenth century, compared to the little that survives from the eleventh. Sometimes I found the secondary material for the Conquest period frustrating, because once you scratched it and looked at the evidence for a particular argument, often it was flimsy or non-existent. It meant that I spent more time analysing the evidence with the reader in the Conquest book than I did in A Great and Terrible King.

I have read your book about the Norman Conquest and I noticed that you say in your intro that you were neither pro English nor pro Norman. When I read the account of William’s Harrying in the North, I couldn’t help but be affected emotionally by the brutality of his actions. Did this change your feelings toward either side or did you manage to still remain impartial to either side?

I don't think my feelings towards either side changed greatly during the writing of the book. I don't feel particularly strongly disposed either way, because I don't identify particularly with either the English or the Normans - these were people from a thousand years ago, so it's possible to view their lives more dispassionately than say, the lives of one's grandparents. The Harrying was a terribly brutal episode, and it seems clear that, although historians will rightly point out harrying was standard practice in medieval warfare, the scale of the suffering in 1069-70 shocked some contemporaries. I gave the last word to Orderic Vitalis, who condemned William for the Harrying, because I think his reaction is a fair one.

Was there anything about the two protagonists, William and Harold, that you admired or disliked?

Again, not really. I don't think in the eleventh century it's really possible to reveal the true characters of these individuals, so judging them or developing feelings for them seems fairly redundant. What we think we know of Harold is based on the description of him in a book commissioned by his sister; what we think we know of William is written by his sycophantic chaplain, William of Poitiers. Both should be taken with a large dollop of salt.

If you had to pick a side, which one would it have been and why?

I say in the introduction to the Conquest book that I'd pick the Normans, but only because I know they're going to win. I don't think if I'd lined up with Harold it would have made much different to the result.

Many people believe Edward I to have been a rotten king, cruel and vicious. How would you describe him having written a biography of him?

Well, I'd certainly reject that description. He was considered by his contemporaries - and not just his English subjects - to be one of the greatest kings that had ever reigned. I don't even think that in the first half of his reign he showed himself to be particularly cruel and vicious - no more so than any other contemporary ruler, and certainly not as cruel as, say, King John, or Henry I, or William the Conqueror. One of the most significant judgements on Edward's character comes from the author of the 'Song of Lewes', written in the wake of the Battle of Lewes, and - crucially - written by his enemies. It praises his valour and commends his conduct in the battle. What it condemns him for is duplicity, and that was a charge repeated by others throughout his life. The Welsh complained of it, and so did the Scots. In the case of Scotland, the charge is hard to throw out. Edward resorted to some fairly low chicanery and bullying to get the Scots to admit he was their overlord. In the end, of course, these tactics came back to bite him, and the Scots vindicated their right to independence. It was only during the last couple of years of his life, fighting final campaign in Scotland, that his actions can be considered truly cruel and vicious.

What is it about the 13th century that drew you to study that period?

My A Level history was fifteenth and sixteenth century England, beginning with the Wars of the Roses. Those wars of course are the prequel to the Tudor period, but to me they always felt like the end of story, and I wanted to know the beginning. I kept reading passing references to Magna Carta, Simon de Montfort and so on, and thinking, 'I'd like to know more about that'. There was a big gap in my knowledge after the Norman Conquest, which I'd done in my early teens. When I got to university I was delighted to discover that there was a course that covered the period 1066-1400.

The other reason was good teachers. In London I was taught by David Carpenter, who is one of the leading experts on the thirteenth century, with a great skill in communicating with his students and enthusing them to learn.

When researching for your debut book Castle, what was the most enjoyable aspect? 

Spending a lot of time in the castles themselves. That book was written to accompany a TV series, so the research had mostly been done before I sat down to write. I'd been shut up in the Bodleian Library and the National Archives for several years, so it was very liberating to be taken around the country to all these spectacular buildings and asked lots of questions by an enthusiastic bunch of TV people. The collaborative aspect of making a TV programme was fun, and very productive in terms of ideas.

Do you have a favourite castle and why?

Yes, Dover. I would not have said that five years ago, but since then English Heritage have completely transformed the visitor experience there by fitting out the Great Tower so it looks like a twelfth century royal palace. They have taken an empty building and made it magical. My two sons (aged 5 and 3) love going there, and since we live not far away, we're there almost every other week.

Tell us briefly about the Bigod family and what fascinated you about them?

I think there you've made an a priori assumption! There was plenty about the Bigods that singularly failed to fascinate me - not least spending months tracing their debts to the crown in royal financial accounts. The Bigods were earls of Norfolk in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, one of the most powerful families in England, and as such major players in national politics. So part of the 'fun' (perhaps too strong a word) of studying them was the ability to look at those politics in detail from a particular point of view. I think the bit I enjoyed the most was researching their affairs in Wales and Ireland, where they also acquired major estates in the thirteenth century. I knew very little about Welsh and Irish society, so this opened up new topics to me.

Which of your books gave you the most of a headache to write and which the most enjoyment?

They seem to be getting progressively harder. Castle was the most fun to write - it was my first, and I had to write it quite quickly to coincide with the TV series. I also remember enjoying writing Edward I, though it involved a lot more work. With The Norman Conquest it was very difficult to find a way to sustain the narrative beyond the Harrying of the North, and the last chapters didn't come together until quite late.

And what now for you?

I'm working on a biography of King John. It's an even bigger headache than The Norman Conquest...

You can find all Marc's books on amazon and other leading book sites. 
You can follow Marc on Facebook and Twitter.