Hello and welcome to today's history lesson.

My name is Mr. Merrett and I'll be guiding you through today's lesson.

So let's get started.

Today's lesson, looking at the Norman England historic environment, is focusing on how to structure your answer to the historic environment question.

And by the end of today's lesson, we'll be able to understand ways to approach the 16-mark historic environment question.

In order to do that, we need to use some key terms. And our key terms for today are second order concepts, continuity, causation, and consequence.

Second order concepts are ways in which questions about history are shaped.

Continuity means when something continues without changing.

Causation is why something happens, what its causes are, and consequence are the results or impacts of something.

Today's lesson will consist of three separate learning cycles and our first learning cycle is looking at knowledge about the sites.

So let's get going.

Now, sometimes historians look at the causes of things in Norman England, such as why William won the Battle of Hastings.

And sometimes historians are interested in what changed or stayed the same, what continued after the Norman Conquest or what happened as a consequence of events or actions.

And all of these things are second order concepts.

So the four second order concepts we focus on are change, continuity, causation, and consequence.

So there's four Cs, it's a good way to remember it.

All historic environment questions will feature one second order concepts.

So your question will be about change, continuity, causation, or consequence.

We know that, we just don't know which one it's gonna be.

So for example, you could have the question, defence was the main reason for Norman castle building.

How far does a study of Wales and the Norman Conquest support the statements? So the phrase, "The main reason for," shows the question is about causation.

What was the reason for means the same as as what cause? So you might have slightly different phrasing in a question, but as long as you understand what that phrasing actually means, which one of those four reasons of focusing on you should be okay.

So quick check for understanding now.

Which of these statements is about causation? Is it religious devotion was the main reason for cathedral building in Norman England? Is it church reforms under Lanfranc had relatively little impact in Norman Wales? Or is it that Normans kept more than they changed in government and law in England? Make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose A, then very well done.

That's the correct answer.

Now, historians do not always agree with each other about change, continuity, causation or consequence or very little.

Actually, historians are notoriously argumentative.

But one might argue that there was very little continuity while another might argue that in fact, there was very little change.

Historians certainly do not always agree about the causes or consequences of historical events or processes.

And even if they do agree on them, then they might not agree about their relative importance.

Any reason for an argument effectively is if you get a bunch of historians in a room, there'll probably be an argument.

So quick check for understanding again now.

Which second order concepts are these two historians arguing about? So the first historian says, "In my view, Norman tactics were much less significant than Harold's basic lack of preparation.

He rushed down to Hastings without all his troops and his best troops were exhausted after a rapid march south from York." Whereas the other historian says, "The victory at the Battle of Hastings was because of superior Norman tactics.

The feigned retreat was crucial.

It weakened the Anglo-Saxon shield wall until the Normans could break through it." So which of those second order concepts are these two historians arguing about? Make your choice now.

Okay, so if you said they were arguing about causation, then congratulations, you are correct, looking at the causes of William's victory at Battle of Hastings.

Now, in order to be convincing, historians need to do more than state their argument.

It's no good just saying this is what I think 'cause it won't stand up to any sort of counterargument.

They need to use evidence to back up their claim.

And it's exactly the same for you as well.

When you answer your historic environment question, you need to use your knowledge about your historic environment site in order to support your points.

So you need to discuss the Norman impact on Wales in order to back up any points that you make.

So here's what I've got for you.

Now, here's part of an answer to a question about the main reason for Norman castle building.

So it says, "Defence was certainly the most important factor for Norman castle building in the Welsh Marches.

Hereford Castle and Shrewsbury Castle both experienced rebel attacks in 1067 and 1069, and successfully defended Norman forces.

When the expansion of Norman control was reversed in 1094, castles in northern Wales were vital for protecting retreating Normans.

In the Revolt of the Earls, Ralph evaded capture in Norwich Castle, while Roger de Breteuil, in the Marches, was captured." Now, what I want you to think about is within this answer, where has the student used their own knowledge? So pause the video, have a little read of it again, have a think about it, and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you realised that apart from that first sentence, the whole paragraph is filled with the student's own knowledge.

That first sentence, the student makes their points and then everything else after that is then backing up their point with specific evidence.

And that's the sort of frame that you want to follow as well in your answer.

Now, here's another part of a student's answer.

This is part of a check for understanding here.

How many pieces of relevant evidence are used to support the answer here? So the answer says, "The main reason for Norman castle building in Wales was colonisation.

Normans used castles as a base for expansion into Welsh territory, such as Rhuddlan Castle in the north or Chepstow Castle in the south.

As soon as new territory was taken, Normans built a castle there to provide security, as happened in the settlement of Montgomery.

This produced a chain of castles stretching into Wales, such as the chain from Chester to Rhuddlan in Deganwy in the north and from Hereford to Chepstow to Caerleon and Cardiff in the south." Now, has a student used one piece of relevant information, two pieces of relevant evidence or three or more? So have a read of it again and then make your choice.

Okay, so hopefully, you've realised that the student for this answer has used three or more.

It's just filled with relevant evidence, this particular answer here.

Okay, it's time for our first task for today.

So I'd like to use your knowledge about Wales and the Norman Conquest to add relevant detail to support these arguments in the table on the screen in front of you.

So the main reason for castle building was, and we've got there either defence, economics or control.

And what evidence can you think of that supports each of those three points? If you can, try and think of at least two pieces of evidence for each one, that's the ideal.

But if you can get at least one piece, then that's a good start.

So pause the video whilst you complete this task and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hope you got on okay with that task.

Let's think about the evidence that you could have included then.

So the question, the main reason for castle building was defence.

Some evidence you can include to support that point could be that steep-sided mottes, for instance, Cardiff Castle was 12 metres high.

It's the highest motte in Wales.

They were surrounded by ditches, moats, and palisade walls.

So all of those are evidence to support the idea that castles were built for defence.

If the question is that main reason for castle building was economics, you could argue that the Marcher earls had powers to grant trading privileges to settlers.

They could set up new markets and could found new towns.

So all of that supports the idea that castles were built for the idea of improving the economy.

If the question involves the whole idea that the main reason for castle building was control, well, it could argue that Anglo-Saxons were replaced by Normans in the Marches and Welsh princes swore allegiance to Norman overlords.

And again that suggests that castles were built in order to control the population.

If you've got different evidence to myself, then that's absolutely fantastic.

The more evidence you can throw into an argument, the better.

I know you've got my evidence as well.

So hopefully, you've got plenty of evidence now if one of those questions crops up.

Okay, let's go for our second learning cycle for today, which is looking at adding alternatives.

Now, when discussing an historical topic, historians make counterarguments if they disagree with another historian's interpretation.

And again, it's not enough just to say to somebody, "I don't agree with what you say." You need to say, "I don't agree with what you say because," and then explain, hopefully with evidence, about why you don't agree with it.

And this is called adding an alternative viewpoint.

So you will need to add alternative viewpoints when writing your answer to the historic environment question.

It doesn't really matter if you actually agree with the statement in the question.

I mean, it's great if you do, it certainly makes your life a little bit easier.

You still need to demonstrate that you understand alternative viewpoints.

So you need to include a variety of alternative viewpoints, regardless of whether you believe them or not.

Now, here's an idea for you.

So the first historian will make an argument and in this case, the example I've got here is that "the main reason for Norman castle building was defence.

Over 100 castles were constructed in the Marches and this was done to secure the border, defend settlers against raids from Wales into England and protect towns like Hereford from English rebellions.

The alternative viewpoints coming from the second historian" would be the case of and "Although important, that was not the main reason.

The threat from Wales had been neutralised by Harold and Tostig Godwinson.

In England, castles could only be built with the king's permission.

In the Marches, individual barons were free to build castles and they did this to show off their individual power and influence." So hopefully, there you can see that the second historian is not just saying that I don't agree with you and then leaving it there.

They're going on to explain the reasons why they don't agree with that first historian, and that's what you need try and do as well.

And again, another example here for you, the argument from the first historian could be that "the main reason for Norman castle building in Wales was to impress.

Both Chepstow and Cardiff castles feature large halls, which were used by the king and his nobles to carry out ceremonies, such as rRhys ap Tewdwr swearing fealty to William I in 1081." And again, the alternative argument provided by the second historian could go along the lines of "this was important for a few castles, but most of the 100 castles built in the Welsh Marches before 1215 are small and were constructed as a base for a garrison of troops and for the security of the local baron and his family.

As the borderlands became more secure, many were abandoned as lords moved to more comfortable manor houses.

So again, hopefully, you can see how different arguments can bounce off of each other and create really good alternative arguments there.

Now, quick check for understanding now.

The Normans built castles to control trade and increase the money they took from trade.

Which is the correct counterargument to that point? Is it that the Normans used castles as a base for administration over the area controlled by the castle, including tax collection? Is it that Norman castles were often built close to churches or cathedrals to show that God supported their rule over England? Or is it that in the short-term, building castles decreased trade because of the clearing of buildings and markets during construction? Make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose C, then very well done.

That's the correct answer.

Now, the historic environment question puts forward just one argument.

It'll provide a statement.

So for example, the main reason for something, for A, was something else, was B.

The main reason for A was B.

Then you are asked to the extent to which you agree with that statement.

So what you will need to do once you've read that question is this: you need to explore the evidence to support the argument in the question.

How convincing is it? What evidence is there to back up the statement in the question? Once you've done that, you can explore one or more other arguments.

Ideally, you want probably about two other arguments.

So two alternative viewpoints would be the ideal answer you could provide there.

So you could say that maybe the main reason for A is actually C or D, so that'd effectively be a really, really good basic structure you could use to answer this question.

So here's an example, here's a question about Wales and the Norman Conquest and it is defence was the main reason for Norman castle building.

How far does a study of Wales and the Norman Conquest support their statements? Explain your answer.

So that's what a question could very well look like in an exam.

What we need to think about is what other reasons for castle building could we consider? What alternative viewpoints could you use for your second and third paragraphs? So pause your video whilst you have a little think about that, and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

So here's what you could say for one of your alternative viewpoints.

You could say that actually, it's for defence, which is what the question is asking.

Could also be to intimidate.

Castles were also built to impress.

They were built to improve the economy, they were built to control and they were also built for administrative purposes.

So as you only ideally wanna talk about three of these issues, there's plenty that you could talk about.

So there's plenty of different evidence that you could introduce to support any one of a number of different points depending on what the question asks you.

Okay, quick check for understanding now.

How many of the missing alternatives can you recall? So in that mind map from the previous slide, what can you remember? So pause the video whilst you have little think about the ones that are missing, and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

So let's see which ones you can remember.

So reasons that Normans built castles was because of defence, it was built to intimidate, they were built to impress, they were built to improve the economy, for control and for administrative purposes.

So hopefully, you remembered well, ideally all but at least most of those as well would be great.

Okay, so quick practise question now.

So here's the same question again.

Defence was the main reason for Norman castle building.

How far does a study of Wales and the Norman Conquest support the statement? Explain your answer.

I'm now gonna show you the start of a student's answer to this question.

And what I would like you to do is continue the answer by adding alternatives.

So what other viewpoints could you include to counter that statement? So here's the first bit.

Defence was certainly an important reason for Norman castle building because the Normans were invaders in a foreign land.

William only had around about 8,000 soldiers with him to control two million Anglo-Saxons or roughly 150,000 Welsh.

So the Normans were outnumbered in both England and Wales and needed a way to keep themselves safe.

However, other reasons were important too.

Now, to help you out, I've got some sentence starters, which you can use as well to help you with this question.

So pause the video whilst you have a go at this and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hope you got on okay with that task.

Let's think what you could have said then.

So your alternative answers could be that another important reason for Norman castle building was intimidation.

This was important for the Normans because rebellions occurred all across England in the years following the Norman Conquest.

The Normans always followed the same patterns: military defeat of the rebels, followed by the construction of a motte-and-bailey castle.

Raised up above settlements, these castles dominated the landscape as a constant reminder of Norman power.

Each housed a garrison of troops.

Both Hereford Castle and Shrewsbruy Castle were successfully defended against rebellions, which showed the local people that resistance was hopeless.

It was actually expansion of control, not defence.

That was the main reason for Norman castle building because in Wales and the Welsh Marches, earls and carons used castles and castelries to secure land that they had gained from Welsh control.

As soon as new territory was taken, Normans put a castle there to provide security, as happened in the sediment of Montgomery.

Over time, this produced a chain of castles stretching into Wales, such as the chain from Chester to Rhuddlan to Deganwy in the north and from Hereford to Chepstow to Caerleon and Cardiff in the south.

Now, if you've got different evidence to myself, then that's fantastic, but hopefully what you have done though is you continued the same structure.

So you've made your point and you've backed it up with specific evidence.

If you've done that, then it's fantastic.

This is exactly what you want to do.

Okay, let's go on then to our third and final learning cycle for today, which is looking at reaching a judgement.

So one really good way to answer the historic environment question could very well look like this.

So you wanna unpack the question, first of all, and what I mean by that is what is the second order concept that you're being asked about? So which of those four Cs are you being asked to focus on? Once you've done that, you wanna think about what knowledge do you have in regard to the question argument? So what evidence is there to support the point that is being made in the actual question itself? Following that, what alternative arguments are there? What could you say in response to that statement? And then can you do the same again? And obviously, using your own knowledge to back up any arguments.

And then finally, and this is what we're gonna look at now, you wanna include a judgement.

So how far do you agree with that statement? Now, it's worth pointing out that there isn't a right or wrong answer to these statements.

You will never be marked down because the examiner disagrees with your point of view.

The only thing they're looking for is that you are able to reach an opinion, that you can make a judgement and that you can back that judgement up with specific evidence.

If you can do that, it genuinely doesn't matter what your opinion is, you can't be wrong, which is brilliant.

Really, really good to know.

So quick check for understanding.

What is missing from the bottom of the diagram there that we've just looked at in the previous slide? So pause the video whilst you think about that and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you remembered that what's missing is the judgement , the extent to which you agree with the statement in the question.

Okay, so unpacking the question means identifying what judgement it is asking you to make.

So here's an example.

The main change introduced by the Norman Conquest was a change in landholding.

How far does a study of Wales and the Norman Conquest support their statements? Explain your answer.

You should refer to Wales and the Norman Conquest and your contextual knowledge.

So that's a genuine normal question there.

That's what you would see in an exam.

Now, in terms of what this question is looking for, it's looking for the second order concept of change.

So that's what you wanna look at there.

In terms of the arguments, well, it's that the change in landholding was the main change from the Norman Conquest.

So what evidence do you have to support that point of view? And then also, you need to include your own evidence to try and think of alternative viewpoints.

But once you've done that, ideally twice, you don't wanna think about the judgement.

To what extent do you actually agree with that statement? Do you think that a change in landholding was the main change from the Norman Conquest in Wales? And again, it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with that statement, what matters is that you can back up your point of view with evidence.

It's the only thing the examiner will be judging you on.

And again, you want to ideally be backing up your evidence with examples from the historic environment.

So in this case, in Wales, after the Norman Conquest.

So does your evidence from the historic environment support your opinion or not? So how do you reach your judgments? Well, firstly, you need to consider the question's argument against what you know from your historic environment sites and then how far does what you know support that argument? If it supports it, then great, you can say, "I am in favour of the statement." If actually your evidence suggests that this statement is wrong, that's fine as well.

Just explain why it's wrong.

You then wanna try to think about alternative arguments.

So if you do think the statement is not correct, what statement would be correct? So what alternative arguments could be used instead? And again, try and think of at least two if you can.

If you do agree with the statement, that's absolutely fine.

Why might other people think differently though? So what alternative viewpoints might others have and why might they hold those viewpoints? That's what I'm trying to explain as well.

Demonstrate that you understand that people have different opinions.

Once you've done that, how far does what you know support the alternative arguments? So how good is the evidence to support the alternative argument? You can make a judgement over those as well.

And then finally, use your decision about how far to make your judgement.

You don't have to fully agree or fully disagree with the statement.

You can partially agree or partially disagree as long as you explain the reason for your partial agreement or disagreement.

That's absolutely fine.

Okay, another quick check for understanding.

So here's another historic environment-style question.

What is the judgement you're being asked to make? So the Norma's built castles in order to impress.

How far does a study of Wales and the Norman Conquest support this statements? So discuss your answer with a partner.

Pause the video whilst you do that, and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Now, if you said how far do you agree that the main reason why the Normans built castles was to impress, that's effectively what the question is asking there.

So if you understood that that's what the question's asking you, then very well done.

That's exactly what you need to do.

Now, you can always make judgments all the way through your answer.

You don't have to wait until the final paragraph to make your judgement.

In fact, if you can make a judgement throughout your answer, that's absolutely brilliant.

It's what's known as a sustained judgement and that's a really good skill to be able to impress the examiners with.

So what you could do, first of all, is think about in that first paragraph there, when you are discussing the statements, how far do you agree with the statements? And explain that in your first paragraph.

And again, when you get to the next two alternative viewpoints, how far do you agree with those viewpoints? It's absolutely fine to include alternative viewpoints that you completely disagree with.

It's perfectly fine to do that because you can then explain why somebody would think that and then go on to explain why you think it's wrong.

And it's that level of explanation, that level of understanding you can demonstrate, that's what you're really being judged on.

So if you can do that, it's absolutely brilliant.

Now, you need to use your knowledge to make your judgement and the specific historic environment knowledge is best.

If you know things about Norman England in general, that's brilliant, you definitely include that.

But if you know things about the historic environment that supports your point, then that's even better.

That's the ideal situation for this question.

Students sometimes write general answers without referring enough to their historic environment and they are not successful answers.

They might demonstrate that they know something about this particular question, but unless they can back it up with specific evidence and evidence which comes from the historic environment, they're not gonna score very highly, unfortunately.

So here's a quick check for understanding.

Here's the question: the Normans built castles in order to impress.

What I want you to think about though is how far does Aisha agree with the statements? So Aisha says, "A really important factor in castle building was the need for the Normans to impress the local people.

Wherever possible, the Normans built their castles using existing Roman fortifications in order to suggest continuation, and imply that they were the natural heirs to the Romans.

At Cardiff and at Caerleon, castles were built within Roman ruins, at Caerleon within a huge Roman fort." So does Aisha 100% agree with the statements? Does she agree a bit, about 50% agree with the statements or does she completely disagree with the statements? So read Aisha's answer again and then make your judgement.

Okay, if you said that Aisha completely agrees with the statement, then very well done.

You've understood the point that Aisha's trying to make here.

And another quick check for understanding.

I'd like you to add a judgement to Aisha's answer to show that she agrees that the Normans built castles in order to impress.

So with the same paragraph that she wrote before, we're just now adding a sustained judgement at the end of that paragraph.

So pause the video while you do that and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got okay with this task.

So it could have said at the end of Aisha's statement was that this shows that the main reason was to impress because the Normans were very capable of building castles that could defend against any Anglo-Saxon or Welsh attacks without the need for any Roman walls.

So hopefully, you've understood the point that Aisha was making and you've understood how to round it off by providing a judgement at the end.

Okay, let's go for our next task for today.

So I've got a table on the screen in front of you here, and what we'd like you to do is to complete the table by providing possible reasons for Norman castle building.

And I've helped you out by providing counterarguments for you to kind of steer your argument in that particular direction.

So for instance, if the question was the main reason for castle building was defence, make a point, and then the counterarguments to the point that you make would be that the Normans often gained control in Wales by playing one Welsh prince off against their rival.

So what the argument to that'd be? The main reason for castle building might be to impress.

And a counterargument could be many of the 100 small castles in the Marches were abandoned as soon as the area became safe.

What argument though could you make to say that castle building was built to impress? And then finally, if the main reason for castle building was economic improvements, a counterargument could be that castle building often involved destroying houses, for instance, 51 were knocked down in Shrewsbury.

What argument could you make to say that actually, economic improvement was the main reason for castle building? So pause the video whilst you complete this task and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on okay with that task.

So let's think about what you could have said then.

So in terms of an argument to say that the main reason for castle building was defence, you could have said that the Normans only had a limited number of soldiers and settlers needed security.

And that ties in nicely with the counterargument there as well.

If castles were built to impress, you could argue that castles were built to dominate the landscape, like Chepstow Castle, high above the river Wye.

And finally, if the main reason for castle building was for economic improvement, well, you could argue that Marcher earls redeveloped towns around castles, founding new markets.

If you've got different arguments then myself, that's absolutely brilliant, you've now got a variety of arguments to support those perspectives.

Okay, let's go for our final task for today.

So I'd like you to consider, how far do you agree that the need to impress was the main reason for Norman castle building? I'd like you to write one paragraph explaining your judgement , and I'd like to make sure that your judgement is based on knowledge of the historic environment.

So it is based on knowledge of Norman Wales.

So pause the video whilst you complete this task and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully, you got on okay with that task.

So let's think of what you could have said then.

So you could have said that although the need to impress was an important factor in castle building, it was not the main reason for castle building in Wales and the Welsh Marches.

It is true that Chepstow castle was built in an imposing location and Cardiff Castle was raised up in a 12-meter-high motte.

But the primary function of most castles in Wales and the Marches was military control.

For example, in Hereford, Shrewsbury and Chester, castles were built as defences against raids and rebellions.

Furthermore, castles were also a key factor in Norman colonisation in Wales with castles being built to secure new territories and resulting in chains of castles spreading west in both north and south Wales.

Now again, if you have a different opinion to me, that's absolutely fine.

You will not be marked down because you have a different opinion to the examiner.

Hopefully though what you have done similar to myself is you've supported your opinion with specific evidence, and you've explained why your evidence supports the point of view that you're trying to make.

If you've done that, I'm sure your answer is great.

You could have said though, "The need to impress was a critical reason for the building of castles in Wales and the Marches.

This is shown by the choice of location for Chepstow Castle on a high location from where it could be seen by anyone travelling along the River Wye or the River Severn.

It was also constructed in stone from 1067, adding to its impressiveness and contained a great hall where King William and his successors could hold grand ceremonies in which Welsh princes swore allegiance to their overlord.

Cardiff Castle was likewise constructed on a 12-meter-high motte, raising it high above the lowland landscape, visible to everyone travelling along the old Roman road through South Wales, making it a truly impressive site.

So again, if you do support the statement, that's the sort of answer you could provide there as well.

Lots of evidence to back up why you hold your point of view.

An even better answer might be to briefly discuss the alternative viewpoints that you mentioned in your answer as well and explain again why they are not as important as the stated points that the question provides you with.

Okay, let's summarise today's lesson now then.

So all historic environment questions will feature one second order concepts, either change, continuity, causation or consequence.

Different arguments can be made about change, continuity, causation, or consequence.

And historians make judgements about how far they agree with an argument on the basis of evidence.

In writing answers to historic environment questions, using knowledge about the site is very important.

Thank you very much for joining me today.

Hope you've enjoyed yourself.

Hope you learned something and hopefully I'll see you again next time.

Bye-bye.