Hello and welcome to today's history lesson.

My name is Mr. Merritt, 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 the Marcher earls.

And by the end of today's lesson, we'll be able to explain the role of the Marcher earls.

In order to do that, we need to use some key terms. And our key terms for today are Marcher and earldom.

Marcher is connected to the marches, which is the borderland between Wales and England.

And an earldom is the territory controlled by an earl.

Today's lesson will consist of three separate learning cycles, and our first learning cycle is looking at Eadric the Wild and the threat from Wales.

So let's get going.

Now, the Normans were able to take control of the Southeast of England relatively quickly, and relatively easily as well.

This area had been under control of the Godwinsons, and as king, William I could transfer earldoms from a dead Godwinson to a Norman supporter.

Elsewhere in England, however, the situation was very, very different.

The Normans faced a wave of unrest with new rebellions and resistance popping up in new locations just as quickly as they'll put down in others.

On the screen in front of you there, there's a map of England with just an idea of some of the bigger rebellions that are taking place during the early years of the Norman Conquest.

And as you can see, they're all over the kingdom of England.

Now, Wales itself was not a major threat to Norman control of England following the defeat of Gruffyd ap Llewellyn during the reign of Edward the Confessor.

The reason being is once again, it was divided between squabbling princes, but there was always the threat of dissatisfied English Earls making alliances with Welsh leaders that resulted in attacks on English settlements in the Welsh marches.

And that had happened relatively recently in Leominster, Hereford, and Worcester as well.

Now, such an alliance did indeed take place in 1057 when an important thing from Mercia, a man called Eadric allied with the Welsh princes of Gwynedd and Powys.

I apologise now for my pronunciation here, and they were Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, and his brother , Rhiwallon ap Cynfyn.

Eadric the Wild, as he is known, and his Welsh allies then attacked Hereford.

Hereford Castle had been rebuilt or reinforced y Harold Godwinson since the 1055 attack by Gruffyd ap Llewellyn, and this time the castle's defences held, and the attack was repulsed.

Eadric and his troops retreated to Wales but in 1069, Eadric and Bleddyn attacked into England again.

This time, raiding Shrewsbury together with Anglo-Saxon rebels from Chester who had links to Earl's Edwin of Mercia.

The town was burned, but as in Hereford, the attempt to take over Shrewsbury Castle was not successful.

Eadric the Wild was then defeated and battled by an army, led by William FitzOsbern.

Eadric then submitted to the King of England and actually ended up fighting for him in later conflicts.

Okay, let's have a quick check for understanding, and it's a discussion based question.

"How much of a threat to England did Wales pose in the 1070s?" So pause the video while you consider that question and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hope you've got okay with that question.

Now, you could have said that it was a a limited amount of a threat, and the reason being is that Wales was divided into several small kingdoms, but there was the potential for dissatisfied English earls to make alliances with Welsh kings, and that then would've increased the threat.

There's a precedent for this as well, which is set in the 1050s Leominster, Hereford, and Worcester were attacked in exactly this manner.

So, hopefully you got something along the lines of what I've got on the screen there in front of you as well.

And it's another check for understanding now.

"Which two towns did Eadric the Wild attack with his Welsh allies in the 1060s? Was it Chester, Hereford, Shrewsbury, or Worcester?" Make your choices now.

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

There's the correct answers.

Right, let's go for our first task for today.

So I'd like you to complete the debate between the two students on the screen, that's Lucas and Sofia, by including two pieces of evidence to support each of their arguments.

So Lucas's argument is that "Eadric the Wild was a huge threat to the Marcher region.

He posed a significant problem for William's early reign." Where Sofia argues, well actually, "Edward the Wild was not a major problem for William.

He was more of a nuisance." So can you provide two pieces of evidence to support both of those arguments? Pause the video while you complete that task, and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

I hope you've got okay with that task.

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

So two pieces of evidence to support Lucas's perspective could be that "William had only been king for a few months when Eadric rebelled, so William was not in a strong position to fight this threat as he could not rely on any of his Anglo-Saxon lords, and he was also putting down rebellions elsewhere.

Eadric had the support of Welsh princes and some Anglo-Saxon earls, which gave him enough strength to burn down the border town of Shrewsbury." So maybe you've got an argument similar to what I have there, or maybe you've got different evidence that can support Lucas's perspective as well.

In terms of Sofia's interpretation, well, you could have argued that, "Although Eadric had support for his rebellion, the combined power of Eadric and his supporters was not strong enough to take on a Norman motte-and-bailey castle, despite repeated attempts.

The Normans were safe, Eadric was also defeated in his first major battle by William, who then offered him a place in his army.

If he had been a major threat, there's no way William would've trusted him enough to fight alongside him." So again, maybe you've got different evidence that supports Sofia's point of view.

If you did, then that's fantastic, but if not, then perhaps you've got the same as me, which is great as well.

But either way, hopefully you've found some evidence to support both perspectives there.

Okay, let's move on to our second learning cycle for today, which is looking at the Marcher earldoms. Now, Wales provided opportunities for English rebels, which caused problems for the Normans.

The borderlands of the Welsh Marchers, which are a very long way from the centre of Norman Power in England, were not fully under either Welsh or English control.

And they offered hiding places for those planning resistance as well as that Welsh princes might take advantage of the chaos over the border in England to expand their territories to the East.

And in response to this, William I created three new Marcher earldoms to defend the Welsh Marchers, and that's Chester, Shrewsbury, and Hereford.

And he then appointed some of his most trusted followers as the very first Marcher earls.

So there's William FitzOsbern was the Earl of Hereford, which is the southern most of those Marcher earldoms. And that's from 1067, he became the Earl of Hereford.

There's Roger of Montgomery as Earl of Shrewsbury, which was in the middle, and there was Hugh d'Avranches as the Earl of Chester, and that's in the 1060s.

And Chester was the northern most of those Marcher earldoms. Now, it's worth actually pointing out that Hugh d'Avranches was actually the second Earl of Chester.

It was actually Gerbod the Fleming, who was the very first Earl of Chester and Hugh d'Avranches took over in 1070 from Gerbod.

Now, aside from the trust that William had in these men was that William FitzOsbern had been one of William's regents for England in 1067.

And Roger of Montgomery had been William's regent in Normandy in 1066.

So when William wasn't present in these countries, two of those three Marcher earls were controlling those countries on William's behalf.

So it just goes to show just how important these Marcher earldoms were to William, that he was prepared to give them over to people who he also prepared to give over the running of a whole country or a dutchie for him when he was absent.

Okay, let's have a quick check for understanding now.

"So which three towns were converted into Marcher earldoms? Was it Chester, Hereford, Shrewsbury or Worcester?" So make three choices now.

Okay, if you chose A, B, and C, then very well done.

Those are the correct answers.

And another check for understanding.

"What was the primary purpose of the Marcher earldoms? Was it to collect taxes for the king? Was it to defend the Welsh border? Or was it to train new knights? Make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose B then very well done.

That is the correct answer.

Okay, so the Marcher earldoms were designed to impose Norman control, but also to encourage Norman colonisation.

So they were of a smaller size about the size of a shire, which made them easier to control since Norman troops could ride out to put down trouble wherever it occurred.

Marcher earls had the powers to create new towns, markets, and Norman churches in order to attract settlers from Normandy and France more generally.

Sheriffs reported directly to the March earls, and in the vast majority of other areas around England, sheriffs were usually the king's representatives in the Shires.

And this enabled the earls respond quickly to any uprisings or disobedience, and to lay down Norman law in the Shire courts.

The Marcher earls, well amazingly, were allowed to keep the taxes that they collected instead of sending it to the king, which is what happened everywhere else in England.

And this was in order to incentivize them to invest in development and defences of their earldom.

So they was expected not to keep the money off themselves.

They're expected to use that money to make their earldom stronger.

Marcher earls could also build castles without asking the king for permission, which were use to control the area.

Ordinarily, William was very, very keen to make sure that only he could authorise where and when castles were built, but in the Marcher earldoms, that was entirely down to the Marcher earl to decide.

So all of this meant that the Marcher earls effectively were almost as powerful as William himself within their earldoms. And this was necessary because they were so far away from the Southeast where the Normans were in control, and because Welsh raids were a constant threat, It was a risk for William to give other Normans such extensive military, legal, and economic powers.

And the reason being, of course, is that they might use these powers to try and become king themselves.

And for this reason, William only chose his most trustworthy followers to be Marcher earls.

And also as well, he kept back two really important feudal powers.

As king, William retained the right to try anyone in a Marcher earldom for treason.

And that, of course, includes the Marcher earl themselves.

And if a Marcher earl died without an heir, the earldom and all of its lands and privileges came back to the king.

Ordinarily, those lands and privileges were passed on usually to the eldest son, but for the Marcher earls, they go back to the king and the king would make the decision about where they would go next.

To take Hereford, for an example, William FitzOsbern was immediately in action.

In 1067, he led an army against Eadric the Wild to protect Norman control of the Marchers, he rebuilt and extended Hereford Castle, which probably involved clearing away houses and businesses in the process that wouldn't have made him popular amongst the local Anglo-Saxons but William FitzOsbern would've felt it would've been necessary.

Hereford's market was moved to a new site in the north, the settlement and a new Norman church was also built.

French merchants were encouraged to settle in Hereford by being given special trading privileges, which brought in extra profits.

And outside of the town itself, William FitzOsbern handed out land to his followers in parcels known as castleries.

So each vassal or follower would then build their own castle with its garrison of troops.

And this defended the farmlands, which brought in the food and taxes to support the castle and its normal inhabitants.

Okay, let's check for understanding again.

"So what were some features of Marcher earldoms?" And there are three correct answers here.

So was it that they could build castles without the king's permission? That they could keep the taxes they collected? They had powers to attract settlers from Normandy? Or they were larger sized to defend the board lands? So choose three of those options now.

Okay, if you chose A, B, and C, then very well done.

Those are the correct answers.

And let's go for our next task.

I'd like to describe two aspects of Marcher earldoms. So you could discuss this with a partner or you could explain your answer in writing, but I'd like you to provide detailed information to support each aspect.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got okay with that task.

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

So you might have said that, "One aspect of Marcher earldoms was that their earls were William's most trusted followers.

William needed to ensure that they would secured the Welsh border and not abuse their unique Marcher powers." "Another aspect was that Marcher sheriffs reported directly to Marcher earls rather than the king.

This enabled the earls to respond quickly to any uprisings or disobedience." If you've got different aspects myself, that's absolutely fine as long as you've explained it.

That's the key thing there.

And another task now.

I'd like to explain why William gave land to his followers and the Marcher earls.

And within your answer, I'd like to try and include the following.

I'd like to try and include the threats that William faced and also who was given Marcher earldoms. So pause the video while you complete this task, and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

I hope you got okay with that task.

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

You might have said that "William gave land to his followers and the Marcher earls to gain further control of England.

William faced threats from a hostile Anglo-Saxon population and invasion from Wales and Scotland.

William gave English land to his Norman supporters so they could occupy the different regions of England, build castles and stop uprisings.

William FitzOsbern, Roger of Montgomery, and Hugh d'Avranches were given Marcher earldoms, and had special powers to defend the Welsh border from invasion." So if you've discussed different aspects myself, that's absolutely fine, as long as you've explained them, then your answer's perfectly good.

Okay, let's move on to our third and final learning cycle for today, which is looking at the Norman expansion into Wales in the 1070s.

Now, King Williams' priority was for the Marcher earls to defend the border, rather than there being a definite plan to expand normal control into Wales.

As a result, while the Marcher earls and their barons did grab land from the Welsh and expand their earldoms where they could, this happened in quite a patchy way.

The biggest expansion took place in the South where William FitzOsbern pushed into Southern Wales building his magnificent castle at Chepstow from 1067.

But William FitzOsbern died in 1071 and his son, Roger de Breteuil, was only earl from 1071 to 1075 when he took part in the Revolt of the Earls.

After that period, when Roger lost his land in his titles, Hereford did not have another earl until 1141.

Roger in Montgomery and Hugh d'Avranches made similar advances into Mid Wales and North Wales.

Roger established a new town called Montgomery, building a castle on a rocky crag in the valley where controlled a crossing point of the River Severn.

Roger also founded Shrewsbury Abbey and actually became a monk himself before he died, which it turns out was quite a common way for aristocrats to rid themselves of some of the sins that they had accumulated over the years.

In Chester, Hugh d'Avranches, and his ambitious and ruthless cousin Robert, had expanded his lands westward along the North Wales coast and established a stronghold of Rhuddlan.

And Robert took the name, Robert of Rhuddlan.

The area between Rhuddlan and Chester was heavily colonised with settlers.

It also seems that Hugh d'Avranches received tribute from the kings of Gwynedd by the end of the 1070s.

But perhaps in exchange for agreeing not to invade Gwynedd itself.

Okay, let's go for another check for understanding now.

So it's a true or false statement.

"The primary role of the Marcher earldoms was to expand Norman control into Wales." Is that true or is that false? Make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose false, then congratulations, it's a false statement.

And the reason being is that the primary role was to defend and take control of the border.

There was no official plan to conquer Wales.

That said, each of the Marcher earls encouraged Norman settlers to expand into Wales.

And let's have another check for understanding now.

I like to identify two towns in Wales that came under the control of Norman Marcher earls in the 1070s.

So is that Bangor, Carmarthen, Montgomery, or Rhuddlan? Make your two choices now.

Okay.

If you chose C and D, then very well done.

Those are the correct answers.

All right, let's go for our next task for today.

So I've got an interpretation of the screen.

It's from Izzy, and she says, "The Marcher earls were more significant than William I in expanding Norman influence into Wales." And I'd like to consider, to what extent do you agree with Izzy's statement? I'd like to provide at least one piece of evidence to support Izzy's interpretation, at least one piece of evidence to contradict it, and then explain what your actual opinion is.

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

Okay.

Welcome back.

I hope you're doing okay with that task.

Let's think what you could have said then.

You could have said that, "I agree with Izzy's interpretation to some extent.

The Marcher earls had a huge amounts of power to rule without interference from King William, to the extent that they were effectively able to rule their earldoms like kings themselves.

Each of the Marcher earls built settlements and castles inside Welsh territory and encouraged Normans to move to these new strongholds, such as Chepstow, built by William FitzOsbern in 1067, and Rhuddlan built by the cousin of Hugh d'Avranches, Robert of Rhuddlan.

However, there are counter arguments to Izzy's interpretation.

William was the one who gave the Marcher earls their power, and he was able to take it away if he wished, as he did with Roger de Breteuil in 1075.

William only made his most trusted and experienced followers Marcher earldoms. So it is unlikely that they would've taken action as significant as expanding into a foreign country without first consulting with William and seeking his approval to do so.

William also gave the Marcher earls the power to attract settlers, which suggests that he wanted to do more than defend the borders.

Izzy's interpretation is fair.

As without the actions of the Marcher earls, the Norman influence in Wales may have taken much longer to be established.

While William may not have prioritise any conquest of Wales, he clearly did not object to expansion and settlement into Wales.

The Marcher earls was significant in quickly establishing a Norman presence in Wales, but this only happened with William's permission.

He used his most trusted followers to control the Marcher earldoms. So while the Marcher earls were more significant in making the expansion happen, they would not have risked doing this against William's wishes." If you hold a different opinion of Izzy's interpretation to myself, it's absolutely fine.

The really key thing though is that you can back up your opinion with evidence and fully explain why you hold that opinion.

As long as you've done that, I'm sure that's a great answer.

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

"So the small kingdoms of Wales pose little threat to England, but the contested borderlands of the Marchers meant Anglo-Saxons were able to find support in Wales for their rebellions against the Normans.

An example of this came in 1067 and 1069 when the Anglo-Saxon thegn, Eadric the Wild, gained enough support in Wales to attack Hereford and Shrewsbury.

King William created the powerful Marcher earldoms in response.

Marcher earls had significantly more power and privileges than regular earls as they needed to control and colonise the Marchers.

Although there was no plan to conquer Wales, the Marcher earls encouraged Normans to expand into Welsh territory and settle there if they could hold onto it." Thank you very much for joining me today.

Hopefully you've enjoyed yourself.

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

Bye-bye.