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 gonna be focusing on the role of the Norman barons.

And by the end of the day's lesson, we'll be able to explain the role of barons in Norman Wales.

In order to do that, we need to use some key terms, and our key terms for today are baron and vassal.

A baron is an important local landholder in Norman England, and a vassal is a landholder who receives land from their overlord in return for service.

Today's lesson will consist of three separate learning cycles, and our first learning cycle is looking at Norman barons and the earl of Hereford, so let's get going.

Now, when the Marcher earls took control of their new earldoms in Chester, Shrewsbury, and Hereford, they brought their vassals with them.

In the feudal system, vassals were people who swore allegiance to their overlord, and received land from him in return for service.

The king was at the top of the feudal hierarchy and the most important landowners, his tenants-in-chief, received their land directly from him.

The Marcher earls were tenants-in-chief, and they received their earldoms from the king in return for governing the earldoms in the king's name, and in return for providing knights for the king.

They were not the only tenants-in-chief in the Marcher earldoms. In Chester, for example, the Church also received its lands from the king.

Tenants-in-chief then divided up their lands, and handed over estate to their vassals, and these vassals including barons who played an important part in the expansion, and then later the retreat of Norman control of Wales.

And on the screen in front of you there is a very simplified version of the feudal system for you.

Let's have a quick check of our understanding now.

In return for their allegiance and promise of service, what would a vassal expect to receive from their overlord? Was it an army, a navy, or land? Make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose C, then very well done, that's the correct answer.

Now, William FitzOsbern was the earl of Hereford for four years before his death in 1071.

Historians know that he ordered the construction of Chepstow Castle, as well as Snodhill Castle, Wigmore Castle and Clifford Castle, along the border of Herefordshire and also Monmouth Castle in Wales.

His son, Roger de Breteuil, also seems to have been personally active in expanding the castlery of Chepstow Castle, taking advantage of a power struggle between Welsh rulers for control of Gwent in 1072.

And as a reminder, a castlery was an area controlled by a castle, and from which the castle took its supplies.

However, Roger later led a failed revolt against his king in 1075, which is known as the Revolt of the Earls, which resulted in his imprisonments, and the forfeiture of all of his lands and status.

As one of King Williams's most capable military leaders, his father, William FitzOsbern, would actually not have been able to spend much of his time in Hereford.

Instead, he would've had to hand over responsibility for controlling the earldom to trusted vassals, which would've been his barons.

The details are not completely certain, but Domesday records suggest that these included Roger de Pitres and Ralph de Bernay, who both held lands in Chepstow castlery.

De Pitres had previously carried out similar responsibilities in FitzOsbern's estates in Normandy.

After FitzOsbern's death, and Roger de Breteuil's disgrace, King William kept both De Pitres and De Bernay on as his sheriff's, which effectively meant that they were administering their districts directly for the King.

Turstin FitzRolph was another Norman Barron in South Wales, and historians know that he had fought with William I in the Battle of Hastings, and as a result, he had been rewarded with the states in different parts of Norman England, and these included a castlery at Caerleon, where he had built a motte and bailey castle within the remains of the Roman forts.

In the 1070s, this was the leading edge of the Norman push into Gwent, Caerleon was within the welsh Lordship of Gwynllwg.

I'm sorry if the pronunciation's off there, which was held by Owain ap Caradog.

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

And it's a true or false statement.

So the Marcher earls relied upon their vassals to defend the borders of the earldoms, and expand their influence into Wales.

Is that true or is that false? Okay, if you chose true, then very well done, it is true.

And the reason being is that the Marcher earls were frequently busy elsewhere, and did not spend much of their time in their Marcher earldoms, so the work of their vassals was essential.

Right.

Let's go for our first task force today.

I'd like you to write one paragraph explaining the benefit that the Norman barons brought to the running of the earldom of Herefordshire.

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

Okay.

Welcome back.

Hopefully you did okay with that task.

Let's think about what you could have said then.

So you could have said that the Norman barons brought several benefits to the running of the earldom of Herefordshire.

The barons administered the territory when the earl was absent, as was frequently the case.

Two of these barons, Roger de Pitres and Ralph de Bernay ran the earldom as sheriffs after the removal of Roger de Bretueil from his position in 1075, following the third Revolt of the Earls.

The barons also built their own castles, both within the earldom and in the adjoining land in Wales, in order to expand Norman influence beyond the earldom.

Turstin FitzRolph, for instance, built a castle in the neighbouring Welsh territory of Gwent.

So hopefully your answer follows a similar vein to mine in the sense that I've used a lot of specific details to support the points that I'm making there.

And if you can use at least two details per paragraph, is a really good rule of thumb, any more specific details you can get in is just a a really, really good bonus.

So that'd be great if you can do that.

Okay, let's go for our next learning cycle then, which is looking at the Norman barons and the earl of Shrewsbury.

Now historians know a little more about the Marcher earldom of Shrewsbury than Chester or Hereford, because the Anglo-Norman Chronicler, Orderic Vitalis grew up in Shropshire, and he wrote down his recollections.

According to Vitalis, Roger of Montgomery, who was the earl of Shewsbury, was too busy with his other responsibilities in England and Normandy to govern in the Marchers.

Instead, he appointed a baron known as Warin The Bald as his sheriff.

And he ordered him, according to Vitalis, to crush the Welsh and other opponents, and pacify the whole province placed under his rule.

Warin was described as small in body, but great in spirits, and he held large estates from Roger de Montgomery in the earldom.

Roger also arranged for him to marry his niece, Amieria.

And after Warin's death, Roger de Montgomery then appointed Reginald de Baliol as his sheriff, and he also got to marry his niece as well.

Roger de Montgomery's niece that is.

Warin in turn granted estates in the Marchers to his vessels, who were knights.

By the time of the Domesday Survey, almost all of the estates in the earldom were held by Normans, although there were a few Anglo-Saxons who held onto some land, though they now had Norman Lords.

In the town of Shrewsbury, 51 houses were destroyed to make room for the new castle.

And by 1086, 43 Burgesses were now French immigrants.

Likely they were mostly skilled craftspeople who were brought to help build the town's new Abbey.

Warin actually donated money for the Abbey to be built.

Warin also led raids into Powys, some of which were resulted in land gains for the Normans, and also into Cedewain in 1073 and 1074.

He was also later involved in a campaign in the (indistinct) Peninsula that the Marcher earls carried out as part of an alliance with Powys against Gwynedd.

So he's was very, very busy man.

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

So why do we know more about the earldom of Shrewsbury than the earldoms of Chester and Hereford? Is it because Orderic Vitalis wrote extensively about Shropshire.

Is it because Chester and Hereford were not earldoms. Or is it because only Shrewsbury was a centre for learning and education? Make your choice now.

Okay.

If you chose A, then very well done.

That's the correct answer.

And another quick check for understanding, I'd like to identify two changes that Roger de Montgomery made to Shrewsbury when he became earl of the region.

Was it that 51 houses were destroyed to make way of the castle? Was it that a number of French migrants came to live in the town? Was it that a statue of William I was displayed in the town square? Or was it that all Welsh people were ordered to leave the earldom? So make your two choices now.

Okay, if you chose A and B, then very well done, those are the correct answers.

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

Now, coming up on the screen in a moment, I'm gonna have some information about Orderic Vitalis, and also a description that he wrote about the leadership of Shrewsbury, and the leadership of Cheshire.

And what I'd like you to do is answer the following three questions.

So I'd like you to think about how do the leading men of Shropshire and Cheshire compare with each other? What is different about how Shropshire is governed compared to Cheshire? And finally, why might Orderic Vitalis have written about Shropshire and Cheshire in this way? So in terms of the information about Orderic Vitalis, well, Orderic Vitalis was born in Shropshire in 1075, to a French priest and an English woman.

At the age of 10, he was sent to an abbey in Normandy where he remained for the rest of his life.

He never saw his parents again.

Despite this, Orderic Vitalis never forgot his English heritage.

His father was in the service of Roger de Montgomery, who was the Earl of Shropshire, and the Abbey, where Orderic Vitalis was sent was also supported by Roger de Montgomery.

Orderic Vitalis wrote an extensive work called, "The Historia Ecclesiastica," which tells the story of much of the early years of Norman rule in England.

There's a bit of information there about Orderic Vitalis.

And he writes this about Shropshire.

So he says, "Roger de Montgomery was wise, moderate, and a lover of justice, and cherished the gentle society of intelligent men.

He gave his niece Emerie and the command of Shrewsbury to Warin the Bald, a man of smaller stature, but great courage, who bravely encountered the earl's enemies, and maintain peace throughout the district entrusted to his government." In terms of what he wrote about Cheshire, this is what he has to say here.

He says that "Hugh d'Avranches, who in concert with Robert of Rhuddan, made great slaughter among the Welsh.

He can continually wasted even his own domains, his own lands, and gave more encouragement to those who attended him in hawking and hunting than to farmers and churchmen.

He indulged in gluttony to such a degree that he became so fat that he could scarcely walk." So that's how Orderic Vitalis discusses the leadership and the leading man of Shropshire and Cheshire.

So look back at the three questions you need to answer.

Look back at the information about Orderic Vitalis, and about how he talks about Shropshire and Cheshire.

Pause the video while you complete those tasks, and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hope you did okay with that task.

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

So for question one, how do the leading men of Shropshire and Cheshire compare with each other? Well you could have said that the leading men of Shropshire are seen as wise and peaceful, whereas the leading men of Cheshire are seen as savage and sinful.

In terms of question two, what is different about how Shropshire is governed compared to Cheshire? You could have said that Shropshire is governed well, it's leading men value peace and justice, whereas Cheshire is governed poorly.

It's leading men destroy their own lands, and do not value the common people or the church.

And in terms of the third question, why might Orderic Vitalis have written about Shropshire and Cheshire in this way? Well, you could have said that Orderic Vitalists may well have been telling the truth about the differences between how Shropshire and Cheshire were governed.

However, it is possible that he exaggerated the situation in one or both of the earldoms. This is likely because Vitalis was born in Shropshire.

His father was in the service of the Earl of Shropshire, Roger de Montgomery, and the Abbey he lived in was supported by the earl, and therefore he would've wanted to paint the earl in a good light.

In contrast, Hugh d'Avranches reportedly destroyed the property of the English people in his own lands.

As Orderic Vitalis never forgot his English heritage, he may have disliked d'Avranches' actions, and subsequently chose to show d'Avranches in a bad light.

So there's different ways to interpret Orderic Vitalis, but hopefully you've understood that.

You can just interpret him in a couple of different ways, but as long as you've got the evidence and the justification for why you're doing there, then I'm sure what you've written down is a perfectly good answer.

Okay, let's move on to our third and final learning cycle for today, which is looking at the Norman barons and the Earl of Chester.

Now, we've just looked at very, very briefly at the earl of Chester, Hugh d'Avranches, so you might have a bit of an idea about how this one's gonna go.

But there was, first of all, before Hugh d'Avranches, there was the brief earlship of Gerbod the Fleming.

So he was earl of Chester for a very short period of time, and then Hugh d'Avranches actually held the earldom of Chester for over 30 years after that point.

He was, by all accounts, a very unpleasant man, but even he had a better reputation than his leading baron, and this happens to be his cousin, who was Robert of Rhuddlan, who was famous for his brutality.

Robert may have been a Norman courtier in the court Edward the Confessor, and probably already had a role in the Welsh marches before 1066.

After 1070, he became Hugh d'Avranches military enforcer in Chester, and he built himself a motte and bailey castle near Rhuddlan, in an area of North Wales that had previously been set up by English people.

Robert passed on the Marcher Trading privileges to the 18 Burgess of Rhuddlan, and as Hugh d'Avranches vassal, he shared the revenues from Rhuddlan with his overlord.

In 1072, Normans in Gwent have been able to gain territory by taking advantage of power struggles between the Welsh rulers.

And in 1075 in North Wales, a similar power struggle meant that Robert of Rhuddlan could greatly increase Norman control there.

Bleddyn, the ruler of Gwynedd, was killed in 1075, and the throne passed to his cousin Trahaearn ap Caradog, and again, I'm sorry if I've pronounced that completely wrong.

This was challenged by Gruffudd ap Cynan, who was the grandson of a former king of Gwynedd.

and Gruffudd allied with Robert of Rhuddlan, and his Norman troops.

And during the conflict that followed, Robert was able to seize control of more of the North Wales coast, up to as far as the point as the River Conwy.

And he built another castle at Deganwy.

According to contemporary reports, he butchered some of his Welsh opponents like herds of cattle, while others he threw into dungeons, or sold into slavery.

When Gruffudd ap Cynan became king of Gwynedd in 1081, he tried to take this land back from Robert of Rhuddlan, but his attempt failed, and instead he was captured and imprisoned in Chester Castle.

Robert then received a tribute of 40 pounds a year for the kingdom of Gwynedd on behalf of the king himself, not Hugh d'Avranches, because Robert himself had won these lands by conquest.

40 pounds at this point in time was a tremendously large amount of money.

Now, while impressive, the truth is that Robert had pushed too far and too fast.

The Normans were overstretched in the north of Wales, and a major revolt in 1094 was able to push Norman control back to the East.

Robert of Rhuddlan himself was actually killed in a raid.

Okay, let's go for a quick check for understanding.

And it's a true or false statement.

Norman barons took advantage of Welsh power struggles to advance Norman influence into the region.

Is that true or is that false? Make your choice now.

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

That is a true statement.

It's a true statement because the Norman's exploited Welsh dynastic squabbles in Gwent in 1072, and did so again in Gwynedd in 1075.

And another quick check for understanding, which adjective could best be used to describe Robert of Rhuddlan? Is it brutal, kind, or timid? Make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose A then very well done.

That's the correct answer.

Okay, let's go for our next task.

I've got a interpretation of the screen, is from Jun, and he says, "If the Welsh had not fought amongst themselves, they would've been able to resist the Norman expansion into their lands." What I want you to consider, to what extent do you agree with Jun's interpretation.

I'd like you to support your opinion with at least two pieces of evidence.

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

Okay, welcome back.

I hope you've did okay with that task.

Let's think about what you could have said then.

So you could have said, in one sense, Jun is correct.

It's certainly fair to say that Welsh infighting made the job of the Normans considerably easier.

For instance, Robert of Rhuddlan was able to take advantage of rivalry between Welsh leaders for the throne of Gwynedd in 1075 to expand Norman influence along the North coast of Wales.

However, it is likely that Norman influence would've expanded into Wales, even if the Welsh had been united against them, as the Normans were too strong and too numerous to withstand.

Norman castles were extremely powerful bases of both defence and attack.

And the 100 that the Normans had built in the Welsh Marches meant that the Welsh would not have been able to concentrate their forces on any specific point with much success.

The Normans also pressed into Wales, along the whole border from Chester, Shrewsbury and Hereford under the direction of a number of capable and ruthless barons.

It is unlikely that the Welsh would've been able to withstand these constant assaults along their whole border indefinitely.

Now, if you hold a different opinion to me regarding Jun's interpretation, that's absolutely fine.

That's not a problem at all.

The only thing I'm really looking for here is that you've supported your opinion with specific evidence, and then once you've done that, you explain how that evidence supports the point of view that you hold.

If you've done that, then it's a great answer.

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

So baron's were vassals of their overlords.

In return for their allegiance and service, the barons would receive land from their overlord.

The vassals of the Marcher earls were indispensable to the defence of the region, as well as crucial to the expansion of Norman influence into Wales.

Welsh infighting allowed the Normans to pit one Welsh force against another in order to weaken the Welsh and expand Norman influence.

And many of the Norman barons, such as Robert of Rhuddlan, use brutal tactics to take control of Welsh territory.

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.