Hello and welcome to today's lesson looking at migration in mediaeval England.

This lesson is part of a broader inquiry looking at the impact of migration in this period.

But for today, we'll be looking at the reasons for migration in this period, experiences, and the impact of migrants.

But in order to do that, you're going to need a piece of paper and a pen.

If you don't have one, absolutely not to worry.

Just pause the video now, get everything you need, and then come back and press play when you're ready to go.

Great work.

Now you've got your piece of paper and your pen ready, we can have a look at our lesson outcome.

And for today, you will be able to say that you can explain the reasons for migration, experiences, and impact of migrants in mediaeval England by the end of this lesson.

But in order to do that, we're going to need some keywords.

And for today, we've got four.

Danelaw, which is the area of England in the north and east controlled by the Vikings.

The Angevin Empire, which were territories in England, Wales, Ireland, and France held by Henry II and his descendants in the 12th and 13th centuries.

Assimilate, which is how far individuals or groups of migrants adopt the culture, customs, and values of the majority of people living in their new home country.

But also autonomy, which is how far individuals or groups of migrants hold onto culture, customs, and values of their homeland.

Now we've seen some definitions.

When we see them again in the context of the lesson, they'll make even more sense.

So now we can get started looking at the reasons for migration in mediaeval England.

Now in the mediaeval period, migrants moved for a variety of reasons.

Some economic, some political, some religious.

But primarily, mediaeval migrants moved for financial gain.

So primarily for economic reasons, and we can see them summarised here.

So for example, we've got the Vikings who settled in England largely due to the country's fertile land, which they knew would make them great wealth compared to their Scandinavian homelands.

The Vikings also saw another economic opportunity in England, the expansion of trade.

Therefore, in 866, they established Jorvik, Viking York, as their new Danelaw capital because they found its strategic location offered excellent trade routes.

Additionally, the Vikings only left England when they found trading opportunities elsewhere.

Similarly, Jewish migrants also moved to England under the Normans for economic reasons.

They were invited by William the Conqueror in 1070 to work as moneylenders, funding the Normans' ambitious plans to build grand cathedrals and castles.

Although not all Norman migrants in the mediaeval period were moneylenders, several migrated to follow other economic opportunities in other industries, working as doctors, cheese makers, goldsmiths, amongst others.

However, as antisemitism increased, Italian bankers were welcomed in the place of Jewish moneylenders, especially after Jewish people were expelled from England in 1270.

So we've got Vikings coming because of the fertile land.

We've got Jewish migrants being invited to work as moneylenders, but also in a variety of other industries to support the economy.

We've got Italian bankers being invited in the place of Jewish moneylenders as antisemitism increased and Jewish people were eventually expelled in 1290.

But finally, we should also consider what happened after the Norman Conquest.

So following the Norman Conquest in 1066, the Normans invited merchants and craftspeople from the Low Countries to help improve the English economy.

And you may already know that actually, despite the numbers that came with the Vikings and Normans, most migrants in the mediaeval period were merchants and craftspeople.

These migrants worked as shoemakers, blacksmiths, and candle makers, just to name a few.

This continued under Angevin rulers, including Henry III, who invited Flemish weavers to England in 1270, as he hoped to make money from the expert weavers to expand the English wool trade.

So we have loads of examples of migrants coming to England in the mediaeval period for economic reasons.

But like I said, there were other reasons.

But before we move on to those, let's have a check of our understanding very quickly.

So I'd like you to tell me which two of the following statements are true.

A, French monks migrated to work in the gold trade.

B, Vikings settled in England to expand their trade routes.

C, Jewish people migrated to work in a variety of professions.

Or D, the Angevin Empire rulers wanted to expand the silk trade.

So pause the video now, make a decision, and come back when you've got the two correct sentences for me.

Great work.

So hopefully, you said B and C.

We know that Vikings settled to expand their trade routes, and we know that Jewish people migrated to work in a variety of professions.

Really well done.

So we've already looked at the economic reasons, but when we think about the political reasons, you may already know that both the Vikings and Normans also migrated for political reasons.

In order to deal with the issue of overpopulation in Scandinavian homelands, Viking rulers invaded and settled in England in 856 with the intention of taking political control of large parts of the country.

They achieved this aim with the granting of the Danelaw in 878.

Similarly, the Normans conquered and settled in England, following William of Normandy's victory at the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

William believed that he was England's rightful ruler and successfully challenged the other claimant to the throne, Harold Godwinson, in order to take full control of England.

As a result of his victory, 10,000 Normans migrated with William, becoming the new English aristocracy.

So we've got all these economic reasons, but we've also got a load of political reasons here because the Vikings were coming due to overpopulation in their homelands to take control of large parts of England, which became known as the Danelaw.

And the Normans migrated to take control of all of England because William of Normandy believed that it was his right, and he was successful, bringing with him 10,000 Normans who would become the English aristocracy.

Now before we move on to third and final reason, we're just going to pause.

Check your understanding quickly.

So I'd like you to tell me whether this statement is true or false.

All migrants in the mediaeval period migrated for political reasons.

Pause the video now, make a decision, and then come back and press play when you've got one.

Brilliant.

Hopefully, you said that this statement is in fact false.

But we need to think about why.

Is it because not all people migrated for political reasons, but the Normans and Vikings did? Or is it because in the mediaeval period only the Vikings migrated for political reasons? Pause the video now, make a decision, and then come back and press play when you've got an answer for me.

So we know that this statement is false because not all people migrated for political reasons, but the Normans and Vikings did.

Really well done.

Let's move on to the third reason.

So in addition to economic and political reasons, some migrants also settled in England for religious reasons.

After William won the Battle of Hastings, he looked to restore the English Church and its place in Christendom.

In order to do this, he invited devout French monks to settle in England and lead his church reforms. But what we need to consider is that these reasons don't just work in isolation, because, hopefully, this little purple arrow makes it clear.

Many French monks also had an economic incentive for migration because some English monasteries also played a significant role in the wool trade.

So although there were three clear reasons for migration in this period, some of them interact with each other.

So for example, French monks came primarily to restore the English Church, but they also had an economic incentive.

We might look at the Vikings and the Normans and say there was a clear economic incentive, but there was also a clear political incentive.

Now before we put this into practise, we've got one more check of understanding and then we'll be able to talk all about the reasons for migration in the mediaeval period.

So I'd like you to have a discussion, either with the person next to you if you're doing this lesson in a classroom or at home, with someone, or if you're doing this lesson by yourself, have a go at articulating it out loud.

But I'd like you to answer my question.

Why did French monks migrate to England? And consider again about what I said about sometimes the reasons aren't fully isolated and they might interact with each other.

So pause the video now.

Give yourself enough time to articulate a response out loud, or for both of you to contribute to the discussion.

Brilliant work.

So your answer might have included some of the following points.

They were invited by William the Conqueror to restore the English Church and its place in Christendom.

Or you might have referred to him as King William the first of England.

They were invited to lead William's Church reforms. And that some were enticed by the lucrative English wool trade.

Really well done if you were able to mention these three points in your discussion.

So now I'd like you to put this into practise by explaining the main reason for migration in the mediaeval period, making sure that you've included the following in your response.

That you've made clear why the factor you've chosen is more important than the others, but also two examples to show how the factor you have chosen led to migration in the mediaeval period.

So pause the video, give yourself five to 10 minutes to complete this task, and then come back when you're done.

Brilliant work.

So your answer might have looked something like this.

Economic reasons were the main reason why people migrated in the mediaeval period, even if they also had other incentives.

One example to support this is that many Vikings settled in England in order to establish their control over the Danelaw, but others migrated as they wanted to farm England's fertile soil and expand their trade routes.

This can be seen through the establishment of Jorvik in 866 as an international trading hub and the fact that Vikings only left England when they found trading opportunities elsewhere.

Another example to support this is the French monks who migrated with the Normans in 1066.

They migrated to restore the English Church's place in Christendom and to financially gain from the lucrative wool trade which English monasteries played a significant role in.

This suggests that economic incentive was the main reason for migrants, as most migrants settled for economic reasons, even if they were also initially attracted by political or religious opportunities.

Really well done if you were able to explain, especially at the end, the relationship between the three different reasons to show why the one that you picked was the most important reason or the main reason for migration in the mediaeval period.

So now we can have a look at the experiences of mediaeval migrants.

Now thinking about the experiences of mediaeval migrants, the easiest way to try and think about a lot of information in one go is to think about the examples of positive experiences and negative experiences.

So migrants in the mediaeval period did have a variety of experiences, but this did largely depend on their relationship with authorities.

So depending on their relationship with the authorities at the time, we might put them in either side of this table.

So for example, migrants at this time were typically considered aliens.

However, for Viking migrants within the Danelaw, they avoided this, as they themselves were the authority and therefore had largely positive experiences.

Their experience was also positive because they were able to assimilate by adopting Christian practises, while also maintaining autonomy through their continuation of some pagan traditions.

And this is something that can be seen in Viking coins, depicting both Christian and pagan imagery.

Similarly, the Normans had largely positive experiences, as they also ruled England.

The Norman aristocracy, in particular, maintained their autonomy as they've continued to speak French and practised their devout Christianity.

For merchants and craftspeople in the 1300s, positive relations with authorities led to the introduction of laws that improved their experiences.

Firstly, the 1303 Charter of Merchants offered legal rights and protection to merchants, improving their legal status.

In addition, in the late 1300s, letters of denization were offered to these migrants, which meant that they received the same rights and protection as someone born in England.

However, as there was a fee to pay, this often only benefited wealthier migrants.

So thinking about the positive experiences of migrants, we've got the Vikings and the Normans who experienced England as rulers and therefore had largely positive experiences.

And for the merchants and craftspeople, where their relations with authorities was more positive in the 1300s, we can see that they had more positive experiences.

Before we look at the other side of the coin, we're just going to stop and check for understanding quickly.

So which of the following statements is an example of positive relations with authorities leading to improved experiences? A, the Charter of Merchants in 1303 offering legal rights and protection to merchants.

B, the Vikings within the Danelaw being able to assimilate into Anglo-Saxon culture.

Or C, the Normans experiencing England as rulers not aliens and therefore not facing hostility.

Pause the video now, make a decision, and then come back and press play when you're done.

Great work.

Hopefully, you picked A.

The 1303 Charter of Merchants offering legal rights and protection.

It's an example of improving experiences as a result of positive relations with authorities.

So we've seen all these examples of positive experiences, but for migrants with poorer relations with authorities, experiences were often negative.

St.

Brice's Day massacre in 1002 is one of the most violent examples of this.

The Anglo-Saxon ruler, King Aethelred, ordered the massacre of all Vikings living outside the Danelaw, as he saw them as a threat.

So we can see that where the Vikings did not experience England as rulers, outside the Danelaw, this experience was negative because they did not have positive relations with those authorities.

The changing experiences of Jewish migrants also demonstrates this.

Despite having been invited to England by Norman rulers in 1070, the increase in antisemitism in the late 1100s led to Jewish migrants losing the protection of the monarch and facing increasing persecution until their expulsion in 1290.

Flemish weavers in 1270 are a similar case study, as tensions increased between Flanders and the Angevin Empire.

Most Flemish weavers were expelled within a month of being invited.

Although they were invited again following the end of the Black Death in 1353, their changing experiences revealed the impact of relations with authorities.

So before we go on to put this into practise, we're just going to pause and check your understanding with a couple of quick questions.

So I'd like you to tell me whether you think this statement is true or false.

Migrant experiences were dependent solely on when they migrated to England.

Pause the video, make a decision, and then come back and press play when you've made one.

Brilliant.

This is false.

But you need to think about why.

Is it false because migrant experiences depended on a variety of factors, primarily their relationship with authorities? Or B, the changing experiences of migrants had no pattern and varied largely from one group to another.

Pause the video now.

Give yourself a few seconds to make a decision and then come back and press play.

Brilliant.

Hopefully, you picked A.

Migrant experiences depended on a variety of factors, primarily their relationship with authorities.

So now I'd like you to answer this question for me.

Which of the following statements are examples of declining relations with authorities, leading to negative experiences? Is it A, in the late 1300s, letters of denization were offered to craftspeople and merchants? B, in 1002, King Aethelred ordered the massacre of Vikings outside the Danelaw.

C, increasing antisemitism in the 1100s led to Jewish migrants losing the protection of the monarch.

So pause the video now and come back and press play when you are done.

Lovely.

Hopefully, you said B.

That in 1002, King Aethelred ordered the massacre of all Vikings outside the Danelaw.

So for Vikings who did not experience England as rulers, they had much more negative experiences.

Hopefully, you also said C, that increasing antisemitism in the 1100s led to Jewish migrants losing the protection of the monarch.

We know that letters of denization were in fact examples of improving relations with authorities and more positive experiences.

So for our practise task here, you're going to be having a look at Izzy's statement.

She said migrants had a wide variety of experiences in the mediaeval period.

However, there were overwhelmingly positive.

This is most evident when studying the experiences of merchants and craftspeople in the 1300s.

So I'd like you to explain how far you agree with Izzy's explanation of the changing experiences of mediaeval migrants.

So pause the video now, give yourself about 10 minutes to complete this task, and then come back when you're done.

So hopefully your answer looks a little something like this.

I largely agree with Izzy's explanation of the changing experiences of mediaeval migrants.

This is due to the fact she acknowledges the wide variety of migrant experiences and points to the experiences of migrants and craftspeople in the 1300s as an example of overwhelmingly positive experiences.

This can be supported by the 1303 Charter of Merchants that offered legal rights and protection to merchants.

Additionally, the letters of denization offered in the late 1300s improved the experiences of migrants, those who could afford one, by giving them the same rights and protection as someone born in England.

However, Izzy underplays the negative experiences of migrants, as she does not include the negative experiences of some merchants and craftspeople.

While their experiences were overwhelmingly positive in the 1300s, their experiences in the 1200s were very different.

For example, as a result of tensions between Flanders and the Angevin Empire in 1270, Flemish weavers were expelled from England within a month of being invited.

Therefore, Izzy's explanation is largely accurate for some mediaeval migrants in particular periods.

However, it should also be acknowledged that this generalisation does not apply to all groups at all times.

Really well done here.

You've been able to explain what she acknowledges well and what she's underplayed.

If there's anything that you've missed out or haven't quite got that you've seen in this paragraph, not to worry.

Just pause the video now and give yourself a couple minutes to add it to your answer.

And in the third and final part of this lesson, we're going to be looking at the impact of mediaeval migrants.

Now just like there are various reasons why migrants came to England, there were also several areas of life that were impacted by migration in this period, including the economy, culture, and built environment.

The economic impact of the Vikings can be seen in the rule of King Cnut in 1016, who ruled England from 1016 to 1035.

At this time, England was part of Cnut's North Sea Empire, and so trade flourished and the economy boomed.

The Normans also invited several migrant groups who helped grow the economy, mostly European craftspeople and Jewish moneylenders.

As a result of the increasing migration of merchants and craftspeople, particularly Flemish weavers, the English wool trade grew and allowed England to become a major exporter of cloth and other manufactured goods.

So if we're thinking about the economic impact, we're thinking about the impact of King Cnut's North Sea Empire, the impact of Normans inviting various different merchants and migrant groups and moneylenders, and also Flemish weavers who helped the English wool trade.

Before we consider other areas of impact, I'm just going to pause with a quick question.

So which two of the following statements are examples of the economic impact of migrants? A, the Vikings invited several migrant groups who helped grow the economy.

B, England thrived as part of the Viking ruler King Cnut's North Sea Empire.

C, invited Flemish weavers helped to expand the English wool trade.

And D, Jewish moneylenders allowed England to become a major exporter of cloth.

Pause the video, pick your two statements, and then come back when you're done.

Brilliant.

Hopefully, you picked B and C, that England thrived as part of King Cnut's North Sea Empire, but also that Flemish weavers helped to expand the English wool trade.

Really well done.

So we've spoken about the impact on the economy, but migrants in this period also impacted culture.

Now the Viking impact on culture can be seen in the English language.

Many words and place names are of Scandinavian origin, for example, ransack and glove.

Moreover, the days of the week are largely named after Viking gods, such as Thursday, which is named after Thor.

But also when you think about the Normans who invaded in 1066.

They brought with them their language, and French became the language of the aristocracy for centuries to come.

So not just economic impacts are seen, but also cultural impacts, particularly in terms of language.

Before we go on to look at the third and final area of impact, one quick question for you.

Which two of the following statements are examples of the cultural impact of migrants? A, Thursday is named after the Norse god Thor.

B, no words in English today have Scandinavian origins.

C, French became the language of the aristocracy.

And D, Scandinavian became the language of the Anglo-Saxons.

So pause the video now, make a decision, and come back when you've got those two statements for me.

Brilliant.

Hopefully, you said A.

That Thursday is named after the Norse god Thor, one example of the Viking impact on language.

And C, French became the language of the aristocracy, an example of the Norman impact on language.

Really, really well done.

So finally, we need to consider that migrants in the mediaeval period had a significant impact on the built environment.

For example, the Normans built 65 major motte-and-bailey castles by 1100.

They also transformed small wooden Anglo-Saxon churches into large stone churches and cathedrals to send the clear message of the power of the Church and their dedication to Christianity.

The mediaeval built environment was also impacted, as some Jewish migrants contributed to several landmarks in England.

For instance, the loans from Aaron of Lincoln contributed not only to the Lincoln Cathedral, but also to the Peterborough Cathedral.

So we've got so many areas of impact, economic impact, cultural impact, the impact on the built environment, with several examples to support each area.

Before we put what we've learned into practise, one more question for you.

True or false? Norman rulers were the only migrants in the mediaeval period who had an impact on the built environment.

Pause the video now, make a decision, and come back and press play when you've got an answer for me.

So this statement is in fact false.

But we need to think about why.

Is it false because King Cnut built 65 motte-and-bailey castles around England by 1100? Or is it false because the loans of some Jewish migrants also contributed to several landmarks in England? Pause the video now and come back and press play when you've got an answer for me.

Brilliant, we know that this statement is false because the loans of some Jewish migrants also contributed to several landmarks in England.

So it wasn't just Norman rulers who impacted the built environment.

So what I'd like you to do for our final task for today is to have a look at this statement.

The most significant impact of migrants was on the mediaeval economy, as it would have had the greatest impact on people at the time.

I'd like you to explain how far you agree with this statement on the impact of mediaeval migrants.

So pause the video now.

Give yourself 10 to 15 minutes, maybe a bit more if you need to explain different sides of your argument, and then come back and press play when you've got a response for me.

Brilliant.

So hopefully, your response looked a little something like this.

I largely agree with this statement, as migrants had a significant impact on the mediaeval economy.

For example, under Cnut's North Sea Empire, England's trade flourished.

This would have impacted both English and Viking merchants and had a widespread impact on the economy.

Similarly, migrant merchants and craftspeople significantly improved mediaeval England's economy.

For instance, Flemish weavers were able to export valuable cloth from England and therefore helped to expand the wool trade and boost England's economy, a benefit for all those living in mediaeval England.

However, the statement does not acknowledge other areas of impact.

While it would not have impacted as many people at the time, mediaeval migrants also had an impact on culture.

For example, the Vikings' impact on culture can still be seen in the English language today, as many words and place names are of Scandinavian origin, such as ransack and glove.

Additionally, the Normans also made French the language of the aristocracy for many centuries.

While these changes were longer lasting, they did not have as significant an impact for people at the time.

Therefore, as the statement focuses on the impact at the time, the statement is correct.

Really, really well done if you were able to get that clear explanation, but also acknowledge the other areas of impact that are missing from that statement.

You've done some brilliant work today.

And to finish off, we're just going to look at the summary of what we've covered.

That people migrated to England because of the potential for political and religious influence, but most commonly for economic gain.

That migrant experiences varied across the mediaeval period.

However, they depended largely on the relationship between the authorities and migrants.

If the relationship with the authorities was positive, the experience was usually better.

And finally, that migrants had a significant impact on the economy, built environment, and culture of mediaeval England.

So really well done today.

You can see just from this slide that we have covered so much.

I'm really impressed, and you should be too.