Was Norman conquest of England good for England?
Cant decide best answer,thank you all.
- MoriartyLv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
In the long term, yes. For without the Norman invasion, England would not have had the following Plantagenet dynasty and consequently may not have reached the creation of English Common Law and the formation of Parliament and the eventual subsequent democracy that most other countries base their own legal and democratic processes upon.
However, in the short term immediately following the conquest, no. Especially for those who lived in the North of England. William "the Conqueror" (or "the Bastard" if you prefer) subjugated the Saxon-English in quite a vicious manner. When the Viking/Angle-English tried to resist him in the North in an attempt to return the old dynasty to the throne, William committed acts of what could only be described as near-genocide, in what has become to be known as "The Harrying of the North". From the river Humber to the river Tees, William's men burnt whole villages and slaughtered the inhabitants. Foodstores and livestock were destroyed so that anyone surviving the initial massacre would succumb to starvation over the winter. The land was salted to destroy its productivity for decades forward. The survivors were reduced to cannibalism. Even some who were usually in support of William and the Normans were horrified by his actions. Somewhere in the region of 200,000 were massacred.
- PlaceboLv 58 years ago
Nope, mass slaughter of indigenous population and the harrowing of the north put the northern shires economy back by 40 years.
Yes, the cultural advancements and the foundation of what would become the ruling system that would last for ages.
No the feudal system brought over with the Normans divided the country and replaced the native ruling class,
yes the feudal system brought by the Normans solidified England and set the foundations for its economical growth.
No the Normans plundered the wealth of England and set England and France on a path of conflict that would last a 1000 years,
So you see there are good and bad things and its not a clear black and white question with a clear black and white answer.
- LomaxLv 78 years ago
Seller and Yeatman said it was a Good Thing.....
It was so long ago, and so fundamental in English history that it is impossible to imagine what England would be like if matters had turned out otherwise. One ting is certain - it changed the way England faced. Before Hastings, England was effectively part of the Scandinavian world. After Hastings, she became far more connected to continental Europe.
- brainstormLv 78 years ago
It was a disaster.
All the English nobility was wiped out or dispossessed and the Norman started a reign of terror on the population.
Many villages were destroyed in the north of England together with all the people and animals because of reistance to their rule.
They were never defeated and are still here in the form of big landowners
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Leo LLv 78 years ago
It really depends on your point of view. It was certainly bad for the losers. However, England may never have risen to the heights of world power and cultural dominance, if not for this. It certainly changed England, permanently.
- 4 years ago