[301] The grant of immunity was thus brought to the attention of the count in whose jurisdiction the exempted lands lay.
[302] Chalons-sur-Saone was about eighty miles north of the junction of the Saone with the Rhone. It should not be confused with Chalons-sur-Marne where the battle was fought with Attila"s Huns in 451.
[303] There is some doubt at this point as to the correct translation.
That given seems best warranted.
[304] _Dominus_ was a common name for a lord.
[305] A member of the king"s official household.
[306] A subordinate officer under the count [see p. 176, note 3].
[307] See p. 61. note 2.
[308] Louis VII., king of France, 1137-1180.
[309] The county of Champagne lay to the east of Paris. It was established by Charlemagne and, while at first insignificant, grew until by the twelfth and thirteenth centuries it was one of the most important in France.
[310] Beauvais was about sixty miles northwest of Paris.
[311] That is, the bishop of Beauvais was bound to furnish his lord, the count of Champagne, the service of one knight for his army, besides ordinary feudal obligations.
[312] The county of Troyes centered about the city of that name on the upper Seine. It was eventually absorbed by Champagne.
[313] As a fief.
[314] A manor, in the general sense, was a feudal estate.
[315] A castellanerie was a feudal holding centering about a castle.
[316] That is, Count Thiebault promises Jocelyn not to deprive him of the services of men who rightfully belong on the manor which is being granted.
[317] Here is an ill.u.s.tration of the complexity of the feudal system.
Count Thiebault is Jocelyn"s _fourth_ lord, and loyalty and service are owed to all of the four at the same time. Accordingly, Thiebault must be content with only such allegiance of his new va.s.sal as will not involve a breach of the contracts which Jocelyn has already entered into with his other lords. For example, Thiebault could not expect Jocelyn to aid him in war against the duke of Burgundy, for Jocelyn is pledged to fidelity to that duke. In general, when a man had only one lord he owed him full and unconditional allegiance (_liege homage_), but when he became va.s.sal to other lords he could promise them allegiance only so far as would not conflict with contracts already entered into. It was by no means unusual for a man to have several lords, and it often happened that A was B"s va.s.sal for a certain piece of land while at the same time B was A"s va.s.sal for another piece. Not infrequently the king himself was thus a va.s.sal of one or more of his own va.s.sals.
[318] The Bible. Sometimes only the Gospels were used.
[319] Charles, count of Flanders, had just died and had been succeeded by his son William. All persons who had received fiefs from the deceased count were now brought together to renew their homage and fealty to the new count.
[320] Such a case as this would be most apt to arise when a lord died and a va.s.sal failed to renew his homage to the successor; or when a va.s.sal died and his heir failed to do homage as was required.
[321] This law would apply also to a case where a man who is already a va.s.sal of a lord should acquire from another va.s.sal of the same lord some additional land and so become indebted to the lord for a new measure of fealty.
[322] Reversion to the original proprietor because of failure of heirs.
[323] Such land might be acquired for temporary use only i.e., for guardianship, during the absence or disability of its proprietor.
[324] Chartres was somewhat less than twenty miles southwest of Paris.
[325] The terms used in the original are _incolume_, _tutum_, _honestum_, _utile_, _facile_, _et possibile_.
[326] In the English customary law of the twelfth century we read that, "it is allowable to any one, without punishment, to support his lord if any one a.s.sails him, and to obey him in all legitimate ways, except in theft, murder, and in all such things as are not conceded to any one to do and are reckoned infamous by the laws;" also that, "the lord ought to do likewise equally with counsel and aid, and he may come to his man"s a.s.sistance in his vicissitudes in all ways."--Thorpe, _Ancient Laws and Inst.i.tutes_, Vol. I., p. 590.
[327] The duke of Normandy. Outside of Normandy, of course, other feudal princes would be subst.i.tuted.
[328] It was the feudal system that first gave the eldest son in France a real superiority over his brothers. This may be seen most clearly in the change wrought by feudalism whereby the old Frankish custom of allowing all the sons to inherit their father"s property equally was replaced by the mediaeval rule of primogeniture (established by the eleventh century) under which the younger sons were entirely, or almost entirely, excluded from the inheritance.
[329] Relief is the term used to designate the payment made to the lord by the son of the deceased va.s.sal before taking up the inheritance [see p. 225]. The "custom" says that sometimes the amount paid as an aid to the lord was equal to half that paid as relief and sometimes it was only a third.
[330] The number of men brought by a va.s.sal to the royal army depended on the value of his fief and the character of his feudal contract.
Greater va.s.sals often appeared with hundreds of followers.
[331] This provision rendered the ordinary feudal army much more inefficient than an army made up of paid soldiers. Under ordinary circ.u.mstances, when their forty days of service had expired, the feudal troops were free to go home, even though their doing so might force the king to abandon a siege or give up a costly campaign only partially completed. By the thirteenth century it had become customary for the king to accept extra money payments instead of military service from his va.s.sals. With the revenues thus obtained, soldiers could be hired who made war their profession and who were willing to serve indefinitely.
[332] Every fief-holder was supposed to render some measure of military service. As neither a minor nor a woman could do this personally, it was natural that the lord should make up for the deficiency by appropriating the produce of the estate during the period of wardship.
[333] Tenants _in capite_ in England were those who held their land by direct royal grant.
[334] Apparently the king"s court had been a.s.sembled several times to consider the charges against Viscount Atton, but had been prevented from taking action because of the latter"s failure to appear. At last the court decided that it was useless to delay longer and proceeded to condemn the guilty n.o.ble and send him a statement of what had been done. He was not only to lose his chateau of Auvillars but also to reimburse the king for the expenses which the court had incurred on his account.
[335] The chapter was the body of clergy attached to a cathedral church. Its members were known as canons.
[336] That is, the penalty for using violence against peaceful churchmen, or despoiling their property was to be twice that demanded by the law in case of similar offenses committed against laymen.
[337] The ordeal of cold water was designed to test a man"s guilt or innocence. The accused person was thrown into a pond and if he sank he was considered innocent; if he floated, guilty, on the supposition that the pure water would refuse to receive a person tainted with crime [see p. 200].
CHAPTER XIV.
THE NORMAN CONQUEST
40. The Battle of Hastings: the English and the Normans
The Northmen, under the leadership of the renowned Rollo, got their first permanent foothold in that important part of France since known as Normandy in the year 911 [see p. 171]. Almost from the beginning the new county (later duchy) increased rapidly both in territorial extent and in political influence. The Northmen, or Normans, were a vigorous, ambitious, and on the whole very capable people, and they needed only the polishing which peaceful contact with the French could give to make them one of the most virile elements in the population of western Europe. They gave up their old G.o.ds and accepted Christianity, ceased to speak their own language and began the use of French, and to a considerable extent became ordinary soldiers and traders instead of the wild pirates their forefathers had been. The spirit of unrest, however, and the love of adventure so deeply ingrained in their natures did not die out, and we need not be surprised to learn that they continued still to enjoy nothing quite so much as war, especially if it involved hazardous expeditions across seas. Some went to help the Christians of Spain against the Saracens; some went to aid the Eastern emperors against the Turks; others went to Sicily and southern Italy, where they conquered weak rulers and set up princ.i.p.alities of their own; and finally, under the leadership of Duke William the b.a.s.t.a.r.d, in 1066, they entered upon the greatest undertaking of all, i.e., the conquest of England and the establishment of a Norman chieftain upon the throne of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom.
Duke William was one of the greatest and most ambitious feudal lords of France--more powerful really than the French king himself. He had overcome practically all opposition among his unruly va.s.sals in Normandy, and by 1066, when the death of King Edward the Confessor occurred in England, he was ready to engage in great enterprises which gave promise of enhanced power and renown. He had long cherished a claim to the English throne, and when he learned that in utter disregard of this claim the English witan had chosen Harold, son of the West Saxon Earl G.o.dwin, to be Edward"s successor, he prepared to invade the island kingdom and force an acknowledgment of what he pretended at least to believe were his rights. Briefly stated, William claimed the English throne on the ground (1) that through his wife Matilda, a descendant of Emma, Edward the Confessor"s mother, he was a nearer heir than was Harold, who was only the late king"s brother-in-law; (2) that on the occasion of a visit to England in 1051 Edward had promised him the inheritance; and (3) that Harold himself, when some years before he had been shipwrecked on the coast of Normandy, had sworn on sacred relics to help him gain the crown. There is some doubt as to the actual facts in connection with both of these last two points, but the truth is that all of William"s claims taken together were not worth much, since the recognized principle of the English government was that the king should be chosen by the wis.e.m.e.n, or witan. Harold had been so chosen and hence was in every way the legitimate sovereign.
William, however, was determined to press his claims and, after obtaining the blessing of the Pope (Alexander II.), he gathered an army of perhaps 65,000 Normans and adventurers from all parts of France and prepared a fleet of some 1,500 transports at the mouth of the Dive to carry his troops across the Channel. September 28, 1066, the start was made and the following day the host landed at Pevensey in Suss.e.x. Friday, the 29th, Hastings was selected and fortified to serve as headquarters. The English were taken at great disadvantage.
Only two days before the Normans crossed the Channel Harold with all the troops he could muster had been engaged in a great battle at Stamford Bridge, in Northumberland, with Harold Hardrada, king of Norway, who was making an independent invasion. The English had won the fight, but they were not in a position to meet the Normans as they might otherwise have been. With admirable energy, however, Harold marched his weary army southward to Senlac, a hill near the town of Hastings, and there took up his position to await an attack by the duke"s army. The battle came on Sat.u.r.day, October 14, and after a very stubborn contest, in which Harold was slain, it resulted in a decisive victory for the Normans. Thereafter the conquest of the entire kingdom, while by no means easy, was inevitable.
William of Malmesbury, from whose _Chronicle of the Kings of England_ our account of the battle and of the two contending peoples is taken, was a Benedictine monk, born of a Norman father and an English mother.
He lived about 1095-1150 and hence wrote somewhat over half a century after the Conquest. While thus not strictly a contemporary, he was a man of learning and discretion and there is every reason to believe that he made his history as accurate as he was able, with the materials at his command. His parentage must have enabled him to understand both combatants in an unusual degree and, though his sympathies were with the conquerors, we may take his characterizations of Saxon and Norman alike to be at least fairly reliable. His _Chronicle_ covers the period 449-1135, and for the years after 1066 it is the fullest, most carefully written, and most readable account of English affairs that we have.
Source--Guilielmus Monachi Malmesburiensis, _De gestis regum Anglorum_ [William of Malmesbury, "Chronicle of the Kings of England"], Bk. III. Adapted from translation by John Sharpe (London, 1815), pp. 317-323.
[Sidenote: How the English prepared for battle]