William the Conqueror… Good or Bad ?

1. William the Conqueror… Good or Bad ?

2. History is not always about facts and dates. Often people have different interpretations or viewpoints about someone or something. Also, historians don’t know exactly what people or events from the past were really like. They have to study evidence and form their own interpretations. It is extremely important that we remember that different people have different interpretations - these interpretations are not necessarily fact!

3. Man Utd is the greatest football team in History! Is this a fact or an interpretation (a viewpoint)? Why? Can we trust this interpretation? Why?

4. Two things help us to examine interpretations more closely and decide whether we can trust them. We must think about: 1. How the person or event has been interpreted (described/portrayed). We must look closely at the what the source says. 2. Why the person or event has been interpreted that way. We must look closely who wrote the source and whenit was written and why they are saying these things.

5. Source A is taken from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle written in 1087.King William and the chief men loved gold and silver and did not care how sinfully it was obtained provided he got hold of it. William did not care at all how wrongfully his men got possession of land nor how many illegal acts they did. Source B was written by William of Poitiers in approximately 1071. It is taken from a book called The Deeds of William, Duke of the Normans. Duke William excelled both in bravery and soldier-craft. He dominated battles, looking out for his men, strengthening their spirit, and sharing their dangers. William was a noble general, inspiring courage, sharing danger, more often commanding men to follow than urging them on from the rear. The enemy (at the Battle of Hastings) lost heart at the mere sight of this marvellous and terrible knight. Three horses were killed under him. Three times he leapt to his feet. Shields, helmets, hauberks were cut by his furious and flashing blade, while yet other attackers were clouted by his own shield. Source C is taken from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It was written in the 11th century. King William was a very stern and violent man. No one dared do anything against the King’s will. He put nobles who annoyed him into prison. He built castles and cruelly kept the poor people down.

6. Source D was written by William of Jumieges ( a Norman monk) in approximately 1070. It is taken from his book called Deeds of the Dukes of the Normans.The king was wiser than all the princes of his age. He was never put off any task because of the amount of work, or the danger involved. He was great in body and strong, tall but not ungainly. He was moderate in eating and especially in drinking, because he hated drunkenness. In speech, he was fluent and persuasive, being skillful at making clear what he wanted. He followed the Christian religion and attended church services each morning and evening. Source E is taken from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and was written in 1083.Willliam made large forests for the deer, and passed laws, so that whoever killed deer should be blinded. The rich complained and the poor murmured, but the king was so strong that he took no notice of them. Source F was written by Orderic Vitalis (usually an admirer of William) in the 12th century. It is about the Harrying of the North. Never did William show such cruelty. He did not trouble to restrain his resentment, striking down innocent and guilty alike with an equal fury. In this manner all the sources of life north of the Humber were destroyed.

8. Which interpretation do you trust the most? Explain why. Which interpretation do you trust the least? Explain why.

9. And finally... Do you think William the Conqueror was ‘safe’ or ‘bad’? Use the sources to list the evidence.

10. Do you think William the Conqueror was ‘safe’ or ‘bad’?