how do william the conquerer control the saxons using the feudal system?

Answer 1

Normally best to use a standard PS2 Joypad, although you may find it easier using a wireless keyboard, as there are quite a few commands.

Answer 2

the feudal system, was in fact much the same, as what had gone on in various civilisations, previous to this. It is thanks to the modern historian, that a big fuss has been made over this, as though it was something new that the normans brought in - it wasnt.
Before the norman invasion, virtually the same system existed, in anglo - saxon England. The King Harold Godwinsson, had an elite hierachy who assisted him, in the rule of thwe kingdom. The men in this elite section, met in a similar type of meeting, to an Althing. On this 'committee' sat the earls, bishops, landowners, leaders, and notably, the thegns.
The thegns were the warrior class of this time, and every important man, would have had his own thegns, with high ranking thegns, even having their own lesser theigns working for them.
The ordinary folk, would have worked the land, and done the hard, menial jobs, much the same as they had done before, with the above mentioned eolders, at the top of the scale.
There are several huge differences, between when the normans brought in their system, and the resent anglo saxon one. The most important being, that the normans were obviously foreign, and forced their newly aquired subjects, to perforn their old duties, but under a much tougher regime.
The second difference is that the anglo saxons, held a very loose control over england at this time. Only a few years before, York had its own king (the last being eirik bloodaxe) and held allegiance to its own ruler.
So what he did, was just like the old ways, the peasants worked the land, but now HIS lords sat on his councils, and they in turn used their own militias to control the people. What the conqueror also did, was to insist that the whole country submit to him, which it did seceral years later after bitter fighting.
He also built numerous castles, as a safe base for his militias and lords, and also to serve as a reminder to the people, who was now in charge.
He was a man, who saw through the whole campaign, until through his system, he had most of england under his control, by using the old ways, and adapting them to meet his gains.

Answer 3

As 'banjo' said for the peasant (villein or freeman) nothing much changed. Obviously for the Thegns, Saturday oct 14th was a very bad day, losing at home after a great away win at Stamford Bridge 3 weeks earlier. Actually in practice, WilliamI did not change much (ain't broke don't fix it) In his courts of law judgements are given according to customs and practices that were current in the reign of Eddy ' Fessor. The same dues and services were exacted from the peasants on the Estates although it was invariably a Norman placeman to whom they would tug the forelock. The Domesday Book, (available in 2 volumes) was an inventory of English resources (land animals, yield, population of certain areas etc). It was intended to discover the wealth of England, how much could be exacted in revenue for the treasury and also how much funds were available for war.(in fact in the light of this, many services from ploughing on the lord's demesne to ordinary knight-service were commuted to fees instead for administrative convenience.) For now remember,the conquest which occupied the Normans was now their native France- a preoccupation of the Angevin kings for the next 400 years.
One of williamII's positive aspects was that he brooked little influence from the papal curia in Rome on domestic ecclesiastical matters- anticipating HenryVIII there!
For a contemporary counterpart of WilliamI, see Gordon Brown.
Not such a bad foreign manager as some we've had. His son Rufus was the real bastard if you ask me!

Answer 4

William the Conquerer had to gain the trust and respect of the people he ruled. He did this (simply) by giving land to his most trusted and influential noblemen, the barons; as he could not control all of the land himself and needed to almost bribe the noblemen into supporting him and not rebelling against him. The barons shared out the land among their trusted knights, who swore oaths of allegiance to serve their lord, fight for them and supply money and crops, of which a percentage would be given to the King and his estate. The knights needed workers to grow the crops on the land and a reserve supply of men to fight when called upon, so they allowed serfs (peasants) to rent furlongs of land, receiving crops and money trough taxes from these poor chaps. (The serfs received the chance to rent a section of land and protection and a chance of justice from the local knight)

I'm sure you remember from school History lessons the Feudal Pyramid, and how the king gained trust of those who he rued through rewarding their loyalty through granting land, getting in return taxes, food and an army when needed. Oaths were publicly sworn to ensure that witnesses could verify the promise of obedience, loyalty and fulfilling their own role in the feudal chain had been made.

It is also worth noting that castle building greatly increased during the reign of William the Conquerer, and these castles (usually one in every town or village) acted as a local police station and as a symbol of the new and powerful ruler.

Answer 5

Your question kind of answers itself - what you really need is a definition of the Feudal System (see link attached) to explain how the hierarchy of rulers is used to manage larger groups of people.

BTW, how funny is Heathen's answer? I think he answered the wrong Q - unless he thinks William subjugated the Saxons with a joystick!

Answer 6

He controlled them by ethnic cleansing. In a nutshell, there weren't many left and, as a result, most of us are descended from Angles and Celts although a fair amount of the aristocracy can trace their lineage to the Normans.

Answer 7

using a hierarchical structure of lords and barons, who he paid off with parcels of land. they gathered the local tax and paid tribute to others higher up the hierarchical ladder, They had their own local militias to control the peasants.