1066, the Norman conquest of England

Eng go through...was a farming country, land was its absorbing occupy; and originally speckles of land had been protested outright by the men who settled and cleared them, and genetical by their children. But such(prenominal) independent farmers had no demur against the Viking raids, or resources to tide them oer disasters like cattle sickness, a serial of bad harvests, make off or storm. In the course of time, almost e rattling man in the country had attached himself by related promises to somebody more powerful, who could help to protect him and his family in propagation of stress. Small landowners had surrendered the nominal phrase ownership of their land to their protectors - who in turn held the land in vocation to somebody higher. This exploitation has often been called a loss of freedom, and so it was; but compulsive personal freedom had come to be, as perhaps it has invariably so been, a dangerous illusion. Its loss was really a gai n; the acceptance of the duties and mutual admit of a well-disposed system, the end of anarchy(13-14).         The first paragraph sums up the life of the commoners in England and also very equal to Normandy. Both countries were very more than alike but yet distinct in their own subtle ways. In my essay I will argue the similarities and differences amidst Anglo-Saxon England and Normandy including their feudal system. I will also comparing and demarcation line Harold of England and William the Conqueror as portrayed in 1066.         England and Normandy had very similar feudal system. In both systems everyone held his plot of land in duty to someone higher (61). The English had serfs and the Normans had peasants at the very bottom. They were the workers (slaves) that grew the crops and took perplexity of the land for the upper class. The Normans had lords and... If you want to notice a honest essay, order it on our we! bsite: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay