The biggest change after the Norman conquest was the redistribution of land in England, which has been called a tenurial revolution of the most far-reaching kind and a catastrophe for the higher orders of English society from which they never recovered. The record of Domesday book, competed only twenty years after Hastings shows that though some englishmen still held considerable estates, very few held any position of influence. It has been estimaed that only eight percent of the land was still held by english thegns in 1086.
In 1066, the numbers of english landowners who held manors and who might be called thegns can be reckoned in thousands,. The fate of very few is known. Here and there Domesday book names men who died in the battles of that year. The English losses at Hastings were remembered for generations. An Abingdon chronicler writing just a cnetury aftger the Conquest refers as a matter of course to the thegns who were former tenants of his house who fell at Hastings. The sporadic bitter fighting between 1068 and 1071 with notable risings in Western Mercia and Northumbria probably accounted for further heavy loss to the Anglo-Saxon landed nobility. It was a shattered aristorcracy which the Domesday clerks recorded in 1086.
Of those who survived the grim period of the late sixties and early seventies, many saw no reason to stay in england once the Conquerer's grip was assured. There is much evidence for a widespread emigration of englishmen into other countries, into Denmark, into Scotland, and, most remarkably of all, to Greece and the Byzantine empire where there is good contemporary evidence that large numbers of englishmen took servciewith the Emperor in constantinople in the generation following Hastings. As for those who stayed behind and came to terms with the Conqurer, most found themselves as subtenants on their native land, 'public servitude' as alte eleventh-century writer called it. For the lower orders of society the change was probably less dramatic, they would still be farming the same land they had always farmed, but paying rent to a Norman rather than a Saxon overlord.
William built large numbers of castles - some still the timber-and-earth mound structures, others permanent stone building - sited escpially insided towns thought to be trouble-spots, such as york, Chester, and London. They were citadels of authority in peacetime, engines of terror in times of civil war. others were erected as crucuial entrances to the kingdom, at Dover and at Rochester on the Medway.
The Normans attitude towards land was very different from the Saxons. The Anglo-Saxons thought of their land as just one piece of the thegn's assets, which might also include precious gems, fine weapons and armour. Taken togethr, the assets were considered the property of the 'big' family: brothers and sistgers, aunts and uncles and cousins. When the thegn or his widow died, the assets would be parcelled out among them, a practice that was useful for preserving family peace but bad for preserving its property empire. Preserving the estate intact was an obsession of the Norman nobility. There would be no more sharing the dovecotes with Aunt Alefrida. Instead everything would go to a single heir. The kingdom itself was just the largest of these estates. In the old way, a successor would get the nod from a dying king, provided the witan (council) consented to his choice. In the new way, the king gave his realm to his son. End of story.
The replacement of a ruling class by foreign-speaking conquerers was not then a trivial substituion. The old system of lordship had rested on chains of connection as well as on obligation. A thegn had owed the Saxon kings military service because of his status as a landholder. Under the new order, the count was allowed to hold land only on condition that he appeared in arms. Service was, in effect, his rent. And the Anglo-Saxon thegns, whether 'royal' or not, were seldom loftily removed from their tenant farmers, especially the most prosperous ones, who might well hold and farm a hide or two. Differences in the timber house, in dress and in speech habits were all a matter of degree rather than kind. After the conquest, however, proximity and familiarity were rpelaced by alienation and impotence.
There were changes in the legal system as a result of the conquest. In Saxon law, financial compensation was the basis of the legal system. If a householder suffered theft or an act of violence, he had the right to appeal to the local court, demanding cash payment in recompense. The accused was required to produce a set number of people 'oath-helpers' who would swear his innocence on oath or pay the cahs price associated with the offence. The value of a man's oath depended on his social status. There was a fixed scale of fines applied depending on the seriousness of the injury or the offence. The legal system depended, obviously, no the vicitms of crime or their relatives naming the criminals. It depended, in fact, on a close-knit community. The normans were not part of that community. They needed to force it to hand over any culprits.
When a Norman was killed, William imposed a fine on the district where the body had been found, unless the killer was promptly produced by the community. The system changed from one of community law enforcement into one of collective punishment. the Norman system was based on violence, it had come to england as a result of violence and it required all landholders toppay for their land by doing military service. Oath-taking survived, but the Normans found it unsatisfactory and insisted that in cases between themeslves they were entitled to trial by battle. A victim of violence, appelaing to the lord for justice against the wrongdoer, coould (if denouncer and denounced were both of noble blood) be required to fight the person they named. In theory, God would ensure that in a fair fight victory went to the righteous. In reality, of course, it was a recognition and direct enforcement that for the Normans might was right.
An englishman accused by a Frenchman was not allowed to defend himself with oath-takers, but instead had to choose between battle or ordeal. and if the roles were reversed an english accuser faced a similar problem. so if you were an elderly freeman whose son had been murdered by a big, young, vigorous Norman you could go to a lord's court, name the killer and find that he demanded the right to do battle with you.
The inevitable result was the deep reluctance of victims to accuse the perpetrtors of crimes. In fact, in the twelfth century half of all appeals against murderers in local courst were brought by women, who could not be made to do battle. The law had become something to be avoided, to the extent that, at leas tin private appeals involving murder, almost one in five was ignored by the defendent. After being summoned five times and failing to appear he was declared to be an outlaw.
After the conquest William, the new owner of all land in england, also replaced the system of cash compensation with one of fines and confiscations to himself, along with corporal punishment.
People were reluctant to denounce aggressors to the sheriff not only because they might have to face a battle challenge, but because the accused migh tpass an ordeal and be declared innocent, in which case th plaintiff would be heavily fined for false accusations. Claims over land were also normally settled through trial by battle, and that, too, was an uninviting prospect.
The bulk of the population had much less interest in using the law. And outlwary - rescaping the clutches of the law- changed its moral category. Instead of simply being fugitives from decent society, outlaws were now rebels, even guerillas, hiding from a legal system that lacked moral authority.