I certify that I have read this thesis and have ... - Bilkent University

the Norman Conquest in a rather different context from that in which Bartlett would
put it.
Another way of looking at the Norman Conquest of England, adopted by
historians such as R. Allen Brown and David Bates is to see it, not so much part of a
generalised Scandinavian expansion, but as part of an expansion specifically
originating in Normandy itself. It was, after all, from Normandy that the Norman
states in southern Italy, Sicily and Syria, as well as in England, originated. For Bates,
Norman identity was not extinguished; it simply changed over
time and it is still very much with us. This continuum of
identity and self-identity becomes important once we consider
the problem, not of how the Normans came to be assimilated in
England, southern Italy and elsewhere, but of how Normandy
became, and then ceased to be, the center of a movement of
conquest, colonization and domination. 41
Brown sees the source of Norman conquests and migration in a specific Norman
culture and character. 42
Yet in some respects, as emphasised by Le Patourel and Davis, the Norman
Conquest of England was unique and must be seen separately from other Norman
conquests and migrations. Le Patourel argues that there was a basic difference
between the activities of Normans in the Mediterranean region and in the northwest
of Europe. That is to say, unlike in England, there was no political and integral
political direction of the movement in Italy. 43 Davis agrees with Le Patourel that, as
the Norman Conquest of England took place in very special circumstances, it was
unique in character. For him, after a single battle, the whole story of England
suddenly changed: “Apparently as a result of one day’s fight (14 October 1066),
England received a new royal dynasty, a new aristocracy, a virtually new Church, a
41 Bates, Rise and Fall of Normandy, p. 20.
42 Brown, Normans, pp. 8-11.
43 Le Patourel, Norman Empire, p. 279.
14