For this week’s blog post, George has been carrying on his research into the Normans, this time moving from their origins in a Viking invasion of northern France to their influence over the North East of England, particularly the building of the first castle in Newcastle Upon Tyne. It’s a tale of murder, treachery, rebellion and “harrying” so strap in folks!

It all begins in 1066, William the Conqueror as he would be known, had beaten Harold at Hastings, for which he got an arrow in his eye: Harold, not William that is. He was crowned King of England on Christmas Day 1066. His next task after that was to bring the rest of England under his control. Doing that wasn’t easy, he faced resistance and rebellion at every turn, particularly in the North. In 1069 this reached a head, the position of the Earl of Northumberland was a precarious one: incumbents of the role would have to have ‘resillient’ as a character trait. This did not put Robert De Comines (descendants of him would play pivotal roles in Scottish medieval life) off, he was appointed in 1068, after the previous one, a Saxon noble called Gospatric had been dispossessed by the king for his part in yet another uprising (You can imagine the Conqueror is getting really annoyed at this).  Comines had served William well and was sent North to sort the Northerners out once and for all. According to the local chronicler, Simeon of Durham, Comines, and his 800 or so men rampaged through the North Eastern landscape spreading fear and resentment amongst the local population. Comines had gotten as far as Durham in the winter of 1069, where his murderous acts continued. The local population by then had had enough and rebelled. Before dawn broke on the 28th January 1069, they burst through the gates of Durham and slaughtered Comines’ men, the streets ‘ran red with their blood’ according to Simeon. Comines was burned alive when the locals set fire to the Bishop of Durham’s house where he was staying.

Word got to William and to say he was upset would be an understatement. He ordered what can only be described as a scorched earth policy, later to be known as the Harrying of the North. Years of constant conflict and drama had left the king exasperated and an only an extreme intervention would do. According to Orderic Vitalis, a Norman chronicler, he ordered mass slaughter and destruction of land and property. It led to the deaths of 100,000 people, many succumbing to starvation. It would take centuries for the North to truly recover.

This sets the scene, in that the North held longstanding, justifiable bitterness towards their Norman overlords.  What has this got to do with Newcastle? In the aftermath of the Harrying of the North, William had replaced the previous Bishop of Durham, Aethelwine with William Walcher, a foreigner from Lotharingia (modern day Belgium & France).

Although he was according to Norman chroniclers, a pious man, he wasn’t a very effectual leader. As well as Bishop of Durham, he had also been made the Earl of Northumbria on the execution of Earl Waltheof in 1075.  We have a reasonably detailed account of his life from the 12th century chronicler, John of Worcester. He states that he in effect was the first Prince Bishop of Durham, his leanings were more spiritual than statesman though, and he was perhaps not the best choice to rule over the turbulent north. He frequently allowed his followers run riot and devastate the local population causing further resentment. Malcolm Canmore of Scotland caused further consternation with his frequent violent incursions into Northumberland.  The local landowners particular a Northumbrian noble by the name of Ligulf were highly critical of Walcher’s weak response to the Scots’ invasion.  This led to a Gilbert, a kinsman of Walcher slaying Ligulf in his own home.

Understandably, this caused anger amongst the family of Ligulf and other Saxon nobles in the area and they demanded a meeting with Walcher. Walcher felt the need to meet with Eadulf, cousin of Ligulf to work through their grievances, this occurred close to St Mary’s church in Gateshead. He travelled north from Durham with a retinue of around 100 men.

They met in the May of 1080, and things did not go well. The Northumbrians did not respond well to Walcher’s dismissal and denial of any wrongdoing. They attacked the Normans causing them to seek refuge inside the church.  The Northumbrians set fire to the church causing the Normans to flee the blaze. As the Walcher’s retinue ran from the church they were met with the sword and spears of the Northumbrians, killing Walcher and his men.

The North was on the verge of another rebellion. William responded accordingly and sent two of his own family to deal with the ‘Northern’ issue. Odo of Bayeux, his half-brother and his eldest son, Robert Curthose. Odo and Robert were ruthless in their reprisals, murdering and extorting money as they went. According to Simeon of Durham, Robert was sent further north to deal with the exploits of Malcolm Canmore, who had broken a truce with the Norman king. Robert wandered about for a bit, spoiling for a fight, but wasn’t able to pin the Scottish king down to a decisive battle – a pretty common problem in the middle ages. On his journey back he ordered the construction of a castle to cement Norman control. This castle was to be called in Latin, Novocastrum Super Tynam or Newcastle upon Tyne!

There are no physical remains above ground level of the original new castle built by Robert. The evidence we can garner about this is from the 1960s-70s archaeological digs by Barbara Harbottle and John Nolan. Most interpretations of the early castle suggest it would have been a motte and bailey castle, although it could also have been a ringwork. A ringwork is simply a ditch and bank structure fully encircling a particular site. Both were common styles of fortress built by the Normans, you can see evidence for both on the Bayeux Tapestry.  Most of these types of castle would have been constructed from earth and timber and contrary to a commonly held belief, would have been sturdy places of refuge. They had to be given the political climate of the time.

The motte or mound would have sat at the south eastern end of the castle site where the Moot Hall stands now. The natural contours and steep sided slopes of the plateau, that the castle sits on, would have provided natural defences. A motte was formed by cutting a ditch into existing ringwork forming a motte.  Atop the motte would have likely sat a small wooden keep, a last refuge in case of attack and handy vantage point for surveying the river.

At that point, archaeological evidence has suggested that the Tyne would have been wider in the early Middle Ages, with early medieval domestic dwellings clinging onto the bottom slopes of the plateau with the quayside being a lot narrower than it is today.

The bailey within any castle is simply an enclosure surrounded by a stone wall or wooden palisade. Newcastle’s original bailey looks like it would have been a comparable size and shape to the Angevin (Henry II) bailey sitting at North West of the motte and likely to have been surrounded by a timber palisade. There is a suggestion that there would have been partial stone gateways at the Northern end of the castle site as well as some of the only real physical evidence of the original ‘Curthose’ bailey bank and ditch.  The stone gateways are likely to have been constructed during the reign of William II (1087-1100), pre-dating the current stone defences.  These would have been built amidst the backdrop of yet more rebellion, which we will look at in just a moment. They would have enclosed various buildings including a hall and chapel and likely other timber buildings to house troops. The Normans used castles like this as a method of controlling the local populace, housing soldiers and as administrative centres for the local area, collecting taxes, etc. The majority would have been constructed using timber, some would be later rebuilt in stone, like the one here at Newcastle.

The early timber castle as alluded to earlier, seems to have been re-strengthened perhaps with stone buttresses in the North Gate (on the site of Black Gate) during the reign of William Rufus.  This period of the castle's history also seems to have had its political ups and downs. After the death of the Conqueror in 1087, his second surviving son succeeded to the English throne with his elder brother, Robert, given the dukedom of Normandy. William Rufus wasn’t a popular king, especially with the clergy, but he was an effective administrator, peacekeeper and soldier and maintained a stable kingdom. However, stable is a relative word, and revolt and plotting were commonplace in the 11th century

The fortress at Newcastle once again played a prominent role in rebellion against the crown. Robert Mowbray, Earl of Northumbria was a powerful noble in the 11th century with estates in Northern England. He had recently defeated and killed the Scottish king, Malcolm, at the Battle of Alnwick (1093), literally catching the Scots asleep.

One his jobs was controlling trade along the River Tyne from his base at Newcastle, one day he took his job a little too seriously and seized a few foreign merchant ships that were unloading on the river. The merchants complained to Rufus and Mowbray was asked to present himself to the King’s council on several occasions, to explain his actions. He refused and Rufus saw this has a rebuttal of his authority. Add into this the uncovering of a plot led by Mowbray to depose Rufus, and Rufus was justifiably angry; Mowbray had been pardoned for his role in an earlier plot in 1088.  King William set out for the north with a large army, seizing and likely strengthening Newcastle's defences when he arrived on the Tyne. He then set out for Mowbray’s stronghold at Bamburgh, where he laid siege to it. During the siege, the quick-heeled Mowbray had escaped the castle and fled to Tynemouth, but was swiftly recaptured and brought back to Bamburgh where he was used a bargaining tool to end the siege. Rufus threatened to blind all the castles defenders and Robert if they did not surrender!

Mowbray and his co-conspirators were punished. Mowbray was sentenced to life imprisonment in various castles up and down the country, the others including William of Eu were executed (unusual for the time). After this rather tumultuous period nothing much is known of the castle although Northumbria was unofficially annexed by the Scots during the Anarchy (1140’s), later seized back from their grasp by Henry II, who then ordered the rebuilding of the old wooden fortress in stone.  And that, folks, is a story for another blog.