Question 1
A historian argues that William the Conqueror's redistribution of land after 1066 was primarily a mechanism of political control rather than a simple reward system. Which piece of evidence best supports this argument?No clue? Show me the answer
Correct answerCorrect!
IncorrectStep-by-step walkthrough
Choose a solution method
Method #1Direct reasoningStep 1: Identify the claim
The question asks which evidence shows land redistribution functioned as control, not mere reward.
Step 2: Apply the feudal contract concept
The content explains fiefs were granted in exchange for military service, creating dependency on royal favour.
Step 3: Interpret the mechanism
Tying landholding to ongoing obligation means loyalty had to be continually earned, which is control, not a one-off gift.
Step 4: Compare with reward-only framing
A pure reward would involve unconditional grants with no ongoing obligation attached to the land.
Step 5: Select the answer
Option A directly describes the conditional, obligation-based structure that made land tenure a control mechanism.
Method #2Process of eliminationStep 1: Eliminate B
Retaining Anglo-Saxon nobles unchanged contradicts the described policy of confiscation and redistribution to Normans.
Step 2: Eliminate C
Unconditional inheritance without renewed obligation would undermine, not support, the control argument.
Step 3: Eliminate D
Random distribution regardless of service contradicts the deliberate, loyalty-based system described in the content.
Step 4: Confirm A
Only A shows land tenure structurally bound to service and loyalty, supporting the control-mechanism argument.
Question 2
Which outcome distinguishes the Oath of Salisbury (1086) from typical continental feudal practice involving subinfeudation?No clue? Show me the answer
Correct answerCorrect!IncorrectStep-by-step walkthrough
Choose a solution method
Method #1Direct reasoningStep 1: Identify the concept
The question asks what made the Oath of Salisbury distinct from standard continental subinfeudation.
Step 2: Apply the definition
Subinfeudation normally meant sub-tenants' loyalty ran to their immediate lord, diluting royal authority.
Step 3: Interpret William's innovation
William required all substantial landholders, including sub-tenants, to swear fealty directly to him, bypassing that dilution.
Step 4: Compare with distractors
Other options describe abolishing subinfeudation or removing the king, which did not happen; the structure persisted but loyalty was redirected.
Step 5: Select the answer
Option A correctly identifies the direct fealty requirement as the distinguishing feature.
Method #2Process of eliminationStep 1: Eliminate B
The content does not describe abolition of sub-tenancy; the pyramid of tenants and sub-tenants continued to exist.
Step 2: Eliminate C
Ownership transfer back to tenants-in-chief is not mentioned; the king remained the ultimate authority throughout.
Step 3: Eliminate D
Free choice of loyalty contradicts the entire point of the oath, which compelled fealty to the king specifically.
Step 4: Confirm A
Only A captures the requirement that sub-tenants owed direct, overriding loyalty to William personally.