Post-classical history

NOTES

Introduction Warfare and Medieval History

    1   C. von Clausewitz, On War, Harmondsworth, 1968 [original German edition 1832], 101, 402, 119. John Keegan, following J. J. Graham’s 1908 translation (used here in the Penguin Classics edition), discusses the interpretation of this famous quote on politics and war in J. Keegan, A History of Warfare, London, 1993, 3.

    2   A detailed analysis of this is presented in C. Allmand, Henry V, London, 1992, chs. 19 and 20, summarised, 435–8.

    3   Counter-factual history based on military events is hypothesised in R. Cowley (ed), What If?, London, 2000. See also idem (ed), More What If?, London, 2004; A. Roberts, What Might Have Been, 2004; N. Ferguson, Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals, London, 1997.

    4   The millennium saw a proliferation of studies on the battles of 1066: J. Bradbury, The Battle of Hastings, Gloucester, 1999; S. Morillo (ed), The Battle of Hastings, Woodbridge, 1996; F. McLynn, 1066: The Year of Three Battles, London, 1999; K. de Vries, The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066, Woodbridge, 2000; M. Lawson, The Battle of Hastings 1066, Gloucester, 2002. See also F. W. Brooks, The Battle of Stamford Bridge, York, 1963; I. Walker, Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King, Gloucester, 1997, 142–82.

    5   We shall see later how the Papacy, acting as a temporal and diplomatic institution, influenced events and bestowed crusading status upon the conflict; but this ‘crusade’ was always patently political, and not of the same nature as those perpetrated against the Muslims or even against heretics (the Albigensian crusade directed against the Cathars in southern France was launched in 1208).

    6   Kingship roles are discussed in R. Kaeuper, War, Justice and Public Order: England and France in the Later Middle Ages, Oxford, 1988, 1, 95–7, 342; R. Kaeuper, Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe, Oxford, 1999, 93–5 and passim; P. Maddern, Violence and Social Order: East Anglia, 14221442, Oxford, 1992, 12–14; W. Ullman,Medieval Political Thought, Harmondsworth, 1979 (originally 1965); idem., Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages, London, 1961; J. E. A. Joliffe, Angevin Kingship, 2nd edn., 1963, ch. 1; S. B Chrimes, An Introduction to the Administrative History of Medieval England, 2nd edn., Oxford, 1959, 1–27; W. L. Warren, The Governance of Anglo-Norman and Angevin England, 10861272, London, 1987, 15–19, 177–82; E. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology, Princeton, 1957; A. Duggan, Kings and Kingship in Medieval Europe, London, 1993; M. Clauss, ‘Kings as Military Leaders’, OEMW, Oxford, 2010, ii, 466; S. McGlynn, By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare, London, 2008, 36–61.

    7   P. Contamine, War in the Middle Ages, trans. M. Jones, Oxford, 1984, xii.

    8   An example of this line of thought is encapsulated in the title of a scholarly work: C. Kidd, British Identities Before Nationalism: Ethnicity and Nationhood in the Atlantic World, 1600–1800, Cambridge, 1999. I shall later endeavour to loosen the over-prescriptive semantic terminology and taxonomical divisions of nationalism, ethnicity and nationhood.

    9   For a fuller analysis of Wendover’s utuility in matters of warfare, see S. McGlynn, ‘Roger of Wendover and the Wars of Henry III, 1216–34’, in B. Weiler and I. Rowlands (eds), Britain and Europe During the Reign of Henry III, Aldershot, 2002.

  10   Wendover puts John’s army in 1213 at ‘60,000’ strong (RW, ii, 67). He also employs this figure for the Muslim enemy at Seville in 1189 (this figure is arrived at from ‘47,000’ casualties and ‘13,000’ survivors) (RW, i, 157). Jordan Fantosme, an otherwise excellent contemporary source for medieval warfare, uses the same figure of 60,000 in an even more implausible context at the town of Dol in 1173: ‘The knights in their battle array have come forth from the town: some sixty thousand of them …’ (R. C. Johnston, ed. and trans., Jordan Fantosme’s Chronicle, Oxford, 1981, 15).

  11   Simeon of Durham, Opera Omnia, ed. T. Arnold, 2 vols., RS, London, 1882–85, ii, 191–2. Simeon (fl. 1100–1150) was not an eyewitness to these events, but was well informed. For the context of this episode, see J. Gillingham, ‘Conquering the Barbarians: War and Chivalry in Britain and Ireland’, The English in the Twelfth Century: Imperialism, National Identity and Political Values, Woodbridge, 2000, and McGlynn, By Sword and Fire, 202, 208–16.

  12   Clausewitz, On War, p. 163. Tolstoy captures this well in War and Peace, Harmondsworth, 1978 edn., 766.

  13   Dust was a problem at the summer Battle of Bouvines. Sleet hampered visibility at the Battle of Towton in March 1461: A. W. Boardman, The Battle of Towton, Gloucester, 1994, 107 ff.; P. A. Haigh, The Military Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses, Gloucester, 1995, 60–3.

  14   J. Gillingham, ‘Richard I and the Science of War in the Middle Ages’, Richard Couer de Lion, 1994, 212. Verbruggen also makes the case for vernacular sources over Latin ones: J. F. Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare in the Western Europe During the Middle Ages From the Eighth Century to 1340, trans. S. Willard and R. W. Southern, 2nd edn., Woodbridge, 1997, 10–14. For studies of contemporary sources and their uses for medieval warfare, see: K. De Vries, ‘The Use of Chronicles in Recreating Medieval Military History’, JMMH, ii; C. Hanley, War and Combat: The Evidence of Old French Literature, 1150–1270, Woodbridge, 2003; C. Saunders, F. Le Sau and N. Thomas (eds), Writing War: Medieval Literary Responses to Warfare, Woodbridge, 2004.

  15   J. Beeler, Warfare in Feudal Europe, 730–1200, Ithaca, 1971, xii.

  16   For the priest at Le Puiset: Suger, Vita Ludovici Grossi Regis, ed. H. Waquet, Paris, 1964 edn., 138. For laws affecting the clergy: M. Keen, The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages, London, 1965, 195; T. Meron, Henry’s Wars and Shakespeare’s Laws: Perspectives on the Law of War in the Later Middle Ages, Oxford, 1993, 96–101. Christopher Tyerman has observed ‘the clergy’s love of war in general’: C. Tyerman, England and the Crusades, 10951588, Chicago, 1988, 262. For aspects of the clergy and war in general: T. Reuter, ‘Episcopi cum sua militia: the Prelate as Warrior in the Early Staufer Era’, in T. Reuter (ed), Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages, London, 1992; the section on ‘Violence and the medieval clergy’ in D. J. Kagay and L. J Andrew Villalon (eds), The Final Argument: The Imprint of Violence on Society in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Woodbridge, 1998, pp. 3–52; B. Arnold, ‘German Bishops and their Military Retinues in Medieval Europe’, German History, 7 (2), 1989, 161–83; M. Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience, New Haven, 1996, 168–70; Kaeuper, Chivalry and Violence, 41–84; McGlynn, By Sword and Fire, 61–71; A. Murray, ‘Roles in Warfare of Clergy’, OEMW, i, 404–6. For a fuller discussion of what follows, see McGlynn, ‘Roger of Wendover’.

  17   For Guérin’s career, see J. Baldwin, The Government of Philip Augustus, Berkeley, 1986, 115–22.

  18   Quoted in Contamine, War, 211.

  19   Barbara English, ‘Towns, Mottes and Ring-works of the Conquest’, in A. Ayton and J. L. Price (eds), The Medieval Military Revolution: State, Society and Military Change in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, London, 1995, 45.

  20   F. Paxton, ‘Power and the Power to Heal: The Cult of St Sigismund of Burgundy’, Early Medieval Europe, 2 (2), 1993, 101.

  21   H. Cowdrey, ‘Pope Gregory VII’, Medieval History, 1 (1), 1991, 28.

  22   Quoted by Timothy Reuter in Reuter, ‘Episcopi cum sua militia’, 93.

  23   St Bernard, himself a son of a knight, was originally destined for the knighthood. There is a large literature on the military orders: M. Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple, Cambridge, 1994; A. Forey, The Military Orders: From the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries, London, 1992; D. Selwood, Knights of the Cloister: Templars and Hospitallers in Central-Southern Occitania, 1100–1300, Woodbridge, 1999; J. M. Upton-Ward, ed. and trans., The Rule of the Templars, Woodbridge, 1992; H. Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights: Images of the Military Orders, 1128–1291, Leicester, 1995; idem., The Knights Templar: A New History, Gloucester, 2001; J. Upton-Ward, The Military Orders: Volume IV, Ashgate, 2008; L. Marvin, ‘Monastic Military Orders’, RGMH, 383–4; J. Porter, S. Cerrini and C. Jensen, ‘Military Orders’, OEMW, iii, 76–85. Brother Guérin was a Knight Templar (see n. 17 above).

  24   C. Oman, The Art of War in the Middle Ages, Oxford, 1885; idem., revised and expanded 3rd edn., 2 vols., London, 1924.

  25   H. Delbrück, Medieval Warfare, trans. W. J. Renfroe, Lincoln, 1982 (original German edn. 1924). For a very interesting but ultimately unconvincing reassessment of Delbrück and army sizes, see B. Bachrach, ‘Early Medieval Military Demography: Some Observations on the Methods of Hans Delbrück’, in D. J. Kagay and L. J. Andrew Villalon (eds), The Circle of War in the Middle Ages, Woodbridge, 1999.

  26   R. C. Smail, Crusading Warfare, 1097–1193, Cambridge, 1956.

  27   Note the reminisces of M. Keen, Nobles, Knights and Men-at-Arms in the Middle Ages, London, 1996, ix.

  28   J. F. Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages From the Eighth Century to 1340.

  29   Ibid., 16.

  30   See ns. 7 and 14.

  31   Critical evaluations of this expansive literature are to be found in: S. McGlynn, ‘Land Warfare, 1000–1500’, in C. Messenger (ed), Reader’s Guide to Military History, London, 2002; J. France, ‘Recent Writing on Medieval Warfare: From the Fall of Rome to c. 1300’, Journal of Military History, 65 (2), 2001 (my thanks to Prof France for forwarding an early copy of this comprehensive article). The literature on medieval warfare is also discussed in: M. Strickland, ‘Introduction’, in M. Strickland (ed), Anglo-Norman Warfare: Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon an Anglo-Norman Military Organization and Warfare, Woodbridge, 1992 (itself an invaluable collection of revisionist papers chiefly from the 1980s); A. Curry, ‘Medieval Warfare: England and Her Continental Neighbours, Eleventh to the Fourteenth Centuries’, JMH, 21 (3), 1997; S. McGlynn, ‘The Myths of Medieval Warfare’, History Today, 44 (1), 1994; idem., ‘Battle Honours’, Medieval World, no.7, 1992; idem., ‘Medieval Warfare’, European Review of History-Revue Européene d’Histoire, 4 (2), 1997.

  32   See n.25.

  33   John France, Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000–1300, 1999.

  34   William Blake, The Complete Poems, Harmondsworth, 1977, pp. 59–60.

1 Enemies: The Angevin-Capetian Struggle

  35   Gesta Stephani, eds. K.R. Potter and R.H.C. Davis, Oxford, 1976, 224.

  36   J.C Holt considers this treaty as neither a treaty nor a charter, but rather a ‘formal promulgation of terms previously agreed.’ (’The Treaty of Winchester’, in Edmund King (ed), The Anarchy of King Stephen Reign, Oxford, 1994, 293–5). Holt’s essay is one of a number of valuable pieces in this important collection. Stephen’s reign has seen a proliferation of significant recent studies, notably: Keith Stringer, The Reign of Stephen, London., 1993; R.H.C Davis, King Stephen, 3rd edn, Harlow, 1990; Jim Bradbury, Stephen and Matilda: The Civil War of 1139–53, Gloucester, 1996; David Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen, 1135–1154, Harlow, 2000; Donald Matthew, King Stephen, London, 2002; Paul Dalton and Graeme White (eds), King Stephen’s Reign, 1135–1154, Woodbridge, 2008.

  37   The Capetian house ruled France from 987 to 1328. Louis has come in for much criticism for divorcing Eleanor and hence losing such a great amount of terroritory, but it should be noted that he did go on to produce a son and thus ensured uncomplicated further successions to the crown; France therefore avoided the strife caused by disputed successions in England. For Capetian France, see: Elizabeth Hallam, Capetian France, 987–1328, Harlow, 1980 (2nd edition with Judith Everard, 2001); Jean Dunbabin, France in the Making, 843–1180, Oxford, 1985; Robert Fawtier, The Capetian Kings of France: Monarchy and Nation, 987–1328, Basingstoke, 1960; Georges Duby,France in the Middle Ages, 987–1460, Oxford, 1991; Ivan Gobry, Les Capétiens, Paris, 2001; Jim Bradbury, The Capetians, 2007.

  38   Ralph of Diss remarked on Henry’s itinerant kingship: ‘now in Ireland, now in England, now in Normandy, he must fly rather than travel by horse or ship’ (Radulphi de Diceto Opera Historica, ed. W.Stubbs, RS, 1876, i, 351

  39   For Eleanor: Bonnie Wheeler and John C. Parsons, Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady, Basingstoke, 2002; D.D.R. Owen, Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen and Legend, Oxford, 1993. Her life is also comprehensively covered, if a little romantically, by Amy Kelly, Eleanor of Aquataine and the Four Kings, London, 1950; and more recently by Alison Weir, Eleanor of Aquataine: A Life, London, 2000. Two useful articles are: Jane Martindale, ‘Eleanor of Aquitaine: The last Years’, in Church, King John; and Ralph V. Turner, ‘Eleanor of Aquitaine and her Children’, JMH, 14 (3), 1998.

  40   A.L. Poole covers these events and discusses the importance of the gains in From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087–1216, 2nd edn, Oxford, 1955, 323–6. For these and other territories see Richard Couer de Lion, 25–33.

  41   For Henry’s reign, the best account is the magisterial work by W.L.Warren, HenryII, London, 1973. For his early years, Emilie Amt’s The Accesion of Henry II in England, Royal Government restored, 1149–1159, Woodbridge, 1993, is very insightful. See also Richard Barber, Henry Plantagenet, Woodbridge, new edn, 2001. An excellent collection of papers has recently been published: Christopher Harper-Bill and Nicholas Vincent (eds), Henry II: New Interpretations, Woodbridge, 2007. Also of interest is Ruth Kennedy and Simon Meecham-Jones (eds), Writers of the Reign of Henry II,Basingstoke, 2006. Of relevance is John Gillingham, ‘Conquering Kings: Some Twelfth-Century Reflections on Henry II and Richard I, in Richard Couer de Lion. For a detailed account of events in 1173–4, see M. Thomas, War of the Generations: The Revolt of 11734, Michigan, 1980. Military aspects of this war are authoritatively dealt with in two papers by Matthew Strickland: ‘Securing the North: Invasion and the Strategy of Defence in Twelfth-Century Anglo–Scottish Warfare’, in ANW; ’Arms and the Men: Loyalty and Lordship in Jordan Fantasome’s Chronicle’, in Christopher Harper-Bill, Medieval Knightood, 4, Woodbridge, 1992. Also important here is John D. Hosler, Henry II: A Medieval Soldier at War, 1147–1189, Woodbridge, 2007. The danger of 1183 was further exacerbated by Lord Rhys of Wales, who had taken the opportunity of Henry’s distraction by these troubles to lead a Welsh Rebellion, as Gillingham explores in ‘Henry II, Richard I and the Lord Rhys’, Peritia, 10, 1996 (I am grateful to Prof Gillingham for allowing me to read an advanced copy of this paper).

  42   W. Stubbs (ed), Itinerarium Regis Ricardi in Chronciles and Memorials of The Reign of Richard I, 2 vols, RS, 1864, i, xvii. The standard account of Richard’s reign, is John Gillingham’s Richard I, London, 1999. This is augmented by his Richard Couer de Lion, London, 1994. This can be usefully supplemented by Kate Norgate, Richard the Lionheart, London, 1924; Jean Flori, Richard the Lionheart: Knight and King, trans. Jean Birrell, Westport, 2006 and Janet Nelson (ed), Richard Coeur de Lion in History and Myth, London 1992. An important collection of articles on Richard is to be found in Louis Le Roc’h Morgère (ed), Richard Couer de Lion, Roi d’Angleterre, Duc de Normandie, Caen, 1999. Less favourable views of Richard are to be found in: Ralph V. Turner and Richard R. Heiser, The Reign of Richard Lionheart: Ruler of the Angevin Empire, 1189–1199, Harlow, 2000, which offers a measured alternative perspective; John Appleby, England Without Richard, 1189–1199, London, 1965; and especially James Brundage, Richard Lionheart, New York, 1973. The debate on Richard is continued in M.Markowski. ‘Richard Lionheart: Bad King. Bad Crusader?, Journal of Medieval History, 23, 1997. Ralph V. Turner’s ‘Good or Bad Kinsghip? The Case of Richard the Lionheart’, Haskin’s Society Journal, 8, Woodbridge, 1999, is a sustained critique of Gillingham’s defence of Richard; although extremely helpful in summarising the debate, the article, in common with all Ricardian studies, fails to consider the grand strategy addressed in this chapter and is thus too sympathetic to John’s predicament in 1203–04.

  43   See Richard Benjamin, ‘A Forty Years War: Toulouse and the Plantagenets,’ Historical Research, 61 and P.N. Lewis, ‘The Wars of Richard I in the West,’ unpublished MPhil dissertation, University of London, 1977, for the military ramifications of this.

  44   J.C. Holt, Magna Carta and Medieval Government, London, 1985, 82. Richard Heiser has demonstrated that Richard’s judicious appointments to shrievalties indicate care and foresight: ‘Richard I and His Appointments to English Shrievalties’, EHR, 112 (445), 1997. He also makes the valid point that Richard’s constant shuffling and exploitation of the sherrif’s office was common medieval practice and therefore not proof of Richard’s personal cupidity; Philip Augustus treated the office of bailli in a similar fashion and is praised for doing so (p.10).

  45   J. Cookson, ‘What if Napoleon had Landed?’, History Today, 53 (9), 2003, 17.

  46   Robert J. McMahon, The Cold War, Oxford, 2003, 12.

  47   Anthony Tuck, Crown and Nobility, 1985, 186. See pp. 177–86 for a discussion of strategy during this period. Charles VI called off the invasion in November, probably due to financial reasons.

  48   WB, i, 204.

  49   Holt, Magna Carta and Medieval Government, 39.

  50   His classic study, The Angevin Empire, reprinted in Richard Couer de Lion, discusses the economic issues, especially on 46–8. The Angevin Empire is also explored in Ralph V. Turner, ‘The Problem of Survival for the Angevin “Empire”: Henry’s II’s and his Sons’ Vision versus Late Twelfth-Century Realities, American Historical Review,100 (1), 1995; John Le Patourel, ‘Angevin Succesions and the Angevin Empire’, in his Feudal Empires: Norman and Plantagent, London, 1984; Richard Benjamin, ‘The Angevin Empire’, in Nigel Saul (ed), England in Europe, 1066–1453, London, 1994; Robert Bartlett, England under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075–1225,Oxford 2000, 21–8; Warren, Henry II, 207–37; Donald Matthew, Britain and the Continent, 1000–1300, London, 2005, 88–128. Adam Smith, writing in 1776, noted the prerequisite importance of river systems to growing economies: ‘So it is upon the sea coast, and along the banks of navigable rivers, that industry of every kind naturally begins to divide and improve itself … A broad wheel wagon attended by two men and drawn by eight horses in about six weeks’ time carries and brings back between London and Edinburgh near four tons of goods. In about the same time a ship navigated by six or eight men and sailing between the ports of London and Leith frequently carries and brings back 200 ton weight of goods’ (Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations, Harmondsworth 1982, [originally published in 1776], 122. Thus the continental Angevin Empire, despite its disparate regions, distance from England and its separation from it by sea, was geographically and economically well-placed to be a thriving commercial entity. For geographical determinants of economic growth, see also Jeffery Sachs, ‘The Limits of Convergance: Nature, Nurture and Growth’, The Economist, 14 June, 1997. For the economy in Richard and John’s reign, additional to Gillingham above, see the essays by Jim Bolton and Paul Latimer in Church, King John. The most up-to-date survey is James Masschaele, ‘The English Economy in the Age of Magna Carta’, in Janet Loengard (ed), Magna Carta and the England of King John, Woodbridge, 2010.

  51   RHF, 24, 758.

  52   For example: Michael Clanchy, England and its Rulers, 1066–1272, London, 1983, 112; Gillingham, Richard Couer de Lion, 8.

  53   The Song of Dermot and the Earl, ed. and trans. G.H. Opren, Oxford, 1892, 22.

  54   Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 23.

  55   Turner, ‘Survival of the Angevin “Empire”’, 88–9.

  56   Good general surveys of this struggle are provided in the appropriate chapters of Poole, Domesday Book; Clancy, England and Its Rulers; Frank Barlow, The Feudal Kingdom of England, 1042–1216, 4th edn, Harlow 1998; Gillingham, Richard Couer de Lion; Kate Norgate, England Under the Angevin Kings, 2 vols, ii, London 1887; Hallam,Capetian France; Achille Luchaire Philippe Auguste et son Temp, Paris 1980 (originally published in 1902); Malcolm Vale, The Ancient Enemy: England, France and Europe from the Angevins to the Tudors, 2007.

  57   There are a number of important accounts of John’s reign, analysing both his domestic and foreign policies in substantial details. W.L Warren offers the standard survey, on which I have relied heavily, King John, 3rd edn, London, 1998. To this may be added three differing but excellent surveys: R.V. Turner, King John, London, 1994; Kate Norgate, John Lackland, London, 1902; Sidney Painter, The Reign of King John, Baltimore, 1949. Also enjoyable, if less rigourous, is Alan Lloyd, King John, Trowbridge, 1973. A useful brief survey, with documents, can be found in J.A.P. Jones, King John and Magna Carta, Harlow, 1971. An important collection of conference papers has already been referenced for John’s reign, counter-revisionist in tone: Church, King John. Also of great value is the collection from Janet S. Loengard (ed) Magna Carta and the England of King John, Woodbridge, 2010. John’s rule is afforded much detailed discussions in Gillingham, Richard Couer de Lion and in the essential writings of J. C. Holt: Magna Carta and Medieval Government; Magna Carta, 2nd edn, Cambridge, 1992; idem, The Northerners, 2nd edn, Oxford 1992.

  58   W.C. Sellar and R.J. Yeatman, 1066 and All That, Gloucester, 1993 [ 1930], 26–8.

  59   Norgate, John, 286.

  60   Lloyd, John, 392. This conclusion is based on Gervase of Canterbury’s contemporary opinion, expressed in The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. W. Stubbs, RS, 1880, ii, 92–3. Ralph Turner also argues that John deserves a favourable assessment of his generalship: Turner, ‘King John’s Military Reputation Reconsidered’, JMH, 19, 1993.

  61   For an example of the extremes taken in nineteenth-century Britain by admirers of chivalry, see Ian Anstruther, The Knight and the Umbrella, London, 1963. For a brief discussion of this phenomenon, see my review article in History Today, 47 (2), 1997. A broad survey is given in Mark Girouard, The Return to Camelot, Yale, 1981.

  62   Holt writes that John’s ‘total achievement was enormous, fit to stand alongside that of Henry II or Edward I. Together, these two and John represent a standard which was never again equalled in the medieval period’ (Magna Carta and Medieval Government, 96).

  63   Colin Richmond, ‘Identity and Morality: Power and Politics During the Wars of the Roses’, in Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of Rees Davies, Oxford, 2007, 234.

  64   Turner, King John, 3–4.

  65   The collection is Church, King John. David Carpenter and Nicholas Vincent have engaged in a robust debate over 1199 and the origins of chancery rolls in Nicholas Vincent (ed), Records, Administration and Aristocratic Society in the Anglo-Norman Realm, Woodbridge, 2010, xvi-xviii, 1–28. See also Mark Hagger’s article in the same volume, ‘Theory and Practice in the Making of Twelfth-Century Pipe Rolls’, which raises questions over the reliability of even Pipe Rolls. The quotation is from David Crouch, ‘Baronial Paranoia in King John’s Reign’, in Leongard, Magna Carta and the England of King John, 51, 62.

  66   Gerald of Wales in Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, (8 vols), eds. J.S. Brewer, J.F. Dimcock and G.F Warner, RS. 1861–91, viii, 214; Richard of Devizes in Chronicon, ed. and trans. J.T. Appleby, London, 1963, 32; the Barnwell chronicler (BC) in Memoriale Walteri de Coventria, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols, RS, 1879–80, ii, 232, Anonymous of Béthune in Histoire des Ducs de Normandie et des Rois d’Angleterre, ed. F. Michelet, Paris, 1840; the anonymous biographer of William Marshal (HWM) in History of William Marshal, 3 vols., ed. A. Holden, D. Crouch and S. Gregory, Anglo-Norman Text Society, 2002–2006, 124–7 (I will use page rather than line numbers); I am indebted to the kindness of Prof Holden, Dr Gregory and especially Prof Crouch for their kindness in allowing me to see draft versions of this invaluable edition.

  67   Charles Petit-Dutaillis, The Feudal Monarchy in France and England, London, 1936, 215.

  68   Vivian Green, The Madness of Kings: Personal Trauma and the Fate of Nations, Gloucester, 1993, 43–7.

  69   Warren, 71. This comment beautifully encapsulates more about John than any amount of psychoanalysis.

  70   Gillingham, Richard I, 166–71; McGlynn, By Sword and Fire, 100–12. Bradbury sums up the differing perceptions of the two kings thus: ‘Richard may have been rash and aggressive, but he was widely respected; his brother came to be respected by none’: Jim Bradbury, Philip Augustus: King of France, 1180–1223, Harlow, 1998, 116.

  71   See Gervase, n. 20. The term becomes more perjorative as John’s reign progresses. For discussions of John’s image see, in particular: Warren, ch. 1; Turner, ch. 1; and Turner’s same argument in ‘King John in his Context: a Comparison with his Contemporaries’, in The Haskins Society Journal, 3, 1991; C. Warren Hollister, ‘King John and the Historians’, Journal of British Studies, 1, 1961. For a modern comparison with difficulties in the perceptions of political leadership, see also Sean McGlynn, ‘British Nationalism and Europe: a Medieval Comparison’, Politics, 16(3), 1996.

  72   Winston Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples, I, London, 1956, 190.

  73   Jean Flori, Philippe Auguste, Paris, 2007, 9. My translation.

  74   Good broad accounts of the salient features of Philip’s reign can be found in: Hallam, Capetian France; Robert Fawtier, Capetian Kings; Duby, France in the Middle Ages. Alexander Cartellieri’s Philipp II. August, 4 vols, Leipzig, 1899–1922, is a massive, if severely dated, achievement. For Philip’s historical reputation, see Georges Duby,The Legend of Bouvines, Cambridge, 1990. French biographies, though useful, can be over-flattering. See Georges Bordonove, Philippe Auguste, Paris, 1986; Gérard Sivéry, Philippe Auguste, Paris, 1993; Flori, Philippe Auguste and Luchaire’s Philippe Auguste. Much of the same information is to be found in the English sources cited above, especially in Warren and Norgate. Two biographies in English on Philip are: William Hutton, Philip Augustus, London, 1896; and the more comprehensive Bradbury, Philip Augustus. But best of all on Philip’s reign are two magnificent works: John Baldwin, The Government of Philip Augustus, Berkeley, 1986; and R-H. Bautier (ed), La France de Philippe Auguste: Le Temps des Mutations, Paris, 1982, a collection of invaluable essays.

  75   Turner, ‘King John in his context’, 188; Steven Runciman, ‘Richard Couer-de-Lion’, in History Today, 41(6), 1991 (originally 1955), 51; Fawtier, Capetian Kings, 24; Charles Petit-Dutaillis, La Monarchie Féodale en France et en Angleterre, Paris, 1933, 290; Flori, Philippe Auguste, 10.

  76   John Gillingham, ‘Richard I and the Science of War’, ANW, 195. (This essay is also in his Richard Couer de Lion collection.)

  77   For these events, see Gilbert of Mons, Chronicle of Hainaut, trans. Laura Napran, Woodbridge, 2005, 90–1.

  78   Fawtier, Capetian Kings, 25.

  79   R-H. Bautier, ‘La Personalité de Philippe Auguste’, in Bautier, La France de Philippe Auguste, 56. This essay offers a detailed character analysis of the French king. The personalities of John and Philip are contrasted in Jim Bradbury, ‘Philip Augustus and Jim Bradbury: Personality and History’, in Church, King John.

  80   See Sean McGlynn, ‘Philip Augustus: Too Soft a King?, Medieval Life, 1 (4), 1996.

  81   Gillingham, ‘Richard I’, ANW, 197; Poole, Domesday Book, 342; Lloyd, John, 30.

  82   W. Paden, T. Sankovitch and P. Stalein (eds), The Poems of Bertran de Born, Los Angeles, 1986, 393, 380. Surprisingly, I have not come across any writer who uses this quotation to support the notion of Philip as a poor soldier.

  83   For Anglo-Imperial relations see Poole, Domesday Book, 366–7 and 452–55. For John’s reign, Theo Holzapfel covers the English-Guelph alliance in Papst Innozenz III, Philip II August, Kônig von Frankreich und die englisch-welfische Verbindung, 1198–1216, Frankfurt, 1991. He also covers the treaty 45–51. (I am grateful to John Gillingham for bringing this book to my attention.) Also of value is Natalie Fryde, ‘King John and the Empire’, in Church, King John.

  84   The treaty is discussed in Warren, 54–6; F.M. Powicke, The Loss of Normandy, 2nd edn, Manchester, 1961, 134–8; Turner, 53–4; Baldwin, 96–7; Bradbury, Philip Augustus, 133–5. Contemporaries’ views on Le Goulet are discussed by John Gillingham: ‘Historians Without Hindsight: Coggeshall, Diceto and Howden on the Early Years of John’s Reign’, in Church, King John.

  85   Turner, King John, 54.

  86   Baldwin, 97. Bradbury agrees, evaluating the treaty as ‘recognition of Philip’s strength’ (Bradbury, Philip Augustus, 133). In concordance with this view are Hallam, Capetian France, 183 and Jacques Boussard, ‘Philippe Auguste et les Plantgenêts’, in R.H. Bautier, La France de Philippe Auguste (’un grand success pour Philippe Auguste’, 279).

  87   Warren, 55.

  88   Turner, 14.

  89   See above, n. 26. But see also Gillingham, ‘Historians Without Hindsight’, 22–3 and Holt, ‘King John’, in Magna Carta and Medieval Government, 102–3.

  90   See, for example, Warren, King John, 57.

  91   Richard’s religious life is discussed by Gillingham, Richard I, 257–60.

  92   Examined by Ralph V. Turner, ‘Richard Lionheart and English Episcopal Elections’, Albion, 29 (1), 1997.

  93   Ralph V. Turner, ‘Richard Lionheart and the Episcopate in His French Domains’, French Historical Studies, 21 (4), 1998, 520. This paragraph relies heavily on Turner’s article.

  94   See Baldwin, The Government of Philip Augustus, 307, 328 and his ‘Philip Augustus and the Norman Church’, French Historical Studies, 6 (1), 1969.

  95   Turner, ‘Richard Lionheart and the Episcopate’, 528; Quentin Griffiths, ‘The Capetian kings and St. Martin of Tours’, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 9, 1987.

  96   Turner, ‘Richard Lionheart and the Episcopate’, 535. Turner believes the implications of this to be stark: ‘The Angevin monarchs’ failure to forge close links with the bishops of their southern domains contributed to their inability to construct a lasting political structure for their would-be empire’ (537). See also his ‘The Problems of Survival for the Angevin “Empire”’, 92–6.

  97   Fuller details of this incident are to be found in Gillingham, Richard I, 301–4.

  98   For events leading to Andely’s burning, see Robert de Tourigny, Chronica, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. Richard Howlett, 4 vols., Rolls Series, London, 1884–9, 4, 229–32 (Robert calls Andely an ‘excellent town’); Yves Sassier, Louis VII, Paris, 1991, 387; Warren, Henry II, 106.

  99   ‘Rex Francie petiit ad opus sum Andeli’ Roger of Howden, Chronica, ed. W. Stubbs, 4 vols., Rolls Series, London 1868–71, 4, 3–4. Andely changed hands more than once during the confused wars of the 1190s. For the peace of Louviers, see Gillingham, Richard I, 297–8 and F.M. Powicke, ‘King Philip Augustus and the Archbishop of Rouen (1196)’, EHR, 27 (1), 1912.

100   HGM, 3, 159. The Archbishop was not alone in expressing his anxieties this way, Geoffrey de Vinsauf lamenting: ‘O Normandy, once safe beneath king Richard’s shield, but undefended now…’ (Poetria Nova of Geoffrey of Vinsauf, trans. M.F. Nims, Toronto, 1967, 28). In some versions, ‘England’ replaces ‘Normandy’: see Gillingham,Richard I, 321 and n. 3. Bartlett’s translation is used here (Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 25).

2 The Conquest of Normandy, 1200–1204

101   For John’s tour see Warren, King John, 64; Norgate, John, 74 (the source of the quotation); Norgate, Angevin Kings, ii, 397–8; Howden, iv, 125.

102   Warren’s King John (69) makes this point. For Isabella, see Nicholas Vincent, ‘Isabella of Angoulême: John’s Jezebel’, in Church, King John.

103   Daniel Power, The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth Centuries, Cambridge, 2004, 424. Kate Norgate suggests that John may have deliberately intended to goad the Lusignans into rebellion, thereby providing him with the pretext to recover La Marche (Norgate, John, 77). If this had been the case the plan had backfired disastrously for John.

104   Howden, iv, 163. This episode is not quite as blatant as Henry IV’s scam in 1407, when he persuaded parliament to stump up finances for a proposed campaign in Wales. Henry cancelled the campaign and absorbed many of the funds into his household: Edmund Wright, ‘The Recovery of Royal Finance in 1407’, in Rowena Archer and Simon Walker (eds), Rulers and Ruled in Late Medieval England, London, 1995, 77–81.

105   Bautier, La France de Philippe Auguste, 251–2; Luchaire, Philippe Auguste, 142; Theodore Evergates, Feudal Society in the Bailliage of Troyes under the Counts of Champagne, 1152–1284, Baltimore, 1975, 47.

106   Gervase of Canterbury, ii, 93.

107   WB, i, 207. William the Breton is the only source to mention that Tillières was similarly treated (ii, 159–60) and that the siege took three weeks. For events in Normandy, the best detailed accounts are in Power, The Norman Frontier, 413–45, and F.M. Powicke, The Loss of Normandy, 1189–1204, 2nd edn, Manchester, 1960, 148–69.

108   According to Roger of Wendover, Philip also besieged Radpont for eight days at the beginning of July, but hastily retreated from there when John suddenly appeared on the scene (RW, i, 313–14).

109   For Gournay, see Powicke, 149–50; Bradbury, 141–2; WB, ii, 160–2; Robert of Auxerre, Roberti Canonici Sancti Mariani Autissiodorensis Chronicon, Monumenta Germania Historica Scriptores xvii, 265. Above all, for Gournay and the campaign in eastern Normandy, see the important appendix in Power, The Norman Frontier, 532–38. Gournay Castle is briefly commented on in André Châtelain, Châteaux Forts en Île de France, Paris, 1983, 185. For John’s intentions at Arques see Powicke, 150 and Rot. Pat. 15. For the Cinque Ports, see N.A.M. Rodgers, ‘The Naval Service of the Cinque Ports’, EHR, 111 (442), 1996. These ports were, as Stephen Church has observed, ‘the most important ports in the land’: S. D. Church, The Household Knights of King John, Cambridge, 1999, 47.

110   For Mirebeau see Coggeshall, 137–8; WB, ii, 166–9; RW, i, 314–15; AB, 93–5; and Bradbury, Philip Augustus, 143–4, for the politics.

111   At Courcelles in 1189 in a trap laid by Richard I (WB, ii, 139) See John Gillingham, Richard the Lionheart, 2nd edn, 1989, 272–3. For intelligence gathering in the Middle Ages see J.O. Prestwich, ‘Military Intelligence under the Norman and Angevin Kings’ in G. Garnett and J. Hudson (eds), Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy, Cambridge, 1994. Wendover writes that John’s march was ‘faster than is to be believed’: RW, i, 314.

112   These examples are from William the Breton: WB, ii, 73, 75, 102, 125–6. Cf. Richard’s remarks with Hugh de Boves: ‘delays are always dangerous when things are ready’ (RW, ii, 107). For Aumâle see WB, ii, 132 and Gillingham, Lionheart, 267–8.

113   Warren, 79. Cf. Poole’s remark in Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 382.

114   RW, i, 315. Poole suggests that ‘shortage of provisions may have expedited the retirement’ (Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 382). See above for John’s intention that the Cinque Ports should cut off the supplies to Philip by sea. Bradbury writes that ‘Philip’s retreat was the one occasion when militarily John out-trumped’ (Bradbury, 143).

115   AM, i, 26; Rot. Pat., 1, 33b, 37b, 44b, 55b; H.J Chaytor, Savaryc de Mauléon, Cambridge, 1939, 14. The sources concur that John was a harsh captor. However, such was a medieval realpolitik, this did not prevent some of the prisoners from later forging alliances with John: see Lyons, ‘The Capetian Conquest of Anjou’, 35.

116   RC, 139–41; Matthew Paris, Historia Anglorum, ed. F. Maddern, RS, 1866, ii, 95; AM, i, 27; WB, ii, 173–4. Arthur’s historical role is explored most fully in K. Carter, ‘Arthur I, Duke of Brittany, in History and Literature’, unpublished PhD, The Florida State University, 1996, and J. A. Everard, Brittany and the Angevins, Cambridge, 2000, 159–75. Judith Everard’s bbok is to be much recommended for events in Brittany which we do not have space to go into here. See also Powicke, The Loss of Normandy, 309–28; Michael Jones, ‘The Capetian and Brittany’, Historical Research, 63 (1), 1990, 9–12; M. D. Legge, ‘William the Marshal and Arthur of Brittany, Historical Research, 55 (1), 1982. Legge draws attention to William de Braose as a common source for both William the Breton and the annalist of Margam (19).

117   Powicke, 153–4. For the political and territorial shake-up that followed des Roches’ move to Philip, see Lyons, ‘The Capetian Conquest of Anjou’, 39–64. John ensured that des Roches was unable to carry all his military power with him.

118   RW, i, 317. For Count Robert’s defection see Power, The Norman Frontier, 438–40, and for this and John’s alienation of the Norman aristocracy, see Daniel Power, ‘King John and the Norman Aristocracy’, in Church, King John.

119   Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 383–4. Daniel Power’s massive and brilliant The Norman Frontier is comprehensive for this period. For an excellent survey of ties between England and Normandy see David Bates and Anne Curry (eds), England and Normandy in the Middle Ages, London, 1994. Also, Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 11–28; Power, ‘King John’; V. D. Moss, ‘The Norman Exhequer Rolls of King John’, in Church; Powicke, The Loss of Normandy, chs. 3 and 5. Historians who make a convincing case for cracks in the Anglo-Norman relationship include: Ralph Turner, ‘Good or Bad Kingship: The Case of Richard Lionheart’,Haskins Society Journal, 8, 1999, 72–73; idem, ‘Richard Lionheart and the Episcopate’; idem, ‘The Problems of Survival’; Lucien Musset, ‘Quelques problèmes poses par l’annexion de la Normandie au domain royale français’, in Bautier, La France de Philipp Auguste; and J.C Holt, ‘the End of the Anglo-Norman Realm’, in hisMagna Cart and Medieval Government, where he writes of the ‘signs that Normandy and England were beginning to go their separate ways’ (47). All the while, ties with France had been growing stronger: Judith Green, ‘Lords of the Norman Vexin’, in J. C Holt and John Gillingham (eds), War and Government in the Middle Ages’, Woolbridge, 1984; idem, ‘Unity and Disunity in the Anglo-Norman State’, Historical Research, 62 (1), 1989. Warren believes that by the early thirteenth century Normans considered their union with England to be ‘a curious anachronism’: W. L. Warren, Henry II, London, 1973, 627. David Crouch writes that by the beginning of the thirteenth century one can ‘conclude that it was only the fraction of the magnates with Anglo-Norman interests which supported the King of England’s desire to keep Normandy’: Crouch, ‘Normans and Anglo-Normans: A Divided Aristocracy?’, in Bates and Curry, England and Normandy in the Middle Ages, 67.

120   For commentaries on the siege of Château Gaillard see: E. E. Viollet le Duc, Military Architecture, London, 1990, 80–94 (originally published in 1860); Raymond Quenedy, ‘Le Siège de Château Gaillard en 1203–1204’, Bulletin de la Société des Amis des Monuments Rouennais, 1913, 51–89. These works contain good physical descriptions of the castle, as does J.F. Fino, Fortresses de la France Mediévale, Paris, 1967, 115–83. See also: Paul Boutellier, ‘Le Siège et la Prie du Château Gaillard’, Revue Historique de l’Armée, 1946, 15–26; Philip Warner, Sieges of the Middle Ages, London, 1968, 124–34; Cartellieri, Philipp II, iv, 166–70, 173–179; Powicke, 253–6 (which sees the siege as one important event amongst many); Warren, 93–5. The most complete previous account in English is Norgate, Angevin Kings, ii, 411–23; also of note is her John Lackland, 94–100. I have, to my knowledge, provided here the fullest account of the siege in English. See n. 27 for contemporary sources. Bradbury (Philip Augustus, 145–151) and Wade (’Warfare and Armies in Capetian France’, 140–56) provide good recent accounts. For its strategic importance, see Dominique Pitte, ‘Château-Gaillard dans la Défense de la Normandie orientale (1196–1204)’, ANS, 24 (2002).

121   Of contemporary sources, William the Breton provides two invaluable accounts: WB, i, 212–19 and ii, 176–209. Rigord covers the siege in Rigord (WB), i, 159; Roger of Wendover offers a slightly different perspective in RW, ii, 8–9. Brief mentions appear in AM, ii, 255–6; and AB, 102–3; and also the Anonymous of Béthune’s narrative inRHF, xxiv, 762.

122   See Norgate, John, n. 20.

123   RW, i, 317.

124   Baldwin, 168. See also ch. 3.

125   The accounts in the Philippidos and Gesta differ here: the former attributes this commando-style mission solely to Galbert; the latter conflates the earlier breaking of the stockade with the later attack on the isle into one episode.

126   Powicke (The Loss of Normandy, 254–6) casts doubt on the existence of these trenches, judiciously reminding us of Charles VII’s siege operations at Château Gaillard in 1449; but he is wrong to say that William the Breton does not mention these trenches, as he clearly does so: WB, i, 216 and ii, 193; so also does the extremely rarely mentioned account of the siege by the Anonymous of Béthune in RHF, xxiv, 762.

127   For what follows, see William the Breton’s prose account in WB, i, 216–218; his lengthier verse account is in WB ii, 195–200. Historians who cover this event tend to do so only within a few lines at most: see Lloyd, King John, 139–40; Philip Warner, Sieges of the Middle Ages, London, 1968, 133–134; Powicke, Normandy, 256; Luchaire,Philippe Auguste ou la France Rassemblée, Paris, 1979, 157–158. Kate Norgate’s Angevin Kings, ii, 417–418 gives the most detail, and is the only one to add an original insight into the subject. But see also Sean McGlynn, ‘The Useless Mouths’, History Today, 48 (6), 1998, idem, By Sword and Fire, 161–70, and Wade, ‘Warfare and Armies in Capetian France’, 149–50. The expulsion of ‘useless mouths’ was commonplace: the French garrison besieged at Calais turned out non-combatants in 1346, as that of Rouen did in 1418 (see n. 30). As a siege measure, we can see it in operation as late as 1870 at the siege of Paris: Alistair Horne, The Fall of Paris: The Siege and Commune, 1870–71, London, 1965, ch. 11; Susan Watkins, ‘War on God’, (review article), London Review of Books, 21 (10), 20, who uses the phrase ‘les bouches inutiles’ in a modern context.

128   There is a large painting by Tattegrain, considered by many to be a masterpiece, with this title (’Les bouches inutiles’), which is exhibited in the mayorial offices at Les Adelys. The lower of the figures cited is more likely. The numbers are calculated from William the Breton’s figures.

129   William refers to this tragic ending only in his chronicle (WB, i, 218); he probably did not wish for such an unhappy ending to mar the compassion of the French king in his panegyric Philippidos. For the Parzival episode, see Paul Strohm’s review of Herman Pleij, Dreaming of Cockaigne: Medieval Fantasies of the Perfect Life (Columbia, 2001) in The London Review of Books, 21 June, 2001, 17.

         William’s account of the siege is given extra authenticity by this description of the fatal consumption of food by the surviving starving refugees. In 1945 British soldiers who had liberated Belsen concentration camp gave food to the skeletal inmates; several of the internees died from the induced gastrointestinal bleeding, the result of too much food acting on acutely empty stomachs (see Thomas Stuttaford, MD, writing in The Times, 22 May 1995 and also The European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, May 1995). The veracity of this episode is further underlined by the case of the shipwrecked survivors of the whaleship Essex in 1820: when rescued from being adrift in their lifeboat, two remaining sailors were reluctant to surrender the bones on which they had been gnawing and relying for sustenance (the drama is related in Nathaniel Philbrick, In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship ‘Essex’, London, 2000; Owen Chase, Shipwreck of the Whaleship Essex, London, 2000). That these bones were human (from victims of the disaster) makes the William the Breton’s claims of cannibalism at Château Gaillard more believable. Modern authorities are too ready to dismiss William’s reference as sheer sensationalism (eg, Wade, ‘Armies and Warfare’, 150, n. 93) or as a literary topos. Desperate sieges could prompt desperate responses. During the Battle of Leningrad in the Second World War, between early December 1941 and 15 February 1942 Soviet authorities investigated no less than 886 cases of cannibalism in just three months (John Erickson, ‘The Ultimate Wound’, The Times Literary Supplement, 28 August 1998, 11).

130   For the events at Calais see: Jim Bradbury, The Medieval Siege, Woodbridge, 1992, 157–158; Jonathon Sumption, The Hundred Years War, London, 1990, 577; Warner, Sieges, 172. For Rouen see: Desmond Seward Henry V as Warlord, London, 1987, 117; J. Bradbury, The Medieval Siege, Woodbridge, 1992, 169–170; and John Page’s eyewitness account A.R. Myers (ed), English Historical Documents, iv, 1969, 219–222. William the Breton was not only an experienced observer of warfare, he was also something of a classic scholar, and he himself used his knowledge of ancient wars to draw comparisons with his own time. This is partly revealed in the way that the sufferings of the non-combatants at Château Gaillard are paralleled with the harshness of war in early history, thereby displaying his awareness of the widespread misery that war always creates. Taking his lead in from Caesar’s De Bello Civili, William relates how Roman soldiers were compelled by circumstances to drink the urine of their horses. This incident is more familiar to modern readers from Shakespeare’s Anthony and Cleapatra, when Caeser reminisces on the hardships that Anthony had to endure for success in war:

At thy heal

Did famine follow, whom thou fought’st against –

Though daintily brought up – with patience more

Than savages could suffer. Thou didst drink

The stake of horses, and the gilded puddle

Which beasts would cough at. Thy palate then did deign

The roughest berry on the rudest hedge.

Yea, like the stag when snow the pasture sheets,

The barks of trees thou browsed. On the Alps

It is reported thou didst eat strange flesh.

Which some did die to look on …

(I, iv, 11. 58–68)

131   Rigord in WB, ii,159; RC,144; Wendover, RW, ii, 8.

132   AB, 103.

133   Norgate (Angevin Kings, ii, 417) lays this blame on de Lacy. The quote is from Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals, Oxford, 1994, 37.

134   The letter is briefly discussed in Norgate, John Lackland, 99 and in Powicke, Normandy, 255–6.The letter fell into Philip’s hands and is preserved in his earliest register, now lodged in the Vatican, under the title ‘Littere quas misit Rex Anglie onsessis in Gaillard.’ (’Letter sent by the King of England to the besieged in Gaillard’), Register A.f. 38v. Powicke suggests (note 25, 256) that the letter was sent with John’s ‘intimate clerk’ in January: ie, after de Lacy had expelled the noncombatabants.

135   The Paston Letters, ed. J. Gairdner, London, 1872, i, 260–261, no. 191. For some examples of the fate of garrison captains who capitulated too precipitously, see Maurice Keen, The Laws of War in the Later Middle Ages, London, 1965, 124–126, and McGlynn, By Sword and Fire, 150.

136   Cf. Odo de Dueil’s De Profectione de Ludovici VII I Orientum, New York, 1948, ed. Virginia Berry, 40, when, during the Second Crusade, the Greeks kept the French out of their cities for fear of food riots.

137   Norgate makes this suggestion (Angevin Kings, 418). The only other reference that I have found alluding to this possibility is in Lloyd, John, 140); but he is clearly following Norgate. The French sources are quiet on this idea. Wade suggests that Philip acted out of fears of papal condemnation; unlikely given the imperatives of war (’Armies and Warfare’, 150, n. 94).

138   Wendover, ii, 311–313.

139   RW, ii, 319.

140   Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard Lionheart by Ambroise, ed. and trans. M. J. Hubert and J.L. La Monte, New York, 1976 (reprint), ll. 3625–60.

141   Robert of Auxerre, 253.

142   Norgate believes that the lower-level was, in fact, a storehouse (Angevin Kings, ii, 421; Warner believes the outlet of the latrine (forica) was used (Sieges, 132). During the Battle of Verdun in 1916, a small Germany party, led by Sergreant Künst (playing the Bogis part), slipped through a small aperture in the renowned and formidable Fort Douamont to take it with ease. ‘Its reconquest cost the lives of 100,000 French troops’: Alistair Horne, ‘Letter From Verdun’, Prospect, August/September 1999, 45.

143   AB, 102–3.

144   RW, ii, 8. Norgate dismisses Wendover’s account as ‘not worthy of consideration’ (Angevin Kings, ii, 423, n. 1). Wade raises the relevant issue that ‘Wendover assumes that there were still horses left, after a blockade of several months’ (’Armies and Warfare’, 155, n. 102).

145   Painter, John, 40.

146   Powicke, Normandy, 254.

147   For what follows see Coggeshell, 144–6; RW, ii, 8; AB, 97–9; WB, i, 220–1, Rigord (WB), i, 160–1 and WB ii, 210–17.

148   RW, i, 319; ii, 8. See also Sean McGlynn, ‘Philip Augustus’, Medieval Life, 1 (4), 23–5.

149   Nicholas Vincent, ‘Introduction: The Record of 1204’, in Vincent (ed), Records, Administration and Aristocratic Society, xiii; David Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery, 270. The following offer analysis of the implications of the duchy’s loss: Clanchy, England and its Rulers, 181–2; Robert Stacey, Politics, Policy and Finance under Henry III, 1216–45, Oxford, 1987, 160–3; J.C Holt, ‘The Loss of Normandy and Royal Finance’, in J. Gillingham and J. C. Holt War and Government in the Middle Ages, Woodbridge, 1984; Gillingham, Richard Couer de Lion, 71; Poole, 431–2; Robin Frame, The Political Development of the British Isles, 1100–1400, Oxford, 1990, 44–5; Hugh M. Thomas, The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, and Identity, 1066–.c.1220, Oxford, 2003, 332–5.

3 War, Politics and the First Invasion Attempt, 1205–1213

150   Despite Winston Churchill’s opinion that the loss benefitted England. See ch. 1, n.38.

151   For the Treaty of Paris, see: Le Patourel, Feudal Empires, IV,453; Gillingham, Angevin Empire, 115; F.M. Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward, 2 vols., Oxford, 1947, i, 253–71; idem, The Thirteenth Century, Oxford, 2nd edn, 1962, 84, 122–8; Jacques le Goff, Saint Louis, Paris, 1996, 257–64; Hallam, Capetian France, 219–20, 266–7; Bjorn Weiler, Henry III of England and the Staufen Empire, 1216–1272, Woodbridge, 2006, 166–7; Michael Prestwich, Plantagenet England 1225–1360, Oxford, 2005, 296–8. Powicke and Gillingham argue that the terms were generous for Henry.

152   This age-old antagonism is entertainingly surveyed in Robert Gibson, Best of Enemies: Anglo-French Relations Since the Norman Conquest, 1995. See also Vale, The Ancient Enemy.

153   Frank Barlow, The Feudal Kingdom of England, 10421216, 4th edn, Harlow, 1988, 195. For Anglo-Imperial relations see: idem, 359–60, 411–14; A.L. Poole, ‘Richard the First’s Alliances with the German Princes in 1194’, in R. W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin and R.W. Southern (eds), Studies in Medieval History Presented to F.M. Powicke, Oxford, 1948; idem, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 326–8, 376–7, 449–52; Benjamin Arnold, ‘Germany and England, 1066–1453’, in Nigel Saul (ed), England in Europe, 1066–1453, 1994; idem, ‘England and Germany’, in Michael Jones and Malcolm Vale (eds), England and Her Neighbours, 10661453, 1989; Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 103–6; Weiler, Henry III of England; Holzapfel, Papst Innocent III (which takes little account of the following book); Jens Ahlers, Die Welfen und Die Englische Könige 11651235, Hildesheim, 1987 (my thanks to John Gillingham for bringing this book to my attention); Nichola Fryde, ‘King John and the Empire’, in Church,King John; Cuttino, English Medieval Diplomacy, 38–53; J. Huffman, The Social Politics of Medieval Diplomacy: Anglo-German Relations, 1066–1307, Michigan, 2000. For Frederick II, see: Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor, Harmondsworth, 1988; W. Stürner, Friedrich II: Die Königsherrscahft im Sizilien und Deutschland, 1194–1210, Band I, Darmstadt, 1992.

154   Arnold, ‘England and Germany, 1066–1453’, 80, where Arnold also notes ‘Not all Englishmen approved of the German emperor’s pretensions to this type of world dominion’. Further adverse reaction is noted in Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 105 and, in similar vein to John of Salisbury, in Bjorn Weiler, Kingship, Rebellion and Political Culture: England and Germany,c.1215–c.1250, Basingstoke, 2007, 174.

155   Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 326. For Henry the Lion: K. Jordan, Henry the Lion, trans. P.S. Falla, Oxford, 1986.

156   Poole, ‘Richard the First’s Alliances’, 91.

157   See Gillingham, Richard I, 312.

158   Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 453.

159   At this stage Henry’s son and heir Frederick was still an infant living in Sicily.

160   For a recent summary of Otto’s career in English, see Sean McGlynn, ‘Otto IV’, in Clifford J. Rogers, Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, Oxford, 2010.

161   Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 451; Foedora, i, 103.

162   Fryde, ‘King John and the Empire’, 343.

163   Foedora, i, 104.

164   Suger, Vie de Louis le Gros, ed. and trans. by H. Waquet, Paris, 1964 [1929], 218–226. The Capetians, unlike English kings, were fortunate in having a succession of authorised royal biographies. For what follows, I have relied heavily on Fryde, ‘King John and the Empire’. Also for Franco-Imperial relations, see n. 4 above and: Hallam,Capetian France, 131–2; Luchaire, Philippe Auguste, 165–79; Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, ch. 9; Slyvian Gougenheim, ‘Les Grands Traits de la Vie Politique’, in Michel Parisse (ed), L’Allemagne au XIIIe Siècle, Paris, 1994, 19–24.

165   Gillingham, Richard I, p. 236. Gillingham covers the consequences of Richard’s imperial imprisonment in detail, 230–53.

166   Gervase of Canterbury, The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols., RS, 1879–80, i, 514.

167   But see Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 81–2. Baldwin believes the marriage may have been to bluff England into greater insecurity. For Philip and Denmark, see Thomas Riis, ‘Autour de Marriage de 1193: l’Epouse, son Pays et les Relations Franco-Danoises’, in Bautier, La France de Philippe Auguste. Of related interest is Kathleen S. Scohwalter, ‘The Ingeborg Psalter: Queenship, Legitimacy, and the Appropriation of Byzantine Art in the West’, in Kathleen Nolan (ed) Capetian Women, Basingstoke, 2003.

168   Howden, iii, 217.

169   Howden provides the quotes: Howden, iii, 196–7, 204–5.

170   Howden, iii, 216–17.

171   Horst Fuhrman, Germany in the High Middle Ages, trans. Timothy Reuter, Cambridge, 1986, p. 186; Alfred Haverkampf, Medieval Germany, 1056–1273, trans. H. Braun and R. Mortimer, Oxford, 1988, 242–4.

172   Luchaire, Philippe Auguste, 167–8.

173   There is no room to discuss the crusade here. It was, for the French, primarily an offensive war; it was a sideshow that never threatened the Capetian dynasty in the way the Anglo-Imperial menace did. Two recent accounts of the crusade are: Laurence Marvin, The Occitan War, Cambridge, 2008, and Mark Gregory Pegg, A Most Holy War: The Albigensian Crusade and the Battle for Christendom, Oxford, 2008. Of interest here is Nicholas Vincent, ‘England and the Albigensian Crusade’, in Weiler and Rowlands, England and Europe in the Reign of Henry III.

174   For Innocent, see: Jane Sayers, Innocent III: Leader of Europe, 1198–1216, London, 1994; James M. Powell (ed), Innocent III: Vicar of Christ or Lord of the World?, Boston, 1963; Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1950 to 1250, Oxford, 1989, 417–51.

175   For these events, see Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 80–87, 178–9; Bradbury, Philip Augustus, 173–85. For Philip’s relations with the Papacy in general, see: Bradbury, ibid, 166–94; Sivéry, Philippe Auguste, 232–6; Luchaire, Philippe Auguste, ch. 3; R. Foreville, Le Pape Innocent III et la France, Stutthart, 1992; Brenda Bolton, ‘Philip Augustus and John: Two Sons in Innocent III’s Vineyard?’, in her Innocent III: Studies on Papal Authority and Pastoral Care, Aldershot, 1995, especially at 121–2; M. Maccarrone, ‘La Papauté et Philippe Auguste: la Décrétale Novit Ille’, in Bautier, La France de Philippe Auguste. The text of Novit Ille can be read in C.R. Cheney and W. H. Semple (eds), Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III Concerning England, 1198–1216, 63–8.

176   Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 443.

177   For what follows, I have relied heavily on Christopher Harper-Bill’s excellent ‘King John and the Church’, in Church, King John. See also: Warren, King John, ch. 5; Painter, Reign of King John, ch. 5; F.M. Powicke, Stephen Langton, Oxford, 1928. A new biography on Stephen Langton from Nicholas Vincent is anticipated. For a broader context, see: C. H. Lawrence, ‘The Thirteenth Century’, in C.H. Lawrence (ed), The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages, 1965; R. Brentano, Two Churches: England and Italy in the Thirteenth Century, Berkely, 1968; C.R. Cheney, The Papacy and England: Twelfth to Fourteenth Centuries, 1982; ibid, From Becket to Langton: English Church Government, 1170–1213, Manchester, 1956; ibid, Innocent III and England, Stuttgart, 1979. Innocent’s letters to John can be found in Cheney and Semple, Selected Letters.

178   Gillingham, Richard I, 275; Holt, Magna Carta and Medieval Government, p. 82.

179   Painter, Reign of King John, 161, 163–4.

180   RW, ii, 37.

181   Turner, King John, p. 159. For a more favourable picture: Warren, King John, 169; Barlow, Feudal Kingdom, 399–400.

182   Turner, King John, 158. See also Christopher Harper-Bill, ‘John and the Church of Rome’, 301. For his time in Paris, see also Powicke, Stephen Langton, 23–74.

183   Robert Fawtier, ‘Un Fragment du Compte de l’Hôtel de Prince Louis’, in Fawtier, Autour de la France Capétienne: Personnages et Institutions, 1987 [1933], IX, 228, 238. The payment details are recorded in item 101, 244. This is a much overlooked source. The quote is from Powicke, Stephen Langton, 135.

184   For the Interdict, see Harper-Bill, ‘John and the Church of Rome’, 304–7; Warren, King John, 163–73; Turner, King John, 160–3, 165, 170–2, 175; Painter, Reign of King John,173–97. For context, see Peter D. Clarke, The Interdict in the Thirteenth Century, Oxford, 2007.

185   Turner, King John, 162. Poole takes a different view: Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 446.

186   Annals of Margam, in Annales Monastici [AM], ed. H.R. Luard, Rolls Series, 1864–6), iii, 28; Turner, King John, 163.

187   Warren, King John, 169.

188   Harper-Bill, ‘John and the Church of Rome’, 306–7.

189   BC, ii, p.210. For Wendover’s accurate comment, see RW, ii, p. 64. The patriotically minded Matthew Paris lambasted the agreement, labelling it ‘detestable’: Matthei Parisiensis Historia Anglorum, ed. F. Maddern, 3 vols., Rolls Series, 1886–9, ii, 146–8.

190   Cheney and Semple, Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, 157, 163.

191   Ibid, 141.

192   Some of the more effusive accolades from scholars are summarised in Turner, King John, 169. A portion of the financial restitution was redirected to John’s financing of his continental campaign in 1214 (Vincent, Peter des Roches, 92). Christopher Harper-Bill draws attention to the important ecclesiastical consequences of the haggling over compensation: Harper-Bill, ‘John and the Church of Rome’, 308–9.

193   For military organisation in England, see: Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, chs. 3 and 4; Bartlett, England Under the Normand and Angevin Kings, 261–9; Powicke, The Loss of Normandy, 209–32; John Beeler, Warfare in England, 1066–1189, Ithaca, 1966, chs. 10–11; Michael Powicke, Military Obligation in Medieval England, Oxford, 1962, especially chs. 3–5; Strickland, Anglo-Norman Warfare, 28–127; C. W. Hollister, The Military Organization of Norman England, Oxford, 1965. Indispensable for knights in John’s reign is S.D. Church, The Household Knights of King John, Cambridge, 1999 and his articles listed therein. Important articles which shed light on John’s forces both directly or indirectly, include Nicholas Vincent, ‘A Roll of Knights Summoned to Campaign in 1213’, Historical Research, 66 (1), 1993 and J. Critchley, ‘Summonses to military service early in the reign of Henry III’, EHR, 86 (1), 1971.

194   As records become more abundant and complete in the later Middle Ages, so (but still with reservations), a fuller picture can emerge from the records. See, for example, the fine study by Andrew Ayton, Knights and Warhorses: Military Service and the English Aristocracy Under Edward III, Woodbridge, 1994.

195   Smail, Crusading Warfare, 97.

196   For Henry VII and Bosworth, see: Michael Jones, Bosworth 1485, Stroud, 2002; Michael Bennett, The Battle of Bosworth, Stroud, 1985. For Henry IV and Richard II, see Nigel Saul, Richard II, 1997; Ian Mortimer, The Fears of Henry IV, 2007. Anthony Tuck estimates that Henry’s retinue as ‘probably numbering no more than forty or fifty’; ‘Richard had little to fear from Henry and his small band of exiles’ (Tuck, Crown and Nobility, 215–16). In the Annales Ricardi Secundi, Thomas Walsingham, a monk of St Albans continuing the literary, anti-royalist tradition of Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris, wrote: ‘the number of fighting men accompanying him did not amount … to more than fifteen … With such a small force, it is a wonder that he dared to invade the kingdom of England, but even more astonishing is the fact that within such a short time … he was able to pacify the whole realm’ (in C. Given-Wilson, ed. and trans., Chronicles of the Revolution, 1397–40: The Reign of Richard II, Manchester, 1993, 116–17). Nigel Saul doubts that at this stage Henry had designs on the crown but was merely seeking to regain his inheritance (Saul, Richard II, 406). Either way, the episode shows just how events take on a momentum of their own. Many military actions were begun as exploratory moves to test the waters.

197   See Matthew Bennett, ‘Wace and Warfare’, in ANW, 241. Wace was writing in the twelfth century. The whole question of the introduction of knight service into England is persuasively challenged by John Gillingham, The English in the Twelfth Century, Woodbridge, 2000, 187–208, which includes a succinct summary of scholarship on this debate. Stephen Church has made the important observation that despite the move to money, land was still central to retaining (or failing to retain) the loyalty of his knights (Church, The Household Knights of King John, ch. 4).

198   Robert de Torigny, Chronica, in Chronicles of he Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett, 4 vols., Rolls Series, 1884–9, iv, 193. The campaign lasted four months.

199   Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, 67.See also Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 370–1. For recent summaries and discussion of feudal service, see Frederick C. Suppe, ‘Military Obligation’ and Sean McGlynn, ‘Servicium Debitum’, both in OEMW.

200   Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 263.

201   Ibid, 203–5, 263–4. For a cogent discussion of quota reductions and knighthood in general, see: Peter Coss, The Knight in Medieval England, 1000–1400, Stroud, 1993, ch.3; Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, pp. 68–71. Knighthood in England is debated in articles by John Gillingham, Peter Coss, David Crouch and Michael Prestwich, inTransactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, v, 1995, 129–220.

202   The Assize of Arms can be found in D.C. Douglas and G. Greenaway (eds), English Historical Documents, II: 1042–1189, 449–51, and Howden, ii, 261–3, who also covers France at 270. The Count of Flanders also followed these reforms. For a discussion, see Powicke, Military Obligation, 58–60; John D. Hosler, Henry II: A Medieval Soldier, 96–100.

203   Powicke, Military Obligations, 58–60, offers a good discussion of these mobilisations.

204   Church, Household Knights of King John, 153.

205   Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 265.

206   See R. Allen Brown, English Castles, 3rd edn, 1976, 185. Castle garrisons are studied in John Moore, ‘Anglo-Norman Garrisons’, ANS 22, 2000; Michael Prestwich, ‘The Garrisoning of English Medieval Castles’ in Richard Abels and Bernard S. Bachrach, The Normans and Their Adversaries at War, Woodbridge, 2001. Castles needed supplies as well as men, and this too could reflect the political climate. For supplying, see Michael Prestwich, ‘The Victualling of Castles’ in Peter Coss and Christopher Tyerman (eds), Soldiers, Nobles and Gentlemen: Essays in Honour of Maurice Keen, Woodbridge, 2009.

207   Powicke, The Loss of Normandy, 225.

208   For Philip’s war finances and organisation see: Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 166–75, and E. Audouin, Essai sur l’Armée Royale au Temps de Philippe Auguste, Paris, 1913.

209   Bradbury, Philip Augustus, 246.

210   For what follows the starting point is Baldwin’s Government of Philip Augustus, chs. 7, 11 and 15. Good summaries with useful commentaries are to be found in Bradbury, Philip Augustus, pp. 238–44; Philippe Contamine, ‘L’Armée de Philippe Auguste’, in Bautier, La France de Philippe Auguste; Laurence Marvin, ‘Warfare and the Composition of Armies in France, 1100–1218: An Emphasis on the Common Soldier’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Illinois,1996, 133–40. For detail, see E. Audouin, Essai sur l’Armée de Philippe Auguste, Paris, 1913. Brief accounts are available in Hallam, Capetian France, 161–3; Powicke, Loss of Normandy, 220–1; Luchaire,Philippe Auguste, 260–66.

211   Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 283.

212   Bradbury, Philip Augustus, 280.

213   A. Erlande-Brandenburg, ‘L’Architecture Militaire au Temps de Philippe Auguste: une Nouvelle Conception de la Défense’, in Bautier, La France de Philippe Auguste; idem, ‘Organisation du Conseil d’Architecture et des Corps des Spécialistes sous Philippe Auguste’, in X.B. Altet (ed), Artistes, Artisans et Productions Artistique au Moyen Age, Paris, 1987; P. Curnow, ‘Some Devlopments in Military Architecture c. 1200: Le Courdray-Salbart’, ANS 2, 1979; Peter Purton, A History of the Early Medieval Siege, Volume I: c.450–1200, Woodbridge, 2010, 328–30.

214   Charles Coulson, ‘Fortress Policy in Capetian Tradition and Angevin Practice’, in ANS, 6, 1983, 15. See also his important article “‘National” Requisitioning for “Public” Use of “Private” Castles in Pre-Nation State France’, in Alfred Smyth (ed), Medieval Europeans: Studies in Ethnic Identity and National Perspectives in Medieval Europe, 1998.

215   For naval matters, see: Warren, King John, 120–5; F.W. Brooks, The English Naval Forces, 1199–1272, 1933; N.A.M. Rodger, The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain, Volume I: 660–1649, 1997, ch. 4; W.L. Clowes, The Royal Navy, Volume I 1897, ch. 9. Bradbury, Philip Augustus, pp. 242–3; Michel Mollat du Jourdin, ‘Philippe Auguste et la Mer’, in Bautier, La France de Philippe Auguste. For medieval shipping, in addition to Rogers above, see Ian Friel, The Good Ships: Ships, Shipbuilding and Technology in England, 1200–1520, 1995, and Susan Rose, ‘Ships and Shipping’, OEMW. For the Cinque Ports, F.W. Brooks, ‘The Cinque Ports’, Mariner’s Mirror, xv, 1929.

216   Warren, King John, 121–2.

217   Ibid, 123.

218   Turner, King John, 128.

219   John Gillingham, ‘Richard I, Galley Warfare and Portsmouth: The Beginnings of a Royal Navy’, TCE, 6, 1997.

220   Helen Nicholson (ed and trans), Chronicle of the Third Crusade: A Translation of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, Aldershot, 1997, 157.

221   Bradbury, Philip Augustus, 242; Mollat du Jourdin, ‘Philippe Auguste et la Mer’, in Bautier, La France de Philippe Auguste, 622. The importance of Flanders to the nascent French navy can be seen in S. Curveiller, ‘Le Bois et la Flandre Maritime au Moyen Âge’, Le Moyen Âge, 106 (2), 2000.

222   P.D.A. Harvey, ‘The English Inflation of 1180–1220, Past and Present, 61, 1973; J.L. Bolton, ‘Inflation, Economics and Politics in Thirteenth-Century England’, TCE, 4, 1992; idem, ‘The English Economy in the Early Thirteenth Century’, in Church, King John; Paul Latimer, ‘Early Thirteenth-Century Prices’, in ibid; M. Allen, ‘The Volume of the English Currency, 1158–1470’, Economic History Review, 54 (4), 2001; D.H. Fischer, The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History, Oxford, 1996, ch.1.

223   Respectively: Harvey, ‘English Inflation’, 7; D. Stenton, English Society in the Early Middle Ages, Harmondsworth, 1952, 44. Warren also sympathises (King John, 145). A different view is expressed in Bolton, ‘The English Economy’.

224   Georges Duby, The Early Growth of the European Economy: Warriors and Peasants from the Seventh to the Twelfth Centuries, Ithaca, 1974, 263; Fischer, The Great Wave, 17. Although Fischer does not cite Bolton, both are in broad agreement on this issue.

225   James Masschaele, ‘The English Economy in the Age of Magna Carta’, in Loengard, Magna Carta, 167.

226   R.I. Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society, Oxford, 1987, 102.

227   J.C. Holt, ‘The Loss of Normandy and Royal Finance’, in John Gillingham and J.C. Holt (eds), War and Government in the Middle Ages, Woodbridge, 1984; John Gillingham, The Angevin Empire, 2nd edn., 2001, 95–102; Nicholas Barratt, ‘The Revenues of king John and Philip Augustus Revisited’, in Church, King John; idem, ‘The Revenue of King John’, EHR, 111 (443), 1996; Turner, King John, 91–4; Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 44–58, 117–19, 144–75, 239–48, 277–79.

228   Bolton, ‘English Inflation’, 4. Holt’s influential essay (see n. above) also puts forward this view.

229   Gillingham, Angevin Empire, 98.

230   Barratt, ‘Revenues of John and Philip Augustus’, 84.

231   See Turner, King John, 12.

232   Holt, The Northerners, 144.

233   For the events of 1205–06, see: Warren, King John, 100–120; Turner, King John, 127–30; Norgate, John Lackland, 103–18; Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 194–6; A. Lyons, ‘The Capetian Conquest of Anjou’, unpublished PhD thesis, John Hopkins University, 1976; Guy Gauthier, Philippe Auguste, Paris, 2002, 242–56. The events are dispersed through the chronicles; see the references in the following footnotes.

234   WB, i. 161–2.

235   RC, 146.

236   Ibid,152–4; Gervase of Canterbury, ii, 98.

237   Turner, King John, 129; Warren, King John, 115.

238   RW, ii, 13–14.

239   Cited in Jones, King John, 122. See Gisbert of Mons, 101, for an example of how readily allegiances could be shifted.

240   Rigord says that he ‘totally destroyed the city’ (WB, i,163); the local chronicle of St Aubin restricts the damage to a bridge (see Norgate, John Lackland, 115, n. 5).

241   Peter Coss (ed), Thomas Wright’s Political Songs of England: From the Reign of John to that of Edward III, Cambridge, 1996 [1839], 2–3.

242   Turner, King John, 130.

243   The Channel Islands had previously fallen with Normandy: J.A. Everard and J.C. Holt, Jersey 1204, 2004, 85–6. For the truce, see Norgate, John Lackland, 117 and Rigord, WB, i, 174.

244   Warren, King John, 119.

245   Baldwin says that military operations began after the expiry in 1208 (Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 199). French writers go with the date of 1207.

246   I am currently working on a military history of this conflict (see chapter seven and bibiliography.) A recent account can be found in Marvin, The Occitan War.

247   Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 196–207.

248   See ns. 213 and 214 above.

249   Painter, Reign of King John, 253–6. For Anglo-Scottish relations, see: A.A.M. Duncan, ‘John King of England and the King of Scots’, in Church, King John; Owen, William the Lion, ch. 5 passim.

250   RW, ii, 50–1.

251   HWM, ii, 214–15. For Anglo-Irish relations around this time, see: Sean Duffy, ‘John and Ireland: the Origins of England’s Irish Problem’, in Church, King John; F.X. Martin, ‘John, Lord of Ireland’, in Art Cosgrove (ed), A New History of Ireland, Vol II: Medieval Ireland, 1169–1534, Oxford, 1993.

252   Duffy, ‘John and Ireland’, 242.

253   Brut y Tywysogion, 1210, cited in Norgate John Lackland, 157–8, n. For Anglo-Welsh relations around this time, see Ifor W. Rolands, ‘King John and Wales’, in Church, King John.

254   BC, ii, 203.

255   Warren, King John, 199–200, offers a brief summary of the 1212 revolt.

256   RW, ii, 61. The Welsh and Irish regularly decapitated their enemies. This led to English reciprocation in the Anglo-Welsh conflict: in 1231, the heads of Welsh raiders were delivered to Henry III; in 1245, Matthew Paris tells of an English division of troops returning the camp with over 100 Welsh heads. See McGlynn, By Sword and Fire, 242; Frederick C. Suppe, Military Institutions on the Welsh Marches: Shropshire, 1066–1300, Woodbridge, 1994, 22; idem, ‘The Cultural Significance of Decapitation in High Medieval Wales and the Marches’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, 36, 1989. Gerald of Wales offers a grisly account from Ireland in 1069 when about 200 heads are laid before the victorious King Dermot. The king inspected each in turn, jumping with joy. On recognising the head of one man that he particularly loathed, he lifted it by its ears and hair and gnawed at its nose and cheeks. See Gerald of Wales, Expugnatio Hibernica, ed. and trans. by A.B. Scott and F.X. Martin, Dublin, 1978, 37; McGlynn, By Sword and Fire, 218.

257   Rowlands, ‘King John and Wales’, 282–3.

258   RW, ii, 63.

259   WB, ii, 248. See also RW, ii, 63–4. Baldwin supports the idea of a crusade (Government of Philip Augustus, 208).

260   For the events that follow, see: Warren, King John, 202–5; Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 210–12; Norgate, John Lackland, 185–6; Sivéry, Phillipe Auguste, 261–70; Nicholas, Medieval Flanders, 152–3; F.W. Brooks, ‘The Battle of Damme, 1213’, Mariner’s Mirror, 19, 1933; RW, ii, 67–80; WB, i, 249–53, and ii, 252–75; AB, 129–31; BC (Walter of Coventry), ii, 211; HWM, ii, 230–33.

261   Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 453; Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 207. For Renaud, see Glynn Burgess, Two Medieval Outlaws: Eustace the Monk and Fouke Fitz Waryn, Woodbridge, 1997, 24–7.

262   RW, ii, 67. Royalist forces repeatedly appealed to patriotism throughout the conflict, especially after the French arrived.

263   RW, ii, 67–8.

264   BC, 216. See Cheney, Innocent III and England, 335 and Innocent’s letters to John in Cheney and Semple, Selected Letters of Innocent III, 161–3, 168–71.

265   Warren, King John, 203.

266   There is some uncertainty among historians as to whether Philip intended to follow through with his invasion after the papal threat delivered by Pandulf. Norgate says that Philip ‘dared not go on in the teeth of the papal prohibition’ (John Lackland, 185); Bradbury writes his plans had been ‘frustrated’, reasonably telling of how the Capetian unleashed his readied forces into Flanders instead (Philip Augustus, 286). Baldwin seems to assume that the invasion was to go ahead, as do I (Government of Philip Augustus, 211). As he showed in his Normandy campaign, Philip turned a deaf ear to ecclesiastical entreaties for peace when it suited him; much of his great success is owed to his great tenacity and perseverance in the field. William the Breton dutifully claims that Philip abandoned the invasion, but this may well be because a papal order to do so was more palatable to admit as a reason than the drumming taken by the French at Damme (WB, i, 259).

267   RW, ii, 78.William the Breton confirms the extensive ravaging: WB, i, 251. David Nicholas says that Flanders was ‘devastated’ (Nicholas, Medieval Flanders, 153). See n. 111 for primary source quotations.

268   RC, 167.

269   See Vincent, ‘A Roll of Knights’, 90.

270   Harper-Bill, ‘John and the Church’, 310.

271   Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 464.

272   RC, 168; Turner, King John, 132.

273   Turner, King John, 132.

4 The Battle of Bouvines, 1214

274   For this campaign, its political background and culminating battle, see: WB, i, 260–96; WB, ii,. 281–347; RW, ii, 105–110; HWM, 235–43; RC, 168–9; MGH, 390–1; AB, 142–4; Anonymous of Béthune, Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, xxiv, 768–70; Warren, King John, 217–24; Turner, King John, 132–5; Norgate,John Lackland, 196–203; John Gillingham, Richard Couer de Lion, 78–9; Baldwin, The Government of Philip Augustus, 220–6; Bradbury, Philip Augustus, 279–316; Cartellieri, Philip II, iv, 402–80. French historians understandably devote much space to this seminal battle in their nation’s formation: Georges Duby, France in the Middle Ages, 987–1460, Oxford, 1991, 220–6; Luchaire, Philippe Auguste, 193–212; Bordonove, Philippe Auguste, 213–53; Sivéry, Philippe Auguste, 271–311; Antoine Hadenague, Philippe Auguste et Bouvines, Paris, 1978 [1935]; Georges Duby, La Dimanche de Bouvines, Paris, 1973; Guy Gauthier, Philippe Auguste, Paris, 2002, 300–9; and, most recently, Jean Flori, Philippe Auguste, Paris, 2007, 84–9. The international and diplomatic scene is closely followed in Holzapfel, Papst Innozenz III, 223–80. The military angle is analysed Duby’s La Dimanche de Bouvines and also in Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare, 220–37; Wade, Armies and Warfare, 156–74; John France, Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 235–41 (see n. 10, 294, for France’s differences with Verbruggen’s account). Prof France offers a brief but up-to-date account in France, ‘Battle of Bouvines’, OEMW,163–5.

275   Rot. Lit. Pat., 115a; Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 466.

276   RW, ii, 99–100.

277   AB, 143; RW, ii, 104; WB, i, 254. In the Philippidos, William claims that Robert was caught in an underhand ambush (WB, ii, 283 ff.). For the Dreux family, see Sidney Painter, The Scourge of the Clergy: Peter of Dreux, Duke of Brittany, New York, 1969 [1937]. For Brittany, see Everard, Brittany and the Angevins and Michael Jones, ‘The Capetians and Brittany’, Historical Research, 63, 1990.

278   WB, i, 260–4; WB, ii, 287–94; RW, ii, 104–5; Chroniques d’Anjou, 252–4. The most detailed secondary accounts before this one are, not surprisingly, French: Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, 48–50; Sivéry, Louis VIII, 121–3. The exception, as ever, is the quantity provided by Cartellieri, Philipp II, 419–30. See also Bradbury, Philip Augustus, 293–5.

279   WB, ii,287–9, with the quote at 289. Here parma is almost certainly a mantlet of the type frequently seen in later medieval manuscript depictions of besieging forces.

280   For Louis, see: Sivéry, Louis VIII; Hallam, Capetian France, 132–6; and most useful despite its age, Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII. For a snapshot of Louis’s personal and financial life a year earlier in 1213, including details of military expenditure and pre-invasion contacts with disaffected forces in England, see Fawtier, ‘Un Fragment du Compte de l’Hôtel du Prince Louis de France pour le Terme de la Purification, 1213’.

281   WB, ii, 290. William was almost certainly not an eye-witness to events here as he would have been accompanying Philip Augustus to Flanders at this time. His account is therefore most likely to have been constructed from the leading French protagonists involved in the engagement.

282   RW, ii,105. Bradbury calls John’s retreat ‘a panic move’: Bradbury, Philip Augustus, 293–5.

283   Rot. Pat., i, 118.

284   Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 467; Sivèry, Louis VIII, 134.

285   Turner, King John, 132.

286   Power, ‘King John and the Norman Aristocracy’ and ‘The End of Angevin Normandy’.

287   Mathhew Paris, Historia Minor, ii, 150. William the Breton portrays La Roche as a great victory only in his Philippidos, and not in his earlier Gesta; this may reflect William’s sensitive awareness as to who was on the throne at the time of writing.

288   Anonymous of Béthune, Chroniques des Rois, 198.

289   For the German alliance: A.L. Poole, ‘Richard the First Alliances with the German Princes in 1194’; Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 103–6; Gillingham, Richard I, 311–12; Fryde, ‘King John and the Empire’ and the references in ch. 3.

290   See Sean McGlynn, ‘Philip Augustus’, Medieval Life, 24

291   What follows is taken from the contemporary sources cited in note 274.

292   RW, ii 107. For Henry’s and Richard’s similar comments see WB, ii, 75 (Richard in particular remarks that ‘To those who are well prepared, delay has always been and always will be dangerous’). Hugh’s remark is noted in HWM, 241. See also chapter 4, n. 12.

293   RW, ii, 105.

294   See Powicke, The Thirteenth Century, 187.

295   For 1124, see Suger, Vie de Louis VI le Gros, ed. H. Waquet, Paris 1964, 226: ‘ustar castellorum in corona locarentur’. For the Battle of Alençon see Chroniques des Comtes d’Anjou, 146; the battle is discussed in depth by Jim Bradbury in his Medieval Archer, Woodbridge, 1985, 44–5 and in ANW, 188–9. For 1197 the episode is also briefly discussed in Gillingham, Richard Couer de Lion, 233.

296   The numbers are analysed by Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare 223–9. See also Baldwin, Philip Augustus, 450.

297   John France offers a viable different perspective for the dispositions (see France, Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, pp. xiv-xv and appendix 1, 235–41). As explained in the text, I believe that that a lull in the fighting allowed for Ferrand and Guérin to align themselves practically, if not regimentally, into the overall order of battle.

298   All quotes in what follows are from William the Breton unless otherwised cited.

299   WB, ii, 235–326. I have not attempted to versify William’s poetic form from the Philippidos. Matthew Strickland suggests that infantry casualties were ‘probably high’: War and Chivalry, 165. This was almost certainly the case, given the last stand of Boulogne’s pikemen at the end of the battle. See also n. 32 below.

300   In Wendover’s version, it is, less plausibly but more dramatically for literary effect, Count Renaud of Boulogne who knocks Philip from his horse with a lance and who is on the point of finishing him off with his sword when a bodyguard intercedes and receives the fatal blow (RW, ii, 108).

301   At this time the new style great helms were replacing the older Norman conical ones; perhaps this new dagger was designed for infantry to overcome this greater degree of protection. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines confusingly calls this new knife a falsarium, probably confusing it with a falchion, a curved, cleaver-like sword (akin to a scimitar) which was also appearing at this time (the cover shows an early version of this deadly weapon) (MGSS, xxiii, 901).

302   Even if caught, des Barres was not easily held: at Gisors in 1188 he was seized but freed by his men (HGM, 91). Roger of Howden (Gesta, ii, 46) accuses des Barres of escaping by breaking his parole, a distinctly unchivalrous act by France’s greatest knight.

303   These tactics were witnessed over twenty years before Bouvines and are described by contemporaries: see Ambroise, La Guerre Sainte, ll. 11396–592; Chronicle of the Third Crusade: A Translation of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, ed. H. Nicholson, Aldershot, 1987, 362; and Ralph of Coggeshall (Chronicon, RC, 47) who based his account on information supplied by Hugh of Neville, who was present at this engagement. For the Battle of Jaffa in general, see Gillingham, Richard I, 214–15.

304   Anonymous of Béthune, Chroniques des Rois, 770.

305   Casualty figures for any battle, especially medieval ones, are notoriously difficult to determine. Verbruggen estimates that 169 knights were killed: this may be too high (William the Breton only gives two knights as killed) but is more plausible if it includes sergeants, light cavalry and, possibly, mounted mercenaries (Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare, 236).

306   This catalogue, known as ‘Register C’, is discussed by Baldwin, Philip Augustus, 413–18. For the list of prisoners, also see Baldwin 219, 343, 380; Sivéry discusses the captured enemy in Philippe Auguste, 297–300.

307   RW, ii, 109–110.

308   Baldwin, Philip Augustus, 219.

309   For example, Luchaire, Philippe Auguste, 214 (clearly following William the Breton, WB, i, 298).

310   Baldwin, Philip Augustus, 219.

311   Gillingham, Richard Couer de Lion, 79

312   Ibid, pp. 78–9. Gillingham offers a convincing argument here. See also R. Hasdju, ‘Castles, Castellans, and the Structure of Politics in Poitou, 1152–1271’, Journal of Medieval History, iv, 1978, in support of this thesis.

313   RC, 170. Jones writes that Coggeshall confuses this payment with the one of 60,000 marks made by John to Philip in 1216 (Jones, John, 18).

314   Painter, John, 228.

315   Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery, 286.

316   Vincent, Peter des Roches, 103–4. Vincent shrewdly suggests that the merchants, ships and goods seized ‘might also serve as a bargaining counters in negotiations for the release of prisoners taken at Bouvines, including the Earl of Salisbury whose ransom the justiciar was instructed to obtain … The merchants were eventually released, having promised not to put into any hostile ports or to carry cargoes to the detriment of King John’ (104). Commerce with Flanders increased following the free trade clause in Magna Carta (41) but Flemish merchants remained distinctly uneasy at political vicissitudes and the possibility of sequestration of goods by the English (see David Nicholson,Medieval Flanders, Harlow, 1992, 154). The nature of Welsh incursions into England is explored by F. Suppe, Military Institutions on the Welsh Marches, Woodbridge, 1994.

317   Flanders had the Treaty of Paris imposed upon it on 24 October 1214. By this many fortresses were not permitted repairs and the key ones – Ypres, Cassel and Oudenarde – were completely destroyed; these three strongholds comprised the Flemish line of defence against French incursions. For the consequences of Bouvines on Flanders, see Nicholson, Medieval Flanders, 153–6.

318   Anonymous of Béthune, RHF, xxiv, 770. Elizabeth Hallam has written of the Capetian’s ascendancy: ‘From kings too powerless and obscure even to find biographers, there had sprung a hero-king, whose grandson was to become a saint’ (Capetian France, 179). For the most detailed discussions of the seminal historic importance of Bouvines and its legendary status in France, see: Baldwin, Philip Augustus, 380–9; Duby, France in the Middle Ages, 222–7; Duby, The Legend of Bouvines, 141–79; Hallam, Capetian France, 178–9; Luchaire, Philippe Auguste, 211–17; Hadenauge, Philippe Auguste, 233–51; Bradbury, 326–8; and the section on ‘L’image du roi et du règne’ in Bautier (ed), Philippe Auguste, 115–213 passim. Of especial note, which includes unlikely moves to have Philip canonised, see John Baldwin, ‘Le Sens du Bouvines’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, 30, 1987. One less expected result came in the form of parody: see John Haines, ‘A Parody of Songs in Praise of War’, Speculum, 82 (2), 2007, which focuses on later interpretations of Bouvines.

319   Matthew Bennet has suggested to me that Philip, shaken by his near fatal experience at Bouvines, may have shunned any further military role for fear of the personal dangers involved. This fits in with Philip’s cautious and unheroic character.

320   Unedited chronicle, in MS 553, Bibliothèque Mazarine, folio 373; and Luchaire, Philippe Auguste, 198.

5 Magna Carta, Civil War and the Countdown to Invasion, 1215

321   Michael Clanchy, England and Its Rulers, 1066–1272, 2nd edn., London, 1998, 129. For Peter des Roches see Nicholas Vincent’s magisterial study, Peter des Roches.

322   There is a wealth of material and analysis for these events and Magna Carta. In addition to the general histories already cited, see: J.C. Holt, The Northerners: A Study in King John, 2nd edn. Oxford, 1992; J.C Holt, Magna Carta, Cambridge, especially 183–266, 347–77; J.C.Holt, Magna Cart and Medieval Government; Turner, King John, 201–54; Warren, King John, 217–51; Norgate, John Lackland, p 210–256; Painter, King John, 226–366; Ralph Turner, Magna Carta, London, 2003, 40–79; Hugh Thomas, Vassals, Heiresses, Crusaders and Thugs, Pennsylvania, 1993, 168–92. The recent (2010) collection edited by Loengard, Magna Cart and the England of King John is a valuable collection of papers for this aspect of John’s reign.

323   Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery, 286.

324   For financial matters, see references in ch. 3 notes and, specifically for discontent, see: Warren, King John, 182–4; Turner, King John, 215–24, 231–2; for a discussion of scutage, see Painter, King John, 125–8. The principle of taxation and consent for the period 1189–1227 has recently been addressed by J.R.Maddicott, The Origins of the English Parliament, 924–1327, Oxford, 2010, 119–26.

325   Pipe Roll 12 John; Warren, King John, 182.

326   Turner, King John, 220.

327   Holt, The Northerners, 34. See Brian Golding, ‘Simon of Kyme: the Making of a Rebel’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 27, 1983, for a case study of one of the rebels.

328   Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery, 279. For a detailed analysis of the de Braose case, see Painter, King John, 238–50, and, most recently (2010), Crouch, ‘Baronial Paranoia’ and ‘The Complaint of King john against William de Braose’, in Loengard (ed), Magna Carta and the England of King John. For an overall context see the innovative study by J.S. Bothwell, Falling From Grace: Reversal of Fortune and the English Nobility, 1075–1455, Manchester, 2008.

329   Annals of Margam, Annales Monastici, i, 27; Warren, King John, 82–3. The Annals were probably written after de Braose’s fall.

330   RW, ii, 48–9.

331   Warren, King John, 184, 187.

332   Crouch, ‘Baronial Paranoia’, 51; Painter, King John, 249–50.

333   AB, 105.

334   Cited in Painter, King John, 231. Painter suggested that she was probably John’s mistress and was buying her way out of the king’s bed (231).

335   The quotes are from Nicholas Vincent, ‘Introduction’, in Vincent, Records, Administration and Aristocratic Society in the Anglo-Norman Realm, xiv. See also Marie Lovatt, ‘Archbishop Geoffrey of York: A Problem in Anglo-French Maternity’ from the same volume and Vincent, ‘Isabella of Angôuleme’.

336   BC, 207.

337   Crouch, ‘Baronial Paranoia’, 60.

338   RC, 167.

339   Holt, The Northerners, 34.

340   Crouch ‘Baronial Paranoia’, 62.

341   The quote is from Turner, King John, 222. For the composition of the baronial party, see Painter, King John, 284–99. Painter emphasises the youth of the baronial faction. The question of knights is addressed by Holt, The Northeners, 35–60; Kathryn Faulkner, ‘The Knights in the Magna Carta Civil War’, in TCE, 8, 2001; J.R. Maddicott, ‘Magna Carta and the Local Community, 1215–19’, Past and Present, 101, 1984. On the question of loyalty, see also S.D. Church, The Household Knights of King John, Cambridge, 1999, 100–16.

342   Paul Latimer, ‘Rebellion in South-western England and the Welsh Marches, 1215–1217’, Historical Research, 80 (208), 2007.

343   Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 470; Warren, King John, 230.

344   AB, p 116–18. Fitzwalter’s retinue was only about 50, so the figures here are clearly inflated, but the point is made. It is unlikely that John would have hung an earl for this.

345   Turner, King John, 223.

346   See n. 2 for events leading to Magna Carta.

347   Holt, The Northerners, p 103–4 for figures.

348   Keith Stringer, ‘The War of 1215–17 in its Context’, in Richard Oram (ed), The Reign of Alexander II, 1214–49, Leiden, 2005. My thanks to Prof Stringer for sending me an early draft of this important and detailed study.

349   BC, 218. This was not actually mentioned in the charter.

350   RW, ii, 114; RC, p 171–2.

351   Painter, King John, 303.

352   BC, 220. Generational splits were a feature of rebellions.

353   RW, ii, p 137. For London and its relationship with the rebels, see Tony Moore, ‘“Other Cities Have Citizens, London’s are Called Barons.” Connections between London and Essex During the Magna Carta Civil War (1215–17’), forthcoming. Many thanks to Dr Moore for sending me a draft of his important essay. Also for London, see his ‘Government and Locality in Essex in the Reign of Henry III’, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge, 2006, 62–76. Again, I am indebted to Dr Moore for his kindness in forwarding me a copy of his important thesis. Also: Natalie Fryde, Why Magna Carta? Angevin England Revisited, Munster, 2001, 73–81; C.N.L. Brooke and Gillian Keir, London, 800–1216: the Shaping of a City, London, 1975, 49–56.

354   RW, ii, 117–18.

355   RC, 171–2.

356   Baldwin says that Philip Augustus was at best reluctant and at worst hostile to intervention in England after Bouvines (Baldwin, Philip Augustus, 332). This is areal possibility, but he may have indulged the ambitions of his son Louis. Philip would also have been keenly aware from his father Louis VII of the efficacy of sowing internal dissent in England.

357   See AB, 148–9 for events.

358   Painter, King John, 308.

359   Ibid, 309.

360   For the full text of Magna Carta, see Holt, Magna Carta, 441–73; Warren, King John, 265–77; Turner, Magna Carta, 226–36.

361   Warren, King John, 239.

362   Matthew Paris, ii, 611.

363   Holt, Magna Carta, 228.

364   BC, 222.

365   Warren, King John, 108. For John’s relations with Salisbury, see Brock Holden, ‘The Balance of Patronage: King John and the Earl of Salisbury’, Haskins Society Journal, 8, 1996.

366   For Falkes, see Daniel Power, ‘Bréauté, Sir Falkes de’, Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, accessed online at www.oxforddnb.com.

367   Turner, King John, 251. Turner summarises the positions well (251–3) and I have borrowed from him heavily for the following passage.

368   See Richard Eales, ‘Castles and Politics in England, 1215–1214’, TCE2, 1988.

369   Painter, King John, 352–3.

370   Ibid, 353.

371   Turner, King John, 252.

372   Half a century later, another rebel, Simon de Montfort, and another king, Henry III, viewed Rochester in similar terms: see J.R. Maddicott, Simon de Montfort, Cambridge, 1994, 268. For Rochester, see RW, 145–51; AB, 158–60, 163; BC, 226. I have, as far as I am aware, provided here the most detailed account of the siege.

373   The result of this action is clearly seen at Rochester today; the south-western tower was rebuilt immediately after the siege in the more modern and effective circular form, standing incongruously next to its older partners.

374   R. Allen Brown, Rochester Castle, 2nd edn., English Heritage, 1986, 10–11. I was fortunate to have taken postgraduate studies with Prof Allen Brown at King’s College, London.

375   Ralph Turner, ‘King John’s Military Reputation Reconsidered’, Journal of Medieval History, 19, 1993.

376   For example, a detailed study of Wendover’s chronicle reveals that most woundings and fatalities in this period were from crossbows and bows. See McGlynn, ‘Roger of Wendover and the Wars of Henry III’, 188. Much has been written on these weapons, for example: Kelly de Vries, Medieval Military Technology, Peterborough, 1992, 33–44; David Nicolle, Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era, 1050–1350: Western Europe and the Crusader States, London, 1999, passim; Vernon Foley, George Palmer and Werner Soedel, ‘The Crossbow’, Scientific American, 1985. Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy, The Great Warbow, Stroud, 2005; Jim Bradbury, The Medieval Archer, Woodbridge, 1985. Readers will discover here elements of the longbow debate, ie: the longbow was a radical new weapon which revolutionised English tactics in the Hundred Years War leading to such great victories as Crécy and Agincourt. For my mind, I think it highly improbable that it was a new weapon: in age of technological wonders such as castles and cathedrals, it seems impossible that medieval man would not have realised a longer bow would have greater power. As armour developed, so the bow would have too to attempt to counter it. Gerald of Wales gives a vivid depiction of the penetrative power of bows in the late twelfth century: Gerald of Wales, The Journey Through Wales/The Description of Wales, London, 1978, 113.

377   RW, ii, 150, confirmed by AB, 163.

378   Froissart, Chronciles, 106. For a discussion of threats, see McGlynn, By Sword and Fire, 189–94.

379   AB, 161–2.

380   Ibid, 160.

381   See Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, 71. Ralph of Coggeshall says that John had passed on forged letters: RC, 176–7.

382   See AB, 160–1 for a list of French knights and Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, 70–96, for Louis’s preparations.

383   RW, ii, 161.

384   S. D. Church, ‘The Earliest English Muster Roll, 18/19 December, 1215’, Historical Research, 67 (162), 1994. Also see S.D.Church, ‘The Knights of the Household of King John: a Question of Numbers’, TCE, 4, 1992. His monograph is extremely insightful: Church, The Household Knights of King John.

385   RW, 162.

386   Warren, King John, 248–9.

387   There has been a tendency in recent years to play down the extent of the Anarchy, but Hugh Thomas has reassuringly countered this misperception in an important article: Hugh Thomas, ‘Violent Disorder in King Stephen’s England: A Maximum Argument’, in Paul Dalton and Graeme White (eds), King Stephen’s Reign, 1135–1154, Woodbridge, 2008.

6 The Invasion of England, 1216

388   RC, 178.

389   BC, 229.

390   For John’s campaign, see: RW, ii, 162–6; AB, 163–4; McGlynn, By Sword and Fire, 222–33; Turner, King John, 254; Warren, King John, 248–9; Painter, King John, 368–70; Norgate, John Lackland, 255–7 Holt, The Northerners, 133.

391   RW, ii, 162.

392   RW, ii, 162.

393   BC, 228.

394   See Strickland, ‘Securing the North’ for castle strategy.

395   Painter, King John, 368.

396   For events in Scotland in the years 1215–17, see Keith Stringer, ‘Kingship, Conflict and State-Making in the Reign of Alexander II: The War of 1215–17 and its Context’, in Richard Oram (ed), The Reign of Alexander II, 1214–49, Lieden, 2005. This is the only article that deals at length with the events discussed here; it is an invaluable study on which I have drawn heavily.

397   Stringer, ‘Kingship, Conflict and State-Making’, 123, n. 88; AB,163–4.

398   Stringer, ‘Kingship, Conflict and State-Making’, 144.

399   MP, ii, 642.

400   Stringer, ‘Kingship, Conflcit and State-Making’, 145.

401   See: Painter, King John, 370; Holt, The Northeners, 133–5.

402   There is uncertainty over Alnwick and Warwick-on-Tweed: Holt says they remained untaken by John (The Northeners, 134); Painter says otherwise (King John, 370). According to Wendover, Mountsorrel was the only castle remaining to the rebels in the north (RW, ii, 167).

403   Painter, King John, 370.

404   Holt, The Northerners, 137.

405   RC, 178–9.

406   HWM, ii, 225. William Marshal was in Ireland at this time.

407   RW, ii, 165–6. See McGlynn, By Sword and Fire, 227–31, for a detailed analysis of what follows.

408   RW, ii, 166.

409   RW, ii, 171–2.

410   RW, ii, 162.

411   BC, 232.

412   Holt makes the case for no payment in The Northerners, 134, n.1.

413   Poole, Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 481.

414   Richmond, ‘Identity and Morality’, 234.

415   McGlynn, By Sword and Fire, explains the rationale behind atrocities in medieval warfare.

416   David Green, Edward the Black Prince, Harlow, 2007, 35.

417   RW, ii, 162–7. See also McGlynn, ‘Roger of Wendover’, 194–7.

418   McGlynn, ‘Roger of Wendover’, 195.

419   The Anonymous gives the names of some of the knights: AB, 160–1; Chronique des Rois de France, 770–1. For events leading up to Louis’s arrival, see: RW, ii,165–80;AB, 162–8; WB, i, 305–8; RC, 178–81; Petite-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, 90–100; Painter, King John, 370–4;Turner, King John, 254–5; Warren, King John, 251–1.

420   AB, 164–5.

421   Painter, King John, 372.

422   Painter, King John, 372.

423   For the events of April, see: RW, ii, 176–80; WB, ii, 359; WB, I 306–7; Baldwin, The Government of Philip Augustus, 332; Bradbury, Philip Augustus, 318–19; and note 32.

424   For Guala, see: Nicholas Vincent (ed), The Letters and Charters of Cardinal Guala Bicchieri, Woodbridge, 1996; Fred A. Cazel, ‘The Legates Guala and Pandulf’, in TCE II.

425   These sanctions can not be verified.

426   Bradbury, Philip Augustus, 319–20; Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 335.

427   See AB, 187 and again in his Chroniques des Rois de France, 770.

428   RW, ii, 180. Cf. WB, i, 306–7 where William says a safe passage was granted.

429   Vincent, Letters and Charters, xl-xli.

430   Norgate, John Lackland, 267.

431   AB, 168; RC, 181.

432   AB, 166–7; WB, i, 307.

433   For Eustace, see: Glyn Burgess (ed and trans), Two Medieval Outlaws: Eustace the Monk and Fouke Fitz Waryn, Woodbridge, 1997; Maurice Keen, The Outlaws of Medieval Legend, 1977.

434   Maurice Keen, The Outlaws of Medieval Legend, 54.

435   Burgess, Two Medieval Outlaws, 77.

436   RC, 181; Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, 100.

437   Vincent, Letters and Charters, xli.

438   AM, ii, 46.

439   AB, 169. In his Chroniques des Rois de France, the Anonymous says that did not wait there (Recueil, xiv, 771).

440   RW, ii, 180.

441   It opened its gates to Louis on 6 November.

442   RW, ii, 181.

443   RW, ii, 181–2.

444   Warren, King John, 252. For the events of June and July, see: RW, ii, 190–2; AB, 171–4; BC, ii, 230–1; AM, ii, 46–7; Petite-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, 106–8; Norgate, John Lackland, 271–4;Painter, King John, 374–5. Wendover and Anonymous remain the chief sources here.

445   WB, i, 311.

446   Sidney Painter, William Marshal: Knight-Errant,Baron, and Regent of England, Toronto, 1982 [1933], 188. Walter de Beauchamp was soon back in John’s camp.

447   Painter, King John, 375.

448   RW, ii 191.

449   WM, 257.

450   Church, Household Knights of King John, 111. For the comings and goings of these vacillating vassals see chapter 5 of this excellent study.

451   AB, 176–7.

452   RW, ii, 183.

453   Norgate, John Lackland, 274–5, on whom I have drawn heavily for this paragraph.

454   Norgate, John Lackland, 275. For intelligence, see: Michael Prestwich, ‘Military Intelligence under the Norman and Angevin kings’, in George Garnett and John Hudson (eds), Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy, Oxford, 1994; McGlynn, ‘Roger of Wendover’, 191–2.

455   WB, i, 311–12, where he calls Dover ‘impregnable’. For a recent study of Dover Castle, see John Gillingham, ‘The King and the Castle’, BBC History, 10 (8), 2009. For an analysis of the castle’s military architecture during the siege, see John Goodall, ‘Dover Castle and the Great Siege of 1216’, Château Gaillard XIX, 2000.

456   MP, ii, 664.

457   AM, ii, 49. For the initial phase of the siege of the Dover, see: AB, 177–80; RW, ii, 191–2.

458   The exact date is uncertain; Wendover suggests that the meeting took place in August (RW, ii, 194). See Stringer, ‘Kingship, Conflict and State-Making’, 128 and 131 for a discussion of Alexander’s march.

459   Stringer, ‘Kingship, Conflict and State-Making’, 128, 129.

460   RW, ii, 194.

461   For Willikin, see: G. R. Stephen, ‘A Note on William of Cassingham’, Speculum, 16, 1941; Sean McGlynn, ‘King John and the French Invasion of England’, BBC History, 11 (6), 2010, 28.

462   RW, ii, 182.

463   AB, 181.

464   WM, 257.

465   For the siege of Windsor and events surrounding it, see: RW, ii, 192–3; AB, 177, 179.

466   For events up to mid-October, see: RW, ii,193–7; 180; RC, 182–4; Turner, King John, 256–7; Warren, King John, 253–6; Painter, King John, 376–7; Norgate, John Lackland, 277–81; Petit-Dutaillis, 109–110.

467   Turner, King John, 256.

468   AM, ii, 149.

469   Stringer, ‘Kingship, Conflict and State-Making’, 129.

470   RW, ii, 193; see also AM, ii 47.

471   RC, 182.

472   BC, 231.

473   See Stringer, ‘Kingship, Conflict and State-Making’, 128.

474   MP, ii 667. See also his Historia Anglorum, ii, 189–90.

475   RW, ii, 193.

476   BC, 231.

477   BC, 232.

478   For events see Holt, Magna Carta and Medieval Government,111–22 and the references in n.466.

479   Holt, Magna Carta and Medieval Government, 117–18; see also Warren, King John, 278–85 (Appendix C).

480   Stringer, ‘Kingship, Conflict and State-Making’, 129 n.113.

481   Baldwin, Government of Philip Augustus, 333.

482   Jane E. Sayers, Papal Government and England During the Pontificate of Honorius III, 1216–1227, Cambridge, 1984, 166–7.

483   AB, 182.

7 The Battle for England, 1216–1217

484   BC, 232; MP, ii, 669.

485   WB, ii, 259.

486   S.D. Church, ‘King’s John Testament and the Last Days of his Reign’, EHR, 125, 2010, 517.

487   The following paragraph draws heavily on Church’s detailed study, especially at 521–2.

488   Church, ‘King John’s Testament’, 528.

489   Holt, The Northeners, 139.

490   Holt, Magna Carta and Medieval Government, 122; RC, 184.

491   HWM, 265.

492   HWM, 269.

493   HWM, 287.

494   MP, iii, 3–4; HWM, 285.

495   AB, 180–1.

496   BC, 232.

497   Gillingham, Angevin Empire, 108.

498   Carpenter, The Minority of Henry III, 1990, 22.

499   For a narrative of the events of Henry’s first year, see: Carpenter, Minority, ch. 2; K. Norgate, The Minority of Henry III, 1912, ch.1; F.M. Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward: The Community of the Realm in the Thirteenth Century: Volume One, Oxford, 1947, 1–18; F.M. Powicke, The Thirteenth Century, 1216–1307, 2nd edn, Oxford, 1–14; Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, chs. 8 and 9; Sivéry, Louis VIII, ch.7. For Henry’s reign and aspects of it, see also David Carpenter, The Reign of Henry III, 1996; Robert Stacey, Politics, Policy and Finance under Henry III, 1216–1245, Oxford, 1987; Weiler and Rowlands, England and Europe un the Reign of Henry III; Vincent,Peter des Roches (ch.4 deals with the civil war and its immediate aftermath); and the important series, TCE.

500   Powicke, Thirteenth Century, 4. For the reissue of Magna Carta, see Holt, Magna Carta, 378–82; Turner, Magna Carta, 80–4; Norgate, Minority, 10–15; Stacey, Politics, Policy and Finance, 3–4. The Barnwell chronicler stresses the religious activity at this time: BC, 233–4.

501   RW, ii, 199. See also AB, 182, who says a further truce was arranged.

502   For Hertford and Berkhamstead: RW, ii, 200–1; AB, 182; HWM, 289. Hertford may have surrendered sooner: AM, ii 287.

503   AM, iii, 47 and RW, ii, 201 for St Albans. St Albans was Wendover’s mother house.

504   AB, 182.

505   HWM, 289.

506   See Carpenter, Minority, 26, for what follows.

507   HWM, 275, 285.

508   RW, ii, 205. See also MP, ii, 12–13 for Falkes’s later attempt at a very insincere reconciliation with the abbey.

509   Norgate, Minority, 19; BC, 235.

510   BC, 235; RW, ii, 206; WB, i, 312–13.

511   RW, ii, 205; BC, 235 for the oath.

512   For the combat at Rye, see AB 183–7; Anonymous of Béthune, Recueil des Historiens de France, xiv, 774 (which closely follows the Histoire des Ducs); HWM, 291–5.

513   HWM, 257.

514   Painter, William Marshal, 210–11.

515   AB, 187.

516   AB, 187.

517   BC, 235–6.

518   Christopher Tyerman, England and the Crusades, 133–44. The quote is at 139.

519   Carpenter, Minority, 29. And note how the Barnwell chronicler draws attention to Guala’s unpopularity: BC, 236.

520   RW, ii, 205.

521   Carpenter, Minority, 30–1, has fuller details.

522   RW, ii, 205.

523   AB, 187–8. Our main source for this period is HWM, 297–303. Petit-Dutaillis offers a brief paragraph (Louis VIII, 145). For what follows, see David Crouch’s valuable notes, HWM, iii, 169–70.

524   David Crouch makes the point about the south coast movements: Crouch, William Marshal, 121.

525   BC, 236.

526   AB, 188.

527   Robert of Auxerre, 36; HWM, 303.

528   AB, 188–9.

529   HWM, 305.

530   For military activity in the south, see: AB, 189–93; HWM, 305–7; BC, 236–7. The History of William Marshal confirms the chronology at Winchester; see also David Crouch’s notes: HWM, iii, 171.

531   HWM, 305. The biographer of William Marshal mistakingly notes that Louis’s army of heavily equipped knights ‘wisely rode straight past Farnham’ (305).

532   Vincent, Peter des Roches, 136.

533   AB, 192–3, is the only contemporary account of what follows.

534   For Mountsorrel, see: RW, ii, 208–9, 211; HWM, 307; BC, 236–7; AM, iii, 49.

535   Vincent, Peter des Roches, 127–31 (at 128–9). For the impact of ravaging, see: E.B. Fryde. Peasants and Landlords in Later Medieval England, Stroud, 1996, 220–26; J.J.N. Palmer, ‘The Conqueror’s Footprints in Domesday Book’, in Ayton and Price, The Medieval Military Revolution; J.J.N. Palmer, ‘War and Domesday Waste’, in Strickland,Armies, Chivalry and Warfare; McGlynn, By Sword and Fire, ch. 5; Sean McGlynn, ‘Sheer Terror’ and the Black Prince’s Grand Chevauchée of 1355’, in The Hundred Years War: Volume 3, eds Donald Kagay and Andrew Villalon, Leiden, forthcoming.

536   Gillingham, ‘William the Bastard at War’, ANW, 151.

537   AM, iii, 49.

538   HWM, 307.

539   RW, ii, 207.

540   HWM, 309–13. I have omitted sections of the speech and adapted it here.

541   For Lincoln, see: RW, ii, 211–19; HWM, 309–55; BC, 237; AM, iii, 49–50; 194–5; WB, ii, 313–14; Coss, Political Songs, 19–27; F.W. Brooks and F. Oakley, ‘The Campaign and Battle of Lincoln, 1217’, Associated Architectural Societies’ Reports and Papers, vol. 26., part 2, 1922; J.W.F. Hill, Medieval Lincoln, Cambridge, 1948, 201–5; T.F. Tout, ‘The Fair of Lincoln and the “Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal”’, EHR, 18. For Nichola de Hay, see Charles Petit-Dutaillis, ‘Une femme de Guerre au XIIIe siècle: Nicole de la Haie, Gardienne du Château de Lincoln’, in Mélanges Julien Havet. Recueil de TRavaux d’Erudition Dedies à la Memoire de Julien Havet (1853–93), Paris, 1895. I am very grateful to Louise Wilkinson for drawing my attention to this article and for sending me a copy of her paper on Nichola which she presented to the Late Medieval Seminar at the Institute of Historical Research in March 1998, and to David Carpenterfor suggesting to her that this paper might be of use to me (as indeed it was).

542   David Crouch makes this interesting suggestion: HWM, iii, 173.

543   Detailed descriptions of medieval Lincoln are to be found in Hill, Medieval Lincoln, and Brooks and Oakley, ‘The campaign and Battle of Lincoln, 1217’,

544   Coss, Political Songs, 24.

545   The most recent literature on Towton is: Gorge Goodwin, Fatal Colours: Towton, 1461 – England’s Most Brutal Battle, 2011; John Sadler, Towton: The Battle of Palm Sunday Field, Barnsley, 201; Sean McGlynn, ‘The Wars of the Roses’, in Clifford Rogers (ed), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Technology, vol. 3, Oxford 2010; McGlynn, By Sword and Fire, 129–31.

546   Coss, Political Songs, 25.

547   The suggestion is made in an appendix in Norgate, Minority, 273–4. Cf. the comments by Brooks and Oakley, ‘The Campaign and Battle of Lincoln, 1217’, 303–4.

548   There is a slight possibility that it was in fact the western blocked/unblocked gate that was forced. Carpenter suggests that the gate may have been unblocked at this juncture (Minority, 39). See also Brooks and Oakley, ‘The Campaign and Battle of Lincoln,1217’, 306.

549   This rightward wheel prompts David Carpenter to believe that the regent had entered through the unblocked west gate (Minority, 39).

550   Historia Anglia, ii, 213.

551   See Norgate, Minority, 44, n.6 for a detailed list of prisoners; also AB, 195. For the Count of Perche, see K. Thompson, Power and Border Lordship in Medieval France: the County of Perche, 1000–1226, Woodridge, 2002, 151–63.

552   RW, ii, 218–19. See also the Dunstable annalist who confirms that ‘many drowned’ (AM, iii, 50) and also BC, 238. For sacking of cities, see McGlynn, By Sword and Fire, ch.4, with Lincoln at 187–8.

553   Coss, Political Songs, 27; Powicke, King Henry III, 12; Carpenter, Minority, 40. But see also the dissenting views of Brooks and Oakley, ‘The Campaign and Battle of Lincoln, 1217’, 312.

8 The Last Campaign, 1217

554   Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, 153. Nor had Lincoln completely ‘destroyed the barons’ as the Merton Chronicle believes (Petit-Dutaillis, 514). However, the barons suffered more than their French comrades as they did not have a reservoir of manpower to draw upon from across the Channel.

555   Powicke, King Henry III, 13. For events immediately following Lincoln, see: AB, 195–200; HWM, 355–9; BC, 238; RW, ii, 219–20; AM, iii, 50; and the secondary sources in note 16, chapter seven.

556   See: Sean McGlynn, ‘British Nationalism and Europe: A Medieval Comparison’, Politics, 16 (3), 1996; A.D. Smith, National Identity, 1991; Patrick Wormald, ‘Engla Lond: The Making of an Allegiance’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 7 (1), 1994; Patrick Wormald, ‘The Making of England’, History Today 45 (2), 1995; John Gillingham, ‘Henry of Huntingdon and the Twelfth-Century Revival of the English Nation’, The English in the Twelfth Century (and pages 93–162 for other relevant essays); Jospeh Llobera, ‘State and Nation in Medieval France’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 7 (3), 1994; Len Scales and Oliver Zimmer (eds), Power and Nation in European History, Cambridge, 2005 (Part Two for the Middle Ages); Len Scales, ‘Identifying “France” and “Germany”: Medieval Nation-Making in Some Recent Publications’, Bulletin of International Medieval Research, 6, 2000; Len Scales, ‘Bread, Cheese and Genocide: Imagining the Destruction of Peoples in Medieval Western Europe’, History, 92 (3), 2007; Simon Forde, Lesley Johnson and Alan Murray, Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages, Leeds, 1995; Michael Clanchy, England and its Rulers,173–89; A.D. Smith, ‘Gastronomy or Geology? The Role of Nationalism in the Reconstruction of Nations’, Nations and Nationalism 1 (1), 1995; Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, Oxford, 1983.

557   See, for example, Bertrand Taithe and Tim Thornton (eds), War: Identities in Conflict, 1300–2000, Stroud, 1998. War and identity are main themes in Smith, National Identity; John Breuilly, Nationalism and the State, 2nd edn., Manchester, 1993; E. Shils, ‘Nations, Nationalism and Civil Society’, Nations and Nationalism, 1 (1), 1995. See Gillingham, The English in the Twelfth Century, 123–62, for the role or war within the British Isles on the formation of identity.

558   Breuilly, Nationalism and the State, 87.

559   David Carpenter, ‘English Peasants in Politics, 1258–1267’ Past and Present, 136, 1992.

560   Alfred Smyth, ‘The Emergence of English Identity, 700–1000’, in Alfred Smyth (ed), Medieval Europeans: Studies in Ethnic Identity and National Perspectives in Medieval Europe, Basingstoke, 1998.

561   McGlynn, ‘British Nationalism and Europe: A Medieval Comparison’ extends this argument.

562   HWM, 355–7; RW, ii, 219–20; WB, i, 313–14.

563   HWM, 357.

564   AB, 195.

565   See again Tony Moore, ‘Other Cities have Citizens, London’s are called Barons’ for London.

566   AB, 195–6.

567   AB, 196–7. For the unsettled atmosphere in London, see AB, 196–7 and AM, ii, 287.

568   Powicke, King Henry III, 13; Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, 157.

569   Tyerman, England and the Crusades, 59.

570   AB, 197–8.

571   Powicke, King Henry III, 13.

572   Vincent, Letters and Charters, 109.

573   Vincent, Letters and Charters, 106–110 for the letter and commentary. See also Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, 157–8, n.9, and Powicke, King Henry III, 14, n.1.

574   AB, 197.

575   Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, 1734–1904, xix, 636, in Carpenter, Minority, 42.

576   Cited in Vincent, Letters and Charters, 110.

577   Carpenter, Minority, 42–3, covers this episode.

578   AB, 199–200 for what follows in London.

579   AB, 199–200.

580   Sivéry, Louis VIII, 186. For Blanche of Castille, see: Gerard Sivéry, Blanche de Castille, Paris, 1990; Régine Pernoud, Blance of Castile, London, 1975; Jacques le Goff, Saint Louis, Paris, 1996.

581   The Minstrel of Reims, in Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII, 163.

582   RW, ii, 220–1.

583   RW, ii, 221; AB, 198; AM, iii, 50; HWM, 357–9; Melrose, 127–8.

584   HWM, 359.

585   RW, ii, 221. For what follows and the Battle of Sandwich, see: RW, ii, 221–3; HWM, 357–77; AB, 201–2; BC, 238–9; RC, 185;WB, i, 314; The Romance of Eustace the Monk in Burgess, Two Medieval Outlaws, 77–8. Matthew Paris also covers the battle, but less reliably so when he moves away from Wendover’s account: MP, iii, 26–9;Historia Anglia 216–21. A detailed secondary account of the battle is to be found in H.L. Cannon, ‘The Battle of Sandwich and Eustace the Monk’, EHR, 27, 1912. More briefly, see Norgate, Minority, 50–4; I follow a different chronology to Norgate who places the initial English defeat on the day of battle, instead of in the previous weeks.

586   HWM, 363–5. The return to full allegiance of the Cinque ports was essential in preparing the English fleet. For medieval naval matters, see: N.A.M. Rodger, The Safeguard of the Sea: A Naval History of Britain. Volume One: 660–1649, 1997; F.W. Brooks, The English Naval Forces, 1199–1272, n.d.; Archibald Lewis and Timothy Runyan,European Naval and Maritime History, 300–1500, Bloomington, 1985; Ian Friel,The Good Ship: Ships, Shipbuilding and Technology in England, 1200–1520, 1995; John Gillingham, ‘Richard I, Galley-Warfare and Portsmouth: the Beginnings of a Royal Navy’, TCE 6, 1997; Susan Rose, Medieval Naval Warfare, 1000–1500, 2002; John Hattendorf and Richard Unger (eds), War at Sea in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Woodbridge, 2003.

587   For cogs, see Rodgers, Safeguard of the Sea, 62–3; Friel, The Good Ship, 35–8.

588   For this episode, see Helen Nicholson (ed and trans), Chronicle of the Third Crusade: A Translation of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Ricardi, Aldershot, 1997, 197–9.

589   RW, ii, 67–8.

590   RW, ii, 68.

591   David Loades, ‘The King’s Ships: the Keeping of the Seas, 1413–1480’, Medieval History, 1 (1), 1991, 94.

592   HWM, 369.

593   Loades, ‘The King’s Ships’, 94.

594   The hunting analogy is usually the one accepted. However, in The History of William Marshal, from which this phrase comes (370–1), ‘hart’ is translated as ‘noose’. Here it is feminine. In English, ‘hart’ usually refers to a male deer, especially a stag, ‘Noose’ in Old French is a masculine noun. The inconsistencies of Old French apply to gender as much as to any aspect of its variable language.

595   WB, i, 314.

596   As is pointed out by Carpenter, Minority, 43.

597   Cannon believes the French broke order to attack: ‘The Battle of Sandwich’, 663.

598   RC, 185–6.

599   AM, ii, 287–8. Prisoner numbers are discussed in Cannon, ‘The Battle of Sandwich’, 666–7.

600   As Carpenter has noted (Minority, 43).

601   Patent Rolls, 1216–25, 89 in Cannon, ‘The Battle of Sandwich’, 666, where the number of ships taken is discussed.

602   RW, ii, 272; WB, ii, 271.

603   See, for example, W.L. Clowes, The Royal Navy: A History from the Earliest Times to 1900, 1996 [1897], i, 190.

604   For the immediate aftermath and impact of the battle, see RC, 186; RW, ii, 223; AB, 203–5.

605   RC, 186. Note the worry Louis had over London’s loyalty in Recueil, xviii, 240 and Vincent, Letters and Charters, xliii. The most detailed account of the Battle of Muret will be found in Sean McGlynn, ‘Kill Them All!’ Crusaders, Cathars and Carnage: Warfare in the Albigensian Crusade, forthcoming.

606   For the peace talks and settlement, see: AB, 202–5; RW, ii, 223–6; HWM, 385–9; RC, 186; AM, iii, 50–1; BC, 239.

607   For the treaty, see: J. Beverley Smith, ‘The Treaty of Lambeth, 1217’, EHR, 94, 1979’; Norgate, Minority, 57–8; Carpenter, Minority, 44–9, which simultaneously examines some of the implications of the settlement in the early years of Henry’s minority; Powicke, Thirteenth Century England, 13–15; Painter, William Marshal, 223–4; Crouch,William Marshal, 125; Powicke, King Henry III, 17–19.

608   Carpenter, Minority, 46.

609   HWM, 385–7. Note William the Breton’s figure for the total amount of the payment to Louis: WB, i, 314–5.

610   RC, 186.

611   Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 275. See also Eales, ‘Castles and Politics in England’.

612   Vincent, Peter des Roches, 136.

613   See Carpenter, Minority, 31–4, for locality and allegiance.

614   HWM, 357.

615   BC, 239.

616   For example: Powicke, King Henry III, 16.

617   Tyerman, England and the Crusades, 139–40.

618   Coss, Political Songs, 22.

619   BC, 232.

620   For this meeting and a discussion of dates, see Smith, ‘The Treaty of Lambeth’, 562–5.

621   AB, 205; RW, ii, 225.

If you find an error please notify us in the comments. Thank you!