23.JF, ll. 1185–314, notes that Roger commanded 20 knights, but the Pipe Roll only records wages for 10 knights and forty serjeants (PR 20 Henry II, 105). It is possible that the knights were accompanied by squires or valets de guerre, thereby increasing the actual number of fighting men available.
24.GH, I, 64; Diceto, I, 379.
25.JF, ll. 1320–1. Newburgh (WN, I, 182), who records that Mowbray gave his eldest son as a hostage to King William and in return received a pledge of aid, believed that Mowbray only came north to join William after the fall of his Yorkshire castles, but Jordan’s testimony is to be preferred here.
26.JF, ll. 1334–41, where Fantosme calls Port’s men ‘his borderers’ (ses marchiz). Adam seems to have fled to Scotland, though little is known of his movements. He appears at Roxburgh, granting ‘Wibaldingtun’, probably Whittington in south-east Herefordshire, to Kelso abbey (Liber St Marie de Calchou, no. 357; RRS, II, 22, n.19a).
27.WN, I, 180–1; trans. Walsh and Kennedy, 130–1.
28.WN, I, 180, noting that Leicester’s vassals, ‘as though fired with a desire to avenge their lord … gathered to their side a horde of scoundrels (improbi)’ and commenced raiding.
29.GH, I, 64. In 1113, Henry I had granted his brother-in-law David the earldom of Huntingdon by marriage to Matilda, daughter of Earl Waltheof and widow of Simon de Senlis. Though King Stephen initially recognized David’s son Henry as earl, hostilities with the Scots led him to grant the earldom of Huntingdon and Northampton to Simon de Senlis II, Maud’s son by her first husband, in 1141. Stephen had granted it to Simon de Senlis III in 1156, but Henry II had resumed the honour into his own hands and in 1157 granted the earldom to Malcolm IV; Barrow, RRS, I, 10, 105ff.; K. Stringer, ‘Simon de Senlis (II), earl of Northampton and earl of Huntingdon (d. 1153), ODNB; Stringer, Earl David, 19.
30.JF, ll. 1096–106; Stringer, Earl David, 13–18, for a detailed discussion of the grant of the Lennox.
31.GH, I, 45; Howden, II, 47; RRS, I, no. 207; VCH, Cambs, II, 388–9; Stringer, Earl David, 21.
32.Stringer, Earl David, 20, n. 61. The caput of the honour of Huntingdon, however, was at Fotheringhay, but though it too had a significant motte and bailey castle, there is little or no record of its role in the war (ibid., 73)
33.Stringer, Earl David, 27.
34.Ralph Niger, Chronicle, 176; trans. Anderson, Early Sources for Scottish History, II, 280.
35.Its significance is reflected in the amount spent on pay for the garrison, which amounted to £416 7s. 8d. in the fiscal year 1173–74, having risen sharply from the £142 1s. spent the year previously (PR 19 Henry II, 32–3; PR 20 Henry II, 54–5; Beeler, Warfare in England, 174).
36.JF, ll. 1119–31. For Bertram, R. Dace, ‘Bertran de Verdun: Royal Service, Land, and Family in the Late Twelfth Century’, Medieval Prosopography, 20 (1999), 75–93; and M. Hagger, The Fortunes of a Norman Family; the de Verduns in England, Ireland and Wales, 1066–1316 (Dublin, 2001). A glimpse of how damaging the raids of the Leicester garrison were is provided by the Pipe Rolls, which show that the royal estates at Rothley and Medbourne were wasted, preventing the collection of revenue until at least two years later (PR 20 Henry II, 140, 180).
37.G. Turbutt, A History of Derbyshire, vol. 2. Medieval Derbyshire (Cardiff, 1999).
38.GH, I, 69.
39.A new keep had been built at Nottingham between 1170 and 1172 with work amounting to over £675 (PR 17 Henry II, 50–1, 52; PR 18 Henry II, 7; Brown, ‘Royal Castle-Building in England’, 46–7). For plans of the town and castle, The Victoria History of the County of Northampton, III, ed. W. Page (London, 1930), plate opposite 31, 32.
40.The extent of depredations at a local level is suggested in a confirmation, 1177 x 1181, by Archbishop Richard of Canterbury of grants made by Richard, bishop of Coventry, to re-endow the lands of his deanery ‘que tempore hostilitatis tot fere in nichilum redacta est’ (EEA, II: Canterbury, 1162–1190, 128 (no. 155)).
41.GH, I, 106.
42.GH, I, 106.
43.However, the Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, ed. W. T. Mellows (Oxford, 1949), 131–2, concludes with a protestation of his innocence, claiming that although he was accused in secret by some of the monks, he was not found guilty by proof or confession, but says that his downfall was due to the ‘iram et adquisicionem regis’.
44.For the date, RRS, II, 96. William was in Perth on 23 May for the election of Joscelin, bishop of Glasgow.
45.GH, I, 65. For Liddell, King, Castellarium Anglicanum, I, 88. It is notable that Jordan, who devotes much praise to the Stutevilles, is silent on this episode.
46.GH, I, 65; JF, ll. 1327–408.
47.JF, ll. 1409–54.
48.GH, I, 65.
49.JF, ll. 1586–9. Glanville, who from 1173 was also sheriff of Lancashire, had been given custody of the honour of Richmond on the death of Duke Conan.
50.JF, ll.1457–62; PR 22 Henry II, 119. As a royal castle, it was under the overall command of Robert de Stuteville (GH, I, 65).
51.JF, ll. 1584–5. David I had granted Appleby and the lordship of north Westmorland to his constable Hugh de Moreville, who was also an important tenant of the honour of Huntingdon. After Henry II forced Malcolm to restore the northern counties in 1157, he recognized de Morville’s holdings in England, but only on condition that the lordship of Appleby was held by his son, also called Hugh, already a staunch Angevin supporter (K. Stringer, ‘Hugh de Moreville (d. 1162)’, ODNB; R. M. Franklin, ‘Hugh de Moreville (d. 1173/4)’, ODNB). The younger Hugh, however, forfeited the castle and lordship in the wake of his involvement in the murder of Thomas Becket, and it would seem that, in 1174, William the Lion was able to benefit from these recent upheavals, and from the fact that his own constable, Richard de Morville, was Hugh’s brother.
52.The Scots then slighted the castle, including the keep (JF, ll. 1483–92, 1506).
53.PR 14 Henry II, 169, 170, 173; PR 18 Henry II, 66.
54.GH, I, 65; WN, I, 182. Less plausibly, Fantosme has it that de Vaux only made such an agreement on learning from the justiciar that King Henry intended to cross to England within a fortnight (ll. 1506–22, and ll. 1628–40).
55.English Episcopal Acta, XXVII, York, 1189–1212, ed. M. Lovatt (Oxford, 2004), xxix–lvii, provides a valuable survey of Geoffrey’s career.
56.Gerald of Wales, De vita Galfridi archiepiscopi Eboracensis, in Gerald, Opera, IV, 364–5; GH, I, 68; Diceto, I, 379. Nevertheless, as late as 1179–80, the justices in eyre could fine Hamo Beler and other men on the Isle 20 marks ‘pro fossato levato injuste’, while Adam Painel was amerced 2 marks ‘de castello de Insula non bene prostrato’ (PR 26 Henry II, 53).
57.Vita Galfridi, 368. For a far less flattering description of Geoffrey, Gervase, I, 520.
58.Vita Galfridi, 366–7.
59.GH, I, 68. Lincoln’s servitium debitum was sixty knights, that of York twenty (EHD, II, 969).
60.Vita Galfridi, 366–7.
61.GH, I, 69. By Easter 1173, William de Stuteville had also been entrusted with the custody of Knaresborough castle, which the king had removed from Hugh de Moreville following Becket’s murder.
62.GH, I, 67, 73, 160; Howden, II, 57. Northallerton was later destroyed on the king’s orders in 1176. Geoffrey of Coldingham says it was built by Bishop Hugh and not demolished after 1154 (‘De statu ecclesiae Dunhelmensis’, in Historiae Dunelmensis scriptores tres: Gaufridus de Coldingham, Robertus de Graystanes, et Willielmus de Chambre, ed. J. Raine, Surtees Society, 9 (1839), 12). There are two castles, however, at Northallerton, of which one may be the new fortification of 1174; King, Castellarium Anglicanum, II, 5522 and n. 58.
63.Vita Galfridi, 367.
64.Diceto, I, 381, who has the Young King come to Wissant to send off Ralph on 14 July. His dating is clearly confused, for he notes that Ralph landed at Orwell on 15 May and that Norwich fell to them on 1 June. Howden has the Young King come to Gravelines on 24 June to join the main invasion force (GH, I 171).
65.Diceto,
I, 381, ‘milites probatissimos et a Flandrensium multitudine selectos’.
66.Diceto, I, 381; Gervase, I, 247.
67.Ralph Niger, Chronicle, 176.
68.Diceto, I, 381; Ralph Niger, Chronicle, 176, says that that the city fell ‘at the first assault’. Fantosme, ll. 889–91, believed that a traitor from Lorraine had let them in, but he mistakenly places the attack on Norwich in the campaign of 1173, and his information on events in this theatre were clearly limited, as he himself admits (JF, l. 890).
69.JF, ll. 916–24.
70.M. McKisack, ‘London and the Succession to the Crown during the Middle Ages’, Studies in Medieval History Presented to F. M. Powicke, ed. R. W. Hunt, W. A. Pantin and R. Southern (Oxford, 1948), 76–89.
71.Liber custumarum, in Munimenta Gildhallae Londoniensis, ed. H. T. Riley, 3 vols in 4 (Rolls Series, 1849–62), II, part I, 31–2; J. H. Round, ‘The Commune of London’, in idem, The Commune of London and Other Studies (London, 1899), 219–60; S. Reynolds, ‘The Rulers of London in the Twelfth Century’, History, 57 (1972), 337–57.
72.Similarly, in 1135, the decision of London to back Stephen had been influenced in part by his control of the Boulogne fleet, which played a major role in carrying merchandise to Flanders (Brooke and Keir, London 800–1216, 33–4).
73.PR 19 Henry II, 186. For the heavy farm, Round, ‘Commune of London’, 229–34; Brook and Keir, London 800–1216, 41, and Henry’s grants to individual London guilds, C. Barron, London in the Later Middle Ages. Government and People, 1200–1500 (Oxford, 2004), 200–1. London’s wealth was reflected in the fact that whereas Winchester rendered about £150 annually to the Exchequer for the borough farm, and Lincoln £180, London gave £500, and was also subject to a number of such arbitrary forced loans or dona (Brooke and Keir, London 800–1216, 41).
74.JF, 1609–12. For the location of Montfichet’s castle, The British Atlas of Historic Towns, ed. M. D. Lobel, II: The City of London. From Prehistoric Times to c. 1520 (Oxford, 1989), 81, and map ‘City of London, c. 1270’; King, Castellarium Anglicanum, I, 271. It lay immediately north of Baynard’s Castle, the other baronial fortress within London, which occupied the south-west corner of the old Roman walls.
75.Richard FitzGilbert, ‘Strongbow’, had fought for Henry II in 1173 in defence of Gisors (Song of Dermot, ll. 2864–945), but was back in Ireland in 1174 with Henry’s permission, to lead an unsuccessful expedition into Thomond. His cousin, Robert of Montfort-sur-Risle, who held the former Clare honours of Orbec and Bienfaite in Normandy (evidently forfeited by Richard by 1153), is named by Howden among the rebels (GH, I, 45).
76.GH, I, 71. Ralph of Diss noted that, following the capture of William the Lion and the surrender of the major rebel strongholds in the Midlands in July, both William earl of Gloucester and his son-in-law Richard, earl of Clare, ‘who were held in suspicion’, hurried to Henry II to profess their loyalty (Diceto, I, 385).
77.Diceto, I, 381.
78.WN, I, 181; Diceto, I, 37. Among the rebels’ strongholds still resisting were Champtoceaux and Sablé.
79.Diceto, I, 379–80. Henry entered Maine on 30 April.
80.Diceto, I, 380. For Henry II’s position in Poitou, and the castles and resources available to him as duke, see Debord, La Société laïque dans les pays de La Charente, 375–83, who also provides a valuable catalogue of the principal castles of the region before 1200 (Appendix I and II, 455–84).
81.GH, I, 63; Gillingham, The Angevin Empire, 34; Flori, Eleanor, 105–6.
82.Annales de St Aubin, 38. J. Flori, Richard the Lionheart. King and Knight (Paris, 1999), 34–5, suggests that Richard had been active in Poitou from Easter 1173, though Howden believed that he was with the Young King at Drincourt.
83.Debord, La Société laïque dans les pays de La Charente, 385–8, and fig. 66.
84.Diceto, I, 380; Gillingham, Richard I, 49–50.
85.GH, I, 71; Diceto, I, 380. Henry II took Saintes on 11 June.
86.Vigeois, 320.
87.For Maurice, Recueil, Introduction, 405–6, and for Henry’s regional officials, R. Barton, ‘Between the King and the Dominus: The Seneschals of Plantagenet Maine and Anjou’, Les Seigneuries dans l’espace Plantagenêt (c. 1150–c.1250), ed. M. Aurell and F. Boutoulle (Bordeaux, 2009), 139–62. After the king’s departure, Maurice de Craon pressed home the campaign of suppression, destroying Champtoceaux, Sablé, St Lupus and St Bris near Sablé (Annales de St Aubin, 38; Eyton, 183). Henry’s chief commanders in Poitou are revealed in his grant to Notre Dame de Saintes; Porteclia, seneschal of Poitou, William Maingot, Hamelin de Mientor, Geoffrey de Taunai, Theobald Chabot, Maurice de Craon and Nivard de Rochefort (Recueil, II, no. 465; and ibid., Introduction, 73).
88.Diceto, I, 380, ‘opere sumptuoso’; GH, I, 71, ‘munitionem fortissimam’. Howden dates Henry II’s seizure of Ancenis to around 11 June (GH, I, 71).
89.GH, I, 71.
90.Diceto, I, 381; Torigni, 264.
91.Torigni, 263–4.
92.Torigni, 263. See Power, The Norman Frontier, 403–4 and 403, n. 90, for Henry II’s gifts of land in England to William Mauvoisin and Enguerrand de Fontaines, seneschal of Ponthieu, in spring 1174.
93.HWM, ll. 2263–70.
94.Diceto, I, 381; trans. Hallam, Plantagenet Chronicles, 129.
95.Diceto, I, 381–2.
96.GH, I, 71–2, noting the date as ‘around the Nativity of St John the Baptist’ (24 June). It is doubtless this siege castle that is referred to in PR 20 Henry II, 63, which notes expenditure ‘in operatione novi castelli de Hunted’.
97.GH, I, 71.
98.Diceto, I, 384; Lloyd, A History of Wales, II, 544. PR 20 Henry II, 21, 77, 121 reveal that these Welsh had been supplied with victuals by the sheriffs of Oxfordshire, Herefordshire and Gloucestershire, no doubt in part to limit the possible damage the Welsh might inflict on friendly territory.
99.Henry II had restored to Rhys his son, Hywel ‘Sais’ (the Englishman), who had long been a hostage, while before leaving for France in 1172, Henry II had made Rhys ‘his justice in all Deheubarth’: Brut y Tywysogion (Peniarth), 67, 68; Lloyd, A History of Wales, II, 543. Dadfydd ap Owain of Gwynedd had also stayed loyal, and in the summer of 1174 – as a reward, or perhaps to secure his loyalty at a time of crisis before July – he received the hand of Henry II’s half-sister Emma, the natural daughter of Geoffrey of Anjou, a prestigious match (GH, I, 51). See J. Gillingham, ‘Henry II, Richard and the Lord Rhys’, Peritia, 10 (1996), 225–36; and R. Turvey, The Lord Rhys, Prince of Deheubarth (Llandysul, 1997).
100.Brut y Tywysogion (Hergest), 222; I. W. Rowlands, “Warriors fit for a Prince”: Welsh Troops in Angevin Service, 1154–1216’, Mercenaries and Paid Men. The Mercenary Identity in the Middle Ages, ed. J. France (Leiden, 2008), 207–30.
101.Howden, II, 61.
102.For Louis’ invasion, S. McGlynn, Blood Cries from Afar. The Forgotten Invasion of England (Stroud, 2013). It is very likely that Prince Louis was aware of the allies’ invasion plans of 1174, and he in turn sent a powerful advance force before the main fleet sailed.
103.GH, I, 72.
104.WN, I, 181; trans. Walsh and Kennedy, 133.
105.His total force cannot be known with certainty, but his fleet was said to number 37 ships, and, taking as an estimate 100–150 men per ship, this would suggest a force of 3,700–5,500 men (Cheyette, Ermengard of Narbonne, 281 and n. 27).
106.Vigeois, 319.
107.The argument of Boussard, ‘Les Mercenaires’, followed by that of Jones, ‘The Generation Gap of 1173–1174’, 37 – that Henry II’s use of mercenaries in 1173–74 changed the nature of warfare and made defeat of Louis VII’s feudal army and those of his allies inevitable – fails to acknowledge the critical role played throughout the war by Flemish and other stipendiary troops, themselves hardly a new phenomenon in Anglo-Norman warfare.
108.Howden, II, 61; Torigni, 264, remarked that he brought ‘few, indeed almost none of his Norman barons with him’, relying primarily on his mer
cenaries.
109.GH, I, 72; Howden, II, 61; Torigni, 263; PR 20 Henry II, 21.
110.GH, I, 72; Barlow, Becket, 269–71.
111.Torigni, 264; MTB, II, 445. For Henry’s penance see Barlow, Becket, 269–70; T. Keefe, ‘Shrine Time. Henry II’s Visits to Thomas Becket’s Tomb’, Haskins Society Journal, 11 (2003), 115–22; Vincent, ‘Pilgrimages of the Angevin Kings of England’, 16.
112.Torigni, 264, placed his beating in the monks’ chapter house, the morning after his vigil.
113.Guernes, l. 5920; Garnier’s Becket, 157.
114.PR 21 Henry II, 209, 212.
115.William of Canterbury, 489. William relates how Thomas appeared in a vision to some of them in Thanet, who were anxiously keeping watch and had implored his help, telling them that he would save them from invasion (ibid., 489–90).
116.GH, I, 72; JF, ll. 1916–44.
117.GH, 1, 67; Howden, II, 63; Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, 38–9.
118.GH, I, 65.
119.GH, I, 65–6; William of Canterbury, 490. This force also contained the knights of the military household of the archbishop of York, led by its constable Randulf de Thilli (GH, I, 65–6).
120.JF, ll. 1700–4; GH, I, 66; William of Canterbury, 490.
121.William of Canterbury, 490.
122.GH, I, 67; WN, I, 183, ‘vacare videbatur’.
123.WN, I, 183–4. William of Canterbury, 491, puts the force at over 300.
124.WN, I, 184; William of Canterbury, 491.
125.WN, I, 184–5. William of Canterbury, 491, records as part of the larger miracle of the king’s capture the story that although the Scots had earlier intercepted a messenger from William de Vesci to his son, left as castellan in Alnwick, informing him that help would be forthcoming within three days, the Scots had not bothered to read the contents of the letters, and were thus not forwarned.
126.WN, I, 185.
127.William was immediately sent to the comparative safety of Richmond to be closely guarded.
128.GH, I, 67–8; Howden, II, 63; WN, I, 186.
129.GH, I, 67. He retained Hugh de Bar, however, with his force of knights, whom he dispatched to garrison his castle of Northallerton. One Fulk of Selby was subsequently fined £10 for sending his ship to Flanders, presumably to transport men or materiel for the rebellion (PR 21 Henry II, 180; Scammell, Hugh du Puiset, 39, n. 3).
Henry the Young King, 1155-1183 Page 64
