England during the Crusades
Overview
England was no great power in the Middle Ages. The country was small, poor, backward, lacking in natural resources, and on the edge of the European community. Its kings during the Crusading centuries tended to regard it as a source of men and money to be tapped while going about more important business in France, for the English king at this time was also a French baron of importance.Wales was not a part of the realm of England, nor was Scotland (or Ireland, for that matter). Both, however, made war on the English frequently. The English kings dealt with these as best they could and with varying success, but their real attention was focused on the Continent.
From 1066 on, right through the end of the period we are studying, the King of England was also the Duke of Normandy (there were a couple of lapses). For much of the time, he was also the Count of Anjou, the Duke of Gascony, and held various other titles that made him the vassal of the French king. The need to govern these lands, to defend them against encroachment and rebellion, coupled with the uneasy to downright hostile relations with the King of France, caused the English kings to spend much of their energies, wealth and time across the Channel.
Only one English king, Richard I, ever went on crusade, though Edward I did so before he became king. As in other nations, nearly every monarch took the crusading vow, especially after 1181, but they never seemed to get around to going. This contrasts sharply with the French and German monarchs, though it should be noted that few Spanish or Scandinavian kings went, either, nor did kings of Hungary and other countries.
Even though the country was small and comparatively poor, it was able to produce a disproportionately large army, thanks in large part to the efforts of some strong kings. This allowed the English to be serious competition to the French. It also meant that there were a goodly number of English knights, and many of these went individually, in groups, or in the service of foreign lords, off on crusade. But the English presence in Outremer was always miniscule.
William II (1087-1100)
In 1095, England was ruled by William Rufus, son of the Conqueror, who had died in 1087. William I had not been well-liked, but he had been greatly feared. William II was openly despised and was not feared much at all. He had quarreled with the Church and was under the ban of excommunication in 1095 (as were Henry IV and Philip I). His barons liked his brother Robert, Duke of Normandy, better than they did their own king, but Robert went off on Crusade.
William was killed in 1100, shot by an errant arrow while hunting. Within three days, Henry of Anjou was being crowned the new king in London. Henry had been in the hunting party with William and had moved with remarkable speed, arriving in the city to stake his claim the same day William had died. William was childless and there were no other direct heirs (Duke Robert had died on Crusade). Some modern historians have like to see conspiracy in this, but the records make no such speculation, even those unfriendly to Henry.
Henry I (1100-1135)
Henry technically should not have been king; the elder claim belonged to Robert of Normandy. But Robert was still on his way back from the First Crusade and Henry was on the spot, so he seized his chance. In order to seal support, he issued a proclamation at his coronation on August 5, 1100 making a number of promises. He promised the Church its liberty (without being overly-specific) and made a number of fairly specific promises to the barons of England. While he proceeded to ignore these promises as it suited him, his proclamation was cited a hundred years later at the time of the Magna Carta. For Henry, it was likely no more than an expedient, but later generations turned it into a precedent.
Probably the development for which Henry's reign is most famous lies in the area of law and royal administration. Under Henry developed the institution of itinerant justices--royal judges who toured the countryside, holding courts in every town and judging cases that affected the Crown. Another example is the Exchequer. Although this probably began under William Rufus, with Henry the Exchequer became something like a national office of the Treasury. The term refers to the checkerboard cloth that was spread over a table on which money was stacked, each square representing a different area of income. For the Exchequer was concerned mainly with the gathering of royal revenues. In other words, with Henry we begin to see royal government beginning actually to keep books on its income. This is further attested to by the fact that the Pipe Rolls first appear in 1130. The Pipe Rolls are the earliest surviving official government archives for the Middle Ages.
The Investiture Struggle that was playing out in Germany had its echoes in England. Henry quarrelled with Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The quarrels were mainly over minor matters, but they ended with Anselm taking refuge in France. He finally returned in 1107 and Henry acquiesced by giving up his right to invest bishops with the ring and staff.
Robert of Normandy never accepted Henry's rule. He rebelled, but in June 1106 at Tinchebrai Henry dealt Robert a resounding defeat. Robert was captured and kept a prisoner until his death in 1134. Thus did Henry re-unite England and Normandy, keeping England with an interest in the Continent. This, naturally, brought him into conflict with France, and Henry defeated Louis VI at Brémule in 1119.
Henry's son William was married to the daughter of Fulk of Anjou. Besides the king of France, the count of Anjou was Henry's main rival, so the marriage was an attempt to secure Normandy against a dangerous enemy. But William was drowned returning to England in the White Ship in 1120, leaving Henry with only one child, his daughter Matilda. She was married to Emperor Henry V. The Emperor died in 1125, though, and Matilda returned to England. Henry then married her to Geoffrey Plantagenet, another of Fulk's sons, in 1128.
Fulk left Anjou in the spring of 1129, to marry Melisende, the heiress to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Almost at once, Geoffrey began scheming to take Normandy. In 1135, the year Henry died, Geoffrey invaded
Stephen (1135-1154)
Henry had made the barons swear an oath to regard Matilda as his one true heir. Upon King Henry’s death, England was faced with choosing between a daughter married to a foreign prince (Geoffrey of Anjou) who was not very well liked, and a male with a more distant claim. The barons chose Stephen of Blois, son of the crusader and grandson of William the Conqueror (his mother was Adèle). Stephen landed within a month of Henry's death and was pretty generally accepted, though there were some significant hold-outs.
The hold-outs fomented rebellion at every turn, and they did not lack for allies of convenience. For his part, Stephen seemed unable to project the strength of will and resources needed to put an end to the rebellions. The result was that he would no sooner put out one revolt here than another would break out there. Except for its final year, Stephen's reign was one of almost continual civil war.
Geoffrey's invasion of Normandy in 1135 failed, but he was back again in 1138. He was supported by Robert, Earl of Gloucester, who was Matilda's half-brother and the principal leader of the anti-Stephen faction. England itself was invaded by Matildine forces in 1139, and Gloucester linked up with them. Together, they were able to capture King Stephen in 1141 and Matilda entered London in triumph. It was short-lived, however, for Robert of Gloucester was captured the same year, and the king was freed in an exchange of prisoners. Geoffrey, meanwhile, was content to remain in Normandy, which he received as a duchy in 1144.
Gloucester died in 1147. With her main support gone, Matilda had to leave England the following year. Her 16-year old son invaded in 1149, but go nowhere, though he was invested with Normandy by his father. Stephen's son, Eustace, died in 1153. With his passing, Stephen seemed to lose his will to carry on the long struggle. Henry invaded again that same year and Stephen came to an agreement rather than fight. He would rule as king for this rest of his life, but upon his death, Henry would become King of England. Peace came at last. Stephen died in October 1154.
The anarchy of Stephen's reign is notorious. In truth, it affected some areas of England severely for short periods of time, while other areas were all but untouched. Certainly, royal authority was not enhanced, and royal government made no progress during Stephen's reign, but at the same time, nothing seems to have been lost permanently. For the next king put England back in order very quickly.
Henry II (1154-1189)
Henry II was the most important English king of the period, in almost every respect. During his reign, England became a major producer of wool, acquired extensive holdings in France, and became the most centralized monarchy in Europe. Not all these things came about solely due to Henry, but he certainly played an important part.
Becket Henry was crowned king in December 1154. By January he had appointed his long-time friend Thomas à Becket as his chancellor. The act was significant in two respects. First, it symbolizes a new trend in English government, with the king relying on non-noble servants as his advisors. Second, despite their long friendship, Becket and Henry eventually found themselves on opposite sides of the conflict between Church and State. When the old Archibishop of Canterbury died, Henry was free (by the terms of the agreement of the first Henry with Anselm) to nominate a candidate as successor. He nominated Becket. Thomas accepted the job somewhat reluctantly, but once he became Archbishop, he became an ardent defender of the interests of the Church.
Becket was made Archibishop in 1162. By 1163 he was defying the king. Henry made a number of demands over which they disagreed, but the most notorious was the status of "criminous clerics" -- that is, members of the clergy who had committed civil crimes such as assault, theft and murder. Henry claimed they should be tried in royal courts. Thomas insisted they could be tried only in clerical courts. The disagreement grew so heated that in 1164, like Anselm before him, Becket sought refuge in France.
Through the auspices of Pope Calixtus III, King and Archbishop were reconciled in 1170, and Thomas returned to England. No sooner had he returned, however, than the two fell to quarelling again, for neither would yield on their principles. Then, late in that same year, three knights went to Canterbury and murdered Thomas while he knelt in evening prayers. They later claimed that the king had said he wished someone would rid him of that "troublesome priest." Henry claimed to be heart-broken, and perhaps he was. He was pardoned by the pope in 1172 and did penance at Becket's tomb in 1174.
The Becket affair is highly colored by the personal relationship between the two men (there's a famous play and movie "Becket" based on it). But it also illustrates just how powerful the Church was, even in a land where the king was exceptionally powerful. At the same time, it shows that, in the end, the monarch was the ultimate ruler in his own land. This lesson would be learned in different (and less colorful ways) in every European kingdom.
The Angevin Empire Henry was a consummate dynast. He himself had married Eleanor of Aquitaine, recently divorced from Louis VII of France, in 1152. This marriage greatly increased his estates, for Aquitaine was one of the greatest duchies of France. He first settled England on his son, William. After William died, the crown went to Prince Henry, along with Normandy and Anjou. The Prince was actually crowned co-king in 1170. Richard (Queen Eleanor's favorite) was given Aquitaine in 1167. Geoffrey got Brittany. John became Lord of Ireland in 1177, but he did not receive any actual fiefs, so he got nicknamed John Lackland. Henry's daughters married well, too: Matilda to Henry the Lion of Saxony; Eleanor to King Alfonso VIII of Castile; and Joanna to King William of Sicily (note the Norman connection).
English law The English legal system took shape in the 12th century. Henry I made the first steps, but Henry II made even greater contributions. He's the one who created Justices of the Peace, who travelled about the realm enforcing royal justice. English common law was formalized under Henry for the first time, and here too we see trial by jury becoming a permanent part of the legal system. It was Henry who made the local sheriff (=shire reeve) into a royal official, thus setting the stage for the wicked Sheriff of Nottingham (smile). All this was mainly so Henry could enforce his will in the countryside, but his successors retained and extended his work.
Henry and the crusades Henry had a complicated relationship with the Crusades. Part of his penance for the murder of Becket was that he gave a huge amount of money to the Templars, to be held against the day he could go to the Holy Land. He may have taken the vow in 1177 with Louis VII, but the evidence isn't clear. In 1183, when the Patriarch of Jerusalem was in Europe begging for help, he talked about going on crusade but pleaded circumstances. When Jerusalem fell, the Templars gave to King Guy the money Henry had given to them (some of that money eventually went toward freeing 7,000 from the hands of Saladin at Jerusalem). But even after the fall of Jerusalem, Henry himself never set out. By that time, though, he was fully engaged in a serious civil war with his own sons.
Henry and his family Henry had a violent temper, and he had a violent relationship with his sons. Eleanor gave him five sons and three daughters. Three sons--William, Henry, and Geoffrey, predeceased their father. Geoffrey was one of the key plotters against his father, rising twice in rebellion. John and Richard also rebelled against their father. In every case, it was a matter of the sons thinking their father was not giving them the power and honor they deserved. In the later years, the king of France was Philip II, who proved a cunning opponent, so Henry's last years were spent trying doggedly to hold on to what he had built. At his death, he was forced to recognize Richard as the next king, and Richard was probably the son he liked least.
Richard I (1189-1199)
Richard was a factor in England well before he was king, mainly as a rebel against his father. Once he became king, however, he did very little. Every history book will point out that Richard spent a grand total of six months in England, but he was nevertheless king for a full decade. A king cannot reign for ten years and have no effect.
Ironically, even though Richard was endlessly in rebellion against his father, once he became king he perpetuated his father's regime. True, he replaced various counsellors, but the administrative, legal and financial changes instituted by Henry II were kept in place and exploited by Richard. This is not surprising, for both men were motivated to this by their great need to finance wars abroad. England was for Richard a source of men and money; it otherwise was to be a source of as little trouble as possible, and the men the king appointed were to see to this.
Because Richard was so successful in his wars, and because he was genuinely liked and admired by much of the baronage, his rule met with little opposition in England. Not that his exactions were welcome, but no one dared, and few were inclined, to challenge Richard. Henry had had his opponents, but few dared to challenge that fierce old man.
Most of what opposition there was centered around gaining influence at court. These men tended to gather around Richard's younger brother, John. They did not expect John would inherit, for Richard was still a young man when he died, but they hoped through John to gain influence. This is why, when Richard was away on Crusade, John virtually ruled England--he was supported in his amitions by nobles outside the centers of power.
When Richard died unexpectedly in 1199, then, there were plenty of barons ready for change. One faction simply wanted into power; these rode in with John. Another faction, somewhat overlapping the first, were tired of what they viewed as the excesses of the Plantagenets and wanted a return of their "liberties." They didn't really think John would grant this willingly, but at least they hoped for some compromise.
John (1199-1216)
John is very often portrayed as a bad king, largely because of the influence of certain chroniclers and later historians. He is portrayed as either incompetent or wicked, or both. Yet, he seemed strong enough early in his reign.
John was his father's favorite son. He received a number of assignments and commissions under Henry, none of which kept John from joining Richard in rebellion at the end of Henry's life, but the assignments gave John experience in military command and in governing. Then again, while Richard was away, John took a hand (sometimes too strong a hand) in ruling England. All this meant that John was well experienced when he became king, and that he had a circle of supporters and advisers whom he trusted.
Once king, he was faced at once with challenges to his authority (from his brother Geoffrey), which he met successfully. He continued Richard's policy of heavy taxation and an ambitious foreign policy, but he could never pull it off. He was faced with a formidable foe, one who was probably even more clever than he--King Philip II of France. He fell afoul of Pope Innocent III and so could not turn to the Church for support. And, finally, he lost the support of his barons. Always ready to be rebellious, the English barons could forgive much if their king were successful in war. But John proved to be spectacularly unsuccessful.
France succeeded in driving the English out of Normandy, Maine and Anjou--the very heart of the Angevin Empire--by 1204. John undertook a long and very expensive plan to recover these territories, involving him in ever-increasing taxations. In order to win back papal favor, he went so far as to make England a papal fief (a gesture that had few practical consequences but which was symbolic of his "weakness"). He did this in 1213, in preparation for his new military campaign in France.
That campaign involved a double invasion, from England and from Germany. John was actually successful on his part, but the Germans were so soundly defeated at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214 that John was forced to return to England empty-handed.
All the taxation, all the defeats, all the outrages and humiliations finally proved too much for the English barons. They rebelled in 1215 and John was unable to defeat them. The result of the rebellion was a document, the Magna Carta, in which the barons asserted their rights against the crown. Later historians make much of this document, but at the time it really meant very little. As before, each English king's authority extended just so far as he could force it and no farther. But by the time of Edward I, it had become customary for the new king at his coronation to confirm that he would honor the provisions of the Magna Carta, and from that time onward, the document was elevated to an almost mythic status. And, of course, King John was necessarily portrayed as the bad guy in the drama.
John died in 1216, unmourned by most. His son was only nine years old, and so England, defeated on the Continent, was ruled by a regency--one controlled by those very same rebellious barons.
Henry III (1216-1272)
The minority Henry struggled for years to assert his authority, as various guardians jockeyed for power. He was sixteen before he was allowed to use his personal seal on documents, and then only because he'd appealed to Pope Honorius III for support. He had to get a letter from Pope Gregory IX declaring his minority at an end before he was able to face down all of his "guardians." He was twenty years old at the time.
Foreign affairs Henry was every bit as unsuccessful as his father was, and paid for it in much the same fashion. His invasion of Brittany in 1230 failed, and so did his invasion of Poitou in 1242. As John had done, Henry governed largely on his own authority with selected advisors, without consulting the barons. As his father had done, Henry feuded with the papacy.
Henry and the barons His failures came to a head in 1258, when the barons, led by the Earls of Gloucester and Norfolk, forced Henry to sign the Provisions of Oxford. By these Provisions, Henry was required to govern in consultation with a council of fifteen barons, who would have authority over the judicial system. These fifteen would meet three times a year with twelve other barons in a Parliament. A real Parliament was decades away yet, but the Provisions of Oxford form an important precedent.
The Provisions demonstrated not so much that Henry was weak as that there were limits on how far a king of England could go in ruling on his own. The barons, predictably, overplayed their hand and the king was soon able to ignore many of the Provisions. There was one more baronial revolt, led by Simon de Montfort, but Henry was unlike his father for once: he was victorious in the field (Battle of Evesham, 1267) and ended the rebellion by force. As part of the settlement later that same year, Henry confirmed his adherence to the Magna Carta.
Henry and the Crusades Henry III did not go on crusade, but he took the crusading vow in 1250. He bought his way out of it by putting forward his son Edmund as a candidate to become King of Sicily, all part of an elaborate papal scheme to pry the Hohenstaufen out of southern Italy. That plan was an expensive failure, and then Edmund died. But his second son, Edward, took the crusading vow and actually went to the Holy Land in 1270, where he managed to do some good despite a diminutive army.
Both John and Henry were utterly preoccupied with affairs in France and, closely related, with their own internal troubles. Both took crusading vows with the clear understanding that they would go only when things at home had settled down. Things never settled down.
Many English knights went to the Holy Land. The Templars had a large presence in the land. But England as a nation was both unwilling and unable to come to the aid of Outremer.
Edward I (1272-1307)
Edward's crusade The young prince arrived at Acre in 1270 at the head of a small army, fully expecting to be joined by the French. Only then did he learn that King Louis had been diverted by his wily brother, Charles of Anjou, to a campaign in Tunis. Without the French army, Edward could do little. His presence was enough to deter Baibars from delivering a death blow, but he could do little offensively. Bitterly disappointed, headed for England in 1271. By the time he arrived, his father was dead and he was king.
Edward's career falls mainly outside the parameters of our course. As with most medieval kings, he spent the first portion of his reign dealing with rebellions and external enemies. The first few years he campaigned in Wales, earning the nickname "Hammer of the Welsh." This occupied him until 1282. He then turned his attention to France, particularly to Gascony, and events there occupied him through 1291 and after.Edward's accomplishments were many. He did not make much progress in Gascony, but he fought France to a standstill and brought both Wales and Scotland under direct English rule. His legal and constitutional activities were extremely important, but most fall outside our period, and so I will pass over them in silence.