The following is a monograph on the historical background of the roleplaying campaign The Owl and the Rose, set in England in 1143 AD, under The Anarchy. I wrote this text as an introduction to the players in Swedish and later used ChatGPT version 3 to translate it into English using the prompt Translate the following into British English in the style of an medieval monk and retain the HTML formatting:. The text has not been proofread, for all to enjoy the miracles of machine translation. This text will not be updated or corrected when the monograph in Swedish is updated, it is provided as courtesy to the Chivalry and Sorcery society. There is both a Facebook group and a Discord server for those interested, enquire your favourite search engine for details.
William the Conqueror united a dozen kingdoms into England, and now a hundred years later, there are few traces left of the former kingdoms. The year is 1143 AD, and at this time, King David I rules over Scotland, while Wales is loosely divided among various noblemen who sometimes quarrel among themselves and sometimes fight alone or united against England. The area between Wales and England is called the Welsh Marches during this time, and it is ruled by a group of noblemen with special privileges collectively known as Marcher Lords (Eng. Marche – ”border” or ”frontier”). Normally, a nobleman gains control over an area by inheriting it, marrying into it, or being granted it by the king as a reward, but the Marcher Lords appointed themselves. They occupied parts of Wales on their own initiative and appointed themselves as lords over these areas, thereby presenting the English king with a fait accompli. Since they succeeded and the crown ultimately benefited from it, the kings accepted this. As with so much else in the Middle Ages, there were few rules, and they were practically changed from year to year; nothing was consistent – the only constant rule was that the one with the largest axe (or treasury) got his way.
Like many countries at the time, England had no real capital (the king traveled among his royal castles or prominent noblemen and held court) but there were several geographic power centers. The religious power was mainly in Salisbury (which at that time was located at the place now called Old Sarum), giving the bishop there significant influence, but the bishop in Winchester was not far behind. Much of the secular power was concentrated in Westminster, where the kings were crowned. The commercial power, however, lay in London, and its merchants and citizens jealously guarded their privileges; no one could become ruler of England without their support.
The campaign takes place during the time period that Chivalry & Sorcery calls the the High Chivalric period, 1146-1317 AD (Chivalry& Sorcery page 7) and more specifically, the campaign starts in April 1143 AD. The period is dominated by the civil war that has come to be called The Anarchy. The civil war lasted from 1135 AD to 1153 AD and is often associated with a widespread breakdown of society, hence the name, but it is quite a misleading term.
Later historians critiqued the term, as analysis of the financial records and other documents from the period suggested that the breakdown in law and order during the conflict had been more nuanced and localised than chronicler accounts alone might have suggested. Further work in the 1990s reinterpreted Henry’s efforts in the post-war reconstruction period, suggesting a greater level of continuity with Stephen’s wartime government than had previously been supposed. The label of ”the Anarchy” remains in use by modern historians, but rarely without qualification.
The civil war affected all of England, the Welsh Marches, and Normandy, and King Stephen, Empress Matilda, King Louis VI of France, and King David I of Scotland were all active parties. Despite this, most of England and Normandy were largely spared from the horrors of war; surprisingly, almost all battles in England took place within an area bounded by Cirencester, Oxford, Devizes, and Reading. This is one of the reasons why ”The Anarchy” is quite a misleading name.
The Empress’s power base lay around the lands occupied by the Marcher Lords, and the king’s power base was in the southeast with his heartland around London – something the Empress would bitterly experience. Other parts of the country were controlled by more or less independent noblemen who were probably closer to the king than the Empress if forced to choose. There are several cases where noblemen switched sides – or even stood on their own against all – and there are a handful of examples of noblemen who switched sides several times as events developed. The unrest and campaigns moved across all parts of England, at least initially, and very early on, the war tactics shifted to pure plundering of enemy lands, known in French as Chevauchée, rather than regular battles. In fact, it is directly surprising that during the entire civil war, only one battle was fought; the Battle of Lincoln. (There were three other battles, but the first, Battle of the Standard, fought on August 22, 1138 AD, was formally before the outbreak of the civil war, while the other two, Rout of Winchester and Battle of Wilton, can be debated as sieges that escalated.) There is no really good explanation for this, but it cannot be due to concern for their own troops or saving money on mercenaries. It seems that the prevailing military doctrine was that no commander should fight a battle they could not surely win, probably because large parts of the armies consisted of untrained peasants. It is a bit of a mystery since one or two decisive battles could likely have decided the war at an early stage.
The campaign is intended to be well-grounded in history, and it is necessary for everyone to be familiar with the key figures and events before the campaign starts to better understand what is happening. These records provide an introduction to the historical background, but the interested student is recommended to study on their own. Wikipedia has proven to be a comprehensive and reliable source, but to truly understand the political mess before and during the war, it is recommended to thoroughly study The Anarchy: The Darkest Days of Medieval England by Teresa Cole and The Troubled Reign of King Stephen 1135-1154 by John T. Appleby. The text is written with the players and the campaign in mind and is not intended to be an indisputable historical monograph.
William the Conqueror died in 1087 AD, and his third son became King William II, who, in turn, died in 1100 AD. The crown passed to his son, who was crowned Henry I the same year. Henry’s ascendancy from his two brothers was, to say the least, tumultuous, and this would overshadow his entire reign. It is likely that he early on decided to do whatever he could to ensure the crown would pass from him in a more peaceful manner, something complicated by his lack of fortune with his descendants. He had only two children from his two marriages but a large number of illegitimate offspring. Both his children, his daughter Matilda and his son William Adelin, were born of his first wife Matilda of Scotland, while his second wife Adeliza of Louvain bore him no children.
It should be noted that names were often reused within the nobility; William the Conqueror, William II, Henry I, and Stephen all had wives named Matilda. However, it is only Henry I’s daughter, Empress Matilda, who is of interest for this campaign. Stephen’s wife, Queen Matilda, might appear, but unless otherwise specified, the term ”Matilda” always refers to the Empress.
In late 1120 AD, King Henry I was in Normandy, and his entire court was preparing to travel back to England. Understandably, many ships were needed for the crossing due to the large number of people. The captain of the White Ship, Thomas FitzStephen, earnestly requested the honor of transporting the king since Thomas’ father had once carried William the Conqueror, and he wanted to bring the same honor to his family. The king declined this honor for himself but entrusted his son, William Adelin, and his companions to Thomas. On November 25, 1120 AD, they set sail, and according to some sources, William Adelin wished to celebrate (he was 17 years old and of the highest rank on the ship, with seemingly no one to contradict him) and brought on board several barrels of wine for the occasion. Stephen was reportedly on the ship but left before departure, officially because he felt unwell, but unofficial sources suggest he was disgusted by the atmosphere on board. Unsurprisingly, soon all 250 passengers were heavily intoxicated, and it wasn’t long before the 50 crew members were equally inebriated. Although the weather was reportedly good, the rocky French coast was notoriously treacherous, and the ship ran aground early, sinking. Legend has it that the captain swam around desperately calling out to those trying to save themselves if they had seen the prince. When they said no, he reportedly exclaimed, ”I am lost,” and swam off, never to be seen again. Only a butcher from Rouen survived, and it took several days before anyone dared to tell the king what had happened—England was without an heir. King Henry I deeply mourned his son but was also clearly distraught over the succession. He therefore had the nobility swear twice to recognize his daughter Matilda as his heir, a promise that perhaps caused as much division as it was meant to prevent.
King Henry’s daughter was betrothed sometime around 1108-1109 AD, at the age of six, to the then 27-year-old Holy Roman Emperor Henry V (referred to as Henry in England, Heinrich in Germany, and Henrik in Sweden; in this text, he will be referred to as Henry to distinguish him from all other Henrys). Their marriage took place five years later, in 1124 AD, in a contractual union that benefited both parties. England gained a crucial ally in the Emperor, and the English king married his family into the imperial family. Emperor Henry V, for his part, had a rather chaotic political life, and the marriage brought him numerous advantages, particularly Matilda’s extraordinarily large dowry of 10,000 marks of silver (it took nearly two years to amass this fortune through a tax increase of three shillings per hide). 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 26 〉
The imperial power was not entirely stable as the empire consisted of several strong-willed nations, and the imperial authority traditionally had a very close relationship with the papal power, to the extent that the emperor was seen as the pope’s protector. Emperor Henrik V’s problem was that this relationship had started to break down for various reasons shortly before the turn of the century, making his position on the throne quite precarious. To improve his situation, the emperor set off to Rome, directly after Matilda was crowned queen of the Germans and Romans on July 2, 1110 AD, to negotiate with Pope Paschal II, leading an army of 30,000 men. The negotiations quickly broke down because the pope refused to crown the emperor, who then became extremely angry and imprisoned the pope and sixteen of his cardinals. The emperor did not shy away from personally assaulting the pope, and contemporary sources claim that he treated the cardinals scandalously. After two months in captivity, which was hardly luxurious, the pope relented and anointed and crowned the emperor as the Holy Roman Emperor on April 13, 1111 AD. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 s. 26-28 〉
The circumstances of how the emperor was crowned created great anger throughout Western Europe, and the pope was urged to excommunicate Emperor Henrik V and nullify the agreements and privileges he had secured. However, the emperor was shrewd enough to get the pope to swear an oath not to retaliate against him, and thus the emperor was not excommunicated. Emperor Henrik V and Matilda were married (she was then 12 years old) on January 6, 1114 AD, but shortly thereafter unrest broke out in the empire. This time the turmoil led to the Holy Emperor being excommunicated – which was, to say the least, a political problem; it is very difficult to call oneself ”holy” when excommunicated by the pope. The ensuing war occupied the emperor and empress’ attention, but by Easter 1117 AD, they marched into Rome to the people’s jubilation to be crowned and anointed as emperor and empress. There was just one minor problem: the pope was not in Rome, and only he could crown and anoint them. However, the people cheered, even though ”every cheer was paid for” as detractors said, and the enterprising emperor persuaded Archbishop Maurice Bourdin to quickly and smoothly switch sides and crown them both, something that, according to some sources, was repeated a few weeks later at Pentecost that year. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 s. 29-31 〉 These were the only two times Matilda was crowned empress, but many referred to her as merely ”crown-clad” rather than ”crowned” – she was not crowned by a pope and was never anointed. Regardless of what others said, she claimed that she was not just the wife of an emperor but was a crowned empress and used the empress title for the rest of her life. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 s. 31 〉 Her political opponents exploited and never missed an opportunity to point out that she was neither anointed nor crowned ”for real” – that is, by a pope. The archbishop was excommunicated by the pope as soon as he dared to return to Rome after the imperial couple had left the city.
Pope Paschal II died on January 21, 1118 AD, and a few days later his successor, Gelasius II, was elected. However, when he outright refused to negotiate with the emperor, the emperor drove him out of Rome and installed Archbishop Bourdin as Antipope Gregory VIII. The new antipope gave the emperor some respite from some of his problems, but the situation in the Holy Roman Empire worsened, and he returned home. Empress Matilda was early involved in all her husband’s duties, and she seems to have handled them with great competence and managed well the responsibilities assigned to her. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 31〉 Emperor Henry V died on May 23, 1125 AD, at which point the empress was 23 years old and childless. Her father, King Henry I, married her off in 1128 AD to the 11-years-younger Count Geoffrey V Plantagenet, and between 1133 AD and 1136 AD she bore him three sons.
When King Henry I died on December 1, 1135 AD, he and many of his closest men were in Normandy. At his deathbed stood Robert of Gloucester; William of Warenne, Earl of Surrey; Rotrou, Count of Perche; Waleran, Count of Meulan; and Robert, Earl of Leicester. They all chose not to immediately return to England but stayed by the king’s body; had they done so, history would surely have taken a very different path! Stephen of Blois, or Stephen of Blois as he is called in Sweden, was not with the king but at this time in his castle in Normandy (hereafter referred to as Stephen). Stephen would claim for many years to come that he was the king’s favorite, but there is very little support for that claim. However, he had good reasons to make a claim to the crown as he was the grandson of William the Conqueror, even though Matilda, as the only child of the deceased king, had a stronger claim. It is unknown what made Stephen of Blois decide to make himself king, but the fact is that very soon after the king’s death, he traveled to England and had himself crowned King of England on December 22 of the same year, largely thanks to extensive help from his brother Henry of Blois, the Bishop of Winchester.
His cousin Matilda had strong claims to the crown, and to secure his power, Stephen needed the pope’s support – something facilitated by the fact that there were two popes. Pope Innocent II had been ordained in February 1130 AD 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 74 〉 but a large group of cardinals claimed that the election had not been conducted properly according to canon law and had elected the antipope Anacletus II. Innocent II therefore needed support in his power struggle, and it is easy to see that if he did not support the king, the request would go to his rival. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 75 〉
In connection with the funeral of Henry I in early January 1136 AD, Stephen had secured the support of most of England’s noblemen, and his power was confirmed when Pope Innocent II greeted him as ”Stephen, illustrious King of England”. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 76 〉 Even Matilda’s half-brother, Earl Robert of Gloucester, after much deliberation, showed the king his respect, that is, swore him allegiance (Eng. homage), during Easter of the same year. Robert of Gloucester did so on one condition: that the king would allow Robert of Gloucester to retain ”all his rank”. There was never any friendship between the two, and it is not certain that they attributed the same meaning to those words, and it is surprising that the king agreed to an oath of allegiance that contained conditions. The explanation is probably simple enough: political power play. The attentive reader may recall that all the noblemen had sworn an oath to King Henry I that his daughter Matilda would be chosen as Queen of England. Most of these noblemen now supported Stephen, but swearing him allegiance would mean breaking their oath to the deceased king. If the old king’s son, Robert of Gloucester, could be persuaded to accept Stephen on the throne, then they too could feel released – or at least not bound – by their old oath. Robert of Gloucester had enjoyed great influence at King Henry I’s court, and had Matilda been crowned, he could have expected to enjoy the same power and influence, but he could not trust Stephen in this regard as the king would likely build up his own group of advisors, hence the wording and demand to be among these trusted advisors. Regardless of purpose and intention, Robert of Gloucester’s oath of allegiance led the noblemen to recognize Stephen with a clearer conscience. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 pp. 78-79 〉
This kind of legal loophole was what the English nobility now sought to avoid being accused of being oath-breakers when they swore allegiance to the new king. Bishop Roger of Salisbury, for example, reasoned that he had only sworn the oath on the condition that Henry I would not marry off Matilda to someone from outside the country without Roger’s and the nobility’s approval. The king had done just that and without even consulting them. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 67 〉 (There are suggestions that it was her second marriage to Count Geoffrey V Plantagenet that was referred to 〈The troubled reign of King StephenJohn T. Appleby
The troubled reign of King Stephen
ISBN 0713515643 pp. 15-16 〉, but most indications point to it being the first marriage to Emperor Henry V that was meant, but since the dowry required a tax increase, it seems unlikely. On the other hand, the count was surely distantly related to many of the noblemen, but he was not from Normandy. For the purpose of this text, it is assumed that it was the marriage to the emperor that was referred to.) It should be noted that Bishop Roger was the second to swear loyalty to Matilda after the Archbishop of Canterbury, William de Corbeil, who also wriggled out of his oath. Bishop Roger had sworn loyalty to Matilda twice, and many saw it as divine justice that the king a few years later imprisoned the bishop and took his castles from him (the king’s brother, Bishop Henry, later persuaded the king to reinstate the bishop, but he died just a few months later, which some chroniclers took as a sign from God). 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 72 〉 These three bishops – Roger, William, and Henry – spent much of their time and power convincing England’s nobility that Stephen should be crowned king and were crucial to making it happen, but only one – the king’s brother – lived longer than a few years after the coronation. Perhaps that too was a sign from God?
There were still noblemen who opposed Stephen’s coronation, and even if they did not directly support Matilda’s claim, all was not well in the kingdom of England. Several of the Marcher Lords were strong opponents, and King David I of Scotland, through ambition, marriage, and convoluted legalities, could lay claim to places like Northumberland. The king did not make things easier for himself by mismanaging his politics in Normandy. Many of the noblemen there opposed the king, and when he failed to come to their aid when the Count of Anjou – ”Angevin” in English or Angéviner in Swedish – threatened their possessions many years later, he gained even more enemies.
The problems in Normandy began as soon as Geoffrey V Plantagenet heard of King Henry’s death. He then sent his wife Matilda to Normandy in December 1135 AD. The count followed shortly after her, and when news of Stephen’s takeover – or coup – reached them, it became clear that Matilda would not be crowned Queen of England without a fight. Due to old antagonisms and partly due to Matilda and her husband’s blunt behaviour, several local noblemen revolted just two weeks after their arrival. Now, if ever, Stephen could secure his power and nip the empress’s threat in the bud through a decisive military campaign 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 pp. 84, 88 〉 – he would find both Norman and English noblemen on his side, and the empress was militarily and politically weak. But he did not come.
With Normandy effectively without a ruler, old grudges resurfaced, and soon noblemen began to settle old scores. It would take many years before peace reigned in Normandy again, but the king faced more problems as King David of Scotland marched south and ravaged Northumbria. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 88 〉 King David supported the empress’s claim to the English crown, if only because it was likely she would support his claim to Northumbria, which Stephen did not! For once, Stephen acted decisively and swiftly, gathering a large army within a couple of weeks and marching to meet the Scottish king. However, David did not engage in battle; instead, they negotiated a peace, which would become symptomatic of the entire period known as The Anarchy. When two armies met, it often resulted in either the weaker party retreating or a negotiated settlement. This did not prevent the land from being thoroughly plundered, as the Scottish king’s troops were now plundering Northumbria. Towns, castles, monasteries, and churches were set ablaze after thorough plundering, and large parts of the population were slaughtered. The real excesses were still in the future, but what was to come could already be glimpsed.
The Scottish king made another unsuccessful attempt to take Northumbria two years later in January 1138 AD, unleashing his troops in a new spree of wanton plundering. However, as soon as King Stephen marched north with a considerable army, King David retreated, and neither a peace settlement nor a battle took place. When it came to quickly gathering an army and marching with it, few could match King Stephen; over time, this would resolve almost as many conflicts as outright warfare. Peace was thereafter considered to reign along the northern border following the settlement in the winter of 1135-1136 AD, but many high-ranking noblemen in England were angered by how the king had handled the settlement. The king was seen as weak, indecisive, and uninterested – not a monarch to be trusted.
During the winter, there had been unrest in Wales with attempts at rebellion, but the real spark was struck on the 15th of April 1136 AD when the Lord of Ceredigion, Richard fitz Gilbert de Clare, was killed in an ambush on his way home from the Easter Court. Once again, King Stephen faced a critical moment, and once again he chose not to act decisively. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 93 〉 By this time, Robert of Gloucester had finally joined the court, and although it would have been appropriate to send such a formidable Marcher Lord to Wales, the king chose to keep him close – surely because he was close to the empress. It is wise to keep one’s enemies close to keep an eye on them. Instead, the king sent Baldwin fitz Gilbert with a large sum of money to muster an army and avenge his older brother. Baldwin arrived in Brecon without resistance, but there he stayed and literally ate and drank all the money away before slipping home in shame and disgrace. The king then sent Robert fitz Harold, Lord of Ewyas, who fared no better. He fought his way further into Wales than his predecessor, probably reaching Carmarthen, but without reinforcements from the king, he had to turn back and fight his way all the way back to England. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 95 〉
When it became clear that the king would not suppress the rebellious Welsh, several of the Marcher Lords – including Earl Robert of Gloucester – made separate peace agreements with them. The king’s disinterest in events beyond England’s borders might not have worried many, but the Marcher Lords had lost many men, much land, and great wealth due to the war, and this would weigh heavily when it came time to choose sides in upcoming conflicts. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 pp. 96-97 〉 Instead of addressing the uprising in Wales – or the one in Normandy – the king devoted his personal attention to two smaller rebellions. The first was dealt with swiftly, but the second, the siege of Exeter Castle, dragged on and is estimated to have cost the king 15,000 marks (C&S;: 10,000). Normally, at the time, the besieged were offered safe conduct in exchange for surrender, but if the castle was taken by storm, all were executed. What complicated matters for the king was that the defenders had never sworn loyalty to him and therefore could not be hanged as traitors and oath-breakers, and the castle was both well-defended and well-built. (At one point, a larger number of supporters managed to enter the castle and join the defenders by mingling in the king’s camp until they succeeded in sending a message into the castle to open the gate and let in the new recruits.) The siege ended when the defenders were finally forced to surrender as the wells in the castle ran dry ”by God’s providence” (a hot and dry summer and many men and animals needing to quench their thirst surely had nothing to do with it, since contemporary chroniclers mention nothing about this…). The king then made a decision that would haunt him in the coming years: he allowed all to leave without reprisals and with their properties intact and gave them the right to seek service ”with whichever lord they desired.” The king’s opponents then realised that they had nothing to lose by opposing him. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 pp. 99-101 〉
In January 1138, the Scottish king made another attempt to seize Northumbria but was largely unsuccessful, and then unleashed his army in complete and senseless plundering. However, as soon as King Stephen marched north with a considerable force, King David withdrew, and neither a peace agreement nor a battle was reached. 〈The troubled reign of King StephenJohn T. Appleby
The troubled reign of King Stephen
ISBN 0713515643 p. 46-47 〉 It is easy to think that this was the most serious threat to the king, but once again the king surpassed himself.
With unrest everywhere in the country, the situation escalated around Easter 1138. The Scottish king once again attempted to take Northumbria (which by now should have been quite devastated), and with many trouble spots, Stephen divided his forces. He sent Queen Matilda with troops to southeastern England to secure it against a possible attack from Empress Matilda via Robert of Gloucester’s castle in Dover. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 117 〉 The queen proved to be a competent and capable co-regent throughout her husband’s reign and conducted the campaign successfully. The king himself travelled to Gloucester in a likely attempt to pacify the Welsh Marches, where he was received by Miles of Gloucester with great honour and oaths of loyalty were exchanged. Soon thereafter, unrest broke out in Hereford, and the king marched there with an army to lay siege to the castle. 〈The troubled reign of King StephenJohn T. Appleby
The troubled reign of King Stephen
ISBN 0713515643 p. 47 〉 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 118 〉 For a whole month, the king sat outside, celebrated Pentecost by wearing the crown, and generally ignored the chaos in the north. When the castle finally surrendered, the king surpassed himself again by allowing everyone to leave without reprisals. With so many questioning his power and challenging him for the crown – the list of nobles who ”held castles against the king” was becoming long – it was entirely the wrong message to send. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 117-118 〉 Even his enemies were astonished by this leniency – or weakness. The revolt in Hereford was led by, among others, Geoffrey Talbot, who, immediately after being granted safe conduct, sought out his cousin in Weobley and then the two of them fled to Bristol, where a much more serious rebellion against the king was about to break out. Robert of Gloucester had finally made up his mind.
Robert of Gloucester had been avoiding the king—it was clear that neither of them trusted the other, and there were even accusations that the king had advanced plans to have the earl killed. However, the earl had uncovered the plot, though he could not decide whom to support: his half-sister or the king. Empress Matilda had long sought support among the English nobility (the Norman nobles could not stand her or her husband, the Count of Anjou) for her cause and had sent both letters and negotiators, who had undoubtedly also been sent to her brother. It is said that the earl struggled with the moral dilemma of which oath to honour and which to break—his oath to the king or his oath to his sister. He sought answers through lengthy discussions with priests 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 116 〉 who pointed him to Numbers 27:8 in the Bible: ”If a man dies and leaves no son, you shall let his inheritance pass to his daughter.” Source: Bible 1917/Numbers Likely, they did not show him Chapter 36, which states that daughters should marry within the tribe (Source: Bible 1917/Numbers), something that is important since Empress Matilda’s marriage to the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire caused many magnates on both sides of the English Channel to turn against her.
Directly after Pentecost 1138, which fell on 22 May, 〈The troubled reign of King StephenJohn T. Appleby
The troubled reign of King Stephen
ISBN 0713515643 p. 48 〉 Robert of Gloucester sent a message to King Stephen stating that he was defying the king and ”renouncing his loyalty and friendship and invalidating his homage” to the king. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 118 〉 The reasons he gave were: Firstly, the king had unlawfully taken the crown from King Henry’s rightful heir, Matilda. Secondly, the king had not been honourable towards the earl but had conspired against him. Thirdly, the earl himself had acted contrary to the law by breaking his oath to the empress, a wrong he now intended to correct on the advice of several priests. He also claimed to have a papal mandate requiring him to uphold the oath he had sworn to his father (it is highly uncertain whether such a mandate actually existed; no historian has ever found evidence of it). 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 118 〉
The king’s response was anticipated but characteristically delayed. He implied that he had always treated the earl well and faithfully, and if the earl had any grievances, he was welcome to present them at court. Since the earl, unsurprisingly, did not appear, the king embarked on a protracted military campaign, and the civil war became a reality, although it is not considered to have officially begun until Baldwin de Redvers attacked Wareham in August of the following year, 1139 AD. It is unclear what the king would have done if the earl had appeared at court, but there had been, as previously mentioned, enmity between the two at least since 1137 AD. 〈The troubled reign of King StephenJohn T. Appleby
The troubled reign of King Stephen
ISBN 0713515643 p. 41 〉 The king would go on to invite obstinate nobles to court on several occasions later to throw them into his dungeons. Robert of Gloucester was a formidable leader and far from foolish.
It should be noted in this context that although the king, surprisingly given his actions, was secure on the throne, his power and influence were limited. When the Archbishop of Canterbury was to be elected in 1139 AD, the king’s brother, Bishop Henry, had expressed his interest in the position, but instead, Theobald of Bec, the abbot of Bec, was chosen. Bishop Henry was not present at the election on 24 December 1139 AD, and there are varying accounts of whether he is said to have stormed out in rage when it became clear he would not be elected, or whether he had diplomatically been offered the chance to stay away and thus save face in front of his peers. Regardless of the reason, he attended a consecration at St Paul’s Cathedral instead of being present at the archbishopric election. His non-election to the archbishopric was interpreted by many as a sign that the bishop’s influence over his brother was waning, but it is probably not quite that simple. The Holy See had seen any intervention by the king as interference in church affairs, leading to a complicated political conflict. On the other hand, the bishop’s efforts to become archbishop were not in vain, as he was appointed papal legate two months later, thus holding significant power in England.
The Empress continued to seek to become Queen of England through peaceful means and to have her legitimate claim recognised. However, with the majority of England’s nobility behind the king, she needed to find support elsewhere. The Pope was the head of all Christendom, and it was to the Holy See that everyone turned for legal disputes to be adjudicated fairly – or at least to give the appearance that everything was conducted legally and received God’s blessing! Empress Matilda’s claim to the throne was decided at the Second Lateran Council on 4 April 1139. It can be debated at length what the true outcome of the war was, but it is indisputable that time and again it proved that kinship and the ability to wield a sword are not signs of intellectual competence or suitability to lead. Empress Matilda had appointed Bishop Ulger, a man known for his learning and holiness, to represent her at the council, but he was completely unprepared for the ecclesiastical political intrigues. His only two arguments for Matilda receiving the crown were her right of inheritance – she was the daughter of the previous king – and that all the nobles had sworn an oath that Matilda would inherit the throne. It seems that he considered the matter settled. King Stephen’s man on the spot, Arnulf, Archdeacon of Sées, tore Bishop Ulger’s arguments to shreds: he claimed that Empress Matilda had no inheritance right to the English crown at all because her parents were not legally married. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 137 〉
In brief, her mother, Matilda of Scotland, had been a nun who left the convent to marry her father, King Henry, and the archdeacon therefore argued that the church could not recognise their marriage. Arnulf did not call the empress illegitimate outright, but that was the underlying message. Bishop Ulger had no answer to this; had he only done a bit more research, he would have known that Matilda of Scotland had never taken monastic vows. The result was predictable: the council could not confirm Empress Matilda’s right of inheritance, and it would be questioned throughout the war. To be fair to the naive Bishop Ulger, it can be said that the issue might have been predetermined. Pope Innocent had already recognised King Stephen as King of England; he had also recently received a report praising the king’s protection of and respect for the church in England. Finally, a decision in favour of the empress could have had dire consequences: if the pope confirmed the empress’s claim, a war would definitely break out, whereas if he supported the king, it was not as certain. On the other hand, had the pope delayed the decision by just a couple of months, things might have turned out differently, as King Stephen seems unable to enjoy a major success without doing everything possible to undermine himself.
What prompted the king to act as he did when the court assembled in Oxford in June 1139 AD is unknown, but it would have far-reaching consequences for his relationship with the Church. According to contemporary chroniclers, he fell victim to malevolent advice, but there may well have been rational reasons for his actions. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 pp. 139-148 〉 The three bishops, Roger of Salisbury, Alexander of Lincoln, and Nigel of Ely (the latter two were, incidentally, Roger’s nephews), had, as bishops, built numerous castles and in various ways enriched themselves considerably. The nobility gathered in Oxford, and under the pretext of a deadly quarrel over accommodation—”began with words, ended with swords”—between Allan of Brittany’s followers and those of Bishop Roger, the king arrested Bishop Roger and Bishop Alexander. They were accused of breaking the king’s peace while the court was assembled, and when they refused to hand over the keys to their castles ”as a sign of their loyalty,” the king imprisoned them. Bishop Nigel fled to Bishop Roger’s castle in Devizes, but the king pursued him with an army, and the other two bishops were taken as hostages. The king also had Roger’s son, Roger le Poer, who was then the king’s Lord Chancellor, put in chains—likely because Poer’s mother was in the Devizes castle. This tactic paid off as the mother immediately began negotiating with the king for her son in exchange for some of her own castles, resulting in Bishop Nigel eventually surrendering under duress.
The immediate outcome of this was that the king acquired a large number of castles and the wealth contained within them—wealth that provided him with the means to marry off his son Eustace IV to the French king’s sister Constance of France in 1140 AD. A more subtle observation to be made is that Bishop Henry’s influence over the king had diminished significantly. Had he been in charge, these powerful bishops would have been dealt with very differently—the whole affair lacked the finesse that characterised Bishop Henry and which the king showed a total lack of. It also could not have been particularly reassuring for Bishop Henry to witness this development, as he himself had built more castles than the other three combined, with Wolvesey likely being his favourite. Castles and wealth could now apparently be seen as potential threats to royal authority…
To address the damage and establish his influence, Bishop Henry called a church council to which almost all the bishops and several other clergy attended. During this council, Bishop Henry launched a vigorous attack on his brother, and the king responded, through messengers as he was denied the opportunity to participate and defend himself, with equally harsh words. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 pp. 145-146 〉 The core of the king’s argument was that he claimed to have punished the bishops as servants of the crown—since they held castles—and not as men of the Church. The debate at the council did not go in Bishop Henry’s favour: the Archbishop of Rouen, Hugh of Amiens, established that the castles were the bishops’ property and the king had no right to seize them unless someone could show where in canonical law it is stated that bishops have the right to possess castles! Since no one could do so, the king had the right e contrario to take the castles.
The council was a setback for Bishop Henry, and it ended with him begging the king to reconsider his decision and avoid a schism with the Church at that time. The king received this plea with his characteristic good will, but the bishops never regained their castles; they were occupied by the king’s troops. The king’s primary argument for his actions was that Bishop Roger would join Empress Matilda’s side as soon as she landed, and he wanted to avert an imminent disaster. He was correct in that Matilda did land in September, but how Bishop Roger would have acted remains unknown, as he died from the effects of what he had suffered a few months later, in December of the same year.
There is debate over which event should be considered the actual beginning of the civil war, but on 30 September 1139, the Empress landed at Arundel in Sussex, which can be seen as the gauntlet being thrown down. The king anticipated an invasion, and several nobles took to arms in August and September to improve their positions, though it is unclear whether these actions were planned by the Empress or if they simply saw their opportunity. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 pp. 148-151 〉 To call the landing an invasion would, however, be a considerable exaggeration. The dowager queen after Henry I, Adeliza of Louvain, had invited her stepdaughter to her castle at Arundel (some contemporary sources suggest it was her new husband, William d’Aubigny, who extended the invitation, though this is likely based on the presumption that the invitation must have come from the man of the house). The dowager queen likely played the role of peacemaker, as it was well established that medieval queens used their power and influence in this way. The fact that the Empress brought only 140 mounted men with her, more of an escort than an army, supports the idea that it was a peace overture. Robert of Gloucester accompanied her on the crossing but immediately set off for his possessions in the west. Notably, he did not travel in secret – he marched straight through the king’s lands with only ten knights and ten mounted archers.
The king besieged the castle at Arundel, but his attempts to capture Robert of Gloucester failed, leaving the king – despite being the one laying siege – in a very precarious situation. He was already out of favour with the Church for his treatment of Bishops Roger of Salisbury, Alexander of Lincoln, and Nigel of Ely, and waging war against two (high-ranking) women – one of whom was the dowager queen herself – was not something that would be looked upon favourably by anyone of significance. He could have starved them out and thus forced the Empress to surrender, but, on the advice of Bishop Henry among others, he granted Empress Matilda safe conduct to her brother in the west. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 153 〉 It is unclear why the king allowed her to go, although he surely received much praise for his chivalrous behaviour, he likely had many occasions to bitterly regret it in the following years.
If anyone expected England to rise up against its usurping king and welcome its queen, they were shamefully disappointed. The truth was that Empress Matilda had arrived too late, and the English nobility had become accustomed to King Stephen on the throne. Several lesser nobles joined the Empress Matilda and Earl Robert of Gloucester, but the majority remained outwardly loyal to the king. The war was, however, a reality. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 pp. 154ff 〉
During such a conflict-ridden reign, many lesser nobles naturally saw an opportunity to advance their own ambitions, and many acquired various castles through violence, treachery, deceit, and intrigue. Some were nothing more than robber barons who exploited a weak central authority, while others aimed to build power and wealth. The effects of all this plundering—robber barons, mercenaries, and armies—were devastating for the country, and poverty spread. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 164-165 〉 The costs were evident throughout society; the people were starving, and the king’s court was no longer as lavish as in previous years. The Empress was constantly short of money, and the king was accused of debasing the coinage. This was probably the background to the first attempt to broker peace in Bath in June 1140, but it was in vain. As papal legate—and thus responsible for negotiating peace—Bishop Henry led the conference and even crossed the Channel in September of the same year to negotiate with the King of France and Count Theobald II of Champagne. It was not a matter of who should wear the crown, as the Pope had decided in the king’s favour the previous year, but everything points to the issue being the succession—both parties had sons. When the bishop returned home in November, it was clear that he had failed in his peace mission.
As previously hinted, the king was essentially his own greatest enemy, and from 1140 to 1141, this was evident, leading to disaster. It all started with the inheritance dispute over the castle in Lincoln—though likely not the castle itself, as it was a royal castle, but what was called Lucy’s Tower—where Ranulf de Gernon and his half-brother William de Roumare considered themselves the rightful heirs and had, through cunning worthy of any actor, taken possession of the fortress. They are said to have waited until the garrison of the tower was ”dispersed abroad and engaged in sports” (which should probably be interpreted as being away for training and weapon practice) and sent their wives to visit the fortress under the pretext of a social visit for their enjoyment. When these ladies were socialising with the wife of the knight who held the tower, Ranulf arrived ”without cloak and armour” to fetch his wife. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 167 〉 He arrived with only three companions, and as soon as they were inside the walls, they seized the available weapons, overpowered the guards, and admitted William and a force of soldiers who took control of the fortress.
The king decided to take action, went there, and… made William Earl of Lincoln and gave Ranulf administrative control over Lincolnshire. Shortly before Christmas 1140, the king left Lincoln, but a short time later, the citizens of Lincoln complained to the king about how the brothers were treating them. The king evidently had second thoughts, for he returned with an army and besieged the castle on 6 January 1141. It is unclear why the king changed his mind so quickly; the citizens’ complaints might have been a pretext. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 168 〉 Ranulf narrowly escaped the siege and made his way to his father-in-law, Earl Robert of Gloucester. Until then, the two brothers had avoided taking sides in the power struggle, but Ranulf now swore allegiance to Robert in exchange for his assistance. The brothers indeed received help: not only did Earl Robert of Gloucester come, but the entire faction of Empress Matilda. A significant army marched towards Lincoln, and most of the king’s advisors argued that he should retreat as he was clearly at a disadvantage. However, King Stephen chose to fight, and on Candlemas Day, 2 February 1141, the only real battle of the civil war took place: the Battle of Lincoln.
King Stephen fought valiantly on foot like a lion while his weaker army scattered around him, and it was only when a slingstone struck him in the head that his sword fell from his hand. He refused to surrender to the simple knight William de Keynes, who had rushed forward and tried to capture him, until Earl Robert of Gloucester arrived at the scene. It was only then that King Stephen finally acknowledged his defeat and surrendered. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 172 〉 He was first taken to Gloucester and met there with his cousin, Empress Matilda, but what transpired there remains unknown to outsiders. He was then taken to Bristol Castle. Initially, he was treated with great respect by the earl, but after being repeatedly caught attempting to escape in more or less subtle ways, he was put in chains. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 185 〉
Empress Matilda’s triumph and joy must have been boundless, but deposing an anointed king is no simple matter, even if he is imprisoned. She began by negotiating with the church – particularly with Bishop Henry – and, surprisingly, she managed to win him over! On 7 April 1141, Bishop Henry, with great pomp and ceremony in Winchester, proclaimed the empress as ”Lady of the English”. The ceremony was a spectacle in more ways than one: when a king is crowned – and anointed – it is akin to a sacrament, and only the church can perform this rite. The sanctity thus conferred upon the king could not be removed. 〈The troubled reign of King StephenJohn T. Appleby
The troubled reign of King Stephen
ISBN 0713515643 p. 101 〉 The crowned and anointed king, Stephen, was not dead yet. Matilda was not yet a regent, not even in name, but the bishops who had participated in the Winchester ceremony had all sworn allegiance to Stephen and committed perjury by now recognising her as their ”Lady”. A cold wind of betrayal swept through the land, and the bishops were the first to bow to it. 〈The troubled reign of King StephenJohn T. Appleby
The troubled reign of King Stephen
ISBN 0713515643 p. 101 〉 Matilda’s great triumph was that more nobles bowed the knee to her, although far from all did so voluntarily. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 180-181 〉
The Sunday after Easter that same year, Bishop Henry summoned the church to a council in Winchester, where he devoted all his influence to winning over the prelates to the empress’s side and justifying his actions, but he failed miserably. To gain entry to Westminster for her coronation, the empress needed to win over the Londoners. After much negotiation, Matilda, Robert of Gloucester, and Henry arrived in London in June – but the Londoners rose in revolt, and they had to flee the city in wild haste, literally throwing away everything they carried to escape. It took them several days of frantic riding to reach safety; Bishop Henry fled to Winchester while the empress and Robert of Gloucester were forced to retreat all the way to Gloucester. 〈The troubled reign of King StephenJohn T. Appleby
The troubled reign of King Stephen
ISBN 0713515643 p. 101-110 〉 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 181-187 〉 There are many different explanations for the Londoners’ actions, ranging from loyalty to the king to Matilda demanding huge sums of money from them (they had paid large sums to Stephen without complaint) to her being haughty, arrogant, and having fits of rage when her demands were refused – or perhaps all the malicious rumours were simply a result of pure misogyny. What is true likely depends on whose side you are on.
The setback in London caused the bishop to distance himself from the Empress, and he reinforced his castle at Wolvesey, which was situated right next to Winchester Cathedral. The Empress noticed this and decided to play it safe, marching towards Winchester with a large force and laying siege to Wolvesey on 31 July. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 189 〉 The bishop was in Wolvesey (Wolvesey Castle OpenStreetMap), and the Empress was in the royal castle at Winchester (Winchester Castle OpenStreetMap). If the Battle of Lincoln marked the king’s downfall, then the Rout of Winchester was equally catastrophic for the Empress; the difference was that this time there were no omens to warn her of what was to come. In short, Queen Matilda came to the bishop’s aid, bringing large armies from various parts of the country, and the Empress’s army was decisively defeated. Empress Matilda managed to escape and flee to Gloucester, but her brother and chief military commander, Earl Robert of Gloucester, was captured while protecting her retreat. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 193 〉
Intensive negotiations followed to free the two prisoners – but the stories that the two men’s wives had negotiated the exchange do not seem to be accurate. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 194-195 〉 After prolonged negotiations, a complex prisoner exchange was arranged – neither side trusted the other! Queen Maud and her son Eustace travelled to Bristol where King Stephen was held captive and met with him on 1 November. The king then went to Winchester, where Earl Robert of Gloucester had been brought from his captivity in Rochester, to free the earl. Bishop Henry and the Archbishop of Canterbury had solemnly promised to support Earl Robert of Gloucester if the king did not release him, and should it appear that the king – for some reason – might consider managing without his brother, they issued letters to the Pope asking him to intervene. King Stephen, however, honoured the agreements made, and when he arrived in Winchester on 4 November, he released Earl Robert of Gloucester – after the earl had left his son William as a hostage in case he did not release the queen. The queen and her son were released when the earl arrived, and when they were in Winchester, the earl’s son was also released. And so everyone was back where they had started, and the year came to an end.
In the years from 1142 to 1143, there were no significant advancements for either side – castles were taken, lost, and retaken; towns and villages were burned, and no one was safe. In fact, after the Rout of Winchester, the war descended into a stalemate where neither side made any clear gains, either practically or politically.
This account has scarcely touched upon what was happening in Normandy, but Empress Matilda’s husband, Count Geoffrey V Plantagenet, had managed to bring most of the region under his control—largely thanks to King Stephen neglecting his duties and leaving his vassals in the lurch. King Stephen had been ill for most of the year, from the ”beginning” of 1142 until August of that year 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 201 〉, with many rumours of his death, but in August he emerged from his sickbed ”like a man who had just awakened” and seemed determined to put an end to the struggle for the throne. During the King’s illness, Earl Robert of Gloucester travelled to aid Geoffrey V Plantagenet in Normandy, and he did so with great success. By the beginning of 1144, Count Geoffrey V Plantagenet was de facto ruler of all Normandy.
Earl Robert of Gloucester did not return to England until October/November, but by then Stephen had already conducted a successful campaign across the country and on 26 September managed to catch Matilda completely off guard, besieging her in her castle at Oxford. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 pp. 201-205 〉 (It was surprisingly common for an army to completely surprise a castle and lay it under siege with little preparation for its inhabitants!) Robert of Gloucester besieged the castle at Wareham when he landed in October (?) and, following the custom of the time, allowed the castle’s inhabitants to send a messenger to the King for help. This was, of course, a ruse to lure Stephen away from Oxford, but for once the King stuck to his decision to wait out Matilda. In November, Robert of Gloucester marched towards Oxford with his considerably smaller army, but Matilda resolved the problem before he could arrive. With the help of three specially chosen knights, she was lowered down from the castle tower at night and they crossed the river ice dressed in white cloaks to blend in with the snow. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 207 〉 On the other side, they were spotted by a guard, but they bribed him to let them pass! What later happened to the guard is not mentioned by any historian, but it says a lot about the corruption of the time and how weak loyalty was.
The situation in 1143 was anything but bright for England—but far from dark for the two cousins. King Stephen had made many enemies among the nobles through his actions and had lost many friends to captivity and death, but he still controlled most of England, and support for him was strong within his territories. Empress Matilda, on the other hand, could boast of controlling almost half of England after a long line of noblemen with castles in Somerset had surrendered to her when they received no support from the King, claiming to control ”from sea to sea” as she put it. 〈The AnarchyTerese Cole
The Anarchy
ISBN 9781445678498 p. 210 〉 How true this was could certainly be questioned, but both stood on relatively stable ground and were relatively evenly matched. England could look forward to another decade of war and devastation.
Back to Gamemaster’s Refuge
