S IP Flashcards
Why did the anarchy start
- Disputed succession
- Cross-channel loyalties (lands threatened)
- Stephen’s personality
- Foreign threats - Scots and Welsh
- Scots: Invade in 1135 (results in Treaty of Durham 1136), invade in 1138 (defeated in Battle of the Standard), second treaty of Durham with Scots in 1139, advance to Ribble and Tees 1141.
- Welsh: Uprisings in 1136
Was the anarchy as bad as chroniclers said - Yes!
Yes:
- Breakdown in central government - 52% of surviving writs in Stephen’s reign date from the first 7 years.
- Coinage collapsed between 1141-1153, where Matilda and David (and earls) were issuing their own coins (and the quality was bad)
- 4/5 castles by 1154 were adulterine.
Was the anarchy as bad as chroniclers said - No!
No:
- Much of lands within Stephen or Matilda’s domains are peaceful - it is mainly on borderlands where there is war or in the North with the Scots. Chroniclers give an insight into their local perspective, not a representation of the whole of the kingdom. For example, the ASC is the Peterborough chronicle, which was in no man’s land.
- Coinage began to collapse in the ten years before Stephen’s reign, with Henry I issuing one coin in those ten years. In the most intense part of the Anarchy, Stephen controlled and issued coins in a significant portion of England. Also in 1153, it was easy to restore the coinage system.
Was Stephen a bad military leader
Bad military leader?
- But in 1138 he managed to put down rebellions etc in a very impressive way
- But major defeat in Lincoln in 1141
Decentralisation
7 earls at the start of his reign, he appointed 19. Created many earldoms.
Less central government - no chief justiciar appointed (then again, he restricted himself to England after 1137).
Hugh de Poer (Beaumont) made an earl prior to civil war - decentralisation not a response to it but a deliberate policy? Then again, he doesn’t have much land or money to give so it is his only main form of patronage.
Matilda copied Stephen’s policy of creating earls - she made Geoffrey de Mandeville earl of Essex - so it may not have been bad
But Earls are too powerful so private warfare begins.
Was Stephen a bad governor
Bad governor?
- In an extremely difficult situation, with contentious succession he had to relax harshness of Henry I’s rule to gain support
- BUT Henry managed to make a success of a weak succession as well?
- He did manage to obstruct the ambitions of some earls - e.g. Ranulf of Chester
- No pipe rolls for lots of his reign - did exchequer function? Well, we can’t use a lack of evidence as positive evidence
- Arresting Le Poers was a bad move since it alienated ecclesiastical authorities (three of them were bishops), provoked distrust of those in the king’s service and raised Matilda’s hopes of a major desertion of Stephen - she landed that year
- It was likely a move intended from the beginning and only done once it could be conveniently contrived. He never replaced Roger le Poer.
Favoured old powerful families - e.g. Beaumont & Warenne
- It was likely a move intended from the beginning and only done once it could be conveniently contrived. He never replaced Roger le Poer.
Good relationship with the church
- Stephen became king due to the support of his brother Henry of Winchester, and was backed by Innocent II, William of Corbeil (who consecrated him) and Roger of Salisbury
In 1135 he had support of the Le Poer family - Charter of Liberties shows the importance of the Church for Stephen
- Stephen did exert less control over the church - of 19 bishops appointed in Stephen’s reign, one was a royal clerk.
- Though this is a trend started by Henry I - in the last decade of his life he began appointing more bishops and fewer royal clerks so that by 1135 less than half of the serving bishops were royal servants.
- This doesn’t necessarily show his powerlessness - rather he was just happy to allow churches to choose their own bishops provided they paid him for it and let him confirm it
- Stephen’s illegitimate son, Gervaise, became abbot of Westminster in 1138. His nephew, William FitzHerbert - Archbishop of York in 1153.
Evidence there was greater papal/church influence
- More appeals to royal court, more papal legates - but this was a phenomenon throughout Europe.
- Alberic of Ostia - Papal Legate - deposed and consecrated abbots and bishops in a council in 1138.
- But Stephen was able to limit the amount of bishops that left the kingdom to attend councils
- Only 5 bishops allowed to attend the Second Lateran Council in 1139
- Only three bishops allowed to go to Eugenius III’s council at Rhiems in 1148 - when Archbishop Theobold of Canterbury went he was banished.
Stephens failures and successes in appointing his family members into the church
- He did have some difficulties in appointing his own people but also successes! (Strong influence of Bernard of Clairvaux and Cistercians such as Eugenius)
- 1140 - he wanted to appoint Henry de Sully (nephew) as Archbishop of York, Pope refused (Henry would be holding it in plurality).
- Then he wanted William FitzHerbert there (another nephew) - despite being deposed by Eugenius III (who wanted Henry Murdac) - eventually in 1153 he got the post - success!
- Stephen’s illegitimate son, Gervaise, became abbot of Westminster in 1138.
- 1140 - he wanted to appoint William Cumin into Durham, but the Pope enforced William de St Barbe. However, when William died, Stephen’s nephew Hugh de Puiset was appointed there in 1152! (Not immediate success but long term)
Evidence that Stephen was alienated from the church
- 1139, Le Poers.
- Henry of Winchester was disappointed by him at this point - he was forced to answer for himself in a council.
- In 1148 an interdict was placed on England but Theobald convinced Eugenius not to excommunicate Stephen
- 1152, Theobald refused to consecrate Eustace.
Stephen’s relationship with Normandy
Stephen visited only once in 1137, apparently giving out money.
He made Robert of Gloucester in charge, but then Robert rebelled in 1138 and supported Matilda.
Geoffrey of Anjou became duke in 1144 (with Louis VII’s approval)
Once Henry had control over Normandy in 1149, he was popular since he could reunite the lands of the barons - Eustace wasn’t crowned in 1152 as a result.
What does Stringer say about Stephen’s reign
- Henry I’s kingdom lacked internal cohesion - e.g. north was a remote frontier zone. King’s power meant different things in different regions.
- Cross-channel loyalties has been overstated - many were happy simply to accept Scottish or Angevin leadership.
- The relative power of the Norman state had began to stagnate before 1135 - Henry had stopped invading, and the Norman feudal levy was inadequate for permanent garrison duty so mercenaries had to be employed - Norman armies were dependent on finance and Henry had to exploit England’s money to the full. The display of the inadequacy was found in 1125 and the moneyers (poor silver content).
- England wasn’t suited for extended warfare - Henry I preferred diplomacy over war. His alliances with Scotland and Anjou were short term solutions that didn’t pay off in the long term.
- Two main factors that made Stephen’s problems insurmountable:
- Increased strength of foreign powers e.g. Papacy, Wales, Scotland, Anjou
- Anjou - Battle of Alençon 1118, marriage of Matilda to Geoffrey in 1128.
- Lack of a secure basis for succession
- Led England to be pincered between Scotland and Anjou
- Increased strength of foreign powers e.g. Papacy, Wales, Scotland, Anjou
