Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T21:32:42.435Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

King John, the Braoses, and the Celtic Fringe, 1207–1216

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2017

Brock W. Holden
Get access

Extract

In 1210, King John led to Ireland an army that consisted of the feudal levy of England, mercenary knights from Flanders, and a large force of Serjeants and crossbowmen, supported in the course of the campaign by some seven hundred ships. Money paid out for the ships totalled over £3,800, while wages for the crossbowmen and Serjeants topped £2,380. The 1210 Irish expedition was an impressive operation and showed Angevin government at its most effective. Modern historians, needless to say, have been impressed by the organisation and scale of the undertaking. What makes John’s Irish campaign not only impressive but terrifying was that, in one sense, it was all done to hunt down one man and his family.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , Spring 2001 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article was first read as a paper to the Medieval Seminar in Oxford, the NACBS Conference in Colorado Springs, and the Late Medieval Seminar in the Institute for Historical Research in London. The author would like to thank Professor R. R. Davies, Professor Ralph Turner, Dr. David Carpenter, Dr. Paul Brand, and especially Dr. Nicholas Vincent for their comments.

References

1 Church, Stephen D., “The 1210 Campaign in Ireland: Evidence for a Military Revolution?,” Anglo-Norman Studies 20 (1998): 51.Google Scholar

2 Painter, Sidney, The Reign of King John (Baltimore, 1949), pp. 249–50.Google Scholar

3 See Warren, W. L., Henry II (London, 1973), pp. 165–69Google Scholar; Davies, R. R., The Age of Conquest. Wales 1063–1415 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 289–92.Google Scholar

4 Warren, Henry II, p. 167.

5 SirLloyd, John, A History of Wales, 2 vols. (London, 1911), 2: 547–48.Google Scholar

6 Gillingham, John, “Henry II, Richard I and the Lord Rhys,” Peritia 10 (1996): 225–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Lloyd, History of Wales, 2:. 575.

8 The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes of the Time of King Richard the First, ed. with trans, by Appelby, J. T. (London, 1963), pp. 30–31.Google Scholar

9 Pipe Roll 5 Richard 1, p. 148. All pipe rolls cited are published under various editors by the Pipe Roll Society.

10 Roll of escheats, Pipe Roll 6 Richard I, p. 5; Pipe Roll 9 Richard I, p. 194.

11 Church, Stephen D., “The Knights of the Household of King John: A Question of Numbers,” in Thirteenth Century England IV. Proceedings of the Newcastle upon Tyne Conference 1991, eds. Coss, Peter and Lloyd, Simon (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1992), p. 165.Google Scholar

12 Patterson, Robert, ed., Earldom of Gloucester Charters (Oxford, 1973), p. 127 #138.Google Scholar

13 Pipe Roll 2 Richard I, p. 126.

14 Eyton, R. W., Antiquities of Shropshire (London, 1857), 5: 151–52.Google Scholar

15 Rotuli Chartarum 1199–1216, ed. Hardy, T. D. (Record Commission, 1837) p. 8 (hereafter cited as Rot. Chart).Google Scholar

16 Rotuli Curiae Regis 1194–9, 2 vols., ed. Palgrave, F. (London, 1835) 2: 159, 171Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Rot. Curiae Regis); final concord, P.R.O., CP 25(1)/193/2 #27.

17 Pipe Roll 1 John, p. 76.

18 Church, “The Knights of the Household of King John,” p. 163.

19 Red Book of the Exchequer, 3 vols., ed. Hall, H. (Rolls Series, 1896), 2: 631.Google Scholar (hereafter cited as RBE).

20 Margam annals in Annales Monastici, 5 vols., ed. Luard, H. R. (Rolls Series, 1864–69), 1: 24.Google Scholar

21 Ibid.

22 Rot. Chart., p. 66.

23 Pipe Roll 4 John, p. 20; Rotuli Litterarum Patentium 1201–16, ed. Hardy, T. D. (Record Commission, 1835), p. 19bGoogle Scholar (hereafter cited as Rot. Litt. Pat.).

24 Although J. C. Holt notes that Wendover’s account of a general demand for hostages seems muddled’ and is supported by little evidence (Holt, Magna Carta, 2nd ed. [Cambridge, 1992], p. 82 n.35).

25 Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. Stevenson (Rolls Series, 1875), pp. 137–38.

26 Roger of Wendover, Chronica, 3 vols., ed. H. G. Hewlett (Rolls Series, 1886–89), 2: 48–49.

27 Powicke, F. M., The Fall of Normandy (Manchester, 1913), pp. 467–71.Google Scholar

28 For Vieuxpont, Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 89b.

29 Painter, Reign of King John, pp. 25–29.

30 Mr. Richard Eales has pointed out to this writer that John’s policies in South Wales must have been shaped in relation to Cheshire, where it seems the period 1205–15 was a “critical period” in the formation of the liberties of the later palatinate.

31 For a differing interpretation see Rowlands, Ifor W., “King John and Wales,” in King John: New Interpretations, ed. Church, S. D. (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1999), pp. 275–76.Google Scholar Rowlands sees Chester’s real interests as lying elsewhere than along the March. He does, however, brush over the royal order to distrain of 1204, mentioned below. This writ seems to indicate that Chester was up to more than mere “overtures to Gwenwynwyn of Powys” in that year.

32 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum 1204–27, ed. T. D. Hardy (Record Commission, 1833–14), 1: 16 (hereafter cited as Rot. Litt. Claus.).

33 Warren, W. L., “The Historian as Private Eye,” Historical Studies 9 (1974): 1–18.Google Scholar

34 Ibid., p. 16.

35 Ibid., p. 17.

36 Duffy, Sean, “King John’s expedition to Ireland, 1210: the evidence reconsidered,” Irish Historical Studies 30, 117 (May 1996): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae et cuiusunque generis acta publica, ed. T. Rymer. Revised ed. by A. Clarke, F. Holbrooke and J. Coley, 4 vols, in 7 parts (Record Commission, 1816–69), 1: 108–09. The inclusion of this document in both the Red and Black Books of the Exchequer may be explained by the fact that John’s justification, citing the law of the exchequer, was a precedent par excellence for future distraints for debt against barons.

38 Holt, J. C., The Northerners (Oxford, 1961, reprinted 1992), p. 185.Google Scholar

39 Keefe, Thomas K., “Proffers for Heirs and Heiresses in the Pipe Rolls: Some Observations on Indebtedness in the Years Before the Magna Carta (1180–1212),” Haskins Society Journal 5 (1996): 103–04.Google Scholar

40 ibid., p. 108.

41 Holt, The Northerners, p. 81 n. 1.

42 For the argument that shrieval appointments of these years were related to security, see D. A. Carpenter, “The decline of the curial sheriff in England, 1194–1258,” English Historical Review 41 (1976): 1–32.

43 See Crouch, David, “The March and the Welsh Kings,” in The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign, ed. King, Edmund (Oxford, 1994), pp. 276–80.Google Scholar

44 Curia Regis Rolls, ed. C. T. Flower, et al., (London, 1923-), 4: 98–99 (hereafter cited as CRR); for Peter fitz Herbert’s descent from Miles of Gloucester, see Walker, David, “The ‘Honour’ of the Earls of Hereford in the Twelfth Century,” Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 79, pt. 2 (1960): 192–93.Google Scholar

45 CRR, 6: 270, 330; for comment, see Holden, B. W., “The Balance of Patronage: King John and the Earl of Salisbury,” Haskins Society Journal 8 (1999): 87.Google Scholar

46 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 68.

47 Ibid, pp. 71 (castle), 75 (shrievalty) to Richard de Mucegros, 78b, transfer to Gerard d’Athée.

48 Rowlands, Ifor W., “William de Braose and the Lordship of Brecon,” Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 30, pts. 1–2 (1982–83): 123–33Google Scholar (hereafter cited as BBCS).

49 Lewis, F. R., “A History of the Lordship of Gower from the Missing Cartulary of Neath,” BBCS 9 (1937–9): 151.Google Scholar

50 ”Chronica de Wallia,” ed. T. Jones, BBCS 12 pts. 1–3 (Nov. 1946): 277–4, s.a. 1209 (recte 1210).

51 RBE, p. 601.

52 “Cartularium prioratus S. Johannis Evang. de Brecon,” ed. Banks, R. W., Archaeologia Cambrensis, 4th ser., 14 (1883): 165.Google Scholar

53 Liber Feodorum. The Book of Fees commonly called Testa de Nevill, 3 vols. (London, 1920), 2: 806.

54 CRR, 8: 10–11.

55 I owe this observation to Dr. Paul Brand.

56 CRR, 5: 27.

57 Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, p. 168.

58 Rot. Litt. Claus., 1: 189b, an order to all sheriffs to take up sufficient pledges to cover Giles’ fine.

59 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 141.

60 Ibid., p. 151. Writs were sent to William Marshal concerning Swansea Castle in Gower, Henry de Tracy for Barnstaple Castle and Henry fitz Count for Totnes Castle, the latter two being the centers of the Braose estates in the West Country.

61 For a discussion of the casus regis, see Holt, J. C., “The Casus Regis: The Law and Politics of Succession in the Plantagenet Dominions, 1185–1247,” in Law in Mediaeval Life and Thought, ed. King, Edward B. and Ridyard, Susan J. (Sewanee, Tennessee, 1990), pp. 21–42.Google Scholar

62 Cartae et alia munimenta de Glamorgancia, 6 vols., ed. G. T. Clark (Cardiff, 1910), 3: 805–08.

63 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 80b.

64 Ibid., pp. 102, 108b.

65 Nicholas Vincent commented to this author that had William the younger been demanded as a hostage after having taken the homage of his men, such a demand would have effectively been an order for his arrest. This does not fit with the pattern of John’s hostage-taking, but the Braose quarrel was in many respects sui generis.

66 Brut y Tywysogyon (Peniarth MS. 20 version), ed. T. Jones (Cardiff, 1941), p. 83, s.a. 1210 (hereafter cited as Brut).

67 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 80.

68 Ibid, p. 81; Rot. Litt. Claus., 1: 112–13; Wendover, Chronica, 2: 49.

69 Painter, Reign of King John, pp. 243–48.

70 Holt, The Northerners, p. 225.

71 Davies, R. R., “Richard II and the Principality of Chester 1397–9,” in The Reign of Richard II, ed. Boulay, F. Du and Barron, (London, 1971), pp. 257–60.Google Scholar

72 A. A. M. Duncan, “John King of England and the Kings of Scots,” in King John. New Interpretations, pp. 258–59. Letter in register of Philip Augustus preserved in the Vatican Library, printed in Archives des missions scientifiques et litteraires, third series, 6 (1880): 344.

73 Treharne, R. F., “The Franco-Welsh Treaty of Alliance in 1212,” BBCS 18 (1958): 60–75Google Scholar; reprinted in Simon de Montfort and Baronial Reform. Thirteenth Century Essays, ed. E. B. Fryde (1986), pp. 345–60.

74 For much of what follows see Lloyd, History of Wales, 2: 612–23, 631–37.

75 Memoriale fratris Waltri de Coventria, 2 vols., ed. W. Stubbs (Rolls Series, 1872–73), 2: 202, s.a. 1210.

76 For ius scriptum and the intensifying of English overlordship over the Welsh, see Davies, The Age of Conquest, pp. 293–95; Rowlands, “King John and Wales,” p. 279.

77 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 88. Salisbury was himself recovering from a period of royal suspicion and disfavor which coincided with the first moves against Braose, see Holden, “Balance of Patronage,” p. 85.

78 For Builth, erected by Engelard de Cigogne, see Brut, p. 84; Aberystwyth, Margam annals, p. 31.

79 For the treatment of hostages in Ireland, see above p. 7 and n. 36.

80 Henry II and hostages, Brut, pp. 64–65; for John and Welsh hostages, see the discussion in Rowlands, “King John and Wales,” pp. 280–81. The hanging of the young Welsh boy at Shrewsbury is in Brut, p. 86.

81 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 86b (royal ratification of the agreement dated 21 Sept.). Although witnessed by Peter des Roches bishop of Winchester, in the presence of the bishop of Bath and William Briwerre rather than the king, John had been in the area recently. He had been at Hereford on 26 June, was at Worcester 1–3 July, and was at Tewkesbury on 3 October followed by Shrewsbury 8–9 October. Although his servants carried on the negotiations with the Braose tenants, John made visits to the region numerous times in 1208, eleven times from March to October 1208, for a total of 23 days.

82 Walter de Clifford junior (4 fees), William de Waldeboef (3), William de Gamages (1), Ralph Torel (1), Richard de Pauncefoot (1), William des Furches (1), Pain de Burghill (1), Walter Devereux (1/2) and Roger de la Zouche (1/2), 13 out of 32 fees listed in 1211, RBE, 2: 601; Rotuli de Liberate ac de Misi et Praestitis Regnante Johanne, ed. T. D. Hardy (Record Commission, 1844), pp. 177–225 passim.

83 Pipe Roll 12 John, p. 147.

84 For the splitting of the Marshal affinity, see Crouch, David, William Marshal: Court, Career and Chivalry in the Angevin Empire 1147–1219 (London, 1990), p. 98.Google Scholar

85 Calendar of Ancient Correspondence Concerning Wales, ed. Edwards, J. G. (Cardiff, 1935), # 1. 10, p. 2.Google Scholar

86 See p. 12 above.

87 Brut, p.90, s.a. 1215.

88 RBE, 2: 601.

89 Holt, The Northerners, p. 81 and n. 1.

90 Keefe, T. K., Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and His Sons (Berkeley, 1983), p. 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 99b.

92 Rot. Litt. Claus., p. 147.

93 Walter in France, Rot. Litt. Pat., pp. 112, 113b.

94 Ibid., pp. 191, 132b.

95 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 199b.