The combination of legal interests with sacred historiography created an ‘assimilationist’ Welsh identity during the early modern period. In Brittany, by contrast, the same combination led to a ‘differentialist’ sense of identity. A comparison of the thoughts of two important Welsh and Breton scholars regarding the issue of language introduces the different conceptions of identity at stake in Welsh and Breton historiography of the period. David Powel explains that ‘the Welsh toong is commonlie used and spoken Englandward, beyond these old meares’. Powel further states in detail that in the marcher shires east of the Severn:

In Powel's Historie of Cambria, language operated alongside other chorographical interests, such as sacred historiography, in order to enhance the principal legal function of the work for his patron Henry Sidney.

Medieval Bretons had long been perplexed by the incongruity of Breton linguistic and political boundaries, and they often resorted to sacred historiography in order to reconcile the divergence. Importantly, this did not always lead to a restrictive sense of Breton identity. For example, the celebrated Breton chronicler Pierre Le Baud, writing during the last years of Breton political independence, described the history of the duchy in terms of its division into nine dioceses, and explained that among the nine ancient bishoprics existed:

Here the book returns to the adventures in Brittany, to tell how Lord Charles of Blois laid siege to the city of Rennes.

As you've heard, the Duke of Normandy, the Duke of Bourbon, the Duke of Burgundy, the Count of Blois, Lord Louis of Spain, the Constable of France and the other French lords had left Brittany after they'd taken the mighty castle of Champtoceaux and then the city of Nantes and captured the Count of Montfort and delivered him to King Philip of France, who had imprisoned him in the Louvre at Paris; and Lord Charles of Blois had stayed quietly at Nantes and in the surrounding country which was now obedient to him, waiting for the summer, a better season than winter for campaigning and waging war. Now you should know that, with the return of that sweet season, all the above-named lords of France and many others made their way back to Brittany in great strength to help Lord Charles of Blois to reconquer the rest of the duchy. Many remarkable adventures followed, as you'll now be able to hear.

When they reached Nantes they found Lord Charles of Blois and decided to lay siege to the city of Rennes, and there they went. The valiant Countess of Montfort had provisioned and garrisoned the city so well that it wanted for nothing, and had appointed as its governor and captain a worthy knight named Sir guillaume de Cadoudal, a Breton gentleman of high standing.

Sirs, this Edward, who was waging war on France, inflicted many ills upon the land throughout his reign. He challenged King Philip's right to the realm, and laid siege to the city of Tournai along with many great lords with whom he'd forged alliances, and a great force from Flanders, too. Hainaulters and Brabançons all honoured him, and he had the support of Germans and English alike. The king of France advanced to Bouvines to confront him with a force of four thousand men; the good duke of Brittany went with him, as did other dukes, counts, knights and commons who were dear to him. Now, there was a worthy countess who'd reigned in Hainault but had retired from the world and become the abbess of Fontenelle. She was King Philip's sister, both of them being the issue of Charles duke of Valois, so I understand; and she earnestly desired peace both on her brother's account and on King Edward's, for Edward had married her daughter. And that most worthy lady, to whom she'd given birth, likewise yearned for peace between her lord and the king of France, since one was her husband and the other her uncle. The efforts of this lady of Hainault secured a truce, agreed by both sides, and King Philip withdrew to France and granted leave to his supporters; and he thanked the duke of Brittany deeply for the help he'd given, for when the duke responded to his call he'd been very close to the king, lodging close beside him.

So the noble duke returned to his land, to Brittany, where he was honoured by all. But the very next year he was seized by the sickness which led to his passing from this world; it was the greatest misfortune for five hundred years, for it led to a war that cost the lives of many men.

After the death, sirs, of this good, wise, cultured duke, the duchy of Brittany was contested by two heirs, each claiming to be the nearest in succession. One of them was a lady, the wife of Charles of Blois (who's now being called a saint); she claimed to be closer in line than the count of Montfort.

ROYAL SENESCHALS OF NANTES

William fitz Hamo (1158–1172)

William's origins are obscure, but may have been in the honour of Richmond. He held the soke of Hough-on-the-Hill, Lincs., probably by a grant of Conan IV's father (EYC, iv, p. 80; Société Jersiaise (ed.), Cartulaire des Iles Normandes: Recueil de documents concernant l'histoire de cesîles, Jersey, 1924, no. 252). He may also be identified with William son of Hamo dispensator of Hudswell, near Richmond (Monasticon, iii, p. 602). William also had some connection with the Channel Islands, where he founded the abbey of Saint-Hélier (RT, ii, pp. 134–5; Cartulaire des Iles Normandes, p. 307). He also held lands in Normandy (RT, II, p. 135 note; Cartulaire des Iles Normandes, no. 239). William served Henry II for some years before he became king, and was rewarded with lands in the south of England, at Salisbury and Warminster (Pipe Rolls 2–18 Henry II; for the significance of these grants, see T.K. Keefe, ‘Place-date distribution of royal charters and the historical geography of patronage strategies at the court of king Henry II Plantagenet’, Haskins Society Journal 2 (1990), 179–88 at 184).

William played a prominent role in Henry II's regime in Brittany from the outset, acting as principal royal agent in Nantes from 1158. On at least one occasion between 1160 and August 1167, he visited Conan IV at Guingamp (EYC, iv, p. 60), no doubt on the king's business.

This chapter surveys the archaeological evidence for the period of the settlement of Brittany from Britain. The absorption of the Armorican peninsula into the land-based Roman Empire in the first century BC ended its long-standing role in prehistory as an important bridge for trade and cultural communication between the Atlantic Archipelago and the Continent. It was further marginalised by the concentration of resources in frontier zones under the late Empire. However, the political and economic decline of late-Roman Armorica was apparently gradual, in contrast with the sudden disruption of the relatively prosperous lowland zone of Britain in the early fifth century. Differences such as these may partly explain the absence of direct archaeological evidence for migration. The absence from Brittany of the high-status material culture seen in Britain outside the zone of English settlement in the fifth to seventh centuries (hill-forts, decorated metalwork, imported pottery) may reflect Brittany’s relative poverty but also the extreme diffusion of political power there, and a lesser degree of conflict. More modest, newly discovered archaeological evidence indicates Brittany’s continued connections to the wider world of north-western Europe in more basic developments in agriculture and rural settlement forms.

Brittany was the only one of Henry II's continental dominions to be acquired by his own efforts, rather than by inheritance or marriage. The fact that Henry II had to acquire Brittany by his own efforts explains the disproportionately large amount of his own time and resources the king invested in this province.

Henry II did not, initially, plan to conquer Brittany. He would have been satisfied with recognition of his sovereignty by the native ruler. At the beginning of his reign, the king adopted the same policy towards Brittany as he did towards Wales, Scotland and later Ireland. That is, a native ruler was allowed to rule the province, subject only to his loyalty and possibly the payment of some form of tribute. In the case of Brittany, Henry II sponsored the young Duke Conan IV from as early as 1153. Even after the king seized the county of Nantes in 1158, his policy towards Conan as native ruler of the rest of Brittany remained unchanged.

From 1156, Angevin possession of the county of Nantes secured the borders of Brittany with the neighbouring provinces of Anjou and Poitou, which were already under Henry II's lordship. Further north, the king also pursued a policy of neutralising the potential threat to his lordship in Maine and Normandy posed by the marcher baronies of Vitré, Fougères and Combour. On these terms, Henry II was prepared to allow Conan IV to rule as duke of Brittany.

In the half century after Charles the Bald's death, profound changes transformed the political landscape of the West Frankish kingdom. By the time his grandson Charles the Simple was captured and imprisoned in 922, Charles the Bald's aggressive and powerful kingship had been reduced to the direct rule of the lands between the middle Seine and the Meuse, whilst further afield the king exercised a suzerainty that was generally recognised but carried virtually no powers of government or practical clout. In the intervening fifty years, kings not of the Carolingian dynasty had come to power, notably Odo son of Robert the Strong in West Francia (888–98) and Boso (Charles the Bald's brother-in-law) in Provence (879–87). Carolingian power was now neither uncontested nor widely effective.

This half-century was also one of persistent and often devastating Viking raids throughout atlantic Europe, of continuing tensions and conflicts within the Carolingian dynasty itself, and of the crystallisation of much of West Francia into aristocratic lordships controlled by the descendants of those to whom Charles the Bald had shown greatest generosity. All these processes were interlinked.

Contemporaries held Countess Ermengarde of Brittany in high regard. Whether in poems or letters, the clergy were full of praise for her. Marbode, bishop of Rennes (1035–1123), stated that ‘Fame reports that no woman surpasses you/ Powerful in eloquence, shrewd in counsel.’ Robert Arbrissel (1045–1116) wrote to her: ‘Do not be too concerned about changing place and habit. Have God in your heart whether you are in the city or in the court, in an ivory bed or in precious clothes, in the army, in judgment, or at a banquet. Love, and God will be with you.’ And Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153) addressed her: ‘To his beloved daughter in Christ, Ermengarde, once highest countess, now humble handmaid of Christ. Bernard, abbot of Clairvaux, pious affection of holy love. If only I could open my mind to you just like this letter!’

In spite of the respect shown to Ermengarde by her contemporaries, modern scholarship has all but effaced Ermengarde's activities and, when she is discussed at all, she is often reduced to a handmaiden to Robert of Arbrissel or Bernard of Clairvaux. Indeed, scholars have variously referred to her as a social reject or a woman who could not know her own mind. In contrast to the deafening silence or outright chauvinism, Arlette LeBigre recognized Ermengarde's political acuity and called her ‘the only political male’ to lead twelfth-century Brittany. Although a considerable improvement, this description, too, is problematic as it genders power as male, thus not recognizing that Ermengarde, as a woman, could have power.

Ermengarde was born around 1070, probably in Angers, to Ermengarde of Beaugency and Count Fulk IV le Réchin of Anjou (1043–1109). In 1093, Ermengarde left Anjou to marry Count Alan IV of Brittany (c.1060–1119). Three years later, in 1096, she was left in charge of the county and her two young sons when Alan went on crusade. Upon his return in 1101, the couple ruled Brittany together until 1103×1105 when Ermengarde left to join the community of religious women at Fontevraud. But she returned to Brittany by 1106 and picked up her life as countess. In 1112, Count Alan IV retired to the monastery of Redon and Ermengarde ruled the county with their son Conan III (c.1094–1148), and this she continued to do until her death in 1147.

Brittany, as a political unit, was a creation of the Carolingian empire, but during the tenth and the first half of the eleventh centuries, the former Carolingian regnum experienced political fragmentation. Although individuals vied for the title of ‘dux Britannie’, in fact none exercised authority over the whole of the Armorican peninsula and its hinterland. By the mid-eleventh century, the peninsula was divided into six main political units; the county of Rennes, the lordships of Penthièvre and Léon, the county of Cornouaille, the Broërec (or the Vannetais) and the county of Nantes (see map 1).

At this point, the process of political fragmentation was halted by a series of marriages which united the comital families of Rennes, Nantes and Cornouaille to form a single ducal dynasty. Duke Hoël I (1066–84) and his descendants now had the potential to consolidate ducal authority, winning back the exercise of public authority from those who had usurped it. This chapter will present a brief survey of political conditions in Brittany for the 100 years from 1066 to the advent of Henry II from the perspective of ducal authority.

Around 1066, the position of the dukes of Brittany was analogous to that of the contemporary kings of France, the first among equals, having prestige and no internal rival for the ducal title, but no real authority outside their own domains. In terms of the exercise of ducal authority, three different categories of territory may be identified.

In sending Hatto, archbishop of Mainz, his collection of canons, Regino of Prüm remarked: ‘Just as the various nations of peoples are distinguished from each other by race, customs, language and laws, so the holy universal church throughout the world although joined together in unity of faith nevertheless differs from place to place in ecclesiastical customs. Some customs in ecclesiastical practices are found in the kingdoms of the Gauls and of Germany, others are found in the eastern kingdoms and in overseas places.’ In ecclesiastical and cultural life as in political society, the bedrock of the Carolingian empire was regional identity and local custom. Historians have tended to be mesmerised by the brilliance of Carolingian court culture and by its rhetoric of unity, but wherever scholars have searched with an eye for nuanced difference, they have found evidence that substantiates Regino's comments. The early medieval church was a medley of characteristically regional habits, in bible texts, canon law, and liturgy as in manuscript illumination and script or saints' cults. However, just as at the apogee of Carolingian power the royal court exercised a strong centripetal pull against the grain of local political life, so too the religious and cultural life of Carolingian provinces was profoundly affected by central influences, demands, and expectations.

These influences were of two very different types.