Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54)

Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54): An Introduction

Richard Hulme The first page of the Peterborough element of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, written c. 1150, which details the events of the Civil War. Civil of the events the 1150, c. details which written Anglo-Saxon of the Chronicle, element Peterborough page of the The first

THE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 186 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54)

Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54): An Introduction Twelfth-century chroniclers’ views of castle strength focussed on the integration of defences into landscape features providing obstacles, steep slopes and water defences, rather than specific details of castle design. Strong, well garrisoned were very difficult to overcome, so long were rare, though sometimes blockades by siege castle were attempted. More commonly, underhand methods, surprise attacks and assaults, particularly on less powerful castles, were the usual forms of ‘siege’. Control of castles gave control of localities, conferring power and status. Power included imposing extra castle-work obligations on ordinary people, who anyway were the main victims of widespread and prolonged warfare primarily conducted by plundering and burning raids. Unsurprisingly, they – the ordinary people – viewed castles as centres of oppression.

Summary of Conflict 1135-54 allerton, Yorkshire). Matilda and Robert of After Henry I’s only legitimate son, Wil- Gloucester landed in , at Arundel, liam, died in 1120, he planned for his daugh- Sussex, in late 1139. Robert immediately ter Matilda to succeed him, and obtained departed, but Matilda was besieged by oaths supporting her from his nobles, includ- Stephen, though he allowed her to proceed ing his nephew Stephen. Matilda’s first following advice from his brother, Henry, husband had been German Emperor Henry bishop of . Civil war was now V, her second was Geoffrey Plantagenet, unleashed. In February 1141, Stephen, Count of Anjou, a marriage arranged to besieging , was defeated and bring peace to Normandy’s southern border. captured by Robert’s relieving army. The There were qualms about a female ruler and church authorities regarded this as God’s suspicions about her husband. When Henry judgement, and, led by Henry, bishop of died, in Normandy on 1 December 1135, Winchester, accepted Matilda as Domina Stephen rushed to and was crowned Anglorum. But Matilda did not manage to king on 22 December 1135. Geoffrey of establish control, which she attributed to Anjou invaded Normandy, though, as with Bishop Henry’s plotting. She besieged his subsequent attacks in the following few castles within Winchester, but a counter years, with limited success. Meanwhile, in siege resulted in Angevin defeat and Robert 1136, Stephen dealt with a Scots incursion of Gloucester’s capture in September 1141. and outbreaks of revolt, notably a three- A prisoner exchange in late 1141, releasing month siege of Exeter castle, Devon. His Stephen and Robert, broadly restored the 1137 campaign in Normandy collapsed due situation in England, but, in Normandy, to factionalism in his army, including an Geoffrey of Anjou had used Stephen’s attempted ambush of Robert, earl of incarceration to gain possession of important Gloucester, illegitimate son of Henry I. In castles, mostly by negotiation. Throughout 1138, Robert declared for his half-sister, 1142, Stephen made gains, eventually Matilda, leading to widespread uprisings in besieging Matilda within . The England. Stephen dealt with most of these, defenders surrendered after three months, while the northern barons defeated invading but Matilda had dramatically escaped, on Scots at the (North- foot over the frozen watercourses of the

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 187 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54)

Thames. In 1143, Robert defeated Stephen declared him Duke of Normandy. Stephen’s at Wilton, Wiltshire. While Robert consoli- only known military activity in 1150 was dated Angevin control over south-west attacking Worcester but Eustace joined King England, Stephen became embroiled with Louis VII of France in invading Normandy Geoffrey de Mandeville, earl of Essex, and besieging Arques. The arrival of Duke resulting in war throughout the fenlands Henry’s relieving army made continuation of until Geoffrey was mortally wounded the siege untenable and Louis retreated. attacking Burwell castle, Cambridgeshire, Armed manoeuvres in 1151 on the Norman in 1144. In 1145 Robert began constructing border ended with Louis recognising Henry as a castle at Faringdon, Berkshire, to secure duke of Normandy in return for Louis communications to Wallingford, the eastern retaining the Norman Vexin. Stephen failed Angevin stronghold. Stephen attacked vig- in another attempt to take Worcester castle but, orously with superior force and the castle under increasing pressure, Angevin supporters commanders surrendered (perhaps treacher- in England appealed to Duke Henry for help. ously). This setback was followed in 1146 Henry was delayed in 1152 after his marriage by defections to Stephen, including one of to Eleanor of Aquitaine (ex-wife of Louis VII) Robert of Gloucester’s sons and Ranulf, earl stirred Louis to form another coalition, of Chester. Robert’s death in 1147 marked including Eustace, against him. victory for King Stephen; Matilda left The coalition invaded Normandy and took England in 1148. Neufmarché, probably through treachery. But Stephen’s position had weaknesses. Henry devastated the Vexin and the lands Geoffrey of Anjou had captured Rouen in of aiding his enemies and, by his 1144 and taken Arques, the key to northern speed of movement, repeatedly blocked Normandy, in 1145. His control of Nor- Louis’ forces. Meanwhile, in England, mandy meant English magnates with Stephen began a campaign to isolate and Norman interests wanted a negotiated settle- blockade Wallingford. Henry arrived in ment, to regain their Norman possessions, England in January 1153, captured Malm- and were unwilling to fight the Angevins in esbury, Wiltshire, and moved into the England. Somewhat inevitably, Stephen’s Midlands, gaining castles (e.g. Warwick alliance with Ranulf of Chester fell apart by and Tutbury, Staffordshire) and allies late 1146, leading to conflict with him from among the magnates. Around July he 1147. There was also general war weariness, arrived at Wallingford for a critical con- and a laudable outlet for militancy: the frontation, which ended, after pressure Second Crusade, in which some Anglo- from the magnates, with an agreement Normans participated. recognising Henry as Stephen’s heir. In 1149, Matilda’s son, Henry, aged 16, Eustace’s sudden death removed a compli- travelled to England and concluded an cation, but both Henry and Stephen contin- alliance with King David of Scots and ued campaigning, though not directly Ranulf of Chester. Stephen parried their against each other, until the end of the year, intended advance on York. Returning to the when their agreement was confirmed. south-west, Henry was pursued by There was desultory action in 1154 as they Stephen’s son and heir, Eustace. Wiltshire re-established authority. In December was severely ravaged, inducing Henry to Henry was crowned king of England, fol- return to Normandy, where Geoffrey lowing Stephen’s death some weeks earlier.

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 188 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54)

Castles and Conflict castle building in Stephen’s reign, came to Castles were central to the conflicts of be interpreted as ‘castle-phobia’…. (Coulson Stephen’s reign. Significant actions and 118-20). Assessing instances of atrocity, turning points in the wars resulted from robbery, kidnapping and food shortages sieges, and the few battles usually arose caused by the activities of castle-men can from sieges. Over 105 attacks on, and cast light on ideas about castles: that seizures of, fortified places in England have symbols of lordship could also be seen as been quoted. (Creighton and Wright 2016 symbols of oppression. 47; Liddiard 2005 72 fig. 15, suggests around Robert Liddiard 2005, summarising revi- 120 sieges 1121-60, overwhelmingly in sionist scholarship (now mainstream for Stephen’s reign, from data produced by King over two decades), suggested great towers 1983). I record higher figures (below). or , once considered the core military Castles were also significant contributors to strongpoint (as well as residence) within the prevailing impression of anarchic and Norman castles, had alarming ‘military oppressive conditions. The Anglo-Saxon deficiencies’ (‘reduced defensibility of Chronicle reported that men said ‘Christ and square towers’, poor designs that prolifer- His saints slept’ while the people ‘suffered ated vulnerable corners, blind spots, cham- 19 years for our sins’: in Stephen’s time ‘it bers reducing the thickness of walls making was all strife and evil and robbery’ (ASC them susceptible to bombardment etc.); 263). Powerful men held their castles deficiencies which he claimed actually com- against him, ‘and filled the land with castles. promised castle defences, as at Torrington They greatly oppressed the wretched in 1139, where flaming torches were thrown men…with castle-work; then, when the through the windows of a tower. This was castles were made, they filled them with part of the thinking to undermine traditional devils and evil men’ (ASC 265).The military interpretations of castles, not just Chronicle continues with a lament about the keeps (Liddiard 2005 47-51). Were these tortures, robberies, burning of villages, food supposed ‘military deficiencies’ actually shortages and starvation resulting from the weaknesses in practice? Another theme was disorder . This section of the Anglo-Saxon that war was limited, aristocratic war, the Chronicle was written at Peterborough after preserve of the social elite, whose conduct 1154, near repeated conflict created by was ‘chiefly focussed around the concept of belligerents based in the fens. chivalry’. This led to conventions, to limit Historians have therefore been wary of bloodshed, particularly at sieges, which accepting the Chronicle’s generalisations, provided an opportunity to negotiate. Lid- seeing them as being limited in place and diard highlighted ‘conditional respite’, time. Charles Coulson went further, where defenders could appeal for help and describing this Chronicle passage as would surrender if it was not forthcoming ‘perhaps the best-known of all English by the agreed date, though granting respite atrocity tales’ (2004 119). He accepted was at the besieger’s discretion (Liddiard enforced labour would be unpopular. 2005 78, 84-5, Creighton and Wright 2016, However, how bad things actually were 283), concluded their recent study: ‘Sieges, mattered less for Coulson’s purpose than which constituted the default way of waging that hatred of castles existed and, along with war, usually constituted long-term stand- the enormously exaggerated claims of new offs; few involved decisive assaults and

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 189 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54) many were concluded through negotiation’. people (for ransom), which all weakened These views tend to build a picture of static the enemy’s capabilities and resolve to conflict, conducted within knightly, chival- resist. Chronicles frequently mention raids, rous, conventions, and focussed on castles, but usually in general terms. The military whose architecture, as symbols of lordship, functions of castles were, defensively, to reflected wealth and status as much as hold territory by acting as fortified refuges defence. How realistic is this? and bases, and offensively, as bases from Anglo-Norman war which raids were made. Castles thus became the focus of hostilities. There was no ‘front Anglo-Norman war was characterised by line’ but zones of conflict around active strategies to avoid battle. All armies were castles. When taking territory became an effectively coalitions, so the outcome of objective the attrition of raiding and ambush battle depended on troops of variable ability, was followed by attempts to take castles, to experience, discipline, loyalty and willing- establish control over the target territory. ness to fight as well as the quality of lead- An objective, particularly in dynastic war, ership. Add unpredictable circumstances was to capture noble opponents, often by and battle was high risk, with the conse- ambush, either to imprison for life, to disin- quences of defeat often disastrous. During herit, to exchange for castles and ransoms Stephen’s reign there were only four large or to accept their submission (usually taking battles in England, of which two arose from hostages to ensure compliance). Anglo-Nor- sieges (Lincoln and Winchester, both 1141), man war was different from modern war: it and a third from the building of a counter was not ‘total war’, unconditional surrender castle (Wilton 1143). The first two were was rarely an objective, and each participant disastrous for the vanquished, though the in the coalitions that comprised opposing rout of Winchester largely reversed the forces had their own, sometimes changing, consequences of the ; objectives. Participants joined, changed Wilton was a serious setback for Stephen. sides and left conflicts, which were often A much lower risk and more controllable punctuated by truces and negotiations. strategy was to take enemies’ castles, and thereby control of their territories. Thus The database of sieges in Stephen’s reign sieges became the crucial encounters in the The objectives of my study of warfare wars. Although I agree with Creighton and during Stephen’s reign coalesced when I Wright that ‘decisive assault’ against a reviewed Creighton and Wright’s book The well-prepared and strong castle was rare and Anarchy: War and Status in 12th-century that many sieges ended through negotiation. Landscapes of Conflict (2017), (reviewed I do not agree that sieges, or more precisely, CSG Journal 31, 2017-18, pp 276-289; a attempts to gain possession of fortified paperback edition has now been published places, generally constituted long-term - 2018). Objectives include investigating stand-offs, nor that they were the default issues concerning castle architecture, the way of waging war, at least not in isolation. range of siege methods actually used, and A war of ‘stand-offs’ implies conflict was the impact of raiding and war on the general relatively static, which understates the population. I define ‘sieges’ widely, to importance of the primary activity in actu- embrace all attempts to take castles, because ally waging war: raiding, to ravage enemy whether attempts involved extortion, lands and plunder its goods, wealth, and ransom, trickery, treachery, negotiation,

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 190 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54) surprise attack, assault, blockade or starving Wales), and seven covering events in defenders into submission etc., the end England, of which six chapters are devoted results were similar in strategic terms: the to specific types of attack (see Observations target castle was either successfully taken, for further comments on this division), and or not. Some readers might object that a one describing a dozen Remarkable, Notable ‘siege’ required a physical threat against a or Unusual Sieges, including significant castle and some methods, such as extorting turning points of the wars in England. The castles in return for releasing arrested division by siege method is primarily due to nobles, did not involve such a threat. the volume of events, and, while slightly However, analysing some attempts to take idiosyncratic and occasionally arbitrary or castles as ‘sieges’, military events, while inconsistent, is intended to aid analysis of excluding other forms, such as obtaining how sieges were conducted and, possession as a ransom, as ‘non-military’ in importantly, context within the wars. A character, creates an artificial distinction. timeline, the Summary of Events, contains In the conduct of war it was the attainment references (to chapter and year in the of objectives, ideally with economy of effort database) to each of the 270 events, and brief and minimal casualties, that was important, notes on campaigns, other activities and not the specific method used. Both King, summaries of the strategic position. and Creighton and Wright include extortion Sources in their figures, though seemingly not attacks on towns, or a number of events I The most detailed chronicle source is the identify or infer, from the limited evidence. anonymous Gesta Stephani, (GS) equivalent My database totals 162 incidents at 106 sites in length to about 140 pages of a modern in England, 77 incidents at 56 sites in book. 1136-41 has four missing sections but Normandy and 31 incidents at 23 sites in is more detailed than 1142-47. The chroni- Wales, or 270 incidents in total during the cle to 1147 is pro-Stephen and probably 19 years. The intent is to record what written around 1148, chronologically but happened at each incident and try to place without dates. The relatively short last it within the context of each campaign. The section, accepting Henry as ‘lawful heir’, database is in narrative form (attempts to was written after 1154. The author, possibly tabulate detail quickly foundered), entries Robert, bishop of Bath (not accepted by all), varying from a few words to two essays of was familiar with the Bath area, Thames over 3,000 words each (the sieges and Valley and southern Midlands but his battles at Lincoln and Winchester). knowledge of other regions was very limited Medieval chroniclers, when generalising or e.g. despite mentioning Hugh Bigod causing omitting detail, were wont to state their trouble in Suffolk numerous times no place brevity was to avoid wearying the reader. names in or Suffolk are recorded. Reading the database, over 50,000 words Reporting of events in northern England is describing one siege after another, would limited and tends to be generalised. The soon become tedious, and it is therefore author was interested in military affairs, intended to be referred, to rather than read describing some sieges in detail, and some through, suggesting an online reference councils of war, revealing plans and advice facility would be the best way to making the Stephen received. Henry of Huntingdon, data available. The database is divided into archdeacon of Lincoln, a prolific writer, chapters, two geographical (Normandy and wrote his history of Stephen’s reign in

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 191 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54) sections, each written within a couple of garrison were on a plundering expedition, years of the events occurring (HH 134). The stealthily entered the castle at night. reign was covered in 30 pages in modern Eluding the guards, they threw flaming translation, of which six pages are devoted torches through the windows of the tower, to the Battle of Lincoln, 1141, though in a which may have been timber, setting the classical style mainly consisting of imag- interior alight while they rushed in to ined speeches. Henry wrote history, record- capture it (GS ch. 38). Surprise and an ing important events, but rarely in detail. under strength garrison were the critical factors. The fine stone tower of ashlar at Three other experienced historians, monks Montreuil-au-Houlme (southern Nor- whose writing probably ceased due to their mandy), built to show the builder’s superi- deaths, recorded almost contemporaneously ority by its magnificence, was events early in the reign. William of Malm- unsuccessfully assaulted twice in September esbury’s Historia Novella, (WMHN) was 1136 by Geoffrey of Anjou, who withdrew dedicated to Robert of Gloucester and ends after a number of his men were killed (OV in late 1142. He also was an historian, with vi 467-9). Impressiveness and effectiveness little concern for minor events or siege were not incompatible. Bishop Henry’s warfare. The chronicle of John of Worces- tower within Winchester, which resisted the ter (and Continuator) ends in 1141 (JW), as Angevins in 1141, proved an effective does that of Orderic Vitalis (OV), the main platform for hurling flaming missiles onto source for events in Normandy early in the the city, setting many houses alight (WMHN reign. Robert of Torigni (RT), probably 103). In March 1140 a mercenary com- writing from about 1150, records events in mander, nominally working for Robert of Normandy, but more briefly than Orderic. Gloucester, captured Devizes castle, Wilt- Richard of Hexham’s chronicle describes shire, and many of the garrison, in a surprise Scots incursions and the Battle of the Stand- night attack. When the alarm was raised ard, 1135-9 (RH), and a number of other some men fled to the ‘high tower’. After later writers add details to our knowledge. around four days they surrendered, claiming Clearly, the early years of Stephen’s reign they had no food and that Stephen had given are covered by more sources, in greater them no help (GS ch. 50; JW 287). Four detail, than later years, but even so details days is too short for conditional respite so are often sparse, or chronicles inconsistent. their explanation sounds like an excuse, as Many sieges are only mentioned briefly they were probably offered favourable (occasionally without noting the result), terms. Retreating to a tower, or shell-, some by only one source, some besieged after the was overrun, provided a places are unnamed. A small number are refuge from which, as at Devizes, surrender known from charters being attested at the was typically negotiated. Mentions of great siege. These factors suggest the 270 towers in the sieges of Stephen’s reign are attempts on castles is under estimated. few but there is nothing to suggest any Preliminary Observations: great towers theoretical ‘military deficiencies’ were actu- and conditional respite ally weaknesses. There were two clear examples of conditional respite. In 1142, The attack on Torrington, Devon, occurred Robert of Gloucester agreed the garrison of in 1139. One of Stephen’s supporters, Wareham castle could appeal to Stephen for learning from his scouts that some of the relief by a specific date, or they would

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 192 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54) surrender, because to do so Stephen would during a sudden sally at Stephen’s have had to abandon his siege of Matilda unsuccessful siege of Lincoln castle in 1144 within Oxford Castle (WMHN 131). In 1153 were thus engaged (HH 83). the garrison of Stamford castle, Lincolnshire, There was no example of a moveable siege requested help from Stephen, who was tower in Stephen’s wars (Purton 277), unwilling to raise his siege of Ipswich, Suf- though Lisbon’s defenders surrendered in folk, so Stamford surrendered to Duke Henry 1147 when the Anglo-Norman contingent’s (HH 93). Perhaps there were other cases of siege tower had reached the city wall. Siege conditional respite among the reported sur- towers had been used successfully by renders by agreement, and at the siege of Crusaders since the First Crusade, but it was Newbury (possibly actually Hamstead Mar- a technique requiring a flat and firm shall), Berkshire, in 1152, the defenders approach path and, as a direct assault broke a ‘conditional respite’ type of truce. method conferring no surprise as to point of Preliminary Observations: siege methods attack or timing, often involved the attackers In 1143, part of the late-10th-century great incurring high casualties, followed by a tower at Rouen collapsed. In 1144, Geoffrey blood bath if the city was taken. of Anjou set his siege engines against that Commanders in the wars of Stephen’s reign side of the tower and damaged its roof, lacked destructive weapons, such as the though from Robert of Torigni’s disjointed trebuchet, or engineers skilled in mining, account this had no effect on the siege; techniques only successfully employed Rouen castle surrendered due to supplies from the early 13th century. running low (RT 57-8, 60), and the remote Some ‘broad brush’ conclusions (herein on prospect of relief. Mid-12th-century stone- England only) can be drawn from the siege throwing engines could damage timber data. If resisting attack and retaining structures (like roofs) and be deadly to men, possession of a castle is considered, the but had little impact on stone-built defences. measure of success, castles’ effectiveness Wall breaking engines, notably the was low: only around a quarter (27%) held trebuchet, appear around 50 years later out. But this is highly misleading for a (Purton 355). Mining, an ancient technique, number of reasons, primarily that a was rarely used effectively by western commander only attempted an attack if forces before around 1180. An attack after confident of success (there was, obviously, undermining the wall at Lisbon in 1147, no point in initiating a siege if he thought during the Second Crusade, was he would fail). Initial methods of acquisition unsuccessful. Mining and a siege tower (to might be forms of extortion or trickery that observe activity in the castle) were used at did not require an armed presence at the the siege of Exeter, but neither was castle. Stephen, by arresting magnates at significant; 1136 was a hot summer and the court, obtained a dozen important castles in castle eventually surrendered because its return for their release (including the Tower two wells ran dry. This water shortage also of London and Newark, Nottinghamshire). caused a planned resistance at Carisbrooke In 1136, King David of Scotland, claiming castle, Isle of Wight, to be abandoned (GS to act on behalf of Matilda (his niece), ch. 16, 18, 21). There is no other known convinced the castellans of Carlisle, example of mining in Stephen’s reign, Cumberland, Wark, Alnwick, Norham and unless the eighty workmen buried alive Newcastle, all Northumberland, to cede

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 193 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54) control to him (Bamburgh’s castellan night and eluding the guards (GS ch. 50). In refused). (RH 57) Although in 1136 Hugh late 1140 Stephen’s men took Galclint (uni- Bigod entered castle ‘by stealth’, dentified, perhaps Belvoir, Leicestershire) by he was removed without violence. (HH 68) a stealthy night attack, scaling the wall (JH Some castles were delivered to opponents 16). Nottingham castle was recaptured for as ransoms, notably Sherborne, , in Stephen by his men, with local assistance, 1143 and probably, Nottingham in 1141. scaling the castle rock at night (JH 20). Stephen paid cash to a mercenary band for Christchurch castle, , changed possession of Devizes in 1140. Portchester, hands twice around 1147; first by ‘stealth’, Hampshire, changed hands in a household secondly, after an ambush of part of the coup. (GS ch. 77) Pre-arranged treachery, garrison outside the castle (GS ch. 111). In by which key members of a garrison agreed 1148 Downton, Wiltshire, was taken by to hand control to someone on their arrival stealth (GS ch. 112). A variant on surprise (e.g. Corfe, Dorset, 1139, Durham 1141), was immediate assault, where surprise was or after a sham attack (Plympton, Devon, not necessarily achieved, but the speed of the 1136) was another variant. Overall, these attackers’ advance caught the defending types of methods, used at 31 places (19% of garrison unprepared or understrength so an 162 incidents) achieved almost total success. assault was made on arrival. Trickery could also feature as a form of For example, both campaigns against the surprise attack. The most notable example of two castles on the Isle of Ely, in 1140 and trickery was Earl Ranulf of Chester seizing 1142, largely owed their success to the rapid the royal castle at Lincoln in late 1140. advance of Stephen’s forces (Creighton & Waiting until the garrison was dispersed, his Wright 256-8). In 1147, Stephen took the wife paid a social visit to the castellan’s wife. ‘castle of the wood’ (?Silchester, Hamp- Ranulf, unarmed, but with three companions, shire) by ‘storm, arriving unexpectedly’, and arrived to escort his wife away. The compan- re-took Lidelea (probably Crondall, north ions then overpowered the guards, while Hampshire), which the Angevins had cap- hidden reinforcements rushed up, and the tured by a ‘trick’ (GS ch. 109). Angevins castle was taken (OV vi 539). Surprise ‘arrived suddenly’ to defeat besiegers of attacks were common. The Scots invasion Cary, Somerset, in late 1147 (GS ch. 110). of 1138 began with a night attack on Wark Reports of arriving ‘in haste’, ‘suddenly’, or (repulsed) (RH 60). Two attempted attacks ‘unexpectedly’ were common and, particu- were launched from Bristol on the royal city larly at smaller and temporary castles, were of Bath, Somerset, in 1138, when they often followed by assaults. The most signif- arrived unexpectedly at dawn, (GS ch. 28) icant impact of surprise occurred at Wilton and in 1140, when the defenders ambushed in 1143, where Stephen had begun to build the attackers (JW 291). Stephen captured a counter castle to blockade Old Sarum, Harptree, Somerset, in 1138 by a manoeuvre Wiltshire. Robert of Gloucester, with an that drew part of the garrison from the castle ‘unexpectedly large’ army ‘suddenly before he made a surprise attack (GS ch. 31). attacked’ and overwhelmed Stephen’s men Malmesbury castle was taken ‘stealthily, by (HH 82, incorrectly recorded in 1142). night’ in 1139 by a band of mercenaries Overall, surprise or immediate assault was (WMHN 63). The same band captured the most common method of attack, used in Devizes in 1140, climbing leather ladders at 47 incidents (29% of the total).

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 194 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54)

Surprise was an aspect of other incidents: Bridgnorth surrendered immediately after nobles did not expect to be arrested at court, Shrewsbury in 1138). In a dozen cases we a habit that undermined trust in Stephen, and have no detail as to how a castle was taken, ransomed lords had often been apprehended though can surmise attackers were present in ambushes. The attacks on the towns of in sufficient strength to carry out their Nottingham in 1140, and Cambridge, 1143, threats. Some sieges were abandoned were surprise attacks, and immediate assault (Stephen at Dudley, Staffordshire, 1138, was the overwhelmingly effective method Worcester 1150), or aborted due to enemy of attacking a town. Towns that successfully forces approaching (Durham, 1136). This resisted were the special case of catch-all category, Direct Threat, amounts Wallingford, town and castle resolute to 33 events (21% of the total). against Stephen, Bath, garrisoned as a royal Blockade by siege or counter castle, base early in the reign, Lincoln, whose sometimes with multiple siege castles, a citizens defeated Ranulf of Chester in 1147, technique the Norman’s used before the and York, where deterrence prevailed in Conquest, was used at around 15 places (9% 1149. Some attacks, where the attackers’ of the total), with a capture rate of only a strategic intent was not to establish control, quarter (27%). Some documented sieges were essentially plundering raids (e.g. lack mention of a siege castle, but remaining Worcester 1140, Tewkesbury 1140, earthworks suggest their use, e.g. Corfe Cambridge 1143, and Nottingham 1153). 1139. Archaeology also provides evidence Others were attempts to obtain mastery over for possible siege works at places without both town and its castle (e.g. Wareham 1142 recorded sieges (Creighton and Wright 53- by Stephen, Oxford 1142, Malmesbury, 62 analyses siege castles). Siege castles were 1144 and 1153, and Worcester 1150). In the generally built close to their target. John of latter case, castle and town, only the attack Worcester states Stephen raised antecastellis on the castle is in my figures (to avoid (‘before’ or ‘in front of’ castles) at double counting), so the 13 attacks on towns Wallingford in 1139 (JW 273), but this was are therefore an understatement. unusual terminology. Overwhelmingly, If surprise had not been achieved and a chroniclers make no distinction between besieger was reluctant to attempt immediate siege castles and other castles, another assault there were usually attempts at different perspective to some modern negotiation, including threats and possibly scholars. Counter castles were existing bribery. A possibility that required a captive castles, up to around 10 miles distant, given lord or castellan was to threaten to hang him a strengthened garrison to keep the target’s unless his castle was surrendered. This, used garrison in check by raids and ambushes. in six cases, was similar to extortion except Siege and counter castles are included the gallows were erected in front of the together because their functions were castle. Flemish mercenaries usually took fundamentally the same. Siege castles oaths not to surrender castles they occupied, defended relatively small forces in the so at least two mercenary commanders were vicinity of a target to exert pressure, hanged in front of ‘their’ castles. Around 10 minimise hostile raids and locally ravage, castles surrendered by negotiation. Minor while the main force moved on to other castles often surrendered following the targets. This was not primarily a technique capture of a major castle nearby (e.g. for taking target castles, hence the very low

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 195 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54)

‘capture’ rate. Ludlow in 1139 seems to Winchester, restricting supplies and causing have been the only important castle subdued famine in the city. Matilda’s supporters by (two) siege castles. Burwell was occupied Wherwell nunnery, probably to successful as a siege castle (of the fens) in establish a supply route Around 14 that Geoffrey de Mandeville, then Stephen’s September 1141, Wherwell was attacked and opponent, was mortally wounded in 1144 its church burned down by Stephen’s attacking it. supporters. The Angevins tried to break out of the blockade; Matilda escaped, but Robert Investment, or ‘set-piece’ sieges involving of Gloucester, leading the rearguard, was tight blockades, could be long, from a few captured. This unusual and complex siege weeks to months. Sometimes there are involved two bishops’ castles, a royal castle, references to assaults, engines, showers of a temporary strongpoint (Wherwell), stones, and sallies from the defenders, and Andover (burned down) and the devastation sometimes these sieges were apparently of a major city. ‘stand-offs’, ended by supply shortages. Negotiation was the common method of Investments, and therefore long sieges, were resolution. relatively rare, undertaken if the target’s capture was considered to be a critical Establishing siege duration can be difficult, objective. Considerations in commencing an so some of this category’s 23 incidents (14% investment (in addition to confidence of of total incidents), with a 65% capture rate, success) were: a long siege was expensive, the may have been short. Two investments besiegers had to be able to supply themselves, were particularly important. Following and they had to resist enemy forces which Ranulf of Chester seizing Lincoln castle, might ambush foragers, re-supply the Stephen rushed to retake it. By surprise he defenders or attack units of the besieging captured some knights in the city but failed forces, vulnerable because they were static. to take the castle and settled on investment, Camps of besiegers were also vulnerable to preparing engines. On 2 February 1141, boredom, desertions and sometimes disease. after around four weeks of the siege, Robert An investment meant foregoing actions of Gloucester’s relieving army arrived and elsewhere (unlike blockade by siege or counter defeated and captured Stephen. In August, castle), but allowed enemies elsewhere to Matilda’s forces, based in Winchester castle, attack the besiegers’ allies, confident they attacked Henry, ’s would not be faced by the besiegers’ main castles within Winchester (Wolvesey Castle force. This was a perennial problem for and his centrally positioned ), Stephen. Once he committed resources to one because she blamed him for thwarting her campaign area, say Wiltshire, enemies such as progress to the crown. While the bishop Ranulf of Chester would attack in Lincolnshire organised help from Stephen’s allies and or Hugh Bigod would cause trouble in Suffolk. used his vast wealth to employ mercenaries, Stephen campaigned to Northumberland, to his men in the tower flung firebrands onto Cornwall, to Hereford, to Ely etc. so there was the city. The resulting fires, and fighting scope for such trouble. within the city, eventually burnt much of the city, including 40 churches and two Preliminary Observations: castle strength monasteries (JW 299). Meanwhile, the Creighton and Wright make the important bishop’s allies, superior in numbers, observation that chroniclers’ perspectives on organised a wide blockade of routes into

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 196 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54) castles were different from modern scholars. surrounding area before moving on to Specifics of design and construction of simpler targets, including investing Cary, defences were of limited concern; whether Somerset, which submitted because it was defences were timber or stone was rarely inadequately provisioned (the defenders had mentioned. Instead, a castle was described expected Stephen to be preoccupied as strong usually by virtue of its setting, besieging Bristol). Stephen’s army was ‘their physical positioning in the landscape’ large enough to deter a relief expedition and quality of its garrison. The physical from Bristol (GS ch. 27, 30-1). attributes of the Isles of Ely and Portland A well-provisioned, well-garrisoned, strong provided defensive potential that chroniclers castle, especially an urban castle where likened to castles (Creighton and Wright 84, townspeople were committed to their lord, 85). This different perspective has relevance could be immensely difficult to take. And to the interpretation of ‘impregnable’. We with allies who could mount relieving tend to think in terms of strength of defences expeditions strong castles could be and siting, and that no was transformed into practically ‘impregnable’. impregnable because the garrison could be Lincoln 1141, Bishop Henry’s castles in starved out. The chroniclers’ viewpoint was Winchester 1141, and Wallingford in 1153 that the strength of a castle was variable, (below) were invested castles relieved, as depending on circumstances, notably the was Coventry castle in 1147 by Stephen, state of the garrison. And circumstances who fought his way through Ranulf’s might endow a fortification as impregnable ambushes, in one of which Stephen was in practical terms. Although a garrison could wounded (GS ch. 104). Stephen made be starved out, this could be a lengthy unsuccessful attempts to relieve Hereford process during which the besiegers could castle (twice) and Malmesbury in 1153. experience the problems outlined in the Angevins failed to relieve Oxford in 1142 previous paragraph. and Faringdon in 1145, possibly due to A long siege in enemy territory would have treachery curtailing the siege. The garrison been particularly difficult. In 1138, while of Wark, Northumberland, conducted a Robert of Gloucester was still in Normandy, magnificent defence against the Scots Stephen approached Robert’s power base in throughout 1138, surrendering on the orders England, Bristol. The Gesta gives a of their lord because he could not organise description of the strength of the city’s a relief expedition. Most investments ended situation, protected by two rivers, with the in negotiated surrender because it became powerful castle blocking the only clear relief would not be forthcoming (e.g. convenient approach. Its height, walls and Bedford 1137/8, Leeds, Kent, 1138 and towers (though not specifically its great Pevensey, Sussex, in 1147). In 1139 Stephen tower) were noted, as were defensive abandoned his siege of Marlborough, engines. Its many fierce defenders, cavalry, Wiltshire, to rush to Arundel on Matilda’s foot soldiers, robbers and brigands, were landing in England. He abandoned his siege emphasised. The Gesta also reports the of Lincoln castle in 1144 due to the suggestions put to Stephen’s council of war devastating results of a sally by the as to how they might attack the city. defenders. At Shrewsbury in 1138, Stephen, Deterrence prevailed, Stephen abandoned after a month’s investment, took the castle his siege attempt and instead laid waste the by assault and executed the captured

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 197 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54) garrison of 94 men (OV vi 521-3) This was assault captured a siege castle. In 1146, the very unusual, but a reminder of a blockade’s purpose was to check the fundamental ‘law’ of siege warfare, that the garrisons ‘accustomed raids through the lives of defenders and people within a castle district’ (GS ch. 42-3, 94). Stephen’s one or town taken by storm were at the mercy serious attempt to take a core Angevin of the attackers. Those besieged within the stronghold was his third siege of royal castle of Dover heeded the warning Wallingford, 1152-3, which failed due to the and surrendered (HH 70). Normally, the arrival of Duke Henry’s relieving army. lords of castles did not remain in their Two castles that still enable us to get an castles when besieged by investment, impression of what comprised a first-rate because they personally were a target. They mid-12th-century fortress-castle are the ruins entrusted the defence to their close family of Sherborne (water barriers surrounding its and retainers. The latter wished to fulfil their stone defences and great tower) and Lincoln obligations of loyalty to their lord and (massive motte-and-bailey earthworks uphold their own reputations, not fight to surmounted by stone defences). Sherborne the death. Their duty was to hold out for a Castle, strategically placed between the reasonable time (under the circumstances) Dorset ports and Bristol, changed hands to allow their lord to organise relief or settle twice: Stephen obtained it in 1139 by the dispute with the besieger. In this context, arresting its lord, the bishop of Salisbury, and surrender, as at Wark, was not necessarily the Angevins acquired it in 1143 as a ransom failure. When to surrender was an issue of for Stephen’s steward, , judgement, balancing strength of castle and captured at Wilton. Neither side attempted garrison, likelihood of relief, the terms to obtain it by assault or investment. Around offered etc. Some garrisons were criticised six attempts were made on Lincoln, including for surrendering too easily e.g. Norham in by assault and investment. It only changed 1138, even though its garrison was under hands twice, Ranulf of Chester’s trickery in strength and inexperienced (RH 63-4). 1140, and Stephen recovering it in 1146 by Another way to appreciate the potential extortion after arresting Ranulf at court; strength of certain castles is to consider Ranulf had been reconciled with Stephen some castles Stephen did not besiege. The earlier in the year. Angevin heartland was Gloucestershire, Preliminary Observations: extent of notably Bristol and Gloucester, but with conflict and impact on ordinary people Wallingford (then Berkshire) forming an exposed eastern salient in the Thames The verdict of historians has, for some valley. The only time Stephen contemplated decades, been that the civil war was a siege against Bristol was in 1138 (noted intermittent and left much of the realm above). He never threatened Gloucester. untroubled. David Crouch concluded his Wallingford was nominally besieged three excellent biography by stating Stephen times but the first two, in 1139 and 1146, ‘spent eight years of his nineteen-year reign were by siege castles, the technique for fighting a bitter war in a corner of his containing, not capturing, castles and towns. kingdom with a dynastic rival. Apart from In 1139 Stephen’s intent was to contain one disastrous campaign (presumably Wallingford while his main force advanced Lincoln 1141), he limited the war to that to Wiltshire. However, an Angevin night corner, and after 1148 could be said to have

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 198 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54) expelled his rival, the empress, and achieved trast, the impact on the population of the a dominant edge over his opponents, even north-west is understated by siege statistics. if outright victory eluded him’ (Crouch The counties of Cumberland, Westmorland, 341-2). While the comments from ‘after Lancashire and Cheshire muster one ‘siege’ 1148’ are reasonable, the earlier section incident between them: King David’s seizure appears inconsistent with Crouch’s main of Carlisle in 1136, and the locality probably text. What about the Scots invasions of accepted David’s rule reasonably easily as northern England in 1138? Ranulf of they had not been integrated into the Norman Chester’s dogged pursuit of Lincoln? Hugh state. In 1138 Scots invaded northern Lan- Bigod in Suffolk? Geoffrey de Mandeville cashire, defeating an Anglo-Norman force at in the fens? And Henry Plantagenet’s Clitheroe, and ravaged areas of western campaigns of 1149 and 1153 in the Yorkshire around Skipton, which they cer- ‘Angevin corner’ and the Midlands? These tainly controlled in 1151. From 1138 they disorders were linked to the dynastic presumably began to establish control over struggle, and Henry’s campaigns were an the honour of Lancaster, held by Stephen extension of it. Creighton and Wright’s before he was king and granted by him to assessment of the geographical spread of Ranulf of Chester, probably in 1140 when conflict extends beyond the ‘Angevin trying to buy his support (Crouch 2000 139). corner’ to hotspots such as the Isle of Ely, This would have led to confrontation which they consider in an excellent case between the Scots and Ranulf, who also study, and Yorkshire, with scatterings in claimed, on weak grounds, Carlisle; they other areas, which to me rather negates their reached a compromise only in 1149 (Crouch idea of conflict as ‘tightly focussed in 2000 137, 242). Unfortunately, details of distinct regions’ (Creighton and Wright 34, events in the region are sparse. The peaceful- 38; Isle of Ely 251-78). ness of Cheshire is misleading because in this Assuming the ‘Angevin corner’ to be the 11 period Cheshire extended into what later pre-1974 counties of Herefordshire, Glouces- became north-east Wales (Swallow 2018-19 tershire, Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset, Devon 113 and fig. 1, 114-5). The Welsh made (roughly the heartlands), and ‘border’ coun- gains, notably capturing Mold castle, 11 ties of Cornwall, Hampshire, Berkshire, miles (18km) west of Chester, in 1146. Oxfordshire and Worcestershire, the database Raiding was carried out from castles. There records 83 incidents (51% of 162 total) in the was no ‘front-line’ and zones of conflict, region. Events occurred in this region in 17 across which raiders roamed, radiated from years of Stephen’s reign, the exceptions castles held by opposing sides. These could being 1137 and 1154. Wiltshire, 19 events be between opponents’ castles e.g. in 9 years, was the county worst affected. Of Malmesbury (held by Stephen’s men 1139- course, this is not unexpected. More surpris- 53), lies approximately in the middle of a ing is the 79 events spread across the North triangle formed by Bristol, Gloucester and (23), the Midlands (25), Cambridgeshire Marlborough (Angevin fortresses), within (notably the Isle of Ely), Huntingdonshire some 25 miles (40km) from each. This sort and East Anglia (17), Bedfordshire (5), and of patchwork existed elsewhere, notably the London and the south-east (9). The impact Midlands, where there was significant of the sieges in the south-east on local people conflict (events spanned 10 years). Armies was likely to have been minimal. By con- had to march to (and from) every castle

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 199 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54) besieged or seized, be supported by because those on the streets were taken reinforcements and also obtain supplies from captive, died when the churches burnt down localities they passed through. Stephen’s (JW 291-3). After the battle of Lincoln in numerous expeditions to Durham, Yorkshire, 1141 many citizens fled and tried to cross the Lincolnshire, Coventry etc. all involved River Witham by boats, but, overcrowded, armies moving significant distances, and many capsized. Up to 500 drowned, more through the East Midlands. Ranulf’s men than were killed in the battle. Meanwhile the must have frequently marched west-east Angevins sacked the city like barbarians, between Chester and his perennial target, capturing and killing other inhabitants (OV Lincoln. Achieving surprise often meant vi 545-7). After the siege of Winchester the attacks were launched from some distance victorious Londoners and others sacked what away. There were therefore many armed remained of the city, in a terrible manner, bands, frequently mounted, moving across carrying off spoil and countless captives (GS the country, as well as magnates with their ch. 66). Both Worcester, in 1150, and Not- bodyguards, to avoid capture in ambushes. tingham, in 1153, were sacked a second time. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that villagers Generally towns taken were partially burned fled if two or three riders came to their village, and plundered. fearing they were robbers (ASC 265). Clearly, All chronicles must be treated with caution, everyday life would be disrupted even if they of course. Reports of depredations on weren’t raiders, foragers, harbingers, church property in many cases involved irregulars, or criminal gangs. them having to pay protection money or What was the impact of the disorders on taxes rather than destruction of property, ordinary people? Other chroniclers have though churches and monasteries were passages similar to the Anglo-Saxon Chron- sometimes turned into temporary fortifica- icle’s lament. William of Malmesbury’s tions. The Gesta Stephani describes the account is generalised, but that was the guileless Bishop of Bath being kidnapped nature of his history (WMHN 71-3). The at a parley and threatened with hanging (GS other ‘classical’ historian, Henry of ch. 28). but generally clergy would have Huntingdon, ‘with lamentation and terror’, expected to have been treated better than composed a poem, included in the annal for laymen. However, it was reported at a 1140, about arson, robbery, pillage, murder council in March 1143, that clergy were and torture of women, in a realm without being taken and ransomed just like laymen. peace (HH 74-5). John of Worcester gave The council decree that only the pope could an eyewitness account of the sack of absolve those who laid violent hands on the Worcester in 1139, noting houses burnt, clergy eased the situation (HH 82). Dis- much booty carried off, stolen livestock and putes within the church could be violent. prisoners abducted for ransom roped The Continuator of Symeon of Durham’s together and lead away (JW 273-5). Those History of the Church of Durham added a who took refuge within Worcester Cathe- detailed account of William Cumin’s dral, carrying chests, sacks and furniture, increasingly desperate and violent attempts seem to have been unharmed. But, when a to become bishop of Durham, 1141-44. It serious fire took hold during the sack of reads more like a criminal gang war, involv- Nottingham in 1140, many of those who had ing forgery, theft, intimidation, kidnap- taken refuge in churches and dared not leave, pings, extortion and murders as well as

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 200 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54) small scale armies confronting each other, numberless poor as well as rich, to whom it generally at fortified places (a number of afforded the necessities of life’. Atrocities which were churches). Men were seized in were reported by other chroniclers though broad daylight, even ‘the nobler sort’. Muti- Richard prefixes the most lurid (e.g. Scots lation, starvation and tortures, including the drinking the blood of murdered children) with rack and being crushed with stones, were ‘it is said’, suggesting scepticism. But he inflicted (SDEx 299-301, 315-17; Goodall states the abductions of women from raids 2011 120-3 summarises this dispute). into Yorkshire, carried off to be distributed Orderic’s monastery was at Saint-Evroul, as slaves along with other booty, were greater southern Normandy. In May 1136 brigands than other wars (RH 60-4). David’s immunity began stealing livestock nearby. Townsmen for Hexham Abbey became worthless when rushed to the scene, captured some and the Scots army disintegrated after their defeat dispensed instant justice by hanging seven of at the battle of the Standard. Three of the them. However, the brigands had been appro- abbey’s servants were killed when villages in priating supplies for the local lord, who the vicinity of Hexham were plundered (RH retaliated by plundering Saint-Evroul. 84 69-70). During peace initiatives the papal houses were burnt and flames just stopped legate managed to secure the release of some short of the monastery (OV vi 461-3). of the abducted women and obtained from Orderic describes the Angevin invasions, David a promise that, in future, only those including the ravaging and burning of vil- engaged in actual conflict would be slain (RH lages and churches, in some detail. The 72). defenders of the city of Lisieux burned it to Some Preliminary Conclusions stop the Angevins benefiting from plundering Henry Plantagenet won the dynastic strug- it. Protection money was extorted from gle, despite Stephen having the upper hand monasteries. He notes ravaging that reduced by 1148. Partly, this was due to Henry’s helpless people to destitution, because raiders personal abilities, but he only had the oppor- carried off the necessities of life (OV vi 515), tunity because Robert of Gloucester, com- and the burning of Breteuil at threshing time manding fewer resources, was a better in a surprise attack (OV vi 525). His account general than Stephen and was not decisively contains details of minor actions in the coun- defeated. Geoffrey of Anjou’s methodical tryside and named villages which we rarely approach gained him mastery of Normandy have for England. The Gesta Stephani by 1145, a critical aspect of the conflict. records how in 1149, around Salisbury, Stephen’s many opponents proved too much Marlborough and Devizes, Stephen and his for him so that, although the wars were men burnt houses, churches and all the crops similar in nature and conduct as other Anglo- reaped and stacked in the fields and destroyed Norman warfare, they were of far longer everything edible they could find, even duration. A major reason for Stephen’s ulti- though Stephen knew it was evil (GS ch. 114). mate failure, in military terms, was the defen- The Scots ‘murdered everywhere persons of sive attributes of castles and the difficulty of both sexes…plundered and burnt towns… taking first-rate fortresses, particularly where with sword and fire’, during their invasion they involved long ‘investment’ sieges at a of Northumberland in 1138. King David distance from his main base, London, and granted immunity to Richard of Hexham’s especially if the besieged had allies who monastery, which became a refuge ‘to could mount relieving expeditions.

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 201 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54)

Political map of Wales and southern England in Britain in 1153 based on J. Bradbury's Stephen 1140, based on J. Bradbury's Stephen and and Matilda, 1996, p. 79 and p. 160: red: areas Matilda, 1996, p. 79 and p. 160: red: areas broadly under Stephen’s control, blue: Angevin, under Stephen’s control, blue: Matilda, grey: grey: indigenous Welsh, cream: Ranulf of indigenous Welsh. Please note sources and Chester and Robert of Leicester, green: David I caveats mentioned under Bibliography (Maps). of Scotland.

Twelfth-century castle warfare involved a and local disputes flaring, there was fighting paradox; the main component, castles, at some point across virtually all the occupied fixed positions, but the country, and the frequent appearance of prosecution of war, by raiding parties, small bands of riders would have spread fear generally operating from castles, involved across the realm. In contrast, after initial mobility, speed and surprise. Taking castles disturbances in 1100-2, Henry I’s reign in was important, but difficult. Initial attempts England was peaceful for over 30 years. were often through negotiation or extortion; When central authority was weak magnates the favoured method of attack on a castle assumed power, but they too sometimes was surprise or overwhelming assault at experienced difficulties in controlling events relatively minor castles. Ultimately, for and their men. Castellans, usually trying to success, major castles controlling territory secure hereditary rights to their position if they had to be taken, hence there were a few long were not actually the lord, occupied positions sieges. Sometimes such sieges give an of power and authority, and extended their impression of static war, but most twelfth- local control if they could. Castles were century war was not static, but dynamic, symbols of lordship, of status, of authority, destructive, and in Stephen’s reign, and therefore vital possessions of the prolonged and widespread. This was not aristocracy, but, in a period of considerable evenly spread; the ‘Angevin corner’ military use, also of power. And where power witnessed more war than other regions and bore down hard upon the people, castles the most destructive phase on towns and became symbols of oppression. cities seems to have been 1139-41, but, with extensive weakening of central authority Richard Hulme

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 202 Siege Warfare in King Stephen’s reign (1135-54)

Bibliography Abbreviations and Primary Sources Secondary Sources CSG. Castle Studies Group ASC The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle translated and edited by Michael Swanton, Coulson, C., Castles in Medieval Society Dent 1996. Oxford University Press, 2004 GS Gesta Stephani edited and translated by Creighton, O. H., and Wright, D. W., The K. R. Potter, introduction and notes by R. Anarchy: War and Status in 12th-century H. C. Davis, Oxford 1976 Landscapes of Conflict Liverpool University Press, 2016 HH Henry of Huntingdon, The History of the English People 1000-1154 translated by Crouch, D., The Reign of King Stephen, Diana Greenway, Oxford Univ Press 2002 1135-1154 Longman 2000 (the complete Latin text and translation by Goodall, J., The English Castle Yale 2011 Greenway was published in 1996) King, D. J. C. Castellarium Anglicanum 2 JW The Chronicle of John of Worcester vol. vols. Kraus 1983 III edited and translated by P. McGurk Liddiard, R., Castles in Context Windgather Oxford 1998 2005 OV The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Purton, P., A History of the Early Medieval Vitalis edited and translated by Marjorie Siege c. 450-1220 Boydell 2009 Chibnall, 6 volumes, Oxford 1969-90 Swallow, R. E., ‘Cheshire Castles in RH ‘Richard of Hexham, The Acts of King Context: Some Conclusions’ in CSG Journal Stephen, and the Battle of the Standard’ in 32, 2018-19, pp. 111-136. Contemporary Chronicles of the , translated by Joseph Stephenson, Maps: Llanerch 1988, pp. 53-76 (facsimile reprint The maps are in public domain and are from The Church Historians of England of sourced from Wikipedia Commons. The the 1850s) political maps of England / Britain in 1140 RT The Chronicle of Robert de Monte and 1153 are based on data in Jim (Robert of Torigni) translated by Joseph Bradbury's book Stephen and Matilda, Stevenson, Llanerch 1991 (facsimile reprint 1996, p. 79 and p. 160. The plans are from The Church Historians of England of inevitably approximate. Scots influence the 1850s) extended further south than shown and Ranulf, earl of Chester and Robert, earl of SDEx Symeon of Durham: Libellus De Leicester, controlling the land coloured Exordio Atqve Procvrsv Istivs, Hoc Est cream in 1153, were allies of Duke Henry Dvnhelmensis, Ecclesie (Tract on the in his campaigns of 1153. Origins and Progress of this the church of Durham) edited and translated by David Rollason, Oxford 2000 WMHN Historia Novella of William of Malmesbury edited Edmund King, translated by K. R. Potter, Oxford 1998

THE CASTLE STUDIES GROUP JOURNALTHE NO CASTLE 29: 2015-16 STUDIES GROUP JOURNAL NO 33: 2019-20 203