Page images
PDF
EPUB

could.' Before the summer was over, Angers and Tours were completely in French hands, nor is it a coincidence that at the same time, while the whole valley of the lower Loire was given over to ruin and anarchy, Philip Augustus was able to lay hands on Normandy with a new, almost a serene confidence. It is important, therefore, to fix our attention in the first place upon the southern conflict.

For some months after the capture of Arthur and Philip's retreat from Arques, John's vigorous rally met with some success.3 Tours was occupied by mercenaries, and its temporary surrender to Philip only provoked a new attack. In the course of the siege which followed Philip's departure for France the Château-neuf was destroyed, and the French garrison in the city was forced to surrender. Le Mans and Angers, as well as the chief castles of Touraine and northern Poitou had been secured without any difficulty,5 by the aid of Guy of Thouars, William de l'Etang, the seneschal of Poitou and others. The great administration of William des Roches was divided: Girard d'Athée becoming seneschal of Touraine, and Brice the Chamberlain the seneschal of

1. Rot. Pat., 25b, 31; Richard, Comtes de Poitou, ii, 421. A Gascon loan was, however, raised in Normandy this year. (Cf. Rot. Scacc., ii, 545; Rot. Norm., 92).

2. Annals of St. Aubin (Halphen, p. 21), “Deinde de die in diem multiplicata est miseria in regionibus Cenomannie, Pictavie, et Andegavie et Britannie, ita ut, villis et castris et oppidis depredatis et combustis, nulli etati aut conditione parceretur."

3. The modern authorities are, beside Richard and Lecointre-Dupont, the article by Gaston Dubois on Guillaume des Roches in the Bibliothéque de l'ecole des Chartes, xxx, xxxii, and especially xxxiv, 502 seqq. ; and Beautemps-Beaupré's note in his Coutumes de l'Anjou, etc., part ii, vol. iii, p. 241.

4. Chroniques de Touraine, i, 147–49.

5. See the letters in Rot. Pat., 17.

Anjou. 1 Yet John's position was by no means secure. The leader of an important band of mercenaries, Martin Algais, was defeated and captured, and in spite of his release the band seems to have been put hors de combat.2 Much more serious were the occupation of Angers by William des Roches on the 30th October, and a simultaneous movement upon Tours by the lord of Amboise, which resulted in the confinement of the garrison to the castle. 4

Б

3

These disasters must have strengthened John's desire to come to an understanding with the house of Lusignan. From the outset a distinction had been made between the company of Hugh le Brun and the rest of the prisoners, and after long negotiations, in which the count of Eu seems to have taken part, 5 Hugh was allowed to buy his freedom early in 1203. Unfortunately the king did not buy his loyalty; and more than one contemporary writer speaks in severe terms of his misplaced leniency." That John hoped to establish himself on the basis of an alliance with the Poitevins seems very likely when we consider that the old rival of the Lusignans, the viscount of Limoges, was kept in strict captivity at Chinon,"

1. Rot. Pat., 17 a and b. In consequence of Brice's promotion, the castle of Tillières in Normandy was entrusted to Roger de Montbegun (ibid, 18).

2. See Richard's ingenious deductions from the entries in the Patent Rolls, Comtes de Poitou, ii, 414-15. Martin Algais was made seneschal of Gascony and Périgord on December 4th, these provinces being cut off from the administration of Robert of Turnham (Rot. Pat., 21). Cf. above p. 40.

3. Annals of Saint-Aubin (Halphen, 20, 21). Cf. Coggeshall, p. 139. 4. Chron. de Touraine, i, 149. These events kept John in Saumur or Chinon from the last part of October until the beginning of December. 5. The count apparently came from France to negotiate; safe conduct in Rot. Pat., 20. Richard (ii, 417) erroneously states that he was a prisoner. See above p. 225.

6. e.g., Guillaume le Maréchal, iii, 170; Coggeshall, p. 138.

7. For his capture, see letters in Rot. Pat., 18; Richard, ii, 412.

and that John so readily dispensed with the inconvenient services of William des Roches. Moreover, since the king had now succeeded peacefully to the inheritance of Angoulême, and could rely upon a loyal administration in the rest of Aquitaine, he had every inducement to renew good relations with the house of Lusignan, and less reason to fear it.1 It is, finally, of significance that he was beginning to look still farther afield. In a begging letter written on 8th September to the clergy of the province of Canterbury, he refers joyfully to the renewal of an alliance between himself and the Emperor Otto, and anticipates much good to his fortunes from the friendship of pope and emperor. 2 Throughout the year his envoys had been busy at the Roman court. Also during the following months, negotiations began for the restoration of an alliance with Castile. 4

In the absence of any consecutive evidence, it is not possible to follow the changes in John's mind; but even if he had been a more resolute man than he was, the time was not opportune for far-reaching schemes. Outside Anjou and Touraine, the defences of Normandy called for attention, they were especially weak in the Evrecin 5. and the Bretons, having failed to come to an arrangement

1. For the administration of Angoulême, see above p. 43. It is not probable that La Marche was restored to Hugh le Brun. Richard summarises the letters which describe the negotiations with the Lusignans. I refer to them in another connection, see below p. 360.

2. Rot. Pat., 18.

3. Rot. Pat., 5a, 10b, 26; letters of credit of January 21 and May 16, 1202, February, 1203.

4. John had received favourable news of these negotiations before April 5th, 1203 (ibid, 28).

5. The statements in Guillaume le Maréchal, iii, 171, about John's fear of traitors in the marches east of Verneuil, and his detour in travelling from Verneuil to Rouen must be placed over against the reference to the well defended marches in the Annals of Winchester (Ann. Monast., ii, 78, 79).

The

for the release of Arthur,1 were preparing for war. letters enrolled upon the Patent Rolls reveal the fact that, in spite of his hopes of support from pope and emperor, John tried at the end of December, while holding his court at Caen, and doubtless on the advice of his counsellors, to arrange for a conference with Philip. 3 Contrary to custom the autumn campaign had ended without a truce. But the king of France saw his way clear; he must already have begun to intrigue with the Norman barons who deserted John early in 1203, and to have realised the advantage which he could gain from the anxiety felt in Brittany and the neighbouring counties about the fate of Arthur. He, therefore, refused terms, and both kings began to prepare for the decisive campaign. The Christmas court at Caen was the last great feast held by a duke of the line of Rollo in a united Normandy. Already the unrest caused by Arthur's imprisonment had spread from Anjou and Brittany. On August 24th the king had issued a sinister warning to the barons of Brittany that Arthur was the pledge of their good behaviour;5 and it was probably early in December that the untrue story

1. An attempt was made in the end of August. Letter to Alan Fitzcount, etc., of August 24 (Rot. Pat., 17a-b).

2. The Bretons were allied with the Angevins (Guillaume le Maréchal, iii, 171). Deserters from Normandy were in Brittany in December, e.g., Guy of Laval in Britannia contra nos (Rot. Pat., 21b).

3. On December 26, John sent William du Hommet the constable and others to Philip, as persons in whom Philip may have faith "de treuga et de colloquio inter vos et nos capiendo" (Rot. Pat., 22).

[ocr errors]

4. Rigord, i, 153. Cf. below p. 459. A note in Rot. Norm., 65, shows that earlier in December there had been talk of a truce. "Mandatum est constabulis de Marchia Normannie quod de treuga inter dominum Regem et Regem Francie tenenda faciant quod Rogerus de Thoni et Petrus de Rupibus Thesaurarius Pictavie eis simul mandabunt."

5. Rot. Pat., 17b. The letter of safe conduct concludes "mandamus autem vobis quod nihil faciatis unde malum eveniat nobis vel Arturo nepoti nostro."

of Arthur's mutilation and death began to spread abroad.1 The Bretons demanded justice of King Philip. In spite of the assertion in the chronicle of Coggeshall, it is probable that the defections which began at this time were due to the example of Bretons and Angevins, and the revelations of John's cruelty and lack of purpose rather than to special interest in the future of Arthur. The biographer of William the Marshal speaks of treachery as of a kind of epidemic which afflicted Normandy, and especially the districts bordering on Maine, at this time.4 The reaction had begun against the rule of Henry II. Yet the interest created by Arthur certainly formed the nucleus of disaffection, and John found it expedient to remove him from Falaise to Rouen at the end of January. He was too late to divert the suspicions of the Bretons.

5

In the meanwhile John had made preparations with a view to a southern campaign. Stores and troops were collected at Argentan, one of the most suitable centres in Normandy from which to start on a southern expedition, and a general levy was called out to meet at the same place. But disasters began before his preparations were 1. Below p. 456. Hubert de Burgh, so far as the scanty references to him in the records testify, was employed elsewhere in October, but was at Falaise later. John's movements prove nothing, since he was not in Falaise between the first half of August, when he took Arthur there, and the end of January, 1203.

[ocr errors]

2. Coggeshall, p. 141.

3. It must be remembered that the vast majority of our authorities are uncertain whether Arthur was murdered or not. There seems to be no doubt that he had legally forfeited his territory. He had done homage to John in May, 1200 (Howden, iv, 115).

4. Guillaume le Maréchal, iii, 170, on the tournés; Gervase of Canterbury, ii, 95.

5. Coggeshall, p. 143. John was at Falaise on January 30th, and stayed till February 1st, 1203. It is significant that this step immediately followed the treachery of the count of Séez.

6. The advantages of Argentan, as a meeting place, will be obvious to anyone who, like the writer, has followed the road from Falaise and noted its relation to the other Norman roads. The evidence for the

« PreviousContinue »