Page images


his future allegiance had been left to his own choice. In the reign of King John this important baron was to acquire an evil reputation as a man of both sides : 2 the position of his lands, which stretched along the rivers Epte and Bresle and included scattered manors in the French dioceses of Amiens and Beauvais,3 almost forced upon their possessor the policy of the trimmer. Lying between the two countries, Gournai was frequently selected as a suitable spot for tournaments; 4 and its local law suggested a habit of detachment from the customs of Normandy and France. Naturally it was always one of the first places to be attacked, and after the loss of Gisors was in still more dangerous proximity to the French. King Richard was fortunate in being able to reckon upon the services of the lord of Gournai.

William of Caïeux (Kaeu) 6 also returned to his allegiance, and figures impressively in the exchequer roll of 1198.? The defection of this baron had stirred King Richard to vehement reproaches during his captivity. Although primarily a vassal of the count of Flanders, William's extensive lands in Normandy made him a strik

[ocr errors]

1. “De Hugoni de Gornai ita erit : hominagium ejus remanet regi Francie ad vitam dicti Hugonis, nisi voluerit redire ad nos et post mortem ejusdem Hugonis debet totum feodum suum de Normannia ad nos et heredes nostros redire . . . Terre vero militum de terra Hugonis de Gornai qui venerunt ad nos, reddentur illis ita quod de terris illis facient hominagium et servicium Hugoni de Gornai, salva fidelitate quam ipsi nobis debebant.” Hugh was with Richard in 1198. See Round, Calendar, p. 119. Cf. Rot. Scacc., ii, 386.

2. Histoire des ducs de Normandie et des rois d'Angleterre (ed. Michel), p. 92.

3. Stapleton, I, clxxix seqq. Tardif, Coutumiers de Normandie, I, ii, p. 52 note.

4. Cf. Guillaume le Maréchal, 11. 2473, 5492, 5506, 5976.

5. e.g., in the fief of Gournai the archbishop of Rouen could only hold three pleas (Round, Calendar, p. 477).

6. See Gaston Paris in L'Estoire de la Guerre Sainte, p. 543. 7. Stapleton, Observations, II, Index, s.v.

ing figure in Norman society; and his tastes must have made him congenial to the king. He was fond of legends and chansons de geste : at his request a poet of Beauvais had translated into verse the story of Charlemagne's journey to Constantinople. At Messina he had been in the closest relations with Richard; but during the recent war he had accepted favours from Philip, who included him in the truce of 1194. In later years he rose high in John's service, and he fought against the French at Bouvines.

William of Caïeux, like the lords of Gournai and Vernon, had deserted his suzerain. Baldwin of Béthune was a companion whose fidelity to King Richard was beyond dispute. This younger son of the advocate of Béthune is a consistently attractive person. His loyalty was proverbial; he was a man who would suffer no one to slander his friend. As the younger son he had few prospects in the small though distinguished Flemish court of his father; he became devoted to Richard, joined him in the Crusade, was one of his few companions on his homeward journey, and was captured with him. He was released and for a time came back to England, but soon rejoined Richard in Germany. When the king was set at liberty, Baldwin remained as a hostage. We are told that when Richard met some of his most faithful men at Huntingdon and had thanked them for their efforts on his behalf, he remarked that he owed more to Baldwin than to any other man. 'Sire,' the Marshal agreed, “ Baldwin is loyal; I would pledge my head that he will serve you always and never waver.' Then William of L'Etang, who had also been a companion of the young King Henry and remembered the Marshal's troubles, joined in: 'Well may you pledge your head, Marshal, for often has he used his in your service against your slanderers.'? Baldwin was at the court of the archduke of Austria at that time, in real peril.

1. See Guillaume le Maréchal, iii, 54 note, 72, 134. 2. Ibid, 133–4.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



The money did not come, nor, as the treaty of Richard's release required, did the king send the young princesses of Brittany and Cyprus; the archduke threatened the hostages and sent Baldwin to inform Richard of their danger. The king immediately sent the ladies on their way under Baldwin's charge, but as they drew near to their journey's end, the news of the archduke's death reached them ;! whereupon Baldwin brought them home again. Shortly afterwards he got his reward; the count of Aumâle died, leaving a widow. This lady, a granddaughter of King Stephen, had already been married twice, and was to be married twice more. Baldwin became her third husband, and received from Richard the county of Aumâle. The new count and his wife celebrated their marriage at Séez at the king's charge, and stayed in Normandy until the treaty of 1196 restored Aumâle.

Baldwin's enjoyment of Aumâle was brief. The town commands easy access to several of the valleys which run down to the Channel from the plateau of north-eastern Normandy, and its exposed position on the frontier provoked frequent assault. King Philip had possibly intended the honor of which it was the head as part of his sister's dowry upon her marriage with the count of Ponthieu. A dowry was found elsewhere, but Philip did not lose sight of Aumâle. Within six months of the conclusion of peace the place was again in Philip's hands: the town and castle were captured after a spirited fight between the Norman and French forces, in which

1. The archduke died on Christmas Day, 1194. His attitude towards the hostages evidently made a great impression, which was deepened by his death. See Howden, iii, 275–8; Gervase, i, 528–9; Coggeshall, p. 66; Diceto, ii, 124; and a letter from Pope Celestine to the duke (Diceto, ii, 119).

2. For expenses entailed by the princesses later, see Rot. Scacc., i, 154.

3. Howden, iii, 306, and Stubbs's note; Histoire des ducs de Normandie, p. 88.

4. Rot. Scacc., i, 210; Stapleton, I, clvii.

King Richard suffered one of his few rebuffs. 1 Aumâle does not appear again to have been surrendered by the king of France. 2



The war in which the siege of Aumâle was one of the first incidents, was attributed by contemporaries to various causes. One alleges Richard's action in Brittany,3 another his lack of faith in attacking Vierzon in Berri, 4 a third his obvious intention of fortifying Andeli.: All these reasons doubtless helped to strengthen Philip's feeling that peace was more dangerous than war; they all illustrated the strength, pride and ability of his enemy, and were the first steps in the policy of consolidation by which Richard attempted to restore the empire and to equal the influence of his father. The invasion of Brittany was followed before long by an alliance between the Bretons and the Normans: 6 the attempt of Constance to

1. William the Breton, Philippid, v, 180-257 (Delaborde, ii, 131-4). Richard had Poitevins with him and Guy of Thouars was captured. Richard gave 3000 silver marks as ransom for the knights and sergeants captured by Philip in Aumâle (Howden, iv, 5). The date was the end of June, 1196. Philip gave a charter of protection to the monks of Foucarmont in July, at Aumale (Cart. Norm., p. 279).

2. In 1204 the count of Boulogne got the castle (Actes, No. 884). 3. Historiens de l'rance, xviii, 332 (Chronicle of Penpont, in Brittany). William the Breton (Philippid, v, 168) notes that Richard hastened from Brittany to Aumâle. Cf. Richard's letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, April 15th, 1196, from “ Minehi Sancti Cari ” (probably Le Minihic, s. of St. Malo : St. Carus is described as bishop of Alethum= St. Malo), printed by Stubbs in Diceto, ii, lxxix, in which he says "magis putamus imminere nobis guerram a regi Franciae quam pacem.”

4. Rigord, i, 135; Philippid, v, 86. See below, note.

5. Philippid, v, 70. Richard's charters show that he was at Andeli at various times in March, April, May, June, and July. See the itinerary in Cartellieri, iii, 222.

6. In 1197. Howden, iv, 19. For Constance's imprisonment by Randle of Chester and the subsequent war which provoked Richard's attack, see Howden, iv, 7; Philippid, v, 147.

[ocr errors]


assert her son's independence was checked. The attack on Vierzon ? was designed to show that the sub-vassals of Poitevin Berri were no longer to turn to the king of France as a court of appeal. In the course of the same year Richard, as we have seen, secured an important ally in the count of Toulouse, who had hitherto fought as an ally of Philip. Richard was enabled to direct more attention to Norman affairs, and to leave Poitou under the more or less nominal direction of his nephew, Otto of Brunswick. 3 Indeed this interest in the fortunes of Otto prepared the world for the elaborate diplomacy of the next two years which marshalled the counts of Flanders, Boulogne, and Saint-Pôl against Philip, and secured Otto's election as king of the Romans.

As early as the middle of April 1196 King Philip had become so restless in the face of Richard's activity as to satisfy the latter that he meant war rather than peace. Military preparations were hurried on. In the letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, in which Richard expressed his suspicions of Philip, he ordered a military levy in England; and still greater demands were made in the following years. 5 Vast sums were spent upon fortifications, mercenaries and alliances. Before the peace, Verneuil, Pont de l'Arche, Vaudreuil, Moulins and Bonmoulins had

1. A. de la Borderie, Histoire de Bretagne, iii 287.

2. The order of the narrative in Rigord (i, 135) would give the date as the end of June. Cf. Meyer in Guillaume le Maréchal, iii, 141. If this is correct, William the Breton is wrong in his poetical description of Richard's itinerary. Although the itinerary in Cartellieri (iii, 223) permits Rigord's date, a more suitable time would be the end of January or the beginning of February, when Richard was in Touraine. (Ibid, 222.) This would also agree with the occasion of the expedition. Cf. Richard, Comtes de Poitou, ii, 298; Cartellieri, iii, 145.

3. Richard, Comtes de Poitou, ii, 298–315
4. Above p. 166, note.
5. See below, ch. viii.

« PreviousContinue »