« PreviousContinue »
army, more national than the feudal levy by knight service. At all events, it is necessary, in the face of contemporary developments in France, to consider the possibility of such attempts. In France from 1194 onwards, if not earlier, the royal demesne and the towns were expected to provide a definite number of servientes and waggons, and for this military purpose the demesne was divided and the towns grouped. The obligation did not remove the possibility of a universal levy, but for the most part it took its place, and, like the arrière-ban, involved a recognition of the Carolingian idea of service. The king called upon sub-vassals as well as vassals, and made no distinction between the vassal and the liege-man. The communes might be required, and indeed generally were required, to give money instead of sending their quota, but the decision rested with the king. Finally, the men-at-arms, when they were summoned, were paid by the king. Now it is not necessary to exaggerate the military value of such a force as this, which was more often than not translated into money, but its constitutional importance was great. It points to the organisation of royal resources, and the development of feudal relations on principles which were other than feudal. It would be strange if no such expedient were tried in Normandy, where the exploitation of the demesne had been so great. In England the survival of popular institutions gave vitality to the fyrd and permitted such a systematic organisation of local forces as was ordered by John in 1205;? in Normandy we should expect a more definite and
1. Borrelli de Serres, op. cit., i, 467 seqq., especially pp. 489, 493, 519. The prisia servientium, or quota lists, date from 1194, for as Borrelli de Serres shows, this is the date of the well known document edited in the Recueil des Historiens de France, xxiii, 722; and in Giry's Documents sur les relations de la royauté avec les villes en France (1885), p. 39. The date is significant, for Philip Augustus was preparing to meet Richard after the latter's captivity.
2. Stubbs, Constitutional History, i, 634.
centralised plan, like that betrayed by the quota-lists (prisia servientium) of France. And if we scan the evidence, some parallels to French practice certainly do appear. There is the reference to the men-at-arms whom the citizens of Rouen are obliged to send in time of war. 1 There are the occasional allusions to the "servientes qui debuerunt facere servitium Regis," and who were fined for non-appearance. The bailiffs are apparently responsible for the payment of these men, who may therefore be regarded as tenants of the ducal demesne. The Assize of Arms may have been intended to facilitate the operations of a system of this kind; we are told that Philip Augustus copied Henry's Assize of Arms, and it is tempting to connect it with Philip's military organisation of his demesne. If, that is to say, an Assize of Arms lay behind the military organisation of France, we might with more confidence presume a similar development from the Norman Assize. But the evidence is vague and uncertain, and we must be content to regard a Norman organisation on these lines as possible rather than probable.
King John kept together his paid army by recruiting, by lavish grants of pensions and lands, and by the maintenance in his service of bands of artillerymen, crossbowmen and mercenaries.
The failure of negotiations in April, 1202 forced the king to face a serious crisis, and his efforts to attract troops are illustrated by the open letters which he entrusted to his "recruiting sergeants ” in May. On May 2, William of Cresec was commissioned to enroll recruits on liberal
1. Rot. Scacc., i, 306; above, p. 313. Note that the citizens pay money instead. See also p. 312 note, for Fécamp.
terms. On May 27, Simon of Haveret was set to work among the knights of Flanders, Hainault and Brabant.2
Just as he made special efforts to gather men together, John made special efforts to retain them in his service by grants of lands and money. It would be tedious to enumerate those who received pensions in return for service.3 It is sufficient to remark that this form of vassal relation was frequently adopted by John. The grants of land, which were as numerous as grants of revenue, are of interest to the student in so far as they illustrate the effect of warfare upon existing social relations. For example, a reversion to the beneficiary system is clearly seen in such grants as those of Léry and Conteville to Gerard of Fournival,6 and of the Channel Islands to Peter of Préaux.7 These were not ordinary cases of enfeoffment. For the service of one knight Gerard of Fournival was granted lands which had brought into the exchequer £40 per annum, and had been regarded as a fair exchange for Pont de l'Arche. 8 The enfeoffment of the Channel Islands to Peter of Préaux for the service of three knights was a measure of military
1. Rot. Pat., 10 : “et sciatis quod factum servicium vestrum ita bene remunerabimus quod nobis et eidem Willelmo grates scietis.” William had just previously gone surety for Baldwin the chamberlain of Flanders "quod ad servicium nostrum fideliter nobis veniet in Normmanniam” (Rot. de Lib., 29). He held lands in Wiltshire (Red Book, ii, 483, 484) and received many favours from John (ibid., p. 555; Rot. Norm., 60; Rot. de Lib., 44, 51). For a time he seems to have been suspected, but in 1207 he made a fine for his lands (Rot. de Finibus, i, 377).
2. Rot. Pat., 12.
3. e.g., Rot. Norm., 32 (Herveus de Preez), Rot. de Lib., 4, 13. The grant is usually accompanied by the words, “ unde homo noster est."
4. See the remarks of Viollet on this form of the relation de fide et servitio, in Hist. Litt de la France, xxxiii, 133.
5. Cf. Baldwin, Scutage and Knight Service, p. 79. 6. Rot. Norm., 19.
7. Rot. Chart., 33b; Havet, in Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes (1876), xxxvij, 188.
8. Rot. Scacc., i, 239; Stapleton, I, clxvii, II, clxi; above, p. 287.
precaution. Peter was warden in virtue of his position, and it is possible that important institutions which still survive in the islands can be traced to the period of his lordship. The strain upon Normandy was evidently too severe for the government, and John's recklessness hastened its disintegration. We reach the logical outcome of such a grant in the surrender of the important castle of Tenchebrai with its revenues to Fraeric or Frederick Malesmains “ad sustentandum se in servicio nostro et ponendam uxorem suam. The castle was in private hands for nine months and the exchequer lost the revenues of Tenchebrai during the interval. 3
Equally reminiscent of an earlier age were John's relations with his household. He relied very largely upon the young warriors in his train (bachelerii de familia nostra), and on one occasion definitely sought to pit their counsel against that of the barons.4 In contemporary literature, and indeed in general fact, the bachelors were the landless unknighted youths of the court. 5 John's bachelors appear to have been unknighted, but the king departed from usual custom by endowing them, at least in Normandy and his other continental possessions, with lands
1. For the royal administration of the isles through Peter of Preaux, see Rot. Pat., 3 : regulations for the collection of an aid for the defence of the isles; ibid., 15, the inhabitants are to aid “servienti nostro custodienti insulas predictas ad jurandos malefactores et latrones manentes in insulis illis et ad evacuendos eos de eis." An inquest of 1248 ascribed the creation of the jurés to King John; see Havet, Bibliothèque (1877), xxxviii, 275–277.
2. Rot. Pat., 10b, May 12th, 1202.
3. Fraeric was ordered to give up the castle to the local bailiff on February 26th, 1203 (ibid., 26). He received £65 during the financial year 1202–3 (Rot. Scacc., ii, 540). The bailiff had been instructed to leave an official to keep watch over the forest (Rot. Pat., 10b).
4. The incident is narrated in the Marshal's biography (iii, 181). John of Bassingbourne was spokesman for the bachelors.
5. Meyer, Guillaume le Maréchal, iii, 181, note.
which he definitely states to have been given to them in expectation of their service.
Indeed John did not insist upon any qualification except that of personal dependence. In 1216 he retained in his service Thomas Malesmains, a man with marriageable sons and daughters and some claims to property. “And we will look upon him,” adds the king, as one of our bachelors." 2
The great majority, however, of the men in John's service were, apart from the mercenaries, knights and men-at-arms who fought for a fixed wage. The knight received six shillings a day in Angevin money, the mounted man-at-arms or serviens two shillings and sixpence, the unmounted from eightpence to a shilling. 3 The occasional reference to terms of service (termini) implies that soldiers were hired for fixed renewable periods. + In addition to their wages, they were often accommodated with loans, especially if they came from England. It must, indeed, have been very easy to run short of the means of subsistence among the hazards of war and distant service; and the king seems to have advanced money, when possible, as a matter
1. I have collected the passages in the English Historical Review, xxii, 42. The entries in Rot. de Lib., 212, suggest a distinction between the members of the familia and the knights in attendance upon John. If this be so, John of Bassingbourne had ceased to be a bachelor between 1205 and 1210 (Guill. le Maréchal, iii, 181; Rot. Lib., 183, 212) though he was still in John's intimate service (Rot. Lib., 182, 185; M. Paris, Chron. Maj., ii, 533). He had lands in Cambridgeshire in 1212 (Red Book, ii, 526).
2. Rot. Pat., 190b.
3. Rot. Scacc., ii, 513, 514 : "in liberationibus iij militum, scilicet unicuique vj. so. in die. Et v. servientum equitum, scilicet unicuique ij. so. vid. in die. Et xx servientum peditum, scilicet unicuique xij d. in die : morantium apud Waureium a festo Sancti Ilarii usque ad festum Sancti Michaelis (i.e., January 13th to September 29th) dc li. liij li. xix so. vj d.” Eightpence was the more usual pay of a foot soldier (e.g., ibid., ii, 484, 502).
4. “de pluribus terminibus,” ibid, i, 136; ii, 485.