« PreviousContinue »
Stephen's time, who died in 1165.1 John II, the brother of William the Marshal, acted as Marshal at King Richard's coronation, when he carried the spurs.2 He died in 1194.3 Now it is well known that his brother William succeeded him as Marshal and was confirmed in his office by royal charter in 1200.4 It is therefore peculiarly interesting to find the son of John II, William's nephew, acting as Marshal in Normandy in 1202, and performing those military duties which were especially attached to the marshal's office.5 It is not known why he was passed over on his father's death, but this passage seems to prove that, although he was not master marshal, or marshal of the court, his surname was more than honorific. His duties, as here described, were much more important than those performed by the inferior marshals of the camp and army; they are the duties of a high official, nor is there any evidence that William the Marshal ever performed them.
In 1207 John was made marshal of Ireland. The marshalship of England passed to his cousins, the sons of the great William.
1. Round, in The Academy, 9th July, 1892.
2. Howden, iii, 9, 10. Round, The King's Serjeants and Officers of State, pp. 349, 356.
3. Guillaume le Maréchal iii, 8, 132, and notes.
4. Rot. Chart., i, 46. See Round, The Commune of London, p. 306. 5. Stubbs, Constitutional History, i, 383.
Philip Augustus and Normandy.
Ar the end of 1203, when King John left Normandy, Philip of France had mastered all the weak spots of the duchy. From the valleys of the Eure and the Itun he had pushed forward into the district between the Seine and the Risle, and had thus driven a wedge between eastern and western Normandy. In eastern Normandy,—that is, in the lands on the right bank of the Seine, he had annexed the Vexin, the country of Bray, and the counties of Eu and Aumâle. Western Normandy, on the contrary, he had hardly touched. In order to understand the campaign of 1204, it is desirable to define the extent of his influence in the east, centre and west somewhat more closely.
On the east of the Seine the Normans still administered the Roumois, or the valley of the river below Pont de l'Arche, and also the greater part of the triangular pays de Caux, that is, the district between Rouen and Dieppe which is bounded on two sides by the river and the sea. King Philip's charters show that, in addition to Arques, the Normans held, in October 1203, the lower valleys of the Bethune and Varenne.2 Meulers and Longueville were
1. By 1204 the long contest on the frontiers had taught men to distinguish between Normandy and the southern districts of Normandy. Thus, in a letter to the king of Aragon, Philip Augustus announced the conquest of Gisors, Lions and the whole of Normandy except Rouen (Actes, no. 826, p. 188). Again, in their capitulation, the citizens of Rouen secured their privileges in Normandy, the Evrecin, Paci, the Vexin, and the land of Hugh of Gournai; below, p. 386.
2. In a cancelled charter Philip granted Bellencombre, Meulers and the forest of Eawi to the count of Boulogne, to be enjoyed when they had been conquered (Actes, no. 787A, p. 178).
not surrendered till June of the following year. eastern boundary of Caux, therefore, was at this time. represented by a line drawn from Dieppe through Arques and Bellencombre to Rouen. Beyond this line, except in the valley of the Seine, Philip was supreme. Drincourt, the great castle of Bray, otherwise Neufchatel-en-Bray, was his, also Radepont and the Andelle valley and the whole of the manor of Andeli outside the walls of Château Gaillard. During the siege of Château Gaillard the king distributed his favours in these districts. Nicholas of Montigni, a Norman, received lands near Drincourt.2 Peter of Moret, a Frenchman, was entrusted with Radepont.3
It is more difficult to draw the line of division between the French and Norman governments in the district lying between the Seine and the Risle. This bailiwick was farmed in 1203, and its accounts were presented at the exchequer at Michaelmas. The fortified ducal manor at Moulineaux on the Seine, and Montfort and Pont Audemer on the Risle, were certainly under John's control; but there is some evidence that Philip had begun to push forward from Vaudreuil and to drive a wedge between Neubourg and Pont de l'Arche into this important country.4 All the lands south of a line drawn from
1. Cart. Norm., no. 74, p. 14. These places belonged to William the Marshal, and were dealt with in his agreement with King Philip at Lisieux in May, 1204. The Marshal promised to hand them over immediately to Osbert of Rouvrai, who in turn would undertake to hand them over to Philip on June 24th.
2. Cart. Norm., no. 68, p. 293; Actes, no. 797, p. 181; at Anet, November, 1203. Later gifts in 1206-7, Actes, no. 984, p. 226.
3. Cart. Norm., no. 184, p. 297; dated by Delisle, October, 1203, Actes, no. 790, p. 179.
4. The value of this evidence turns on the identification of Landa, granted by Philip in October, 1203, to Raoul de Louvain, with La Londe, north of Pont de l'Arche (Actes, no. 786, p. 178: and Index, p. 609). Le Prévost identifies it with lands at Canappeville (Cart. Norm., no. 252, p. 301).
Montfort to Pont de l'Arche were, with the exception of Neubourg, lost to the duchy. Beaumont and Conches had fallen in the previous spring. After the fall of Château Gaillard, if not before, Neubourg also must have surrendered. A brief study of the map will show the reader that when Philip advanced in May 1204, east and west Normandy were practically cut off from each other.
West of the Risle, however, the valleys and highlands of western Normandy were as yet hardly touched by the French. It is true that in the south the continuity of the March from Alençon to Verneuil must have been broken, for nothing is heard of Moulins and Bonmoulins, of l'Aigle or Breteuil after John's departure for England. The reason is obvious. By means of his conquest in the Evrecin and the valley of the Risle, Philip could attack the fortresses on the Itun and in the forest country from two sides. Only Verneuil stood out, self-supported and for the time impregnable. Beyond the March, on the other hand, Philip was able to do little until he could. advance in full force from the Seine. Before he left John had, according to the Marshal's biographer, strengthened the fortifications of the Touque valley in the north-east at Bonneville and Trianon.2 To the south were Lisieux and Falaise. Argentan and Domfront were sufficient to keep back the barons of Maine.
In the west a little group of strongholds, Avranches, Mont-Saint-Michel, Pontorson, Saint-James, Vire and Mortain protected the Breton frontier. Within this strong cordon stretching from Bonneville to Pontorson, the administration may reasonably have been expected to hold out, even if Rouen and the Seine were lost. It still would control Caen, the centre of government, Barfleur and Cherbourg, its links with England, and the wealthy domains of the Côtentin and the Vau de Vire, as yet hardly touched by war.
1. i.e., on the north from Conches and Breteuil; on the south from Dreux and through Maine.
2. Guill. le Maréchal, iii, 174.
John and his advisers in fact seem to have anticipated that concentration in the centre and west might be necessary. His fortification of the valley of the Touque was criticised in military circles on the ground that it was unwise to prefer the Touque to the Risle as a line of defence. Although this criticism, as it has come down to us, is faulty and ill-informed,1-John seems, for example, to have paid special attention to Pont-Audemer on the Risle 2-it would seem to be a survival of some discussion upon the most suitable system of defences in the case of defeat in the east. This view is strengthened by the statement of William the Breton, that, after the fall of Château Gaillard, Pont de l'Arche and Moulineaux on the Seine, and Montfort on the Risle were destroyed by the Normans.3 In the west the year 1203 had been spent in careful inspection, restoration and garrisoning of the fortresses.4 The bailiff Richard of Fontenai had expended large sums, largely consisting of escheats and the proceeds of a tallage on the Jews, in the payment of knights and men-at-arms, and especially in elaborate additions to the fortifications of Mortain. One of John's last acts, before he sailed, was to give to this great official the control of Mont-Saint-Michel."
All hopes of a prolonged defence proved to be vain. When King Philip advanced after his triumph at Château Gaillard, Normandy crumbled away before him. Perhaps the seneschal and his colleagues had not believed that the great castle could ever fall. They may not have anticipated the irrepressible rush of Bretons, or the treachery of Louvrecaire at Falaise, or the lack of English aid. They were surrounded on all sides, and those who did not
1. Ibid. It is faulty because the writer thinks that John should have fortified Montfort, Beaumont and Brionne, whereas the two last-named places were already in Philip's hand. Above, p. 238.
2. Rot. Norm., 116.
3. Philippid., 1. vii, vv. 826-829 (ed. Delaborde, ii, 208).
4. Rot. Norm., 120-1; Rot. Scacc., ii, 546-8.
5. Rot. Scacc., ii, 548.
6. Rot. Norm., 117.