Blood Cries Afar (15 page)

Money and manpower were – and remain – paramount concerns of military commanders. Lack of both could certainly affect expeditions: Henry III had to abandon his French campaign in 1229 due to logistical failings, while manpower recruitment difficulties in the Holy Land imposed a major constraint on crusading policy. All princes were forever looking to increase their revenues for war spending; we have just seen how John exploited the Interdict to this end. But as R.C. Smail so succinctly put it: ‘No Christian ruler of the twelfth century had an army at his disposal which met his needs in full.’
¹⁹⁵
This is a crucial point to appreciate: generals always lacked the resources they wished for, but this did not prevent endemic warfare in the Middle Ages. Leaders kept a close eye on recruitment and the purse strings for they knew how decisive these things could be; but ultimately they kept fighting with what resources they could muster, often starting out in the hope that the fortunes of war would favour them and thus allow planned campaigns to be seen through. It is important to examine war in the Middle Ages the right way around: warfare and politics affected money and recruitment more than money and recruitment affected warfare and politics. War was the primary initiator. The role of politics and military effectiveness, whether through skill or luck or both, determined events far more decidedly than just the size of an army or the state of the coffers. In June 1399, Henry Bolingbroke sailed to England with fewer than 50 men; one contemporary chronicler claims that he had no more than fifteen soldiers. By August he had effectively usurped King Richard II and taken his place. In 1485, Henry Tudor became Henry VII even though his expeditionary force was very small initially, and remained outnumbered at the opening of the Battle of Bosworth.
¹⁹⁶
Political momentum and unfolding events had proven of first consequence as it had in Normandy in 1204. The collapse of the Angevin Empire was fairly sudden and dramatic, and came after decades of Anglo-French warfare that had only tweaked pre-existing border frontiers, indicating that in military terms the two sides were fairly evenly matched. The momentary imbalance that sowed disaster for England was the political and military inadequacy of John’s reign.

Scholarship has long since countered the amplified role of feudalism in military organisation, in which a knight received a land-fief from his lord for 40 days’ military service. Money was ever at the heart of military contracts. In 1066, on the eve of William the Bastard’s invasion of England, one contemporary informs us of the Duke’s troops requiring pay for their military services.
¹⁹⁷
Even the 40 days military service was not definite as the feudal system was flexible enough to adapt to needs. Robert of Torigny tells of Henry II’s invasion of Wales in 1157, when ‘every two knights equipped a third’, thereby producing a smaller force than the King could call upon but one that would serve for longer in the field.
¹⁹⁸
Even when the allotted period expired in normal service, it was possible that ‘the troops were simply taken into royal pay at the end of the obligatory forty days.’
¹⁹⁹
This reduction in quotas seen in Henry’s reign became an increasing feature of recruitment into royal service. It was notably employed by Richard I in 1194 and again by King John in 1205 when, under threat of invasion, he ordered that nine knights should fully equip and send a tenth.
²⁰⁰
By 1218, Hervey Bagehot, Lord of Stafford, was summoned to provide five knights; the survey of knights’ fees in 1166 had stipulated 60.
²⁰¹
Personal service and garrison duty was increasingly commuted by scutage and payment, the money substitute directed to the employment of mercenaries (although restrictions were placed on these by Magna Carta). Levels of equipment were stipulated for all ranks, as Henry II’s military reforms of 1181, recorded in the Assize of Arms, demonstrates: all freemen were to supply themselves with weapons and military equipment according to their wealth. Philip Augustus was sufficiently impressed by these to implement similar reform in his own kingdom. Tellingly, the Assize did not distinguish between feudal and non-feudal obligation.
²⁰²

Armies consisted of a range of fighting men with varying degrees of military skills, from the poorly trained recruits of a general summons or forced conscriptions, as with France’s
arrière-ban
, to the fine-tuned professionals of knights and engineers. The universal levy was the full-scale mobilisation of the whole kingdom. In the confusion of civil war from 1215–17, it was not an easily implemented contingency. John had recourse to it in 1205 and 1213, both occasions that threatened invasion from France.
²⁰³
At the other extreme was the military household, a permanent force of knights and their retinues available for immediate action on the king’s orders and the backbone of his army. Stephen Church’s thorough and important study of John’s household calculates that the King could muster a force of nearly 100 knights.
²⁰⁴
But he also shows how these numbers could not always be relied upon, as the political situation of 1216–17 affected many loyalties. The military household was very close to being a standing army, ever present as a military body or rapid reaction force to enforce the king’s will. This had clear advantages, but disadvantages also. As Robert Bartlett summarises it: ‘They were always there; but then again, they were always there.’
²⁰⁵
Like mercenaries, the household did not come cheap.

Forces fluctuated in size according to need. The numbers employed in the expensive business of castle garrisoning can be used as a political barometer: large garrisons in times of uncertainty and perceived danger; skeleton garrisons (if any at all) in times of peace.
²⁰⁶
As will be seen later, the role of garrisons was a central feature of the war of 1216–17, during which at least 209 castles were involved. This is a huge number, but not a surprising one as medieval warfare was predominantly castle warfare; the invasion exemplifies both. For this reason, engineers, miners and siege experts were highly valued as effective members of an army, as we have seen at Château Gaillard. Also valued were the highly developed skills of crossbowmen and archers, the former particularly valued in sieges; these combined to inflict more recorded fatalities in medieval warfare than any other combatants. As indicated above, it can be a hopeless task to pursue definitive numbers from bureaucratic or any other records. Armies generally comprised hundreds rather than thousands, except for the largest campaigns and battles, as at Bouvines. Powicke emphasises the ‘distinction between the permanent nucleus of knight and men-at-arms, and a changing kaleidoscopic force by which they were accompanied’.
²⁰⁷

Military organisation in France was not radically different from in England; we have already mentioned Philip Augustus affected in France his own version of Henry II’s Assize of Arms. We know a good deal about Philip’s military establishment from the survival of important documentation from his reign: the royal government registers and the
prisia servientum
, a war levy.
²⁰⁸
Philip oversaw a radical transformation of French administration and, just as historians have credited John’s success in bureaucratic government, many more have acknowledged the efficacy of Philip’s reforms. Jim Bradbury believes these lay at the heart of the French king’s success: ‘It was
because
Philip had set about reforming and streamlining royal administration, and therefore royal wealth and resources, that all his successes had come about.’
²⁰⁹
Certainly, Philip’s ability to translate his resources into military hardware and manpower was a significant element in his conquests, but it was more political momentum, not least when generated by military triumphs, that played a crucial role in determining the outcome of conflicts. These could – and often were – affected by the military organisation, but the actual unfolding of events was far more important.

Given the documentation, it is no surprise that Philip’s war machine has been extensively studied, providing a clearer sense of French military organisation.
²¹⁰
The nerve centre of Philip’s army, like John’s, was the household of the king, from which he took the counsel of such men as Batholomew de Roye, William des Barres and the Clément family (who, in Henry, provided the marshal of France). The army, in its various forms, took its orders from the Constable and the marshal. Knights were expected to be fully kitted, while the equipment of sergeants or footsoldiers was specified in less detail. Many of the latter came from communes within Philip’s domain: for example, Tournai, Laon and Sens were obliged to provide 300 men; Beauvais, 500. Other towns, as with Corbeil, provided a cash equivalent. Monasteries were also expected to do their bit, supplying packhorses and weapons, logistical organisation being no less vital.
²¹¹
Whereas English – or, more exactly, Welsh – archers were already developing a formidable reputation, so were Philip’s crossbowmen, as we have seen at Château Gaillard. Contemporary illustrations of the Battle of Bouvines depict crossbowmen discharging their weapons on horseback. Absolutely crucial to Philip’s success was his contingent of engineers and miners, whom sources say accompanied him everywhere. Once more it is worth reiterating that medieval warfare was more about sieges than battles, and so Philip’s siege achievements are owed in considerable measure to his engineers. Of course, mercenaries were ubiquitous, and Philip relied heavily on his greatest mercenary, Cadoc. One historian has estimated that Philip could call on in total some 3000 knights, 9000 sergeants, 6000 men from urban militias and as many thousands of footsoldiers as he was ready to hire.
²¹²
These are approximate, total figures; no single French army was ever comprised of these numbers as far too many variables came into play. Troops were needed to face various threats, potential and real, from England, the Empire, Flanders and internally; there were also the Albigensian crusade and castle-garrisoning duties to be considered. John, in addition and in conjunction with civil unrest, faced military threats from Wales, Scotland and France. Both kings, however, had their permanent military forces in their households.

Philip’s military structures were physically reinforced by his fortress policy in France. His reign saw Paris fortified with walls and the Louvre Castle. Across his lands, a sustained and massive fortification programme led to town walls and castles being constructed or bolstered throughout his reign from 1190 onwards. He is credited with introducing to France a new, stronger style of architectural defence in the shape of cylindrical towers, demonstrated by the
donjon
of the Louvre.
²¹³
More than this, Philip used his fortress network intelligently, permitting a good deal of autonomy to castellans, unlike John’s approach in England and Normandy which ‘was ruthlessly
dirigiste
and opportunistic from first to last’.
²¹⁴

This period saw important developments in the navies of England and France.
²¹⁵
For the latter, acquiring the northern seaboard after winning Normandy necessitated considerable expansion of its fleet to project greater maritime power. For a long time John has received credit for establishing the royal navy. Ships were recruited into royal service in a similar way to men. The Cinque ports of the south coast (Hastings, Rye, Sandwich, Hythe and Romney) were traditionally required to provide 57 vessels for fifteen days of service; more merchant ships could be hired or commandeered to augment this for a form of merchant navy. Warren argues that the loss of Normandy compelled John to adopt a coherent maritime policy.
²¹⁶
Clearly, adverse circumstances forced him to devise a new front-line defence on the Channel and he accordingly increased the number of ships available under his command: between 1209 and 1212 he had built 20 new galleys and 34 other ships.
²¹⁷
Turner describes the new situation: ‘The English Channel was no longer an internal waterway for an Anglo-Norman realm but a boundary with the hostile French; a navy was needed to protect the kingdom’s coasts.’
²¹⁸
John Gillingham has challenged the claim that John was founder of the navy, persuasively pointing out instead that it was Richard who deserves credit for this. Richard saw to the construction of Portsmouth as a naval base and he maintained a very active maritime policy, whether in raids against pirates at St Valéry in 1194 or in protecting sea routes to La Rochelle.
²¹⁹
As argued earlier, his absenteeism in no way reduced his concerns for England’s safety. And Richard was, after all, responsible for the huge logistical enterprise of the Third Crusade. A fleet, like castles, was needed as much for offensive purposes as defensive ones.

It will be seen in this narrative how the English were considered to have a distinct advantage over the French in naval matters. Already early in Richard’s reign there were indications of this. During the Third Crusade, Philip had to borrow naval transport from Richard in order to continue his expedition. A pro-Ricardian author delights in recounting how Philip entered Messina harbour in just one ship to be met by a jeering crowd, immediately followed by Richard’s impressive fleet making a spectacular entrance to an ecstatic reception.
²²⁰
Naval considerations were paramount in Philip’s marriage to Ingeborg of Denmark at a time when his maritime assets were limited. But as he increased his territory and power and won huge stretches of seaboard (extensively in the north with Normandy, less so in the west with Pointhieu), so his mind turned to invading England and thus ship-building. Although Bradbury believes the ‘formation of fleets in 1213 and 1217 was the origin of a French royal navy’, Mollat du Joudin claims that ‘it is impossible to see in the improvised fleets of 1213 and 1217 the origins of the navy … The fleets of Philip Augustus were occasional and ill-assorted.’
²²¹
Philip was never to match John in this crucial sphere of warfare.