Martial Identity And English Kingship 1154-1272

The Formation and Expression of Martial Identity within English Kingship 1154-1272

Of all the English kings of this period, probably none has become a symbol of martial valour more than Richard I; indeed, by the reign of Henry III he had become the model of English kingship . Though kingship encompassed many roles, the primary duty of a king was to be the guardian and military leader of his people. Through the act of coronation he became divinely ordained to exercise temporal power within his kingdom in order to maintain peace and render justice . Yet more than this, we cannot completely separate the education or lives of England's kings from that of the aristocracy and knightly classes. For these groups of men violence was an integral part of their way of life through which they maintained their social dominance . Essentially a king was a knight, and war bound him together with his knights, thus tying him to their own codes of conduct. To find evidence of this we only need look to the stories of King Arthur, which point toward shared common interests between him and his men . Victory in war, as Warren has highlighted, was largely regarded as the mark of successful kingship with Richard I, to take a prime example, being praised as 'Rex Bellicosus' by Ralph of Coggeshall in his Chronicon Anglicanum . To the warrior classes, peace was not regarded as a natural state; rather war was inherent in man and, according to the 12th century Chanson Gaydon, should be desired more than anything else . The ideal of medieval masculinity as being hardy, tough and resilient in the face of tribulations was established c.1100 in the Song of Roland . This in turn gave rise to the notion of the preudomme, or upright man , to which every male should aspire. In his Policraticus, John of Salisbury wrote that a knight should, 'protect the Church, oppose wickedness, respect the priest, defend the poor from injustice, make peace to reign in the land, spill his own blood and, if need be, lay down his life for his brother' . In essence these encompassed the same duties as those of kingship, perhaps with the exception of the latter two, but even in this regard it was still expected that a king should lead his men into battle . After all, success in war was seen to be an indication of divine favour. This would have had a powerful effect in establishing royal legitimacy and dominance over existing and potential foes, particularly if the king himself had been present on the field of victory. A king's subjects looked to him to maintain stability, and the celebrated 12th century trouvère Chrétien de Troyes warned of the misfortunes which would befall a land if its king failed to defend it . The culture of war had become deeply rooted in the consciousness of the medieval world by the latter part of the 11th century. But it was the First Crusade and the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 that added a new dimension and goal to knighthood and kingship; that of the Christian warrior who set out to fight the enemies of God . Education and the Inculcation of the Knightly or Chivalric Ethos Martial identity in English kingship was not a concept that developed later in a man's life but was rooted in his education; becoming a fundamental part of his constitution. Childhood education had in essence one goal in mind, that of turning the boy into a man, and a man trained in the art of war who would live up to the ideal of the preudomme. Thus, we are told by Henry of Huntingdon that when Henry of Anjou (Henry II) was knighted by David I of Scotland, he was given, 'the weapons of manhood': fundamentally war had become a test of manhood . Violence and male childhood in this context were inseparable and Christine de Pisan's approval of boys entering battle, thinking on killing and using violence to settle arguments is more reminiscent of ancient Sparta than Christian Europe . Though writing at the turn of the 15th century, her views are certainly apt for our period as boys were brought up with tales of Arthur and Charlemagne as a great kings and warriors; the notion of the knight-errant with its emphasis on chivalric romances was a later development . Both Henry V and Henry VI were given weighted practice swords to play with as boys and it is highly likely that this stemmed from a far older, probably ancient tradition. The renowned William Marshall acted as the Young Henry's tutor in chivalry and probably taught him many of the rudiments of war . The education of boys in military matters was of prime importance and volumes written by Gerald of Wales and John of Salisbury were read alongside Vegetius's Epitoma Rei Militaris. No doubt the latter was also read to give a sense of 'venerable ancestry' to the idea of knighthood to which the young prince could claim descent. Tutelage of the young Angevin-Plantagenet princes was entrusted only to those men who had proved themselves as knights - for the bellicose Henry II this had taken place in the households of his father Geoffrey Count of Anjou and Robert Earl of Gloucester; two men who were renowned for their martial abilities . In order to foster bonds of loyalty and encourage competition, Henry I instructed that the younger boys in the royal family should be taught in the company of the sons of his barons ; a practice which no doubt continued throughout the medieval period. Expectations were high and regardless of the training he received, the onus to prove himself was on the young-man. Baudouin de Conde in his Dit dou Bacellar, written in the late 13th century warned that no man could call himself a preudomme until he had bloodied his sword against God's enemies . Imperative to the success of inculcating a martial ethos were the accounts which celebrated knightly feats. These were disseminated in order that a young prince might aspire to pattern his life along the same lines. The Angevin-Plantagenet court championed the idea of a miles litteratus, in other words a warrior who was also a scholar and well versed in knightly literature . In his De Principis Instructione Gerald of Wales noted with approval that the young Henry II devoted himself, 'as much to the business of arms as to the toga; to war as much as to books' . It is highly likely that as a young man Richard I would have become familiar with the cycles of Alexander the Great, Arthur and Charlemagne as well as the latest Chansons de geste which no doubt influenced his later life. Highly influential at this time was Bertran de Born, baron of Dordogne and an intimate of the English royal house, whose poetry glorified the horrors of war . Considering his access to the royal princes, probably through William Marshall, his words on leadership would have been well received; 'it pleases me too when a lord is first to attack on his horse, armed, without fear; and thus he inspires his men with valiant courage' . The chivalric heroes Roland, Horn and Tristan were held up as role-models of the aristocratic lifestyle, in which they excelled in manly pursuits. Even ancient heroes like Aeneas and Alexander were given an up-to-date chivalric gloss in order to appeal to young men. In The Romance of the Horn, the prince is portrayed as being highly skilled in sword and horsemanship as well as hunting and hawking, and both Beowulf and Cuchulainn were praised for their bravery and skill in arms . Familial ties were crucial in shaping the martial aspirations of the Angevin dynasty. We are left with little doubt from contemporary sources that Geoffrey of Anjou was the model to which his successors could aspire; John of Marmoutier described him as, 'fiercer than a lion' and, 'a shining example of a knight' . He became the hero of many chivalric tales and was praised for his martial prowess, courage, charm and knowledge of classical texts ; essentially the very ideal of the preudomme and miles litteratus. Recent work has emphasised the importance of Angevin-Plantagenet family history, and has focused attention on the foundation myths of the dynasty. These chronicles celebrate Tertullus, who is reputed to have established the house of Anjou through martial prowess. Hence it has been pointedly argued that the need to establish a familial link with the imperial Carolingian line to legitimise their own position was therefore unnecessary; as the deeds of their warrior ancestors were seen to be of greater weight than any union with royal blood . It was thus key to English kingship that their martial identity should be promoted, particularly at a time when the kings of France, and hence of the sacral and martial Carolingian line, were threatening Angevin possessions on the Continent.

Physical Expressions of Martial Power and Identity The sword marked out a man as being a soldier, but more than that it became a symbol of, what Crouch has termed, an invisible world; in essence the physical object represented power and domination which exist only in the mind of the witness . The sword as a symbol of martial and supernatural power had a long history and can be found in the traditions of the Angles, Franks, Scandinavians and Germans, but by c.1000 it appears to have become associated particularly with princely authority . Three golden swords were carried before Richard at his coronation; one by David earl of Huntingdon, brother of the King of Scotland, one by his brother John earl of Mortaigne and the last by Robert earl of Leicester . Though intended to symbolise the king's role as defender of the Church and protector of the weak, to those viewing the ceremony the swords represented the king's temporal might; which was itself echoed in the coronation prayer calling for the king to triumph over his enemies . The coronation swords were more than decorative accessories; rather they were emblems of martial authority sanctified before God which continued to remain significant throughout a king's reign . The martial aspect of kingship had been given added impetus under the Normans and the significance of the sword as a symbol of authority is evidenced both from the Bayeux Tapestry, where Duke William is shown seated holding a sword in the manner of a sceptre, and on his great seal as William I (see figure 1). Swords which were reputed to have belonged to heroic figures held a special resonance. Such was their value as expressions of transcendental power, serving to legitimize royal authority, that the Young Henry violently took possession of Durendaal, the sword of Roland, from the treasury at Rocamadour . Fittingly, Richard I owned Excalibur/Caliburne and even John, whom history has passed poor judgement on regarding his martial attributes, owned Curtana; the sword of Tristan. Scholars have convincingly stated that the projection of a charismatic image was essential in maintaining royal and martial authority in cases of the king's absence, i.e. fighting on campaign . Fundamentally, swords had become items of martial propaganda and from the time of the First Crusade symbols of the champions of Christendom. One interesting development of the 12th/13th century was the emergence of life-size effigies of knights in armour holding or drawing swords adorning tomb-chests. The effigies of Henry II, Richard I and John (see Figures 2, 3 and 4) are all provided with swords, only Henry III is presented without one. Despite Henry's campaigns during the Barons' Wars and being wounded at both Lewes (1264) and Evesham (1265), his memorial to posterity was designed with peace in mind. This is emphasized particularly with the adoption of the gold virga with white enamel dove as a symbol of his reign . Unlike his predecessors who valued the sword as an image of their kingship, Henry III tailored his martial credentials according to circumstance. Thus we see him enthroned and holding a sword on his great seal shortly after his accession in 1218; a time when the new king needed to establish his authority over his rebellious barons. However, with Henry being in a more stable political position in 1257 both in England and on the Continent, the sword is absent on his gold penny of that year (see Figure 5). The fundamental principle of depicting swords on the tomb-chests was that they served to immortalize the martial deeds of the occupants. In much the same way as the stories of heroic kin (see above) instilled in their descendents a sense of legitimacy, so these effigies provided physical evidence of familial martial prowess. The sword was not the only article which promoted the owners prowess and authority. The use of lions or leopards first appears on the great seal of Richard I in 1198 and it has been suggested these were consciously derived from the shield of Tristan which was said to bear the device of three golden lions on a field of red . The image of three lions may also have been a direct provocation towards the kings of France, who bore the device of golden lilies. Gerald of Wales, ever eager to poke fun at authority, was quick to disparage the use of flowers as a heraldic emblem in favour of the more martial princes whose practice was to; 'display savage and predatory beasts....on their arms as an emblem of ferocity' (see Figure 6).

Literary Propaganda and Heroic Representation The image of England's kings, bequeathed to us by history, range from the ferocious but strong Henry II, to the heroic Richard I, the villainous John and the somewhat weak and pathetic Henry III. But we must ask how far this was as a result of the literary works of their own propagandists and detractors? Warren has perhaps rather simplistically condensed the picture in saying that in the case of Henry his chroniclers were perspicacious men of sound historical sense, Richard was glorified by an over enthusiastic hero-worshiper and John was left to the mercy of defamatory gossip-mongers . Without doubt England's kings knew the value of literary and oral propaganda in the dissemination of their martial identity. The sirventes, or political songs, were 'the pre-eminent political media of the time' and were duly harnessed by the Angevin-Plantagenet court. The judgement of history would certainly have been of concern; in the hands of Henry of Huntingdon Henry I is praised for his splendid achievements and victories over the French, while Henry of Malmesbury admires Stephen's energy and martial spirit, but criticises his lack of judgement and sincerity . A new literature based on the tales of Arthur and his court began to become increasingly popular at this time and Richard I realised the potential of identifying himself with these figures in furtherance of his own identity. Indeed so concerned was Richard in using propaganda to depict himself as a tough, courageous warrior that he commissioned the poet Ambroise to compose a history of his deeds - the Histoire de la Guerre Sainte . Here Ambroise spares no flattery; Richard is described as, a new Roland, Richard the Great and of course Richard Coeur de Lion. Imaginary speeches are written in the tradition of ancient authors, and in the words of others Richard is, 'the finest knight on earth' and 'a tried and tested knight' . We cannot doubt that Richard was a formidable warrior keen to express the ideals with which he had been instilled. After all, other chroniclers, notably the author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi praised the 'rays of his valour' and even the record of an act in 1186 at the Gascon monastery of La Reole breaks with convention to write that Richard was a miles probissimus . Nonetheless, it was his own propagandist Ambroise who turned him into a hero in the mould of the Chansons de geste. We cannot only apply this tendency to Richard, for Henry II was eulogised by his contemporary Peter of Blois as being, 'securior in periculis, in prosperis timidior, constantior in adversis' . Gerald of Wales goes further by stressing Henry's martial credentials, 'no one can doubt...how skilfully (Henry) has practiced armed warfare against the malice of his enemies...He not only brought strong peace (my italics)....but triumphed victoriously in remote and foreign lands' . This projection of a heroic image was well within the tradition of the martial ethos presented above, but was also likely part of the rivalry with the kingdom of France. Louis VII and Philip Augustus were not only threatening Angevin possessions on the Continent, but could use the commanding image of Charlemagne and Roland to enhance their own martial personas . It thus became fundamental to create legitimacy through heroic representation. This added incentive undoubtedly influenced Joseph of Exeter, perhaps under royal direction, to refer to the Young Henry as Paris or Hector, Walter Map to present Henry II as Achilles and Alan of Lille to compare Richard to Ajax . In what appears to be a deliberate slight to the kings of France, Jordan Fantosme, praised Henry II (tellingly who was also his patron) as the most victorious king since Charlemagne in his wars with William the Lion of Scotland . Modern historiography has also been greatly influenced by these propagandists, which speaks much to their success in the task they were set. John of Wendover's blame towards John for failing to hold Normandy and the epithet 'soft-sword', still colours our opinions of him today, despite attempts to redress the balance . Whilst Richard's undoubted military skill together with his utilization of propaganda has resulted in him becoming a hero of chivalric romance and, 'the greatest commander within this period' .

Concluding Remarks Violence was a test of manhood and for the Angevin-Plantagenet House, in which vis et voluntas and ira et malevolentia were keynotes , the propagation of martial identity was indispensible in order to succeed in the medieval world and maintain their authority. Yet the expression of martial identity was not without its problems. History has delivered to us the image of Richard I as a romantic hero, whilst seldom confronting us with the difficulties he faced in order to maintain this persona; such as heavy taxation, absence from the centre of government, suffering, cruelty and the risk of capture or death. But as yet there was still no solid basis for hereditary succession; instead force of will and legitimisation of their rule through familial ties, a knightly ethos and the reanimation of heroic romances, provided the foundations of regal power. The aristocracy to which they belonged was based on martial might and the image of the mounted knight became an image of power . Yet this was not brute power, it had to be in the form of the preudomme or milles litteratus to be successful. Of course there were other means of exercising power; it would be inaccurate to say that violence was the only means and the basis of rule. Yet, by the very fact that warfare is so prevalent in the literary and physical representations of kingship, it was a vital component that no king could ignore.