The Anarchy

This is a blog i wrote on King Stephen a fair while ago













Stephen of Blois, as a man, could be shrewd, calculating and opportunistic. Those qualities would ultimately raise him from count to king. But his other personal traits weren't quite so useful for medieval kingship and would be the reason why his reign would be spent fighting a civil war against his rival, the Empress Matilda. He did have some pedigree required to claim the throne. He was the grandson of William the Conqueror and nephew of his predecessor, Henry I. His father, another Stephen, had also been a crusader. And the one advantage he had over his rival Matilda was that he was a man. Men, as was the thinking at the time, were more fit to rule. In times of trouble for the kingdom, they could lead armies into battle or take the fight to a foreign enemy. These types of duties were not expected of women. But this logic is flawed. Throughout the Medieval period, there have been a number of either weak or simply useless kings whose flaws brought disaster onto the kingdom they were supposed to be bringing peace to. King John, Edward II, Richard ii, Henry VI and, before the Norman Conquest, Aethelred II, had all brought utter chaos to England. Four of them had been usurped, albeit with Henry and Aethelred reclaiming their thrones briefly, and the other, John, had been forced to sign Magna Carta and had suffered the ignominy of a French invasion that had been invited by the barons to kick him off the throne. And, unfortunately for Stephen as well as the country as a whole, he was a another king who failed to stamp out challenges to his kingship.



The period in which he reigned is known as The Anarchy; a time when Christ and his Angels slept as was one description such was the despair felt in the kingdom. This is the story of King Stephen. I am not going to go into too much detail about the period before Stephen snatched the throne. My focus is now solely on the events of King Stephen's reign. His first act as king was to oversee the burial of Henry I whose corpse had been through an extraordinary sequence of events. After the removal of parts of the body, the corpse began to give off a foul odour. So strong was the smell that's it said, according to Henry of Huntingdon, to have killed a number of men who were overseeing the protection of the dead king's body. In an effort to prevent any further calamities, a man was brought in to remove the brain. To try and ensure he didn't go the same was as the watchmen, he wrapped himself up in thick linen and set about his task. It didn't do him any good however and he too came a cropper. Such was the end of the mighty Henry I and towards Christmas 1135, he was finally buried at Reading Abbey in a ceremony overseen by King Stephen.

Even though the old king had been dead nearly a month, he still managed to take others down with him. After that somewhat macabre and almost comical start to his reign, Stephen now set about establishing his kingship. His first act as king was to reaffirm his promises to the church to uphold their rights. But his first real challenge as king was not long in coming. In January of 1136, the North of England was attacked by the King of Scots David I. After marching swiftly and energetically northwards, Stephen came to a rather meek agreement with David and although he regained control of Newcastle, he allowed the Scots' king to keep hold of Carlisle. This was not an agreement that would put off further invasions.



In 1137, Stephen had some good news when he reached an agreement with one of his main enemies, Geoffrey of Anjou, husband of the usurped Empress Matilda. Like his wife, Geoffrey had his eyes set on one of Stephen's possessions; in his case, Normandy. But Henry I had been a shrewd operator when it came to handling finances and when Stephen stole the throne, he inherit a kingdom in a healthy financial state and he also plenty of troops at his disposal. For the time being, Geoffrey's and Matilda's efforts were at a standstill. So, having set affairs straight in Normandy, Stephen returned to celebrate Christmas 1137 in England as a relatively contented man. In 1138, David I had, somewhat predictably, gone back on his word in spectacularly gruesome fashion, once again invading the North of England. Henry of Huntingdon describes, in graphic detail, some of the atrocities carried out by the Scots' army. Whilst I think it's safe to say some of it is rather large exaggeration on Henry's part, there is no question of the unprovoked and vicious nature of the Scottish invasion. Given the weakness of the agreement reached just a couple of years prior to this latest disaster, it's fair to say Stephen has to be apportioned some of the blame. Stephen reacted in kind and laid waste to the south of Scotland. After returning south from the Scottish expedition, around Easter of 1138, Stephen got word of trouble in the west of the country with castles at Hereford, Bristol and Shrewsbury. Stephen marched west and reclaimed possession of the castles but this particular revolt had spread to other parts of the country as far apart as Kent and Yorkshire.

There were now very real challenges to Stephen's authority. This is not to say Stephen didn't retain a loyal following. That same year of 1138, David I, once again, invaded England. He most likely had got wind of Stephen's troubles in the south of England and picked this most opportune moment to invade, He however did not have a free run of things in the North as he may have expected. The nobility there rode out to meet him and engaged him in what would become known as the Battle of the Standard. It proved to be a spectacular success for the Northern nobility as the Scots army was soon in disarray and fleeing the scene. They sustained massive losses. The English army, however, didn't seek to follow the Scots army as they fled back north as had been the fashion in other battles through the middle ages. It perhaps was a missed opportunity for the English to seize David himself and put an end to his stranglehold over Northern England. However, there is no doubt that this was a tremendous boost to King Stephen. A defeat here could have spelled complete disaster for him with himself so far from the battle. If they had been victorious, the Scots could have marched straight through the heart of England, causing tremendous damage and potentially even undermining Stephen's status as king. It had proved that there was enough loyalty to Stephen that if other challenges were to come, and come they would, then he'd be ready to meet them.



After the morale boosting success of his nobility in the north at the Battle of the Standard, Stephen continued to put out the flames of rebellion in the south of his kingdom. He marched on Kent and besieged Leeds Castle. Around Christmas of 1138, the siege was brought to a successful conclusion and Stephen's forces captured the castle. The king now had his eyes set on the north of the border and he marched into Scotland. There, he managed to bring the Scots' king David I to terms and as part of the peace treaty that was agreed, Stephen took as his hostage David's son, Henry, as surety for good behaviour on the Scots part. After that, he made his way back south of the border, occasionally extinguishing uprisings on the way with Henry of Hungtingdon claiming that Stephen even nearly lost control of Henry at Ludlow. Perhaps seeking to avoid any further calamities, Stephen abandoned that particular siege. Stephen then demonstrated some of his opportunistic streak that I mentioned earlier and rather scandalised Henry of Huntingdon who more than frowned at the king's behaviour. Through a show of sinister threats and outright bullying, Stephen seized two castles at Devizes and Sherborne held by men who had been previously loyal to him. Benefiting from the wealth that he gained from his actions here, he arranged a marriage for his son Eustace with the daughter of the French king Louis VII, a girl by the name of Constance. Stephen wasn't finished with his thieving of property from his supporters. A bishop by the name of Alexander, who was the nephew of the bishop who had seen his properties stolen at Sherborne and Devizes, was now blackmailed into surrendering two of his own castles including Newark. Stephen had more than shown that he had a ruthless and greedy streak, one that had put him on the throne of England. However, he had more than crossed a line and it wouldn't be long before the tide turned against him.


In 1139, the Empress Matilda finally arrived in England and the destructive civil war that would tear the country apart would begin. As soon as he got wind of her arrival, Stephen besieged her at Arundel. But perhaps listening to the same advisers who had urged him to move against the likes of Bishop Alexander, he rather inexplicably allowed her to make her way to Bristol, the power-base of her key ally, her half-brother Robert of Gloucester. Towards the end of 1140, Stephen suffered a significant setback when the city of Lincoln fell to his enemies. Making his way to Lincoln, Stephen set up camp and lay siege to the city. The man who had captured Lincoln was called Ranulf, Earl of Chester who also happened to be the son in law of Robert of Gloucester. Robert too made his way up north to alleviate the pressure on Ranulf and attacked the kings forces. Robert was a more than capable military leader and Stephen knew he was up against it. But he wasn't one to shirk from a battle and he attempted to mobilise his own forces with vigour as they lined up against Robert's men. To motivate his forces, Stephen had one of his key nobles, a man by the name of Baldwin, to deliver a rousing speech. The king didn't give the speech himself due to his weak speaking voice. When the battle commenced, it wasn't long before the king found himself in immense danger and even though he fought with great bravery, he was soon captured along with other key members of the nobility, including Baldwin.


Thus ended the Battle of Lincoln 1141 with King Stephen in ignominious captivity and his realm now at the mercy of the woman he had usurped it from, the empress Matilda. But unfortunately for Matilda, it wasn't as simple as that. Attempting to have herself crowned in London, she had to flee for her life as the citizens turned viciously against her. What was her crime? She had, after all, been designated heir to her father Henry I and the nobility had sworn three oaths of loyalty to her. Some of the accusations levelled at her are aimed at her personality. She was accused of being insufferably arrogant, especially after her forces victory at Lincoln. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Matilda did have an arrogance about her. She had been married to the Holy Roman Emperor and so had been the most powerful woman in Europe for a time. She chose to carry the title of Empress with her so a certain sense of loftiness is not to be unexpected. But this is not enough to explain why there was such resistance to her right to rule. The fact is, 12th century England was not ready for a woman ruler. She may well have been aware of this but it didn't mean she was about to give up, especially with the king in her custody (now at Bristol). There were repeated outbreaks of fighting with disaster soon befalling Matilda.



Her half brother Robert was captured by forces loyal to Stephen. Robert had demonstrated his military expertise at Lincoln and, without him, Matilda had no hope of claiming the throne. There was only one thing for it and an agreement was reached that saw King Stephen released from prison in exchange for Robert. In 1142, Stephen built new fortifications and at one in Wiltshere, Matilda's forces attacked in large numbers capturing a number of key figures, including the king's steward. Towards the end of that year, Stephen famously besieged Matilda at Oxford where she made a dramatic and daring escape. With snow falling heavily, Matilda clad herself in all white and, along with four of her most loyal knights, used the conditions to slip out of the castle and away from the enemies forces, unseen and undetected. The civil war continued into the mid 1140s. The king returned to Lincoln, which was still being held by Ranulf, Earl of Chester, where he attempted to reclaim the city but failed rather dismally. In 1145, Stephen did enjoy some success, though at no little cost, by defeating Robert's forces in Berkshire and captured the castle they had recently built there. Somewhat surprisingly Ranulf came over to the side of the king. Stephen hadn't forgotten the trouble the Earl had given him in the past and summarily threw him into prison before eventually releasing him.




As we move into the 1150s, Stephen can continue to be seen to be struggling to stamp authority over his kingdom. In 1150 and in 1151, he made two unsuccessful attempts at taking Worcester. Henry of Huntingdon indicates one of Stephen's key failings. Whilst he would set to new tasks with great energy and force, he would struggle to maintain his sieges and other war efforts gradually would lose momentum. This is a large reason why The Anarchy of his reign continued for as long as it did. In 1152, Stephen made his most lasting contribution to English history though he would have no way of knowing it. In his custody was a 5 year old boy by the name of William, who was the son of a man by the name of John Marshall, a supporter of the Empress Matilda. The king had the boy as hostage, in theory anyway, to ensure his father's good behaviour. John, possibly disregarding this as he had other sons and heirs to his lands and titles, repeatedly violated his oaths to the king. Here, it would have been quite possible for the king to execute the little boy as revolting as that may seem by modern standards. He didn't however. One day, the little William asked to play with a spear that was being held by one of Stephen's men. Stephen overheard this and was quite moved. He kept the young boy at his court and William would remember this act of kindness. William Marshall would go on to serve the English royal family for decades as one of the medieval period's most brilliant knights.

He helped see off rebellions, foreign invasions and oversaw Magna Carta. Without Stephen's act of generosity, and it was that as there are stories to be told of rulers not being so kind to child hostages, English history may have been completely different. In 1153, Geoffrey of Anjou, husband to Matilda died, and left Anjou and Normandy to his son Henry ( Geoffrey having conquered Normandy in 1144 with Stephen completely preoccupied in England). Henry was now an increasing threat to Stephen and his dynastic ambitions. Not only did he now have serious land and wealth, he had also, in 1152, married the former queen of France, Eleanor of Aquitaine. Matilda, by this point, would have recognised, long ago, the futility of trying to claim the crown for herself and her ambitions now shifted to that of installing her son on the English throne. Henry made a couple of weak attempts as a teenager to invade England on his mother's behalf but by 1153, he had a lot more to throw at King Stephen.




At Wallingford, in 1153, a treaty was finally agreed. Finally weary of war that had done untold damage to his kingdom, Stephen agreed to make Henry his heir and disinherited his own son Eustace. Eustace would not have taken this news very well at all but thankfully for the country at large, he rather kindly died. Even though the war was now effectively at an end, there were still random outbreaks of fighting, perhaps out of force of habit. Stephen was allowed to remain on the throne but he died the following year, in 1154. What is Stephen's legacy? Militarily he was capable but not to the same relentless extent of the great warrior kings of the Middle Ages. He lacked sustained aggression. If he had more perseverance, he may well have put an end to the civil war earlier. He had managed to retain a loyal following. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have reigned as long as he did and it might have come to an end as quickly as it had begun in 1138 with the invasion of David I of Scotland. He was not without admirable personal traits as the story with William Marshall demonstrates but he also had a greedy and selfish streak too, wrongfully stealing property of those that had been loyal too him. His decision making is, at best, questionable. His taking the throne in 1135, he must have known, would throw England into utter chaos. That, ultimately, is his legacy. A reign of anarchy.