In Our Time - The Anarchy

Episode Date: November 1, 2012

Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss The Anarchy, the civil war that took place in mid-twelfth century England. The war began as a succession dispute between the Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I, and her cousin, Stephen of Blois. On Henry's death Stephen seized the English throne and held it for a number of years before Matilda wrestled it from him, although she was chased out of London before she could be crowned. The Anarchy dragged on for nearly twenty years and is so called because of the chaos and lawlessness that characterised the period. Yet only one major battle ever took place, the Battle of Lincoln in 1141, and any other fighting associated with the conflict was fairly localised. This has led historians to question the accuracy of labelling the civil war as The Anarchy, a name only bestowed on the era in the 19th century. But why did Matilda fail to become the monarch, and what impact did it have on the way England was ruled in centuries to come?With: John Gillingham Emeritus Professor of History at the London School of Economics and Political ScienceLouise Wilkinson Reader in Medieval History at Canterbury Christ Church UniversityDavid Carpenter Professor of Medieval History at Kings College London. Producer: Natalia Fernandez.

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. Thank you for downloading this episode of In Our Time. For more details about in our time, and for our terms of use, please go to BBC.co.com. UK slash Radio 4. I hope you enjoy the programme. Hello, here's a quotation from a 12th century source. I neither can nor may I tell all the wounds and all the pains which they inflicted on wretched men in this land. This lasted the 19 winters while Stephen was king, and it grew continuity.

nearly worse and worse. To till the ground was to plough the sea. The earth bear no corn, for the land was all laid waste by such deeds. And they said openly that Christ slept and his saints. That's how the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle describes the period of turmoil and conflict that characterised England from 1135 to 1153,

and since been known as the time of anarchy. The Stephen in the Chronicle referred to was Stephen de Blas, King Stevens and his nemesis was his own cousin, the Empress Matilda. Their power struggle was undoubtedly long and disruptive, but were the levels of lawlessness and chaos so tremendous as to justify being labelled as the anarchy, and why did it take so many years to resolve their dispute? With me to discuss the Empress Matilda and the anarchy are

John Gillingham, Emeritus Professor of History at the London School of Economics and Political Science, Louise Wilkinson, reader in medieval history at Canterbury Christchurch University, and David Carpenter, Professor of medieval history at King's College London. John Gilliam, the civil war can be traced to the death of Henry I's son William in 1120. Would you give us a brief sketch of the roots of the conflict? Well, as you say, the death of William drowned in perhaps the most famous shipping disaster of the 12th century, the wreck of the white ship, meant that all the ruling king's plans for the succession

to the throne after his death went awry. This is his son. This is Henry the first son. He had the one son, one legitimate son, many illegitimate children, it should be said, more than 20, but only two legitimate children, one son and one daughter. Everyone expected, his father expected, everyone expected William to succeed, but the death, the unexpected death in this naval catastrophe put everything up in uncertainty. But he had a daughter, Matilda. But he had a daughter, indeed.

But in 1120, she was married to the emperor, the king of Germany. And the emperor of the Romans? And he was known as the King of the Romans. After he died, that's to say, her husband, King Henry V, the Emperor, she was called back to England and to Normandy because we should remember that her father ruled Normandy as well as England. This, after all, was the Anglo-Norman realm, as many historians call it, put together following the Norman conquest in 1066.

And ever since then, the fortunes of this joint great realm of England and Normandy had been fought over by the descendants of William the conqueror, among whom, of course, in the next generation were Stephen and Matilda. Both of them, male and female descendants of William the Conqueror. Henry I gave his daughter Matilda to understand that she would inherit and become the rule of the queen after his death. Can you just tell us something about that, please, John? Well, certainly when he recalled her to his court, he must have given her that understanding. It's clear, though, that this was an uncomfortable prospect.

for pretty well all the political elites of the time, both in England and on the continent. And in consequence, he not only gave her to understand this, but he forced the great men of England and Normandy to swear an oath that they would accept her as the heir, his heir, if he did not have another legitimate male child. As soon as William died, William, his son died, the first thing he did was to marry again in very, very fast pace.

but despite all of his best endeavours, his second wife bore no children for him. And so there was Matilda. She expected to rule. But although her father, Henry, made this plane, he actually didn't do anything to implement it. She had no power base within England and Normandy, and if she was to take over as a woman, an uncomfortable prospect, then she really needed a power base within England and Normandy to enable her to do so.

And he was so reluctant as he grew older and older in the last few months of his life that he refused to hand over any castles to her and to her husband. And this meant, although he told her she would inherit, he actually messed up her chances of inheriting. So her cousin, Stephen Ablois,

a direct descendant of William the Conqueror, seized the throne, effectively, in 1135. How was that move received? by the ruling classes? Well, in England, so far as we can tell, it seems to have been received with acclamation and relief. In London, in Winchester, in all the centres of power in England, people acquiesce pretty quickly to the, as it were, unexpected turn-up,

but welcome turn-up for the book. In Normandy, it was rather different because the barons in Normandy had expected, actually, Stephen's older brother, to be a more likely candidate to take the third. No one, I think, in Normandy wanted Matilda. She was a woman, after all. But Stephen had an older brother.

Plans were afoot to make him Duke of Normandy and then King of England, but as soon as he heard that Stephen had acted with such alacrity, Theobald stepped back, and so Stephen was also recognised in Normandy. And also Matilda was in Anjou, so she was out of the country, and also the Pope accepted Stephen, which was a big factor. at the time because he didn't accept Matilda at any time. Let's move to Matilda Louise Wilkinson. Can you

tell us a bit more about her? Several times John has mentioned uncomfortable, use the word uncomfortable and also the word woman. So let's address that for a start. Well, Matilda's a very, very interesting figure. I think she was in terms of character

very strong-willed. She was a very proud woman. She was very conscious of her royal birthright and her position as potential heir to the English throne. Contemporary descriptions speak of her really in terms of behaving in an arrogant fashion, a haughty fashion. Those who are perhaps more sympathetic to her admired her masculine courage, note the term masculine rather than feminine, and also they speak of her being of a noble character. I think really the key to understanding her character in this

period comes from looking at her imperial background at that first marriage to Henry V. She was sent to marriage when she was 12. She was sent to marry when she was 12. She actually went to Germany. She was delivered there and received by papal envoys in 1110 when she was just eight years old. And thereafter she was educated in German customs, the German language, and really the protocols of the imperial court. And there was a long tradition in Germany of very active queen consorts.

And almost actually from the moment of her marriage in 1114 at the age of 12, She played a key role in Imperial Affairs. She sponsored Royal Grants. She interceded with petitioners to her husband. Can we just get this clear for listeners? Because it's a bit baffling. The 12-year-old is doing things. Is she being doing things because people in charge of her telling her how to do things?

Or is she exercising independent control? I think it's actually part of her education. I think initially she worked closely with her husband and with his advisors. She's actually accompanying him in 1116 on an imperialist. imperial journey to Italy. And when Henry is recalled from Italy by a rebellion in Germany, it's Matilda who stays in place in Italy, acting as his regent with the help of his ministers. So she's doing that as a teenager, which is very, very striking, actually. So she has this tremendous imperial background, this role in German government. And she expects to be an empress

probably at that stage for the rest of her life. So when her husband died in 1125, when she she was summoned to return to Normandy, and then, of course, summoned to go to England to be recognised as her father's successor. She had all of this behind her, and I think this explains a lot of her later behaviour. She was a very proud woman. So, but there was great resistance,

as has already been hinted by John. Can you just, can you give us a specific, can you give us a succinct summary? I'll get there. Of the resistance to her. Well, there was, great deal of disquiet with the idea that a woman would inherit the English throne. No other woman had inherited a claim to the English throne in the past. And there was a lot of prejudice against

the idea of a female heir to the crown in this period. Now the lines... Primogenitor didn't apply at that time. It did apply, but it's inheritance in the direct line. And this created the possibility that when there were no sons, daughters could be heir to lands. The thing was, this has never been applied to the ruling dynasty to the Crown before. The problem, of course, was where you had a female heir, especially a female heir to the Crown, was that actually this didn't sit at all comfortably with the status of women in medieval society.

They were seen as the heiresses of Eve. They were seen as being irasurable, fallible, inferior to men in need of male governance, guidance and discipline. And so really questions were asked about whether a woman should, inherit the crown herself and reign herself, or whether she should transmit her claim to others to a male lair. Sorry.

In the Chronicles, we'll come to this at the end. There's a lot of stuff written about all this at the time. She's always referred to as arrogant, overweening, intemperate and so. Would these words that would not, if applied to a man, would they have been used in terms of admiration rather than... I think they would have been used in terms of admiration. Absolutely.

I think the problems that Matilda encounters later in life are to do with the fact that she behaves in a kingly fashion, an authoritative fashion. As course, as a woman, you're meant to be subordinate, inferior, humble, submissive. So she's criticised for her unwomanly behaviour. There's one occasion in a source called the guest Estefani, where it describes an encounter between her and the Londoners, and every trace of a woman's gentleness removes from her face, which is extraordinary, really.

But yes, there was a lot of gender-based criticism against her. But she did make some mistakes, perhaps we may say that, and we will come back to those later. David Carpenter, the other main personality of story is Stephen Ablois. Can you tell us something of his background and how he effectively seized a throne in 1135? Well, I think we can get very, very close to Stephen from wonderful picture of him in contemporary chroniclers. And his strength was that he was a great knight, a valiant knight, he was up for anything. I know you can see that in his seizure of the throne. But the other side of his character was that he was afferable.

easygoing, easily placated, warm-hearted. There's a wonderful story of how when he saw a little boy a hostage about to be catapulted into a castle in order to execute him, he rushed forward, seized him, rescued him, and took him off to his tent to play the medieval equivalent of concurs. Is this hygrography or history? This is real, no, this is contemporary material, very good sources for all of this,

and this is what Stephen was like. There's no doubt at all about it. he was, as I've said, easygoing. He saw himself in a way almost not as a king, but as a great baron from which he comes. It's a very important member, of course, he never thought he would be king. And until the very late years of Henry the First,

you know, this wasn't something. And so he comes out of a baronial elite, and he doesn't see himself as superior to his fellow barons, almost they're equal. And that's actually said at the time about him. So no, I don't think this is a later hagiography or anything. This is what he was like, Quite different from King John.

We're too much to go into. We're told that he was very good in battle, though. Yeah. It seems to be at odds with the softness that you're... Oh, no, I don't think so at all. You can be, on the one hand, a valiant knight, and you can be decisive in action. And yet, on the other hand,

when you're with your fellow friends and barons, you can be very generous, open-hearted. And, of course, in the sort of way, that was the mythology of what a king should be. He should be largesse. He should spread it all round. Stephen loved spreading largesse around. The problem was that it was so difficult to choose who ought to have it.

And once they've got it, are they going to be loyal? When, of course, if you offend anyone, there's somewhere else to go. You can go to the Empress. Can you give us a brief rundown of the story? And then we'll get on with the story. The state of England in 1135, when Stephen effortlessly, it seems, from reading what you've written, became king. Well, I think there were two.

problems. To be fair to Stephen, it was a very, very difficult situation to inherit. And there was burning resentment, I think, in England about two things. One was that Henry I first had constructed a very powerful governmental system. The Exchequer, which we still have today, was Henry I was Henry I've invention. And it records everybody's debts in a very intrusive way. All the great barons owe money to the king, and it's being exacted from them by the Exchequer. There are also a lot of new... They didn't like that did, though. How do things stay the same?

Absolutely the same as today. Also, he had a lot of new men, as they were called, men raised from the dust who ran this system for him. And the old Boronia elite just couldn't stand these people poking their noses into their affairs. And then the final problem, which was so difficult, was that since the Norman conquest, there'd been a huge turnover in land, holding, and in office.

And rival families felt, I should have that land, I should have that office, I should have that castle. And so throughout the counties of England, there are these family history disputes. And of course, Paul Stephen, who hasn't really got much judgment, has to choose between these rival groups. He has to give patronage to one. If he does, he offends another. And if he does that, of course, you create a disgruntled group who got somewhere else to go. So we're talking about a lot of mighty barons.

Not unlike the early dark ages, about 600 years before. And they're rampaging across the place. Well, lots of people wouldn't like you to say that. They would think that these are rational calculating magnets who are concerned with local rule and law and order. You know, we mustn't think of them as a sort of mindless. Well, why mustn't we? I mean, you've just described that. But they were.

Rational calculating people 600 years earlier as well. Yes, they were. I mean, the King of Mercia and the King of Northumbria. The rule of Northumbria and Wessex, they're breadful bunch. And Stephen's affability was surely one of his great strengths. and it meant that he could talk to all manner of people in a way that didn't make them feel condescended to. In consequence, they rather liked him. This meant the Londoners, the citizens of Lincoln, the citizens of York.

It wasn't just the great aristocrats who Stephen got on well with, and above all, perhaps, his likableness meant that his wife was, he really got on incredibly well with his wife, and she was to be an enormous support to him. whereas the Empress Matilda, for all her strengths of character, clearly did not get on very well with her husband, and that was to be a great source of weakness. No, she can go ahead about this. No, I'm actually sort of saying,

no, she didn't get on well with her husband, because actually she married Geoffrey of Anjou, the son of the Count of Arnjou. He was 14 and she was 25 at the time. She was unfortunate in the age difference in her marriage, wasn't she? She was, she was, and also she had her imperial background. She might well have felt that she was being disparaged in being married off to the son of her country,

And actually the marriage didn't work initially in personal terms at all within a year of the marriage in 1129. The couple had fallen out seriously and Matilda had actually returned to her father's court and a reconciliation wasn't actually affected until 1131. And then thereafter things do seem to have got better between the couple. They improved dramatically. Well, there are three children, which is some of it. Yeah, she produced regularly sons obligingly for her husband. Let's get back to the line that I've tried to follow.

John, for all his affability in chivalric nature, Stephen had no problem at all about elbowing the Empress Matilda, did he? Well, let's leave that to one's eye. But her fortunes changed when one of Stephen's most powerful allies, Robert of Gloucester, switched sides. Why was that important, John Gillingham? Well, it is undoubtedly a decisive moment for Matilda, for the Empress. it creates the opportunity for her that she had really missed in the first year or two after her father's death.

But I wouldn't describe Robert of Gloucester, the man you're talking about, the half-brother of Matilda, one of Henry I's many illegitimate children, but a young man who had been brought up at Henry I, promoted high to the great land holdings in England and Normandy. I would never describe him as Stephen's ally. There's a sense they clearly rivals already at the time of King Henry I first. But in the beginning he was on, I use the word ally, but not all that loosely, John. Because in the beginning he was on Matilda's side and not on Stephen's side. He was on Stephen's side and not on Matilda's side.

He allied with Stephen of Arthur. If he formally allied, he did so with great reluctance clearly. because initially he preferred Theobald, not. But Theobald was out of account. I mean, he didn't want to. So Stephen cut across the rolls. He was right on this, John. Oh.

Well, he's right on everything. No, I'm not. No, please. It's been to terrible trouble. Stephen was so successful in the first 12 months of his taking over the throne that Robert of Gloucester clearly calculated that to do anything other than go with the tide would have been politically absolutely hopeless. But there's distrust between Stephen and Robert of Gloucester

right from the beginning of the rain, indeed right from before them. And they both are eyeing each other with suspicion. And as soon as it becomes politically feasible to go into open opposition against Stephen, which is in 1138, Robert of... Gloucester does so. But the terrific thing really for the Empress Matilda is that he gives her what her father didn't give her.

He gives her, he allows access to a stake in the kingdom, the great holdings in the West Country that Robert had and also in Kent. So she comes back, she lands in Sussex in 1139, with something to hold on to an ally, close ally, and all this base, and that changes the game. I mean, Robert clearly was perhaps quietly an ally of his half-sister right from the beginning and an open ally once he defies Stephen in 1138. And then the two of them come over from the continent, as you say,

and land on the Sussex Coast at Arundel in 1139. Robert then rides off to Bristol, which is a very powerful city and fortress, the centre of his possessions, as it had been for many, many years, leaving his sister Matilda behind in Arundel. And that's one of the strangest moments, isn't it, Louise Wilkins? Because there she is. She's arrived. She's a threat. And if, had she been, this is where being a woman might play for her.

You tell me. Because had she been a man, he could have incarcerated her there or somewhere for the rest of her life. And nobody would have said, they'd have said, that's the thing to do. But according to what I've read, he is Chevalric. And he says, this is a woman I must have her escorted to the place she is destined. attended to go to so he gets her escorted to Bristol. What about that? Well, it's interesting.

First of all, it's just worth pointing out that it was no accident that she landed at Arandall, or she landed in Sussex and headed to Arindra Castle, because that was actually the castle that was held by her stepmother, whom we've heard about previously, Adeliscia of Louvann. Adeliscia, after Henry the first death, had actually remarried William D'Aubene. And so Matilda seems to have been fairly certain

she would receive a warm welcome from her stepmother when she landed. Robert, of course, departed soon afterwards to go and rally forces in the West Country. And then Matilda remained there temporarily under her stepmother's protection. And it's quite interesting, really, what seems to have happened next. Stephen, who was preoccupied really with trying to lay siege to Corp at that time, which had been captured actually by some of Matilda sympathises, as Baldwin to Redford's, then headed straight over to Arundle Castle and laid siege to it. And then, of course, he was faced with this problem that you've mentioned,

what to do with Matilda. On the one hand, her half-brother was rallying troops against the king's cause in the west and becoming a significant danger. But on the other, he had this woman, a kinswoman, who was potentially a captive of his. So what did he decide to do? If he arrested Matilda and incarcerated her, that actually might make a big slur on his reputation. It might damage his reputation significantly.

It also undermined the protection that was being offered to Matilda by Adelisia of Luvan. So we're told that Henry Bishop of Winchester actually persuaded Stephen that a more prudent sort of course of action would be for him to allow Matilda to join her brother in the West. so we get this sense of chivalric behaviour, perhaps on Stephen's part, coming through. Perhaps in the hope that Matilda would actually go and unite with Robert, and then they could go against Robert and Matilda together in one fell swoop in the open field. David Caron. I just think this is nonsense really, and this is a classic example of Stephen's pathetic quality of judgment and of this sort of weakness and easy-going affability.

It was crazy. He should have incarcerated the emperienced. And the idea that once they were all together in Bristol, it would be easier to get rid to deal with them was, I mean, it was just completely versed the case. Kings need sometimes to be roaring lions and Stephen just couldn't be that. Henry I would have imprisoned them straight away and that would be the end of it all. John Gilliam. As usual, David, speaking with emphasis, but I'm not sure that you're quite right about this because, as you say, what would King Henry I've first have done? We know that at the beginning of his reign, he had fought against his older brother, captured him in battle, and kept him in prison as to the end of his life.

Exactly. But his brother, Robert, had a young son, an innocent in political terms who had done nothing wrong. And even the ruthless King Henry I, did not dare keep a child in prison. And that was to be, if you like, in your terms, a massive political mistake. which was to cause King Henry I, endless trouble for the next 20 years. Now, if the tough old King Henry I couldn't treat innocent people like this, then Stephen didn't make a mistake, I think. It worked out badly for him, but it wasn't an obvious political mistake.

No, I think that all along, Stephen, he should have executed the garrison in Exeter Castle when he took them. He should have shown the ruthless face of kingship from the start, and then nothing like this would have happened. There's a disagreement across the table, ladies and gentlemen. I wouldn't mind cracking on, but do you want to disagree a bit, Louise, and then we can... I'd just like to say that actually it was a highly controversial decision from the point of view of contemporaries as well. Some saw the advice that Henry offered Stephen as deceitful advice,

and while others saw it as outstanding counsel. So there was a lot of contemporary concern with Stephen's actions at the time. The anarchy, so we'll come back later to whether it can be properly called the It was a 19th century appellation by the historian Stubbs, but the anarchy lasted for nearly 20 years, but there were hardly any pitch battles at all. The most significant one was the Battle of Lincoln in 1141, and in which, can you tell us about that, David Cumberland. Yeah, the background here was that Ramonford of Chester, who was sort of wavering ambiguously between the two sides, seized at the end of 1140 Lincoln Castle to which he got a family claim. And it was through a wonderful trick of his wife. who is sent into the castle to have afternoon tea, then went in to sort of bring her home and managed to take the castle as a result. There's wonderful glimpse of a countess in action too.

So Ranulff furtherchester has got hold of Lincoln Castle. Stephen marches up to Lincoln to expel him. Does expel him, but then Ranulf allies with precisely the person you've mentioned, Robert Earl of Gloucester. The two of them bring a large army to Lincoln, and Stephen is simply defeated. He fights valiantly to the last. he's then captured

and that clears the way for the empress it seems to become queen yes now we have to get a bit of a move on here otherwise we're going to short change trades descriptions act is calling in here so Louise we come to the other Matilda

do you mind if I just say a little so that we can she was from Beloit she was very rich she turns out to be the heroine of the story according to the chronicles she was she raised armies she raised armies in this case This is to go and try to get her husband rescued, and she attacked various sitters with these armies, but she did it in a womanly fashion.

I don't mean that to be ironic. That's what the Chronicle said. So she played a big part in securing his release, and eventually Robert of Gloucester was captured. So can you take the story on from there, which gave her leverage? Well, basically, Matilda Groyne, waged a tremendously successful campaign during the course of 1141, during her husband's captivity,

against the forces of the Empress. She managed to bring about the surrender of London to her forces and bring about the expulsion of the Empress from London on the eve of her coronation. She then basically proceeded to do a lot of bridge building with people who defected from her cause in the interim. So she managed to bring Henry Bishop of Winchester back to her husband's side. She then actually went to assist Henry

when he was besieged by the Empress's forces in Winchester besieging the besiegers. And it was during that route that, of course, Robert of Gloucester was captured. And this was really a godsend for Matilda of Boloin because it gave her a very powerful bargain encounter to help bring about her husband's release from the forces of the Empress. And this was actually affected later in the year in November. There was an exchange effectively of prisoners. So Matilda of Boloid secured her husband's release. Robert of Gloucester went back to his sister.

and it's really rather lovely because at Christmas, when Stephen was released, Matilda actually wore her crown alongside her husband at the Great Christmas Court in Canterbury. She was a tremendously capable figure. A woman of subtlety in a man's resolution according to the author of the guest to Stefani. So we have the exchange of prisoners

and inside that, John, we have the notion that had Matilda, Empress Matilda, Hacked more ruthlessly, then she could have made terms after the capture of Stephen, which he, according to Chronicles, was too arrogant to make these terms. She acted less ruthlessly, I think. Less ruthless. Sorry, I got it wrong. Yes, absolutely right, yeah.

If she had been conciliatory rather than, yes. Yes, it's very noticeable that, I mean, there are endless negotiations going on between the sides, and that the empress is usually kept back from the front line of negotiations, whereas Stephen's wife is usually in the foreground of diplomatic discussion. I mean, she's clearly the woman who knew how to persuade people. The Empress knew how to get people's backup.

At this time, David Kappner, we have a country where David of Scotland is surging into the north of England. Cumberland and Northumberland are falling to him. He's buried, as we know, at Carlisle. The Welsh are in turbulence, the West countries in the hands of somebody else. The Midlands, the Great Lords are controlling the Midlands. It has been called the... anarchy, I'll learn much later. How much, do you think that word applies anarchy? Yeah, I personally do think it does apply, although

with limitations of time and place, I mean, King David in the north, Stephen in East Anglia, the Empress in the West, there were periods when they were able to maintain peace and stability. But at the points where the forces collided, I think they were very, very terrible times, especially for the peasantry. And if you look at the Contemporary Chronicles, which are the real source for our understanding of the anarchy, or there's a lot of other material backs it up. I think there are two

key things here. The first was the gigantic spread of castles. Forty new castles built. And the Castellans, the men in charge of 404-0. Yeah, 40 new castles, many old ones were rebuilt as well. And the Castellans, the men in charge of these castles, terrorise the local population,

both to get supplies, but also to get garrisons. So that was one form of anarchy. The other form of the anarchy is that the whole nature of warfare in this period was that of ravage. You ravage the estates of your opponents, which you could do so easily by burning the crops in the field,

burning the villages, which are all wood. And you did that, not simply for fun, but to destroy the economic basis of your opponent. So I think if at times you'd sort of stood on top of the Wiltshire Morbredowns and looked down at the plane between

Swindon to Oxford, you'd often seen villages verning, you know, peasantry starving to death. So I don't think anarchy is at all wrong for this period. John Gillingham, would you agree with that? I agree about, if you look down from the Berkshire Downs, but there clearly were war zones within Britain. And if you lived there, then you were in trouble. You could expect trouble next year.

You could expect trouble. But for large parts of the country, it was much like any other period. you were essentially under the rule of the local baron or the local gentleman, the local castle holder. It was pretty rough if you lived in the north of England, you had the Scots coming down and ravage you every ten minutes. If you live north of the T's, the years up to 1138 were disastrous because King David led these Scottish armies down pretty well every time he could. and they ravaged and brutalized and slaved in a way that English contemporaries found to be atrocious. On the other hand, you began with the quotation from the Peterborough Chronicle

about the 19 long years. What, of course, he didn't go on to quote, which no one does go on to quote, is what he then says immediately afterwards when he says that, and in that time, our Abbott Martin built new vineyards, improved the church, he acquired lots more estates for them,

for the abbey. So the thing is that that passage was written at the beginning of Henry the Second's reign. The whole ethos of Henry the Second's reign was, they were bad times before, I am bringing back the good old days. Everything that went before under the old regime was rubbish. Nothing but mistakes, pathetic rule, now a brave new dawn. And one mustn't accept, as it were, the propaganda of the new government. It's not propaganda. I think it's a real estimate of the situation. I think one key thing to remember... Especially new building at Peterborough, you mean. Well, no, as I've said, there were pockets

when that was... I think one key thing to remember is that the great men of this period are brought up for war. They love war. And, I mean, they're wonderful anecdotes of Wallin of Moulon, who just sat Chukesbury, and what does he say? He says, never in England or in Normandy before have I achieved such a

burning. They love doing it. Or there's Robert Fitzhuehbert. And what does he say? In Normandy, I burnt to death 40 monks in a church and I'm going to do the same in England and he covers his victims before hanging them outside devise his castle in honey so bees should sort of

feed on them and everything these were ruthless violent men and they loved it. It's a constant strain through English literature that the nobles are saying but England loves a war, the men want to go to war, isn't it? I mean these are the colourful stories of course

these are the colourful stories told with Verve as we've just heard and it's not surprising there are the memorable bits. History is what you remember, as Sulla and Eichmann said. And David's absolutely right about one thing there, and that is that the barons and the nobles were brought up to be prepared to go to war, and some of them clearly liked it. This was one of Matilda's, the Empress's great disadvantages, the expectations of a ruler in the early 12th century. We can see it in all manner of chronicles and sources, as that they ought to be able to lead their men into successful war. and that was not likely to be true of a woman,

though Stephen's wife showed that there isn't a perfect generalisation on this point. Louise, can I ask you to take us from the stalemate being broken in 1147 when Matilda turned her attention not to her own ambitions, but to that of her son, Henry, who was then 14, which was a significant age, it seems, at that time, old enough to get cracking really and make a plea, make a bid for that. and that sort of thing. And how that drove through to him becoming, to the Treaty of Winchester in 1153 when he and Stephen agreed that he

would be Stephen's successor and a year later he was. I'm sorry to a big ask, but could you do that? Yes, indeed. Well, it's interesting because in 1147 of course Matilda's great ally, Robert of Gloucester, died, and she seems to have come to a growing realisation that perhaps the future for her lay in Normandy

so that she could hand over her claims are thrown more fully to her son Henry of Anjou. And so Henry becomes increasingly recognised in this period as Matilda's lawful heir. And when Matilda returns to Normandy in 1148, she retires to Rouenheim and plays an important role there actually as regent of Normandy subsequently. She no longer describes herself in her charters

as Lady of the English. Henry himself in this period is really built up as Matilda's successor. He famously, of course, is knighted in 1149 at Carlisle by David King of Scots, who of course is Matilda's uncle. He isn't, though, at that point, really able to lead a successful campaign against Stephen. But what happens is he returns to the continent and during the succeeding years, he actually builds up a tremendous collection of territories on the continent and a great reputation as a military leader. So his father, for example, hands over control of the Duchy of Normandy,

which Geoffrey's conquered in 1144 to his son. His father dies, and Henry then assumes control of his father's lands, so the great lands of Anjou. And then after that, Henry really excels himself, and he secures the hand in marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine, the divorced wife of the King of France. And of course, she's this great heiress to the southern lands of Aquitaine. And so he builds up this great collection of lands on the continent,

holdings that are greater in France than those held by the King of. of France. And this I think makes him become a verbal contender for the English throne, especially his control of Normandy, because we have to remember in this period that a lot of the great barons, a lot of the great earls, held estates in both places.

And so he was able finally in 1153 to launch a campaign to attempt to conquer England. Once he arrived in England though, the situation is quite interesting, isn't it? We'll have to move a bit faster than

The fact is that the Treaty of Winchester he makes a deal with Stephen, King Stephen, saying he will be the successor. There seems to have been a genuine desire for peace in England when he arrives in 1153. And this leads on to the Treaty of Winchester. It was the death, of course, of Stephen's eldest son, Eustace, and that was absolutely crucial

because Eustace was determined to get the throne, whereas Stephen's second son, William, was perfectly happy to go back and be a great baron again. And so that was what it made the Treaty of Winchester possible. entirely agree with David. The death of Eustace You waited this long. Absolutely, absolutely central because Eustace was married to the King of France's

sister and the King of France Louis was not at all happy by the fact that his ex-wife had married Henry of Anjou to be Henry the 2nd. So had Eustis lived, it was quite possible that there would have been a very powerful alliance between the King of France,

King Stephen, and the heir to the throne. And Henry might have been a very powerful alliance between. And Henry might have been a very powerful alliance between the king of France, King Stephen, and the heir to the throne. have lost, but Eustace died. You wanted to say something, Louise. And also, he should also remember that Matilda Boulogne died in 1152, and she'd really championed Eustace as Stephen's successor.

So that, I imagine, must have removed a degree of pressure from Stephen perhaps as well. John, when Henry became King of England in 1154, a year after this treaty, what sort of kingdom did he inherit and how did he go about putting it in his own image? Well, I think the most important thing is that he inherited a kingdom which was thoroughly fed up with war and the uncertainty and insecurity that the succession dispute had engendered. So his position was so strong that when King Stephen died, he didn't have to rush to Winchester or to London to get the throne. He could take his time. Everyone knew. Everyone desperately wanted a secure succession. he was on the throne, that meant that they still felt like that, and he could start to sort of throw his weight around a bit, and people acquiesced in it, because the one thing they were not prepared to risk again was to go into the kind of situation they'd had for the last 20 years. So Henry was very fortunate. He was also proved that because everyone knew he was going to succeed, everyone sucked up to him. Everyone said what a wonderful person he was, and what an awful king, Stephen. have been. As he had been.

And so what do you think would Henry inherited David, David Carpenter? I think he did actually have a more difficult situation than John's just sketched in that there had been a catastrophic decline in royal revenue. Absolutely catastrophic.

I mean, Henry I first had been very, very rich and his income had been about £24,000 a year. When Henry the second succeeded, I mean the income was just a few thousand pounds a year, which is a measure of the utter collapse of the power of English kingship. So he has a very difficult job

in rebuilding royal revenue, royal authority. Although I agree with John, I think that there was a desperate desire to have peace and order after quotes the anarchy of Stephen's reign. Marky Henry had Aquitaine and Angeau and Normandy as well as. The greatest dominions ever ruled

by any King of England up to that time. That mattered? That certainly matters. Louise Wilkinson, finally, you've been talking very easily from sources and there seem to be a great number of useful, happy sources for this particular event. Can you summarise them? I'm just being told we've got

very briefly. I'm sorry about all this. Well, we have a tremendous number of sources for Stephen's reign. We have more than 30 national and local chronicles that survive that give us good information about what was going on in this period. In addition to this, we have fabulous government records. For 1155

to 1156, we actually have the Royal Accounts for that year, the financial accounts of the King's income, the wonderful pipe rolls, which allow us the sort of an insight into the restoration of royal government under Henry II. We also have a wealth of charters, and more than a hundred of which actually record evidence of destruction caused by warfare. Well, thank you very much, and thank you for going through such a lot so well and speedily. I feel a bit embarrassed about pushing all that.

Never mind. I hope people got a lot out of it. I certainly did. Thank you to Louise Wilkinson, John Gilligan and David Carpenter. And next week we'll be talking about the ancient Indian philosophical text, the Upanishads. Thanks for listening. There are many more Radio 4 arts and discussion programs to download for free. Find these on the website at BBC.com.ukh slash radio 4.