The New Year

Yesterday's post briefly pointed out the confusion over how to state the year that legislation took place when the date of the start of the year was different. What if a date falls after the start of the year for one country, but before the start of the year in another? When did the year start, and why?

I suppose many readers of this blog are aware of solstices and equinoxes, but let's review: A solstice is the time when the Sun reaches its maximum or minimum declination (the angular distance north or south of the equator), marking the longest or shortest days of the year. The winter solstice takes place about December 20-21, the summer solstice about June 20-21.

An equinox ("equal night") is the day halfway between solstices when the length of day and night is the same. We have a vernal (spring) equinox about March 20-21, and an autumnal equinox about September 20-21.

Note the proximity of the winter solstice to Christmas. With a lack of instruments to measure length of day/night, four days is a good length of time for the human eye and brain to see in December that the days are, in fact, getting longer, and winter will eventually end. This has a lot to do with why so many festivals in the Classical Era were established on or around 25 December. The Romans followed this with calling 1 January the start of the new year, Janus being the god of beginnings.

But 1 January did not suit everyone as the start of the new year. For some cultures, winter was the end of the year, and until the world started growing again, it wasn't "new." Spring was therefore the beginning of a new year. But if that were the case, what day would you pick so that everyone could celebrate at the same time? Well, how about when the day was longer than the night, and more sun and warmth for growing things and for, say, sheep to be able to find grass to eat? 25 March was considered the logical start of the New Year for many.

So to bring us back to yesterday's post: the Statute of Rhuddlan was superseded by some later acts. The Laws in Wales Acts of 1535/6 under Henry VIII was listed that way because it happened to be decided between 1 January and 25 March, and so it was decided as far as England was concerned in 1536, but when proclaimed in Wales for the first time, it was still 1535.

We don't pay much attention to the solstices and equinoxes in the Modern Era except when the weather people point them out, but those dates were turned into other festivals with religious significance in the Middle Ages, and we'll take a Quick Look at them tomorrow.

Statute of Rhuddlan

With Dafydd ap Gruffudd executed for high treason and Wales under his control, it was time for Edward to establish the government he wanted. Prior to this, Wales was governed by the Laws of Hywel Dda, and the country was ruled by separate principalities. Edward introduced England's shire system, and introduced English common law, although he allowed some Welsh legal practices.

Edward had built Rhuddlan Castle in the north of Wales in 1277 after the first war between Edward and Wales. The Statute of Rhuddlan was issued from there, dividing the country into the the counties of Anglesey, Merionethshire, Caernarfonshire, and Flintshire, and revenues from them would now be collected by a new office, the Chamberlain of North Wales, who sent them to the Exchequer at Westminster. The English offices of sheriff and coroner and bailiff were established in each county.

Not everything about local law was changed, so there were differences when you crossed the border from England to Wales. Murder, larceny, and robbery were treated the same. The Laws of Hywel Dda used arbitration to settle disputes, not proclamations from a judge, and that system was maintained.

Inheritance laws were also different from England, where primogeniture was important to keep estates intact. When dealing with land, Wales followed partitive or partible inheritance, with property being divided among heirs. Some changes were made to align with England, however: if there were no son, a daughter could inherit; an illegitimate child could not inherit; widows were entitled to a third of their husband's estate.

The Statute of Rhuddlan was superseded by the Laws in Wales Acts of 1535/6 and 1542/3 under Henry VIII, or, more formally: An Act for Laws and Justice to be ministered in Wales in like Form as it is in this Realm and An Act for Certain Ordinances in the King's Majesty's Dominion and Principality of Wales. Henry wanted the law in Wales to match those of England exactly, and also desired to force English as the official language in a country that almost exclusively spoke Welsh. The 16th century is not really pertinent to this blog, however, so we won't go into any more of that.

Instead, let's ask why I indicated the Acts above as 1535/6 and 1542/3? Wasn't it clear what year they were established? It is, or was, but that depends on when you consider the year to start. Tomorrow let's talk about when the Middle Ages celebrated the "new" year.

The First High Treason

With Llywelyn ap Gruffudd dead in December of 1282, the title Prince of Wales went to his younger brother, Dafydd ap Gruffydd. Dafydd was not to enjoy the title for very long, however. Edward I of England had Dafydd surrounded in the mountainous Snowdonia by January 1283. With resources dwindling, Dafydd managed to sneak downhill to another castle, Castell y Bere, but that was besieged in April. Dafydd escaped that siege and holed up at a guard post further north, but in May had to flee into the mountains.

Dafydd and a few companions had no food or shelter, and had to stay on the run from English soldiers. On 22 June he was captured along with one of his sons, Owain ap Dafydd. (Owain and a brother who was captured later would remain in captivity for the rest of their lives, even being locked into a cage at night so there was no chance of escape.)

Dafydd was taken to the encampment of Edward, who summoned Parliament to Shrewsbury to determine the traitor's fate. He was convicted of High Treason against his king—the first time such a verdict had been brought in England. His punishment needed to be significant to match the crime. On 3 October the sentence was carried out. Let me quote myself from 2013:

He was tied to a horse's tail and dragged through the streets to the place where he was hanged. His body was cut down before death was certain; he was revived, then he was cut open and his entrails pulled out and set afire so that he could see it all happening. His body was then cut into 4 pieces, the parts going to different parts of the kingdom to be put on display. The person given the task of seeing all this done, Geoffrey of Shrewsbury, was paid 20 shillings for the job.

Part of the viciousness of the punishment was because of the sacrilege that Dafydd committed by starting his rebellion on Palm Sunday, desecrating Holy Week.

His daughter and Llywelyn's infant daughter were sent to convents in Sixhills and Sempringham, respectively. There were a few relatives that survived capture, who actually tried rebelling years later, but Wales was now under English rule, and therefore was going to be subject to English rules. Tomorrow we'll see the attempt to replace the Laws of Hywel Dda with the Statute of Rhuddlan.

The Death(s) of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd

It is not that surprising that the details of one particular death during a battle is not noticed, but when that person is the highest ranked figure on his side of the battle, you would think he would be recognized. In the case of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd at the Battle of Orewin Bridge, however, we have options from which to choose.

Llywelyn had come from the north, leaving his brother's forces. Llywelyn was drawn into an ambush near the market town of Builth in Powys on 11 December 1282. The first story is that he left his main force with his chief minister and, while crossing the Orewin Bridge, heard the sounds of battle and turned back to join the army. A lone lancer from the English forces of Edmund Mortimer chased him down and killed him. An English knight a day later recognized the body. His head was cut off and taken to London. This account was made about 50 years later.

Another version was recorded by English monks who got it from Llywelyn's daughter Gwenllian and Dafydd's daughter Gwladys. Their version claims that Llywelyn was at the head of his army and approached the foe, on the assumption that they were going to treat him with respect and even pay homage. A battle began immediately between the Welsh and the combined forces of Edmund and Roger Mortimer, Hugo le Strange, and Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn, son of Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn, who had allied with Edward in 1274. In the battle, Llywelyn and some retainers got separated and were chased into a wood. Llywelyn was a struck down, and asked for a priest. When he identified himself, he was immediately decapitated. The body was searched, revealing some papers—a list of co-conspirators—and the privy seal. 

A letter from Archbishop of Canterbury John Peckham, who had tried to negotiate a truce between the Welsh and Edward, was dated six days later to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, stating:

If the king wishes to have the copy [of the list] found in the breeches of Llywelyn, he can have it from Edmund Mortimer, who has custody of it and also of Llywelyn’s privy seal and certain other things found in the same place.

This gives credence to the list of names.

The two women were not likely to have been anywhere near the battle—Gwenllian had been born the previous June. Did they hear the story from those who were present? Was it designed to make Llywelyn more heroic, at the head of his army?

Edward's forces could now concentrate on fighting Dafydd in the north. Dafydd, now Prince of Wales, engaged in guerrilla warfare for several months, but he destined to lose against superior forces. We'll finish him off tomorrow.

Welsh Rebellion in 1282

The Treaty of Aberconwy in 1277 was supposed to make everyone happy. Dafydd ap Gruffydd (his coat of arms is shown here) was out from under his brother Llywelyn's control—as were leaders of other Welsh kingdoms—and Llywelyn was allowed to retain the title Prince of Wales, recognized by Edward I of England, who now had much of Wales under his control.

Dafydd decided he wasn't happy with his lot, however—even though he had been given part of eastern Gwynedd by Edward. Edward was also antagonizing the Welsh by imposing English law to replace the Laws of Hywel Dda. Dafydd allied himself with some of the other Welsh lords (Deheubarth and North Powys) whose overlord had switched from Llywelyn to Edward to attack English holdings. The first strike was on Palm Sunday in 1282 when they captured Hawarden Castle and laid siege to Rhuddlan Castle. The Lanercost Chronicle described it:

...the Welsh nation, unable to pass their lives in peace, broke over their borders on Palm Sunday, carrying fire and sword among the people engaged in procession, and even laid siege [to Flint and Rhuddlan]; whose Prince Llywelyn, deceived (more's the pity) by the advice of his brother David, fiercely attacked his lord the King;

This success emboldened other Welsh territories to rise up against the English overlords. Llywelyn himself joined in, after sending a letter to Archbishop of Canterbury John Peckham, stating that he was not involved in planning the revolt, but now felt he needed to take steps to support his brother.

Peckham tried to mediate, suggesting Llywelyn be offered some lands in England as a reward for standing down, and Dafydd should agree to go on Crusade as penance. Neither man accepted this suggestion, however, and Edward was not willing to give up anything as a "reward" for rebellion. Five years earlier, Edward had entered Wales with an army intended to punish the uprising and put it to rest. Now he wanted a more decisive conclusion. Nothing but complete conquest of Wales would satisfy him.

This would be the end of Llywelyn and Dafydd. There was one positive for Dafydd: he became Prince of Wales for a little over half a year upon Llywelyn's death. How did Llywelyn die? There are a few stories about that. Tomorrow I'll explain the many deaths of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd.

The Conquest of Wales

Hostilities between Wales and anyone living to the east who wanted to control them was ongoing for centuries, but it wasn't until Edward I of England that Wales became part of a United Kingdom. Edward's father, Henry III, was not a very effective ruler when it came to war, but Edward was prepared, after Henry's death in 1272, to make great strides in asserting the power of England on the island (and on the continent).

Henry wasn't completely ineffective on the Welsh issue. In 1267 the Treaty of Montgomery was signed by Llywelyn ap Gruffudd (1223 - 1282), Prince of Gwynedd—who held the largest unified part of Wales at the time—and Henry to stop recent hostilities and acknowledge Llywelyn as Prince of Wales—the only time a king of England established a Welsh leader's right to that title. All Llywelyn had to do was acknowledge the king of England as his liege. Llywelyn was willing to do that if it meant England left him alone. (The illustration shows Llywelyn on the left, Edward on the right.)

In 1274, the leader of Powys, Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn, and Llywelyn's younger brother, Dafydd ap Gruffydd, decided to throw their lot in with Edward for protection against some of the English lords (Roger Mortimer was one) who were attacking Welsh lands. Edward commanded Llywelyn to come to pay homage—as required by the Treaty of Montgomery. Llywelyn refused, and further angered Edward by arranging marriage (without Edward's blessing) to Simon de Montfort's daughter Eleanor. de Montfort had started a rebellion against Edward's father in 1263, trying to expand the statutes of Magna Carta and take more power from the Crown. This marriage would be advantageous to Llywelyn, and might mean de Montfort's descendant would rule (at least part of) Wales, but Edward saw it as an insult to his family.

Favorable to Edward was the fact that many nobles of Wales did not appreciate Llywelyn's heavy-handed overlordship. As the English started smaller incursions into Welsh territory, long before a major push with the main army, they were joined by the Welsh rulers who saw a path to having more freedom if Llywelyn were thrust from power. In July 1277, Edward's army marched north into Gwynedd with 6000 English troops and 9000 Welsh.

There is no battle named for what happened next, because there was no battle. The invading army never had to fight: Llywelyn realized he was outnumbered, and disliked by his own people, and accepted Edward's negotiation in order to avoid damage to the population and the countryside. This led to the Treaty of Aberconwy in November 1277. The Treaty left Llywelyn with the western part of Gwynedd and the title Prince of Wales, but the eastern part was divided between Llywelyn's brother David and Edward himself. With very little effort, Edward now controlled much of Wales.

This arrangement lasted five years, until David decided he wasn't happy with the little he was given, but that's a story for tomorrow. (Spoiler alert: I wrote about the result of Dafydd's efforts over a decade ago, if you aren't squeamish.)

The Laws of Hywel Dda

Yesterday we learned about Hywel Dda ("Howell the Good"), the 10th-century Welsh ruler, and mentioned that the parliament of Wales is housed in a building called "Hywel's House." The reason for this millenia-old tribute is Hywel's legacy in transforming Welsh law.

Wales was originally a number of small kingdoms with their own laws and practices. Hywel brought most of the kingdoms under one rule. For the sake of convenience and fairness, he created a set of laws that would apply to all the territories over which he had influence. Or did he?

Known in Welsh as Cyfraith Hywel, the Laws of Hywel (the earliest copies we have are Latin versions from the early 13th century) have a prologue that explains how Hywel called on priests and lawyers to meet in Dyfed and create a common set of laws. This anecdote might not be true: since we have no earlier Welsh versions, there is a theory that the story of the gathering of lawyers and priests was created specifically to counter the objections of the then-current Archbishop of Canterbury, John Peckham. Peckham, acting on behalf of King Edward I, was very critical of the Welsh, their ruler Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, and the bishop of St. David's in Wales. The gathering of priests might have been a story concocted to suggested that Wales' legal system had Christian influence at the foundation.

Whatever the origin of these laws, cultural memory attributes them to Hywel. One of the features that stands out is recognition of the rights of women. A small sample from a 1915 English translation:

Chap. i. The laws of the women.

1. The first of them is: if a woman be given in marriage, she is to abide by her agweddi (marriage portion) unto the end of the seventh year; and if there be three nights wanting of the seventh current year, and they separate, let them share into two portions everything belonging to them.

54. If a man willeth to separate from his wife, and after he shall have separated, willet another wife; the first, that has been divorced, is free: for no man is to have two wives.

55. Every woman is to go the way she willeth, freely, for she is not to be revenant; and nothing is due from her, except her amobyr (marriage fee), and only one amobyr; for a woman owes no ebedi (a relief payable to the superior lord), only her amobyr; therefore, as a man is to pay only one ebediw, in like manner, a woman is to pay only one amobyr; for there is no ebediw from her, only her amobyr. [link]

Hywel died in 950, but the Law lived on...until 1284 and the Statute of Rhuddlan, that is, which was established by Edward I of England. To do that, however, Edward would have to conquer Wales, but that's a story we'll start tomorrow.

Hywel Dda

Hywel ap Cadell was known as Hywel Dda ("Howel the Good"), a Welsh king who accomplished so much that his name is attached to the government of Wales even now.

His father was Cadell ap Rhodri (854–909), king of Seisyllwg from 872 until his death in 909, when it passed to Hywel. A few years before Cadell's death, he and Hywel had conquered the kingdom of Dyfed, and Hywel ruled a combined Seisyllwg and Dyfed, calling it Deheubarth.

Controlling a large part of Wales made Hywel a force to be reckoned with, but rather than fight the Anglo-Saxons, he made an alliance with them. Edward the Elder (King of the Anglo-Saxons from 899 to 924) and Hywel joined forces to fight Vikings. Another first for a Welsh leader was Hywel's pilgrimage to Rome in 928.

He continued an alliance with Edward the Elder's son, Æthelstan. Æthelstan wanted to rule the entire island of Britain, but Hywel's voluntary alliance or "submission" to Æthelstan meant he was not subject to attack or even scrutiny, while Æthelstan focused on conquering the territories to the north. Hywel supported Æthelstan's invasion of Scotland in 934, for instance.

When another of Edward the Elder's sons, Edmund, became king, Hywel's cousin Idwal, King of Gwynedd, took a stand for Welsh independence and raised an army against English forces in 942. Idwal was killed fighting against Edmund, and Hywel was able to prevent (with Edmund's approval) the throne of Gwynedd from going to Idwal's sons. Hywel exiled the sons and made himself ruler of Gwynedd, putting him in control of almost all of Wales.

The modern Welsh parliament, the Senedd Cymru, is housed in a building called Tŷ Hywel, which means "Hywel House." The original assembly chamber (now outgrown) is Siambr Hywel ("Hywel's Chamber"). Why is his name honored this way a thousand years after he ruled? I'll explain his impact on Welsh governance tomorrow.

Fighting the Welsh

When the people of Northern Europe sailed westward and landed in the island of Great Britain, there were already people living there. These Brythonic people were slowly driven westward by the increasingly numerous Anglo-Saxons, until they were pushed into the farthest western part of Britain. The Anglo-Saxons called these natives Wīelisċ, from which comes the modern word "Welsh"; the area in which they settled was called Wales.

One of the first recorded battles between the Anglo-Saxons and those who would later settle in Wales was the Battle of Crayford. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle wrote:

A.D. 456.  This year Hengest and Aesc his son fought with the Britons on the spot that is called Crayford, and there slew 4000 men, and the Britons then left the land of Kent, and in great fear fled to London.

About 10 years later, the Britons had a victory against Hengist and his son at Wippidsfleet, but the Anglo-Saxons regained ground in Kent. They ultimately captured the castle of Anderida on the Saxon Shore (south coast) and the leader Aelle established the kingdom of Sussex ("South Saxon"). This was in 491 according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but historians think it took place in 471. Another Anglo-Saxon, Cerdic, established the kingdom of Wessex ("West Saxons") after driving Britons away from the Bournemouth area.

It is around this time that the legends of Arthur, King of the Britons, gain popularity. He is a leader who opposes (successfully) the Anglo-Saxon invaders. The Historia Brittonum ("History of the Britons") by Nennius (borrowing from Bede, and Gildas' De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, "On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain") lists several battles, none of which can be historically proven.

Over the centuries, it is no exageration to say that scores of battles—and probably hundreds, counting skirmishes too small to gain the attention of contemporary chroniclers—took place between Britons and the invaders. Until, that is, a kind of peace was managed by a Welsh leader powerful enough to unite the various kingdoms of Wales and form an alliance with the kingdom of Wessex. That was Hywel Dda ("Howel the Good"), and I'll tell you about him tomorrow.

The Next Earl(s) of Chester

Ranulf de Blondeville died in October 1232 without leaving an heir to the title Earl of Chester, so King Henry III needed to choose one. Fortunately, the 5th Earl, Hugh de Kevelioc (Ranulf's father), had more than one child. Unfortunately, the other child he had besides Ranulf was female, Matilda (or Maud) of Chester (1171 - 1233). Fortunately, she had a few sons, the eldest of which was John of Scotland, born 1207. Why "of Scotland'?  Matilda had been married to David of Scotland, the 8th Earl of Huntingdon (1152 - 1219).

When Ranulf died, Matilda inherited (along with three sisters) a part of his estates, but as the eldest she inherited the earldom suo jure, Latin for "in [his/her] own right," meaning the title is hers and not derived from marriage to the earl. Matilda at the time was about 60 years old, and so one month after she inherited the title, she gave it (with King Henry's permission) to her son, and the title of 7th Earl went to John of Scotland. Matilda died 6 January 1232.

John died in 1237, and following the accidental family pattern left no heirs but had sisters. The sisters inherited his estates, and agreed among them that the eldest sister's son should become the 8th Earl. That would have been William de Forz. Henry did not like this solution: he saw estates being divided among women and perhaps didn't want the earldom being run by an increasingly Scottish dynasty. Henry purchased the honor (estate) of Chester from the sisters in 1246.

In 1254 there was a Third Creation. Henry gave the title to his son Edward. Since Edward would later become King Edward I, in 1264 there was a Fourth Creation and the new Earl of Chester was Simon de Montfort, who was the 6th Earl of Leicester but now became the 1st Earl of Chester of the Fourth Creation.

King Edward I followed in his father's footsteps and gave his son, who would later become King Edward II, the title. Edward of Caernarvon was Earl of Chester of the Fifth Creation.

As Edward II, the Sixth Creation was made for his son, Edward Plantagenet, who would later become King Edward III.

The Earldom of Chester (seen in the map above in the top right, in purple) was a powerful entity and valuable as a staging for some of the wars against the Welsh. Tomorrow we'll start looking at conflicts between England and Wales.

The 4th and 6th Earl

Ranulf de Blondeville was the 6th Earl of Chester, but also (sort of) the 4th. The Earldom of Chester was created in 1067 by William the Conqueror and the title given to Gerbod the Fleming, the 1st Earl. He ultimately became a monk after feeling guilt over killing Arnulf III, Count of Flanders. Although Gerbod had children, none of them succeeded as earl.

So in 1071, William created a new Earl, Hugh d'Avranches, who was then called the 1st Earl of Chester. This made him, in the language of such things, the "1st Earl of the Second Creation." Unfortunately for d'Avranches, he and his family were aboard the White Ship, and perished in that disaster, in 1120.

A new earl had to be created, and that was Ranulf le Meschin, both of whose parents were from powerful Norman families and had ties to William the Conqueror's son Henry. He was now the 3rd earl, and the title passed from him to his son and then grandson, and then his great-grandson, Ranulf de Blondeville. Ranulf was therefore the 6th Earl of the Second Creation. Because he was only the fourth in the dynasty begun by Ranulf le Meschin, he was sometimes referred to as the 4th Earl.

Ranulf de Blondeville supported King John and his successor, Henry III, working with William Marshal against the rebellious barons and against the French who invaded during the civil upheaval.

He joined the Fifth Crusade, and was in favor of ending it when the Sultan of Damietta offered them Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, central Palestine and Galilee if they would just give up attacking Damietta and get out of Egypt. The papal legate leading the Crusade, Pelagius, refused the offer.

Ranulf returned to an England under the control largely of Hubert de Burgh, who was managing things for the young Henry III. Loyal to the person wearing the crown, Ranulph clashed with de Burgh's policies. He was a witness to the re-issuing of Magna Carta in 1225 and led the English army in 1230-31 into Poitou against Philip II. He died on 26 October 1232, about 60 years old.

Because of his sentimental attachment to different places, his remains were divided. He had been briefly made the castellan of Wallingford Castle (the remains of Wallingford are seen above), and his viscera were buried there. His body went to Chester, to be interred in St. Werburg's. His heart was buried at Dieulacres Abbey, which he founded.

He did not have a son to become the 7th (or 5th) Earl, so what happened next? The king did not have to create a new earl, because there was a way around the situation. I'll explain that tomorrow.

Ranulf de Blondeville

Yesterday I mentioned how Roger de Lacy was required, as Constable of Chester, to support Ranulf de Blondeville. Ranulph was his overlord, being the Earl of Chester (the 4th Earl or the 6th Earl, depending on how you counted). He was born in 1170, and became earl on the death of his father when Ranulph was only 11 years old.

He came into his majority in 1188 or 1189, and was knighted. In 1189 he also married Constance, Duchess of Brittany. She had been married to Henry II's son Geoffrey II, who had died in 1186 at 27 years of age. Henry wanted Brittany under his control, so pushed the marriage to one of his vassals. Through this marriage Ranulph also became the Earl of Richmond.

Ranulph styled himself "Duke of Brittany," but he had no real influence there and no one else considered him to be the duke, nor did he spend a lot of time there. When Henry's son Richard was in power, he summoned Constance and her son by Geoffrey, Arthur, to Rouen. Arthur had, however, been quietly taken to the court of Philip II of France, Richard's rival, to be raised with Philip's son Louis VIII. The people of Brittany did not want England dictating their duchess's husband or trying to rule them, especially in absentia. Constance requested a divorce on the grounds of desertion, and got it in 1199.

In 1200 Ranulph married Clemence of Fougères, of a Norman family, to extend his contacts in Normandy. King John was suspicious of him, especially since Ranulph had opposed Prince John's power grab while King Richard was on Crusade, but John overcame concerns about Ranulph by first confiscating his estates and then, after deeming Ranulph had learned his lesson, returning them and showering Ranulph with gifts to further ensure loyalty. Ranulph became a strong supporter of John afterward, supporting him in the First Barons War.

Ranulph was a witness to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 and, because he had barons under his earldom, created his own "Magna Carta of Chester" to appease them. (Magna Carta dd not apply to the earldom of Chester, which was a separate feudal domain.)

There was a lot of fighting to come, even after Magna Carta, and I'll go into that and Ranulph's death and his burial in three separate places, but ponder this question between now and next time: how was he either the 4th or the 6th earl?

See you here tomorrow.

Roger de Lacy

Roger de Lacy is one of those people for whom I started this blog: a person not famous enough to be of interest to the Modern Age but who was significant in his time.

Born in 1170 to the Baron of Halton John Fitz Richard and Alice of Essex, he was also known as Roger Fitz John, but also went by Roger de Lisours for a time, hoping he might inherit the de Lisours lands after the current holder (his paternal grandmother) died. She held a barony because of her relationship to its previous owner, Robert de Lacy, the Baron of Pontefract.

Robert de Lacy died in 1193, and Roger agreed to change his name to de Lacy as part of the agreement with his grandmother to give up his desire for the de Lisours lands but inherit the de Lacy-connected Pontefract. This agreement also made him Lord of Bowland and Lord of Blackburnshire. He was also hereditary Constable of Chester.

The problem with Pontefract was that Robert de Lacy had not supported King Henry I in the power struggle with his brother, Robert Curthose. Henry confiscated Pontefract Castle as a result, and Roger had to pay King Richard I 3000 marks for the "Honour of Pontefract"; Roger could live in the castle and take care of it, but its owner was still the Crown.

Roger stayed in England during the Third Crusade, although he was a powerful noble with several lands from which he could draw men to accompany Richard. His father went along, however, and died at the Siege of Acre.

When John became king, Roger was part of the noble escort to bring King William "the Lion" of Scotland to John. John trusted Roger to be commander of Château Gaillard, the fortress built by Richard as a staging point in his quest to re-take lands in Normandy that Philip of France had conquered while Richard was in the Holy land and imprisoned. That put Roger in charge during the siege by Philip, which was discussed yesterday.

de Lacy survived the siege and returned to England, where he worked to reinforce Pontefract Castle. Meanwhile, there was trouble in Wales. The Earl of Chester, Ranulph by name, took a small army into Wales and, finding himself opposed and outnumbered, was besieged in Rhuddlan Castle, whence he sent a message to the Constable of Chester for military support. Roger de Lacy gathered a bunch of minstrels and other sketchy figures and led them to Rhuddlan. It was a very large group, and seeing it approach frightened the Welsh, thinking they were about to face a fierce army. The Welsh fled. Ranulph conferred upon de Lacy the patronage of minstrels, an "honor" which de Lacy gave away to his steward.

Roger de lacy married Maud de Clere and had two children. John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, and a daughter who married a Scottish lord of Galloway.

So what was Ranulph doing in Wales? Why did he think going there was a good idea? Let's look into his life tomorrow.

Château Gaillard After Richard

Château Gaillard had a long history after its creation by Richard I, and what remains can still be visited today.

Richard I built it in Normandy as a staging site for his war with Philip II of France, but died shortly after its completion. His younger brother and successor, John, was unsuccessful in defending his lands against Philip, and lost Gaillard along with Normandy in 1204.

After capturing several other Norman castles, Philip besieged Gaillard in September 1203. The castle might have survived a prolonged siege, being well-provisioned. The citizens of Andeli—the town that grew up at the base of the hill on which Gaillard was situated—fled to the castle to escape the Normans, and the additional mouths that needed food and water stretched the supplies thin. Furthermore, John did not send any troops that winter to help the garrison, and Gaillard fell into Philip's hand in March of 1204.

The castellan, Roger de Lacy, requested of the surrounding French that the civilians be given safe passage. Over the course of two days, about 1000 civilians departed the castle and went safely through the French army. When Philip found out, he was furious, and forbade any more leniency. He knew that more people to feed would shorten the ability to withstand a siege. When de Lacy sent out the rest of the civilians, the French attacked them. Hundreds of non-combatants found themselves attacked by soldiers on one side, and up against locked gates on the other. They huddled at the base of the outer walls, and many starved over the winter. In February 1204, Philip arrived on the scene, and ordered that the remaining civilians be fed and let go.

The French got through the defenses in stages: first the outermost wall was breached by undermining it, then an inner barrier was breached by finding a latrine that allowed them to enter the chapel. Once the French were inside, they lowered the drawbridge for the rest of the army. de Lacy kept retreating to inner defenses, but finally surrendered on 6 March.

Gaillard was useful for many purposes. It was the prison for Margaret of Burgundy in the Tour de Nesle Affair. During hostilities between England and Scotland, King David II of Scotland fled to France and was hosted at Gaillard with some retainers from 1333, when he was only nine years old, until his return to Scotland in 1341.

The castle switched from English to French possession several times during the Hundred Years War, until the last switch in 1449 when the French took it and have had possession ever since. By 1573, however, it was uninhabited and in need of radical repair. Henry IV of France ordered it demolished in 1599.

Poor Roger de Lacy, who did his best but had no support from his king. I'll tell you abut him tomorrow.

Château Gaillard

It was called the Bellum Castrum de Rupe ("the Fair Castle at the Rock"), and has a fascinating history, starting with the illegal seizure of the site.

It was built on a hill overlooking the River Seine in the Andeli territory of Walter de Coutances, Archbishop of Rouen. Richard I of England, King of England and Duke of Normandy, wanted the site for a fortress from which he could mount a campaign against King Philip II of France, who was encroaching on Richard's continental possessions. The archbishop refused, but Richard seized it anyway, causing a controversy that was explained here.

Although a treaty with Philip agreed that neither of them would attempt to build on the site, Richard went ahead anyway, and created a magnificent fortress in a mere two years. Richard's father, Henry II, had spent enormous sums building castles to protect the royal possessions, and Richard's efforts in building were significantly reduced, but Château Gaillard cost £12,000 from 1196-98, whereas only £7,000 was spent on construction in England.

Some of the earliest information we have on castle construction is recorded concerning Gaillard. We see lists of payments to miners, quarrymen, and the carters who brought stone to the site; stonecutters, masons, and lime workers for mortar; carpenters, smiths, assistants, and even water carriers; and soldiers who guarded the site while the work went on. Missing is mention of a master mason, who would have overseen the project, and it is suggested that Richard himself chose and ordered the design. Richard spent a lot of time during the two years of construction on the site.

It was designed with three enclosures separated by dry moats, and with machicolations, which were protected openings above the outside edge of the walls so that defenders could shoot down on anyone reaching the base of the wall [link].

There were incidents during construction. William of Newburgh wrote of a "rain of blood" that fell in May 1198, that alarmed the men as a bad omen, but Richard did not let it stay the work. Also, when some Welsh mercenaries were ambushed by the French, three French soldiers were captured and thrown off the walls to execute them.

Richard did not have much opportunity to enjoy his creation, dying less than a year after it was finished. The history of Gaillard did not stop there, however, and tomorrow I'll tell you how his successor, John, lost it (as he lost so many things), not long after.

Walter and King John

Walter de Coutances was a courtier and then Archbishop of Rouen whose life was tied up in the careers of three kings of England: Henry II, Richard I, and lastly John.

When Richard died and the throne passed to his younger brother, the Archbishop of Rouen had the privilege of investing him as the new Duke of Normandy (on 25 April 1199). John initially pledged to protect and support the Norman church, and he confirmed Rouen's possession of the important seaport of Dieppe (granted by Richard in recompense for appropriating Andeli against Walter's wishes). On the other hand, John took issue with some of Walter's other rights over Rouen's territory, and forced Walter to pay money to retain some of those rights.

In May 1200, Walter was asked to mediate between John and Philip II of France. Although the two men had worked in concert while Richard was king, as king in his own right John became Philip's rival, starting hostilities that would go very badly for John and England. (The illustration is of a clash between Philip and Richard from a 14th century chronicle.)

Walter had a later problem over an issue that numerous kings and prelates clashed over: the election of clergy. A bishop in Normandy died and the cathedral chapter elected their own successor. Walter wanted a different man to get the position (with John's agreement), since it was a bishop under his jurisdiction. There were two sides to the ensuing conflict, and Pope Innocent III stepped in to make a choice, but did not go with the choice of Walter and John, instead choosing an archdeacon named Silvester. Walter refused to consecrate him. Innocent chose another archbishop to perform the ceremony, but John prevented Silvester from assuming his role. In a typical move, Innocent pronounced an Interdict for Normandy, so no religious services or sacraments could be performed. This move always horrified the Christian populace, so John finally relented.

Innocent did not always clash with Walter and John. In 1202 he authorized Walter to use his role as archbishop to punish those in Normandy who would rebel against John's commandments. John lost Normandy to Philip in 1204, and Walter simply shifted his loyalty to Philip, who supported Walter.

Walter de Coutances died on 16 November 1207, and was buried in Rouen Cathedral. He was possibly not even 50 years old at the time. His desire for wealth meant he left behind a large library or religious and legal books, as well as classical authors. He also had a large number of jewels and vestments.

I want to talk more about the clash between Walter and Richard over Andeli, and the glorious fortress built by Richard on the site. Tomorrow we will visit the Château Gaillard!

Walter and Richard I

Walter de Coutances, who became Archbishop of Rouen, gained his position by being closely tied to the kings of England, first Henry II then Richard I. (The illustration is an estimate of Rouen Cathedral as it may have appeared during Walter's time.)

When Richard first succeeded his father, it was Walter as Archbishop of Rouen (a position he had thanks to Richard's father) who absolved him of his youthful rebellion against Henry. Walter went with Richard on the Third Crusade. He got as far as Sicily before Richard got word that there were problems between Prince John, Richard's younger brother, and William Longchamp, the justiciar who had been left in charge of England. Richard trusted Walter to mediate between the two. Longchamp created further problems, however, that caused Walter to take over his duties, if not formally the title, until 1193.

When Richard was being held captive by Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI, the ransom price was 100,000 pounds of silver.  It was not paid all at once, however, and Henry did the honorable thing by allowing Richard to depart captivity once the first payments had arrived and the rest was pledged. In cases such as this, however, guaranteeing that the rest of the payments would arrive was often done by substituting a valuable person as hostage in place of the primary.

Richard called Walter to Germany to take his place. Walter remained there from 1193 to 1194 when the final payments were made. Afterward, Walter chose to remain in Normandy and not return to England. When Richard wanted the site of Andeli, which was in Walter's hands, Walter refused. The revenues from owning that property were valuable to the archbishop. Richard seized the spot anyway, which seemed discourteous to the man who had been a valuable member of the court and sat in prison on Richard's behalf. Richard needed the site for his war against Philip of France, however. Walter placed Normandy under Interdict, meaning no church services could be performed. This included funeral rites: Roger of Hoveden (who also went on the Third Crusade) commented on "the unburied bodies of the dead lying in the streets and square of the cities of Normandy."

Walter went to Rome to get Pope Celestine III to intercede on his behalf. Richard also sent an embassy. Richard made gifts of other lands to Walter and to the diocese of Rouen, including the port city of Dieppe, sufficient to prompt Celestine himself to remove the Interdict. Walter had little to no contact with Richard after this incident. After Richard's death, he had to deal with King John, and I'll talk about that time period next time.

Walter de Coutances

We saw yesterday how Walter de Coutances did not want to give the site of Andeli to Richard I for a fortress, even though Richard was his liege lord. Let's look at Walter's life and his relationship to Richard.

Walter was ordained on 11 June 1183, so his birth was probably no later than c.1160. He came from Cornwall. Gerald of Wales recorded that Walter's lineage came from Trojans who escaped Troy and settled in Cornwall, but the link to Troy was part of the common myth of Britain's founding. The family was more likely from Normandy, crossing over after 1066. Gerald also refers to Walter being well-educated.

His brother, Roger fitzReinfrid, was a justice under King Henry II, and probably helped Walter gain a position as clerk in the royal chamber. In 1169 he had been given a canonry in Rouen Cathedral, and was made chaplain to Henry the Young King, but after young Henry's rebellion against his father, Walter went back to the elder's court and within a few years was Archdeacon of Oxford.

Walter was sent on diplomatic missions to the continent. The bishop of Lisieux accused Walter of driving him out of his position so that Walter could become a bishop, but there is no evidence that Walter became bishop of Lisieux. Instead, he retuned to England where he was given custody of the abbeys of Wilton and Ramsey, in charge of collecting their revenues for the king.

During this time he was just a valued and trusted courtier, not clergy. He was named Bishop of Lincoln by Henry in May of 1183, but needed to be ordained first, in June, and then in July consecrated as a bishop. He then took part in the election of Baldwin of Forde as Archbishop of Canterbury. As Bishop of Lincoln, he benefitted the schools and was a patron for some of the scholars, but Gerald of Wales claims he was bad for the diocesan finances, running up debt and squandering money.

In November 1184, Rouen needed an archbishop. Rouen had nominated one, but Henry offered them three English candidates, indicating his preference for Walter. Although archbishop was higher status than bishop, Walter was reluctant to accept, because Rouen was financially less stable than Lincoln. The chronicler William of Newburgh recorded that Walter eventually accepted higher status over love of money.

He was still closely tied to Henry's court, and witnessed more of Henry II's royal charters than anyone except Ranulph Glanville. When Henry died and Richard took the throne, he wanted to "clean up his image" because of his earlier rebellion against his father. He sought absolution from Walter and Ranulph. The two archbishops held a ceremony giving Richard absolution, Walter invested him as Duke of Normandy, then followed Richard to England for his coronation.

Richard and Walter remained close. I'll go into their dealings with each other tomorrow.

Richard vs. Philip

Once Richard I was out of captivity and home in England, he forgave his brother John for John's actions while Richard was away on the Third Crusade.

On the continent, however, Philip II of France had taken over part of Normandy that belonged to Richard, the Norman Vexin. The Vexin was a plateau in northern France, the western half of which was in Norman hands, while the eastern was called the French Vexin.

Philip had started while Richard was imprisoned by conquering the Château de Gisors, a key fortress of the Norman dukes on the border between the two Vexins. Richard searched for a new site on which to build a fortress from which he could launch his campaign against Philip. There was an ideal site above the Seine in Andeli. Richard tried to buy a manor there that could be expanded and fortified, but the Archbishop of Rouen did not want to sell the location. When Philip continued invading territories in Normandy, an impatient Richard seized the manor.

The archbishop, Walter de Coutances—although he had been vice-chancellor under Richard's father, and had invested Richard as Duke of Normandy—condemned the action, and placed that part of Normandy under Interdict, declaring no church services could be performed there. Richard wisely made gifts to Walter and his diocese, and Pope Celestine III repealed the interdict. Richard started to build (it took two years total) the magnificent (and exorbitantly expensive) Château Gaillard, referred to in charters by apud Bellum Castrum de Rupe ("at the Fair Castle of the Rock") It is now only a ruin (see illustration).

Richard did not just rely on physical and military means in his revenge on Philip. He created alliances with Baldwin IX of Flanders, with Count Renaud of Boulogne, and with his wife's father, King Sancho VI of Navarre, who attacked Philip from the south.

These moves all aided in driving Philip from the lands he had taken. In 1194 Philip abandoned his former conquests. The Treaty of Louviers, signed in January 1196, agreed that Philip would forsake the lands that he had formerly taken, but would get the Vexin from Richard. It also said that Alys, Philip's sister who had been betrothed to Richard long ago and was now 34 years old, would be allowed to return to France. It also agreed that Andeli would not be fortified, but Richard had already begun the construction of Gaillard and ignored that part of the treaty.

Hostilities, for the time being, were over.

Walter de Coutances had an interesting life, and was tied more closely to Richard than mentioned above, including going to prison for him. I'll explain tomorrow.

Freeing Richard

On his way back from the Third Crusade, King Richard I of England was captured by Leopold V of Austria, who blamed Richard for the murder of Leopold's cousin, Conrad of Montferrat. Richard had also personally offended Leopold by getting rid of Leopold's banner on the walls of Acre, even though Leopold had been with him at the Siege of Acre.

So when Richard's ship was wrecked near Aquileia and Richard had to travel over land to get back home and he passed through Vienna, Leopold captured him around Christmas 1192. The story goes that he was found in an inn, and was trying to pass himself off as the servant turning the spit of a roasting animal, but was identified by either a signet ring, or his men treating him with deference, or some other slip-up.

Interfering with a Crusader was against papal decree, so when word got out, Pope Celestine III excommunicated Leopold.

Word got back to England of Richard's captivity, but no one knew where he was being held. He was given over to Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI's care on 28 March 1193, who imprisoned him at Trifels Castle. Not only was Henry angered at Richard's previous actions, he also had a goal: conquering all of southern Italy. This required military might, and that required money. Holding a king for ransom was one sure way of acquiring funds.

Henry's status as Holy Roman Emperor made Celestine reluctant to excommunicate him. Richard's treatment was initially respectful, but Richard treated Henry with disdain. Henry convened a council to condemn Richard for the capture of Cyprus, the insult to Leopold, the death of Conrad, and making a truce with Saladin. Richard defended his actions, and explained his lack of respect for Henry's imperial title by saying "I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God."

Afterward, Richard was kept in chains "so heavy that a horse or ass would have struggled to move under them." Henry demanded a ransom of 100,000 pounds of silver. Richard's mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, now in her early 70s, took action, riding the country to raise funds and writing the pope about the horrible situation. A tax of 25% of the value of property was decreed against layman and all churches in England. Meanwhile, Richard's brother John and King Philip of France offered Henry 80,000 marks to keep Richard at least until the end of September 1194.

Henry refused their offer. The ransom from England came through, and Richard was freed on 4 February 1194. (The illustration shows Richard kissing the feet of the emperor.) Upon his return to England he forgave John's actions and named John his heir for the time being.

But John had allied himself with Philip of France, and Philip was not to be forgiven. Richard made plans for war with France. I'll tell you more about that tomorrow.

(Note: Much of this post appeared previously on 31 March 2023.)

King Richard's Odyssey

After the Treaty of Jaffa and the official dissolution of the Third Crusade, Richard I of England headed home. He had left his brother John in charge, and reports were not encouraging. Also, his territories on the continent were being harassed by King Philip II of France. So in early October of 1192, he set sail from Jaffa, unaware of the string of misfortunes ahead of him.

His first stroke of bad luck came when storms forced him to stop at Corfu. Just off the northwest coast of Greece, Corfu was fought over and possessed at times by the Venetians, by William II of Sicily, and by the Byzantine emperors. At this time, it was in the possession of Emperor Isaac II Angelos. Isaac was not pleased with Richard, who had annexed Cyprus on his way to the Holy Land because some of the other members of the Crusade had been shipwrecked there and were being held prisoner—including Richard's sister, Joan. Richard had attacked the island to free the prisoners.

To get away from Corfu, Richard had to disguise himself, donning Templar garb and traveling with only a few attendants rather than a large royal-looking retinue. The ship he was on was wrecked near Aquileia at the extreme northernmost point of the Adriatic Sea. His solution at that point was to abandon the sea and travel through Central Europe. His first goal would be his brother-in-law, Henry the Lion.

Henry the Lion (c.1129 - 1195) had been Duke of Saxony and Duke of Bavaria (had been, but that's a different story), but was living comfortably in Saxony. Earlier in his career, he had taken refuge in England and had married Matilda of England, Richard's sister. Matilda had died a few years earlier, but Richard figured he and Henry were on good terms.

Richard never made it to Henry's court. On the way there, near Vienna, he was captured by Leopold V of Austria, who had left the Third Crusade after the Siege of Acre because of his poor treatment by Richard. Imprisoning a Crusader was against the law, but officially, Leopold accused Richard of causing the murder of Leopold's cousin, Conrad of Montferrat. (Conrad had been assassinated in April 1192 right after being chosen King of Jerusalem, against the wishes of Richard, who promoted Guy of Lusignan.)

Richard was imprisoned in Dürnstein castle (shown above). Tomorrow I'll tell you what it took to free him.

The Treaty of Jaffa

After the Battle of Jaffa, with Richard I and the members of the Third Crusade once again in control of the city, a truce was made between Richard and Saladin, signed at the beginning of September 1192. The three-year arrangement officially ended the Third Crusade.

The Crusade had begun because Jerusalem had fallen into Saracen hands. Richard and Saladin had been exchanging letters ever since the Siege of Acre about access to Jerusalem, but nothing was to be concluded until Saladin's defeats by the Crusading army.

The Treaty demanded safe passage for Christians to visit Jerusalem, which would remain under Islamic control. Also, Christians would control the coast from Tyre to Jaffa. The Battle of Hattin had essentially placed the whole of the Kingdom of Jerusalem into Muslim possession, but the Treaty declared that the Tyre-to-Jaffa strip would now be considered the Kingdom. The town of Ascalon would be rebuilt and given to Saladin.

With that, Richard departed for England on 9 October. His brother John and Philip II of France were causing trouble, and he was anxious to get home.

Saladin did not live long after these events. He died 4 March 1193, aged 55 or 56. Prior to his death, he had given all his wealth away to the poor, with only a single piece of gold and 40 pieces of silver left—not even enough to pay for his funeral. He was buried in Damascus, in the garden outside a mosque (pictured above).

Richard lived another seven years, but his trip home almost rivaled that of Odysseus. I'll explain tomorrow.

The Battle for Jaffa

The Battle of Arsuf was a great disappointment for Saladin's Ayubbid forces, and to even the score with the Third Crusade under Richard I Saladin decided he needed to re-take the coastal city of Jaffa.

Richard had made a couple approaches to Jerusalem, but was stymied first by horrible weather and then by disagreements among the leaders. He was also concerned that he would not have enough forces to defend Jerusalem once taken and still keep Jaffa and the cities between under control. Furthermore, he was distracted by reports that his brother, John, and Philip II of France were causing trouble back home, and he would have to go back and deal with them.

In July of 1192, Richard started making preparations to wrap up the efforts to re-take Jerusalem. He left a garrison at Jaffa and prepared to depart in his ships. (The illustration shows him leaving the Holy Land from an 1873 book on British battles.) As soon as he was away from Jaffa, Saladin seized the moment and laid siege to the city. Three days of fighting culminated in the Ayubbids storming the walls and entering. The remaining Europeans held out in the citadel and managed to send a message to Richard, who had gone north.

Richard gathered an army, small as it was, and sailed south to attack Jaffa from the seaward side. Without even waiting for the ship to dock properly, Richard leapt off and waded to the shore. Though he had fewer than 2500 men, the Ayubbids were panicked by the sudden arrival and attack, remembering how Arsuf had gone for them. Saladin's men fled Jaffa, and Saladin could not get them back to re-organize until they had fled several miles.

Saladin heard that Richard was getting reinforcements from Caesarea, and decided it was necessary to re-take Jaffa (again) before Richard's army grew bigger. On the morning of 4 August, the Ayubbids concealed themselves in the fields and forests around Jaffa, but a Genoese soldier who was awake early and outside the city walls heard horses neighing nearby and realized what was about to happen. Richard was informed, and his army prepared for the inevitable.

Richard had the infantry array themselves facing the enemy, crouched down, covering themselves with their shields and jamming their spears in the ground with the points facing outward. Behind them, crossbowmen stood at the ready. The crossbows of the Europeans were far more deadly than the light arrow of the Saracens. Each charge by Saladin's men suffered heavy losses, especially among the unarmored horses.

One group of Saracens managed to outflank the Crusaders and enter Jaffa, where the Genoese left to guard the gate fled to their ships, but Richard himself charged with a troop into the city and led the counter-attack. By nightfall, it was clear to Saladin that he had failed, and he withdrew, retreating to Jerusalem and preparing for an attack by Richard that never came.

Tomorrow we'll discuss the aftermath of negotiations and what came of Saladin.

The Battle of Arsuf Result

Once the Hospitallers broke ranks and attacked Saladin's Ayubbid forces at the Battle of Arsuf, the nearest contingent—Frankish troops—joined them. Despite wanting to keep a tight formation until the Ayubbid forces were completely committed, it was inevitable that Richard I had to commit from defense to offense to ensure success.

Muslim historian Baha al-Din wrote that the swift change from passivity to attack startled Saladin's men, who until that moment had been attacking with arrows and receiving little response. The Frankish infantry parted to let the mounted knights surge through toward the Ayubbids, who had no time to back up efficiently. Baha al-Din, who was present at the battle, claimed "the rout was complete," as the Hospitallers and cavalry took revenge, killing many of the enemy and pursuing them.

Richard stopped the pursuit with pre-planned trumpet blasts after about a mile. He re-ordered his troops. Some who had been in pursuit and rode ahead of the main body had been killed when the Ayubbids turned back, including a commander of a Franco-Flemish unit who was the only noble mentioned having been killed at Arsuf. Once Richard had the troops in formation again, he ordered a second attack, leading it himself. After some fighting, Richard once again ordered his men to regroup, then made a third charge. The Ayubbids, having sustained heavy losses, scattered and gave up the fight.

The Ayubbid loss was a source of embarrassment for Saladin, who had been hailed as a brilliant military strategist. Saladin resumed hit-and-run tactics but was unwilling to commit to a full-scale attack, fearful of losing more men. The Third Crusade succeeded in reaching Jaffa on the coast and taking control. From there he could receive reinforcements of men and materials to re-take Jerusalem. Saladin chose to destroy fortresses in Ascalon, Gaza and other places—knowing he would not be able to supply men to defend them—so that they could not be used by the advancing Crusaders.

That winter (1191-92), while Richard re-fortified Jaffa and prepared to march to Jerusalem, negotiations began between Richard and Saladin with no immediate result. In November 1191, Richard started toward Jerusalem, reaching Beit Nuba, 12 miles from Jerusalem, after Christmas. He might have pushed on, but cold weather with rain and hailstorms prompted him to return to the coast until milder weather arrived

Early 1192 saw skirmishes and negotiations, and then Saladin decided he had to regain his reputation post-Arsuf by re-taking Jaffa. Tomorrow I'll tell you about the Battle of Jaffa.

The Battle of Arsuf

Saladin had been following the forces of the Third Crusade, led by Richard I of England, down the coast of the Mediterranean toward Jaffa. Richard knew the port of Jaffa would be important to hold if he wanted support in re-taking Jerusalem. Saladin knew he needed to force a confrontation, and Arsuf was going to be the best chance to attack the Crusaders.

While the Crusaders were crossing the plain of Arsuf, Richard kept the army in a tight defensive formation against the harassing attacks, waiting for the right moment to counterattack. An account of the Third Crusade, the Itinerarium Regis Ricardi ("Itinerary of King Richard"), states that the Ayubbids outnumbered the Crusaders, 300,000 to 100,000. Those numbers are highly flawed, and realistically Saladin probably had about 25,000 soldiers, mostly mounted.

Crusader forces were estimated to be 9,000 with Richard, 7,000 French troops, and about 4,000 from other sources (local, Danes, Frisians, Genoese, etc.). On the morning of 7 September 1191, it was obvious to Richard that Saladin's forces were hiding in the Wood of Arsuf that lay ahead. He had the military orders—Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller—at the front and rear. He wanted the ranks to stay in formation as much as possible for defense.

The Ayubbids fired arrows and made small skirmishes against the Crusaders, always pulling back to encourage the Crusaders to break ranks and follow, but the defense held. According to the Itinerarium:

In truth, our people, so few in number, were hemmed in by the multitudes of the Saracens, that they had no means of escape, if they tried; neither did they seem to have valour sufficient to withstand so many foes, nay, they were shut in, like a flock of sheep in the jaws of wolves, with nothing but the sky above, and the enemy all around them.

Unfortunately, the attacks were then made on the rear of the column, forcing the Knights Hospitaller to turn and walk backwards to stay with the main army and deal with the attacks. Saladin himself joined this part of the offense. Finally, a contingent of Knights Hospitaller broke away and charged the Ayubbids. To ensure success, Richard had to allow the army to join them, switching from defense to offense.

A note here on whether the Hospitallers acted against Richard's orders: Richard's own letters that make reference to the battle do not place blame on anyone for breaking ranks. It is possible that he allowed those at the head of each division to take initiative, and trusted the sub-leaders to know what was best in their circumstances.

Whatever the case, pitched battle began, the only time Richard and Saladin actually clashed. Tomorrow we'll see the result.

Saladin and Richard

When Richard I of England arrived to lead the Siege of Acre that had been begun by Guy of Lusignan, things started looking up for the Crusaders. A month of constant attacks on the walls by siege engines motivated the garrison holding Acre to surrender, against the orders of Saladin. Saladin relented, ratifying the surrender, and asked that the Muslim garrison be spared. As ransom for their lives, he offered 200,000 dinars, the release of Christian prisoners held by him, and the return of the True Cross.

Unfortunately, the first installment of dinars did not arrive on schedule, and Richard—never known for being calm and collected—chose to respond by killing the Muslim prisoners, all 2700. They were paraded outside the city walls and executed in sight of Saladin's army. A 12th century biographer of Saladin, Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad, recorded other reasons for the slaughter that do not place blame on Saladin:

The motives of this massacre are differently told; according to some, the captives were slain by way of reprisal for the death of those Christians whom the Musulmans had slain. Others again say that the king of England, on deciding to attempt the conquest of Ascalon, thought it unwise to leave so many prisoners in the town after his departure. God alone knows what the real reason was.

Saladin executed his 1000 Christian hostages in response. Battle was only to be expected next.

Richard's goal was to re-take Jerusalem. The key to that was controlling the port of Jaffa, further down the Mediterranean coast from Acre. Control of Jaffa meant being able provision his army from his ships that would be docked there. He started marching south.

Richard did not want the army stressed by heat and dehydration—issues that had plagued the Crusaders who were wiped out during the Battle of Hattin. He marched the army slowly, limited by the pace of the foot-soldiers and the baggage train, starting in the relative cool of the early morning and sheltering during the hottest hours of the day. Keeping the sea on one side also meant the Crusaders could not be surrounded, even though Saladin's army was mostly mounted and could move quickly. Richard kept mounted regiments ready for attacks. Discipline was tight. Baha ad-Din complimented them:

The Moslems discharged arrows at them from all sides to annoy them, and force them to charge: but in this they were unsuccessful. These men exercised wonderful self-control; they went on their way without any hurry, whilst their ships followed their line of march along the coast, and in this manner they reached their halting-place.

Saladin soon realized he would not be able to stop Richard's advance unless he committed the army to an all-out attack. The Crusaders were approaching an area where it might not be so easy to keep their tight formation: the Wood of Arsuf. One of the few forested regions of Palestine, this miles-long wood would allow him to hide his army and make a surprise attack.

On 6 September 1191, the Crusaders camped on the plain just north of the wood, and rested. The next day, the only face-to-face battle between Saladin's and Richard's armies would take place. See you tomorrow.

Saladin and the Third Crusade

When the Third Crusade started, it became a problem for Saladin. This was not only because it meant more Western European Christians trying to conquer territory in the Holy Land, but because the leader, Emperor Frederick I (aka Barbarossa), had previously made an alliance with Saladin, and now he had to go back on his word and inform Saladin that they were going to be opponents. (We saw recently how Saladin treated oath-breakers.) The Europeans included leaders Barbarossa, Richard I of England, Philip II of France, Guy of Lusignan, and Conrad of Montferrat. Guy had already begun the Siege of Acre before the Crusaders had arrived. (The illustration is of the Siege from a 13th century history.)

You could say Saladin was the cause of the Third Crusade. After the unsuccessful Second Crusade, the Zengid dynasty controlling Syria fought the Fatimid dynasty of Egypt. Saladin, thanks to his military prowess, brought both the Syrian and Egyptian forces under his control, and used this larger army to recapture territory controlled by Crusaders, capturing Jerusalem from Guy and Sibylla in 1187.

The Crusade had early setbacks. Although Barbarossa was a leading figure in starting the Third Crusade, he was elderly. He died before ever reaching the Holy Land. Demoralized, many of the German soldiers returned home. Once the Siege of Acre was lifted, Philip of France and Barbarossa's successor, Leopold V of Austria, went home. The Siege took two years to lift, and they had had enough of camping in the Holy Land and of Richard's arrogance. Richard refused to accord Leopold the same respect he would have given Barbarossa, and refused to have the Austrian banner flown with those of the other countries involved. (Leopold would have his very ignoble revenge against Richard later.)

This put Richard and Saladin as the two major opponents of the Third Crusade. Their respect for each other as rulers and warriors became a story in itself. I'll tell you more tomorrow.

Salah ad-Din

Perhaps the most prominent Muslim in the centuries of the Crusading period was Yusuf ibn Ayyub, a Kurdish man who was given the nickname or honorific Salah ad-Din, meaning "Righteousness of the Faith." To the people of the West, this was abbreviated to Saladin.

He was born about 1137, the son of a Kurdish mercenary and politician. He was well-educated, and reportedly able to discuss arithmetic and law, Euclid and Ptolemy's Almagest, and especially the Quran. He was more interested in religion than military matters, but he became increasingly prominent because of military successes against Crusaders.

He was sent to Egypt in 1164 by Nur ad-Din, Emir of Damascus and Aleppo, to deal with a local power struggle. Shawar, the vizier to the local caliph al-Adid, had been driven from Egypt by a rival, and requested help from Nur ad-Din. Saladin played an important role in a crucial battle between the rival forces, feigning a retreat to draw the enemy into a compromised position.

In 1169, Saladin was named vizier of the Fatimid Caliphate. He was the target of an assassination attempt organized by a rival, but his chief of intelligence warned him so that he was able to foil the plan and have the person behind it killed. The next day, 50,000 Black African soldiers revolted against his rule, which he managed to quell.

I've just recently shared the results of the Battle of Hattin and Saladin's treatment of Guy of Lusignan. Shortly after that episode, however, he faced the Western adversary whose encounters with Saladin brought the man to awareness of all Europeans. Tomorrow we'll talk about the Third Crusade and the arrival of King Richard I of England, called Lionheart.