Editing John, King of England (section)

==Early reign (1199–1204)==

===Accession to the throne, 1199===
[[File:Donjonvuegénérale.jpg|thumb|alt=A photograph of a tall grey castle, with a taller keep visible beyond the main walls.|The [[donjon]] of [[Château Gaillard]]; the loss of the castle would prove devastating for John's military position in Normandy]]
After Richard's death on 6 April 1199 there were two potential claimants to the Angevin throne: John, [[proximity of blood|whose claim]] rested on being the sole surviving son of Henry II, and young Arthur I of Brittany, who held a claim as the son of John's elder brother Geoffrey.<ref>Carpenter (2004), p. 264.</ref> Richard appears to have started to recognise John as his heir presumptive in the final years before his death, but the matter was not clear-cut and medieval law gave little guidance as to how the competing claims should be decided.<ref>Barlow, p. 305; Turner, p. 48.</ref> With Norman law favouring John as the only surviving son of Henry II and Angevin law favouring Arthur as the only son of Henry's elder son, the matter rapidly became an open conflict.<ref name="Barlow, p. 305"/> John was supported by the bulk of the English and Norman nobility and was crowned at Westminster Abbey, backed by his mother, Eleanor. Arthur was supported by the majority of the Breton, Maine and Anjou nobles and received the support of Philip II, who remained committed to breaking up the Angevin territories on the continent.<ref name="WarrenP53">Warren, p. 53.</ref> With Arthur's army pressing up the [[Loire Valley]] towards [[Angers]] and Philip's forces moving down the valley towards [[Tours]], John's continental empire was in danger of being cut in two.<ref>Warren, p. 51.</ref>

Warfare in Normandy at the time was shaped by the defensive potential of castles and the increasing costs of conducting campaigns.<ref>Barrett, p. 91.</ref> The Norman frontiers had limited natural defences but were heavily reinforced with castles, such as [[Château Gaillard]], at strategic points, built and maintained at considerable expense.<ref>Warren, pp. 57–58; Barlow, p. 280.</ref> It was difficult for a commander to advance far into fresh territory without having secured his lines of communication by capturing these fortifications, which slowed the progress of any attack.<ref>Warren, p. 57.</ref> Armies of the period could be formed from either feudal or mercenary forces.<ref>Warren, p. 59.</ref> Feudal levies could be raised only for a fixed length of time before they returned home, forcing an end to a campaign; mercenary forces, often called [[Brabançons]] after the [[Duchy of Brabant]] but actually recruited from across northern Europe, could operate all year long and provide a commander with more strategic options to pursue a campaign, but cost much more than equivalent feudal forces.<ref>Huscroft, pp. 169–170.</ref> As a result, commanders of the period were increasingly drawing on larger numbers of mercenaries.<ref>Huscroft, p. 170.</ref>

After his coronation, John moved south into France with military forces and adopted a defensive posture along the eastern and southern Normandy borders.<ref>Carpenter (2004), p. 264; Turner, p. 100.</ref> Both sides paused for desultory negotiations before the war recommenced; John's position was now stronger, thanks to confirmation that the counts [[Baldwin IX of Flanders]] and [[Renaud of Boulogne]] had renewed the anti-French alliances they had previously agreed to with Richard.<ref name=WarrenP53/> The powerful Anjou nobleman [[William des Roches]] was persuaded to switch sides from Arthur to John; suddenly the balance seemed to be tipping away from Philip and Arthur in favour of John.<ref name="WarrenP54">Warren, p. 54.</ref> Neither side was keen to continue the conflict, and following a papal truce the two leaders met in January 1200 to negotiate possible terms for peace.<ref name=WarrenP54/> From John's perspective, what then followed represented an opportunity to stabilise control over his continental possessions and produce a lasting peace with Philip in Paris. John and Philip negotiated the May 1200 [[Treaty of Le Goulet]]; by this treaty, Philip recognised John as the rightful heir to Richard in respect to his French possessions, temporarily abandoning the wider claims of his client, Arthur.<ref name="TurnerP98">Turner, p. 98.</ref>{{Refn|Nonetheless, the treaty did offer Arthur certain protections as John's vassal.<ref name=WarrenP55/>|group=nb}} John, in turn, abandoned Richard's former policy of containing Philip through alliances with Flanders and Boulogne, and accepted Philip's right as the legitimate feudal overlord of John's lands in France.<ref name="WarrenP55">Warren, p. 55.</ref> John's policy earned him the disrespectful title of "John Softsword" from some English chroniclers, who contrasted his behaviour with his more aggressive brother, Richard.<ref>Warren, p. 63.</ref>

===Second marriage and consequences, 1200–1202===
[[File:IsabelledAngouleme.jpg |thumb|alt=A photograph of a medieval tomb with a carving of Isabella on top. She is lying with her hands clasped, wearing a blue dress.|The effigy of Isabella of Angoulême, John's second wife, in [[Fontevraud Abbey]] in France]]
The new peace would last only two years; war recommenced in the aftermath of John's decision in August 1200 to marry [[Isabella of Angoulême]]. In order to remarry, John first needed to abandon his wife Isabella, Countess of Gloucester; the King accomplished this by arguing that he had failed to get the necessary [[papal dispensation]] to marry the Countess in the first place—as a cousin, John could not have legally wedded her without this. It remains unclear why John chose to marry Isabella of Angoulême. Contemporary chroniclers argued that John had fallen deeply in love with her, and John may have been motivated by desire for an apparently beautiful, if rather young, girl (Isabella of Angoulême was either 12 or 14 at the time of their marriage).<ref name=TurnerP98/> On the other hand, the Angoumois lands that came with her were strategically vital to John: by marrying Isabella, John was acquiring a key land route between Poitou and Gascony, which significantly strengthened his grip on Aquitaine.<ref name="TurnerP99">Turner, p. 99.</ref>{{Refn|Angoulême and Limoges were strategically located counties that had traditionally exercised a high degree of autonomy. They formed a key route for communications between Anjou and Gascony. Many of the details surrounding these counties during this period are uncertain and subject to historical debate, but it would appear that both the English and French dynasties had been attempting to apply influence and build alliances with the key families in the region for many years before the flash point in 1202.<ref>Vincent, pp.&nbsp;168–182.</ref>|group=nb}}

Isabella of Angoulême, however, was already engaged to [[Hugh IX of Lusignan]], an important member of a key Poitou noble family and brother of [[Raoul I, Count of Eu]], who possessed lands along the sensitive eastern Normandy border.<ref name=TurnerP98/> Just as John stood to benefit strategically from marrying Isabella, so the marriage threatened the interests of the [[Lusignans]], whose own lands currently provided the key route for royal goods and troops across Aquitaine.<ref>Turner, pp. 98–99.</ref> Rather than negotiating some form of compensation, John treated Hugh "with contempt"; this resulted in a Lusignan uprising that was promptly crushed by John, who also intervened to suppress Raoul in Normandy.<ref name=TurnerP99/>

Although John was the Count of Poitou and therefore the rightful feudal lord over the Lusignans, they could legitimately appeal John's actions in France to his own feudal lord, Philip.<ref name=TurnerP99/> Hugh did exactly this in 1201 and Philip summoned John to attend court in Paris in 1202, citing the Le Goulet treaty to strengthen his case.<ref name=TurnerP99/> John was unwilling to weaken his authority in western France in this way. He argued that he need not attend Philip's court because of his special status as the Duke of Normandy, who was exempt by feudal tradition from being called to the French court.<ref name=TurnerP99/> Philip argued that he was summoning John not as the Duke of Normandy, but as the Count of Poitou, which carried no such special status.<ref name=TurnerP99/> When John still refused to come, Philip declared John in breach of his feudal responsibilities, reassigned all of John's lands that fell under the French crown to Arthur—with the exception of Normandy, which he took back for himself—and began a fresh war against John.<ref name=TurnerP99/>

===Loss of Normandy, 1202–1204===
{{Main|Normandy campaigns of 1200–1204}}
[[File:1202 French campaign.svg|thumb|upright=1.25|alt=A map of France showing John's bold sweep towards Mirebeau with a red arrow.|John's successful 1202 campaign, which culminated in the victory of the [[battle of Mirebeau]]; red arrows indicate the movement of John's forces, blue those of Philip II's forces and light blue those of Philip's Breton and Lusignan allies]]
John initially adopted a defensive posture similar to that of 1199: avoiding open battle and carefully defending his key castles.<ref name="TurnerP100">Turner, p. 100.</ref> John's operations became more chaotic as the campaign progressed, and Philip began to make steady progress in the east.<ref name=TurnerP100/> John became aware in July that Arthur's forces were threatening his mother, Eleanor, at Mirebeau Castle. Accompanied by William de Roches, his [[seneschal]] in Anjou, he swung his mercenary army rapidly south to protect her.<ref name=TurnerP100/> His forces caught Arthur by surprise and captured the entire rebel leadership at the [[battle of Mirebeau]].<ref name=TurnerP100/> With his southern flank weakening, Philip was forced to withdraw in the east and turn south himself to contain John's army.<ref name=TurnerP100/>

John's position in France was considerably strengthened by the victory at Mirebeau, but John's treatment of his new prisoners and of his ally, William de Roches, quickly undermined these gains. De Roches was a powerful Anjou noble, but John largely ignored him, causing considerable offence, whilst the King kept the rebel leaders in such bad conditions that twenty-two of them died.<ref>Turner, pp. 100–101.</ref> At this time most of the regional nobility were closely linked through kinship, and this behaviour towards their relatives was regarded as unacceptable.<ref name="TurnerP101">Turner, p. 101.</ref> William de Roches and others of John's regional allies in Anjou and Brittany deserted him in favour of Philip, and Brittany rose in revolt.<ref name=TurnerP101/> John's financial situation was tenuous, once factors such as the comparative military costs of [[materiel]] and soldiers were taken into account. While Philip enjoyed a considerable, although not overwhelming, advantage of resources over John.<ref>Holt (1984), p. 94; Turner, p. 94; Bradbury (1998), p. 159; Moss, p. 119.</ref>{{Refn|This interpretation has been challenged by John Gillingham, whose minority view is that Richard, unlike John, successfully defended Normandy with a similar level of military resources.<ref>Gillingham (1994), p. 76.</ref>|group=nb}}

Further desertions of John's local allies at the beginning of 1203 steadily reduced his freedom to manoeuvre in the region.<ref name=TurnerP101/> He attempted to convince [[Pope Innocent III]] to intervene in the conflict, but Innocent's efforts were unsuccessful.<ref name=TurnerP101/> As the situation became worse for John, he appears to have decided to have Arthur killed, with the aim of removing a potential rival and to undermine the rebel forces in Brittany.<ref name=TurnerP101/> Arthur had initially been imprisoned at Falaise and was then moved to Rouen. After this, Arthur's fate remains uncertain, but modern historians believe he was murdered by John.<ref name=TurnerP101/> The annals of [[Margam Abbey]] suggest that "John had captured Arthur and kept him alive in prison for some time in the castle of Rouen&nbsp;... when John was drunk he slew Arthur with his own hand and tying a heavy stone to the body cast it into the [[Seine]]."<ref name="McLynnP306">McLynn, p. 306.</ref>{{Refn|Although all modern biographers of John believe that he had his rival, Arthur, killed, the details of the [[Margam Abbey]] account can be questioned; as Frank McLynn points out, the Welsh monks appear "curiously well-informed" about the details of the incident in France.<ref name=McLynnP306/>|group=nb}} Rumours of the manner of Arthur's death further reduced support for John across the region.<ref name=WarrenP83/> Arthur's sister, [[Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany|Eleanor]], who had also been captured at Mirebeau, was kept imprisoned by John for many years, albeit in relatively good conditions.<ref name="WarrenP83">Warren, p. 83.</ref>

[[File:Normandy campaign 1204.png|thumb|upright=1.59|left|alt=A map of Normandy, showing Philip's invasion with a sequence of blue arrows, and the Breton advance from the west shown in light blue.|Phillip II's successful invasion of [[Duchy of Normandy|Normandy]] in 1204; blue arrows indicate the movement of Philip II's forces and light blue Philip's Breton allies]]
In late 1203, John attempted to relieve [[Château Gaillard]], which although [[Siege of Château Gaillard|besieged by Philip]] was guarding the eastern flank of Normandy.<ref name=TurnerP102/> John attempted a synchronised operation involving land-based and water-borne forces, considered by most historians today to have been imaginative in conception, but overly complex for forces of the period to have carried out successfully.<ref name="TurnerP102">Turner, p. 102.</ref> John's relief operation was blocked by Philip's forces, and John turned back to Brittany in an attempt to draw Philip away from eastern Normandy.<ref name=TurnerP102/> John successfully devastated much of Brittany, but did not deflect Philip's main thrust into the east of Normandy.<ref name=TurnerP102/>

Opinions vary amongst historians as to the military skill shown by John during this campaign, with most recent historians arguing that his performance was passable, although not impressive.<ref name=TurnerP98/>{{Refn|For positive interpretations of John's military skills in the campaign see Kate Norgate, who argues that John's attempt to [[Siege of Château Gaillard|relieve Château Gaillard]] was a "masterpiece of ingenuity"; Ralph Turner terms his performance as a general "capable"; Lewis Warren places the blame on John's inability to inspire loyalty amongst the local nobles, rather than a simple lack of military skill. Frank McLynn is more damning, describing the military aspects of the campaign as a "disastrous failure".<ref>Norgate (1902), p. 96; Turner, p. 98; Warren, p. 88; McLynn, p. 473.</ref>|group=nb}}
John's situation began to deteriorate rapidly. The eastern border region of Normandy had been extensively cultivated by Philip and his predecessors for several years, whilst Angevin authority in the south had been undermined by Richard's giving away of various key castles some years before.<ref>Power, pp. 135–136.</ref> His use of {{Lang|fr|[[Routiers|routier]]}} mercenaries in the central regions had rapidly eaten away his remaining support in this area too, which set the stage for a sudden collapse of Angevin power.<ref>Power, p. 135.</ref>{{Refn|David Carpenter provides an accessible summary of Power's argument on the collapse of Normandy.<ref>Carpenter (2004), pp. 264–265.</ref>|group=nb}} John retreated back across the Channel in December, sending orders for the establishment of a fresh defensive line to the west of Chateau Gaillard.<ref name=TurnerP102/> In March 1204, Gaillard fell. John's mother Eleanor died the following month.<ref name=TurnerP102/> This was not just a personal blow for John, but threatened to unravel the widespread Angevin alliances across the far south of France.<ref name=TurnerP102/> Philip moved south around the new defensive line and struck upwards at the heart of the Duchy, now facing little resistance.<ref name=TurnerP102/> By August, Philip had taken Normandy and advanced south to occupy Anjou and Poitou as well.<ref>Turner, pp. 102–103.</ref> John's only remaining possession on the Continent was now the Duchy of Aquitaine.<ref>Turner, p. 103.</ref>