Editing Stephen, King of England (section)

== Early reign (1136–1139) ==
{{Further|Government in Norman and Angevin England}}

=== Initial years (1136–1137) ===
[[File:Stepan z Blois.jpg|thumb|14th-century depiction of Stephen with a [[Falconry|hunting bird]]]]

Stephen's new Anglo-Norman kingdom had been shaped by the [[Norman Conquest]] of England in 1066, followed by the [[Norman invasion of Wales|Norman expansion into south Wales]] over the coming years.<ref>Barlow, p. 86.</ref> Both the kingdom and duchy were dominated by a small number of major barons who owned lands on both sides of the [[English Channel]], with the lesser barons beneath them usually having more localised holdings.<ref>Barlow, pp. 91–92.</ref> The extent to which lands and positions should be passed down through hereditary right or by the gift of the King was still uncertain, and tensions concerning this issue had grown during the reign of Henry I. Certainly lands in Normandy, passed by hereditary right, were usually considered more important to major barons than those in England, where their possession was less certain. Henry had increased the authority and capabilities of the central royal administration, often bringing in "[[List of Henry's new men|new men]]" to fulfil key positions rather than using the established nobility.<ref>Carpenter, p. 159.</ref> In the process he had been able to maximise revenues and contain expenditures, resulting in a healthy surplus and a famously large treasury, but also increasing political tensions.<ref>Carpenter, p. 155.</ref>{{#tag:ref|The nature of Henry's administration and the links between England and Normandy have been hotly debated by historians. [[C. Warren Hollister]], for example, argues that Henry I created a balanced, well-functioning political system beneath him, balancing the different tensions in England and Normandy, an analysis broadly shared by Frank Barlow. By contrast, [[David Carpenter (historian)|David Carpenter]] draws more attention to the pressures on the Anglo-Norman system during Henry's reign and the strains that built up during the period. [[Marjorie Chibnall]]'s analysis of Normandy during these years notes both the distinctive aspects of Normandy politics, the pressure on the cross-Channel relationship and the persisting ties between the English and Norman elites.<ref>Helmerichs, p. 137; Carpenter, pp. 159–160; Chibnall, pp. 94, 115; Barlow, p. 162.</ref>|group="nb"}}

Stephen had to intervene in the north of England immediately after his coronation.<ref name=King2010P52/> [[David I of Scotland]] invaded the north on the news of Henry's death, taking [[Carlisle]], [[Newcastle upon Tyne|Newcastle]] and other key strongholds.<ref name=King2010P52/> [[Northern England]] was a disputed territory at this time, with the Scottish kings laying a traditional claim to [[Cumberland]], and David also claiming [[Northumbria]] by virtue of his marriage to the daughter of [[Waltheof, Earl of Northumbria]].<ref name="Carpenter, p. 165">Carpenter, p. 165.</ref> Stephen rapidly marched north with an army and met David at [[Durham, England|Durham]].<ref name="King2010P53">King (2010), p. 53.</ref> An agreement was made under which David would return most of the territory he had taken, with the exception of Carlisle. In return, Stephen confirmed the English possessions of David's son [[Henry of Scotland|Henry]], including the [[Earldom of Huntingdon]].<ref name=King2010P53/>

Returning south, Stephen held his first royal court at Easter 1136.<ref>King (2010), p. 57.</ref> A wide range of nobles gathered at Westminster for the event, including many of the Anglo-Norman barons and most of the higher officials of the church.<ref>King (2010), pp. 57–60; Davis, p. 22.</ref> Stephen issued a new royal charter, confirming the promises he had made to the church, promising to reverse Henry I's policies on the [[royal forest]]s and to reform any abuses of the royal legal system.<ref>Carpenter, p. 167.</ref> He portrayed himself as the natural successor to Henry's policies, and reconfirmed the existing seven earldoms in the kingdom on their existing holders.<ref>White (2000), p. 78.</ref> The Easter court was a lavish event, and a large amount of money was spent on the event itself, clothes and gifts.<ref>Crouch (2002), p. 250.</ref> Stephen gave out grants of land and favours to those present and endowed numerous church foundations with land and privileges.<ref>Crouch (1986), p. 29; King (2010), pp. 54–55.</ref> His accession to the throne still needed to be ratified by the Pope, however, and Henry of Blois appears to have been responsible for ensuring that testimonials of support were sent both from their brother Theobald and from Louis VI of France, to whom Stephen represented a useful balance to Angevin power in the north of France.<ref>Crouch (2008), pp. 46–47.</ref> [[Pope Innocent II]] confirmed Stephen as king by letter later that year, and Stephen's advisers circulated copies widely around England to demonstrate his legitimacy.<ref>Crouch (2002), pp. 248–249.</ref>

Troubles continued across Stephen's kingdom. After the Welsh victory at the [[battle of Llwchwr]] in January 1136 and the successful ambush of [[Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare]] in April, [[south Wales]] rose in rebellion, starting in east [[Glamorgan]] and rapidly spreading across the rest of south Wales during 1137.<ref>Carpenter, pp. 164–165; Crouch (1998), p. 258.</ref> [[Owain Gwynedd]] and [[Gruffydd ap Rhys]] successfully captured considerable territories, including [[Carmarthen Castle]].<ref name="Carpenter, p. 165"/> Stephen responded by sending Richard's brother Baldwin and the Marcher Lord Robert Fitz Harold of Ewyas into Wales to pacify the region. Neither mission was particularly successful, and by the end of 1137, the King appears to have abandoned attempts to put down the rebellion. Historian [[David Crouch (historian)|David Crouch]] suggests that Stephen effectively "bowed out of Wales" around this time to concentrate on his other problems.<ref>Crouch (1998), pp. 260, 262.</ref> Meanwhile, he had put down two revolts in the south-west led by [[Baldwin de Redvers]] and Robert of Bampton; Baldwin was released after his capture and travelled to Normandy, where he became an increasingly vocal critic of the King.<ref>Bradbury, pp. 27–32.</ref>

The security of Normandy was also a concern. Geoffrey of Anjou invaded in early 1136 and, after a temporary truce, invaded later the same year, raiding and burning estates rather than trying to hold the territory.<ref name="BarlowP168">Barlow, p. 168.</ref> Events in England meant that Stephen was unable to travel to Normandy himself, so [[Waleran de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Worcester|Waleran de Beaumont]], appointed by Stephen as the lieutenant of Normandy, and Theobald led the efforts to defend the duchy.<ref>Crouch (2008), pp. 46–47; Crouch (2002), p. 252.</ref> Stephen himself only returned to the duchy in 1137, where he met with Louis VI and Theobald to agree to an informal regional alliance, probably brokered by Henry, to counter the growing Angevin power in the region.<ref>Crouch (2008), p. 47.</ref> As part of this deal, Louis recognised Stephen's son Eustace as Duke of Normandy in exchange for Eustace giving fealty to the French king.<ref>Barlow, p. 168;</ref> Stephen was less successful, however, in regaining the [[Argentan]] province along the Normandy and Anjou border, which Geoffrey had taken at the end of 1135.<ref>Davis, p. 27.</ref> Stephen formed an army to retake it, but the frictions between his Flemish mercenary forces led by William of Ypres and the local Norman barons resulted in a battle between the two halves of his army.<ref>Davis, p. 27; Bennett, p. 102.</ref> The Norman forces then deserted Stephen, forcing the King to give up his campaign.<ref>Davis, p. 28.</ref> He agreed to another truce with Geoffrey, promising to pay him 2,000 [[Mark (currency)|marks]] a year in exchange for peace along the Norman borders.<ref name=BarlowP168/>{{#tag:ref|[[Geoffrey of Anjou]] appears to have agreed to this at least partially because of the pressure of the combined Anglo-Norman–French regional alliance against him.<ref>Crouch (2008), p. 50; Barlow, p. 168.</ref>|group="nb"}}{{#tag:ref|Medieval financial figures are notoriously hard to convert into modern currency; for comparison, 2,000 marks equated to around £1,333 in a period in which a major castle rebuilding project might cost around £1,115.<ref>Pettifer, p. 257.</ref>|group="nb"}}

In the years following his succession, Stephen's relationship with the church became gradually more complex. The royal charter of 1136 had promised to review the ownership of all the lands that had been taken by the crown from the church since 1087, but these estates were now typically owned by nobles.<ref name=BarlowP168/> Henry of Blois's claims, in his role as Abbot of Glastonbury, to extensive lands in Devon resulted in considerable local unrest.<ref name=BarlowP168/> In 1136, Archbishop of Canterbury [[William de Corbeil]] died. Stephen responded by seizing his personal wealth, which caused some discontent amongst the senior clergy.<ref name=BarlowP168/> Henry wanted to succeed to the post, but Stephen instead supported [[Theobald of Bec]], who was eventually appointed. The papacy named Henry [[papal legate]], possibly as consolation for not receiving Canterbury.<ref>King (2010), p. 317.</ref>

Stephen's first few years as king can be interpreted in different ways. He stabilised the northern border with Scotland, contained Geoffrey's attacks on Normandy, was at peace with Louis VI, enjoyed good relations with the church and had the broad support of his barons.<ref>Barlow, pp. 165, 167; Stringer, pp. 17–18.</ref> There were significant underlying problems, nonetheless. The north of England was now controlled by David and Prince Henry, Stephen had abandoned Wales, the fighting in Normandy had considerably destabilised the duchy, and an increasing number of barons felt that Stephen had given them neither the lands nor the titles they felt they deserved or were owed.<ref>Barlow, p. 168; Crouch (1998), p. 264; Carpenter, p. 168.</ref> Stephen was also rapidly running out of money: Henry's considerable treasury had been emptied by 1138 due to the costs of running Stephen's more lavish court and the need to raise and maintain his mercenary armies fighting in England and Normandy.<ref name="CarpenterP169">Carpenter, p. 169.</ref>

=== Defending the kingdom (1138–1139) ===
[[File:Goodrich Castle keep1.jpg|thumb|The stone [[keep]] at [[Goodrich Castle|Goodrich]] in Herefordshire, an example of the style of fortification slowly beginning to replace wooden [[motte and bailey]] castle design by the late 1130s]]

Stephen was attacked on several fronts during 1138. First, [[Robert, Earl of Gloucester]], rebelled against the King, starting the descent into civil war in England.<ref name=CarpenterP169/> An illegitimate son of Henry I and the half-brother of the Empress Matilda, Robert was one of the most powerful Anglo-Norman barons, controlling estates in Normandy. He was known for his qualities as a statesman, his military experience, and leadership ability.<ref name="BarlowP169">Barlow, p. 169.</ref> Robert had tried to convince Theobald to take the throne in 1135; he did not attend Stephen's first court in 1136 and it took several summonses to convince him to attend court at [[Oxford]] later that year.<ref>King (2010), pp. 61–62.</ref> In 1138, Robert renounced his fealty to Stephen and declared his support for Matilda, triggering a major regional rebellion in [[Kent]] and across the south-west of England, although Robert himself remained in Normandy.<ref>Stringer, p. 18.</ref> In France, Geoffrey of Anjou took advantage of the situation by re-invading Normandy. David I of Scotland also invaded the north of England once again, announcing that he was supporting the claim of his niece the Empress Matilda to the throne, pushing south into [[Yorkshire]].<ref name="CarpenterP166"/>{{#tag:ref|King David was a maternal uncle to both the Empress Matilda and Matilda of Boulogne, Stephen's wife.|group="nb"}}

Anglo-Norman warfare during the reign of Stephen was characterised by [[Attrition warfare|attritional]] military campaigns, in which commanders tried to seize key enemy castles in order to allow them to take control of their adversaries' territory and ultimately win a slow, strategic victory.<ref name="BradburyP71">Bradbury, p. 71.</ref> The armies of the period centred on bodies of mounted, armoured [[knight]]s, supported by [[infantry]] and [[crossbow]]men.<ref>Bradbury, p. 74.</ref> These forces were either [[feudal]] levies, drawn up by local nobles for a limited period of service during a campaign, or, increasingly, mercenaries, who were expensive but more flexible and often more skilled. These armies, however, were ill-suited to besieging castles, whether the older [[motte-and-bailey]] designs or the newer, stone-built [[keep]]s. Existing siege engines were significantly less powerful than the later [[trebuchet]] designs, giving defenders a substantial advantage over attackers. As a result, slow sieges to starve defenders out, or [[Tunnel warfare|mining operations]] to undermine walls, tended to be preferred by commanders over direct assaults.<ref name=BradburyP71/> Occasionally pitched battles were fought between armies but these were considered highly risky endeavours and were usually avoided by prudent commanders.<ref name=BradburyP71/> The cost of warfare had risen considerably in the first part of the 12th century, and adequate supplies of ready cash were increasingly proving important in the success of campaigns.<ref>Stringer, pp. 24–25.</ref>

[[File:Prince Henry of Scotland 1139 692124.jpg|thumb|left|A silver [[penny]] of Prince [[Henry of Scotland]], minted in his own name at [[Corbridge]] in Northumberland after his peace deal with Stephen]]

Stephen's personal qualities as a military leader focused on his skill in personal combat, his capabilities in siege warfare and a remarkable ability to move military forces quickly over relatively long distances.<ref>Stringer, pp. 15–16; Davis, p. 127.</ref> In response to the revolts and invasions, he rapidly undertook several military campaigns, focusing primarily on England rather than Normandy. His wife Matilda was sent to Kent with ships and resources from Boulogne, with the task of retaking the key port of [[Dover]], under Robert's control.<ref name=BarlowP169/> A small number of Stephen's household knights were sent north to help the fight against the Scots, where David's forces were defeated later that year at the [[battle of the Standard]] in August by the forces of [[Thurstan]], the [[Archbishop of York]].<ref name="CarpenterP166">Carpenter, p. 166.</ref> Despite this victory, however, David still occupied most of the north.<ref name=CarpenterP166/> Stephen himself went west in an attempt to regain control of [[Gloucestershire]], first striking north into the [[Welsh Marches]], taking [[Hereford]] and [[Shrewsbury]], before heading south to [[Bath, Somerset|Bath]].<ref name=BarlowP169/> The town of [[Bristol]] itself proved too strong for him, and Stephen contented himself with raiding and pillaging the surrounding area.<ref name=BarlowP169/> The rebels appear to have expected Robert to intervene with support that year, but he remained in Normandy throughout, trying to persuade the Empress Matilda to invade England herself.<ref>Bradbury, p. 67.</ref> Dover finally surrendered to the Queen's forces later in the year.<ref name="Crouch2002P256">Crouch (2002), p. 256.</ref>

Stephen's military campaign in England had progressed well, and historian David Crouch describes it as "a military achievement of the first rank".<ref name=Crouch2002P256/> The King took the opportunity of his military advantage to forge a peace agreement with Scotland.<ref name=Crouch2002P256/> Stephen's wife Matilda was sent to negotiate another agreement between Stephen and David, called the [[Treaty of Durham (1139)|treaty of Durham]]; Northumbria and Cumbria would effectively be granted to David and his son Henry, in exchange for their fealty and future peace along the border.<ref name=CarpenterP166/> The powerful [[Ranulf II, Earl of Chester]], considered himself to hold the traditional rights to Carlisle and Cumberland and was extremely displeased to see them being given to the Scots.<ref name=DavisP50/> Nonetheless, Stephen could now focus his attention on the anticipated invasion of England by Robert and Matilda's forces.<ref>Carpenter, p. 170.</ref>

=== Road to civil war (1139) ===
[[File:Great Seal of King Stephen.jpg|thumb|upright=1.8|Stephen's [[Great Seal of the Realm|Great Seal]]]]

Stephen prepared for the [[Angevin Empire|Angevin]] invasion by creating a number of additional [[List of earldoms|earldoms]].<ref>Bradbury, p. 52.</ref> Only a handful of earldoms had existed under Henry I and these had been largely symbolic in nature. Stephen created many more, filling them with men he considered to be loyal, capable military commanders, and in the more vulnerable parts of the country assigning them new lands and additional executive powers.<ref>Bradbury, p. 70.</ref>{{#tag:ref|R. Davis and W. L. Warren argue that the typical earldom involved the delegation of considerable royal powers; Keith Stringer and Judith Green capture the current consensus that the degree of delegated powers followed the degree of threat and that perhaps less powers in total were delegated than once thought.<ref>White (2000), pp. 76–77.</ref>|group="nb"}} He appears to have had several objectives in mind, including both ensuring the loyalty of his key supporters by granting them these honours, and improving his defences in key parts of the kingdom. Stephen was heavily influenced by his principal advisor, Waleran de Beaumont. Waleran, his brothers [[Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester|Robert]] and [[Hugh de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Bedford|Hugh]], and their younger cousins received the majority of these new earldoms.<ref>Barlow, pp. 171–172; Crouch (1986), p. 29.</ref> From 1138 onwards, Stephen gave them the earldoms of [[Earl of Worcester|Worcester]], [[Earl of Leicester|Leicester]], [[Earl of Hereford|Hereford]], [[Earl of Warwick|Warwick]] and [[Earl of Pembroke|Pembroke]], which – especially when combined with the possessions of Stephen's new ally, Prince Henry, in Cumberland and Northumbria – created a wide block of territory to act as a [[buffer zone]] between the troubled south-west, [[Chester]], and the rest of the kingdom.<ref>Barlow, p. 172.</ref> With their new lands, the power of the Beamounts grew to the point where David Crouch suggests that it became "dangerous to be anything other than a friend of Waleran" at Stephen's court.<ref>Crouch (1986), p. 43.</ref>

Stephen took steps to remove a group of bishops he regarded as a threat to his rule. The royal administration under Henry I had been headed by Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, who was supported by his nephews, Bishops [[Alexander of Lincoln]] and [[Nigel of Ely]], and his son, Lord Chancellor [[Roger le Poer]].<ref>Davis, p. 31.</ref> These bishops were powerful landowners as well as ecclesiastical rulers, and they had begun to build new castles and increase the size of their military forces, leading Stephen to suspect that they were about to defect to the Empress Matilda. Bishop Roger and his family were also enemies of Waleran, who disliked their control of the royal administration. In June 1139, Stephen held his court in Oxford, where a fight between [[Alan, 1st Earl of Richmond|Alan of Brittany]] and Roger's men broke out, an incident probably deliberately created by Stephen.<ref name="DavisP32">Davis, p. 32.</ref> Stephen responded by demanding that Roger and the other bishops surrender all of their castles in England. This threat was backed up by the arrest of the bishops, with the exception of Nigel who had taken refuge in [[Devizes Castle]]; the bishop only surrendered after Stephen besieged the castle and threatened to execute Roger le Poer.<ref>Yoshitake, p. 98.</ref> The remaining castles were then surrendered to the King.<ref name=DavisP32/>{{#tag:ref|The impact of these arrests on the efficacy of the subsequent royal administration and the loyalty of the wider English church has been much discussed. Kenji Yoshitake represents the current academic consensus when he notes that the impact of the arrests "was not serious", placing the beginning of the disintegration of the royal government at the subsequent battle of Lincoln.<ref>Yoshitake, pp. 97–98, 108–109.</ref>|group="nb"}}

Stephen's brother Henry was alarmed by this, both as a matter of principle, since Stephen had previously agreed in 1135 to respect the freedoms of the church, and more pragmatically because he himself had recently built six castles and had no desire to be treated in the same way.<ref name="BarlowP173">Barlow, p. 173.</ref> As the papal legate, he summoned the King to appear before an ecclesiastical council to answer for the arrests and seizure of property. Henry asserted the church's right to investigate and judge all charges against members of the clergy.<ref name=BarlowP173/> Stephen sent [[Aubrey de Vere II]] as his spokesman to the council, who argued that Roger of Salisbury had been arrested not as a bishop, but rather in his role as a baron who had been preparing to change his support to the Empress Matilda. The King was supported by [[Hugh of Amiens]], [[Archbishop of Rouen]], who challenged the bishops to show how [[canon law]] entitled them to build or hold castles. Aubrey threatened that Stephen would complain to the pope that he was being harassed by the English church, and the council let the matter rest following an unsuccessful appeal to Rome.<ref name=BarlowP173/> The incident successfully removed any military threat from the bishops, but it may have damaged Stephen's relationship with the senior clergy, and in particular with his brother Henry.<ref>Davis, p. 34; Barlow, p. 173.</ref>{{#tag:ref|Keith Stringer argues that Stephen "was surely right" to seize the castles, and that the act was a "calculated display of royal masterfulness"; Jim Bradbury and Frank Barlow praise the military soundness of the tactic. David Carpenter and R. Davis, however, observe that Stephen had ended up breaking his promises to the Church, was forced to appear before a church court, and damaged his relationship with Henry of Blois, which would have grave implications in 1141.<ref>Stringer, p. 20; Bradbury, p. 61; Davis, p. 35; Barlow, p. 173; Carpenter, p. 170.</ref>|group="nb"}}