Editing The Anarchy (section)

==Warfare==
===Technology and tactics===
[[File:Tapisserie cavaliers.JPG|thumb|upright=1.3|Knights in the 1140s still closely resembled those of the previous century, depicted here in the [[Bayeux Tapestry]]]]
Anglo-Norman warfare during the civil war was characterised by [[Attrition warfare|attritional]] military campaigns, in which commanders tried to raid enemy lands and seize castles in order to allow them to take control of their adversaries' territory, ultimately winning slow, strategic victories.<ref name=BradburyP71>Bradbury, p.71.</ref> Occasionally pitched battles were fought between armies but these were considered highly risky endeavours and were usually avoided by prudent commanders.<ref name=BradburyP71/> Despite the use of feudal levies, Norman warfare traditionally depended on rulers raising and spending large sums of cash.<ref>Morillo, pp.16–17.</ref> 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>

Stephen and Matilda's households centred on small bodies of knights called the ''[[familia regis]]''; this inner circle formed the basis for a headquarters in any military campaign.<ref>Morillo, pp.51–52.</ref> The armies of the period were still similar to those of the previous century, comprising bodies of mounted, armoured [[knight]]s, supported by [[infantry]].<ref name=BradburyP74>Bradbury, p.74.</ref> Many of these men would have worn long mail hauberks, with [[helmet]]s, [[greave]]s and arm protection.<ref name=BradburyP74/> [[Sword]]s were common, along with [[lance]]s for cavalry; [[crossbow]]men had become more numerous, and [[longbow]]s were occasionally used in battle alongside the older [[shortbow]].<ref name=BradburyP74/> 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 in the duration of their service and often more skilled.<ref>Morillo, p.52.</ref>

The Normans had first developed castles in the 10th and 11th centuries, and their occupation of England after 1066 had made extensive use of them. Most castles took the form of earthwork and timber [[motte-and-bailey]] or [[ringwork]] constructs; easily built with local labour and resources, these were resilient and easy to defend. The Anglo-Norman elite became adept at strategically placing these castles along rivers and valleys to control populations, trade and regions.<ref>Prior ref.</ref> In the decades before the civil war, some newer, stone-built [[keep]]s had begun to be introduced. Unlike the more traditional designs, these required expensive skilled labourers and could only be built slowly over many seasons. Although these square keeps later proved to have vulnerabilities, the [[ballista]]e and [[mangonel]]s used in the 1140s were significantly less powerful than the later [[trebuchet]] designs, giving defenders a substantial advantage over attackers.<ref>Bradbury, p.73.</ref> As a result, slow sieges to starve defenders out, or [[Mining (military)|mining operations]] to undermine walls, tended to be preferred by commanders over direct assaults.<ref name=BradburyP71/>

[[File:Pickering Counter castle.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|left|[[Pickering Castle]] in [[North Yorkshire]] (right), and the [[counter-castle]] possibly from the years of the Anarchy (background, upper left)]]
Both sides responded by building new castles, sometimes creating systems of strategic fortifications. In the south-west Matilda's supporters built a range of castles to protect the territory, usually motte-and-bailey designs such as those at [[Winchcombe Castle|Winchcombe]], [[Upper Slaughter]], or [[Bampton Castle, Oxfordshire|Bampton]].<ref>Walker, p.15.</ref> Similarly, Stephen built a new chain of fen-edge castles at [[Burwell, Cambridgeshire#Burwell Castle|Burwell]], [[Lidgate]], [[Rampton, Cambridgeshire|Rampton]], [[Caxton, Cambridgeshire|Caxton]], and [[Swavesey]] – each about six to nine miles (ten to fifteen km) apart – in order to protect his lands around Cambridge.<ref>Creighton, p.59.</ref> Many of these castles were termed "[[Adulterine castle|adulterine]]", unauthorised, because, in the chaos of the war, no royal permission had given to the lord for their construction.<ref>Coulson, p.69.</ref> Contemporary chroniclers saw this as a matter of concern; [[Robert of Torigni]] suggested that as many as 1,115 such castles had been built during the conflict, although this was probably an exaggeration as elsewhere he suggests an alternative figure of 126.<ref>Coulson, p.69; Bradbury, p.191.</ref>

Another feature of the war was the creation of many "[[counter-castles]]".<ref>Bradbury, p.28.</ref> or "siege castles". At least 17 such sites have been identified through documentary and archaeological research, but this likely under-estimates the number that were built during the conflict.<ref>Creighton and Wright, p.53.</ref> These had been used in English conflicts for several years before the civil war and involved building a basic castle during a siege, alongside the main target of attack.<ref name=Creighton2005P56>Creighton, p.56.</ref> Typically these would be built in either a ringwork or a motte-and-bailey design between 200 and 300 yards (180 to 270 metres) away from the target, just beyond the range of a bow.<ref name=Creighton2005P56/> Counter-castles could be used to either act as platforms for siege weaponry, or as bases for controlling the region in their own right.<ref>Creighton, p.57.</ref> Most siege castles were intended for temporary use and were often destroyed ([[slighted]]) afterwards. While most survive poorly, the [[Earthworks (archaeology)|earthworks]] of 'the Rings' near [[Corfe Castle]] in Dorset is an unusually well preserved example.<ref>Creighton and Wright, pp.56–57, 59.</ref>

===Leaders===
King Stephen was extremely wealthy, well-mannered, modest and liked by his peers; he was also considered a man capable of firm action.<ref name=King2010P301>King (2010), p.301.</ref> His 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> Rumours of his father's cowardice during the First Crusade continued to circulate, and a desire to avoid the same reputation may have influenced some of Stephen's rasher military actions.<ref>Barlow, p.167.</ref> Stephen drew heavily on his wife, Queen Matilda of Boulogne (not to be confused with Empress Matilda), during the conflict, both for leading negotiations and maintaining his cause and army while imprisoned in 1141; Matilda led the royal household during this period in partnership with Stephen's mercenary leader [[William of Ypres]].<ref>Carpenter, p.172.</ref>

The Empress's faction lacked an equivalent war leader to Stephen. Matilda had a firm grounding in government from her time as empress, where she had presided in court cases and acted as regent in Italy with the Imperial army on campaign.<ref>Chibnall, pp.26, 33.</ref> Nonetheless, Matilda, as a woman, could not personally lead forces into battle.<ref>Chibnall, p.97.</ref> Matilda was less popular with contemporary chroniclers than Stephen; in many ways she took after her father, being prepared to loudly demand compliance of her court, when necessary issuing threats and generally appearing arrogant.<ref>Chibnall, pp.62–63.</ref> This was felt to be particularly inappropriate since she was a woman.<ref>Chibnall, p.63.</ref> Matilda's husband, Geoffrey of Anjou, played an important role in seizing Normandy during the war but did not cross into England. Geoffrey and Matilda's marriage was not an easy one; it had almost collapsed altogether in 1130.<ref>Chibnall, pp.58–59.</ref>

For most of the war, therefore, the Angevin armies were led into battle by a handful of senior nobles. The most important of these was Robert of Gloucester, the half-brother of the Empress. He was known for his qualities as a statesman, his military experience and leadership ability.<ref name=BarlowP169/> 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> [[Miles of Gloucester]] was another capable military leader up until his death in 1143; there were some political tensions between him and Robert, but the two could work together on campaigns.<ref>Davis, p.40; Chibnall, p.82.</ref> One of Matilda's most loyal followers was [[Brian Fitz Count]], like Miles a [[marcher lord]] from Wales. Fitz Count was apparently motivated by a strong moral duty to uphold his oath to Matilda and proved critical in defending the Thames corridor.<ref>Chibnall, pp.85–87; Bradbury, p.50.</ref>