The military, political and social importance of the castle in King Stephen's reign - Essay Example

?Evaluate the military, political and social importance of the castle in King Stephen’s reign. The chronicle of castles in the medieval period was just not about well-built pristine royal buildings, but is made up of key historical events. The reign of King Stephen is marked as the anarchy in the history of England due to the chaos and lawlessness that existed in the period. The role of castles has a great significance during his time leading to the new kind of siege warfare in the Medieval Period. With the struggle for power in the political spheres, the country was greatly devastated contributing to the menace of the peasants and nobles. The battle for the castles consequently created social, political and economic disruption to the country. Thus evaluation will be done regarding the social, military and political importance of the castles during the reign of King Stephen. In 1135, after the death of Henry I, the King of England, Stephen of Blois who was the nephew to the king was crowned, in spite of the king’s female heir, Express Matilda. The struggle for the power between King Stephen and Matilda led to an extended period of civil war and anarchy in England. This battle for the throne headed to utter lawlessness and chaos in the country during the reign of King Stephen which lasted for more than 18 years. Finally, the anarchy ended with the death of King Stephen and he was succeeded by the son of Matilda, Henry II to the throne. Castles were probably built with a view to control the occupied territories of the rivals. Different types of castles such as motte, bailey and ringworks castles were largely built during the reign of King Stephen. The royal spending over the castles shows a remarkable significance that these building hold to the rulers of the twelfth century. The phase of King Stephen’s anarchy started with the series of castle building which was initially built for the purpose of defense. Gradually, these fortifications got extended for various military operations holding control over the surrounding lands by occupying and levying taxes. So, the loss of a castle would cause a loss of revenue for the state which became the major issue for protecting theirs and conquering the castles of others. In order to protect their own territories from the rivals, both Matilda supporters and King’s force started establishing fortifications on their own style of motte, bailey designs and fen-edge castles. “Meanwhile in England both parties were compelled to keep armed forces permanently in strong castles, if necessary building new castles or increasing the fortifications of old ones.”1 In the period of King Stephen various new fortifications were established and the existing ones were reconstructed. Stone built castles played a major role in the military and political spheres of the country. “Developments in castle-building certainly did not arise from the exigencies of war but to provide an appropriate lordly residence – offering security, not terror, to dependents.”2 Royal castles were built to maintain and control the township and the forests while the baronial castles were used by the lords in controlling their widespread territories and estates. In addition, the authorities also excised power over baronial castles and placed restrictions on its construction. The baronial castles, of that time were considered as a threat to the public, due to their extensive control over the land and people, and so it was curbed by the monarchic authority by the castle policies and forfeitures. “There was a distinct ‘Angevin castle policy’ under which, by a careful strategy of building and forfeiture, the ratio of royal to baronial castles was altered to enhance royal power over that of the aristocracy.”3 It was during the period of King Stephen that these numerous castle building created a greater chaos to the social life of the people. The society was greatly affected with the castle-building of the powerful people. This included the ‘adulterine castles that are so prominent both in modern times as well as in the chronicles which is probably considered as the root of all the evils of the reign. “New castles were built and they were termed ‘adulterine’ because they were unlicensed.” 4 These ‘adulterine castles’ had no formal authorization or royal permission for its construction and were built illegally acquiring the lands of the peasants. On the flip side, the barons had little fear for the King and started exploiting the castles and the lands around it by plundering, occupying and seizing vast fortunes by oppressing the people. They took over the authority illegally by seizing royal castles while King Stephen failed to keep up with the law and order to act against these errant barons. “Central government virtually ceased to exist; law and order gave way to the private and arbitrary dispensation of justice in the interests of the mightiest.”5 In order to curb the indulgence, King Stephen ordered his loyal barons to encircle the Fens surrounding the castles, which became the ‘anarchy castles’. However, this was not with the intention of protecting the people from the rampages, but to reassert the power of the king. The consequence was that the villagers suffered with loss of land, houses and starved for food. Heavy taxes were laid to the villagers and the wretched were constantly accused and oppressed with the outrageous acts that prevailed in the society. Villages were burned; people were tortured; and thousands died of hunger: “Wretched men starved with hunger; some who were once powerful men went on alms; some fled out of the land. Never before was there more wretchedness in the land, nor ever did heathen men worse than they did.”6 In addition to this, the church and clergy men were neither respected nor honored, and they pillaged the villages and churchyards leaving it desolated. The country starved and suffered a lot which was described to be time when Christ and all the saints slept when England suffered. Political battles in the reign of King Stephen were often in the form of sieges rather than open battles. It accompanied campaigns centered on raids and sieges for gaining control over the territories of the rival region. “As a defensive and especially as an offensive base of operations for field forces, castles were the points from which the control of the surrounding countryside or adjacent cities emanated.”7 The major focus of the war was the castles involving siege warfare. Over thousands of castles were designed with military architects to ensure ultimate strength and longevity to withstand during the siege. The first attempt created by the warfare siege is starvation and making the defenders miserable through different ways. The attackers seized and destroyed everything in accord to the maxim, “First destroy the land and then your foe.”8 This tendency was applied in most of the sieges to challenge the authorities. Most of the castles were able to withstand long days of siege due to its adequate provisions. “Despite their ability to resist direct assault, even the strongest fortress could not withstand prolonged blockade, and it was therefore imperative that the enemy should not be given the opportunity to press a sustained siege.”9 The Stephen’s reign went through ‘the castle war’ in which both rivals attempted to defeat each other through constant sieges. “The nature of castle warfare was such that the existence of one predatory castle forced neighboring lords and communities also to build defenses.”10 Defending the castles became the primary battle which was a great gamble at the both ends. Both Matilda and Stephen took challenges in conquering and controlling the castles and also started building castles of their own to exhibit their power over the state. The siege warfare came into existence during the anarchy with direct assault, blockade and mining of the siege towers. For instance, King Stephen sought to take over the Wallingford fortress of Matilda while Geoffrey de Mandeville took efforts in seizing the Cambridge Castle in East Anglia, all by means of siege warfare. The castles, during the reign of King Stephen played a major role in the military system which was known as the feudalism. “The crucial military and governmental function of castles ensured that they would always be of fundamental importance in contemporary warfare.”11 Castles, of that time were greatly significant for the military forces as it needs to be maintained for the defensive purposes. Due to the complexity and increased period of sieges, the castles were well-grounded with sophisticated military armies. During the Stephen’s reign, castles were used primarily to hold the control over an area, in order to defend as well as attack the raids and sieges held by the rival campaigns. Castles were not only fortifications of protective nature; it also served to be sumptuous home for the nobles and royal families. However, these castles also showered to be status symbols to powerful kings and acted as grand residencies and sometime even became administrative centers for the territory. In the later days, the military importance of castles greatly declined by the development of canons and new methods of warfare. They started becoming status symbols rather than having significant military worth. In the social context, the castles in the Stephen’s reign greatly devastated the country. Though King Stephen was basically kind-hearted and well-respected by the barons of the period, he had a conciliate tendency and possessed lack of kingship. Due to the gentle nature of King Stephen, the traitors performed acts of enormity by building their own castles and holding it against him, eventually this filled the country with castles. It could be evident that castles, in his time, were actually not the cause for the civil disorder. “They were simply the visible and resented expression of the idea of magnate lordship and authority which did cause the breakdown. To contemporaries castles were the embodiment and expression of what they hated: the dark conjunction of power and license, in a word, 'tyranny'.”12 The impact of castles, during the reign of King Stephen, in the political, military and social spheres of the period reflects over the different dimensions of the power and authority of the medieval period. The new siege warfare, intrusion of castles, unstable government policies, and devastated society were all the seeds to the anarchy of the realm. The King’s flawed political activities and inability to eradicate the outlawed acts lead to the suffering of the society of England in the medieval period during the reign of King Stephen. Even when castles were considered as the instruments of violence, castles were actually the result, and not the cause of the local disturbance. However, the anarchy of the period ended with the rise of Henry I to the throne on the death of King Stephen. Bibliography Bradbury, Jim, The Medieval Siege (New York: Boydell & Brewer, 1992). Coulson, Charles L H, Castles in Medieval Society: Fortresses in England, France, and Ireland in the Central Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). Crouch, David, The Reign of King Stephen, 1135-1154 (London: Longman, 2000). Dalton, Paul and Graeme J. White, King Stephen’s Reign: (1135-1154) (New York: Boydell Press, 2008) Liddiard, Robert, Anglo-Norman Castles (New York: Boydell Press, 2003). Matthew, Donald, King Stephen (London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2002). Morillo, Stephen, Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings 1066-1135 (New York: Boydell & Brewer Ltd, 1997). Pounds, Norman J G, The Medieval Castle in England and Wales: A Political and Social History (London: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Strickland, Mathew J, Anglo-Norman Warfare: Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman Military Organization and Warfare (New York: Boydell & Brewer, 1992). Strickland, Matthew J, War and Chivalry: The Conduct and Perception of War in England and Normandy, 1066-1217 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Swanton, James Michael, An Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (London: Routledge, 1998). Wilson, Chris Given and Alice Curteis, The Royal Bastards of Medieval England (London: Routledge, 1984). Read More