Ultra mare in servicio domini regis: English barons and the defence of Normandy, 1194-1204

Page created by Daryl Murphy

Uncategorized

English

Like
Share
Embed
Fullscreen
Slides
Download HTML
Download PDF
Abuse

←

→

Page content transcription

If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below

Ultra mare in servicio domini regis: English barons and
the defence of Normandy, 1194–1204
Nick Hopkinson
University of Cambridge

                                                                                                                                                         Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/264/213/6232818 by guest on 20 October 2021
Abstract
This article analyses the provision of military service by English barons in the wars in Normandy
between 1194 and 1204, a topic that has not previously been examined in any depth. It demonstrates
that an important section of the English baronage provided regular military service in Normandy,
driven by their own personal interests in the duchy and the pursuit of royal favour and rewards.
It concludes that these barons were not fundamentally opposed to providing service overseas, and
that this was not a factor in the loss of Normandy, but became an important political lever in their
conflict with King John.
  

The wars between the Plantagenet kings and King Philip II of France for control of
Normandy placed extraordinary burdens on the barons of England. In almost every year
between 1194 and 1204, they were required to provide military service in the duchy or, if
they did not serve, pay scutage and additional fines.This has often been portrayed as one of
many unpopular demands levied on hard-pressed barons, who were increasingly reluctant
to support the kings in their wars in Normandy. Consequently, opposition to providing
military service on the continent has been cited as a factor in the loss of Normandy by King
John in 1204, and the subsequent growth of baronial opposition in England, which led to
the civil war of 1215–17. This paper examines the political effects of war-fighting, and the
demands for military service, on the barons of England, through a detailed analysis of their
participation in the Norman campaigns and the impact of royal policies on those who did
not serve in Normandy. It seeks to determine whether the demands for service in the duchy,
and elsewhere on the continent, provoked serious baronial resistance that contributed to the
loss of Normandy and the development of the political movement against John.
   During this period the defence of Normandy was the main priority of Richard I and
King John. Consequently, the degree of baronial commitment to these campaigns was
an important barometer of their support for the kings and the maintenance of their
rule in the duchy. Many English barons themselves possessed lands and other interests in
Normandy. John Le Patourel has argued that prior to 1154 these cross-Channel interests
were an important factor in the willingness of many barons to support the Norman
kings in establishing their rule in England and Normandy and maintaining the political
connection between the two countries.1 It has subsequently been argued that, by the late
twelfth century, the importance of these interests had diminished, and hence the barons
had little interest in preserving Plantagenet rule in Normandy. In 1975 Jim Holt argued
that the cross-Channel barons, who in earlier periods sought to repair any division

    1
        J. Le Patourel, The Norman Empire (Oxford, 1976), pp. 103–9, 189–201.

                                                             DOI:10.1093/hisres/htab010               Historical Research, vol. 94, no. 264 (May 2021)
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Institute of Historical Research.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduc-
tion in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

214 English barons and the defence of Normandy, 1194–1204

between England and Normandy, sat by passively in 1204 while John lost the duchy.2 He
portrayed the two countries as moving apart, and the barons as increasingly unwilling
to bear the costs of maintaining Plantagenet rule in Normandy. The combination of
declining cross-Channel interests among the barons of England and their increasing
reluctance to bear the burden of defending the duchy are reflected in more recent
assessments. For example, David Crouch has suggested that by 1204 few barons possessed
any significant personal interests, or material stake, in both countries, and lacked the
motivation to protect or recover them.3 Other historians, such as David Bates, have

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/264/213/6232818 by guest on 20 October 2021
argued that baronial interest in Normandy remained strong, with many continuing to
extend their interests in the duchy.4
Baronial antipathy to serving overseas, generated by the long wars in Normandy, is
thought to have had profound consequences in the years after 1204, when John sought to
recover his continental lands and faced increasing opposition to his planned expeditions.
Ivor Sanders argued that opposition to overseas service was manifested in a number
of developments, such as the king being forced to accept reduced service from the
barons for overseas campaigns and the increasing unpopularity of knightly status.5 In her
introduction to the Pipe Roll of 1206, Doris Stenton notes the lack of opposition to
King John’s campaign to Poitou, but adds that nor was there any evidence of enthusiasm,
and that ‘had the English baronage been more interested … Normandy would never
have been lost’.6 Stephen Church argues that by 1201, many of John’s barons were not
happy to serve abroad and ‘had had enough of the constant burden of overseas war
inflicted on them since 1193’.7 The king was forced to abandon planned expeditions to
Poitou in 1205 and 1213, in the face of baronial opposition.8 In 1214 the northern barons
of England, who formed the initial core of the opposition to John, which culminated in
Magna Carta and civil war, first came together in organized opposition when they refused
to serve in or pay scutage for the king’s expedition to Poitou.9 These developments after
1204 have promoted the assumption that indifference, or opposition, to service on the
continent had been entrenched within the English baronage for many years.
Any analysis of baronial attitudes to military service presents significant challenges.
There were around 300 barons in England who held their land of the king, in return for
providing military service.10 They were a diverse group, with different levels of wealth,
political interests and individual circumstances. They ranged from the very wealthy,
with vast estates scattered across many counties, to the very humble, holding a handful
of knights’ fees. Various barons sought to advance their fortunes through a political
career at the royal court and as royal officials, while others confined their affairs to the
localities. A significant number of English barons held lands in Normandy, either the
old ancestral lands of their Norman forbears or more recent acquisitions. Many others

2
J. C. Holt, ‘The end of the Anglo-Norman realm’, Proceedings of the British Academy, lxi (1975), pp. 1–45, at p. 6.
3
D. Crouch,‘Normans and Anglo-Normans: a divided aristocracy’, in England and Normandy in the Middle Ages,
ed. D. Bates and A. Curry (London, 1994), pp. 51–67, at p. 67.
4
D. Bates, The Normans and Empire (Oxford, 2015), pp. 109, 131, 168–9.
5
I. J. Sanders, Feudal Military Service in England (Oxford, 1956), pp. 52–3.
6
Pipe Roll, 8 John (Pipe Roll Society, new ser., xx, 1942) p. xii.
7
S. D. Church, King John: England, Magna Carta and the Making of a Tyrant (London, 2015), p. 95.
8
Roger of Wendover, Flowers of History, ed. H. O. Coxe (5 vols., London, 1849), ii. 214–15; Ralph of Coggeshall,
Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. J. Stevenson (London, 1875), p. 152; Memoriale Fratris Walteri Coventria, ed. W. Stubbs (2
vols., London, 1873), ii. 212; and Church, King John, pp. 134–5, 202–3.
9
J. C. Holt, The Northerners (Oxford, 1961), pp. 88–9; and D. Carpenter, Magna Carta (London, 2015), p. 284.
10
See Cartae Baronum, ed. N. Stacy (Pipe Roll Society, lxii, 2019), which lists 266 barons who submitted returns
to the survey of 1166. A number of other barons did not send a return (Cartae Baronum, pp. xx–xxiii).

English barons and the defence of Normandy, 1194–1204 215

had no personal interest in Normandy. Consequently, individual attitudes to military
service in Normandy probably varied significantly, and presenting the English baronage
as uniformly opposed to serving overseas is almost certainly erroneous. In fact, a close
examination of the military service records of individual barons shows that there were
two distinct communities. One large group of barons tended to serve regularly in the
Norman campaigns, while another, slightly more numerous, group rarely or, in many
cases, never served. The experiences of these two groups were significantly different
and must have resulted in correspondingly varied attitudes to the royal demands for

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/264/213/6232818 by guest on 20 October 2021
overseas service. In the analysis presented below, I have considered these two groups
separately in order to highlight the range of potential experiences of and attitudes to
the Norman campaigns. Clearly, in any analysis of a large population, there are always
individuals who do not fit comfortably within any form of categorization. However,
for the large majority, their behaviour in this period remained remarkably consistent.
It is also possible that this categorization of the barons reflected contemporary practice.
Evidence, described in detail below, suggests that the royal administration distinguished
between different classes of barons for the purposes of organizing military service, and
may have maintained a list of those who were expected to serve overseas.
In assessing baronial attitudes to the Norman campaigns, it is necessary briefly to
examine their experiences of earlier overseas campaigns, since their view of established
custom often exerted a powerful influence. While the evidence for military service prior
to 1189 is extremely limited, it suggests the dichotomy within the baronial community
had existed for many decades.Various barons were probably accustomed to supporting the
king in his overseas wars. During the reign of Henry II, they were formally summoned
to provide military service overseas on a number of occasions, including the expedition
to Toulouse in 1159 and possibly the subsequent campaigns in northern France in 1160–
1.11 In February 1177 the king ordered all the earls, barons and knights of England to
assemble at London on 8 May, equipped with horses and arms, ready to follow him
to Normandy.12 In 1189 Henry wrote to Ranulf de Glanville, the justiciar of England,
ordering him to send over his English barons to support him in Normandy and Maine.13
The number of barons who answered the call for each campaign cannot be determined
with any precision. In 1159 Robert de Torigni implied that many of the chief barons
accompanied the king to Toulouse. Unfortunately, the scutage records for this campaign
are not particularly helpful, since it was collected directly from the knights of the county.
The very few references to payments by barons are insufficient to provide the basis for
an assessment of the service provided.14 The records for 1161 are more helpful, as the
scutage was collected from individual barons and recorded separately on the Pipe Roll,
which became the standard practice in later years. While many lesser barons paid scutage
and hence did not serve, most major barons do not appear on the roll, suggesting they
provided military service in Normandy.15

11
Robert de Torigni, Chronica, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett (4
vols., London, 1884–5), iv. 201, 208–11. A scutage, collected in 1161, suggests the English barons were summoned
to serve in the army that assembled in Normandy in the spring (Pipe Roll, 7 Henry II (Pipe Roll Soc., iv, 1884)).
12
Roger of Howden, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols., London, 1867), i. 138.
13
History of William Marshal, ed. A. J. Holden, S. Gregory and D. Crouch (3 vols., London, 2002–6), i, ll. 8273–82.
14
Pipe Roll, 5 Henry II (Pipe Roll Soc., i, 1884). See J. H. Round, ‘The introduction of knight service into
England’, in Feudal England (London, 1909), pp. 275–81.
15
The only major barons referenced in the scutage returns were minors whose lands were in royal custody. See,
e.g., the return for William de Ferrers, earl of Derby (Pipe Roll, 5 Henry II, p. 29).

216 English barons and the defence of Normandy, 1194–1204

There is other evidence, in the chronicles and witness lists of royal charters, to show
that various English barons accompanied the king on his overseas campaigns. William,
earl of Gloucester was present during the siege of Chinon in 1156.16 In 1168 William de
Stuteville, William fitz Hamo, William of Hastings and William de Tracy served in the
army at Saint-Thuriau in Brittany.17 William I, earl of Arundel was present with the king
at Fougères, during the Breton campaign of 1166. Both he and Hugh de Lacy served
in the royal army at Breteuil in August 1173, during the great rebellion.18 Around the
same time, William, earl of Essex and Earl Richard Strongbow were in the king’s army

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/264/213/6232818 by guest on 20 October 2021
that raised the siege of Verneuil.19 These and various other barons often witnessed royal
charters in Normandy, and may have served on other occasions, although their presence
during the period of particular campaigns cannot be confirmed due to the lack of
precise dates in most of Henry II’s charters.
Many of the barons who served in Normandy were the king’s close companions
and supporters, and probably regarded it as their duty to support the king. Most also
held Norman baronies owing military service, and were summoned to provide this on
at least ten occasions during the reign of Henry II.20 This, together with the desire to
protect their own property in Normandy, may have conditioned many cross-Channel
landholders to see service in the duchy as a customary duty and obligation. The king
recognized the additional burdens of serving overseas, and adopted a flexible approach
to the amount of service demanded of his barons. The quotas attached to their English
fiefs, and the revised assessments arising from the survey of 1166, were not used to
determine the number of knights provided on overseas campaigns. Instead, the king
appeared to leave it to the discretion of the barons to determine how many knights they
brought with them. In 1159 the barons took few knights with them to Toulouse.21 For
the Norman campaign of 1177, the king asked his barons to let him know by their letters
how many knights they could bring without great injury.22 This flexible approach was
echoed in the king’s letter to William Marshal in the summer of 1188, when he asked
William to bring as many knights as possible to support him in his war.23
In addition to showing flexibility over the number of knights required in Normandy,
it is likely the king did not expect all his barons to make the crossing. Evidence from the
early thirteenth century shows that the royal officials maintained lists of tenants-in-chief,
and summoned only those barons whose situation and circumstances made it appropriate
to call on their service for a particular campaign.24 It is likely that similar practices were
already established in the mid twelfth century. Certain categories of baron were deemed
unsuitable for overseas campaigns and were not asked to provide their service. One
such category comprised the bishops and abbots, who were exempt from the personal

16
Recueil des actes de Henri II, ed. L. Delisle and E. Berger (4 vols., Paris, 1909–17), no. 17.
17
Recueil des actes de Henri II, no. 272.
18
Recueil des actes de Henri II, no. 257; and Howden, Gesta, i. 51.
19
Opera Historica: the Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols., London, 1876), ii. 375.
20
Torigni, Chronica, pp. 196, 201, 210–11, 223, 228, 231; Howden, Gesta, i. 132, 138, 195; ii. 40, 66; Opera Historica,
ii. 55; and History of William Marshal, i, ll. 8284–934.
21
Torigni, Chronica, p. 202.
22
Howden, Gesta, i. 138.
23
The Letters and Charters of Henry II King of England (1154–1189), ed. N. Vincent (5 vols., Oxford, 2020), no. 1771.
See also N. Vincent, ‘William Marshal, King Henry II and the honour of Chateauroux’, Archives, xxv (2000), 1–15.
24
J. S. Critchley, ‘Summonses to military service early in the reign of Henry III’, English Historical Review, lxxxv
(1971), 79–95.There are marked differences between the lists of barons appearing on the summons rolls for a Welsh
campaign in 1228 and for the planned French campaign of 1229 (Critchley, ‘Summonses’, pp. 88–95).

English barons and the defence of Normandy, 1194–1204 217

military obligations of lay barons but owed the military service due from their lands.25
From the very start of the reign, their military service was commuted to scutage and
other payments. In 1156, when the king led his army into Anjou, the bishops and abbots
paid scutage, calculated according to the amount of knight service owed to the king.26
In 1159, for the expedition to Toulouse, they were asked to make significant additional
contributions. For example, the bishop of Winchester was asked to pay a donum of 500
marks, in addition to his scutage of 120 marks.27 It is likely that most prelates did not
maintain within their own household, or among the tenants, enough suitable knights

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/264/213/6232818 by guest on 20 October 2021
who were willing to serve overseas. The case of Samson, abbot of Bury St. Edmunds in
1197–8, is probably typical. According to Jocelin of Brakelond, when Richard demanded
that the prelates provide him with service in Normandy, the abbot’s knights complained
that neither they nor their fathers had ever been asked to serve outside England.28
Similarly, by the second half of the twelfth century, it is likely that various lay barons
were not usually summoned, or did not choose to go overseas. The criteria used to
determine which particular barons were excused their service cannot be established with
any certainty due to the lack of evidence. It is likely they included the holders of small
baronies, who were not resourced or equipped to serve in long campaigns on the continent.
For the campaign of 1159, the few individuals whose scutage payments were recorded
individually were minor barons, such as Robert de Helion and Richard de Rames, whose
Essex baronies owed the service of fifteen and ten knights, respectively, or the Wiltshire
barons Gerard Giffard and Henry Fitz Herbert, who owed the service of one knight for
their baronies.29 In 1161 a significant number of barons paid scutage and hence probably
did not serve in Normandy. Most were minor barons similar to those who appeared in the
1159 roll.The most important baron to pay his scutage was William of Windsor, who owed
the service of twenty knights.30 Apart from these two early campaigns, the lay barons who
did not serve were treated leniently by the crown. After 1161 no scutages were levied for
overseas campaigns, including those when the barons of England were summoned to
serve in Normandy, in 1177 and 1189. Hence, prior to the wars of the 1190s, it is likely that
a significant number of lesser barons had neither served in the king’s wars overseas nor
paid any scutage for these campaigns for over thirty years.
The extent of baronial participation in overseas campaigns, which can only be glimpsed
fleetingly in the evidence prior to 1189, emerges clearly into view in the years after 1194,
when more comprehensive evidence becomes available. Under Richard I there were
formal summonses to the army in Normandy in 1194, 1195 and 1196, and requests for
baronial support in 1197–8. Similarly, under John the barons were asked to serve in
Normandy in 1199, 1201, 1202 and 1203. Most of these campaigns were accompanied
by the imposition of regular scutages and fines on those who did not provide service in
Normandy. The fact that there were two distinct groups of barons, with very different
experiences of overseas military campaigns under Henry II, almost certainly influenced
their responses to the unprecedented demands of the Norman wars. Firstly, I examine
the experiences of those who served regularly in Normandy, and subsequently, I consider

25
S. R. Packard, ‘King John and the Norman church’, Harvard Theological Review, xv (1922), 15–40, at p. 18.
26
The Great Rolls of the Pipe for the Second, Third and Fourth Years of the Reign of King Henry II, 1155–1158, ed. J.
Hunter (London, 1844), 2 Henry II, pp. 63–4.
27
Round, ‘Knight service’, p. 278.
28
The Chronicle of Jocelin of Brakelond, ed. H. E. Butler (London, 1949), pp. 85–6.
29
Pipe Roll, 5 Henry II, pp. 4, 5, 40. In most cases their successors continued to avoid serving in Normandy in
the 1190s and early 1200s.
30
Pipe Roll, 7 Henry II, p. 52; and Cartae Baronum, no. cxxxviii.

218 English barons and the defence of Normandy, 1194–1204

those barons who did not serve, and the impact on them of the increasing fiscal demands
related to military service.
The formal summonses of the barons for the Norman campaigns were generally very
successful. In each year for which there are records on the English Pipe Rolls, there
were at least eighty barons, and in some years as many as 120, who served with the
king or provided military service in Normandy. In numerical terms they represented
less than half of the barons of England, but they far outweighed those who habitually
did not serve in Normandy in terms of political influence and military power. In order

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/264/213/6232818 by guest on 20 October 2021
to examine this group in detail, I have concentrated on sixty of these baronial families,
whose representatives provided military service in at least five of the nine campaigns
in Normandy. They included all the leaders and men of influence within the baronial
community of England, and commanded the bulk of the military aristocracy, holding
more than 3,000 knights’ fees between them. The sixty barons comprised most of the
earls (Arundel, Chester, Derby, Devon, Hereford, Hertford, Leicester, Norfolk, Oxford,
Pembroke, Salisbury, Surrey and Warwick), others of comital rank (the counts of Aumale,
Eu and Perche) and most of those holding fiefs with more than thirty knights’ fees
(Aubigné, Bardolf, Briouze, Courtenay, fitz Walter, fitz Gerald, Lacy, L’Aigle, Laval,
Mowbray, Nonant, Pomeroy, Saint-Valery, Somery and Vautort). It is likely that most
other major barons would have served regularly if circumstances had allowed. The heirs
to the Mohun and Tracy baronies were minors for much of the period but served when
they were of age, while William de Roumare, lord of the large Lincolnshire barony of
Bolingbroke, served in three of King Richard’s campaigns before he died in 1198.31 The
only major barons who avoided regular service in Normandy were Simon de Beauchamp,
lord of a sizeable Bedfordshire barony comprising fifty-five knights’ fees, and Walter de
Lacy, who held the Herefordshire honour of Weobley of more than fifty-one fees.32
Various other barons who served regularly in Normandy held smaller English baronies
but were prominent politically, serving as royal or ducal officials, or often present at the
royal court. They included Alexander Arsic, Philip de Columbières, Robert of Greslay,
Robert de Harcourt, Robert Marmion, Roger de Mortemer, Ralph Musard, Saer de
Quincy, Robert de Ros, Geoffrey de Say, Peter de Stokes, William de Stuteville, Robert
de Tregoz and Eustace de Vescy. There was a similar group who held minor interests in
England but whose main lands were in Normandy. These were Walkelin de Ferrières,
William du Hommet, William Martel, Fulk Paynel, John de Préaux, Henry de Stuteville,
Ralph Taisson and Roger de Tosny. The remaining barons who served regularly were
Thomas d’Arci, Adam and Peter de Brus, Robert de Crèvecœur, Hamo fitz Hamo,
William de Longchamp, Adam de Port, and Walter de Trelly.
The main evidence for the service of these barons can be found in the Pipe Rolls,
where they are recorded as receiving a writ allowing them to keep their scutage.33 On
the roll of 1193–4, for example, these lists are headed ‘Isti habent quietantiam per regem
de scutagio suo quia fuerunt in exercitu Normanniae’.34 In many cases it is possible to find
supporting evidence for their presence in Normandy from other sources, such as witness

31
Pipe Rolls of the Exchequer of Normandy for the Reign of Richard I, ed.V. Moss with J. Everard (Pipe Roll Soc.,
new ser., lx, London, 2016), pp. 119, 133–4; Magna Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae sub regibus Angliae, ed. T. Stapleton (2
vols., London, 1840–4), ii. 531; and The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester, c. 1071–1237, ed. G. Barraclough
(Chester, 1988), no. 278.
32
Cartae Baronum, nos. ciii, cxlv.
33
The relevant Pipe Rolls are 6 Richard I (Pipe Roll Soc., new ser., v, 1928), 8 Richard I (Pipe Roll Soc., new ser.,
vii, 1930), 1 John (Pipe Roll Soc., new ser., x, 1933), 3-5 John (Pipe Roll Soc., new ser., xiv–xvi, 1936–8).
34
See, e.g., the list for Essex and Hertfordshire in Pipe Roll, 6 Richard I, p. 38.

English barons and the defence of Normandy, 1194–1204 219

lists of royal charters, letters sent to barons engaged on royal service in the duchy or the
records of cases brought before the courts that noted a baron was overseas in the service of
the king.This corroborating evidence confirms that many barons participated personally
in the campaigns in Normandy. For Richard’s pivotal campaigns of 1197–8, thirty-seven
out of the sixty barons who habitually provided their service can be confirmed as present
with the king in the duchy.35 A further three provided military service in Wales, with the
army of the justiciar. Clearly, many others could have been present but not recorded in
the sources. For John’s final Norman campaign of 1203, the sources are more extensive,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/264/213/6232818 by guest on 20 October 2021
and the presence of forty-four of the sixty barons can be confirmed, while two others,
Ralph, count of Eu and Guy de Laval were among the rebels of Poitou and Maine.36 The
extensive personal attendance by the barons in this campaign may be representative of
that in the earlier Norman campaigns, for which the sources are less helpful.
The explanation for such extensive participation by the barons of England in the wars
in Normandy can be gleaned from a number of characteristics that were common to
those who served regularly. Most of them held lands in Normandy. Of the barons listed
above, only the earls of Oxford and Warwick, William d’Aubigné, and possibly the fitz
Walters did not possess any personal interest in the duchy.37 Clearly, the scale of these
Norman interests varied considerably. Barons such as Ranulf, earl of Chester, William
Marshal, Earl Richard de Clare, Robert, earl of Leicester, Earl William de Warenne and
Roger de Tosny possessed vast Norman estates and had much to lose in the duchy.
The Norman lands of many other barons were significantly less valuable than their
English lands. Nevertheless, the significance of their Norman interests should not be
underestimated, and many examples are cited below of such barons continuing to extend
their interests in the duchy. Their continuing interest in Normandy may have been
sustained by their obligations as holders of Norman baronies, which had required them
to serve regularly in the campaigns of Henry II on the continent. The administrative
arrangements for summoning English barons for campaigns on the continent may have
treated those who also held Norman baronies as a distinct group who, above all others,
were generally expected to serve. This is reflected in the letter of Richard to his justiciar
in April 1196, ordering that barons with heads of baronies in Normandy should go
immediately to join the king in the duchy, while the rest should follow on 2 June.38
Possession of a Norman barony was clearly an important factor in determining the
readiness of a baron to serve in the campaigns.
Another common characteristic of these barons was that many had a background
of extensive engagement in military activities. For example, William Marshal, Saer
35
The Letters and Charters of Richard I King of England (1189–99), ed. N. Vincent, forthcoming, nos. 123R, 431R,
719R, 761R, 988R, 3271R, 2731R, 2732R, 2763R, 2765R, 169R, 2765R, 82R, 261R, 2695R, 3404R, 3425R,
2812R, 3426R, 4089R, 3056R; L. Landon, Itinerary of King Richard I (Pipe Roll Society, li, 1935), pp. 118, 120, 121,
122; and Opera Historica, ii. 155–6.
36
Rotuli Chartarum in Turri Londonensi asservati (1199–1216), ed. T. D. Hardy (London 1837), pp. 104–16; Rotuli
de Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis, ed T. D Hardy (London, 1844), pp. 34, 44, 56; Curia Regis Rolls … Preserved in
the Public Record Office, ed. C. T. Flower (7 vols., London, 1922–72), ii. 158, 160, 175–6, 235; Rotuli Normanniae …
Johanne et Henrico quinto Angliae regibus … de annis 1200-1205, necnon de anno 1417, ed. T. D. Hardy (London, 1835),
p. 75; Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi Asservata, ed.T. D. Hardy (London, 1835), pp. 37, 49; and Magna
Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae, ii. 506, 551, 553.
37
N. Vincent, ‘William d’Aubigné [William d’Albini]’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (hereafter
O.D.N.B.) (2004), doi: 10.1093/ref:odnb/284 [accessed 16 March 2021]; and M. Strickland, ‘Fitzwalter, Robert
(d. 1235)’, O.D.N.B. (2011), doi: 10.1093/ref:odnb/9648 [accessed 16 March 2021]. Robert fitz Walter may have
acquired half a knight’s fee near Valognes through his marriage to Gunnor, heiress to Robert de Valognes. See
Recueil des historiens de Gaules et de la France, ed. M. Bouquet and others (24 vols., Paris, 1783–1904), xxxiii. 696.
38
Opera Historica, ii. lxxix.

220 English barons and the defence of Normandy, 1194–1204

de Quincy and William II, earl of Arundel served King Henry II in his wars on the
continent.39 The latter famously fought William des Barres, a knight of King Philip of
France, in single combat in 1188–9. Many other barons followed Richard on crusade,
taking part in the siege of Acre, the battle of Arsuf and other military encounters. They
included Robert, earl of Leicester,William, earl of Derby, Ralph Taisson, Alexander Arsic,
Walkelin de Ferrières, Warin fitz Gerald, John, constable of Chester, Nigel de Mowbray,
John de Préaux, Roger de Harcourt and Roger de Tosny.40 In 1193–4 various barons
took a leading role in the suppression of Count John’s rebellion. Ranulf, earl of Chester,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/264/213/6232818 by guest on 20 October 2021
William, earl of Derby and David, earl of Huntingdon, for example, besieged John’s castle
of Nottingham prior to the king’s return.41 This section of the baronage was still very
much an active military class. Their culture and education prepared them for a martial
role, and they were accustomed to engaging in military activity on behalf of the king.
Alongside their military careers, many of these barons were politically active as royal
companions or officials, or were looking to advance the status and fortunes of their
families. Consequently, an overriding consideration for many was the political advantage
to be derived from supporting the king in Normandy. For most of the period, the kings
were resident in the duchy, and their overwhelming priority was the defence of their
continental lands. For ambitious barons who were seeking to increase their influence or
advance their fortunes, service in Normandy provided a natural arena for pursuit of these
interests, where they would be most visible and most likely to be rewarded by a grateful
king. The combination of political motives and the pursuit of personal interests can be
detected in the activities of many of the barons who served regularly in Normandy. The
career of William Marshal is the best documented, and has been the subject of many
studies.42 His early career as a knight and military leader in the households of Henry, the
Young King and Henry II fitted him for a role as companion, advisor and general for the
kings during their campaigns on the continent. In 1197–8, for example, he was Richard’s
representative with the count of Flanders for the campaign against the king of France,
and took a prominent part in Richard’s raid into the Beauvaisis.43 Later,William occupied
a central position in the direction of John’s campaigns. After the muster in England in
May 1201, William and Roger de Lacy were sent to Normandy, ahead of the main army,
each with 100 knights to contain the threat from the rebels.44 From early 1202 William
held a position of authority in the north-eastern marches, where he commanded a
military force and was responsible for the important castle of Arques, critical to the
defence of the north-eastern frontier.45 There is a surviving Norman Exchequer account
for William’s defence of the castle from 1202 and 1203, which includes payments for
knights and serjeants in his ballia and a series of works on the castle.46 His final recorded
act in Normandy was to lead an unsuccessful attempt to raise the siege of Château-
Gaillard in September 1203.47 William’s service was driven by a strong sense of loyalty

39
History of William Marshal, i, ll. 8254–84, 8544–868; and Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, ed,
F. Delaborde (2 vols., Paris, 1882), ii. 82.
40
Howden, Gesta, ii. 22, 63, 148–9; and Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, ed. H. J. Nicholson
(Aldershot, 1997), pp. 73–4, 217–18, 276, 341.
41
Chronica magistri Rogeri de Hoveden, ed. W. Stubbs (4 vols., London, 1868–71), iii. 236–7.
42
See particularly D. Crouch, William Marshal, Knighthood,War and Chivalry, 1147–1219 (London, 2002).
43
History of William Marshal, ii, ll. 10773–852, 11104–308.
44
Chronica magistri Rogeri de Hoveden, iv. 164; and Crouch, William Marshal, pp. 90–3.
45
Rotuli Normanniae, p. 51; and Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi Asservata, pp. 8–9.
46
Miscellaneous Records of the Norman Exchequer, ed. S. R. Packard (Northampton, Mass., 1926–7), pp. 65–9.
47
Guillaume le Breton, i. 212–15.

English barons and the defence of Normandy, 1194–1204 221

to the Plantagenets, stemming from his earlier career in their military household, but
there was also a significant personal interest underlying his actions. His involvement in
the defence of north-eastern Normandy was almost certainly influenced by a desire
to protect his extensive Norman barony of Longueville in the Pays de Caux. William
secured significant rewards in Normandy for his service. In 1199 John granted him the
valuable barony of Orbec, previously held by a distant ancestor of his wife, Isabella de
Clare.48
Other leading barons demonstrated the same combination of loyalty and the desire

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/264/213/6232818 by guest on 20 October 2021
to advance their own interests. In William, earl of Arundel’s family, the tradition of loyal
service to the Plantagenets stretched back to his grandfather, the first earl, who had
been a leading supporter of the Empress Matilda.49 In the summer of 1194 Earl William
was entrusted by the king with command of the siege operations at Le Vaudreuil.50 The
earl also secured rewards for his service when, like many other barons in this period, he
received a pardon from the king for his substantial debts at the Exchequer, comprising
£545 owed to the Jews, the debts of his father of £359 13s 4d, and 760 marks for his own
relief.51 In addition, we should not dismiss the significance of the earl’s own Norman
interests as an explanation for his regular service in Normandy, even though they were
significantly less valuable than those of William Marshal.While his honour of Aubigny, in
the Cotentin, owed the service of only two and a half knights, the lands were extensive
and comprised estates at twenty-seven different locations in the duchy.52
Ranulf, earl of Chester played an active part in defending western Normandy, where
he held the Cotentin barony of Saint-Sever, ducal offices in the Avranchin, and the
castles of Vire and Saint-James-de-Beuvron.53 In January 1203 Earl Ranulf may have
prepared a sizeable contingent of troops for the king’s planned expedition into Anjou
and Poitou, as he was given a large loan of 700 livres angevins. for the expedition.The earl
received substantial rewards for his services. In 1198 he received the Lincolnshire barony
of Bolingbroke from Richard, and in 1199 John granted him the bailiwick of Vire in
Normandy, one of the offices formerly held by his grandfather.54 Subsequently, Ranulf
was allowed to retain all the ducal revenues that would have normally been paid into the
Exchequer from Vire, and his other ducal offices in the Avranchin and Bessin. Between
1199 and 1203 he paid nothing into the Exchequer for his Norman offices, or indeed any
of his other debts, which amounted to 2,598l 6s 9d.
Robert, earl of Leicester was another key figure in the defence of Normandy, where
he held the valuable baronies of Grandmesnil, Breteuil and Pacy.55 His commitment was

48
D. J. Power, ‘The French interests of the Marshal earls of Striguil and Pembroke, 1189-1234’, Anglo-Norman
Studies, xxv (2003), 199–225, at pp. 201–3.
49
K. Thompson, ‘Queen Adeliza and the Lotharingian connection’, Sussex Archaeological Collections, cxl (2002),
57–64, at p. 60–1.
50
Chronica magistri Rogeri de Hoveden, iv. 197.
51
Pipe Roll, 7 Richard I (Pipe Roll Soc., new ser., vi, 1929), pp. 69, 71–2, 238.
52
The National Archives of the U.K., PRO 31/8/140B, A. L. Léchaudé d’Anisy, Cartulaire de la Basse-
Normandie, ii. 61–2; Calendar of Documents Preserved in France, 918–1206, ed. J. H. Round (2 vols., London, 1899),
nos. 883, 884, 912, 965, 987; Recueil des historiens de Gaules et de la France, xxiii. 610, 700; Rotuli Normanniae, p. 55;
and Cartulaire Normand de Philippe-Auguste, Louis VIII, Saint Louis et Philippe-le-Hardi, ed. L. Delisle (Caen, 1852),
xxiii, no. 121.
53
Magna Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae, ii. 531, 536, 537.
54
Chester, nos. 278, 288; and Magna Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae, ii. 531, 536, 537.
55
D. Crouch, The Beaumont Twins (Cambridge, 1986), p. 87 .

222 English barons and the defence of Normandy, 1194–1204

reflected in his leadership of the defence of Rouen against the French in 1193, while
Richard was still absent in Germany.56 Concerns for his valuable Norman lands was also
an important influence on the earl’s activities. In 1198 he led an expedition, with royal
support, aimed at recapturing his castle at Pacy, which had been lost in 1194. The earl’s
activities were less conspicuous during John’s reign, but he continued to profit from the
increased flow of favours and rewards granted to many of those serving in Normandy. In
1203 he received a substantial gift of 400 marks, generous grants of Norman lands and
the extensive honour of Richmond in England.57

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/264/213/6232818 by guest on 20 October 2021
William, earl of Salisbury and Earl William de Warenne, both close relatives of John,
undertook important roles in Normandy. During the king’s successful campaign to
relieve the siege of Mirebeau in July 1202, they served with William Marshal, protecting
Upper Normandy against the French forces besieging the castle of Arques.58 Salisbury
had been established in the ducal castle of Pontorson on the Breton frontier by Richard I,
and continued to hold it under John.59 In 1203 he was also temporarily given command
in Avranches, when the earl of Chester came under suspicion. Warenne’s activities in
the Pays de Caux were probably influenced by the desire to protect his own substantial
Norman honour of Bellencombre. In June 1202 the king gave him the former lands of
the count of Boulogne at Lillebonne, probably in compensation for Earl William’s lands at
Mortemer, on the north-eastern frontier, which had been lost to the French.60 Baldwin,
count of Aumale was another confirmed loyalist who was often present with both kings
in Normandy. Baldwin was an old associate of William Marshal from his days in the
household of the Young King, and also formed a strong attachment to the Plantagenet
family.61 He was a companion of Richard during the crusade and was elevated to the
front rank of the baronage in 1195, through marriage to Hawise, countess of Aumale. His
Norman lands at Aumale, close to the frontier, were often in the hands of the French, but
he received a steady flow of grants of land in England, and in June 1201 was pardoned
his debts by John.62 He remained a diehard loyalist to the end, and in 1205, according to
the Anonymous of Béthune, delivered a stinging rebuke to those Anglo-Norman barons
who were wavering in their commitment to John, and wished to do homage to King
Philip for their Norman lands.
While the strenuous efforts of the great cross-Channel barons in defending Normandy
is understandable, given their own extensive stake in the duchy, many other barons
with only modest Norman interests were equally energetic. Roger de Lacy, constable
of Chester, advanced his career and fortune under John by taking a leading role in the
defence of the duchy. Between August and December 1199 he served with the king in
his successful campaign to recover his continental lands, and was installed as castellan
of Chinon in Anjou.63 His service was rewarded with the restoration of the castle of
Pontefract, which had been retained by the crown when he had acquired the honour in
56
Chronica magistri Rogeri de Hoveden, iii. 205; iv. 60; and D. Crouch,‘Robert de Breteuil, fourth earl of Leicester’,
O.D.N.B. (2004), doi: 10.1093/ref:odnb/47202 [accessed 16 March 2021].
57
Rotuli Normanniae, p. 70; Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi Asservata, p. 27; and Rotuli de Liberate
ac de Misis et Praestitis, pp. 63–4.
58
History of William Marshal, ii, ll. 12117–404; and Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi Asservata, p. 22.
59
Pipe Rolls of the Exchequer of Normandy, p. 289; Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi Asservata, p. 28;
and Rotuli Normanniae, p. 85.
60
Rotuli Normanniae, p. 47.
61
History of William Marshal, i, ll. 6676, 7174–232, 9360–401; and Chronica magistri Rogeri de Hoveden, iii. 306.
62
Rotuli de Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis, p. 15; and Histoire des ducs de Normandie et rois d’Angleterre, ed. F. Michel
(Paris, 1840), p. 99.
63
Rotuli Chartarum in Turri Londonensi asservati, pp. 12–32.

English barons and the defence of Normandy, 1194–1204 223

1193.64 The king must have been impressed by his military qualities, as in May 1201 he
was sent to Normandy, ahead of the main English army, with 100 knights to protect the
frontiers from the French and their allies. In 1202 Roger was appointed as castellan of
Château-Gaillard, and conducted a stubborn defence of the castle during the long siege
between September 1203 and March 1204.65 His service for the king was rewarded by a
number of favours. Roger’s modest Norman interests were augmented by the acquisition
of a fief in the Avranchin, and in June 1202 he was given lands by the king at Rinceville
and Englesqueville in the Pays d’Auge.66 After his return to England in 1204, Roger

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/264/213/6232818 by guest on 20 October 2021
was confirmed as a key loyalist of John when he was made sheriff of Yorkshire and
Cumberland.
Various other prominent English barons gave the king valuable service in Normandy.
William de Briouze accompanied John during the campaigns of 1202 and 1203,
witnessing many of his charters, and was clearly a trusted agent. Both William and
Ralph de Somery, lord of the barony of Dudley and castellan of Domfront, had an
important role in defending the southern marches, where both held lands.67 They served
as commanders of royal troops in the region, and in early 1203 William de Briouze
dealt with the aftermath of the rebellion of the count of Sées, disposing of lands and
prisoners seized by the king.William’s service was rewarded by grants of further property
in Normandy. In the course of 1203 he received the former lands of Hugh de Lacy at
Le Pin, near Argentan, lands at Longeuil seized from Hugh de Gournay, and property in
Lillebonne.68 Two other leading English barons, Robert fitz Walter and Saer de Quincy,
had important military roles on the Norman frontier in 1203, defending the important
castle of Le Vaudreuil in the Seine valley. In June, when the castle was besieged by the
French, they surrendered embarrassingly quickly, and the king felt compelled to issue a
letter excusing their actions.69 Neither had Norman lands of any significance, although
both had been amply rewarded for their service. In the previous year, Robert had been
pardoned all the debts his family owed to the Jews and given custody of Hertford castle,
which he had claimed as his hereditary right.70 In May 1203 Saer was pardoned various
debts of 600 marks, owed to the Jews and the king.71
Other leading English barons were less conspicuous in undertaking important military
roles, but nevertheless served regularly in Normandy and were rewarded by the king.
After 1196–7, when he returned from a period as hostage for Richard’s ransom, William
de Mowbray was regularly present with both Richard and John during their Norman
campaigns. In the final year of the war, William received a loan from the king of 140
livres.72 Earl Richard de Clare was represented in Normandy by his eldest son Gilbert,

64
Pipe Roll, 7 Richard I, p. 99; and Chronica magistri Rogeri de Hoveden, iv. 91, 164.
65
Rotuli Normanniae, p. 58; and Guillaume le Breton, i. 212–20.
66
Rotuli Normanniae, p. 54; and Holt, Northerners, pp. 220–1.
67
Rotuli Normanniae, pp. 70, 79. For the career of William de Briouze, see R. V. Turner, ‘Briouze [Braose],
William de’, O.D.N.B. (2006), doi: 10.1093/ref:odnb/3283 [accessed 16 March 2021]. The main estates of William
de Briouze and Roger de Somery were located between Domfront and Alençon (Recueil des historiens de Gaules et
de la France, xxiii. 619, 633, 634, 695, 697, 701).
68
Rotuli Normanniae, pp, 74, 96.
69
Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi Asservata, p. 31; Chronica magistri Rogeri de Hoveden, iv. 163; and
Wendover, ii. 207.
70
Pipe Roll, 4 John (Pipe Roll Soc., new ser., xv, 1937), p. 118; and Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi
Asservata, p. 17.
71
Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi Asservata, p. 29; and Rotuli de Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis, p. 38.
72
Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi Asservata, p. 14; and Magna Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae, ii. 531,
536, 537.

224 English barons and the defence of Normandy, 1194–1204

who was able to secure significant rewards from John, when he was given the lands of
the count of Boulogne at Harfleur, and elsewhere in Upper Normandy.73 Roger de
Mortemer was regularly present in Normandy under John, and secured valuable financial
concessions when he was pardoned debts of over £400 in 1201 and provided with a
loan of 200 livres in 1202. The preservation of his own Norman interests, including the
valuable barony of Saint-Victor-en-Caux, was probably an important factor.74 Roger
expanded these interests by acquiring lands near Bernay, through his marriage to the
daughter of Walkelin de Ferrières, and by purchasing property at Drincourt for 1,000

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/264/213/6232818 by guest on 20 October 2021
livres.75 He was clearly prepared to fight to preserve these lands and, probably in late 1204
or 1205, he landed at Dieppe, intent on trying to rally support for John, but was captured
by King Philip’s bailli, John de Rouvray.76
For lesser barons, Normandy was a land of opportunity during this period, and
many served in military and administrative roles as a means of advancing their interests.
Geoffrey de Say was a minor baron, holding the honour of Kimbolton, and other lands
of the Warennes in England, and a few estates in Normandy, held of the Warenne and
Mortemer families.77 He served in nearly every campaign in the duchy. In 1197–8 he was
responsible for the important castle and bailiwick of Arques, and received a payment of
226 livres from the king.78 In 1202 Geoffrey was given land by the king in Normandy
that had previously been held by the rebel Juhel de Mayenne, and in the following
year he was granted land in fee that had previously been given to him in custody by
Richard.79 In July 1203 his reward from the king was explicitly linked to his service
when John pardoned his debt of 250 marks from the time he joined the king with horse
and arms, and while ever he remained in royal service.80
Robert de Ros was a minor baron from northern England, and held little property in
Normandy until he acquired the Trussebut inheritance through his mother Roese. These
interests included the hereditary custody of the castle and vicomté of Bonneville-sur-Touques,
which probably led Robert to play a larger role in the Norman campaigns.81 In 1194–5, the
account for his vicomté included payments for military equipment, knights and serjeants, and
repairs to the castle of Bonneville, indicating that he had an active military role in the duchy.82
In 1196 the king gave him custody of an important French prisoner, who subsequently escaped
from the castle of Bonneville. As a result, Robert was imprisoned by the king and fined 1200
marks.83 He soon recovered his position and by 1198 was active in Normandy, giving pledges
for Ralph d’Argences and Ralph de Tancarville. By John’s reign, he was once again in favour,
acting as custodian of Bonneville-sur-Touques, and received significant rewards from the king
73
Rotuli Normanniae, pp. 51, 104.
74
Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi Asservata, p. 14; and Pipe Roll, 4 John, p. 2. For Roger de
Mortemer, see J. Crump, ‘The Mortimer family and the making of the march’, in Thirteenth Century England VI,
ed. M. Prestwich, R. H. Britnell and R. Frame (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 117–26.
75
Rotuli Normanniae, p. 19; and Pipe Roll, 6 John, (Pipe Roll Soc., new ser., xviii, 1940) p. 148.
76
Cartulaire Normand de Philippe-Auguste, Louis VIII, Saint Louis et Philippe-le-Hardi, ed. L. Delisle (Caen, 1852)
no. 167.
77
Recueil des historiens de Gaules et de la France, xxiii. 614, 640, 708; and Cartae Baronum, no. cxcvii.
78
Pipe Rolls of the Exchequer of Normandy, pp. 18, 138, 229–30.
79
Rotuli Normanniae, pp. 63, 104.
80
Rotuli de Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis, p. 48.
81
The Ros barony of Helmsley in Yorkshire included six knight’s fees in 1166 (Cartae Baronum, no. ccxlv)
and thirteen knights’ fees by the early thirteenth century (Holt, Northerners, p. 25). Pipe Rolls of the Exchequer of
Normandy, pp. 84–5. For the Trussebut family and lands, see Early Yorkshire Charters, ed.W. Farrer and C. T. Clay (12
vols., Edinburgh, 1914–65), x. 5–16.
82
Pipe Rolls of the Exchequer of Normandy, pp. 84–5.
83
Chronica magistri Rogeri de Hoveden, iv. 14–15; and Pipe Rolls of the Exchequer of Normandy, pp. 193, 245–6.

English barons and the defence of Normandy, 1194–1204 225

for his service. In 1203 he was given the land of a rebel in Normandy, houses and forest at
Herbetot, and in early 1204 was pardoned 100 marks of his debts at the Exchequer.84
William Martel was a minor Anglo-Norman baron, holding around eight knights’
fees in Wiltshire, Dorset and elsewhere, and a similar sized fief in the Pays de Caux. His
grandfather had been an official in the households of Henry I and King Stephen, serving
as royal butler and castellan of Sherborne.85 William served in most of the Norman
campaigns, and held the castle of Arques for John. In 1204 he elected to remain in
Normandy, probably because he stood to inherit half the barony of John d’Auffay in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/histres/article/94/264/213/6232818 by guest on 20 October 2021
the Pays de Caux. For other barons, there is little evidence of their specific activities in
Normandy, but their service was recognized by the king with the grant of favours and
rewards. This was particularly evident during John's final Norman campaigns, in 1202–3,
when a whole series of grants were made to barons serving in Normandy. Robert de
Harcourt, Robert Marmion and Roger de Tosny were among those given the lands of
rebels, while David, earl of Huntingdon, Thomas d’Arci, Roger de Tosny and William
Malet were pardoned their debts at the Exchequer.86
There were also various barons who served regularly but for whom it is hard to
discern any particular motivation other than the desire to fulfil their duty as barons.
Aubrey de Vere, earl of Oxford, is probably the best example. He appeared to receive no
particular favour from either king, had no personal interest in Normandy, yet probably
served in every campaign of Richard and the final campaigns of John. He was eventually
rewarded in 1208, when he was given the manor of Havering in custody and made
sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire, which he held until his death in 1214.87 Alexander
Arsic and Eustace de Vescy, both minor English barons who had accompanied Richard
on the Third Crusade, provided regular military service for him in Normandy. Arsic held
only half a knight’s fee in Normandy at Bléville in the Pays de Caux.88 After his death
in 1202, John Arsic, brother and heir to Alexander, served in John’s final campaigns in
Normandy.89 In 1194 Eustace de Vescy accompanied Richard on his expedition to the
Touraine, and was with the king at Chinon.90 He was one of a number of northern
barons who served regularly in Normandy. For example, Eustace, Robert de Ros and
Peter de Brus were all present with John at Andely in August 1199.91 Peter was lord of
Skelton in Yorkshire and the minor barony of Brix in the Cotentin. He continued to
serve regularly in John's Norman campaigns and in August 1203 was pardoned a debt of
200 marks.
For the barons who served regularly in Normandy, the campaigns probably did not
represent a novel or onerous commitment. Most held Norman baronies, had probably

84
Rotuli Normanniae, pp. 104, 113; and Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi Asservata, p. 38.
85
Cartae Baronum, no. xxix; Les Registres de Philippe Auguste, ed J. W. Baldwin (Paris, 1992), pp. 269, 286, 288; and
Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi Asservata, p. 22.
86
Rotuli Normanniae, pp. 74, 75, 87, 101, 103, 104; and Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi Asservata,
pp. 15, 16, 38.
87
For Earl Aubrey’s service in Normandy, see Pipe Roll, 6 Richard I (Pipe Roll Soc., new ser., v, 1928), p. 210; 8
Richard I (Pipe Roll Soc., new ser., vii, 1930), pp. 120, 162; 4 John, p. 137; 5 John (Pipe Roll Soc., new ser., xvi, 1938),
p. 185; and Chronicle of Jocelin of Brakelond, p. 66. See Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londoniensi Asservata, p. 83,
for his appointment as sheriff in 1208.
88
Recueil des historiens de Gaules et de la France, xxiii. 641.
89
In a case before the royal courts, John Arsic was absent because he was across the sea in the service of the
king (Curia Regis Rolls, ii. 235).
90
Landon, Itinerary, p. 99.
91
Pipe Rolls of the Exchequer of Normandy, p. 116; Rotuli de Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis, p. 56; Cal. Documents
Preserved in France, no. 1363; and Holt, Northerners, pp. 23–4, 90–1.

You can also read