Climbing the walls

Vilnius, capital of Lithuania. At the start of September 1390 the city was besieged by Anglo-Prussian forces under Henry of Bolingbroke (later Henry IV), Konrad von Wallenrode and Marshal Engelhardt Rabe of the Teutonic Order. Also among the ‘crusaders’ was Prince Vitold of Lithuania, and the joint campaign or reyse was in fact part of a Lithuanian dynastic dispute; ironically against Vitold’s cousin, King Jogailo, who had just converted Lithuania to Christianity.

This left the Teutonic Order and their allies with no reason to attack Lithuania. Fortunately for them, the wilderness of Samogitia north of the River Neman remained fiercely pagan, so the bloodshed could continue. Bolingbroke’s participation was a family tradition: both his grandfather, Henry of Grosmont, and his father-in-law Humprey de Bohun had campaigned alongside the Knights of Prussia.

The story of the siege grew in the telling on its way back to England. It was reported that Vilnius had been taken due to the daring of Henry and his men, and one English chronicler reported that Henry himself climbed the walls and placed his standard there. Meanwhile his Prussian and Livonian allies stood by and watched in awe. In reality it was an Englishman of Henry’s company, a valet of Lord Bourchier, who raised the standard. He did not scale the walls of the city itself, but one of the outlying forts. Vilnius did not fall to the allies, who were forced to withdraw when their supplies of power and provisions ran low. King Jogailo wrote to his commander at Vilnius, Clemens of Mostorzow, vice-chancellor of Poland, congratulating him on the successful resistance.

Bonds and sureties

A letter from Cynan ap Maredudd ab Owain, a lord of Ceredigion, to Llywelyn ap Gruffudd:

“Letter, informing the prince that he has bound himself as surety to him for Cadwgan, Cynan’s foster-son, with respect to the latter’s paying £27 sterling in the prince’s mercy of suitable terms fixed by the prince; Cynan is also surety for Cynan’s constancy and fealty to the prince. He therefore prays the prince to end all anger which he has against Cadwgan. He sends this letter to ratify the above, and attests that he is a surety to all who see and read it.”

As Llywelyn used the title ‘Prince of Wales and Lord of Snowdon’ from 1262, this letter is datable to the period between the death of Maredudd in March 1265 and Cynan’s submission to Edward I on 2 May 1277.

This is another example of Llywelyn’s methods of control in Wales. Cadwgan, Cynan’s foster-son, had evidently offended against Llywelyn in some way. The prince’s standard tactic was to oblige a kinsman or neighbour of the offender to stand surety for the latter’s good behaviour. No previous ruler in Wales had used bonds and sureties on such a massive scale, and it appears to have caused outrage among the Welsh polity. The upshot was 1276, when the majority of those Llywelyn had extracted money from defected to the English crown.

Godfathers in Wales

The agreement between Llywelyn ap Gruffudd and Maredudd ap Rhys Gryg, drawn up at Coleshill, 6 December 1261. Via this treaty Llywelyn received Maredudd back into his peace and restored his lands: the lord of Ystrad Tywi had previously broken with the Prince of Wales and reverted to the allegiance of Henry III of England.

J Beverley-Smith remarked that this treaty showed the difficulty in forging a united polity in Wales. Maredudd was bound to serve Llywelyn with all his power in time of war, but was not obliged to serve in person alongside his kinsman Rhys Fychan. Maredudd and Rhys loathed each other, and Llywelyn was trying to avoid conflict by keeping them apart. However, if he didn’t go in person Maredudd was obliged to send his troops to serve under Rhys.

The other problem was that Llywelyn did not trust Maredudd, and arguably made that distrust all too plain. If anyone accused Maredudd, he was ordered to go before Llywelyn and swear to his innocence on holy relics. When requested by Llywelyn, Maredudd had to give up twenty-four hostages from among his nobles. If he ever breached the agreement, he would be excommunicated and forfeit his inheritance. This was quite a comedown for a descendant of the Lord Rhys of Deheubarth, who had called himself the Prince of Wales.

A fourth party in the agreement was Maredudd ab Owain of Ceredigion. In 1257 the two Maredudds had won a great victory over the English at Cymerau, but it seems they didn’t get along either. Maredudd was to ask Maredudd ab Owain if he wanted to help him recover his patrimony in Dyfed; if so, the lands would be divided between them. If not, Maredudd ap Rhys would have everything. The very definition of an offer one dare not refuse.

Reading these treaties, it always strikes me that these people - Welsh, English, French or whoever - were the spiritual (and in some cases, lineal) forebears of the Mafia. Now I love me some Godfather, but I wouldn’t like to base an ideology on Michael Corleone and his methods.

Templars and Mamluks

Back to Eddie One's crusade.

The prince enjoyed a close relationship with the leaders of the Military Orders: the knights of the Temple, the Hospitallers and the Teutonic Knights. Edward’s need for men and materials in the Holy Land played a major role in this, as did his reliance on established communication networks and the political influence of the Orders.

His dependence on them was also dictated by finance. Edward and his followers borrowed about £15,000 from the Hospitallers and Templars, for example. He also enjoyed a long correspondence through the 1270s with the Masters of the Hospital and the Temple. Joseph Chauncy, treasurer of the Hospital since 1248, returned to England and became Edward’s own treasurer until 1281. Edward also gave custody of a tower he built in Acre, the Tower of the English, over to the lesser Order of St Edward of Acre.

The Military Orders were not the power of old. In 1268 the Hospitallers may have been able to field 300 knights in the whole of the Latin East, with a similar commitment from the Temple. It is unlikely that these men were ever gathered in force in one place. Nor were they particularly aggressive. Knights such as Oliver de Termes (a former Cathar) frequently advised caution against the Mamluks, and avoided direct confrontation when possible. This helped to preserve what was left of Christian forces in the East, but did nothing to recover lost territory. The Latin field forces in the East were simply no match for Baibars and the Mamluk army.

Acre

Treaties and broken oaths

More on the tensions between the houses of Aberffraw and Dinefwr. Letter patent concerning Maredudd ap Rhys Gryg, 26 April 1258.

‘Notification that Llywelyn has promised Maredudd ap Rhys and his heirs, in return for his homage, to protect him together with his heirs, men, lands and castles from the attacks and damage inflicted by his enemies, when requested to do so by Maredudd or his heirs. He has also promised and sworn that he will never capture Maredudd or have him captured, nor imprison his son or accept him as a hostage, nor take Maredudd’s castles into his possession or custody. Further, he grants this letter of safe conduct in perpetuity, allowing no injury to be inflicted upon him or his men whenever they should visit Llywelyn. If Llywelyn should break the terms of this letter, he wishes that he and everyone consenting to it shall be excommunicated and denounced through all the churches of Wales, renouncing all benefit of both ecclesiastical and civil law. The present letter patent has been sealed with the seals of [specified] bishops, abbots and priors and of Llywelyn and drawn up in the form of a chirograph’.

Much awkwardness arose from this agreement. The only reason Maredudd consented to it was to get his son, Rhys, out of Llywelyn’s prison: Rhys had been held hostage since October 1257. However, on 17 June 1258 Henry III informed Llywelyn that Maredudd had sworn homage to the crown. This was only a few weeks after the agreement of 26 April, and it appears Maredudd had played Llywelyn false. According to the Annales Cambriae, Llywelyn held a council with his nobles at Arwysli and there convicted Maredudd of faithlessness. Llywelyn then captured Maredudd and threw him into prison at Criccieth. Maredudd was only freed at Christmas after agreeing to give up Rhys as a hostage and his castles of Dinefwr and Newcastle Emlyn.

Dinefwr Castle

This was all very dodgy, on both sides. Maredudd had broken his oath to Llywelyn, but there’s nothing in the treaty of April that says Llywelyn was entitled to break his own promises. The prince could claim that he was punishing a rebellious vassal, just as Edward I later claimed he was punishing Llywelyn. When a new agreement was drawn up between Llywelyn and Maredudd in 1261, the terms were very different. This time Maredudd was obliged to swear that if he broke faith again, his entire inheritance would be forfeited:

“There was no longer any doubt that the lords of the Principality of Wales were subject to the prince’s jurisdiction, no question that any serious breach of faith on the part of any one of them would result in forfeiture and excommunication. They were no longer allies responding to the prince’s leadership, but tenants who acknowledged his lordship.”

 - J Beverley-Smith

The Pope and Lord Edward

Pope Boniface VIII on Edward I and his father, Henry III.

"The king of England we listen to readily and more readily grant what he asks, and we readily receive and readily listen to his envoys, because we have a special affection for him and have had for a long time; and his father (God bless his soul) was greatly loved. They did us great honour. And we recall when we were in England with the lord Ottobon and were besieged in the Tower of London by the Earl of Gloucester, this king, then a young man, came to deliver us from this siege and he did us many a service, and his father did too. And it was then that we gave this king our particular affection, and formed the opinion from his appearance that with him it was bound to happen that he would be the finest prince in the world, and we believe without a doubt that we did not err in this judgement, for we firmly believe that there is not now living a better prince. True enough, he has some faults, for no man is faultless, but comparing his shortcomings with his advantages, he is of all princes of the world the best, and this we would say out boldly before all the world."

Boniface said this as part of a series of private conversations held with the French chancellor, Pierre Flote, held at Sculcula near Anagni on 21, 22 and 24 August 1300. He refers to the siege of London in 1267, when Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester, held the capital for a few weeks against Henry III and the Lord Edward.

During their talks Boniface asked Pierre if it was the policy of the French to drive the English from their territories on the continent? At which the Frenchman smiled and replied:

"Certainly, sir, what you say is very true."

Which might cast the origins of the Hundred Years War in a slightly different light.

Angry old cats

On September 1298 Edward I rejoined his men at Carlisle. Here, according to Guisborough, he got embroiled in yet another row with the earls of Norfolk and Hereford. The earls were allegedly annoyed that Edward had granted the Isle of Arran to Hugh Bisset of Antrim, an Irish pirate, after promising not to make any grants without their advice.

It may be the earls were really aggrieved at Edward’s failure to reward them while dishing out sweet land pie to others. Apart from the grant to Bisset, he granted forfeit Scottish land to Adam Swimburne, the Earl of Lincoln, the Earl of Warwick and Sir Robert Tony. Norfolk and Hereford, meanwhile, were left out in the cold. This was probably due to their behaviour in 1297, when their opposition to Edward’s policies scuppered the Flanders campaign and nearly triggered a civil war in England. Having been snubbed, they flounced off with their noses in the air and left Edward with the remnant of his army at Carlisle.

The king was not yet finished with Scotland. In late September he re-crossed the border with whatever was left of his infantry, and on 1 October laid siege to Jedburgh. Robert Low, a novelist, has described Edward randomly attacking Jedburgh ‘like a graceless old cat’. The king’s lack of grace notwithstanding, the siege was anything but random. Jedburgh was the only Scottish garrison in the southeast, so if Edward took it he would regain control of the area. The army was at Jedburgh until 18 October. Supplies of coal, iron and steel were ordered up for siege engines, and the Scots may have tried to break the siege: on 3 October one of the company of Sir Simon Fraser, at this point wearing his English hat, lost a horse in the king’s service in Selkirk Forest.

Finally Edward lost patience and offered the constable of Jedburgh, John Pencaitland, a bribe of 100 shillings to surrender. John accepted and would serve his new master faithfully in the Berwick garrison. The new constable, Sir Richard Hastangs, was installed at Jedburgh with twelve men-at-arms, forty crossbowmen, twenty archers, four miners, two masons, four diggers and one engineer.

But no cats.