#saint-céneri | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dwellordream · 3 years

Text

“In terms of direct military influence, perhaps the most visible role that certain medieval woman achieved were positions of command over an army or militant force. This fact alone is remarkable, especially given the aforementioned patriarchal nature of society and fact that war was an activity dominated by men at all levels throughout the High to Late Middle Ages, and leads us to ask several questions relating to women’s role as military leaders.

Foremost is the question of how women were able to attain the command of an army or other important leadership position in the first place. What circumstances enabled them to take command? Could they make effective leaders? How did contemporaries respond to such women? The answers to these questions enable a broader understanding and awareness of how women functioned as military commanders.

Firstly, however, it is worth touching upon the position of women with regards to secular law, since such law defined the social limitations of medieval women’s public authority. While these laws varied from one place to another, sometimes significantly, and were also influenced by whether women were single, married or widowed, as well as the level of society to which they belonged (making a full examination of this complex topic beyond the scope of the present work), there can be little doubt that throughout England and France during the High to Late Middle Ages women had a lower legal standing than that of men. They were barred from holding any public office, including any governmental positions and did not have the right to participate in town councils or any representative assembly.

Under these laws women were essentially restricted to the private domestic sphere and were not supposed to serve the king ‘either in the army or in any other royal service’. Indeed, for married women, their legal identity was subsumed into that of their husband, and as a result the husband legally had full control and responsibility for all the possessions of his wife, including all land or property she may have brought to the marriage. Furthermore, married women most often required their husbands’ consent before they could litigate on any matter (except in case of rape or bodily harm) and were represented in law by their husbands – unlike widows or single women, who could litigate on their own behalf and represent themselves in court.

At the same time, however, marriage also had the potential to give women significant military responsibility. In order to appreciate why, it is important to understand how women, as wives, fitted into the particular social structure of the medieval household and also how the system of marriage worked. These elements of marriage are examined briefly below with the focus on women who were part of the upper aristocracy, or nobility, not only because it is possible to form some idea about the married life and responsibilities of noblewomen, but also because war was a profession of the upper class.

As an institution, marriage was an accepted part of medieval life. For noblewomen in particular marriage meant many things, but rarely did it mean love. Marriage was a business conducted between families for political or economic reasons – or both, and in which, at least among the nobility and others in high society, women had little input. Once married, however, noblewomen took on many responsibilities integral to helping run the household and aided in many of the duties necessary for it to function effectively. These duties included everyday activities such as supervising the supplies of the house, directing the activities of servants or serfs, as well as administering household revenues and using them to dispense dues or gifts.

In cases of emergency (for instance, if besieged) women could also be made responsible for the defence of the castles in which they lived, especially when their husbands were absent or deceased. Moreover, the nature of the union of marriage, in which husband and wife were united as one in the marriage alliance, assured that women, if they took on this additional public responsibility, were not breaking the ‘socio-political or the gender logic of their day’; instead it was merely a ‘natural extension’ of their duties as domina or lady of the household. This social acceptability enabled married noblewomen in this position to circumvent the restrictive nature of their legal rights, as outlined above.

It is also important to consider the relationship between the household and the makeup of militant forces. Western European noblewomen and those in the Holy Land at this time lived in societies where the basic fighting group was small and based on ties of kinship; hence knights, squires and other fighting men were usually drawn from and closely tied to their local lords’ households. Consequently, it has been argued, noblewomen who lived and worked in the household had a greater chance of interacting with these men, as well as possibly overhearing or being part of military discussions, and thus may have had a greater awareness of military concepts.

This in turn may have aided noblewomen when they were called upon to defend their estates and facilitated their acceptance by the men whom they commanded. Conversely, however, it has also been argued that the increasingly centralised nature of government and the rise of professional armies during the thirteenth and especially fourteenth century may have combined to decrease the chances for female political (and consequently military) involvement, although this view has more recently been called into question. In any case, even if this trend did exist, there is still no doubt that throughout the High and Later Middle Ages marriage offered noblewomen an opportunity to assume a legitimate and important military role in defending their husbands’ property when and if the situation arose.

Several medieval accounts within England and France attest to women’s military command in this capacity. In 1075, for instance, the wife of Earl Ralph of Norfolk and Suffolk held his castle at Norwich while he fled for the coast, once he realised that a revolt which he had helped instigate against King William I (1027- 1087) had failed.

Similarly the Norman chronicler, Orderic Vitalis, in his Historia Ecclesiastica, described how in July 1092, Radegunde, the wife of one Robert Giroie, attempted to hold her husband’s fortress at Saint-Céneri in Normandy from an attack by Robert of Bellême, earl of Shrewsbury, whilst her husband was away aiding the future King Henry I of England (c.1068-1135). When rumour spread that her husband had died, defections from her side forced her to surrender, and Orderic placed responsibility for the surrender in her hands.

Likewise, in 1121 Hugh of Montfort’s wife was made responsible by him for defending the stronghold of Montfort-sur-Risle in Normandy against Henry I’s advancing army, while Hugh, who had conspired against the king, fled. Also notable was Margaret of Flanders, who married Baldwin V count of Hainaut in 1169 and was forced to fortify and defend his castles, not just once but many times, due to repeated attacks by unfaithful, ambitious vassals.

Nor were accounts of women left to defend their husband’s possessions limited to France or England. In the Holy Land Lady Eschiva of Tiberias commanded the castle of Tiberias’ defence against Saladin’s forces in 1187 (her husband, Raymond of Tripoli, was absent fighting with the Christian army), the same year that Maria Comnena, widow of King Amalric, defended Nablus from Saladin’s army because she had received the city as dower from Amalric. In all these cases women were forced to take on a military responsibility as a direct result of the marriage alliance, often in the face of considerable enemy pressure and irrespective of whether they were actually able to manage the task ahead effectively.

At the same time, however, it seems some noblewomen did cope ably after having military responsibility thrust upon them by their husbands. In 1148 Countess Sybilla of Flanders, for instance, successfully led her troops against an invasion by Count Baldwin of Hainault on behalf of her husband, while he was absent on crusade. Robert Guiscard’s wife, Sikelgaita, accompanied him on campaign in Italy in the 1080s and supposedly helped prevent retreat of his forces during one battle by charging at them with a spear, convincing them to return to battle.

Simon de Montfort, leader of the Albigensian Crusade, displayed an even greater reliance on his wife Alice de Montfort, whom Laurence Marvin has described as ‘one of his most trusted lieutenants’. Not only was she mentioned bringing a party of knights to meet up with Simon, but she also made up part of his war council and was active in contributing towards its decisions, even acting as castellan to Narbonnais Castle in Simon’s absence during the second siege of Toulouse in 1217. In her case, while it is not known if she commanded men in battle, she does appear to have played an active and important role in supporting her husband’s military strategy.

Most remarkable and successful of all, it might be said, was Nichola de la Haye, hereditary castellan of Lincoln castle. Nichola was the daughter of Richard de la Haye, sheriff of Lincolnshire, from whom she inherited her rights as castellan, and through whom her husbands’ received the title of constable. In 1191, as a response to her husband Gerard of Camville’s quarrel with William Longchamp, Chancellor and Justiciar of England, Nichola was besieged at Lincoln castle while her husband was absent. Commending her efforts, the chronicler Richard of Devizes noted that Nichola, ‘whose heart was not that of a woman, defended the castle manfully’.

Over twenty years later, in 1217, she again led the successful defence of Lincoln castle when it was besieged by forces loyal to Louis VIII of France (1187-1226), as part of his failed attempt to claim the English throne. In a further sign of her resolute nature, she still had to fend off later attempts by, William, the earl of Salisbury, to force her eviction from the castle. These defensive efforts reflect her loyalty to King John (1167-1216) and, at least in the case of the siege of Lincoln in 1217, aided King Henry III’s cause immensely by effectively ending any chance of Louis VIII succeeding in his rival claim to the throne.

Her experiences in defending the castle clearly illustrate that Nichola was more than capable of organising military defensive measures in the face of multiple attacks. Furthermore, though she had to pass on the title of constable to her husbands, her evident suitability as castellan is highlighted by King John refusing a request from Nichola that she be allowed to give up responsibility for the castle on account of her age, following the death of her husband Gerard in 1215. Evidently, even men recognised her capability in her role as castellan.

The offspring of marriage also influenced women who were forced to defend their property. Consider the actions of one Juliana, an illegitimate child of King Henry I by a concubine, after her husband Eustace (a vassal of the king) was incited to claim the ducal castle at Ivry on misguided advice. Henry, wishing to retain Eustace’s trust, sent a hostage to him while keeping the couple’s own daughters as his own hostage, but for reasons unknown Eustace had his hostage blinded. Henry then turned over his hostages to the father of Eustace’s now blind hostage, who took his revenge by putting out the daughters’ eyes.

On learning of this action Juliana and Eustace rebelled, and while Eustace secured their other castles, Juliana fortified herself within their fortress at Breteuil. Henry, learning of these developments, soon laid siege to the castle at Breteuil in February of 1119. Orderic then recounts how Juliana, under the pretence of wanting to meet with her father, fired a crossbow at Henry when he appeared for their meeting, but missed ‘since God protected him’.

Powerless to hold out against the siege and with no help on the way, she surrendered the castle, but being unable to leave freely by the King’s orders, ‘the unlucky Amazon got out of the predicament shamefully as best she could’ by leaping off the castle walls into the moat, before fleeing to her husband. In this case, marriage and family combined to play an important role in driving Juliana to defend her property from other family members. Moreover, the use of phrases such as ‘God protected him’ and ‘unlucky Amazon’ suggest Orderic disapproved of Juliana’s actions, and highlight how chroniclers sometimes used certain emotive words or phrases to portray an incident in a certain light.

This use of emotion by Orderic is well illustrated in a second case involving a woman in an important military position. In 1139, Matilda of Ramsbury, commander of the stronghold of Devizes and mistress to Roger, bishop of Salisbury, was forced into action when King Stephen (c.1096-1154) besieged Devizes on suspicion that rebellious forces stirred up by Roger and his nephews were hiding there. Attempting to force its surrender, Stephen brought out Bishop Roger’s son (by Matilda) and ordered that he be hanged unless Devizes surrender.

According to Orderic, when Matilda saw her son about to be killed she apparently cried out ‘I gave him birth, and it can never be right for me to cause his destruction’, whereupon she handed over the castle to the king, thus forcing the surrender of the castle’s garrison. Orderic’s inclusion of Matilda’s outburst, however, conflicts with other sources which do not mention this incident. William of Malmesbury’s Historia Novella, written only a few years after the incident, omits all mention of Matilda when describing the castle’s surrender, as does the Gesta Stephani, Henry of Huntingdon’s Historia Anglorum, and Roger of Wendover’s much later Flores Historiarum.

Nevertheless, Matilda’s role as guardian of the keep at Devizes reveals that she did have command of the castle and thus would have played a central part in any decision to surrender, even if the actual specifics of her involvement in the bishop’s surrender remain unclear. Given that the other sources omit her outburst, Orderic’s version of events appears less tenable, which only goes to show that we should be aware of possible distortions in chroniclers’ portrayal of women in a position of command.

Amongst the upper nobility, marriage also offered some women an opportunity to demonstrate military leadership of their own initiative. One unusual case comes from 1321, when Isabella of France (c.1295-1358), queen consort to King Edward II of England, was involved in an incident in which she ordered her marshals to force an entry into Leeds castle, after she was denied lodging there for the night by Lady Badlesmere (whose husband had been supporting Edward’s enemies and who held the castle). In response, Lady Badlesmere ordered her archers to fire on Isabella’s men, killing six of them, and forcing the Queen to retreat. Lady Badlesmere and the rest of her family were later imprisoned by Edward for their actions following a siege of Leeds castle.

What make this incident remarkable is that two women were commanding military forces against one another, one defending her husband’s property, the other ordering the attack which began the whole skirmish. For Isabella at least, this was not her only initiative that required military force: just five years later, in 1326, she helped plan an invasion of England with the support of French nobles and disposed of her husband King Edward, ruling as regent for her son Edward III alongside her lover Roger Mortimer.

Perhaps one of the most striking examples of military initiative by a woman forced to defend her husband’s domains, however, is that of Jeanne de Montfort (c.1295-1374), Countess of Montfort and wife to John IV of Montfort (1295-1345), later Duke of Brittany. She is noted for her actions during the siege of Hennebont in 1342, during the Breton War of Succession between the houses of Blois and Montfort for control of the duchy of Brittany. The Countess was in Hennebont along with other lords when an army led by Charles of Blois, the rival claimant to Brittany, laid siege to the town in response to her husband’s refusal to surrender the duchy to Charles, as determined by the judgement of the King and peers.

On the third day of the siege the French lords launched a determined assault on Hennebont, motivating the Countess (who led the defence of the city) to ride through the streets urging on the townsfolk to defend the city, encouraging damsels and other women to ‘cut short their kirtles’ and carry ‘stones and pots full of chalk to the walls’, that they might be cast down on their enemies. Leading by example, the Countess then rode out armed, together with three hundred horsemen, and led the charge into the French camp while its inhabitants were away fighting, destroying it by setting the tents on fires, before escaping to the castle of Brest, rearming, and returning to Hennebont to defend it from another assault. The Countess’s courageous defensive actions proved crucial to allowing the defenders, men and women alike, to hold off the besiegers until English forces arrived by sea and relieved the siege.

Two things are worth noting about this incident. First, the involvement of women – young and old – in the defence of the town, which reflects the support roles medieval women often fulfilled whilst their men-folk were fighting. Second are Jeanne’s efforts in leading the defence of Hennebont as well as the attack on the French camp, for though she may not have actually fought the enemy with her own hands, hers is nevertheless an extremely unusual case in that we have a woman who actively commanded and participated in a military attack.

It is little wonder then that Jean Froissart, the great fourteenth century chronicler, evokes a masculinised image of Jeanne as a woman who had ‘the courage of a man and the heart of a lion’. While his description is intended as a compliment, it nevertheless illustrates how even the most competent of medieval militant women were sometimes described as having male attributes.

Alongside marriage, a noblewoman’s inheritance could also, on occasion, play an important role in facilitating female military leadership. Female inheritance (of land) usually took the form of dowries which the bride’s family gave to their daughters upon marriage. Upon divorce or widowhood, dowries served as women’s inheritance and provided them with a living, since the practise of male primogeniture throughout much of Western Europe made it unlikely that women would inherit all of the family property and any seigniorial (or ruling) power that may have come with it. Even if women did happen to inherit such property, they were certainly not expected to perform military service by involving themselves in its defence.

And yet, some women did exactly that. Shahar gives the example of Mahaut, Countess of Artois (1268-1329), who inherited her father’s county in 1302 and who, according to Shahar, ‘crushed all attempts at rebellion by vassals.’ A more personal struggle was that of the widow of Arnoul II, count of Guînes, who waged war on her own son Baldwin III – Arnoul’s heir – for two years from 1220 to 1222, apparently because he did not cede to his mother control of certain properties to which she was entitled as widow.

Then there was Giralda of Laurac, to whom belonged the castrum (defensive fort) at Lavaur in southern France and who, along with her brother Aimeric of Montréal, led its defence when it was besieged by Simon de Montfort, leader of the Albigensian Crusade, in 1211. Upon its capture by Montfort’s army, Giralda was unceremoniously thrown in a well and crushed by the heavy stones thrown upon her. Marvin has suggested that the reason she was executed was because she actively commanded men during the siege, although Jones believes it is more probable she was executed for heresy instead. In any case, the key point is that while it may not have been common for women to become involved in the military defence of their inheritance, given the means and sufficient motivation, some women did fight to prevent the loss of that inheritance.

At the same time, not all women were limited to defensive actions. Indeed, when a woman’s inheritance was extremely large and entailed extensive ruling privileges, as might occur with a woman of the high nobility, she was more able to exercise leadership and initiate offensive military action. Thus, for instance, in January 1229, Blanche of Castile (1188-1252), widow of King Louis VIII and regent for her son Louis IX, commanded a successful attack on rebels based at the castle of Peter Mauclerc, count of Brittany, as part of her efforts to quell rebellious lords who had allied themselves with the English king Henry III’s supporters in western France.

Further afield in the Holy Land, Melisende (1105-1161), daughter of King Baldwin II, inherited the kingdom of Jerusalem after his death, and ruled the kingdom independently for nearly a decade after her husband’s death in 1143, largely excluding her son – Baldwin III – from government. Even after Baldwin gained power forcefully from Melisende, she still had much influence in government, and in 1157 she played an important part in organising a military expedition to recapture a stronghold across the Jordan, assisted by one Baldwin de Lille. In both these cases, the women involved were able to use the authority derived from their inheritance to take a leading role in a military action.”

- James Michael Illston, ‘An Entirely Masculine Activity’? Women and War in the High and Late Middle Ages Reconsidered

#medieval #warfare #high middle ages #late middle ages #james michael illston #noblewomen #isabella of france #blanche of castile #alice de montfort #i don’t wanna hear SHIT about how medieval women had no involvement in war

19 notes · View notes