OCR Specification focus:
‘Causes of rebellion and civil war, usurpation, the dismissal of Roger of Salisbury; extent of disturbances, finance of the war, administration of justice; the Church and civil war.’
Introduction
The English Civil War of 1139–1154, fought between King Stephen and Empress Matilda’s supporters, shaped medieval governance and warfare, exposing the fragility of royal authority.
Causes of Rebellion and Civil War
Dynastic Crisis
The death of Henry I in 1135 without a male heir created a crisis of succession. Though his daughter, Empress Matilda, had been recognised as heir, her cousin Stephen of Blois seized the throne.
Usurpation: Stephen’s coronation, achieved through speed and noble support, undermined the principle of hereditary succession.
Opposition: Matilda, supported by powerful nobles and her half-brother Robert of Gloucester, contested Stephen’s legitimacy.
Dismissal of Roger of Salisbury
The dismissal and arrest of Roger of Salisbury, Stephen’s chief minister, in 1139 significantly weakened royal administration.
Roger and his family had been instrumental in developing the Exchequer and justice system under Henry I.
His removal alienated skilled administrators and destabilised central government, fuelling discontent among the barons.
Extent of Disturbances
Breakdown of Royal Authority
Stephen’s authority collapsed in many regions. Barons built adulterine castles (unauthorised fortresses) as centres of local power.
These castles symbolised lawlessness and diminished royal control.
Localised conflicts spread, creating widespread disorder and insecurity.
Baronial Autonomy
Many nobles acted independently of Stephen’s court. Loyalty shifted according to immediate advantage, often with little regard for royal command.
The power of earls and barons grew dramatically.
Some minted their own baronial coinage, further undermining royal sovereignty.
By the early 1150s the conflict had hardened into regional blocs, with Angevin and royalist zones of control limiting effective royal oversight.
Finance of the War
Royal Finances
Stephen’s control over taxation and feudal dues weakened.
To secure loyalty, Stephen distributed vast estates and concessions, depleting royal resources.
The sale of offices and titles generated income but eroded royal prestige.
Rebel Finances
The Angevin party, supporting Matilda, drew financial resources from Norman lands and continental allies.
Matilda’s second marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou brought strategic support and funding.
Prolonged campaigns increased costs for both sides, further straining resources.
Administration of Justice
Collapse of Central Justice
Under Henry I, the crown had expanded royal justice. Civil war reversed this progress.
The administration of justice became inconsistent and fragmented.
Local magnates imposed their own rule, often exploiting disputes for personal gain.
Common Law: The developing body of royal justice, intended to provide consistent rulings across England.
Stephen’s inability to enforce common law meant justice often rested on arbitrary baronial decisions, undermining confidence in the monarchy.
The Church and Civil War
The Church’s Position
The Church played a decisive role in legitimising or challenging royal authority.
Initially, Stephen secured the support of Archbishop of Canterbury William de Corbeil and the papacy.
However, conflicts with Church leaders, especially over appointments, weakened his standing.
Influence of Theobald of Bec
Theobald of Bec, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1138, sought to mediate between factions.
He introduced canon law principles into governance, stressing the moral obligations of rulers.
His cautious neutrality prevented Stephen from monopolising ecclesiastical authority.
Papal Intervention
The papacy, influenced by reform movements, increasingly asserted its authority.
Matilda and her supporters appealed to the papacy for recognition.
The papal stance shifted, forcing Stephen to compromise with ecclesiastical demands, reducing his independence in Church matters.
Warfare and Strategy
Military Tactics
The war was characterised by sieges rather than open battles.
Castles became key strategic targets, with lengthy sieges draining resources.
Mobility was limited, and campaigns often centred on controlling regions rather than decisive national victories.
Notable Engagements
Battle of Lincoln (1141): A decisive Angevin victory in which Stephen was captured. This marked the high point of Matilda’s cause.
Rout of Winchester (1141): Matilda’s forces suffered defeat, forcing her retreat and losing momentum.
The 1141 Battle of Lincoln, fought amid urban and castle complexes, epitomised fluid field operations anchored to fortified nodes; Stephen’s capture rebalanced strategy.
Schematic plan of Lincoln, 1141, with forces and landmarks labelled (castle, cathedral, River Witham, Fosse Dyke). The diagram helps students visualise troop movements and the importance of urban-castle topography to operational outcomes. Labels follow the source key and align with the discussion of siege-centred war. Source
Shifting Balance of Power
Neither side achieved total dominance. Periods of stalemate reflected the fractured loyalties of the nobility.
Regional magnates frequently switched allegiance.
Warfare prolonged instability and entrenched local autonomy.
Impact of Warfare on Governance
Weakening of Royal Power
The prolonged war eroded central institutions.
The Exchequer struggled to function effectively.
Judicial and financial administration fragmented.
Enduring Legacy
The conflict revealed the dangers of weak succession planning and overreliance on baronial goodwill.
Royal power became more dependent on negotiation with the nobility and Church.
The settlement in 1153–1154 laid foundations for the eventual accession of Henry II, who would restore strong monarchy.
FAQ
Both Stephen and Matilda relied on mercenaries, particularly from Flanders and Normandy.
Mercenaries were valued for their professional skills in siegecraft and cavalry fighting. However, their presence placed a financial strain on both sides and often created resentment among local populations, who had to endure plundering and requisitioning of supplies.
Their use illustrates the financial pressures of sustaining prolonged conflict in an era when local levies alone were insufficient.
The conflict was heavily shaped by geography.
Matilda’s supporters were strongest in the southwest, particularly in Bristol and Gloucester.
Stephen retained control of London and much of the southeast.
Natural barriers like rivers and marshes slowed troop movement, making castles at key crossings vital.
Geography entrenched the war into regional contests rather than decisive national campaigns.
Sieges dominated because castles were central to controlling territories.
A successful siege secured not only the fortress but also its surrounding lands.
Open-field battles were risky: a single defeat could be catastrophic, as Stephen’s capture at Lincoln showed.
Many castles were hastily built adulterine fortresses, making them easier targets for prolonged sieges.
Thus, strategy focused on gradual territorial dominance rather than decisive field engagements.
The population bore the brunt of prolonged instability.
Adulterine castles often became centres of exploitation, with lords extracting resources from local communities.
Trade and agriculture were disrupted by raids and shifting territorial control.
Chroniclers, such as the author of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, describe widespread suffering, famine, and lawlessness, reflecting the severe social consequences.
This highlights how civil conflict weakened the structures of everyday life.
Though often overlooked, naval actions were significant.
Matilda’s supporters used control of Bristol and the southwest coast to bring supplies and reinforcements from Normandy.
Stephen launched naval blockades and attempted to control the Channel, limiting Angevin support.
Naval skirmishes were less dramatic than sieges but crucial in sustaining or choking off resources.
Maritime strategy shows the war was fought on multiple fronts, not solely on land.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Identify two reasons why Stephen’s authority collapsed in many regions during the Civil War of 1139–1154.
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for each valid reason identified, up to 2 marks.
Acceptable answers may include:
The building of adulterine castles undermined royal control.
Barons acted with autonomy and shifted loyalties.
Weak central administration after the dismissal of Roger of Salisbury.
Baronial coinage reduced royal sovereignty.
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain how the conduct of warfare during the Civil War of 1139–1154 reflected the importance of castles.
Mark Scheme:
Award up to 6 marks, based on the following criteria:
1–2 marks: Basic statements recognising that castles were important or that sieges occurred.
3–4 marks: Clear explanation of castles’ role in warfare, including reference to their function as strongholds and the use of adulterine castles.
5–6 marks: Developed explanation with specific examples, such as the prominence of sieges, the Battle of Lincoln (1141) being fought around a castle and cathedral, and the strategic significance of castles in controlling local areas.
Indicative content:
Castles were central to the conflict as both defensive and offensive centres.
Many adulterine castles were built by barons, challenging Stephen’s authority.
Warfare was dominated by sieges rather than pitched battles.
Major engagements, such as the Battle of Lincoln, were anchored to fortified sites.
Control of castles determined control of surrounding regions.
