Chapter 1: concluded

It was commonly said that this proud and impetuous king sought the French throne, because the famous prince was his father’s only son by his most noble wife, the sister[1] of Robert count of Flanders. The king also had two sons, Philip[2] and Florus, by his second wife Bertrada, countess of Anjou.[3] But they were not regarded as successors, had some misfortune brought about the death of the only heir. But because it is neither right nor natural[4] that the French should be subject to the English, but rather the English to the French, events played against this abhorrent hope. This foolish idea tormented King William and his men for three years or more but he lost heart when he understood that he could not win even though the English and the French were bound to him by ties of homage.[5] He sailed back to England[6], where he gave himself up to lust and the desires of his heart. One day, when he was hunting in the New Forest, he was suddenly hit by a misaimed arrow and died.[7]

It was thought that he had been struck by divine revenge because he had been an intolerable oppressor of the poor, a cruel depredator of churches and, on the deaths of bishops or prelates, an irreverent waster and keeper of their goods.[8] Some accused the noblest man Walter Tirel[9] of having shot the arrow. But I have often heard this Tirel, unconstrained by either hope or fear, swear and assert on oath that, on that day he neither entered the part of the wood where the king was, nor saw him at all in the forest.[10] So it is clear that when such a great folly and such a great person suddenly disappears into ashes, it must be divine power that brings it about for he who so deeply troubled others should be much more greatly tried, and he who coveted everything should be deprived of all. For God, who ‘unbelts the swordbelts of kings’[11] subjects kingdoms and the law of kingdoms to himself. His younger brother[12] succeeded William with great haste, since the elder, Robert was on the great expedition to the Holy Land. Henry was a most prudent man, whose worthy and exemplary strength of body and mind offer most pleasing material for a writer. But this is not my purpose. I shall only touch on such matters incidentally, just as I shall say something briefly of the kingdom of Lotharingia because I have set out to write a history of the deeds of the Franks, not of the English. 

---

[1] In 1070-1071, Philip intervened in the war of succession in Flanders, an action closely linked to his hostility of Normandy. He initially backed the widow and son of Baldwin VI, who were defeated at the battle of Cassel and had to accept the victorious Robert the Frisian as count. However, he married Robert’s step-daughter Bertha securing his alliance against Normandy. Bertha was the daughter of Count Florence of Holland and Gertrude of Saxony. After Florence’s death, Gertrude married Count Robert I ‘the Frisian’ of Flanders (1071-1093), the father of Count Robert II ‘the Jerusalamite’ (1093-1111). Bertha was Robert II’s uterine sister.

[2] Philip, Count of Mantes was born about 1093 in France and died after 1123 in Loire-Atlantique, Pays de la Loire. Fleury was born about 1095 in France and died after 1118. He was married to the heiress of Nangis in Champagne. Suger does not mention their daughter Cecile who married Tancred of Antioch.

[3] In 1092, after he repudiated Bertha, Philip I eloped with Bertrada of Montfort, wife of Fulk le Rechin IV, count of Anjou. Though almost all the French bishops supported his proposed marriage to her, an influential group of ecclesiastics especially Ivo of Chartres thought the marriage was incestuous and opposed it. Despite this, the marriage took place. Philip was excommunicated by Pope Urban II at the council of Clermont in 1095 but neither this nor the initial actions of his successor Pope Paschal II had much effect. Many lay contemporaries had few problems with Philip’s action that were seen as a sensible move to produce more heirs and so safeguard the succession. Reconciliation occurred between Philip and the Church after 1100 and at the council of Beaugency in 1104 he agreed to repudiate Bertrada. Despite this, he continued to live with her openly until his death in 1108. The problems arising from Philip’s conduct are discussed in Duby, Georges, Medieval Marriage: Two Models from Twelfth-Century France, Baltimore, 1978, pp. 29-45 and The Knight, the Lady and the Priest, Harmondsworth, 1983, pp. 3-21.

[4] Suger is here expressing more the views of the 1140s than of the 1090s. He observed that it was contrary of natural law for the French to be subject to the English and vice versa and that inevitably William’s ambition was thwarted. Ibid, Barlow, Frank, William Rufus, p. 378 commented, ‘William would not have cared for that denial of his French nationality.’

[5] Suger is writing with the advantage of hindsight. William had proved a very effective military leader in 1098-1099 in Maine and the Vexin and it would have been an optimist who, in 1100 would have seen war with William at an end.

[6] William returned to England from Normandy in September 1099. As ibid, Barlow, Frank, William Rufus, p. 408 says ‘[He] had not returned to England…to die, but to rest and plan new schemes, new conquests.’

[7] William died on Thursday 2^nd August 1100. Ibid, Barlow, Frank, William Rufus, pp. 419-432 considers the evidence for and against conspiracy but hunting accidents were not uncommon and an accident is the most likely, if mundane explanation. Hollister, C. Warren, ‘The Strange Death of William Rufus’, Speculum, vol. lxviii, (1973), pp. 637-53, reprinted in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World, London, 1986, pp. 59-76 examines the cases for witchcraft and conspiracy before plumping for an accident. Mason, Emma, ‘William Rufus and the Historians’, Medieval History, vol. i, (1991), pp. 6-22 has suggested, though with little support that Tirel was acting as a ‘double agent’ for Philip I and his associate Louis though the actual murder could have been done by a companion of Tirel.

[8] Suger here reflected contemporary attitudes and was expressing a personal viewpoint. However, William’s reputation has always been higher than the strictly historical record suggests. It is the collection of his sayings that brings William out most distinctly, words that were recorded by ecclesiastical chroniclers often against their better judgement. They show a blunt, rough commander but shrewd and often generous monarch, always capable of emotion and always a gentleman. William might have liked to die a hero’s death amid the deadly hail of battle. To be deprived of this was the most terrible punishment that God could inflict. William was struck down when defenceless, impenitent, unshriven and irredeemable. The Church was not to be cheated.

[9] Walter Tirel was castellan of Poix and Pontoise where he retired after William’s death but without loosing any of his lands. He witnessed several of Louis’ charters: ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n^o 9, 42 and 168. He died in 1123 on the way to the Holy Land.

[10] Like Suger, John of Salisbury in his revision of Eadmer’s Life of St Anselm in the 1160s was uncertain about the identification of Tirel as William’s killer.

[11] Book of Job xii, 18

[12] William was buried on Friday 3^rd August in the Old Minster, Winchester. Henry acted quickly securing the royal treasure at Winchester and gained sufficient support from the barons who happened to be present. He then moved quickly to London where he was crowned king at Westminster on Sunday 5^th August. On the problems of the succession see Green, Judith, Henry I, (Cambridge University Press), 2006, pp. 42-59 and Garnett, George, Conquered England: Kingship, Succession and Tenure 1066-1166, (Oxford University Press), 2007, especially pp. 115-119.

Chapter 1

How valiant he was in youth, and with what energy he repelled the king of the English, William Rufus, when he attacked Louis’ inherited kingdom

The glorious and famous king of the French Louis was the son of the magnificent king Philip.[1] In the first flower of his youth, barely then twelve or thirteen years old[2], he was elegant and handsome, admirable for his development of moral character and for the growth of a well-made body that had the potential for a swift and honourable expansion of his kingdom in the future and this encouraged great confidence that he would defend the churches and the poor. This noble youth, in accordance with the ancient custom of Charlemagne and other great kings testified by imperial charters, tied himself to the saintly martyrs and their servants at St.-Denis as if from a naturally sweet disposition. His long-standing friendship with their church was formed in his youth and lasted throughout his whole life, displaying great liberality and reverence. So much so that, at the end of his life, he placed his hope in them second only to God, and gave himself up to them, body and soul, with devotion and deliberation, so that, had it been possible, he would have become a monk there.[3]

In his formative years, growing courage matured his spirit with youthful vigour, making him bored with hunting and the boyish games that others of his age used to enjoy and forget the pursuit of arms. And when he was troubled by the attacks of many great men of the kingdom and of the outstanding and magnanimous king of the English William[4], son of the even more magnanimous king William the conqueror of the English, his stout heart soared at the chance to prove himself, his courage smiled at the test, he banished apathy, opened the gates to prudence, put an end to leisure and increased his concern. William king of the English was skilled in military arts, greedy for praise and eager for fame.[5] After his elder brother Robert[6] was disinherited, he was fortunate to succeed his father William. Then, after Robert’s departure for Jerusalem[7], he obtained the duchy of Normandy. There he put so much pressure on the Norman frontiers of the French kingdom[8] that whenever he could he forced the renowned young prince to fight.

While they fought, similarities and differences between them came to light. They were alike in that neither would yield. They were dissimilar in that one was a mature man, the other a youth. William was rich, wasteful with the treasures of England, a brilliant recruiter and paymaster of soldiers. Louis lacked money, sparing in using the treasures of his inherited kingdom, only getting an army together by hard work, yet prepared boldly to oppose.[9] You might have seen this young man dashing across the frontiers into Berry, then into the Auvergne, now into Burgundy, with a handful of men, and returning just as quickly to the Vexin[10], if he judged it necessary to confront with his three or five hundred men King William with his thousand.[11] The vicissitudes of war are uncertain and sometimes he yielded, sometimes he put his enemy to flight.[12]

In these encounters[13] many captives were taken on both sides. The famous youth and his men captured among many others, the count Simon[14], the noble baron William de l’Aigle[15], an equally illustrious figure in England and in Normandy, Pain of Gisors, for whose benefit the castle of Gisors was fortified for the first time; and on the other side, the king of England captured the bold and noble count Matthew of Beaumont[16], the illustrious and renowned baron Simon de Montfort[17], and Lord Pain of Montjay.[18] But while concerns about hiring soldiers[19] ensured the swift release of those from England, the rigours of a very long captivity weakened the French. They could not escape their chains by any means until they made homage to the English king, joined his service and promised on oath to attack and disturb their own king and his kingdom.[20]

---

[1] Fliche, A., La Règne de Philippe I, roi de France 1060-1108, Paris 1912 is the standard text while Gobry, Yvan, Histoire des Rois de France: Philippe I^er, père de Louis VI Le Gros, Paris, 2003, 2007 is the most recent study.

[2] Historians disagree about when Louis was born and there is a case for either 1077-1078 or 1081-1082: Calmette, Joseph, ‘L’âge de Louis VI’, Orientalia periodica, vol. xiii, (1947), pp. 36-39. Luchaire, Achille, Louis VI le Gros: Annales de son vie et de son règne, Paris, 1890, p. 289 gave excellent reasons in favour of 1081 and ibid, Fliche, A., La Règne de Philippe I, roi de France 1060-1108, p. 39 agreed. Suger’s account of the life of Louis begins in 1093-1094.

[3] Louis VI’s birth is the first occasion where a story about the birth of a Capetian heir has survived. Bertha of Flanders had long been barren when the king, both personally and through others, begged St Arnulf, about of Saint-Médard to intercede with God ‘that He be willing to give him a son as successor for the safeguard of the kingdom and the defence of the Holy Church’. Initially the abbot refused but later agreed telling the queen to care for the poor. Some time later, he told a monk to go to the queen: ‘And you will announce to her the wished-for joy, for she is bearing in her womb a son, whom at the holy font she shall name Louis and who after his father’s death will hold the kingdom of the French.’ The saint spoke from revelation: not until five days after she received the message did the queen feel the child move in her. The tale is found in a saint’s vita that was finished in 1114: Hariulf ‘Vita S, Arnulfi episcopi Suessionensis’, Patrologia Latina, 1399: columns 1405-1406. Before 1114, Louis VI was believed by some not only to have been born heir to the throne but that his birth was accompanied by some miraculous elements. The religious significance of the legend reinforces the support shown before 1088 by the monks of St. Riquet in Ponthieu for the legend of St Valéry’s appearance to Hugh Capet and had changed it so that it was now St Riquet who had promised the throne to Hugh and seven generations of his descendents. The tale spread widely in north-east France and Normandy perhaps because of rivalry between the monks of St Valéry and those of St Riquet on behalf of their respective saints. The legend is based on the premise that the Capetians became rulers of France because God recognised their merits and is antithetical to the formula that based their legitimacy on Carolingian descent: Lewis, Andrew W., Royal Succession in Capetian France, Cambridge, Mass., 1981, pp. 49-50.

[4] William II, generally know as ‘Rufus’ reigned from September 1087 until August 1100. Barlow, Frank, William Rufus, revised edition, (Yale University Press), 2000 is the most accessible study of his life. Suger’s comments about William Rufus were far more positive than most contemporary writers in part the result of his having given land to St-Denis and by emphasising William’s merits he could explain the young Louis’ lack of success against him.

[5] Suger’s attitude to William Rufus is set in its historiographical context by Callaghan, Thomas, ‘The Making of a Monster: Historical Images of William Rufus’, Journal of Medieval History, vol. vii, (1981), pp. 175-185 especially p. 180 and Mason, Emma, ‘William Rufus and the Historians’, Medieval History, vol. I, (1991), pp. 6-22.

[6] Robert Curthose was William the Conqueror’s eldest son and inherited the duchy of Normandy and county of Maine on his father’s death in 1087: David, C.W., Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, Cambridge, Mass., 1920 remains useful but Aird, William M., Robert ‘Curthose’, Duke of Normandy, (Boydall Press), 2008 places a more positive evaluation of his achievements than the majority of medieval sources arguing that this negative image has adversely influenced modern interpretations of his career.

[7] Robert Curthose went on the First Crusade in 1096 and pledged his duchy to William Rufus for a loan of 10,000 marks of silver he needed for the enterprise. When Rufus took possession of the duchy in September 1096, the Conqueror’s inheritance was effectively reconstructed even if he was never duke en titre.

[8] In this sense, Suger use of the term ‘realm’ (‘regnum’) creates problems of definition. In this instance, Suger is referring to the royal principality of largely the Ile-de-France. On the ambiguity of the term and its possible meanings, see Wood, Charles T,. ‘Regnum Francie: A Problem of Capetian Administrative Usage’, Traditio, vol. xxiii, (1967), pp. 117-147.

[9] The idea that England was far richer than France came from the words that Walter Map attributed to Louis VI, words he claimed he heard the king say: ‘The king of England, who lacks nothing, possesses men, horses, gold and soil…We, in France have only got bread, wine and a good mood’: De nugis curialium, in Monumenta Germaniae, Scriptores, vol. xxvii, p. 73.

[10] There is a useful map of the French Vexin in ibid, Barlow, Frank, William Rufus, p. 377. It lies either side of the River Seine from Rouen down towards Paris. There was an alleged grant of the Vexin to duke Robert I of Normandy in 1033 and ducal influence over the area remained strong until 1077 when the last Valois count, Simon of Crépy abdicated in order to become a monk. Philip I then enfeoffed his younger brother, Hugh the Great with Vermandois and Crépy but kept the French Vexin under his own protection because of its strategic importance. The area proved to be one of persistent conflict between successive English and French kings; it was in making a raid on Mantes in the Vexin that William I was fatally wounded in 1087.

[11] In 1092, Louis was invested with the Vexin and the towns of Mantes and Pontoise, Philip I’s acquisitions from the succession to Simon de Crépy: Ibid, Fliche, A., La Règne de Philippe I, roi de France 1060-1108, p. 79. It is his spirited defence of his apanage that is described by Abbot Suger.

[12] Suger’s account of the Vexin wars is generalised and he gives Louis a far more dominating role than Orderic Vitalis. However, it has been suggested by ibid, Luchaire, Achille, Louis VI le Gros: Annales de son vie et de son règne, pp. xv-xxiii that Suger described only the war of 1097-1098 and omitted that of 1098-1099 because Louis had quarrelled with his father and was no longer in command. However, two of the French losses mentioned, Simon de Montfort and Matthew de Beaumont-sur-Oise are more likely to have occurred in the second rather than the first part of the campaign. Louis was knighted by Guy I, count of Ponthieu on 24^th May 1098 against the wishes of Philip and the Betrada of Montfort faction and Louis took refuge in Flanders to escape his father’s anger. Suger had every reason to blur the story of the war.

[13] The Vexin wars of 1097-1098 and 1098-1099 are only examined in any detail by Orderic Vitalis, vol. v, 212 ff. They are completely omitted by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and so from all the English histories that relied on the Chronicle. Orderic’s interest in the war may, in part have been motivated by the fact that his abbey of St Evroult had a special interest in the Vexin in which it had two dependent priories: one at Maule south of Meulan and the other north of Parnes, near Chaumont. Suger’s account is, by contrast, brief and lacking in detail.

[14] Simon de St Liz had married the daughter of Earl Waltheof and became count of Huntingdon and Northampton.

[15] William, de l’Aigle was the son of Richer I, lord of Laigle and had several castles in England. He was married to Julienne (born c.1070), a daughter of the Geoffrey II court of Perche (c.1033-1100) in 1091. He should not be confused with William de L’Aigle, his paternal uncle, lord of the manor of Exmes, who was killed in February 1092.

[16] Beaumont-sur-Oise is in Seine-et-Oise and in the canton de L'Isle-Adam. Matthew was the son of count Ivo III, known as ‘the Clerk’ who probably died in 1081. One of his sisters, Agnes was married to Bouchard IV de Montmorency. On the subject of the succession to Ivo ‘the Clerk’, see Depoin, J., ‘Les comtes de Beaumont-sur-Oise et le prieuré de Conflans Sainte-Honorine’, in Les Mémoires de la Société historique ... de Pontoise et du Vexin, vol. xxxiii, (1915), pp. 31-33.

[17] Suger mentions the capture by the English of Simon de Montfort. In his edition, Waquet identifies him with Simon II the Younger but Marjorie Chibnall in her edition of Orderic Vitalis makes him Simon I the Elder. There is some confusion here and it is possible that Suger’s Simon de Montfort is a mistake for Amaury II, his half-brother. Simon II ‘the Young’ was the second son of the third marriage of Simon I. He was succeeded in 1092 by his son Richard but he died without heirs before 1101. See Rhein, A, .La seigneurie de Montfort-en-Iveline, Versailles, 1910, pp. 36-50.

[18] The correct name for Pain was Aubri. He was in the entourage of Philip I and Louis VI from 1090 to 1122: ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n° 2 and 319. Montjay-la-Tour is about fifteen miles north-east of Paris.

[19] Both sides hired mercenaries for these campaigns and Orderic Vitalis shows that only two of the major leaders in William’s army had significant English interests.

[20] In the winter of 1097-1098, William did little more than reconnoitre and lay the foundations of a castle at Gisor though Orderic Vitalis mentioned skirmishing in this area. In February 1098, William abandoned the Vexin war to deal with problems in Maine, leading to its conquest and war in the Vexin was not restarted until September. In the spring of 1099, William made a truce with the French and returned to England