By Dr Mike Ibeji
Last updated 2011-02-17
It was during the reign of Henry II that the nature of England's relationship with the rest of Britain, and with the kings of France was defined. Henry was the first English king to go into Ireland, and his attempts to partition Ireland were unsuccessful. So was Henry attempting to expand his empire, or simply reclaim what was rightfully his?
It is impossible to divorce the question of Henry II and imperialism from the nature of 'feudalism' and his own obsession with his rights. The debate as it stands can be broadly broken down into two camps. There are those who believe that Henry's actions early in his reign were dictated by his desire to get back or define what was rightfully his, and that his later invasion of Ireland was in reaction to the growth of private Norman power there. Others argue that Henry was very aggressive, making claims over and above those he could legitimately make, and that Henry and the English viewed the Celtic kingdoms on their borders as barbarians whom it was legitimate to conquer.
By a close reading of the major events of Henry's reign, we can show that Henry was a consummate opportunist who succeeded in exploiting the chances he was given to consolidate his power. Just how deliberate this was is the central question of the debate.
...Henry was a consummate opportunist who succeeded in exploiting the chances he was given to consolidate his power.
Henry ruled over a vassalage system, in which the personality of the king is central. This is crucial to our understanding of everything Henry did. He did not view himself as King of England, any more than he viewed himself as Duke of Normandy or Count of Anjou. He was Lord of His Domain, which included England, Normandy, Maine, Anjou and on the periphery, Brittany and Wales. As he saw it, he held England by indisputable right of blood, and he held Normandy and Anjou by that same right but as a vassal of the French king. Brittany, Wales and Maine came to him by right of conquest, handed down to him in part by his predecessors, but requiring the final seal to be set on them, and the blessing of the French king for those lands in France. These lands had all once belonged to Henry I, through conquest, marriage or inheritance, and it was therefore Henry II's inalienable right as he saw it to stamp his authority upon them.
Poitiers, capital of Aquitaine © Added to this was Aquitaine, placed into his responsibility by his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1152. If we are talking in terms of imperialism, the acquisition of Aquitaine can be seen as the first great coup of Henry II. It occurred even before he became king, and it completely redefined the map of France. Eleanor had been the queen of King Louis VII of France until he had the marriage annulled because she had not borne him a son. While she and Louis were aligned, the King of France directly controlled three quarters of his country; but the minute Henry married Eleanor, control of more than half the country fell into the hands of one single over-powerful vassal, the duke of Normandy. The relationship between Louis and his vassal Henry would never be the same again, and from that point on, one overriding aim of the French kings was to prevent the dukes of Normandy from seizing control of any more of their land. Henry, on the other hand, had secured the southern borders of Anjou, and at a single stroke had elevated his status from duke of Normandy and pretender to the English throne, to major European player. It was a great coup, but it was to dog the kings of England for centuries to come.
...the acquisition of Aquitaine can be seen as the first great coup of Henry II.
Its long-term implications can be seen in the first real 'imperial' venture of Henry's actual reign. Henry gained an interest in Toulouse (south-eastern France) through his marriage to Eleanor, who claimed it as part of the Duchy of Aquitaine. However, Louis could not afford to let Henry gain control of it, and had a duty of care to the Count of Toulouse as his vassal. After some failed diplomatic efforts, Henry prepared a massive campaign in 1159, intended to browbeat the Count of Toulouse into submission; but Louis pre-empted him, marching an army into Toulouse and daring Henry to attack him.
This, Henry could not afford to do. Not only was he not powerful enough to take on the French army in a heavily-defended city, but he had only just succeeded in stamping his authority on his own recalcitrant barons. He dared not set his vassals the very bad example of attacking his technical overlord, so he was forced to back off ignominiously. It was one of the few miscalculations of his reign, caused by the brash assertiveness of youth and the failure to recognise that there were limits beyond which he should not push. The King of France could countenance his claims to Toulouse just so long as he did not seek to enforce them. As soon as Henry tried to set those rights in stone, Louis was forced to act.
Dolbadarn Castle, built in the 13th century by Prince Llywelyn the Great of Gwynedd © This was a lesson that Henry took some time to learn. He made a similar mistake with Becket and the Church over the Constitutions of Clarendon and also with Wales, though here he was as much a victim of bad luck as of bad judgement. The Welsh princes had always enjoyed a somewhat ambivalent relationship with their technical Norman overlords. During Stephen's reign, they had been able to regain some of the territory they had lost to the Norman barons in Wales, who had been carving out private empires since the days of King William I. Henry set out to stop the rot. He mounted three punitive campaigns into Wales between 1157 and 1163, which reasserted royal authority over the princes of Gwynedd and Deheubarth, the major principalities in Wales.
Then he overreached himself. In 1163, he attempted to firmly define his rights as feudal overlord of the Welsh princes by demanding oaths of vassalage from them at the Council of Woodstock. The Welsh rebelled and Henry responded in 1165 with a major campaign. It was the largest military venture attempted in his reign, but as such it was unwieldy and suffered from the inherent problems of campaigning in Wales: bad weather, poor supply lines and difficult terrain. Despite that, it would have succeeded if he hadn't picked the wettest summer in memory to mount the campaign. He was quite literally washed out of the Welsh valleys.
In 1163, he attempted to firmly define his rights as feudal overlord of the Welsh princes...
After that, Wales was never a high enough priority for Henry to bother again. He left the Welsh to their own devices, and only paid any real attention when the Welsh themselves rebelled in 1183 (in response to the technical defaulting of Glamorgan into royal hands on the death of its lord). The Welsh meanwhile continued to encroach onto the lands of the Norman barons, even overrunning the royal castles of Cardigan and Rhuddlan.
This was why the Normans moved into Ireland. It is generally agreed that Henry was not particularly concerned with Ireland at the beginning of his reign. In 1155, just after he came to power, Henry discussed the possibility of invading Ireland with a group of churchmen at Winchester. The initiative probably came from the Church at Canterbury, which was concerned about the recent recognition of the Irish Church by the pope. Henry considered it seriously enough to get a papal bull giving him dispensation to bring the Irish into the Catholic fold. Eventually, he shelved it. He had more important things to do. The story is that his mother vetoed the idea, but no-one can seriously believe that Henry would have paid any notice to her if he'd actually wanted to get involved.
...Henry was not particularly concerned with Ireland at the beginning of his reign.
He was equally uninterested when, in 1166, Dermot MacMurrough, the exiled king of Leinster, appealed to him for aid. There was a history of friendship between the Plantagenets and Dermot, which meant that Dermot was so confident of Henry's goodwill that he travelled all the way to Aquitaine to see him. However, Henry was not willing to intervene personally in Ireland as he had problems elsewhere. Instead, he gave Dermot permission to recruit mercenaries from among his Norman knights.
For Dermot, the most obvious place to go for recruits was among the Norman landholders of south Wales, strategically situated on the sailing routes to his Irish ports. The Norman knights leaped at the chance. Ever since 1165, the Welsh princes had been eating away at their lands, and they were looking for somewhere to go to revive their failing fortunes. Among these landless men was one Robert fitzStephen, about whom we know a lot because his story is told in great detail by his nephew, Gerald of Wales. Robert was a vassal of the lord of Ceredigion, who had become effectively dispossessed when prince Rhys of Deheubarth overran his lands. He was actually Rhys's prisoner when the call to arms came from across the sea, and he negotiated his freedom on the terms that he go to Ireland and leave Wales behind. At the other end of the scale was Richard fitzGilbert, lord of Clare and Strigoil, known to all as 'Strongbow', a powerful baron with a failing fortune.
Strongbow had made the mistake of supporting Stephen during the 'tempus werre' ('time of war'), and as a result, Henry had deprived him of the earldom of Pembroke. So his fortunes were definitely on the wane. William of Newburgh says he went to Ireland to escape his creditors, while Gerald of Wales claims that Dermot wanted him because 'he had a great name rather than great prospects'. Even so, he had much to lose by moving to Ireland, and he was only finally persuaded when Dermot offered him the hand of his daughter, Aífe, in marriage and the prospect of succeeding to Leinster on Dermot's death. The chronology of what follows is crucial, both to understand Strongbow's motives and why Henry finally got involved.
In May 1169, Robert fitzStephen crossed to Ireland, accompanied by Strongbow's uncle, Hervey de Montmorency, and helped Dermot regain his kingdom, capturing the port of Wexford in 1170. The High-King of Ireland, Rory O'Connor, demanded Dermot's son as a hostage for good behaviour. In Autumn 1169 and Spring 1170, more of Strongbow's men arrived to help Dermot, and advised him to offer Aífe to their lord. Strongbow crossed to Ireland in August 1170 and at this point, Henry II took notice. He closed all the ports to Ireland and ordered all those who had crossed to return, threatening to confiscate Strongbow's lands if he failed to obey.
Strongbow crossed to Ireland in August 1170 and at this point, Henry II took notice.
Strongbow married Aífe in Autumn 1170 and in revenge, Rory executed Dermot's son, removing the last remaining legitimate heir (in Norman eyes) to Dermot's kingdom. In May 1171, Dermot died 'within a short time of Strongbow's arrival in Ireland' and Strongbow immediately asserted his claim to Leinster. Rory responded by marching on Dublin. After a two month siege, things looked dire for Strongbow and his men. "Surely we are not looking to our own people for help?" said one of his captains. "For we are caught between two stools. Just as we are English to the Irish, so are we Irish to the English." Forced to rely on their own resources, they sallied out of the city walls and routed Rory's army.
Meanwhile, the men of Wexford had risen up against Robert and imprisoned him. The Irish appealed to Henry for aid, and while he was waiting to cross to Ireland, the men of Wexford came to Pembroke and offered him Robert as the man who had initiated the Norman encroachment into Ireland. Robert languished in prison until 1172. Throughout 1171, Strongbow sent emissaries to Henry, and eventually went to Henry in person, offering to surrender his lands in return for their fief as a vassal of the king. Henry landed in Ireland in October 1171, where he was met by the sub-kings of Leinster and other kingdoms who did homage to him in the Irish fashion. He spent Christmas in Dublin and left in 1172, leaving Strongbow in charge of Leinster, but with the strategically important locations of Wexford, Limerick, Cork and Wicklow Castle in royal hands.
Trim Castle, Meath. The first fortification was built by Hugh de Lacy in 1172. © What do we gather from this? First, Strongbow himself only got involved in Ireland once he could guarantee that he was going to profit from it, and the timing of Dermot's death does not inspire confidence. Secondly, Henry seemed indifferent to Ireland until one of his great landholders put himself in a position of power there (like Henry and Aquitaine!). At this point, he tried to prevent Normans from going over there. Only when this failed, and the High-King of Ireland failed to assert control over this rogue vassal, did Henry intervene personally, seemingly at the invitation of those Irish opposed to their ineffective High-King. Thirdly, the Irish themselves seem to have treated Henry like an alternative High-King, even building a ritual hall in which to give their submission.
Like Wales, once the situation had resolved, Henry seems to have lost interest. He left Ireland in 1172 with Strongbow in control of Meath and Leinster, and Rory still High-King. In 1173, he was so preoccupied with the revolt of Henry the Younger that Rory could devastate Meath with impunity; then in 1175, he came to an agreement with Rory in the Treaty of Windsor. This recognised Rory's right to his ancestral kingdom of Connacht, but retained direct Norman control over Meath and Leinster. Rory agreed to hold the rest of Ireland as Henry's vassal, and was given control of Limerick and Cork.
...Henry seemed indifferent to Ireland until one of his great landholders put himself in a position of power there...
In this respect, Henry had taken over Ireland, holding one quarter of it through Strongbow and his heirs, while exerting feudal overlordship of the rest through Rory O'Connor. Rory remained High-King of Ireland and had a free hand, but was unable to control the rapaciousness of the Norman incomers, who had several generations of practice in Wales to fall back on. In 1177, Henry once again intervened, granting the lands of Thomond and Desmond to the Normans who had taken them and taking back control of Limerick and Cork. At this time, Robert fitzStephen, who had rehabilitated himself in Henry's service in 1173, was given a half-portion of Cork to look after. Since Rory did not complain, this could be seen as Henry reasserting control over his unruly Norman barons before they got completely out of hand.
Rory retired to a monastery in 1183, leaving his daughter in marriage to Henry's vice-regent in Leinster, Hugh de Lacy (Strongbow had died in 1176). Henry responded by making his own son John vice-regent, but John was even more ineffectual than Rory had been, and succeeded only in alienating both the Irish and the Normans, even prompting Rory to come back out of retirement against him. He returned to England frustrated in 1185, leaving Rory attempting to wrest control of Connacht back from his son, Connor, with the help of Norman mercenaries.
Edinburgh Castle © There is no doubt that Henry exploited the Irish situation ruthlessly, treating the land taken by the Normans as conquered territory which he could do with as he wished, and ending up as the recognised power in the realm. However, he did this largely with the tacit co-operation of those Irishmen who were opposed to Rory O'Connor, and finally with the co-operation of Rory himself. It was only when Rory failed to control his Norman neighbours that Henry intervened, and even then he only did so half-heartedly. With the exception of the Norman lands and certain strategically important cities, Henry seemed quite happy to leave the Irish to their own devices, just so long as they recognised him as their feudal overlord.
It was only when Rory failed to control his Norman neighbours that Henry intervened...
This attitude can be seen even more strongly in Scotland. Under Stephen, King David of Scotland had gained control of Carlisle, and it is undoubtedly true that Henry reneged on his word when he browbeat David's successor, Malcolm, into restoring it to the English king. This created bad blood, which led to Malcolm's successor, William, joining the rebellion of Henry the Younger and invading England, but he was captured in battle and imprisoned.
In 1175, Henry released him on condition that he swear fealty to Henry as his liege and surrender key castles such as those at Edinburgh and Stirling. Yet despite the harshness of these terms, Henry did not enforce them rigidly and even returned the ancestral Scots kings' honour of Huntingdon to him in 1185.
This is the key to Henry's 'imperialism'. He seems much less concerned with conquering territory than with exerting what might be termed feudal control over his neighbours. This is what he tried in Toulouse in 1159 and in Wales in 1165. When Strongbow's successes threatened to set him up independently in Ireland, Henry intervened to curb this, and conquered Ireland almost by default. His immediate reaction was to find a spokesman he could work with and establish a vassal relationship with him, which only truly broke down when Rory retired, leaving Hugh de Lacy in an even stronger position than Strongbow had been. In 1175, we can see Henry deliberately consolidating these vassal relationships with the rulers of Ireland and Scotland, and in 1177 he did the same thing with the rulers of Wales.
Only in one instance does this model not seem to work. In 1170, Henry claimed out of the blue the right to appoint an archbishop in Bourges, despite its ancestral links with France. He renewed these claims in 1177. Both times, we should see Bourges as a bargaining counter in his endemic dispute with the King of France, and not as any serious attempt to extend his territory beyond the boundaries he had set himself.
The drive to imperialism was almost a function of so-called 'feudal' kingship...
Henry's definition of 'Empire' was through feudal control. By that I mean a vassal/lord relationship in which the former swears fealty to the latter in return for control of the lands which he owns. It was a highly personal relationship which had much more to do with individual loyalties than with the direct control of land, and it should not surprise us that by these lights Henry's actions took on an imperialist tinge. The drive to imperialism was almost a function of so-called 'feudal' kingship: kings were still expected to exert their authority over their vassals and weaker neighbours, and to dole out conquered land to their loyal subjects. This would inevitably impinge on Henry's desire to restore the 'status quo ante' as he saw it. In pursuing a feudal authority, he set the terms by which the Kings of England were to interact with their neighbours in France, Scotland, Wales and Ireland for much of the rest of their history; and established the first English partition of Ireland, which was to prove as unsuccessful as all the rest.
Books
Henry II by WL Warren (London, 1973)
Henry II: The Vanquished King by John T Appleby (Bell, 1962)
Dr Mike Ibeji is a Roman military historian who was an associate producer on Simon Schama's A History of Britain.
BBC © 2014The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
