Question 1
Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more
convincing as an explanation of the extent of the disturbances during Stephen’s reign.
Passage A
The civil war was over. Only a part of the kingdom was ever under Stephen’s control but since 1143 the barons had begun to give up their temporary castles; and once the initiative had clearly passed to the King his rule was relatively peaceful. It is hard to properly assess the extent of the disorder and devastation which the country had suffered. Acts of violence and petty disturbances were common even under strong kings. Baronial revolts had occurred in all reigns since the Conquest. Moreover, some of the main areas of war were in the traditional areas of lawlessness. Even so, it cannot be doubted that there had been an increase in the usual violence of medieval society. The campaigns waged by both sides with mercenary soldiers, the private feuds, the banditry, the burnings of towns, the fortifications and the serious and often prolonged fighting in usually peaceful districts had greatly disturbed the life of the country and temporarily reduced its wealth and caused local famines and disease. Yet to picture a scene of unrelieved misery and anarchy would be false. Some parts of the country were hardly ever disturbed. In the loyal areas the King’s government continued in form as before. The skeleton of an organised kingdom endured.
Adapted from: F. Barlow, The Feudal Kingdom of England, 1042–1216, published in 1972.
Passage B
Having surrendered his castles to Stephen, Geoffrey de Mandeville was released and promptly flew into frantic rebellion. He occupied Ely, seized Ramsey Abbey, sacked Cambridge and ravaged the countryside for miles around with dreadful barbarity. It is not true that these atrocities were mainly confined to the time and area of Geoffrey’s rebellion. There is plenty of evidence of similar occurrences in other regions at various times. It is clear from the terms of the treaty between the Earls of Chester and Leicester that their tenants were getting out of hand, refusing honorial justice and reluctant to hold their castles entirely at the service of their lords. The continued warfare, in which armies invariably lived off the country, ruined the property of a great many barons. The Gesta Stephani describes a dire famine and all England everywhere bearing the look of grief and calamity, of misery and oppression, and continues with a description of the savage behaviour of the mercenary troops. This account does not altogether hang together. We cannot, however, ignore it. Men, women and children suffered horribly and, beyond a doubt, the agricultural economy of parts of England must have been seriously, if only very temporarily, affected. The continuation of the intensified warfare of 1153 would have brought widespread ruin: for it had already spread to the Midlands and East and might engulf any part of the country.
Adapted from: H.A. Cronne, The Reign of Stephen, 1135–54: Anarchy in England, published in 1970.
[30]
Answer
