Essays on Toulouse

[Elias Tarfarius]

"Damn it!" the professor exclaimed. Julius Caesar Augustus, a well known professor at the university, had another article due on Monday. Problem was it was 3 am Monday. "If only I had a secretary... a nice, well-bosomed... red-headed one. Then I could get these annoying articles done on time." He finished the last of his current glass of port and turned to the empty page before him on the computer. He turned then to his notes again.

He was doing a series of articles on the County of Toulouse and Early Medieval France. Fortunately, he had done alot of field research on the topic a few years ago. "Just dredging through these notes should give me a good piece to turn it by 8," he said confidently. "Just call William of Normandy 'Bastard' enough times and the French will eat it up." He began typing at a high tempo, which was unusual for him, and then poured another glass of port.

***

Toulouse and the First Anglo-French War
by Prof. Julius C. Augustus

Four short years after the end of the regency of his mother, Anne of Kiev and after William the Bastard's incredible conquest of England, Philip I of France began an audacious war to bring Norman power to heel in Northern Europe. He was only eighteen, untested by the rigors of war, and the nobles of France continued to counter the reviving power of the Monarchy with ever fiercer disloyalty. Yet, common hatred of the Normans, desire for new lands and titles, and fear of strong English power drove even such arrogant men to take arms with their liege and fight for five long years against the enemy. Notable among such men is William of Toulouse, Count of Toulouse, Marquess of Provence, and Duke of Narbonne, whose star rose greatly because of the war, making him much praise by both the King and his fellows. The true effect of the war on the two parties is best noted if one looks behind the battles and words of the kings and looks at the effects of those battles upon the noblemen who survived. William of Toulouse and his lands will serve as a case study in this effort.

Fig 1. King Philip I of France and the Battle of Le Mans, July 29th 1069​

When Philip I declared war on the Duchy of Normandy in May of 1069, he intended nothing less than reversing the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte, signed in 911 by his predecessor Charles the Simple, which had given the Normans land in Neustria and ordered them to protect Charles' kingdom from any new invasion by Vikings. No written records, even at that time, survived concerning the creation of the Duchy of Normandy. Thus, Philip claimed the Duchy to be an illegal creation and crossed into Maine with an army of about 4,600 men to make it so. Robert Curthose, son of William the Bastard and now Duke of Normandy, quickly sent word from Rouen to London of the “vile action,” to which William was forced to mobilize the men of his freshly conquered kingdom against France. The French crushed the Ducal armies, first near Le Mans in Maine on July 29th and again on October 26th at Arques. Two days later, Duke Robert met King Philip before the city to capitulate; he ceded Arques to the Crown and secretly swore fealty to the King. Normandy was knocked out of the war and the Kingdom of the English now stood alone.

To this point, though they had been called early in June, the armies of the vassal Dukes had not seen battle; only men from the royal demesne had been used against Normandy. For example, William of Toulouse and his men are recorded as only arriving in Normandy about the time of the peace being signed with Robert Curthose. Philip knew how these men could be used, though, even with the fighting in France at an end. He dared to attempt to repeat William the Bastards' brave (or foolhardy) action of only four years before. Philip I of France was going to invade England.

***​

Julius finished his glass of port and put it aside for the bottle. He was wished he was teaching his class instead of writing, but he was on sabbatical this semester and he knew something big was expected for him if he was going to get tenure upon his return. Articles always helped in this manner, but they were increasingly a chore. "A chore I could do without!" Julius gulped down was was supposed to be dinner wine and stumbled down the hall to his bed. That would be enough for tonight...

 

[CrackdToothGrin]

Excellent! Yet another AAR to subscribe to! I like the "history book/narrative mixed with the contemporary" approach you have adopted.

 

[Elias Tarfarius]

Julius was in front of his computer again a little after nine. His smooth talking had resulted in an extension of his deadline till Wednesday. "Its like being a student all over again." He smiled at that and went back to work.

***​

Philip's plan could not, however, work in a vacuum. Unlike modern leaders, he did not have a professional force large enough to project his foreign policy; the men provided from his own lands only numbered 5,000 to 7,000. Thus, an invasion of England would depend upon the ability and willingness of the great nobles, the Dukes (Latin. Dux), to comply. Let's look again to our example, William of Toulouse.

Fig 2. William IV of Toulouse as depicted in the "Lives of the Great Men of Provence" written and illustrated by Raymond of Aguilers

Fig 3. The Duchy of Provence or Narbonne, circa 1066​

William of Toulouse, son of Pons of Toulouse, had been Duke since 1061. The man himself was not noticeably above average for a nobleman, except that he had a very fertile mind for grandiose schemes. This often played to his advantage in dealing with his own court and government, his tricky vassals (among who his brother, the later famous Raymond, was counted), neighboring counts and dukes, and last but not least of all, the King. While he had done nothing of note, William ruled with stability in mind. Thus, when the call to war came, it is a small wonder that the Duke replied to it as he did.

War would mean leaving home for a long period, taking most of the able bodied fighting men of the County of Toulouse away also from their homes and livelihood, then march off to a quite possible, and even gruesome death on an early medieval battlefield. Furthermore, unlike the King or his northern counterparts, what did William and southerners like him have to gain from the conquest of Normandy or England? Of much more present concern to them were the rebellions of the Italian cities against the Emperor and the wars that were engulfing the entire Iberian Peninsula and modern-day Morocco. In the end, the only answer one can gleam from the chronicles, letters, and songs that have survived from that era is that William and the majority of the vassal Dukes, perhaps like Achilles and the Homeric Greeks 2,000 years before them, sought to make a great and lasting name for themselves, even if it meant serving the ends of a king whose youthful rule they despised and whose growing power they feared.

Fig 4. Typical French knight and men-at-arms of the era (from a German book on medieval dress and costume, 1868)

Fig 5. The "Crusade" Census of Toulouse, done in 1077, gives a good idea of the kind of army Duke William fielded during the war, even though it was done three years after the end of the conflict.​

What kind of army did William of Toulouse bring to the fight and is it a good example of the levies raised by the vassal Dukes? The first part is answerable due to the incredible survival of a manuscript known as the "Crusade" Census. This census of "all men fit to bear arms for their liege, Guillaume imirum Tholosanorum ac Ruthenensium et marchio Provintie Raimundus, and being at least a young man of sixteen years" was conducted in 1077 before a launching of a crusade by Duke William into Spain. Although it dates to three years after the end of the First Anglo-French War, archaeological digs at Toulouse and investigation of various chronicles bear out that equipment did not change in so short of a time. The arms and balance of troop types (numbers were different in Spain, as more men were called, including the armies of two of William's vassals) were indeed the same throughout most of the century.

In the census, the knights are numbered as 50 men, armed with short swords and chained leather armor. This apparel is quite different from what one might be used to thinking of for a knight due to the high-profile image of the Norman long-sword wielding, mailed knight. The Provencals took a different tact, due in part to tradition (use of the short sword dated back to the Celto-Iberians, was copied and used by the Romans, and the natives returned to its use after the fall of the Empire) and the simple fact that the short sword is a far easier blade to handle. The 100 light cavalry in the census are armed exactly in the same manner as the knights. The only difference between the two was legal, the knights owed service to their lord for political favor, protection, and grants of lands; the cavalrymen were paid directly for their continuous service.

Levied spearmen were not yet the study pikemen of later centuries. Armed only with a short spear, they were meant to be mostly keen defense against cavalry. It was the men-at-arms, numbering 251 in the census (the single largest group of all), who were to be deciding factors in many battles. Like their counterparts on horseback, they are armed with short swords and chained leather. Such men unleashed on a wavering enemy line were almost always sure to break through and bring victory, unless the enemy had reserves. The archers and light infantry, little more than glorified peasant militia, played their part by weakening the enemy in preparation for the advance of the men-at-arms and/or the knights.

The second part of the above question is still heavily in doubt. With the exception of royal documents, the majority of the dukes of early medieval France left no record of their hosts numbers or armament. We can indeed be thankful that William of Toulouse was not as careless, at least in this matter, as his contemporaries were.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

Interesting AAR... let's see what comes out of it...

 

[Elias Tarfarius]

King William I of England had not gotten where he was by being a fool. Despite the present instability of his kingdom, he knew things could only get worse if the French land on English soil. So, in February 1070, in the face of rough seas and grumbling nobles, William crossed the Channel with an army of reportedly 10,000 men (both English and French royal chronicles give this number, but other sources are silent) to preempt any invasion plans and to undo the failure of his son in defending Normandy.

Philip, now backed by the levies of his dukes, met the attack head on; at Arques on March 11th, he defeated William but could not rout the English army. Then, Philip made his own error (which critics blamed on greed) by invading the county of Eu where William repulsed the French on April 13th. Neither king had accomplished much; William was not able to take cities and thus prevent an invasion and Philip could not did the English out of the northern counties, like Eu, so that France would be clear of the enemy before any invasion of England. In the end, William the Bastard was indeed forced to withdraw most of his army, but it was due to trouble at home rather than French pressure.

Meanwhile the benefits of this campaign for the nobles are clear. William of Toulouse, for his service in the campaign, was created Duke of Languedoc. The lands that went with the title had been under his tutelage for almost a decade at the time, but the prestige of another title could not be doubt, along with the favor of the king who gave it.

The invasion of England, launched in early May of 1071, was barely short of a disaster (French chroniclers and songs like to paint a rosier picture). King Philip some how kept his army together after numerous defeats, most notably soon after landing at Southampton on May 26th. The French army of 8,000 absorbed the blow and began ravaging the south coast at will. Later sources claim the valor of the dukes and knights in this war and that, "as good Christians, the men pledged their lives to the King so that they might wipe the vile Normans, sons of the black pagans of the north, from the face of the early and return the righteous Ingles, of the old house, unto their throne." This is clearly the view of a pro-royalist writer two centuries and has nothing to do with the actual aims of the men at the time. The best Philip could hope for was neutralizing William the Bastard as a factor in France and Brittany, not overthrowing him (even if the Saxons gave support to the French, which they did not). The great men never made some Arthurian-like pledge to serve Philip till the overthrow of the English king, many were already petitioning or planning to go home by the spring of 1072.

The remnant of English forces in France defeated the King's men at a third battle before Arques on August 1st, laying siege to the vital port from which new men and supplies for the army in England were sent. Philip, in a fit of frustration, pushed for London in a daring winter campaign, only to be quickly repulsed by William the Bastard within sight of the Tower of London (January 25th, 1072).

Fig 6. The Tower of London or "White Tower" as depicted in a 13th century English account of the invasion​

 

[Elias Tarfarius]

Fig 7. Early Norman castles as depicted in the Bayeux tapestry, circa 1077

Fig 8. A modern virtual reconstruction of the typical 'motte and bailey' post-Conquest castles, which were well built to keep the Saxons natives in line and provide residence for the Norman nobility, but not to defend against a well organized foreign invasion

Fig 9. The first battle of great note was the English victory (though the French did and do not consider it such) in Bedfordshire, February 12th, 1072​

Philip I of France was not a man easily dissuaded. Knowing that his nobles were virtually trapped till late spring in England due the fierceness of the Channel weather and the fall of Arques into English hands, the King turned west from his defeat near London to subdue lands further up the Thames, the rich province of Bedfordshire.

The 'motte and bailey' castles of the new Norman rulers dotted the entire realm, especially in rich and strategically important areas. Yet, while they could have withstood a Saxon rebellion, the castles of wood and earth were no match for an 8,000 man "modern" army. The province was subdued, but now the French were forced to defend their soft target on February 12th, when an English army of equal or greater size arrived fresh from London. King William himself was not present and the exact site of the battle is even in doubt, but it is well recorded by both sides in other aspects. The English were lead by the notables of the new kingdom, but most shocking of all is that Edwin Leofricson, Duke of Lancaster and nephew of the late Edward the Confessor, was among the leading captains and fought well for his Norman liege. For the French, it is known that King Philip commanded the center, with Manasses and William of Toulouse commanding the left and right respectively. What is also known from all accounts is that there were no glorious charges by mailed knights against each other or battles of champions (though later French chronicles and romances added duels between various figures to the account); the battle came down to a bloody, all-out clash of men at arms in the center.

Then did Hughes turn to his master and look upon the dreadful field. Woe unto our brothers which fight there, there is naught we can ire do to help them now, said he. Guillaume dismounted and strode forth with a stern countenance upon his face. Lo, then we shall go and help our good brothers lest we all perish and suffer in Hell's flames hereafter.

So it was that knights did take to foot and rushed to battle like unto Gideon to wreck vengeance upon the demonic Normans and their Ingle slaves for the deaths of so many of their worthy fellows.

Unfortunately, as the English men-at-arms and spearmen began to break under the intense pressure on the center/right, Edwin Leofricson and William Rufus, the Crown-Prince, lead a flanking charge upon the left. Philip had far too few knights left to repulse the movement and ordered his men into a successful fighting retreat, William of Toulouse holding to the rearguard at great loss to his host. The French were able to withdraw to Oxfordshire without any trouble, but the English reclaimed Bedford. As one chronicler put it, "That day did the brun grasse drink much blood in Bedford, for it cared not of what nation the slain did come. Few men ere hath seen so bloodie a field in Inglelaund." The year of 1072 would see more such battle before it was out, as neither king nor their nobles were willing to give up the fight.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

The Bastards knows how to defend his crown... Perhaps Phillip should have waited a bit longer, to gather more troops, before invading England? Are the Scots willing to help him against the "auld enemy"?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Excellent start ! I am really enjoying it

 

[Elias Tarfarius]

The Bastards knows how to defend his crown... Perhaps Phillip should have waited a bit longer, to gather more troops, before invading England?

I'm playing as Toulouse, so his declaration of war and invasion of England were beyond my control. I was just along for the ride and decided an account of the war would make a good aar.

Are the Scots willing to help him against the "auld enemy"?

Scotland has been too busy conquering Northern Ireland to fight Norman England. Even if the matter was in my control, I wouldn't bother forming the Auld alliance as I would like to see Scotland for once survive and not become collection of Muslim sheikdoms a decade after the beginning of the Crusades.


ET

 

[Elias Tarfarius]

Fig 10. The second Battle of Oxford (, for which there are most reliable numbers for the armies involved, was amazing victory due to the French being outnumbered at least 2:1​

Oxfordshire had been subdued by the French earlier in the war and even after the bloodletting at Bedford, Philip had no problems returning and setting up base in mid-February, 1072. The English army, however, soon made good its loses and crossed the Thames to destroy the invading army. Oxford played host that spring to three major battles along with numerous skirmishes and duels between two of best (and largest) armies of the era in Western Europe.

The first battle (February 22nd, 1072) near the crossing of the Thames ended a quick rebuke of the ambitious attempt of Henry de Beaumont, Earl of Warwick by William of Toulouse and his fellow southerner and oft-rival William of Aquitaine. Yet, loses were growing by the day, not only to death in battle, but also to disease and desertion. Philip tried to reassure his men that God was with them (despite the fact that Pope openly supported William "the Conqueror and threated to excommunicate Philip if he did not leave England within the year) and that victory was soon to come. On the eve of the second Battle of Oxford, chronicles from both sides record that the French army only numbered 2,210 men, with a few hundred others scattered in garrison throughout southern England. Of William of Toulouse's host, which had numbered 408 men when it left Normandy the year before, only 72 able bodied knights and men-at-arms remained. Conversely, the approaching English, under the Duke of Lancaster and the Earl of Warwick, had at least 2,698 men that are recorded as being at the battle along with another 1,000 to 2,000 that are (referred to medieval writers and) calculated to have been in that army.

The battle was joined on the morning of March 17th, arrows darkening the clear sky as both sides readied themselves for slaughter anew. Though chroniclers and troubadours are again to blame for the lack of accurate accounts of this battle, a picture of the tactics used emerges. The English planned to used their heavy weight and numbers to break the enemy immediately, sending forward the men-at-arms with knights on the flanks to completely envelope and crushed the French. The French proved a tougher nut to crack though, as their men-at-arm and even light infantry held their ground with the utmost determination while King Philip and the majority of the knights waited in reserve for the first sign of cracking among the England. It came after two hours, "about the midday," at which time the French knights charged and broke through their English counterparts on the right flank. The English realized the trap had now been reversed and deployed their knights in a fierce rearguard action, allowing the infantry and archers to make their escape unharmed.

Exactly loses for either side are unknown, but there are clues. While the English recovered their loses rapidly again and were soon march once more for Oxford, the French were shattered. When the English gave battle on April 2nd, Philip exchanged volleys of arrows and skirmished but that night under cover of darkness retreated to Bristol. William of Toulouse and several other dukes and counts were given leave that summer to return home and raise new levies.

Fig 11. The French army, rallied and reformed, returned to Oxford in June, 1072​

The King's admirers called him "Lionheart" for his brave actions in battle and his iron-will to win, his detractors called him "the Mule" because, "any tame bull or cud-eating cow can be as smarter than the blessed King of Francia." Philip was indeed stubborn about his invasion, as it came to be known that he felt it might well determine the future of his dynasty and realm. The short-sightedness of the nobility would not stop him even, as he threatened to openly in June to crush rebellion in France just as "easily" as he fought for control of southern England. As the French army regathered at Oxford by June 9th (reinforced by over 4,000 men under Baldwin of Flanders) and the King planned a new offensive to drive the English out of Bedfordshire, the great men of the realm were left with an increasingly hard situation. Would they raise up against their king in the midst of a critical war? If they did, would they be able to defend their lands against the veteran forces provided by the royal demesne? Should they just put themselves in the hands of "the Mule," that most intractable of princes, and hope for the best?

 

[Elias Tarfarius]

The great warre continued apace
most foul, treacherous, and bloody
From Sussex unto the Severn Sea
Did blood rain down
And fathers and sons lay slain in the fields
The food of the fat, black birds

Nere great King William nor any true Englishman had lost heart yet
And the slaughter of many a wicked Frank did serve well
Drying the tears of many a widow
Truly the Lord's blessing in those dark days​

The iron will of Philip I of France carried the war into a new year, but could not provide victory. Seven battles were fought across southern England between June, 1072 and the end of February, 1073. Of those, the English won four and in all of them caused the French loses that could not be quickly repaired.

Fig 12. By the spring of 1073, William of Toulouse and others gathered at Arques to await transport once more to England, while to the north, fresh troops from the lands of Baldwin, Duke of Flanders, were being shipped from the ports of that Duchy to Kent​

Fortunately for Philip, the rich Duke of Flanders, Baldwin (also the King's former regent during his minority), raised new forces and those of his own vassals in order to salvage the invasion. New troops were also called up from the royal demesne under the command of Manasses and the Duke of Orleans, along with a new levy of 427 men from the Duke of Provence, William of Toulouse. These fresh forces would be delayed, however, by the return of active English forces to the Continent in March.

Even with his kingdom in dire peril, King William landed in Normandy in March of 1073 with around 2,000 men (exact figures are unknown) in order to retake Arques and disrupt reinforcement to King Philip's army. The French defeated him at Arques (March 17, 1073) and Vexin (April 3, 1073), ending "the Conqueror's" risky attempt. The defeated monarch had no choice but to slip back across the Channel and hope to vanquish his enemy once and for all on English soil.

It was not soon to come. By March, Philip had been once more pushed to Bristol, but there made a stand on March 17th, resulting in victory. The French tried to cross the Thames into Bedford in April but were ejected again. Then the English were treated with the same medicine when they attacked the French at Oxford on April 24th. On July 8th, when an army from Flanders marched into Surrey, the English attempt to block their advanced was annihilated. With the ratio now so much in the reverse, William the Bastard declared a general truce and sent the Archbishop of Canterbury and other leading peers of the realm to parley with King Philip at Oxford.

Fig 13. King William I of England lays siege to Avranches in August of 1073, 15th century manuscript​

One of the nobles who returned to France in the summer of 1072 was Hugh, Count of Avranches. From his court, the Count watched into the next year as the bloodbath in southern England and Normandy continued, but sent no troop to help his liege. Unlike his fellows, Hugh was fed up with the war and now sought to use it to his advantage, but not by rebellion. Instead, he decided to settle old scores with the Duke of Normandy, declaring war in July, just three days after the beginning of the truce in England. Philip showed his disdain for Hugh by holding to the truce and giving full permission to King William and his son Robert to deal with Avranches "as any Christian prince would deem fit." English forces arrived quickly in August, defeated Hugh's army in four battles, and secured the surrender of Avranches by October. Hugh gave up his county to the English king and paid 112,000 ducats to him for starting the war. During this period. Philip did not attack the English field forces either in France or England during this time; cities were "compelled" to surrender beginning in August, but the first battle after the truce would not come till May, 1074. The King, though sad to lose a province to William the Bastard, was glad to have shown that any misstep by his vassals would be punished, one way or another.

 

[Elias Tarfarius]

Fig 14. The French army assaults and seizes London (September, 1073), 15th century manuscript

Fig 15. King Philip I of France receives English nobles who swear fealty unto him as the new King of England, 13th century French manuscript​

The "Great Truce" (officially agreed to from July 11th, 1073 till May 6, 1074) had had the firm support of Pope Urban II and the majority of all involved, that was until negotiations at Oxford began. While his goal of unseating the new Norman dynasty seemed very unlikely, Philip I was stubborn on demands from the installation of French noblemen in conquered English country (especially Oxfordshire) and the cession of the majority of Normandy back to France nearly 200 years after Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. The Archbishop of Canterbury, chief envoy upon King William's behalf, likewise refused to consider these outrageous demands, offering at best a white peace situation which the French withdrew from England, but each side would keep what land had been conquered since the beginning of the war. Such a treaty would have been to French gain, Philip reportedly nearly drew his sword in rage at the Archbishop. Lower level talks continued, but Philip, with new troops coming in from Flanders regularly now, decided to take advantage of the rash actions of the Count of Avranches.

For some reason, while King William's personal forces were fighting in France, the English barons decided to demobilize their field armies. This left no hindrance to movement for the French, who swiftly moved from Oxford to London in late August. The city refused to betray their king, more out of fear of his wrath rather than for love of the "Conqueror," so Philip launched an overwhelming assault in the second week of September. The city fell and Philip, while not crowning himself King of England, sent out a proclamation to the effect that any noble that wished to keep his lands should come unto him and swear fealty. A few answered the call, most of them were old Saxon aristocrats that had yet to have been removed from their positions of power north of the Humber. Still, the great men, earls and dukes, stayed loyal to King William, no matter if they were Norman or Saxon.

Fig 16. The French army winters at Bedford and reinforcements arrive at last from Arques, among them William of Toulouse and his new host​

By the end of November, the lands of William the Bastard's demense were completely overrun and the English nobles south of the Humber, while still "loyal" to the English King, refused to lose anymore men fighting for him. This left King William to depend upon his French lands to have to continue the war effort. Thus the long delay of the "Great Truce" was not out of a desire for peace as much as it was an inability of the English to strike back against the gains of the French in southern England. "Like an rod of iron, does he, the King of France, control the realm from London and the mouth of the Thames unto Bristol and the Severn Sea. Who can break it?" wrote the Archbishop of York in despair that winter. King William I of England, a natural survivor, knew that time was on his side. He calmly waited in Normandy gathering resources till May when he launched his own, "second," invasion of England.

On May 6th, the new English army and the French met at Hampshire, not far from Hastings, and result was another victory for the "Conqueror," eight years after his amazing triumph over Harold Godwinson. Five more battles followed, but the English only won two of these; they were blocked from retaking London and Bedford (August 20 and September 6), they won at Oxford (September 22) but were unable to retake the city due to the coming of a French relief column (October 16), then they defeated attempt by Philip to take the English southern base at Salisbury (October 20). King William went to raise new armies from his lands in the north, which had been untouched by the war, and began a march on London from York late in the year.

Fig 17. The Battle of St. Albans, the final battle of the war​

The English army, numbering about 2,000 men, found their way south blocked at St. Albans by William of Toulouse, Duke of Provence, and a French army of about 1,000 men. The English King was in desperate need of a victory and to be able to regain his royal seat at London, so William the Bastard gave battle. It would be the last, and perhaps, most decisive battle of the entire war.

 

[unmerged(60841)]

Interesting stuff, I think your professors name suits him at least in its meaning and his self-regard. I also like how you work in quotations, makes for a nice read. Good stuff.

 

[Elias Tarfarius]

Julius laughed when he noticed his unintentional use of a most trite literary device. "History is built on many a cliffhanger, though, so why not?" he said to himself as he looked over the last page leading up to the account of the Battle of St. Albans. He typed onward, hoping to be done with tedious labor like this for at least a week. Soon he would be off to Provence and northern Spain for field research at last...

***

William of Toulouse had been entrusted with the defense of the approaches to London by King Philip because he had proved himself one of the three most capable generals of the war (William of Aquitaine and Manasses of Francia being the two others) and most loyal to the Crown. Beside the men of Toulouse, at St Albans, the Duke had three other regiments under his command, among these a fresh group from Chartres. William used the weakened state of the other units to his advantage in the battle.

The infantry of the three weaker regiments formed the main battle line while the men of Chartres were held in a reserve line to the rear. Knights guarded the flanks in case the English again attempted a maneuver to break the defense there as they had done successfully many times during the war. In response, King William order his knights to trot forward under the cover of archer fire, followed by his men-at-arms. He was seeking to break the French line in one heavy blow and thus clear the road to London. Yet, the French line, while thin, did not break but gave the English knights a bloody rebuke and stood hard against the assault of the English infantry for almost an hour. King William waited for his enemy to commit their reserve, so that he could break it with the remained of his knights, but the moment did not come. While the English were bleeding themselves against the main French battle line, William of Toulouse carried out a brilliant double envelopment; he lead his knights upon the right around the main battle to attack the English rear and on the left the reserve regiment of Chartres fell upon the English right flank. By the time William the Bastard realized his predicament, it was too late. His knights were to busy to form a proper rearguard to cover the retreat of the infantry, so the result was massacre and surrender for them. The English knights, determined to save themselves, cut their way through the French attack and rode back to the north happy to be survivors of "bloody St. Albans."

Fig 18. King Philip I of France "negotiates" a treaty with English envoys, 15th century manuscript​

William the Bastard was forced to make peace now, lest he lose all his kingdom because of the obstinacy of Philip Capet. This time he sent his own son, William Rufus, to design a practical treaty that would do the lest harm to the Norman realms. Thus, the cession of claims on the royal lands of Orleans and the newly "liberated" county of Arques no surprise. The cession of Oxford to the French Crown, however, was a shocking clause that pleased Philip's ego no end while confusing the (mostly post-Conquest) nobility of England. In particular, the treaty stated that the count of Oxford would be "a most humble servant of his Majesty, the King of France, not the King of the English" while being able, still to take part in English affairs, if he so choose. Philip took the title himself, view it as the crown of his victory after so many years of hard struggle. The Normans had been humbled and France, despite all the opposition thrown her way (especially by the Papacy), had emerged triumphant.

Even today, the people of France view the first Anglo-French war as one of the great moments in national memory, second to few. Certainly, it was the greatest victory for the French Crown since the days of Charlemagne, but the consequences of King Philip I's increase of royal power and the heavy-handed treatment of the French nobility during the war were to be long lasting and much more destructive than the glory of the Treaty of Oxford (December 9, 1074) shows.

Fig 19. William IX of Aquitaine, leader of the Surrey Complot

Fig 20. The Surrey Complot, a conspiracy to either kidnap or assassinate King Philip I of France, was derailed by its revelation to the King by William of Toulouse​

While the French King spent the Christmas season feasting in a still occupied London, the strongest peers of his realm gathered in Surrey at the invitation of William IX, Duke of Aquitaine. There, the strongest magnate of the realm spoke before his guests, letting loose a tirade against the "tyrant Philip and his slaves" (thus explaining the absence of men such as Raoul and Manasses), asking his fellows to joining him in curbing the new power Philip was sure to wield against them upon their return to France. All present, including William of Toulouse, hesitatingly assented to the plot, but the Duke of Provence immediately thereafter rode to London and revealed the conspiracy to Philip. He too, like Aquitaine, feared the increase of royal power, but this chance to increase his own value to the King while destroying royal favor for his rival was too good to past up. Thus an immediate rebellion of the nobility so soon after the Treaty of Oxford was prevented and the illusion of glorious triumph could remain.

In the years to come, however, things would not be so easy to maintain. Philip I, despite several more conflicts with the Normans during his reign, never set foot on English soil again and never gained as much in the following wars as he had in the first. His anger and energy became focused all the more on crushing rebellious vassals and adding their lands to the royal demesne; at this he was far too successful, for only a monarch of his iron-well could maintain a hold on the peers of the realm for so long. When his son, Eudes, came to the throne, it signaled a great crisis and the near total disintegration of the French realm at the beginning of the 12th century. In contrast, England and Normandy, though humbled, remained strong and united under William the "Conqueror" and his sons. The price of victory for France had been dear indeed and not worth quite worthy the bloodshed. Yet, for centuries to come, in literature and songs, it would remain glorious.

 

[unmerged(26933)]

I read the first couple of updates, but I'm dead tired so I must stop for now. Good work, I plan on revisiting this next evening. I'd also like to say I wrote most of my history papers the same way as Julius; just with stuff cheaper than any port.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

Well, perhaps some county may be awarded to thee, m'lord, for thy fidelity...

 

[unmerged(27102)]

This is excellent. Keep going.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Hey man - very good AAR you have here - narrative and choice of images( that`s what I like) are great

 

[unmerged(60841)]

Excellent update,t he Toulouse's are definitely proving their worth- but I think they're more ambitious than just ebing loyal vassals.

 

[stnylan]

So, in victory to King over-reaches himelf does he? Interesting.