The Lion by the Ant was Slain. A Guest Post by Richard Willis
Today I am very
happy to welcome my dear friend and Henry the Young King’s benefactor, Richard Willis, who has kindly decided to share with us his brilliant text describing circumstances
of the death of Richard I, Henry the Young King’s illustrious younger brother
and famous crusader king. The latter died on 6 April 1199 at Chalus. I am sure
Henry would not mind sharing his kingdom with his brother for a while, in spite of the fact that the two had usually been at loggerheads. Over to you, Richard…
The date is 6
April 1199 – the Tuesday before Palm Sunday. The location is the Limousin , part of the duchy of Aquitaine , ruled at the time by the great
matriarch Eleanor. Her union with the English king Henry II produced eight
children – seven of who survived infancy – but there was one she valued above
them all. It is that child, her fourth, that she is standing vigil with, for
the hour of his death has come.
Just forty-one
years old at the time, Richard, king of England – already in possession of that
famous sobriquet “Lionheart” – had been the second son of Henry and Eleanor to
wear the crown of England (though he was the first to do so in his own right,
and not as a junior king, as his elder brother Henry had). Acknowledged by all
– even his enemies – as one of the greatest soldiers and commanders of his era,
Richard had come through rebellion, crusades and captivity to win the renown of
many of his subjects.
Yet despite his
renown and record in battle, he was still beset by adversaries, both inside his
kingdom and outside it. Much has been made of Richard's clashes with both
Philippe II, the king of France, and John, Count of Mortain, his younger
brother. Yet it was neither of these great lords that sparked the incident
which led to the wound that has brought the Lionheart to the edge of death.
Indeed, at the
moment, brother John is faithful (something that didn't happen very often) and
Philippe has been placated via truce, allowing Richard free reign to deal with
two of his mutinous nobles, Aymer, count of Angoulême, and Aimar, viscount of
Limoges. It was to Aimar's lands that the king moved first, investing the castle of Chalus-Chabrol late in March.
It was a move
that, like so many others made by Richard, shocked others. It was the season of
Lent, during which the Church prohibited warfare – though that was a
prohibition often flaunted by the English king. Indeed, Ralph of Coggeshall
writes that the king “devastated the Viscount's land with fire and sword, as
though he did not know that arms should be laid aside during Lent,” and Bernard
Itier adds that Richard “had planned to destroy all the viscount's castles and
towns.”
That the king's
aim was to completely devastate the lands of his rebellious vassals is not much
in doubt – that was the common price paid by rebel lords – though many
chroniclers say that there might have been other reasons for Richard's rush to
war. Ralph of Coggeshall notes that “some people say that a treasure of
incalculable value was found on the Viscount's lands,” and that Aimar's refusal
to hand the find over to his liege lord (or perhaps, hand over more of it than
Aimar was willing to part with) helped to inflame the already fierce temper of
the English king.
Not all the
accounts, however, mention the treasure, and in hindsight, its existence is
really beside the point. Regardless of whether or not he was lured by treasure,
the Lionheart brought his wrath down on the viscountcy of Limoges . The nobles of this region were oft
rebellious, and there's no doubt that Richard probably thought that this would
go as so many previous suppressions had – over soon enough that he could turn
his mind back to diplomacy with the king of France.
So it came to
pass that, in the evening of 26 March, a few days into the siege of
Chalus-Chabrol, Richard started to make his observation of the progress of the
siege. As he often did, the king took a chance to practice with a crossbow. By
all accounts, the forty man garrison of the castle, led by two knights, Peter
Bru and Peter Basil, was on the verge of surrender. Indeed, as Richard made his
rounds, there was only one defender present on the ramparts – using a frying
pan, of all things, as a shield. Though the lone defender was probably an
irritant to the professional soldiers besieging the castle, Richard himself
wore no armor save for his headpiece – after all, what protection was needed
when the king wasn't riding into battle?
More often than
not, that would've been a rhetorical question. Indeed, Richard is said to have
applauded the lone defender, even while the crossbowman was firing at the king.
The applause was premature, the defender's aim true – and the Lionheart was too
slow to duck and prevent the crossbow bolt from going into his left shoulder.
Conscious of what the news of his injury could do to the morale of his
soldiers, the king said nothing and returned to his tent.
His own attempts
to remove the bolt failed. All Richard succeeded in doing was breaking the
wooden shaft off, leaving the hand-length barb deep inside. The king's surgeon
had better luck, but though he had removed the bolt, he had not done a very
good job of it. Within days, the wound turned gangrenous, spreading the
infection throughout his body.
Richard had been
a man of war. There's no doubt that he knew exactly what was happening, and
this is evidenced by what he did next. Aside from four of his trusted
associates, the king forbade anyone from entering his tent. He sent for the
Duchess of Aquitaine, his mother, and after Chalus-Chabrol fell a few days
later, sent a number of his soldiers on to invest two more of Viscount Aimar's
castles, Nontron and Montegut.
The crossbowman
who had fired the fateful bolt was brought before him. Though the chroniclers
disagree on the defender's name (indeed, Bernard Itier – normally one of the
more reliable sources – says that it was the knight Peter Basil who fired the
crossbow), they do agree on what happened next. Instead of having the man
executed, Richard, in a last act of mercy, pardoned him, and ordered him to be
given 100 shillings and set free (something that didn't happen – Richard's
faithful mercenary Mercadier had the man flayed alive and hanged after Richard
had died).
Shortly after
nightfall on 6 April, after twelve days of lingering, Richard, king of England , died.
His reign – three months short of a decade – had seen him successfully defend
his inheritance and pass it on. With no heirs of the body save for an
illegitimate son, Phillip of Cognac, the crown of England was disputed. Angevin law
dictated the throne should pass to Arthur of Brittany, the son of Richard's
younger brother Geoffrey, while Norman law held that the youngest son of Henry
II, John, had precedence over any of the old king's grandchildren.
Some accounts
say that Richard finally acknowledged John as his heir on his deathbed, but
whether or not that was true, a 32 year old man was better equipped to fight
for and hold the Angevin inheritance than a 12 year old boy, and John did
eventually come to hold the full portion of Richard's kingdom – though he would
not hold parts of it for very long.
That, however,
is another story. After his death, Richard's entrails were buried in Châlus,
his heart in Rouen Cathedral (across the altar from the tomb of his older
brother, with whom Richard had often quarreled), and his body at Fontevraud
Abbey in Anjou .
On 11 April 1199, Palm Sunday, Richard I of England was laid to rest at the
feet of his father, a location that probably would have struck both father and
son as ironic.
Though he took
great care never to expose his soldiers to undue risks, he had no such qualms
about doing so himself – and knowing that, his manner of death does not seem so
out of character. Indeed, the surprise is not that he died in battle, but that
it happened in such a battle. Fate, it seems, has a sense of humor – though
this probably was not a joke that the Lionheart would have laughed at.
Kasia, thanks for this guest post by Mr Willis, so beautifully written. There are enough ironies in the Lionheart's last years, including his burial, that once again, we have to conclude that truth is often stranger than fiction. I didn't realize a crossbow bolt was that long! Dreadful weapon!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the praise. And you're right - as a writer, the joke I've always heard is that between truth and fiction, only fiction has to make sense.
DeleteAs for the bolt, I hadn't been fully aware of the length until I read John Gillingham's account, but it does make sense. Both a crossbow bolt and a regular arrowshaft are designed to get through thick armor, and there's no doubt that they were very effective. The Lionheart can attest for that, as can many thousands of others. A dreadful weapon indeed.
Joan wrote the above.
ReplyDeleteA fascinating read! I especially enjoyed the last sentence - ah, fate does indeed have a sense of humour, it seems!
ReplyDeleteI actually sat there, debating how to end it - when I first typed it, it didn't feel like a good ending. The more I look at it though, the more I do like it.
DeleteAnd thank you for the compliment.
Joan, I hope that Mr Willis will reply to your comment in person :-) I can only agree that the truth is indeed stranger than fiction, especially when we're talking about the Angevins.
ReplyDeleteKathryn, I too find the last sentence brilliant summing up of the whole story. Thank you for dropping by. Both Richards must be very happy :-)