Stephen and Matilda: The Civil War of 1139-53

by Jim Bradbury

Focuses on military aspects of the civil war and the battle for the English crown that dominated Stephen's reign. Details the various campaigns, battles, and sieges, including the two major battles at the Standard and Lincoln. Draws on the numerous chronicles to comment on the strategy, tactics, technology in arms and armor, and the improvements the period saw in fortifications. A paper edition of the 1996 publication. Distributed in the US by Books International. Annotation c. by Book News, Inc., Portland, Or.

Genres: History, Medieval, Nonfiction, Medieval History, British Literature, Historical, Royalty

272 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Jim Bradbury (born 27 February 1937) is a British historian specialising in the military history of the Middle Ages. Bradbury lectured in history at Brunel University.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bra...

Reviews

[K.J. Charles]

One of those history books that's written to be part of a conversation with other historians. As such there's a lot he incorrectly assumes the reader knows (this reader, anyway) and a huge amount of arguing with the people in his head, mostly about how Stephen was totally a good king who just happened to get stuck in a two decade civil war. Not the book I was looking for.

[Ton · Rating 4 out of 5]

The period between 1139 and 1153 (or alternately 1135-1154, from the death of Henry I to the start of Henry II’s reign) has been renamed the Anarchy by English historians, and was called a “time when Christ and his Saints slept” by a contemporary chronicler. King Stephen has long been held responsible for this anarchy, because of his supposedly weak and fickle character and general ineptitude. Historians from the previous century have largely followed that view. It’s Jim Bradbury’s intention to give a re-evaluation of this period, but mostly of Stephen’s reign. He does this by taking a hard look at the sources, and the available archeological/geographical material, which is possible since this was a period where war was centered on towns and castles, and some of them remain.

Bradbury argues, in my view convincingly, that Stephen is due some rehabilitation. Bradbury shows that on the whole, Stephen acted with energy and decisively against most challenges to his authority. In fact, he gained his kingdom by acting faster and surer than his rivals. Secondly, while he has been accused of fickleness because he broke his oath to Henry I, there seems to have been much more going on than meets the eye. For instance, the great lords of Normandy and England preferred to be ruled by one person as both Duke of Normandy and King of England. Most of the barons of both Normandy and England were quick to accept Stephen, and the very fact that Henry I had his lords swear allegiance to Matilda no less than three times indicates that he wasn’t convinced of its efficacy. He may even have changed his mind altogether, or simply never intended Matilda to inherit and bestow the crown on her son Henry. (Stephen argued that Henry had retracted his wish that Matilda should succeed him on his death-bed, something which Hugh Bigod and two of his knights swore they had witnessed; this sounds suspicious to our ears, but that does not mean it can’t be true – though we’ll never know.) A further point to be made is that no appeals were made to the pope that Stephen’s kingship was illegitimate, and Stephen subsequently enjoyed papal favour in his later conflict with the Angevins. It should also be noted that automatic succession of the oldest son/daughter was not yet set in stone in this period, as both William II Rufus and Henry I proved by sidelining their elder brother Robert Curthose.
Secondly, it seems Matilda was both unpopular at first (perhaps because of her husband, Geoffrey of Anjou, who as an Angevin was the natural enemy of everything Norman), and seemingly uninterested in actually claiming the kingdom and duchy. Even if we accept that at the time of Henry I’s death she was still recovering from the effects of a difficult pregnancy, she still made no apparent move to claim anything until 1139, when her half-brother Robert of Gloucester, the greatest magnate in England, decided to threw his lot in with her. Robert, on the other hand, had shown himself more than ready to accept Stephen.

The rebellion broke out in 1139, when Robert of Gloucester decided he was disgruntled with Stephen. Bradbury notes that it was most likely self-interest that decided Robert, and not affection for his half-sister or a strong conviction in the justice of her cause. It was Robert who decided there would be war. That is not to say Stephen did nothing wrong, and there was apparently an incident which inspired Robert to question his future under Stephen. Bradbury takes a hard, critical look at the available sources and manages to give plausible reasons why both parties acted the way they did.

For the civil war itself we can say that on the whole, Stephen had the upper hand, but he was unable to fully crush his adversaries. Likewise, Matilda was unable to fully grasp her moment, when Stephen was captured at the Battle of Lincoln. In general, we the Angevins were a much closer knit group, with a much better defensible network. Stephen had to fly all over the country to subdue his rebellious lords, whereas the Angevins were largely concentrated around Robert of Gloucesters lands, and augmented by local lords pursuing their own interests. Furthermore, Matilda had fewer but far more loyal (and probably capable) allies, whereas Stephen had the nominal loyalty of most of the barons, but was unable to really trust them. His policy of appointing earls to protect his interests across the land was adopted by Matilda, but Stephen’s on the whole seem not to have made as much progress as he would have hoped. Often rival appointees fought each-other to a standstill, and Stephen called in to intervene.
Though there had always been disgruntled lords, Stephen had mostly managed to contain the opposition by acting with energy and aplomb. Since 1139, With the coming of Matilda and Robert of Gloucester, the opposition to Stephen was given a new focal point. Everyone with an axe to grind with Stephen, or with their eye on an opportunity for advancement, had a readymade banner to hide behind. This in combination with the half-hearted support he received from most lords lead Stephen to depend on William of Ypres, a Flemish noble bastard and captain of a mercenary company. This in itself was a further onus to some lords. Furthermore, Stephen’s brother, bishop Henry of Winchester (called “unsaintly and unmeek” by a contemporary), wasn’t exactly a support to Stephen, and played a devious game of pitting the Angevins against the king.

Bradbury doesn’t clear Stephen of all blame though. His account is not sycophantic. Bradbury certainly acknowledges the mistakes made, most notably giving Robert of Gloucester and Ranulf of Chester cause to distrust him. Bradbury also concedes that Stephen’s pre-occupation with gaining and retaining royal castles (nominally his right) lead to a virtual obsession, which did not bring out the best in Stephen. At the same time, he is also quite critical of all the other major players. Bradbury has produced a clear and well-written breakdown of the civil war in England between 1139 and 1153, with an eye for its causes, the prominent players, politics and the warfare it brought. A very good choice for anyone interested in this era and conflict.

[Bettie]

Description: Civil war and the battle for the English Crown dominated the reign of King Stephen, and this popular account is the only complete account of the complex and fascinating military situation. The war is examined in detail throughout the various campaigns, battles and sieges of the period, including the two major battles at the Standard and Lincoln, showing that Stephen always held more ground than his opponents and was mostly on the offensive. The nature of the warfare and the reasons for its outcome are examined, along with comment on the strategy, tactics, technology in arms and armour, and the important improvements in fortifications. Full use has been made of the numerous detailed chronicle sources which give some indication of the horrors of twelfth-century war, the depredations which affected the ordinary people of the land, and the atrocities which sometimes accompanied it. Full of colourful characters - the likeable king, the domineering Matlida, the young and vital Henry of Anjou (later Henry II), his intelligent and effective father Geoffrey Count of Anjou, the powerful barons from Geoffrey de Mandeville to Ranulf of Chester - and illustrated with photographs, maps and manuscript illustrations, this is a fascinating story of rivalry for the English throne which throws new light on a much-neglected aspect of Stephen's reign.

About the Author
Jim Bradbury taught history at Brunel University College before taking early retirement to devote himself to writing. He has written widely on medieval military history.

[G. Lawrence · Rating 4 out of 5]

In terms of scholarship, fantastic. In terms of ease of readability, not so great. I think it actually could have done with being longer, as some sections were quite compact. There was a great deal about tactics, weaponry and defences which at times was very technical. Also felt a bit like Stephen was being defended all the time. But, that being said, this is a good book, a worthy bit of scholarship and worth a read.

[Julie Yates · Rating 3 out of 5]

My first foray into the Anarchy so may change rating later.

Very dense style with LOTS of names - I finally started taking notes to figure out who was who and when they switched sides.

in addition to being biased toward Stephen's kingship (which maybe is the correct stance, I don't know yet) he seems to have his own take on a lot of issues, which go against modern scholarship. (Again, I need to read a few more books to see if he is truly an outlier or if he just sounds like he is.)
At least once a chapter (if not more) the author says things like "even though other historians says X I believe Y" or "It is common to believe X but ..." and even spends several pages saying King Stephen's father (Stephen-Henry) was not actually a coward for fleeing during the first Crusade even though it seems he was - to the point that King Stephen sometimes behaved rashly to also not be accused of cowardice.

Very pro Stephen. For example, let's take the very last paragraph in the book which points out Henry II 's holdings in lead to the carnage of the Hundred Years War stating: "The less positive effect of the civil war, in the long run, was the new threat which this growth of power under one man posed for the kingdom of France. The paragraph ends with "Had Stephen won the war more convincingly and left the throne to his son, to rule England alone, who can say what would have happened in Europe?" [Which conveniently forgets that Eustace was dead and William had no children. So it seems England would have ended up in another succession crisis anyway.]

So: was a bit of a slog getting through but informative.

[Magpie6493 · Rating 1 out of 5]

Extremely biased to the point where I'm co fused as to why the author would even write about this historical subject in the first place. He additionally seems to be unable to conceptualize Matilda being named as the heir everyone, agreeing she was the heir.

No no according this author her being named as the heir just meant her husband or future son was actually the plan and Matilda didn't want the throne at all really which seems confusing when she literally fought a whole ass civil war to sit on the throne becaus eshe was suposed to be the heir but everyone ran to Stephen cause he was Aman claiming the throne and did some shady ass shit to get crowned as soon as possible.

Oh, and apparently, Stephen won the civil war, which is why his descendants didn't sit on the throne after him and why Matildas son Henry II and his descendants ruled England for the next few centuries.

Anyways, from a historical standpoint, this book is absolutely dispointing biased bullshit and I could not, not reccomend it enough if you're actually want to learn about this period.

[Sam · Rating 2 out of 5]

It started well, but is somewhat biased towards Stephen.

My primary issue, and the reason for only 2 stars instead of 3 for a book which is good, is that in amongst the copious references, there is not one for quite a serious allegation which is only alleged in other sources, but this author claims as fact and does not provide a single reference to it.

Primarily this is a military history, in a conversational tone, suitable for people with no prior knowledge of the era or warfare at the time. Whilst I personally thought there wasn't enough detail about some of the major players, they are named and for the most part have enough detail for a military history.

[Megan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for a uni history project on King Stephen and Empress Matilda.

[Tim Phillips · Rating 4 out of 5]

Concise history of an interesting period. Enjoyed reading it.

[Eva Müller · Rating 2 out of 5]

The better title for this book would be 'Stephen and military history' because that's what this book is mainly about. The author explains to us why modern historians are wrong when they consider Stephen's actions stupid. He also spends a lot of time on speculating on Stephen's reasons for his decisions. He never does this for Matilda and rarely for Henry. I'm not expecting historians to have no opinions on the subjects they're writing about but this blatant favouritism was just cringeworthy.

I am also aware that military history is an important part when discussing a war and e.g. the explanations of why actual battles (with Christians) were avoided at that time were really interesting and helped me understand things better. But I don't need pages on whether this battle really happened on that hill or perhaps another, or if the cavalry led by Lord X stood on the right or left side. That is rather too specific for a book that is supposed to be a general overview.

[Sifa Poulton · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF at 15-20%

This book is, admittedly, written in 1996 but it is SO BIASED. It's very pro-Stephen, apologising for things that it vilifies Matilda for (also massively overlooks Matilda in it all). The primary quoted source is the chronicle that is very pro-Stephen, and this is following that trend, to the point of being aggravating. I wanted something with a balanced view, and this is not.

[K.V. Johansen · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent book and I'll likely both read it and refer to it again. However, a major flaw, at least in this edition from The History Press, is that there is no scale on any of the maps. In a book on military history? What were they thinking?

[Susan Abernethy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Link to my review of this book:

https://flhwnotesandreviews.com/2017/...

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good and accurate account but too pro Stephen. I’m a Matildaite and I feel it’s a bit critical of her and regards Stephen as the legitimate ruler which is open to question.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jim Bradbury's Stephen and Matilda offers a comprehensive account of 'the Anarchy', a period in British history defined by sporadic warfare between two rival factions vying for the English throne. These rival coteries, headed up by the eponymous King Stephen and Empress Matilda, both pressed their claims following the death of Henry I with no male heir. Despite having previously sworn an oath to uphold the claims of Matilda and her offspring, Stephen was quick to capture the English crown in 1135. Bradbury notes that Stephen's accession was mostly uncontested by the nobility - even his later foil Robert of Gloucester - until Matilda made her landing at Arundel in 1139.

The book offers a rich account of 'the Anarchy', though its writer suggests that such a name for the period is misleading. Indeed, although many of the chroniclers from the time (including William of Malmesbury and the anonymous author of the Gesta Stephani) paint a grim picture of life on the ground at the time of the civil war, Bradbury notes pointedly that these men were all living in the west country and as such witness to the worst martial excesses. Elsewhere, though, the country propsered: a spate of church building and issue of new charters indicate that, in Bradbury's view, "there was a properly organized and operating government even able to make improvements on the methods of its predecssors". The term Anarchy, which implies a total collapse of government and state power, is therefore inappropriate.

The descriptions of military tactics and strategy are also vivid and authoritative. Bradbury splits his account of the conflict into two distinct sections: the Matildan War, ending around the time of Matilda's retreat from Winchester in 1141, and the Henrician war, beginning with its namesake's second landing in England at the beginning of 1153. An entire chapter is devoted to perhaps the most famous engagement of the period, and the only pitched battle fought between the Blesevin and Angevin armies, the Battle of Lincoln. Despite the haziness of the various primary sources around this event and the discrepancies between them -- helpfully pointed out by Bradbury throughout -- this rendition of Robert of Gloucester's early triumph over Stephen is evocative and colourful. Readers without a deep understanding of Medieval battle tactics will also appreciate Bradbury's delineation of the various strategies available to a Medieval commander - siege warfare playing perhaps the biggest role in the case of the Anarchy.

Fans of The Pillars of the Earth or general histories of Medieval England may be surprised to learn that Stephen was not simply a selfish perjurer who usurped his sister's crown and laid waste her dominion; conversely, Bradbury posits that Henry I may even have named Stephen his heir in the final moments of his life. Bradbury's Stephen is presented more as a tragic figure; an able administrator and competent general who was exhausted by continuous warfare and ultimately devastated by the death of his first son Eustace in 1153. Despite being overhelmingly favoured by the English nobility in 1135, faced as they were with the alternative of handing the crown to the widely unpopular Geoffrey Plantagenet, Stephen was eventually faced with little choice but to hand the crown to Henry II upon his death.

Stephen and Matilda is a wonderfully intricate retelling of the first English civil war, and Bradbury avoids making this a deterministic tale of the inevitable rise to power of the Plantagenet dynasty, instead treating all his characters with an unbiased respect - perhaps leaning slightly in favour of the Blesevins occasionally. Recommended to anyone interested in the politics and warfare of 12th century England.

[Betsy · Rating 2 out of 5]

The war between Stephen and Matilda seems a desultory conflict. There were few actual battle fought, the war mostly conducted as a series of sieges. At some point Matilda seemed to have bored of the whole thing and turned the conflict over to her son Henry who was only 14 when he first took troops to England. The book was a confusion of too many names of two many of the landed gentry. Toward the end it even became disorganized as to the time line, going back and forth from year to year at random. It was never even very clear exactly when control passed from Stephen to Henry. The death of Stephen's wife (another Matilda and significant in her own right) was only mentioned in passing. The book would have been improved by some charts showing family relationships and better maps.

[Paul Taylor · Rating 2 out of 5]

This history started rather well but the author quickly betrayed his sympathies in favour of Stephen and his endless reference to William of Malmesbury being biassed in favour of Robert of Gloucester lead me to the conclusion that he did protest too much. His final chapter of nearly forty pages could have been condensed into five being repetitively repetitive. Some of his sentences should have been tidied up by his editor. So, on the whole, a bit of a disappointment.This seminal era odf English history deserves something better for the general reader.

[Jon Lisle-Summers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most of what I have read about this period has been confusing but not so this version. It's clearly explained and very readable. The analysis is balanced and plausible.
Apparently, some folk refer to this civil war as The Anarchy which, it turns out, is not entirely true. The endless wanton destruction of ordinary people's lives inflicted pain, homelessness and famine just as all armed conflicts do but the area was relatively limited.
The relationships between the various powerful people is also easier to follow than some accounts.
Recommended.

[Paul Allard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book about the first English Civil War - easily read.

I bought this after reading some Cadfael novels to finds out more about this period of the 12th century in which the books take place, a period that I knew little about. This concise history book tells the story well about Stephen's reign and the opposition that he faced and how he dealt with it. With plenty of illustrations, it works well and doesn't come across as too academic. Recommended to anyone interested in this period of history.

[Stephen Ede-Borrett · Rating 3 out of 5]

Still perhaps the best military study of 'The Anarchy' - England's true "First Civil War" - even if, sadly, it has an incredibly pro-Stephen bias!
Quite badly edited and some very odd illustrations (Wilton House built mid-16th Century, Montreuil-Bellay rebuilt 1860, a footpath leading up a motte, etc.).
This could have been a much-better book but it is still very well worth having on your bookshelf if the era is of interest but be careful about the overreliance on pro-Stephen sources and the 'rubbishing' of those that are pro-Matilda.

[Amanda Gallagher · Rating 2 out of 5]

Eh. It was a good history, although I did not enjoy Bradbury's writing style. Felt myself skimming over a lot because of the many unnecessary commas and rambling ideas. I did learn a bit about the Civil War, but probably not as much as I should have with the amount of information Bradbury presented.

[Jeremy Giles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview of the Anarchy

I read this book because I am a fan of The Cadfael Chronicles novels by Ellis Peters (real name Edith Pargeter). I wanted to know more about the history of the period covered by the Cadfael novels. The book did the job well.

[Hugh La Lume · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very well written account of a period in history I really wanted to know more about. It is well researched (I think but I am no scholar) and makes fairly easy reading. If you like early mediaeval history I would thoroughly recommend this.

[Will Fairey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Informative, but the narrative can be hard to follow. Clearly a work to be a conversation between scholars. The time period does lack perspectives and other sources, so it’s understandable a flow to the story is hard to portray.

Still, a good overview of the war and its causes and effects.

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

brief and to the point - no flowery narrative and very authorative in approach.

[Arthur B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps a bit pro-Stephen in its interpretation of the history, but nonetheless a good summation of a period of history generally underserved in popular culture or in school curriculums.

[ANTHONY CUTLER · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a period of English history of which I had little knowledge. I wanted to fill it in and this book did the job. Very much a plainly told textbook but none the worse for that. Right level of detail. Good on politics and enough about the technology of 12th century warfare.

Was also good at giving the respective perspectives of other historians as to very remote events that have left fragmentary and unreliable evidence.

Solid three stars.

[Owen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book covers the period describe in Ken Follet's "Pillars of the Earth", and gives a great amount of detail and technical information into what actually happened in that period of history. Stephen is portrayed as a villain in the Pillars of the Earth book and TV series, but this historical account is more impartial with a slight bias towards Stephen, and discusses rigorously the events, compares the actions of the King to past and future monarchs for context, and goes through the timeline of just how Henry II rose to power, a monumental historical figure in his own right.

[Edward Chilvers · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting read of a dark and largely forgotten period of English history. The book is mainly told from the point of view of the royalist side and seeks to address and revise some of the criticisms levelled at King Stephen during his troubled reign. Scant primary sources do not make the author's task any easier but he mostly avoids wild speculation.

[Steven J Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good factually sound historical book - heavily leant to the case of King Stephen but apart from the author's favouritism on the subject matter; the information was good and given in an informative way. This topic is fairly unknown and certainly not written about widely so it is a good first book on the 'anarchy' which England faced at this time.