Perfil de Inteligencia Emocional por Puesto

Between 1066 and 1200 eleven castles were built within the Liberty of St Edmund (Map 4.6).

There appear to have been two circumstances in which castles were constructed within the Liberty.

• When baronial or sub-baronial members of the new secular elite within the Liberty gained permission from the Abbot to construct castles there.

• When castles were constructed within the Liberty during periods of civil war, when the royal or Abbey administration were unable to prevent ambitious bannerets from constructing castles within the Liberty without the Abbot’s permission, for example, Milden castle (Appendices 1.20 & 16.9.1-3; Chapter 5.4.1-7).

4.38.1: Baronial castles

On the death o f Henry I five baronies; namely Great Ashfield, Clare, Kentwell, Cavendish and St Edmund’s, had been established within the Liberty (Map 2.8). However, these baronies appear to have produced only two baronial castles between 1086 and 1200. Clare (c .l086-90), that was built before the Lord o f Clare became a Knight of St Edmund after 1166 and Great Ashfield (c.l 135-50), that was constructed by the Blundus family who were Knights of St Edmund from c .l086 (Appendices 1.5 & 12). The latter was probably built during the civil war, only survives as a single large motte and archaeological investigation has demonstrated a burnt horizon suggesting it was destroyed before it was completed (NSMR Suffolk 175). No further baronies were established in the Liberty, and both baronial castles are located on the periphery o f the Liberty for reasons discussed below.

4.38.2: Sub-baronial castles

A further nine castles were constructed within the Liberty between 1066 and 1200, at Desning, Freckenham, Great Fakenham, Groton, Lidgate, Lindsey, Milden, Nayland and the Red castle at Thetford (Appendices 1.7; 11; 13-14; 8-21 & 25). However, none of these appear to be baronial caput castles. These are all sub-baronial, built either as secondary castles, constructed in

addition to baronial castles which had been built elsewhere or built by bannerets, perhaps aspiring to baronial status or by baronial officials.

A further five castles were constructed by Knights of St Edmund at Lindsey (c.l 121-48?), Groton (c.l 121-487), Great Fakenham (c .ll 107), Desning (c.l 135-11487) and Lidgate (c.l 120-

11357) (Appendices 1.7; 13-14 & 18-19.).

Four castles constructed in the Liberty were not built by Knights of St Edmund. The Red Castle (c.l 135-50), is an urban castle situated in Thetford on the southern, Suffolk, side of the river, but within the Liberty o f St Edmund. It was probably constructed by Earl William III or IV de Warenne, in the latter case could be interpreted as royalist ally of St Edmund’s Abbey (Keats- Rohan 2002: 239-40). The three remaining castles were Milden (c.l 135-11487), Freckenham (c.l 135-41) and Nayland (c.l 135-53) (Appendices 1.11; 20 & 21). Freckenham was probably constructed by Ascelin, the Bishop of Rochester (c.l 135-41), who was probably an

ecclesiastical ally of St Edmund’s Abbey (Keats-Rohan 2002: 836). Nayland was probably constructed by the royalist baron Robert or his son Henry o f Essex, and probably should be interpreted as an allied castle, despite the Abbey’s hostility to the latter (Keats-Rohan 2002:

449-50). Milden was probably built by Peter I de Melding; it is argued later that as a banneret of the bishop of Norwich, this is the only castle in the Liberty known to have been hostile to St Edmund’s Abbey during the civil-war (Keats-Rohan 2002: 578; Appendices 16.9.1-3).

4.38.3: The distribution o f castles within the Liberty o f St Edmund

The first thing to note about the distribution of castles within the Liberty of St Edmund is that five castles are found along the Liberty’s eastern border, one on the northern, three on the western and two on the southern. This would suggest that the principal perceived threat lay to the east of the Liberty (Map 4.6). It would also seem to confirm the impression that the conflict with Hugh Bigod from c.l 144, by far the longest and most serious, led to the creation of many more castles than any other that rebels St Edmund’s Abbey had to contend with c.l 135-54.

This interpretation would seem to be confirmed by the way these new castles would appear to complement the existing two royalist castles east of the Liberty, at Eye and Haughley. It is argued here that they were established in order to provide a second line of defence against Hugh Bigod behind those royal fortifications.

In addition, all the castles built in the Liberty would appear to be located to protect the eighteen core settlements in the immediate vicinity of Bury St Edmunds (Appendix 14.0, Map 4.7).

These settlements were among the most valuable properties that the Abbey possessed in 1086.

Given the Abbot’s extraordinary powers within the Liberty, these settlements were those where the Abbey’s control was effectively absolute.

This evidence strongly suggests that within the Liberty of St Edmund castle building occurred as part of a deliberate and conscious strategy by the Abbey, with the aim of protecting these core vills. Therefore, the Abbey of St Edmund’s, given the Abbot’s viceroyship, must be seen as an important agent in the construction of almost a third of all Suffolk castles and was also probably responsible for licensing castles within the Liberty. However, just as the Abbey sought to exclude rival religious institutions and baronies, it also sought to exclude baronial castles from the Liberty and those baronial families that did construct castles were drawn into a feudal relationship with the Abbey through the Knights of St Edmund.

Castle building within the Liberty reached its peak during mid-12*‘'-century at the time of the civil wars of King Stephen’s reign, specifically as part of the campaigns against the rebellious Bishop Nigel o f Ely c.l 138-40, Geoffrey II de Mandeville c.l 140-4 and Hugh Bigod c.l 141-

1153 (Keats-Rohan 2002: 828-9; 566-7; 175-6). However, due to a lack of historical

documentation or detailed archaeological dating it is unclear how many of these were actually constructed during the conflict itself.

Most of the castles in the Liberty were sub-baronial, either secondary castles of existing baronies or constructed by those who aspired to baronial status, rather than as independent lordship centres. They are deployed in such a manner to suggest that their function was to both prevent and facilitate raiding, the dominant form of medieval warfare, as well as to protect the Liberty and Abbey of St Edmund.

4,38.4: Castle building in the Liberty after 1200

Only one ‘new’ castle was constructed within the Liberty after 1200 and that was the rebuilding o f Lindsey castle by Thomas de Burgh c.l 204, this happen in most unusual circumstances that explains why King John rather than the Abbot of St Edmund’s Abbey licensed the castle (Appendix 1.19). It is possible, given the important role that both Adam I and Robert de Cockfield performed as an agent of the Abbey that the de Cockfield family kept their castle at Lindsey after the civil war (Appendix 16.7).

Therefore, only Lindsey, Clare and Lidgate castles are evidenced as continuing to function as castles beyond 1200, based on documentary sources and the evidence of surviving standing archaeology. All of these castles had existed prior to 1135 and were thus not destroyed when Henry II later ordered all castles built since the death of Henry I to be slighted. Furthermore, it

must be noted that all these castles were held by members of the Knights of St Edmund or, in two cases, by officials of the Abbey who were also Knights of St Edmund.

It has been argued that the Abbey o f St Edmund controlled castle-building agents by entering into a feudal relationship with them and that the Abbey was responsible for the strategic castle- building that occurred within the Liberty of St Edmund. O f the eleven castles constructed within the Liberty, seven or possibly eight, representing 63% to 72%, were constructed by the Knights of St Edmund. Furthermore, o f the eleven castles constructed within the Liberty only two can be positively identified as baronial lordship centres. Thus all the other castles were sub-baronial. In addition, only three o f the eleven castles appear to have continued in use as castles after the war, and all of them were probably in existence before 1135. Finally, no new castle was constructed within the Liberty after 1200; only pre-existing castles, such as Clare, Lidgate and Lindsey, show evidence of being up-graded in the 13* century, and therefore implying their continued use (Appendices 1.5; 18 & 19).

4.39: Conclusions

This chapter has attempted to explore the central - cultural, structural and societal - level of Braudel’s Annales model relevant to castle-building in Suffolk and done so by examining the Cult, Abbey and Knights o f St Edmund.

4.39.1: Cultural evidence

a. The Benedictine community at Bury St Edmunds took the pre-existing hagiography of St Edmund and developed it from the late 11* century onwards. In doing so it

emphasised an important medieval mentalité that saints could and did actively intervene in the world, and attributed to St Edmund a new revenge topos. This revenge topos continued to expand throughout the 12* century, evidenced by a growing frequency of revenge stories, a wider social range of victims and an expanding focus of the saint’s righteous anger, from East Anglia to what I have called an ‘intercontinental strike- capacity’. The introduction of the revenge topos occurs precisely at the same time as the abbey is expanding physically and seeking to establish its ecclesiastical autonomy and this is contemporaneously with castle building in Suffolk.

b. Late Anglo-Saxon Suffolk in 1066 had two or three Benedictine monastic foundations.

By 1200 thirty four new monastic communities had been established. Many of these were belonged to new religious orders, including most notably the Augustinians.

Furthermore, only nine, or 26%, of these were constructed at the agency of the county’s castle-building elite and of which only five, or 15%, were broadly contemporaneous with the foundation and/or operational life of castles in their immediate vicinity. It was argued that within the Liberty of St Edmund the Abbey o f St Edmund sort to restrict the number or size of these new religious communities. Moreover, that apart from urban and mainly baronial castles, there is no correlation between castles in Suffolk and new religious communities in their immediate vicinity. However, it is argued here that the period 1086 and 1200 saw the construction thirty four major new monastic foundation and the introduction of twenty seven new castles must have placed a huge demand on the limited timber-supply evidenced in Domesday Suffolk.

4.39.2: Structural evidence

The Abbot of St Edmund’s had before 1066 acquired a unique series of secular rights within the Liberty of St Edmund. The extraordinary, if not unique, concentration of power that the Abbot enjoyed gave the Abbey administrative, judicial and fiscal independence from the royal government of England. When combined with the overwhelming concentration of its property within the Liberty, it meant that the Abbey was both the principal landowner and represented the royal administration within the eight and half hundreds of the Liberty. However, the Abbey also sought to establish for itself an equally unique series of ecclesiastical exemptions from the English Church.

Between 1066 and 1200 it established ecclesiastical autonomy of the Abbey of St Edmund’s from the bishop of Norwich, the archbishop of Canterbury and the papal legate. The political and ecclesiastical autonomy that the Abbey enjoyed strengthened its control over the Liberty and is evidenced by the Abbey’s ability to limit the establishment of baronies, rival religious houses and castles within it.

4.39.3: Social evidence

a. The Abbot o f St Edmund’s possessed an effective military force in the form of the Knights o f St Edmund between 1066 and 1200. This organisation bound many of the barons, bannerets and knights in Suffolk in a feudal relationship under the personal control o f the Abbot. The Knights of St Edmund gave the Abbot a degree of social control over the new Anglo-Norman elite that constructed castles in Suffolk between

1066 and 1200. When the Abbot required castles to be constructed within the Liberty he was able to use the members of the Knights of St Edmund to build them to a strategic plan in order to protect the core settlements of St Edmund’s and the Abbey itself (Appendix 14.0). Furthermore, the Abbey could also enforce the destruction or

abandonment or conversion to a manorial role of these castle sites after the civil war of 1135 to 1154. In addition, the Abbey was able to prevent any further castle building within the Liberty after the rebuilding of Lindsey castle c.l 205. Finally, the Abbey of St Edmund was the indirect agent responsible for the construction of seven or eight castles within the Liberty and was therefore, indirectly responsible for the construction of at least a third o f all of Suffolk’s castles.

b. It was noted that, although the baronial dynasties demonstrated relative stability of membership, those o f a lower status had a relatively high turnover of membership, especially in the late 11* century. This pattern, it was suggested, probably parallels the experience of many o f the knights and bannerets of the larger feudal baronies within the county between 1086 and 1200, for which detailed documentary sources either never existed or have not survived, or were only recorded in 1166. The male line of the de Vere’s survived until 1702, the Clare’s until 1314 and the Bigod’s until 1306. It is argued here, that this is probably best explained by the advantage that the baronial dynasties had over non-baronial dynasties in producing a male heir, in a society dominated by o f patrilineal inheritance. The Baronage were able to maintain a larger kinship network o f male relatives or heirs because of their economic power, represented by their more extensive land holdings, and in turn a wider choice of possible partners, because of their social status (Hartung 1976; 607-622). It should also be noted that ecclesiastical lordships enjoyed an even greater advantage. They were not dependant on patrilineal inheritance and no legitimate heirs or heiresses were produced or required by ecclesiastical lordships. Consequently there was no sub-division of the lordship’s feudal assets to maintain male relatives, no dowries to be provided for daughters and no chance of the feudal lordship passing into another’s hands as a result of wardship (Walker 1976: 104-116). In short ecclesiastical lordships, like the Abbey of St Edmund, could continuously amass land, wealth, rights and privileges, unencumbered by the constraints operating upon the Anglo-Norman secular elite.

c. It has been argued that the Abbey of St Edmund constructed a three-fold defence system, based upon:

• The development of the myth of a vengeful saint.

• The unique political power of the Abbey represented by the Abbots viceroyship and underpinned by the military force of the feudal institution of the Knights of St Edmund.

• By exploiting its feudal relationship with local dynasties, the Abbey was able to constrain castle building within the Liberty and insured when castles were built they were located where they would be most useful to the Abbey.

It would seem reasonable to ask: did this defence system succeed? The only way we can test the success or otherwise o f this defence system is to note all the locations where conflict is

evidenced from historical sources, charters or archaeology (Map 2.6). From this map and the case made in Chapter 2.5.3.b, we can see that there are clear concentrations of evidence for conflict in Suffolk during the reign of King Stephen.

The majority of castles in the Liberty occur along its eastern side (Map 4.7). It has been argued that the distribution of castles in the Liberty suggests that Hugh I Bigod’s almost continuous conflict with King Stephen and his viceroy, the Abbot of St Edmund’s Abbey, from 1144 until

1153 best explains this distribution.

Only one hostile castle can be identified, from documentary sources, within the Liberty, namely Milden castle. Milden was constructed by Peter I de Melding, who held knights’ fees both from the Valognes family, as part of the honour of Bacton, and directly from the bishop of Norwich (Appendix 16.9.2). His castellan, ‘W. of Milden’, and another, the castellan ‘W. of Ambli’, whose castle has not been identified, attacked Groton and Semer during the civil war. Adam I de Cockfield was temporarily granted Semer and Groton, ‘because he had a castle close by, at Lindsey’ (Greenway and Sayers 1998: 122-3) and could defend Groton and Semer. It should be noted that Semer is also one of the 39 core settlements held by the Abbey of St Edmund’s (Appendix 14.0).

It is therefore possible to conclude that the defence system established by the Abbey was severely tested during the civil wars of Stephen’s reign. This saw the Abbot, as viceroy, in conflict with Nigel the bishop of Ely 1139-42, Geoffrey de Mandeville 1143-44 and Hugh Bigod 1136, 1140 and 1144-53. However, the Abbey’s defence system was ultimately

successful in protecting most of the thirty-nine core settlements (Appendix 14; Map 4.7), where it was the exclusive tenant-in-chief, and especially those eighteen in the immediate vicinity of the Abbey at Bury St Edmunds. Only one core settlement. Coney Weston, was alienated from the Abbey as a result of the civil war and two other in the Liberty at Semer and Groton were attacked. This led to the Abbey deploying an Abbey official and Knight of St Edmund, Adam de Cockfield, to the district as we shall see in chapter 5.2.

Therefore, it is possible to claim that the defensive structure that the Abbey of St Edmund’s created, including the hagiography of a psychotically vengeful saint, the extraordinary secular and ecclesiastical privileges, as well as the feudal, military, social and castle-building

association o f the Knights of St Edmund, effectively protected the Abbey and Liberty of St Edmund during the civil war o f King Stephen’s reign.

Chapter 5.0: The sample of surveyed Suffolk castle earthworks

5.1: Introduction

This chapter addresses the short-term or événement evidence of Braudel’s model using the case studies at Burgate, Groton and Milden castle earthworks. Three further surveys of Desning, Finningham and Great Fakenham earthworks were carried out and are in Appendices 15.1-3 (Map 5.1).

The three sites examined in detail in this chapter represent the most informative of the six sites surveyed and demonstrate the three different morphological forms demonstrated by Suffolk castles: ring-works, motte and tower and motte and bailey castles. The remaining three sites in the Appendices are used to further illustrate points identified in this and other chapters. The survey results will be discussed in chapter 6.

The selection o f these small castle earthworks aims to counter the bias of large stone-built castles, often the caput castles of major baronial lordship that traditionally have dominated castle studies. In addition, it seeks to test Eales’(1990: 49-78) and Coulson’s (1994b: 67-92) assumptions that small earth and timber castles were: 1. built in the immediate aftermath of the conquest; 2. not real castles but ‘fortlets’ built as ‘adulterine castles’ or ‘fieldworks’ during the civil wars of King Stephen’s reign 1135 to 1153. Therefore, the chapter discusses four themes for each castle site:

• the associated geological, hydrological and historic timber resources;

• the morphology, archaeology and historical evidence;

• the demographic and social context of each castle site;

• the agents of each castle’s construction, their lordship, status and dynasty.