The Battle of Evesham - 4th August 1265

 The Battle of Evesham

4th August 1265.

This was the second of the two major battles of what we now call the 2nd Baronial War or Earl Simon de Montfort's rebellion.  It is also the site of the biggest 13th century re-enactment event in Britain, for more information about that, see this post.

The lead up to the battle.

Earl Simon de Montfort had captured Henry III and his son Prince Edward at the Battle of Lewes in 1264 and governed England in the king's name for a year. He had even called Parliaments in June 1264 and January 1265, however, this did not end the conflict.

Part of the "Form of Peace" signed between Simon de Montfort's administration and King Henry and Lord Edward in January 1265. You can see more and a transcription on the National Archives webpages.

Earl Simon drew up the "Treaty of Pipton" which was signed by the then captive King Henry on 22nd June 1265.  It recognised Llywelyn, Prince of Gwynedd, as "Prince of Wales".  Llywelyn was attacking lands in the Welsh Marches, as he tried to extend his principality and this alliance caused many of de Montfort's Marcher-Lord followers to withdraw their support for him and his government.

Simon de Montfort's real troubles began when Lord Edward escaped from captivity in Hereford on 28th May 1265 (more on this in a future post). Edward was assisted by Roger Mortimer (a Marcher-Lord loyal to the Crown) and quickly met up with Gilbert de Clare (Earl of Gloucester), who had been one of de Montfort's strongest allies, William de Valence (Earl of Pembroke & King Henry's half-brother) and John de Warenne (Earl of Surrey).

Edward and de Clare raised a large army and intended to block Earl Simon's attempts to head eastwards across the River Severn. Edward rapidly took Worcester and advanced on Gloucester, where Royalist troops captured the town, although the castle held out, in mid-June. 

Unable to use the bridges over the Severn, Earl Simon marched south to Monmouth the Newport, aiming to cross to Bristol by ship. After a Royalist night raid by sea destroyed his fleet, de Montfort returned to Hereford. 

De Montfort's son, Simon (the younger), was advancing slowly west from London, first to Winchester, then to Oxford and on to Northampton. At the end of July. he paused briefly at Kenilworth intending to head south towards Worcester to join his father's forces.

Lord Edward was at Worcester and about to be caught in a pincer movement by Simon the younger advancing east from Kenilworth, and his father coming north from Hereford. 

Edward sent  a mounted force in the direction of Shrewsbury to make the Montfortians think he was withdrawing north. In fact, his spy network had informed him where young Simon's army was and that more than half of it was billeted in Kenilworth village rather than safely ensconced in the large castle. By doing a forced march overnight, with some of his infantry in carts to make more speed, Edward's men reached Kenilworth at dawn on 2nd August. 

Kenilworth castle today.

According to writers at the time, many of the Montfortian knights had chosen to spend the night in the relative comfort of the village and ten to twenty of them were quickly captured including the Earl of Oxford. Many  unrecorded foot-soldiers were killed too.

Simon the younger escaped by boat across the castle's extensive water defences, some sources say he was clad only in his nightshirt. Part of his army was safe inside the castle as Edward's lightly equipped force had no way to attack the fortress.

Edward's victorious troops returned to Worcester, where he learnt that Earl Simon had finally crossed the Severn near Kempsey and was moving towards Evesham.

 

The battle.

Edward prepared to deal with de Montfort who was now once more on the east bank of the Severn and who, by the morning of 4 August, had reached Evesham.

The Old Version.

(largely based upon the chronicle of William Rishanger, a Benedictine monk at St. Albans., who wrote his account of the battle many years after it had happened).

Needing to rest his road-weary troops, de Montfort spent the night of August 3rd at the Abbey in Evesham. His lookouts on the Abbey tower are said to have seen Lord Edward’s force approaching under the banners of de Montfort’s son, Simon the younger (which they had captured at Kenilworth), giving the baronial force false hope. This was dashed as the royal army took up positions on the ridge of Green Hill, just north of Evesham with Lord Edward on the left, and Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester on the right. 

Roger Mortimer led his men to the east and crossed the river coming back towards Evesham and blocking de Montfort’s route of retreat over the bridge near the Abbey.

Rishanger says that the baronial forces, numbering approximately 8,000 (5,000 of which were Welsh infantry) men, wore white crosses on their clothing whilst the Royalists, with around 10,000 men, wore red ones.

Around 8.00am, Simon de Montfort moved his troops north to prepare for battle just as a great thunderstorm started. De Montfort, realising how heavily out numbered he was, tried a charge to break through the royalist forces. He was probably hoping then hea2d north to meet up with his son, Simon the younger’s men that he thought were coming south from Kenilworth (see above)  to his aid. His charge was unsuccessful and the royalist forces swung in on his flanks and surrounded him. His Welsh soldiers fled and were massacred down by the river by the Marcher troops of Roger Mortimer.

Simon de Montfort's eldest son Henry was killed first, then Simon was dismounted and died fighting on foot. His body was mutilated; his head, hands, feet and testicles cut off. 

King Henry himself, who had been a prisoner of de Montfort since the Battle of Lewes in May the year before, was barely rescued from the mêlée by Roger de Leybourne, allegedly Henry had thrown off his helmet and was shouting “I am Harry of Winchester, your King; do not kill me!” 

 

The New Version.

A new source, written in Norman French was found on the back of the roll which is now College of Arms, MS 3/23 B. (see Olivier de Laborderie et al. below). It appears to be an eyewitness account of the battle and its details give a different story to the one above.

Map of the battle from the Visit Evesham web site

In this version, now widely accepted as a more accurate account, Mortimer’s section of the royalist army did not block the bridge but formed on Green Hill as the right flank, with Lord Edward in the centre and de Clare on the left flank. 

It is thought Edward may have deliberately left the bridge clear initially as he believed that a bottled up enemy force with no avenue of escape would fight harder than one where men could flee away if routed. Another possibility is that he did send a small force over the ford to swing round and block the bridge but it had not arrived there by the time of the battle but reached the bridge in time to catch many of the fleeing Montfortians, especially the Welsh infantry.

This new source mentions that de Montfort's banner bearer, Guy de Balliol, shattered his lance (considered a bad omen by Earl Simon) on the abbey gate riding out to fight and that de Montfort told many of his knights to think of their wives and families and leave, which they refused to do. It also mentions that Edward and de Clare knighted several of their followers immediately before the battle.

The battle more or less followed the same  format as above apart from de Montfort seems to have charged straight into Edward's section of the royalist army.

Unlike the Battle of Lewes the previous year, the traditional custom of capturing enemy knights for ransom was disregarded. At Evesham, it would seem, Edward was determined that no quarter was to be given and the Montfortian knights were to be killed. Edward had selected twelve of his strongest and most able men-at-arms to seek out and kill Simon de Montfort. It was said that it was Roger de Mortimer who finally killed him. This does make more sense if Mortimer is in the main battle and not at the bridge.

 

The Immediate Aftermath.

Lord Edward’s victorious soldier chased the remaining baronial troops down into Evesham killing most of them and sacking the town and the Abbey.

Whichever version of the battle you prefer, we do know that the death toll was light for the Royalists and very heavy for de Montfort’s men as another chronicler, Robert of Gloucester , (again writing some years after the battle) described it as "a murder of Evesham for battle it was none."

It has been said that of the hundred and sixty knights who accompanied Earl Simon on the field, only twelve survived.  This must be taken with a pinch of salt as all the surviving lists from the period only seem to record around thirty dead knights and six or so captured. Of course, we do not know the casualty figures for the poor common soldiery but it is though that over 80% of the Montfortian soldiers were slaughtered either in the battle or as they were trying to escape in the rout afterwards.

 

Simon's remains and the bodies of his son Henry and that of Hugh le Despenser were carried away by the monks and buried near the High Altar of the Abbey.

Soon after this stories of miracles began to circulate and many people made pilgrimages to the Abbey and to the Battle Well- said to be a source of healing.

 

Sources for this article:

Olivier de Laborderie, J. R. Maddicott and D. A. Carpenter, ‘The Last Hours of Simon de Montfort: A New Account’, English Historical Review 115 (2000), 378-412. 

Dr David Carpenter. "The Battles of Lewes & Evesham 1264/65". British Battlefields Series, Mercian Publications Limited (1987).

 Dvid Pilling. "Rebellion Against Henry III- The Disinherited Montfortians". Pen & Sword (2020).

 

 

 

Medieval Games - Gwyddbwyll, a Welsh board game

Medieval Games

Gwyddbwyll

a Welsh board game 

 

My Gwyddbwyll / ludus latrunculorum ("game of robbers") board. This game is known to have still been played in post-Roman Wales, I have yet to make some new coned-shaped playing pieces (see below) for medieval use.

Gwyddbwyll in Old Welsh is an ancient Celtic board game also called fidchell in Old Irish.  It was played with two sides of an equal number of pieces. 

What little evidence there is suggests that it may have its origins in the Roman game ludus latrunculorum ("game of robbers"). This game is known to have still been played in post-Roman Britain and so was well-known in early medieval Wales.  

From irish literary sources, we know that in fidchell/gwyddbwyll  opposing pieces were taken by bracketing two men around one enemy man on the same line. The same sources indicate that the pieces were usually cone shaped.

A gwyddbwyll board is mentioned in several medieval Welsh tales and in this 12th century version of the Arthurian story, Peredur son of Efrawg:

"Peredur came to the castle, and the castle gate was open. And when he reached the hall the door was open, and when he went inside he saw a gaming board in the hall, and either of the two sets of pieces was playing against the other, and the one to which he gave his help began to lose the game. And the other side gave a shout, just as if they had been men. Then he grew angry and took the set of pieces on his lap and threw the board in the lake."

Unfortunately we have no surviving gwyddbwyll boards from the medieval period or indeed any rules, so when I play I use the board and one of the various sets of rules of ludus latrunculorum to at least show that the Welsh and the Marchers would have played a board game other than chess. 

Rules:

There are many versions of the rules out there, these are the ones that we play:

The game is played on a board of 13 x 8 squares .Roman boards found are mainly 12 or 13 x 8 but boards of 10 x 8 and sometimes 8 x 8 are found.  The, possibly pre-Roman invasion, game board found in a “Celtic” grave near Colchester had a 12 x 8 board.

A player’s pieces are placed in the row nearest to them

The players decide who gets the first turn – we toss a coin or something.

Players move only one piece in their turn, and they move orthogonally, i.e. in a straight line horizontally or vertically and NOT diagonally. They can move as far along that line as there are empty spaces.

Pieces can’t land on, go through, or jump over, another piece whether it is their own side or their opponent’s piece..

You capture your opponent’s pieces by moving to get them between two of your pieces, in a straight line horizontally or vertically.  A piece in a corner is captured if the opponent places his men on the two squares adjacent to the corner.

The captured piece is then removed.

If a moving piece gets two opposing pieces between it and another of its side’s pieces, then both are all captured. Three or more opposing pieces can’t be taken this way.

In your turn, you may move a piece to a square between two opposing pieces without it being taken.

If a player only has one piece left, they have lost. You can also lose if you are unable to move any of your pieces.

The game often ends in an annoying stand-off with the players just chasing each other’s pieces around the board without success.  At this point, have another drink and throw the board in a nearby lake like Peredur, son of Efrawg.

 

The Dux variations:

If playing with a “Dux” (the taller piece to the front of the lines in the picture above) there are some extra rules.

The dux usually moves the same way as ordinary pieces but in one variation, the Dux can jump over one piece and continue its move. This makes it very powerful and completely changes the nature of the game so think before you decide to use this rule option.

The dux cannot be captured.

If the Dux is unable to move, even though their other pieces can move, that player loses immediately.

 

The Treaty of Pipton, signed 19th June 1265

 The Treaty of Pipton 

signed 19th June 1265.

The coat of arms of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd and Earl Simon de Montfort.

The treaty of Pipton was drawn up by Earl Simon de Montfort and Llywelyn, Prince of Gwynedd, and was signed by the then captive King Henry on 22nd June 1265. It is named after Pipton-on-Wye in the middle Welsh Marches where it was signed.

What did the Treaty agree?
It officially recognised Llywelyn as 'Prince of Wales' and his lordship over the magnates within his lands. It gave Llywelyn rightful possession of all the land he and his allied forces had recently conquered in Wales and the Marches.

All the lands and castles that had been taken from him or from Dafydd ap Llywelyn were to be restored in full.

The treaty also promised to had over three castles and their lands on the English border to the Welsh. These were at Hawarden, Whittington and Painscastle, all of great strategic importance in the protecting of Llywelyn's western border.

In return for these sizable gains in territory and status, Llywelyn was to pay the King of England 30,000 marks (£20,000) over the next ten years. A huge sum of money!

There were rumours at the time that Earl Simon had also agreed to the marriage of his daughter, Eleanor, to Llywelyn. The marriage did actually take place in October 1278, but not until after it had triggered the Welsh War of 1276-7.

Llywelyn also mustered an army of 5,000 infantry at Pipton, which was sent into England to help de Montfort at the Battle of Evesham.

The political shrewdness of Llywelyn can be seen in the clause that he added regarding any defaulting on the obligations of the treaty by the English King. If this happened or the King died and his successor did not ratify the treaty, all of Llywelyn's obligations were to be cancelled. This proved a most wise addition to the treaty as within six weeks, Simon de Montfort was dead and King Henry had abandoned the treaty which he had signed under duress

What did the treaty achieve?

For Llywelyn, this treaty finally recognised his status as the primary ruler in Wales although he still had to pay homage to the King of England. Of course, there were many Lords in other Welsh territories which would still dispute his title of Prince of Wales, especially the Lords of Powys in mid-Wales and Deheubarth in south-west Wales.

For de Montfort, it gave him an ally in Wales whose military actions would tie down at least some of the forces of the Marcher-Lords who were now increasing supporting Lord Edward and the Royalists. In many ways this back-fired and drove more Marchers into the Royalist camp.

Even though King Henry negated the treaty after the Battle of Evesham, an only slightly watered down version was agreed as the "Treaty of Montgomery" signed on 25th September 1267 (more to come about this treaty in  future post).

Medieval Music - Martin Best Medieval Ensemble

 Medieval Music

 Martin Best Medieval Ensemble.

The Martin Best Medieval Ensemble recorded great interpretations of the surviving works of some of the greatest 12^th and 13^th century troubadours and trouveres.

Martin Best is my favourite performer of medieval music. He has a fine voice and it is obvious that he enjoys singing the songs.  The musical accompaniment is really good, I especially like some of the complex percussion.

The albums, The Last of the Troubadours & The Dante Troubadours, came out just as I started doing 13^th century re-enactment in 1983 and even now listening to them brings back memories of hand sewing kit wrapped up in a duvet in a freezing cold bedsit.

 

Discography – from Wikipedia  (I have edited out the non-medieval ones)

The albums in bold are still easy to get, you may have to hunt for the others.

 
1978. Martin Best: The Dawn of Romance, LP. Songs and music of the early troubadours of Provence.

 

The original vinyl LP cover.

it just happens to be a good photo of my favourite castle at Goodrich, a few miles from where I grew up.

1982 - Martin Best Medieval Ensemble: The Last of the Troubadours – The Art & Times of Guiraut Riquier, LP. Later reissued in the 1999 CD box Music from the Age of Chivalry. French ballads

1983 - Martin Best Medieval Ensemble: The Dante Troubadours, LP then CD. Later reissued in the 1999 CD box Music from the Age of Chivalry. French ballads by Bertran de Born, Guiraut de Bornelh, and others

1983. Martin Best Medieval Ensemble: Songs of Chivalry, LP? Also in the 1999 CD box Music from the Age of Chivalry. French ballads by Thibaut de Navarre etc

1984. Martin Best Medieval Ensemble: Cantigas of Santa Maria of Alfonso X El Sabio, LP? Also in the 1999 CD box Music from the Age of Chivalry. Songs from Cantigas de Santa Maria

1987. Martin Best: The Testament of Tristan, LP/CD. Songs of Bernart de Ventadorn

1988. Martin Best Medieval Ensemble: Thys Yool – A Medieval Christmas

1994. Martin Best Medieval Ensemble: Forgotten Provence – Music-making in the South of France, 1150–1550, CD.

1996. Martin Best Consort: Amor de Lonh – The Distant Love of the Troubadours, CD. Also in the 1999 CD box Music from the Age of Chivalry


You can find their work on Spotify here and here and a search on Youtube will provide a couple of the albums and several individual tracks.

A Knights-Hospitaller holding at Castle Hill, Beaumont Leys near Leicester.

 A Knights-Hospitaller holding at Castle Hill, Beaumont Leys near Leicester.

 

 

Reconstruction of Castle Hill as it may have looked in the early 14th century. Image: Leicester City Council.

On 10^th June, I went to the open day at the Castle Hill dig being done by the archaeological fieldschool for students from the University of Leicester’s School of Archaeology and Ancient History (SAAH) and volunteers from the local community.  It is the third season of excavation and is uncovering more of the buildings on the site.

 The walls (one by the yellow buckets & one obvious in the centre of the picture) in this part of the trench  are very insubstantial for medieval work and are likely to be just sills for supportig a pentice over a walkway to a cobbled yard in the top left.

 Last year's dig area is under this spoil heap.

Beaumont was a part of the manor of Thurcaston before Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, gave it to the Knights Hospitaller in the mid-13th century.  Whilst the site was owned by them, it seems that there were no actual members of the Order living there. It was probably run by a bailiff and wood keeper under the oversight of the Hospitallers’ preceptory at Old Dalby about 12 miles (20km) to the north-west.  Even at Old Dalby, there were only the preceptor and one other brother of the Order there, along with the vicar of Dalby who also lived in the preceptory and acted as chaplain.

In 1338, Beaumont was listed as having a house and orchards with surrounding arable and pasture land totalling approximately 960 acres (roughly 400 Ha).  A fishpond on the site is also mentioned in the 14th century. In 1482 when they swapped Beaumont with King Edward IV for the more profitable rectory of St. Botolph at Boston in Lincolnshire. Edward IV converted the estate into a deer park and by the mid-16th century it had become pasture.

From the 1890s to 1960s, the site was part of a sewage treatment works  but is now in the Castle Hill Country Park.

Chatting to my ex-boss, community archaeologist Peter Liddle, I found out more about the possible story of the site in the 13th and early 14th centuries. The enclosure of the site is very large with the roughly rectangular ditch and bank being about 170 metres by 100 metres, however, there is only a small collection of buildings within the boundary.  It certainly looks like the Hospitallers had grand plans for this location.

 

The trenches in the upper left quarter of the picture are where the buildings have been found. Image from the ULAS website.

Move on a few decades and it would seem that once the Knights Hospitaller had acquired the well established  Knights Templar priory at Rothley after the demise of the Templars in the early 14th century, their manor at Beaumont became of less importance.  This might be why the building complex at the site was not extensive considering the size of enclosure and, from the archaeological evidence, largely consisted of timber structures on stone sills.  There may have been at least one substantial building present as a few pieces of Dane Hills sandstone (the Leicester area choice for fancier stonework) have been found during the digs and the current excavation has found the first architecturally shaped stonework, see below.

The decorative stonework and one of the many green-glazed ridge tiles found.

 

Proof that someone was living, or at least cooking on site in the mid- to late 13th century. A soot-blackened pot made at Potters Marston in south Leicestershire.

The prize find of this year's dig - a 13th century copper alloy belt buckle. (Fingers for scale)

Much of the information above is from the Victoria County History of Leicestershire: Volume 2,  the University of Leicester Archaeological Services (ULAS) and the self-led guided walk (see below).  Further information on the site and the past two years’ work can found on this page of the University of Leicester Archaeological Services web site.

If you want to visit the site (it is in an urban fringe park) yourself, there is a very informative online self-led tour and a link to a printable version of the tour on this web page.

Book Review - Battle Song by Ian Ross.

 Battle Song.

I have read and enjoyed Ian Ross's "Twilight of Empire" series of novels set in the late Roman period and even appeared on one of the early book covers as it is one of my other periods of reenactment.  This book is the first of a new trilogy set in the mid-Thirteenth century during the years around the rebellion of Simon de Montfort. 

New gear - A 13th century purse / money belt.

  A 13th century purse / money belt.

I need a new purse as part of my upgrade for my re-enactment kit and this post by Alex Barnes in the Medieval Makers group on Facebook gave me the inspiration to try something a little different from the usual pouch.

The source illustration below is from a good English 13th century source, Corpus Christi College, MS 016II - Matthew Paris OSB, Chronica maiora II (part 2). The purse / money belt I made is on the right.

 

Made out of a long piece of scrap linen, the money belt fits around my somewhat expansive waist and the cord ties through the button holes to secure it in place.

The two brass rings slide down the belt to seal the ends, which hold the money, from the gap in the middle, a slight twist in the middle helps close the gap up a bit too.

This design is very similar to the larger 18th century "market wallets" which were commonly used as the period equivalent to a shopping bag. The bag being twisted at the middle gap to shut it and carried folded over the shoulder. I have seen these larger bags mentioned by Scandinavian 12th/13th century re-enactors but have yet to find a reference source for England.