• Home
• Project Information
• Fine Rolls
• Style Book
• Commentary
  • Introduction to Reign
  • Introduction to Rolls
  • Originalia Rolls
  • Technical Introduction
  • Heads and Headings
• News
• Help
• Fine of the Month
• Book Publication
• Blog
• Conference
• Podcasts
• Related Papers

1. Prosopography in the Field of Crusader Studies and the Fine Rolls of the Reign of Henry III as a Source for the Fifth Crusade

One aspect of the outreach achieved by the Henry III Fine Rolls Project is the wide use of the rolls by students on MA courses in Medieval Studies. The Fine of the Month for October is an example of such work. It is by Josey Cullen who has just completed the MA in Crusader Studies from Royal Holloway, University of London and Queen Mary, University of London. His article includes an appendix of entries concerning those who took the Cross for the Fifth Crusade (1213–1221), and it demonstrates the value of the search facility.

⁋1Writing in 1971, Lawrence Stone described prosopography as ‘the investigation of the common background characteristics of a group of actors in history by means of a collective study of their lives’. ¹ He went on to argue that the principle purpose of this approach is to ‘analyse with precision the structure of society’. ² The basic premise of prosopography for Stone, then, was to find out everything possible about as many individuals as one could, and to use this information to draw conclusions about society. Researchers using prosopographical techniques seek to find details of individuals’ births, deaths, marriages, education, occupations, religious convictions, relationships to one another and so on, in the hope of understanding the workings of the societal institutions to which they belonged. ³ An example provided by Stone was the identification of ties between the leaders of the parliamentary opposition to Charles I in the late 1630’s and early 1640’s, as a way of learning more about the origins of the English civil war. ⁴ Prosopography allows historians looking at any period to learn a great deal, provided there is enough source material to give them a representative picture of a group of individuals’ lives. At the very least, they must be able to identify the shortcomings of the information collected, should it be flawed in some way, and make allowances for this in their arguments. The problem for historians of the Crusades, however, lies not only in the nature of the information available, but also in the fact that the Crusades cannot be seen as societies in the way that Stone described. Indeed, there is not even a consensus amongst historians of the subject as to what can accurately be described as a crusade. ⁵ This may be the reason why relatively few works on the expeditions themselves make use of prosopographical techniques. Another difficulty for historians attempting to present accurate pictures of individual crusades is that the crusaders involved nearly always came from disparate regions and societies, making the practical work of identifying them much more laborious than for more regionally centred groups.

⁋2Historians are eager to use examples of individuals’ behaviour in their arguments. However, despite these being drawn accurately from the source-base, without an in-depth look at every identifiable individual involved, their conclusions can sometimes fall somewhat flat. In 1953, Sir Maurice Powicke argued that crusading in the thirteenth century was so endemic to English society that men could simply not escape its influence. ⁶ While most crusades historians, by their nature, would agree emphatically with this assumption, without a wide-ranging look at all individuals within the society described, the statement remains an assumption. Alan Murray has argued that the basic role of prosopography with regards to crusader studies research is to establish the composition of individual expeditions. ⁷ Murray’s assertion here is valid. By employing prosopographical techniques, historians often come to new understandings of their subjects. This is the method’s most valuable feature. Two major English language monographs exist that use prosopographical techniques to examine individual crusades. Both based their conclusions on insights gained from the methods employed, and presented arguments the authors would not have advanced had different methodologies been used. ⁸ These two studies are outlined below. Prosopography is an extremely useful tool. However, the nature of the sources for medieval history makes a truly complete picture impossible. There is always the opportunity for adding further layers to our understanding and this essay aims to illustrate how the study of a newly emerged source – the fine rolls of the reign of Henry III – can add to our knowledge of specific areas and build on existing scholarship.

⁋3A key feature of Jonathan Riley-Smith’s work on the first crusaders was the lists contained in the appendix of his book. He split the names of every identifiable participant during the first thirty-six years of the movement into the categories of almost certain, probable and possible. ⁹ To arrive at this list, Riley-Smith made use of the strong tradition of narrative sources for the First Crusade and, crucially, the vast number of available charters from the period. Throughout the work Riley-Smith used this list to back up arguments featured in much of his previous work on the Crusades, including his stance that crusaders were distinct and identifiable individuals, and his view that early crusaders cannot have been motivated by the desire for wealth. ¹⁰ Most notably however, Riley-Smith’s research led him to the conviction that ties of lordship, and more importantly kinship, predisposed certain family groupings to respond to the early crusade calls. ¹¹ He argues that whether acting through fear or loyalty, an individual was more likely to take the cross if his or her lord had done the same. ¹² More important for Riley-Smith, though, was the support of an individual’s kinship group, and he gave examples of how ties of blood or marriage were crucial in someone’s decision to embark. To illustrate this he highlighted family groups from which two or more members participated in crusades. ¹³ He went on to present a case study of one crusading family, the Montlherys, and to describe what was for him, the crucial role they played in the early history of crusading. The Montlherys’ success, asserted Riley-Smith, came as a direct result of strong kinship bonds. ¹⁴

⁋4At times, Riley-Smith’s arguments can seem a little stretched and a counter-argument might be that considering the relatively small population of minor nobility that existed at the time of the First Crusade, having a family member involved was extremely likely whether kinship ties ran deep or not. Whether we are to believe Riley-Smith’s claims, however, is unimportant. The feature of the work to note in the context of this study is that the prosopographical method employed by the author allowed him to present an argument that, by his own admission, he would not otherwise have formed. ¹⁵

⁋5Unlike Riley-Smith’s chosen area of research, a relatively understudied expedition was the focus of James Powell’s prosopographical study: the Fifth Crusade. Containing a similarly thorough list to Riley-Smith’s, Powell’s monograph is a widely recognised work on the Fifth Crusade and very little has been written on the subject since. A feature of previous work on the Fifth Crusade was the belief that the lack of a single unifying leader led to internal Christian squabbling and the expedition’s eventual failure. ¹⁶ The leadership question was one of importance for Powell and testament to the level of his research is that he identifies two participating English earls that Christopher Tyerman neglected. ¹⁷ His technique, however, led him to a different conclusion than his predecessors. Through a detailed look at dates of arrival and departure, and mortality rates, Powell convincingly argued that it was the structural and manpower related issues facing the army, and the inevitable disputes that arose because of these, that were the chief problems facing the crusaders. He rejected the idea that individual personality clashes were to blame for the defeat, and presented a perceptive picture of an army, lacking in unity, whose leadership constantly struggled with high death rates and the influx of new, inexperienced troops. ¹⁸ Powell’s arguments were incisive and convincing, but what is of key importance here is that, like Riley-Smith, Powell was led down a new path by his prosopographical research; a path previously obscured from view.

⁋6No discussion of prosopographical study would be complete without mention of modern computer technology. Databases have allowed the collation and cross-referencing of information to become fast and efficient. Subjects where the sheer amount of data previously made study a daunting task are now accessible, and both Riley-Smith and Powell attributed their works largely to the flexibility allowed them by computers. ¹⁹ The discipline of medieval history is likely to continue evolving with the dawn of computer-assisted study. As sources become available on the internet, historical research itself is slowly changing. Crusades history has the opportunity to make great use of these advances, focusing as it does on the histories of many different countries. Within the field, prosopography is one area that has the potential to expand more than most.

⁋7As with any approach however, it is important to recognise the potential weaknesses of prosopography. Firstly, there is a tendency for distortion in favour of elite groups, as they usually left the most evidence behind. Trying to get at the motivations and emotions of the unrecorded masses on crusade is a problem that has beset the field since its inception. The nature of the narrative sources means that individuals deemed to have been below a certain status by the writer are not mentioned by name and are therefore unidentifiable. As Murray pointed out, whether through necessity or design, these writers were also heavily biased in favour of people from their own region. ²⁰ While charters do offer a wider view as inclusion was less dependent on status, a certain level of wealth was still required to feature. Another issue with crusade charter evidence is one of regional survival; if twice as many survive from France than England, it is easy to assume that twice as many individuals took part. Historians must be careful to guard against such pitfalls when extrapolating conclusions. Accurate identification is a necessity of prosopography and here we encounter another problem. Personal names in the sources often changed in translation and differed in their Latin and vernacular forms causing difficulties for historians centuries later. ²¹ Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of prosopographical research is the empirical nature of its results. As the collation and effective manipulation of numbers of individuals is the purpose of prosopography, there is a very real danger that the breadth and range of human experience will go neglected. This point is insightfully recognised by Stone. ²² Looking at individuals with reference to their shared experience on crusade is important, but it is equally important to understand those individuals’ relationships with the wider world. The broad nature of crusader studies has meant that the scope of any monograph is limited to peoples’ actions with regards to crusading. What is important to understand is that being a crusader formed only one aspect of an individual’s identity. A large aspect maybe, but singular nonetheless.

⁋8Powell’s work represents the current pinnacle of research on the Fifth Crusade. However, as with all prosopographical study, it is open to reassessment as new sources become available. At the time of writing, the ‘Calendar of the Fine Rolls of the Reign of Henry III’ is still in the process of being published. The first three volumes now exist in translated, printed form but the entire series is available on the internet, making this a most accessible resource. John Moore remarked upon the importance of the translation of the fine rolls in his review of the first volume. ²³ With a history stretching back to at least 1170, the fine rolls had a distinctive function within the rapidly expanding bureaucracy of English government. They recorded offers of money to the king in return for favours or concessions. The fine itself was the agreement to pay the treasury the specified amount. Our ability to date each entry comes from the practice of noting the date of the letter sent to the county sheriff with the order to take payment of the fine on the king’s behalf. ²⁴ David Carpenter’s informative introduction to the translated rolls placed them within their historical framework. Most notable in the context of this essay, was the growth of the inclusion in the rolls of information unrelated to fines, but useful to the exchequer nonetheless. Also discussed were the rolls’ essential connection to any study of government, society and the shockwaves that reverberated throughout England with the implementation of Magna Carta. ²⁵ Powell did not make use of the fine rolls and it is therefore important that an examination of their contents is made with reference to English participation in the Fifth Crusade, especially as so many of the English individuals on Powell’s list feature at some point in the rolls. While it is not the intention here to counter any of Powell’s arguments, the nature of prosopographical research means that any new source must be analysed with reference to all individuals mentioned, in the hope that more can be learnt about the subject as a whole. Nor can we hope to make broad conclusions from looking at one source in isolation. However, by using the fine rolls with reference to the Fifth Crusade as an example, the next section will highlight how new sources can help further our understanding of crusades history.

⁋9In 1213, Pope Innocent III proclaimed the Fifth Crusade in a letter sent out across Christendom. ²⁶ Two and a half years later, at the Fourth Lateran Council, he legislated further, setting in motion the train of events that would eventually become what we now call the Fifth Crusade. ²⁷ Powell identified 112 individuals from England who took crusade vows, eighty-nine of whom are known to have set out for the east. ²⁸ Four individuals were mentioned with direct reference to pilgrimages towards Jerusalem in the fine rolls during the period of the Fifth Crusade: the earl of Winchester, Alard le Fleming, William of Torrington and Henry de Scalariis. ²⁹ Three of these individuals appear on Powell’s list. William of Torrington however, does not. The entry concerned is included here in full as an example.

⁋10‘30 July [1221]. Westminster. Devon. Order to the sheriff of Devon to place in respite the demand that he makes by summons of the Exchequer from William of Torrington, who has set out on pilgrimage towards Jerusalem, for the debts he owes the king, until the king is certain of his death or until his return from pilgrimage. Witness H. [Hubert de Burgh] etc. By the same.’ ³⁰

⁋11It is possible that William featured on Powell’s list but by a different name. However, of the thirteen English individuals named William identified by Powell, three are earls and so would have been described as such, and none are listed as being from Devon. ³¹ It is also possible that William was actually going on an unarmed pilgrimage to the city of Jerusalem, although the similarity of the entry to those referring to individuals who were on the crusade is striking. Already then, we have added a potential name to Powell’s original list and advanced our understanding of the Fifth Crusade, perhaps most notably so, with evidence that the crusade was seen as a pilgrimage towards Jerusalem, as opposed to a military expedition to Egypt, by whoever recorded these fines. The entry concerning Alard le Fleming is also worth examining more closely. The entry refers to Alard dying in Jerusalem, offering a possible insight into what the crusaders did after the unsuccessful campaign in Egypt. ³² In Powell’s list, Alard simply ‘did not return’. ³³ It is important to reiterate that, as stand-alone pieces of evidence, these entries should not be used to draw firm conclusions. However, while they must be corroborated and cross-referenced with other sources, in terms of prosopographical research, they are important. Prosopography seeks to collect every relevant piece of information together, and above are just two examples of how the fine rolls provide such information.

⁋12All historians of the Fifth Crusade agree that the leadership question was a central issue. No less than seven English earls as well as many individuals who held important posts, or were from important families, featured on Powell’s list. ³⁴ While Powell argued that personality clashes amongst prominent crusaders were not a major cause of the crusade’s problems, Christopher Tyerman alluded to the significance of this group’s politically disparate nature. ³⁵ It is important that an understanding of exactly who these individuals were is reached, especially as only two of them were mentioned in arguably our most important Christian account of the Fifth Crusade. ³⁶ To do so is to ascertain a more comprehensive understanding of what happened during the crusade and why. The fine rolls go some way towards doing this. Through them we can hope to ascertain the levels of wealth, personal relationships and financial dealings of these men.

⁋13This leads us to one of Powell’s major conclusions based on the prosopographical material he collected; that structural problems and deficiencies of manpower were central to the failure of the crusade. Powell used detailed analysis of arrival and departure dates, as well as mortality rates, and illustrated his argument with graphs and tables. ³⁷ The fine rolls provide further details as to when English individuals arrived in, and departed from, Egypt. In June 1219, Robert of Carlisle was exacting a debt from a man named Adam of Tynedale, which suggests that he was in England at this time. ³⁸ While Powell’s entry states that Robert arrived in the east in 1218, he could not ascertain if and when Robert returned. ³⁹

⁋14Another individual whose return date from Egypt is unclear from Powell is William de Ferrers, earl of Derby. William had arrived there in 1218, and in March 1219 a case was heard against William’s bailiffs, indicating that the earl himself was still in the East. ⁴⁰ By June 1221, however, William was back in England, evidenced by the fact that he ‘had undertaken to come to the Exchequer’. ⁴¹ Being an earl, William would have had a say in the tactical decisions facing the crusading army and his retinue would have been considerable. The information provided by the rolls for the date of his return is therefore of great significance to Powell’s argument. Dates of mortality can also be gleaned from the fine rolls. In January 1219, after making a payment to the king, three men were given leave to execute the testament of Enjuger de Bohun, who departed for the East in 1218, and sell a wood that had been on his land. ⁴² Thomas Despenser, who Powell was unable to give dates for either arrival or departure in Egypt, was dead by October 1218. His brother and heir was recorded as owing the king money; a debt that was previously Thomas’. ⁴³

⁋15In order to appreciate fully the make-up, nature and drivers of any crusader force, an understanding is needed of the participants’ relationships with their secular rulers. Henry III was still in his minority during the Fifth Crusade, but the fine rolls provide us with examples of individuals’ dealings with the English crown as an institution. Robert fitz Walter had returned from Egypt by 1222. ⁴⁴ Years later, in March 1228, Henry gave Richard of Chilham the money to wage a duel with Robert, a duel Robert appears to have lost. ⁴⁵ In November 1229, Robert was ordered to answer at the exchequer for the scutage from knights’ fees for the army of Kerry. ⁴⁶ Another man who took part in the Fifth Crusade was Henry fitz Count. ⁴⁷ In September 1218, he was in trouble with the crown. The sheriff of Devon was despatched with three knights to make sure Henry rendered his Cornish stannaries and lands to the king as well as the scutage he had promised. ⁴⁸ The picture painted by the fine rolls for some individuals, then, is not one of a favourable relationship with the crown. In contrast, William de Ferrers, already mentioned above, was described as the king’s ‘beloved and faithful’ when summoned to the exchequer in June 1221. ⁴⁹ The same words were used to describe William when, in October 1225, he was pardoned for several fines, including one for the unlicensed felling of 160 oak trees. ⁵⁰ Another crusader, Richard de Argentan was described similarly in June 1227. ⁵¹ None of these entries related directly to crusading. However, the relationship an individual had with his or her monarch could potentially play a part in their actions on crusade; the length of time they stayed and the tenacity with which they pursued their goals, spiritual or otherwise. It is only through an understanding of these subtle influences on crusaders’ minds that a truly clear picture will emerge.

⁋16An understudied area of crusader history is the emotional effect a crusade had on its participants and the relationships people built up with one another while engaged on what could be an extremely traumatic experience. Part of the reason for this is that emotional states can be extremely difficult to extrapolate from sources. The fine rolls, at first glance, do not offer an emotional picture of the individuals who went on the Fifth Crusade. What they can offer us, however, are examples of how they supported and were involved with each other financially. Geoffrey de Say was a pledge for the wife of Richard of Chilham after his duel with Robert fitz Walter, indicating he was no friend of Robert’s. ⁵² In July 1228, the abbot of Dieulacres gave the king 700 marks ‘for having all the land of Rossall with all its appurtenances’. The list of the abbot’s financial backers includes not only Nicholas de Letres, who may have participated in the Fifth Crusade, but also Ranulf, earl of Chester and John de Lacy, both of whom certainly did. ⁵³ John de Lacy was the constable of Chester and, years earlier had been summoned along with the earl of Aumale to go before the exchequer to answer for a joint misdemeanour. ⁵⁴ Again, corroboration and more in-depth analysis are needed before advancing any conclusion from this information. It is noteworthy all the same, however, and worth bearing in mind when assessing the mental impact crusading had and the networks of support that could potentially arise.

⁋17The fine rolls of the reign of Henry III are by no means a perfect source. When using them for prosopographical research, some of the issues already mentioned loom large. Not least of these is their tendency to contain many more records for high-ranking members of society than for other individuals. The problem of personal names is also present and it is important not to draw overarching conclusions without thorough cross-referencing. However, as long as we bear the potential pitfalls in mind, the fine rolls are a useful source of information. Of Powell’s 112 English individuals who took the cross, thirty-four can be identified with certainty in the fine rolls. ⁵⁵ This is no small percentage and it makes their value as a source for prosopographical study of the Fifth Crusade irrefutable.

⁋18The fine rolls offer a glimpse into English society and the further one is willing to investigate, the more can be learnt about England in the thirteenth century. Forestry and the felling of trees, legally or otherwise, is a subject that permeates the rolls and was a significant part of many peoples’ lives. ⁵⁶ Shocking then it must have been, for English men and women arriving in Egypt with its arid desert landscape. To push a point like this too far would be unwise. However, it serves to illustrate the depth of understanding into people’s psyches that can be achieved with a closer look at a range of sources. An example comes more specifically with the entry cited above concerning Henry fitz Count and the Cornish stannaries. The stannaries were the courts and local parliaments set up in Cornwall and Devon to administer the tin-mining industry. The charter issued by King John, Henry III’s father, in 1201 to the tinners of Cornwall and Devon, represents the beginning of the crown’s attempt to gain better control of revenue from production in the region. ⁵⁷ The entry concerning Henry fitz Count can be seen as part of this process, and Carpenter recognised the usefulness of the fine rolls with regards to his actions in, and eventual expulsion from, Cornwall. ⁵⁸ Henry’s career was affected by the crown’s wish for control of a valuable revenue source. However, he was also a crusader and by assessing his roles, relationships and regional affiliations seemingly not linked to his actions in the East, we can gain an insight as to how he, and perhaps therefore other English crusaders, might have acted whilst in Egypt.

⁋19One Muslim chronicler described the Christians who landed on the Egyptian coast, and continued to arrive in force, as simply ‘Franks’. ⁵⁹ The composition of their force, however, was much more complex than he perceived and as historians of the Fifth Crusade we must seek to understand the intricate details of the personal relationships, background and drivers that governed how this group behaved. To provide details of every example of how the fine rolls further our understanding of these is beyond the scope of this study. What this essay has sought to do, however, is to show the value the fine rolls can potentially have. Powicke’s statement, cited earlier, rings true; the Crusades were endemic to western European societies and provided central reference points for many peoples’ lives. ⁶⁰ Every source is useful therefore, and what it tells us about society relevant. One of the major strengths of prosopography is its potential for opening up such a range of sources to closer examination and analysis.

1.1.1. Appendix

⁋1This appendix includes those English individuals who took crusade vows, identified in James Powell’s list, who also appeared in the fine rolls. Powell’s forms of the names have been used and the major discrepancies between his list and the fine rolls have been noted. Column three clarifies whether or not Powell identified each individual as embarking on crusade.