Johnston, Dorothy, 'Richard II’s departure from Ireland, July 1399', The English Historical Review 98 (1983), 785-805

-

Quick Summary

The logistic problems faced by Richard II when attempting to bring his army back from Ireland meant that his failure against Henry Bolingbroke was virtually inevitable

  • Richard did not appreciate the severity of the threat posed by Bolingbroke’s return
  • Jean Créton seems to be a fairly reliable source for information about Richard’s departure from Ireland
  • The number of bows and arrows left in Dublin suggests Richard did not envisage a battle with Bolingbroke
Key Conclusion

Johnston explores Richard II’s military campaign in Ireland which ended prematurely in the summer of 1399 following reports that Henry Bolingbroke had landed in England to reclaim his right to the duchy of Lancaster. The article concludes that the logistic problems faced by Richard in bringing his army back from Ireland meant that his failure in Wales was ‘virtually inevitable’ (p. 802). The ships that had transported Richard’s army to Ireland had already dispersed, and the king made the decision to leave some royal treasure, horses and military equipment in Ireland. Johnston also detects in these arrangements a hint that Richard did not appreciate that ‘the Bolingbroke crisis required the fullest military resources’ (p. 803).

Content Overview

Johnston reviews the accuracy of Jean Créton’s contemporary account of events. Historians must rely on for information about Richard’s departure from Ireland in the absence of official records – such as the Irish close rolls and patent rolls – which have not survived. Johnston notes that the degree to which we can rely on Créton’s narrative without corroborating evidence ‘depends upon an acceptable explanation for his known inaccuracies’ (p. 788). Johnston argues that Creton should be treated with caution when he claims to report council decisions verbatim, yet the general chronology of events presented by his narrative ‘seems to be reasonable’ (p. 793).

Further Findings

Johnston questions the basis upon which G. O. Sayles revised the chronology of Richard’s return to Wales ‘on the basis of a single document’ (p. 790). The article agrees with M. V. Clarke that the king’s arrival in Wales on 17 July is suspect, and suggests that the traditional chronology is reasonable: ‘Bolingbroke’s arrival to late June or early July; Richard’s reception of the news to about one fortnight later; and his return to Wales to sometime in the week beginning 20 July’ (p. 787). As a further consideration, Johnston notes that the number of bows and arrows left in Dublin ‘suggests that the council did not envisage a serious military confrontation’ (p. 803) with Bolingbroke.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waugh, W. T., 'The Great Statute of Praemunire', The English Historical Review 37 (1922), 173-205

-
Quick Summary The Statute of Praemunire (1393) was a ‘political manifesto’ designed to warn the pope not to meddle with the English legal system Historians have been uncertain about what the statute was supposed to achieve The statute was issued after complaints from the commons in parliament about the pope In its application, the statute had very little legal significance Key Conclusion Waugh re-examines the Statute of  Praemunire  (1393) in light of the ‘perplexing variety of opinions’ among historians about what the statute was designed to achieve (p. 173). Referred to as the ‘most anti-papal Act of Parliament passed prior to the reign of Henry VIII’ by some historians, others have denied it served any anti-papal purpose at all. Waugh concludes that the statute was intended primarily to impress upon the pope the ‘unanimity of the English nation’ in opposition to his recent moves to challenge an aspect of the judicial system in England. As such, Waug
Read more

Aston, Margaret , 'Corpus Christi and Corpus Regni: Heresy and the Peasants’ Revolt', Past & Present 143 (1994), 3-47

-
Quick Summary Rebels taking part in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 ignored the feast of Corpus Christi, but not because of the teachings of John Wycliffe No evidence that rebels didn’t celebrate Corpus Christi Day because of the teachings of John Wycliffe The rebels did show hostility towards the church The Lollards believed that worship of the Eucharistic host amounted to idolatry Key Conclusion Aston seeks to the answer the question: ‘What, if any, is the significance of the fact that the rising of 1381 took place over the feast of Corpus Christi?’ The article concludes that although ‘countless individuals’ failed to celebrate Corpus Christi Day in 1381, there is no evidence to suggest that any of them were motivated by the heretical teachings of John Wycliffe. Yet, many contemporary writers saw a direct link between heresy and rebellion, and reasoned that the Peasants’ Revolt was a manifestation of divine displeasure and a prompt from God for the
Read more