Tipton, Charles L., 'The English at Nicopolis', Speculum 37 (1962), 528-540

-

Quick Summary

Richard II did not send an English contingent to join the crusading army that fought at the battle of Nicopolis on 25 November 1396

  • No Englishman was involved in Western Europe’s last major crusade
  • Chronicle references to ‘the English’ referred to English members of the Knights Hospitaller
  • The English government was in no way involved in the crusade
Key Conclusion

Tipton provides a revisionist interpretation of England’s participation in the crusade that culminated in defeat at the battle of Nicopolis on 25 September 1396. Tipton challenges any notion that ‘the chivalry of England constituted a force of considerable dimension in Western Europe’s last major crusade’ (p. 528). Tipton contends that ‘no Englishman whatsoever can be identified as positively among the crusading army’ (p. 533). Rather, ‘the English’ reported by chroniclers as present at Nicopolis referred to a group of English knights belonging to the military-religious order of St. John, rather than mercenaries or a contingent of knights sent to participate in the crusade by the government of Richard II (p. 540).

Content Overview

Tipton builds a case to demonstrate that the English government was ‘in no way officially involved in the crusade’ (p. 540). In particular, the English chroniclers are silent about England’s participation in the crusade and the fact that they ‘knew nothing of Englishmen at Nicopolis’ indicates that ‘England was virtually untouched by the event’ (pp. 537-8). Furthermore, a survey of the administrative records (such as the Patent Rolls) from the period between the expedition’s departure (March 1396) and the return of its defeated remnants to the west (February 1397), provide ‘nothing to support the conclusion that a considerable number of men passed from England to the continent’ (p. 535).

Further Findings

Tipton dispenses with the notion that Henry Bolingbroke (the future Henry IV) was present at the battle of Nicopolis, on the basis that he attended the ‘famous “summit conference” of Richard II and Charles VI near Calais in October 1396’ (p. 531). Tipton also challenges the assumption that the Great Schism had disrupted the international crusading order of St. John. In terms of providing military aid at least, the brothers of ‘schismatic’ houses continued to fulfil their crusading obligations despite the schism (p. 539). Ultimately, in terms of England’s participation at the battle of Nicopolis, Tipton concludes that ‘we need no longer speak of England as a factor in the crusade’ (p. 540).

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

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 disper
Read more