Discuss the Impact of John’s Reign on England

...

The traditional view of John’s relationship with the Church was that he acted foolishly and humiliated himself whilst exploiting the Church financially. The chroniclers of the time were all clergy, and so if a king had bad relations with the Church, he would go down as a bad king, and so John did. Yet a more modern view, discounting the bias of the chroniclers, would be that the benefits of his relationship with the Church were more political than financial and despite him seeming to humiliate himself in practice he did not lose any powers of patronage whilst wrong footing his opponents. Either view is arguably correct depending on how one sees his conflicts with the Church. John had several disagreements with Pope Innocent, particularly over the election of the Archbishop of Canterbury. John refused to appoint Innocent’s candidate Stephen Langton, who was consecrated none the less. Because of these tensions the Pope placed an interdict on England in 1208. John then surrendered the crowns of England and Ireland to the Pope, becoming his vassal, turning his kingdom to fiefs and paying an annual 1000 marks. This was a public renouncement of his rights and a clear submission to the Pope, which gave rise to the aforementioned traditional analysis: that this was a significant diminution of his royal authority. Walter of Coventry wrote that the people of England viewed this submission as bringing ‘a yoke of servitude’ upon England. John had submitted to both the French king and the Church and so his barons questioned his ability as a king, perhaps encouraging them towards Magna Carta. Yet in order to discover the full impact of these events, the historiography mentioned earlier must be examined. The idea of ‘yoke of servitude’ was picked up on by 16th century Protestants and 19th century nationalists, but others believed differently. Cheney decided that the submission to the Pope was ‘a diplomatic stroke of genius’ and this seems the more accurate view. John gained the Pope as an ally, with all the privileges of the Church’s protection, against King Philip of France and John’s very own barons, and in return paid only a small fee to the Church; perhaps only a fraction of that which he taxed from them. In terms of the weakness of his royal power John still made his own ecclesiastical appointments. Despite the rather dramatic submission which may have provided a sign of weakness to his barons, the impact of John’s relationship with the Church seems to have been very little, as not much changed practically.

As well as being ‘Lackland’, John was known by some contemporaries as ‘Softsword’ as a reflection of his military failures on the mainland. His humiliation in France, following the extortionate feudal exactions and his use of mercenaries to replace alienated barons, was a hefty blow. Yet, an argument can be made that much of this was not his fault: the financial situation preceded his reign, the inflation of the time was out of his control and Philip Augustus was much wealthier, mainly due to his smaller and more easily taxable domain. John was a good fighter, an exceptionable castle-breaker and a cunning strategist; certainly not the idle man who, according to the chroniclers, spent much of his time feasting with his young wife and running from battles. He was incredibly energetic, riding the length and breadth of the lands he attempted to keep, such as his ride to aid his mother at Château de Mirebeau in 1202, without the help of his barons, and then again against his barons in England. John’s military success has often been passed over, but he did have victories, especially against castles; most impressive of all being his defeat of the rebels at Rochester castle in 1215. Yet it was at Bouvines in 1214 where John staked, and lost, what was left of his reputation and his French lands: Anjou and Poitou. Like Normandy, if he had won he may have been remembered in a very different light, the impact would have been totally different. Yet unlike Normandy, John’s defeat at Bouvines was not his fault. The pitched battle could easily have turned out differently if John’s ally, Emperor Otto IV, had moved with more haste, rather than allowing Philip Augustus to pick off each of the coalition’s armies one by one. John was forced into a damaging truce and was discouraged from ever raising such a large force again; he returned to England and the barons immediately seized upon another sign of weakness. John’s military campaigns, whilst sometimes successful, failed at critical points, often with little do with John. However if John had not alienated his baronage, as demonstrated by their refusal to provide service in 1213, the support from them may have been decisive. Success in France may well have appeased the barons, with or without their help, and John came close at Bouvines. The impact of his failures was extensive: John appeared weak to restless barons who had been put under great demands in order to fund his campaigns. These failures were the proverbial ‘final straw’, and later in 1214, John’s barons rebelled, and with it came Magna Carta.

Magna Carta was sealed on 15th January 1215 at Runnymede, a formulation of the baronage, bishops and administrators. It should be noted that many of the people responsible for the actual terms were moderates, not the renegade noblemen of the farther reaches of the kingdom. Its principle concerns were: the protection of the rights of the Church, feudal concerns of barons, administration of justice, protection of the freedmen of England and a guarantee that John would carry out his promises. This was the designed impact of Magna Carta. We can learn much about the contemporary view of the reign from the terms of the charter: there are seven clauses referring to the exploitation of feudal, portraying the extent of John’s arbitrary exactions; Clause 61 was a safety clause, appointing 25 rebellious barons to ensure the king held the terms of the charter, showing how John’s character must have proven to be suspicious; government was meant to be per judicium and per consilium, through the processes of law and with the king seeking advice of his barons, this reflects the idea of John’s harsh government. Holt wrote that the chart was all about discontent, discontent that had been growing amongst the barons for some time. It was not a radical document of radical men attempting to limit the king’s power, but simply to avoid the Angevin despotism and tyranny that was made possible by the current system, a way to make sure the king was fair whilst still authoritative: the charter formalised ‘contractual kingship’, where the king had to recognise his traditional and customary obligations to his baronage. It was also a triumph for bureaucracy, as it set down in writing the nature of government and restricted the kingship within the limits

...