The fall of Chateau- Gaillard Both symbolic and strategic to lose the stronghold of Richard I

1. The fall of Chateau- Gaillard • Both symbolic and strategic to lose the stronghold of Richard I • The castle was taken by Phillip in 1204. Less than 10 years after £12,000 had been spent constructing it. £12,000 of baronial money! • Irony that the castle was taken via one of Johns extensions. • Johns lack of fight for the castle viewed dimly. • Philip was then able to overrun Normandy and Anjou. • The loss of the saucy castle was intensified with the news in 1205 that Eleanor of Aquitaine had died. This was a resounding loss for John, doubled by the fact that this meant that Philip was no longer obliged to keep out of Aquitaine, he could now mount an attack on Aquitaine. By 1205 only the fortresses of Chinnon and Loches had held out. • It appeared to many that he was bewitched by his new bride. Two views were predominant. He was either unable and unwilling to leave her bed to save his crumbling empire or merely lazy and indecisive. • It could however be argued that he wasn’t financially in a position to mount a counter- offensive and he was merely accepting the short-term loss of battle in return for the long-term victory of war. • Either way it was a miscalculation as the barons were deserting.

2. Desertion, distrust and deadly deeds. Why the barons left John • The Lusignan affair had, whilst technically being acceptable, left a sour taste in the mouths of the nobility. • John had also acquired a reputation for lust. He fathered five bastards and - more dangerously - alienated at least one important lord (Eustace de Vesci) by pursuing his wife. • Couple the Lusignan affair with the harsh treatment of the knights and the subsequent disappearance (murder) of Arthur left many a noble nervous about there own position. • John was also taking more and more son and daughters as hostages in return for loyalty. • John was in a vicious circle of distrust, disloyalty, desertion and fear. • Johns use of mercenaries also worsened his reputation for brutality on the continent and extortion in England. • In contrast to this Phillip was on a charm offensive promising rewards for Anglo-Normans who would join him. • The Church in France also played a pivotal role as they looked to Paris rather than Canterbury. • In 1203, William Marshall said to John; ‘sire you have not enough friends. You have not been careful enough to avoid irritating people. If you had it would have been better for us all.’

3. Home is not where the heart is. Whilst criticism can be heaped upon Henry and Richard for being absent Kings the same can’t be said of John. The problem though was for John this was probably counter productive. Being in England made him more visible and meant he had the opportunity to interfere in the running of government and the legal and administrative system. Meaning that he would be directly responsible!!! Despite this, John kept with continuity from the reign of Richard. Hubert Walter, Richards brilliant Justiciar became Chancellor. Geoffrey FitzPeter became Justiciar. William of Ely was the treasurer. Hugh de Neville, chief forester. Problem was, this continuity encouraged greed as these often enriched their families at the expense of discontented barons.

4. The bankruptcy issue