Historians have disagreed about the effectiveness of King Stephen’s
leadership during the anarchy. What is your view regarding the effectiveness
of Stephen as King from 1139-53?
The effectiveness of King Stephen’s reign between the years 1139-1153 has been
debated for centuries and the king’s ability to lead is highly controversial. These
years are commonly associated with the Anarchy, which was a time of political
instability and social unrest due to the fighting for the English throne by Empress
Matilda and King Stephen. Charles Spencer, who provides a critical view into
Stephen’s reign, believes that he was an ineffective king that failed to control his land
from threats, as well as being too soft to be a successful king. Contrastingly, Jim
Bradbury upholds a more favourable account of Stephen and considers the
uncontrollable circumstances he was faced with, arguing that he dealt with affairs
sensibly and sought appeasement where necessary but without sacrificing too much.
H. A Cronne presents a more balanced account of Stephen, arguing that he
succeeded in keeping an elaborate administration and how he was a determined
man with good resilience and military capability, although she does not ignore
Stephen’s mistakes such as the arrest of the bishops and his imprisonment in 1141
due to him failing to listen to advice. These arguments will be evaluated when
considering to what extent Stephen had a good relationship with the church, to what
extent Stephen successfully dealt with threats from Matilda and other opponents, to
what extent were Stephen’s characteristics admirable for a king, to what extent was
Stephen able to manage an army effectively and was he able to maintain supporters
throughout his reign. Upon assessing these factors, the contention of this essay is
that Stephen was a somewhat successful monarch who had impressive military
ability yet due to his trusting nature, many took advantage of his kindness and
Stephen was unable to fully recover. Therefore, my view regarding the effectiveness
of King Stephen throughout his reign is that he was effective in his military capability,
yet he was less effective in implementing harsh punishments due to his generous
qualities which ultimately allowed his position to be weakened.
Stephen’s relationship with the church, which in the medieval times had a significant
impact on the monarchy’s ability to rule, would be a deciding factor on whether he
was effective as a king. The arrest of the bishops involving Roger of Salisbury and
Alexander of Lincoln in 1139, was a decision made by Stephen which caused much
discontent among his people, with Spencer stating that ‘for many of the clergy and
for others who believed the king’s actions unforgivable, there could be no washing
away of his sin’1 which portrays the fact that Stephen’s peace was affected as well as
potentially his support base. One interpretation for why Stephen faced a lot of upset
was because he threatened to hang Robert le Poer if Devizes castle was not
surrendered and this ‘rough treatment of the three bishops repulsed many- the clergy
in particular’2 which Spencer also highlighted. Similarly, Cronne acknowledged how
his own brother, Henry of Blois ‘made a speech in which he denounced the
wickedness of his brother Stephen in his treatment of the church and his failure as a
prince’3. This conveys the fact that two extracts conclude that Stephen angered
members of the church who had a lot of power and influence in the governing of the
country, highlighting the barrier he created which could hinder his ability to establish
1
The White Ship by Charles Spencer p.263
2
The White Ship by Charles Spencer p.262
3
The Reign of Stephen, Anarchy in England 1135-54 by H. A Cronne p.44
, further control. Furthermore, Bradbury also wrote that ‘Stephen’s standing in the
church was to be greatly diminished by his action in 1139 of arresting three of the
English bishops’4 which supports to the argument given by Spencer and Cronne that
this extreme decision of Stephen would hinder the partnership that he had with
influential religious members. However, this view is almost certainly an exaggerated
account because Stringer states that ‘despite obvious tensions, there is no evidence
to support the idea of a sustained rift in crown-church relations’ 5 which suggests that
the other claims may have been argued to paint Stephen as a ruthless king with no
morals. Additionally, in agreement with Stringer, we know that Stephen in fact did
reconcile with Roger of Salisbury and restored his position in the church, showing
that Stephen was able to restore at least some peace, despite the arrests in 1139.
Consequently, this shows his effectiveness as a king as he was able to overcome
tension with the church. Moreover, we must consider not only the response of the
church, but also the response of his supporters. Firstly, Spencer describes how ‘one
of the first laymen to transfer allegiance to Matilda because of the ill treatment of the
three bishops was William de Mohun. He was quickly joined by others’ 6 which
enhances the idea that these arrests had detrimental effects on Stephen’s support
base as supporters began to convert. Furthermore, the suggestion of R. H. C Davis,
a historian who specialised in medieval history, that ‘Miles may have only made up
his mind to support Matilda because of the arrest of the bishops in 1139’ 7 shows the
direct consequence of the bishops’ arrest. However, Bradbury counters this view and
states that Miles ‘had no particular connection to any of the bishops’ and that it was
more likely ‘that Matilda, Robert, Brian and Miles… had bonded together in
determination to oust Stephen’8. Thus, this highlights how Davis and Spencer could
have used these views as a poor excuse to make Stephen look like he had lost a lot
of support. Therefore, whilst Spencer, Cronne and Bradbury acknowledged that the
arrest of the bishops in 1139 led to unrest between Stephen and the church, Stringer
counters this view expressing that the tension was not long-lived, and Stephen was
partly successful in restoring peace. Yet, this view from Stinger may be biased due to
his more sympathetic approach to the reign of Stephen. On the other hand, despite
Bradbury suggesting that the loss of supporters was not directly due to the arrests in
1139, and even if they did just use this event as a gateway, it is clear from Spencer
and Davis that Stephen lost some support from respected men and it hindered
Stephen’s ability to reign as effectively. Nevertheless, I believe that the better
argument is that the arrest of the bishops in 1139 did allow Stephen to assert
authority because it displayed his authoritative skills which is good for a king as it
showed the church that he was the leader, yet it also led to a loss of supporters to
his enemy Matilda which highlights his ineffectiveness as king in maintaining his
support early in his reign. Thus, it can be said that Stephen was successful at
showing authority but less so in seeking long-term support from the people.
Stephen’s handling of the arrival of Matilda and Robert of Gloucester to Arundel
Castle in 1139 has also been seen as an event that has led to debates on how
effectively he tackled the crisis. Cronne stated that ‘while Stephen was trying
4
Stephen and Matilda, The Civil War of 1139-53 by Jim Bradbury p.55
5
The Reign of Stephen: Kingship, Warfare and Government in Twelfth Century England by Keith Stringer p.62
6
The White Ship by Charles Spencer p.263
7
Stephen and Matilda, The Civil War of 1139-53 by Jim Bradbury p.51
8
Ibid., p.51
