Medieval Women and Warfare

Since time immemorial, women have stood alongside their men-folk in defence of home and hearth. This is purely a survival instinct – for women have had a far deal more to lose should home and hearth fall to invaders.

Women have long been considered the “spoils of war” regardless of time and history, whether they be carried off as unwilling wives, concubines or slaves. And status did not exempt one – no, for the higher the woman’s status, the greater her “value” as a prize.

A women’s role in warfare can be divided into a number of different categories:

(1) Women who actively contributed to the defence of their homes, estates, or castles. 
Women undertook this defensive role usually in their father’s or husband’s stead.

* Agnes Randolph, Countess of Dunbar ~~~ defied the Earl of Salisbury for five months when he laid siege to her castle at Dunbar (January – June 1338).

 

Caterina Sfoza

* Caterina Sforza, Countess of Forli ~~~ rebelled against the incursions of Cesare Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI.

“My Prince, I advise you to treat with Caterina Sforza under a white flag. Her troops are too strongly encrenellated in the fortress, and it will take months to root the rebels out. For everyday we fight, more of your loyal troops are slaughtered, more of your good citizens have property damaged or destroyed, and the crops go unharvested and children starve. The battle must be ended.” (Source: Niccolo Machiavelli “The Prince”)

* Eschiva of Tiberias ~~~ defended her town and castle against the forces of Saladin (July 1187). The attempted relief of Tiberias by the Crusaders led to the fateful Battle of Hattin.

* Stephanie of Milly, Lady of Outlrejourdain ~~~ defended her castle of Kerak against both Nur ed-Din (1170s) and Saladin (1183).

* Jimena ~~~ led defence of Valencia (1101 – 1102), though forced to abandon city in the face of overwhelming odds.

(2) Women who acted in a military capacity, similar to a modern-day general of an armed force. These were usually noblewomen who did not necessarily take to the battlefield. However, there are instances of some women who actually did take to the battlefield at the head of their armies.

* Deborah ~~~ gathered and led her Israelite army against the Canaanites (c.1125BC).

* Zenobia ~~~ led her army with the Romans against Persia (260sAD) and against Rome (270sAD).

* Artemesia ~~~ commanded a small flotilla of warships as part of the navy of the Persian King Xerxes against the Greeks (280BC).

“She had obtained the sovereign power after the death of her husband; and, though she had now a son grown up, yet her brave spirit and manly daring sent her forth to the war, when no need required her to adventure.” (Source: Herodotus)

* Boudicca ~~~ led her army into battle against the legions of Roman in Britain (60sAD).

“the whole island rose under the leadership of Boudicca, a lady of royal descent – for Britons make no distinctions of sex in their appointment of commanders.” (Source: Tacitus)

* Thamar of Georgia ~~~ successfully led her troops in crushing internal rebellions (1189 – 1191), and against the Turks (1190s – 1200s).

* Isabella of Castile ~~~ during the war of succession, she rode hundreds of miles to gain support for her cause – at great personal cost; and she personally took to the battlefield and captured the city of Toledo (1475).

* Philippa of Hainault ~~~ raised an army in the absence of her husband, King Edward III, to defend England’s northern borders from the invading Scots. Though Philippa was not actually present on the battlefield of Neville’s Cross (30/09/1346), credit for the victory goes to her.
“So she sent out a summons to men at arms throughout the kingdom of England, wherever she thought they would be, and told them to be at Newcastle-upon-Tyne on a certain day, to resist the Scots.” (Source: Jean Froissart, Chroniques: Livre I, Le manuscrit d’Amiens, Bibliothèque municipale no. 486, ed. George T. Diller, vol. 2 (Geneva, 1992).)

* Empress Maud ~~~ she also fits into Category (5) as she led her army in defence of her succession rights.

“the empress rode every day with the army, and she gave good advice on the most difficult matters; in the whole army there was not a baron so skilled and experienced in war as she was, and there was much talk about her throughout England.” (Source: Histoire des Ducs de Normandie et des Rois d’Angleterre, ed. Francisque Michel, Paris, 1840).

* Matilda of Boulogne ~~~ whilst her husband King Stephen was a captive of Empress Maud, she raised an army to meet Maud on the field of battle.

“she sent for knights throughout all lands, wherever she could get them, and assembled such a great army that she besieged the empress and her son Henry and the king of Scotland and the earl of Leicester and many other noble barons all together in the city of Winchester.” (Source: Histoire des Ducs de Normandie et des Rois d’Angleterre, ed. Francisque Michel, Paris, 1840).

Aethelflaed - Lady of Mercians

* Urraca of Castile ~~~ forced to defend her inheritance against her husband Alfonso I of Aragon (1111), and to deal with internal strife from her nobles.

* Matilda of Canossa ~~~ with her mother Beatrice, led an army in support of the Papacy against the Holy Roman Emperor (1060s), and then by herself (1080s).

* Aethelflaed, Lady of Mercia ~~~ in conjunction with her brother Edward, she continued their father Alfred’s policy of resistance to the Viking incursions in Britain, obtaining victories on her own behalf.

(3) Women who disguised themselves as men in order to fight in battle. This occurrence became more usual from the 17th Century onwards.

* Catalina de Erauzo

* Mary Read ~~~ fought in the Spanish War of Succession (1701 – 1704) as an armed cadet, a foot soldier and a cavalryman; and again in Holland in the infantry before “turning” pirate.

* Mother Ross (aka: Christine Davies) ~~~ a woman who purportedly passed as a male foot soldier and dragoon during the War of the Spanish Succession died on the 7th of July 1739 and was interred in the burying ground belonging to Chelsea Hospital with military honours.

(4) Women who actively fought at the head of an armed force, in a paid or “professional” capacity. These women were usually known as “Condottieri” or mercenaries. These Condottieri were renown throughout Italy from the mid-13th Century until the mid-16th Century. Many Condottieri were highly paid and “contracted” for a certain period of time. Their employer frequently changed. And it was not unknown for a Condottieri to acquire land or titles.

* Onorata Rodiano ~~~~ artist and soldier.

she “had entered the service of Oldrano Lampugnano as a cavalryman, and that was in the year 1423. She lived then with her name and her clothing changed under various captains and held various military offices.” (Source: Conrado Flameno Storia di Castelleone (1590).

(5) Women who led an armed force in the assertion of inheritance rights, either their own, their husband’s or their children’s rights.

* Isabella of France, Queen of England ~~~ gathered about her an armed force consisting of mercenaries from Hainault and disaffected English nobles, and landed in England (1326) to overthrown the government and install her son in his father’s stead.

* Jeanne of Flanders, Countess of Montfort ~~~ she actively fought during the War of Succession in Britanny (1360s).

“The countess of Montfort was there in full armour, mounted on a swift horse and riding through the town, street by street, urging the people to defend the town well. She made the women of the town, ladies and others, dismantle the carriageways and carry the stones to the battlements for throwing at their enemies. And she had bombards and pots full of quick lime brought to keep the enemy busy.” (Source: Jean Froissart, Chroniques: Livre I, Le manuscrit d’Amiens, Bibliothèque municipale no. 486, ed. George T. Diller, vol. 2 (Geneva, 1992).)

* Margaret of Anjou, Queen of England ~~~ during the War of the Roses, she fought valiantly to preserve the rights of her husband and then her son to rule as monarchs of England.

(6) Women who went on Crusade, though did not necessarily take an active role in fighting. Whilst their men-folk were actively engaged in the fighting, these women remained on the sidelines, at a safe distance.

* Eleanor of Aquitaine

* Elvira of Aragon

(7) Women who did actively fought in the Crusades.

In this last category, it is very hard to list any single woman by name. On both the First and People’s Crusades, many women, usually of middle to low birth, did actually fight alongside their male crusading counterparts, as did quite a number of children. It was mostly out of the sheer need to survive.

Women and children would also have been used in the building of barricades or ditches, to aid in the defence of campsites or towns and cities. This was a common sight at Acre in 1291, before the city fell. Moslem chroniclers documented women acting not only in a defensive role but also in an attacking role, their sex only being identified after death.

* Margaret of Beverley ~~~ who was present at the siege of Jerusalem 1187

"‘During this seige, which lasted fifteen days, I carried out all’, she said, ‘of the functions of a soldier that I could. I wore a breastplate like a man; I came and went on the ramparts, with a cauldron on my head for a helmet. Though a woman, I seemed a warrior, I threw the weapon; though filled with fear, I learned to conceal my weakness.’ "]

( 8) Women who were members of Military Orders. Again, these women may not have been active “soldiers”.

* Female Hospitallers (more so in the 13th century)

These female Hospitallers could be not only consorores or donate, but also fully professed sisters who joined the Hospital in existing or newly founded houses specifically for sisters or in commanderies—sometimes even as commanders. (Source: Women in the Military Orders of the Crusades by M. Bom 2012). 

* Knights of St. John ~~~ these women were called “soeurs hospitalières” or “sisters of mercy”.

In England, Buckland was the site of a house of Hospitaller sisters from Henry II’s reign to 1540. In Aragon, there were Hospitaller convents in Sigena, San Salvador de Isot, Grisén, Alguaire, headed each by a commendatrix. In France they are found in Beaulieu (near Cahors), Martel and Fieux. The only other military order to have convents by 1300 was the order of Santiago, which had admitted married members since its foundation in 1175. and soon women were admitted and organized into convents of the order (late 12th, early 13th c.). The convents were headed by a commendatrix (in Spanish: commendadora) or prioress. There were a total of six in the late 13th century: Santa Eufenia de Cozuelos in northern Castile, San Spiritu de Salamanca, Santos-o-Vello in Portugal, Destriana near Astorga, San Pedro de la Piedra near Lérida, San Vincente de Junqueres. The order of Calatrava also had a convent in San Felices de los Barrios. (Source: Francois Velde’s Heraldic.org)

* Teutonic Knights ~~~ the Teutonic order accepted “consorores” who assumed the habit of the order and lived under its rule; they undertook menial and hospitaller functions.

As is clear, this is just a basic overview of the role women had to play in warfare throughout history.  There are many more examples, from many other nations that I have not forgotten nor ommitted purposely, but their stories will have to wait for another time.

William I & the Question of the Papal Banner

Did William the Conqueror have the backing of the Papacy as he legitimately claimed?, when he made his play for the Crown of England in 1066? Even that can be questioned. Many claim that Pope Alexander II would not have sanctioned the invasion of a country that not only upheld Christianity but had been one of the Papacy’s more fervent supporters.

In order to obtain the Papal Banner:

It is most likely that William did have papal sanction for his invasion of England. William was an astute politician - in order to protect his borders from the French during his absence, papal support would have been necessary in a time when religion was an important part of social life.

The position of Pope Alexander II (r.1061 - 1073) in Rome was precarious - he was threatened on many political fronts: by the Emperor Henry IV, by an anti-Pope Honorious II, and by the Lombards and the Greeks on mainland Italy. Alexander was supported by his advisor and heir-apparent, Chancellor Hildebrand. However, Norman support was crucial for his own political and personal survival on the Italian mainland. By giving a Papal “blessing” and thus a papal banner to Roger de Hauteville for his conquest of Sicily, Alexander was securing future support for his own cause. However, in this instance, the papal banner was granted to Roger to aid his removal not of another Christian power but of non-Christians - that is: Muslims.

It was purely a matter of politics not religion that prompted William to seek and Alexander to give the papal banner (1063-1065). Harold, unfortunately, did not send anyone to represent his cause to the Pope - it could be argued that (1) he felt his own position secure, having been duly elected by the Witan; or (2) that he had no idea that William was sending ambassadors to Rome on his behalf.

There are two arguments that could be made:

(1) that William was appealing to the Papacy on a matter of inheritance, involving the question of “laesio fidei”. Now, the Papacy was within it rights to adjudge matters of inheritance - however, whilst not in a position to dispose of the English Crown, the Curia could be asked to consider the respective titles or claims of the disputants.

(2) that William promised Alexander that he would “clean up” the corruption within the English Church - which was the removal of Archbishop Stigand from Canterbury, whose election was considered irregular Robert of Jumiéges had been elected (1050) however, when Edward the Confessor removed all Normans from power (c.1052), Robert fled back to Normandy and Stigand was eventually elected). However, with the advantage of hindsight, Stigand was not removed until four years after the Conquest (1070).

It was following the deposition of Stigand as Archbishop, that the Papal Legate, Ermenfrid Bishop of Sion, was said to have submitted all who participated in the Conquest to a penance -the Penitential Ordinance of Bishop Ermenfrid of Sion.

“This is the institution of penance according to the decrees of the bishops of the Normans, confirmed by the authority of the supreme pontiff by his legate Ermenfrid bishop of Sion, to be imposed upon those whom William duke of the Normans commanded and who before this decree were his men and owed him military service as their duty. Whoever knows that he has killed in the great battle is to do one year's penance for each man slain. Whoever struck another but does not know if that man was thereby slain, is to do 40 days penance for each case, if he can remember the number, either continuously or at intervals. Whoever does not know the number of those he struck or killed shall, at the discretion of his bishop, do penance for one day a week for the rest of his life, or, if he is able, make amends either by building a church or by giving perpetual alms to one." (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913) 

I believe that a “penance” was imposed upon all who participated in the conquest as a means to expiate their sins - if papal blessing was obtained there would be no need for a papal penance.

References to Evidence of an Actual Banner:

".......and Pope Alexander sent a banner to the Duke as a symbol of St Peter's judgement" . (Source: "The Oxford English History, Vol 2." by Sir Frank Stenton) 

"the gift of a banner as a pledge of the support of St. Peter whereby he might the more confidently and safely attack his enemy." (Source: "The Deeds of William, Duke of the Normans and King of the English" by William of Poiters). 

"That no rashness might stain his righteous cause he sent to the Pope, formerly Anselm, bishop of Lucca, asserting the justice of the war he had undertaken with all the eloquence at his command. Harold neglected to do this; either because he was too proud by nature, or because he mistrusted his own cause, or because he feared that his messengers would be hindered by William and his associates, who were watching all the ports. The Pope weighed the arguments on both sides, and then sent a banner to William as an earnest of his kingdom." (Source: “Gesta Regum” by William of Malmesbury) 

"In the spring of 1066 Duke William of Normandy sent Gilbert, Archdeacon of Lisieux, to Rome as his messenger to enlist the support of Pope Alexander II 1061-73 for his plans to dispute King Harold's succession to the English throne by force of arms. The Duke's adviser, Abbot Lanfranc of Saint-Etienne at Caen, had drawn up the Norman case, of which the main argument was that Harold had committed perjury and that therefore the Duke was justified in using violence against him. The Pope, a friend of Lanfranc from their schooldays in northern Italy, happily gave his blessing to William's enterprise, and according to the Norman sources he sent a papal banner as sign of his approval."(Source: "The Norman Conquest through European Eyes" by Elisabeth van Houts)

 "William realised that he would have to turn this trip into a crusade. To do this he would need the blessing of the Pope. He managed this by persuading the Pope of Harold's promise and treachery. At first the Pope refused on political grounds because of the implications to the Church. Pope Alexander II was a pupil of Lanfranc who was now a trusted adviser to William. It was this fact that his blessing was eventually given. William now had the papal banner on his side. This made it much easier to rally his men to arms." (Source: not listed)

"1063 - Pope Alexander II (1061-73) sent the papal banner to Normans fighting Saracens in Spain and Sicily. The banner was a sign of papal approval and blessing. Harold had refused to carry out the papal decision that the incumbent archbishop of Canturbery, whom he felt had not be canonically elected, should be deposed. The pope sent William the banner of St. Peter."(Source: not listed) 

"At the urging of Cardinal Hildebrand, the pontiff sent a banner of Saint Peter, and according to Wace, a tooth of the apostle's, which the duke carried with him into England. The papal support of William was not due to largely secular concerns of hereditary claims or the fundamental Anglo-Saxon considerations of throne-worthiness: "such traditional reasons were only peripheral papal consideration," 

Rather, it was Harold’s refusal to remove Archbishop Stigand from his position that formed the basis of the Pope’s decision to grant a papal banner to William: "Hildebrand's reformers expected that a Norman conquest would bring England more securely within the Roman orbit...." (Source: "The Civilization of the Middle Ages" by Norman Cantor) 

"It is unlikely that Alexander II and his chief advisor Hildebrand could have refused William even if his case had not been so strong, after all they owed so much to the Normans. And thus the Pope sent to William his recognition of William as the rightful King of England and his blessing for his enterprise in the form of a consecrated banned and a holy relic - one of St Peters hairs." (Source: "History of the Normans 820 - 1215AD" From: "Conquest - Anglo-Norman Society")

"The Normans repelled the Mohammedan aggression and won Southern Italy and Sicily for the Church of Rome. This good service had some weight on the determination of Hildebrand to support the claim of William of Normandy to the crown of England, which was a master-stroke of his policy; for it brought that island into closer contact with Rome, and strengthened the papal pretension to dispose of temporal thrones. William fought under a banner blessed by the pope, and founded the Norman dynasty in England, 1066. The conquest was concluded at Winchester by a solemn coronation through three papal delegates, Easter, 1070." (Source: "History of the Christian Church - Chapter One" from "The Hildebrandian Popes. A.D. 1049–1073") 

The Norman Papacy:

I think it was more the influence of Hildebrand (later Gregory VII) than the Pope not having a choice. I think William made a few “promises” of his own in order to get what he wanted - ie: papal blessing. I think that the papacy was under the impression that if William was willing to submit to the “temporal” authority of Rome with regards to the question of succession, then there was the possibility of placing suzerainty of his new “conquest” (ie: England) under the papacy. But in supporting the Normans (wherever they might be) the Papacy was hoping to extend its influence by claiming England as a papal fief.  In fact, prior to the “conquest”, the Church held only 20% of lands - whilst after, they gained a mere 5% more.

The Norman Popes:

Nicholas II 1058 - 1061: made great concessions to the Normans - he invested Robert Guiscard with Apulia and Calabria at Melfi (1059) "in return for oaths of fealty and the promise of assistance in guarding the rights of the Church."   I believe that William may have “hinted” or even “promised” to Pope Nicholas II that should his conquest of England receive sanction from the papacy, then he, William, would hold England as a fief of the papacy. This was, to all intents and purposes, exactly what others were doing elsewhere to gain “recognition” for their “conquests”. This was something William was to deny even up till his death in 1087. (Refer below to the letter from William to Pope Gregory VII).

Alexander II 1061 - 1073: was a cohort of Hildebrand (aka: Gregory VII), and he was a former pupil of Lanfranc of Bec, and supported his enthronement at Canterbury.   The question of Peter’s Pence was still a thorn in the side of the papacy “after” William’s coronation - so this argument of unpaid Peter’s Pence was rather hypocritical of William. Apparently the withholding of Peter’s Pence was common in many Christian nations, so this was hardly a point William could successfully argue was solely the “fault” of England, which needed to be resolved.

Gregory VII 1073 - 1085 (aka: Hildebrand): the papacy was powerless to halt the advancing Normans in Italy nor was it powerful enough to demand their military support. In fact, the Normans under Guiscard failed to come to his aid when Henry Iv threatened him - it was only when they themselves were likely to come under a direct German attack did they go to the aid of the papacy. As a result, he was forced to flee Rome and go into exile (1084) at Monte Cassino.  Apparently William "showed little anxiety when the pope lectured him on the different principles which he had as to the relationship of spiritual and temporal powers, or when he prohibited him from commerce or commanded him to acknowledge himself a vassal of the apostolic chair. Gregory had no power to compel the English king to an alteration in his ecclesiastical policy, so he chose to ignore what he could not approve, and even considered it advisable to assure him of his particular affection." 

It would seem that after his election as Pope, Hildebrand informed William that "his actions had been goverened by his knowledge of the latter’s character, and by the hope that when raised to a higher dignity he would continue to show himself a dutiful subject of the church." (Source: “Monumenta Gregoriana”). Further, Hildebrand exerted his influence upon the Curia to get the result he wanted, full in the knowledge that if prosecuted, William’s actions would inevitably lead to bloodshed. Afterall, reform was "worth the suppression of a few scruples" . 

 "He perceived King William I as being practically a model of the good Christian ruler, so much so that he could overlook the occasional failure of William to comply with papal wishes." (Source: Chapter 6 - "Gregory and the Periphery of Latin Europe" in "Pope Gregory VII, 1073-1085" by H. E. J. Cowdrey) 

William's Letter to Gregory:

The following is the letter sent by William the Conqueror to the Pope regarding the issue of England becoming a fief of the Papacy. There was no initial letter from the Pope regarding this, nor was there any follow-up letter. Only William’s letter exists which mentions this matter.

King William I to Pope Gregory VII summer 1080:To Gregory, the most exalted pastor of holy Church, William by the grace of God king of the English and duke of the Normans, sends greetings and the assurance of friendship.Your legate Hubert, who came to me, holy father, has on your behalf directed me to do fealty to you and your successors and to reconsider the money payment which my predecessors used to send to the Roman Church. The one proposition I have accepted; the other I have not. I have never desired to do fealty, nor do I desire it now; for I neither promised on my own behalf nor can I discover that my predecessors ever performed it to yours. As to the money, for almost three years it has been collected without due care, while I was engaged in France. But now that by God's mercy I have returned to my kingdom, the sum already collected is being sent to you by the above-named legate and the balance will be conveyed, when the opportunity arises, by the legates of our faithful servant archbishop Lanfranc.Pray for us and for the welfare of our kingdom, for we held your predecessors in great regard and it is our desire to show to you above all men unfeigned respect and obedient attention. (Source: "The Age of Gregory VII, 1073-85 - Letters of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury" ed & trans. H Clover and M. Gibson (Oxford Medieval Texts 1979)) 

And lastly, let us not forget Lanfranc who was employed by William, Duke of Normandy, as one of his counsellors. Initially Lanfranc incurred the disfavour of William for opposing his marriage to Matilda of Flanders (c.1052). And yet he is back in favour, obtaining papal dispensation for the ducal marriage to take place (c.1059), and the removal of the Interdict placed upon Normandy.  It was suggested that Lanfranc had a major role in the direction of Duke William’s invasion plans. He obtained the papal sanction for the expedition with the gift of a “blessed banner” and a Papal Bull. With these two items, the Norman Conquest takes on the form of a Crusade against a usurper and oath violator (Harold). In addition, the Conquest also aligned itself with the ideals of ecclesiastical reform, which was well advanced in Normandy, but still very backward in England (from the Norman point of view).

Stigand, the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of the Norman Conquest, was out of favour with the Normans having replaced Robert of Jumieges (c.1052). As such, at the Council of Winchester (1070) he was deprived of his office on charges that his election was uncanonical and he was guilty of simony. (Source: Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913)

Finally .... The question still remains: wasWilliam given an actual papal banner by Alexander II (Stenton) as a symbol of his support, or did William have a banner blessed by Alexander II, which he then carried before him in battle (Chibnall). 

Bibliography

"Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis" ed. M. M. Chibnall (Oxford, 1969)

"Debate on the Norman Conquest" by Marjorie Chibnall (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999)

"William the Conqueror: The Norman impact upon England" by David Douglas (University of California Press, 1964)

"The Fall of Saxon England" by Richard Humble (Barnes & Noble, 1992)

"1066 The Year of the Conquest" by David Howarth (Viking Penguin, 1981)

"The English Resistance: The Underground War Against the Normans" by Peter Rex (Tempus Publishing Ltd, 2004)

"The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles" ed: Anne Savage (CLB, 1997)

"The Norman Conquest" by D. J. A. Matthew (1966)

"The Norman Achievement, 1050–1100" by D. C. Douglas (1969)

"The First Century of English Feudalism, 1066–1166" (2d ed. 1961) and "Anglo-Saxon England" (3d ed. 1971) by F. M. Stenton

"Feudal Empires: Norman and Plantagenet" by J. LePatourel (1984)