Angevin Empire Dbq
UKHistory - Mateo Vinagre
The Angevin Empire
[pic][pic]
*Source: www.newworldencyclopedia.org // eulogos.blogspot.com
1. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE 3 SELECTED ARTICLES
A) Hollister, C. Warren , Keefe, Thomas K., 1973 “ THE MAKING OF THE ANGEVIN EMPIRE” Journal of British Studies .Vol. 12, No. 2 (May, 1973), pp. 1-25 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The North American Conference on British Studies
This article is an exhaustive and full-detailed analysis made by professors Warren Hollister and Thomas Keefe in the year 1973, based on the question of how Angevin empire was formed and which were its primarily roots. It mainly focuses during the reign of Henry I, king of England and Normandy who set the ideological and political basis of the subsequent Angevin Empire ruled by Henry II. Another key fact to understand the birth of the Angevin Empire was the union of its two chief components, the Anglo-Norman state and the county of Anjou. Hollister and Keefe make their analysis by asking themselves the following questions: “Did the empire come about by accident or by political design? And if by design, who was …show more content…
its architect? Was it Henry I, who arranged the crucial marriage between his daughter Maud and Geoffrey, heir to Anjou? Was it Geoffrey, or Maud? Or was it their son, Henry Plantagenet the ultimate beneficiary of the marriage?”
Understanding these key points must lead us to comprehend the whole idea of how Angevin Empire was created. Special emphasis is given to King Henry I and Angevin counts, who made possible that King Henry II was the ultimate beneficiary of the Anglo-Norman and Angevin heritage.
B) Bachrach, Bernard S., 1978. “THE IDEA OF ANGEVIN EMPIRE”. Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter, 1978), pp. 293-299
Bachrach focuses his analysis on the causes and ideas that led to the formation of the Angevin Empire, and he does a retrospective since before Henry I. Based on studies of Hollister and Keefe, he says that we must not only talk about the formation of the Angevin Empire by the action of Henry I and Henry II, but other characters were also decisive in the building of that empire. For example, just as important is the action of Count Fulk the Younger, which should ask us what he had in mind when his son Geoffrey married the heiress to the Anglo-Norman Throne, Matilda, daughter of Henry I. One of the ideas is that Fulk was extending a familiar tradition of expanding Angevin family domains through marriage alliances. With this marriage ended a long period of wars between Anjou and Normandy.
To sum up, Bachrach sees the Angevin Empire “as an agglomeration of diverse lands and rights connected through marriage, inheritance, and other means for the purpose of enhancing the political interests of a family and directed by the head of that family”.
[…] “The Angevin idea of empire was a broadly conceived, flexible, and multifaceted network of family connections. The composition of the Angevin Empire was not fixed and no effort was made to create a permanent structure. The Angevin counts seemed to appreciate that the failure to produce heirs, the development of personality conflicts, the intervention of premature death, and numerous other unforeseen problems were far too likely to undermine any but the most rudimentary and flexible pattern of organization.”
[…]
“Henry II rejected decisively Henry I's Anglo-Norman model with its limited horizons and emphasis on administrative integration. By contrast, Henry II accepted the Angevin idea of empire which promised a wider field of action and greater rewards. Henry knew that the broadly based and flexible Angevin idea of empire had led to success for two centuries despite civil war, lack of heirs, premature deaths, personality clashes, and innumerable other trials and tribulations. Indeed, Henry II was acutely aware of how difficult it had been to preserve the comparatively narrow-based and tightly integrated Anglo-Norman state. In fact, Henry I's fragile creation had survived largely because of Angevin might.” […]
[…] pages 298-299 Bachrach, Bernard S., 1978. “THE IDEA OF ANGEVIN EMPIRE”. Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter, 1978)
C) Benjamin, Richard. 1986. "THE ANGEVIN EMPIRE." History Today 36, no. 2: 17. Historical Abstracts with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed April 21, 2013).
This article focuses the question from a more general point of view and seems to be part of a magazine or newspaper of historical disclosure. Back to influence the creation of the Angevin Empire by Henry II as a number of factors (political decisions, marriage alliances or even luck) made it possible for Henry II became one of the most powerful monarchs in Western Europe at that time. Richard Benjamin warns that the Angevin kings were not Englishmen, and they were the majority of their time in French territories. They were francophone-speaking rulers and England was at this time another of the lands incorporated into their empire, ruled from Anjou House.
Richard Benjamin emphasizes that the key to understanding the Angevin Empire was the ability of their leaders to gather together troops and resources from a variety of lands like that made up the empire. Thus Henry II was able to use the land he had purchased in 1154 for most of Britain, the disputed land between Anjou and Champagne, the Norman Vexin between the border of France and Normandy, Cahors and Quercy (Toulouse bordering regions) and of course Aquitaine. The key is that Henry II was continually expanding himself both in territories and political influence.
Finally, some of the points addressed by Benjamin is the issue of the legacy of Henry II, who was determined that his children would rule as princes in his territories, as long as he could retain his "Status Quo". Here we can see the first hint of decadence of the Angevins, and that in making such division there were endless family feuds over his claim of territories between his sons and himself, even his wife Eleanor was involved in a rebellion that led to finish her days in prison. After the death of Henry II, the empire was passed intact into the hands of Richard Lionheart, and after this to John, who after his death began the Angevin Empire decomposition.
COMPARISON
The three articles address the issue from a similar perspective, linear chronological order and according to the traditional historical line. Similarly, the issue in that they focus is also similar, as they speak of the formation and ideas that led to the creation of the Angevin Empire. The article of Hollister and Keefe, the most extensive and detailed, especially emphasizes the work of Henry I and the previous Angevin kings as their contribution laid the foundation for the subsequent Angevin empire ruled by Henry II. They point on the historical question in a conventional manner, and follow a linear chronological axis on this article, which is maybe not the most effective to draw the consequences of empire building. Of the three articles I have chosen this may be the hardest since it focuses much attention in my opinion in specific events. Anyway, it is an excellent article to learn more about the intricacies and historical events (marriages, dynastic disputes, feudal wars) that led to the creation of the empire.
However, with the second article (Bachrach) what caught my attention were particularly the conclusions he draws, because it helps to create an overall and clearer idea of the Angevin Empire. It focuses on a similar way to Hollister and Keefe in the analysis of historical events, even some part of his analysis are based on the theories of these two authors, with whom he mostly agrees, for example, the difference between the idea of empire of Henry I and Henry II. Pages 298 and 299 of the article are those that bring more light and better synthesize the way of thinking of Bachrach. This article is the one which helped me the most to understand the idea of the Angevin empire as the conclusions it draws are quite clear and concise.
Finally, the article by Richard Benjamin could be classified under another category, that one of historical divulgation articles. It does not impact on any novel aspect they have not tried in the previous two articles, and it re-examines the question in a linear perspective. However, the language is more accessible, focused for a less specialized audience. What I found most important about this article is that it also addresses the issue of economic disparity in the Angevin territories, a not very discussed point in the previous two articles. And of course, this article extends on a greater level in the complicated inheritance issue after the reign of Henry II (Reigns of Richard Lionheart and John I) helping to take a more global view of the matter.
CONCLUSSION
Finally, as a conclusion, I have found particularly interesting how the Angevin Empire could last over the time because of the diversity and disparity of its territories. The result was obvious, the empire that was formed with Henry II in 1154 only ran until 1214, the year that John lost his last possessions. The Angevins were not English and therefore they focused most of their military and political efforts in the continental territories of France. This itself it is already a symptom of crisis, mainly of identity, because we can hardly mix two countries with such cultural and political differences as England and France.
Decay factors can be found in the weak territorial integrity of the Angevin possessions. Henry II, unlike his predecessor Henry I, was a king with expansionist ambitions but always respected the traditions and local jurisdictions of his territories as he considered indispensable to keep his empire afloat. It was a decentralized empire, ruled and based on the matrimonial alliance policy, a key to understand the Angevin family. The socio-economic model was the feudalism, the current in Europe at that time. For example, the Duchy of Normandy (possibly the most effectively managed) differed greatly from the Duchy of Brittany, one of the last territories incorporated into the empire. The differences were not only at the administrative, but economic and even cultural life (in Normandy it was spoken Norman and Anglo-Norman, while in Britain was Breton) Some historians have pointed that we should not even talk about an empire, better talk about a conglomerate of a completely independent seven sovereign states, diffusely linked between them.
We cannot understand the Angevin empire as a replica of the Ancient Roman Empire, for example. Even with the idea of an Anglo-Norman State that had Henry I in mind, where centralization and territorial integrity were a political constant. But for Henry II the idea of empire lied on a broadly and flexible network of family connections, in which the composition of the empire was not strictly limited and the emphasis was not to create a permanent and centralized structure.
The Angevin empire collapsed under its own weight. To unstable political identity we should add a series of politically incorrect decisions, which sowed the seeds of discord within the Plantagenet family. Henry II divided his vast empire among his sons, but with the idea of continuing in his position as monarch. His children were not pleased with this decision and rose against him frequently, developing numerous dynastic disputes over the inheritance.
After the death of Henry the Younger, Richard Lionheart took the Duchy of Aquitaine and prepared to follow in the footsteps of his father.
The Angevin Empire
[pic][pic]
*Source: www.newworldencyclopedia.org // eulogos.blogspot.com
1. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE 3 SELECTED ARTICLES
A) Hollister, C. Warren , Keefe, Thomas K., 1973 “ THE MAKING OF THE ANGEVIN EMPIRE” Journal of British Studies .Vol. 12, No. 2 (May, 1973), pp. 1-25 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The North American Conference on British Studies
This article is an exhaustive and full-detailed analysis made by professors Warren Hollister and Thomas Keefe in the year 1973, based on the question of how Angevin empire was formed and which were its primarily roots. It mainly focuses during the reign of Henry I, king of England and Normandy who set the ideological and political basis of the subsequent Angevin Empire ruled by Henry II. Another key fact to understand the birth of the Angevin Empire was the union of its two chief components, the Anglo-Norman state and the county of Anjou. Hollister and Keefe make their analysis by asking themselves the following questions: “Did the empire come about by accident or by political design? And if by design, who was …show more content…
its architect? Was it Henry I, who arranged the crucial marriage between his daughter Maud and Geoffrey, heir to Anjou? Was it Geoffrey, or Maud? Or was it their son, Henry Plantagenet the ultimate beneficiary of the marriage?”
Understanding these key points must lead us to comprehend the whole idea of how Angevin Empire was created. Special emphasis is given to King Henry I and Angevin counts, who made possible that King Henry II was the ultimate beneficiary of the Anglo-Norman and Angevin heritage.
B) Bachrach, Bernard S., 1978. “THE IDEA OF ANGEVIN EMPIRE”. Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter, 1978), pp. 293-299
Bachrach focuses his analysis on the causes and ideas that led to the formation of the Angevin Empire, and he does a retrospective since before Henry I. Based on studies of Hollister and Keefe, he says that we must not only talk about the formation of the Angevin Empire by the action of Henry I and Henry II, but other characters were also decisive in the building of that empire. For example, just as important is the action of Count Fulk the Younger, which should ask us what he had in mind when his son Geoffrey married the heiress to the Anglo-Norman Throne, Matilda, daughter of Henry I. One of the ideas is that Fulk was extending a familiar tradition of expanding Angevin family domains through marriage alliances. With this marriage ended a long period of wars between Anjou and Normandy.
To sum up, Bachrach sees the Angevin Empire “as an agglomeration of diverse lands and rights connected through marriage, inheritance, and other means for the purpose of enhancing the political interests of a family and directed by the head of that family”.
[…] “The Angevin idea of empire was a broadly conceived, flexible, and multifaceted network of family connections. The composition of the Angevin Empire was not fixed and no effort was made to create a permanent structure. The Angevin counts seemed to appreciate that the failure to produce heirs, the development of personality conflicts, the intervention of premature death, and numerous other unforeseen problems were far too likely to undermine any but the most rudimentary and flexible pattern of organization.”
[…]
“Henry II rejected decisively Henry I's Anglo-Norman model with its limited horizons and emphasis on administrative integration. By contrast, Henry II accepted the Angevin idea of empire which promised a wider field of action and greater rewards. Henry knew that the broadly based and flexible Angevin idea of empire had led to success for two centuries despite civil war, lack of heirs, premature deaths, personality clashes, and innumerable other trials and tribulations. Indeed, Henry II was acutely aware of how difficult it had been to preserve the comparatively narrow-based and tightly integrated Anglo-Norman state. In fact, Henry I's fragile creation had survived largely because of Angevin might.” […]
[…] pages 298-299 Bachrach, Bernard S., 1978. “THE IDEA OF ANGEVIN EMPIRE”. Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter, 1978)
C) Benjamin, Richard. 1986. "THE ANGEVIN EMPIRE." History Today 36, no. 2: 17. Historical Abstracts with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed April 21, 2013).
This article focuses the question from a more general point of view and seems to be part of a magazine or newspaper of historical disclosure. Back to influence the creation of the Angevin Empire by Henry II as a number of factors (political decisions, marriage alliances or even luck) made it possible for Henry II became one of the most powerful monarchs in Western Europe at that time. Richard Benjamin warns that the Angevin kings were not Englishmen, and they were the majority of their time in French territories. They were francophone-speaking rulers and England was at this time another of the lands incorporated into their empire, ruled from Anjou House.
Richard Benjamin emphasizes that the key to understanding the Angevin Empire was the ability of their leaders to gather together troops and resources from a variety of lands like that made up the empire. Thus Henry II was able to use the land he had purchased in 1154 for most of Britain, the disputed land between Anjou and Champagne, the Norman Vexin between the border of France and Normandy, Cahors and Quercy (Toulouse bordering regions) and of course Aquitaine. The key is that Henry II was continually expanding himself both in territories and political influence.
Finally, some of the points addressed by Benjamin is the issue of the legacy of Henry II, who was determined that his children would rule as princes in his territories, as long as he could retain his "Status Quo". Here we can see the first hint of decadence of the Angevins, and that in making such division there were endless family feuds over his claim of territories between his sons and himself, even his wife Eleanor was involved in a rebellion that led to finish her days in prison. After the death of Henry II, the empire was passed intact into the hands of Richard Lionheart, and after this to John, who after his death began the Angevin Empire decomposition.
COMPARISON
The three articles address the issue from a similar perspective, linear chronological order and according to the traditional historical line. Similarly, the issue in that they focus is also similar, as they speak of the formation and ideas that led to the creation of the Angevin Empire. The article of Hollister and Keefe, the most extensive and detailed, especially emphasizes the work of Henry I and the previous Angevin kings as their contribution laid the foundation for the subsequent Angevin empire ruled by Henry II. They point on the historical question in a conventional manner, and follow a linear chronological axis on this article, which is maybe not the most effective to draw the consequences of empire building. Of the three articles I have chosen this may be the hardest since it focuses much attention in my opinion in specific events. Anyway, it is an excellent article to learn more about the intricacies and historical events (marriages, dynastic disputes, feudal wars) that led to the creation of the empire.
However, with the second article (Bachrach) what caught my attention were particularly the conclusions he draws, because it helps to create an overall and clearer idea of the Angevin Empire. It focuses on a similar way to Hollister and Keefe in the analysis of historical events, even some part of his analysis are based on the theories of these two authors, with whom he mostly agrees, for example, the difference between the idea of empire of Henry I and Henry II. Pages 298 and 299 of the article are those that bring more light and better synthesize the way of thinking of Bachrach. This article is the one which helped me the most to understand the idea of the Angevin empire as the conclusions it draws are quite clear and concise.
Finally, the article by Richard Benjamin could be classified under another category, that one of historical divulgation articles. It does not impact on any novel aspect they have not tried in the previous two articles, and it re-examines the question in a linear perspective. However, the language is more accessible, focused for a less specialized audience. What I found most important about this article is that it also addresses the issue of economic disparity in the Angevin territories, a not very discussed point in the previous two articles. And of course, this article extends on a greater level in the complicated inheritance issue after the reign of Henry II (Reigns of Richard Lionheart and John I) helping to take a more global view of the matter.
CONCLUSSION
Finally, as a conclusion, I have found particularly interesting how the Angevin Empire could last over the time because of the diversity and disparity of its territories. The result was obvious, the empire that was formed with Henry II in 1154 only ran until 1214, the year that John lost his last possessions. The Angevins were not English and therefore they focused most of their military and political efforts in the continental territories of France. This itself it is already a symptom of crisis, mainly of identity, because we can hardly mix two countries with such cultural and political differences as England and France.
Decay factors can be found in the weak territorial integrity of the Angevin possessions. Henry II, unlike his predecessor Henry I, was a king with expansionist ambitions but always respected the traditions and local jurisdictions of his territories as he considered indispensable to keep his empire afloat. It was a decentralized empire, ruled and based on the matrimonial alliance policy, a key to understand the Angevin family. The socio-economic model was the feudalism, the current in Europe at that time. For example, the Duchy of Normandy (possibly the most effectively managed) differed greatly from the Duchy of Brittany, one of the last territories incorporated into the empire. The differences were not only at the administrative, but economic and even cultural life (in Normandy it was spoken Norman and Anglo-Norman, while in Britain was Breton) Some historians have pointed that we should not even talk about an empire, better talk about a conglomerate of a completely independent seven sovereign states, diffusely linked between them.
We cannot understand the Angevin empire as a replica of the Ancient Roman Empire, for example. Even with the idea of an Anglo-Norman State that had Henry I in mind, where centralization and territorial integrity were a political constant. But for Henry II the idea of empire lied on a broadly and flexible network of family connections, in which the composition of the empire was not strictly limited and the emphasis was not to create a permanent and centralized structure.
The Angevin empire collapsed under its own weight. To unstable political identity we should add a series of politically incorrect decisions, which sowed the seeds of discord within the Plantagenet family. Henry II divided his vast empire among his sons, but with the idea of continuing in his position as monarch. His children were not pleased with this decision and rose against him frequently, developing numerous dynastic disputes over the inheritance.
After the death of Henry the Younger, Richard Lionheart took the Duchy of Aquitaine and prepared to follow in the footsteps of his father.