John Minsterworth

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Sir
John Minsterworth
Died12 April 1377
Late Medieval
EmployerEdward III of England
Known forSoldiering, treason
Criminal chargesConspiracy
Criminal penaltyDeath
Criminal statusExecuted

Sir John Minsterworth (died 1377) was a fourteenth-century English

military acumen
. Landing in the north, Knolles and Minsterworth carved their way to the west of France. There, divisions among the leaders—which may have been present before the campaign began—erupted into mutiny.

Minsterworth may have despised Knolles for his reputation and status, and with others split from Knolles's main force. Much of that force was destroyed in December 1370 by the French army at the Battle of Pontvallain. Minsterworth and a breakaway force made their way to Brittany despite frequent ambushes and French raids, and eventually—albeit seeing most of the remnant of his army massacred on the Breton shore—to England. There he attempted to blame Knolles for the disaster, and although Minsterworth's former commander was found culpable of many of the military mishaps that had occurred, Minsterworth did not escape blame either.

Minsterworth left England in 1372 to join the French army. Five years later he met and conspired with the rebel Welsh lord, Owain Lawgoch, and, for reasons which are now obscure, supported Owen's proposed French-backed invasion of England. In 1377, while still abroad, he was captured by the English and sent home to be tried for treason. Convicted on conspiracy charges, he was executed and his corpse was drawn and quartered before being distributed across the kingdom.

Service in France and mutiny

Nothing is known of John Minsterworth's early life, although he was probably born in Minsterworth, Gloucestershire, from which he presumably took his surname.[1] The historian Andrew Ayton describes him as a "shadowy ... man of obscure origins".[2] His first recorded appearance is in 1367 when took a contract with Humphrey, Earl of Hereford to serve in France; he was also responsible for recruiting Hereford's large retinue.[3] The following year he indentured to join the 1370 English expedition to France during the Hundred Years' War. His activities on that campaign then have incurred criticism from various historians; James Sherborne, for example, has said Minsterworth caused "much trouble" on the campaign,[4] while the historian Jonathan Sumption describes him as an "ambitious hothead".[5]

The expeditionary force assembled at

medievalist Mark Ormrod suggests that Knolles's appointment may have implied superiority over his fellow captains, exacerbating tensions among them,[12] of whom Minsterworth was the most outspoken.[13] Contemporary chronicler claim that Knolles's lacked breeding. Jean Le Bel states that he was originally a clothworker,[14] while Thomas Walsingham says he was a "poor and lowly valet".[9] Either way, Minsterworth seems to have seen himself as socially outranking Knolles. As a result, Sumption suggests that Minsterworth "conceived a virulent hatred of his commander",[15] with Minsterworth calling Knolles such names as "the Old Freebooter",[15] an "old brigand",[8][16] and a "tomb-robber"[17] while constantly criticising his leadership.[15][note 2]

The remains, in 2008, of Minsterworth's likely destination following the disaster at Pontvallain; Knolles's Derval Castle, Brittany

Although Minsterworth has been seen as a "comparatively obscure" figure in political society,

indentures.[26] Much of this force was composed of "footloose professionals",[27] as they have been called, often little more than a collection of "outcasts, apostate clergymen and criminals on the run ... who served for loot and pardons".[5] Minsterworth had to rely on such men because he lacked the recruiting networks in England that a great lord would have possessed through land holding, tenantry and wide-ranging social influence.[27] While he did recruit men of status who could themselves recruit, such as Sir Thomas Fauconberg[note 4] from the Marches, in many cases his recruitment may reflect connections made as a freebooter.[29] This was in contrast, for example, to Knolles, whose wealth allowed him to bear the cost of maintaining an army in the field for an extended period.[30]

Landing at

attrition; by now, the army was on the verge of disintegration,[8] mainly due to Minsterworth's mutiny.[33] Knolles may have aggravated his fellow captains further by keeping for himself a disproportionally large amount of the ransoms and booty.[34] This was important to Minsterworth, not only because it impacted his own potential profit, but made it harder to pay his own men, who might, in turn, have deserted him.[35] The tactical and military failures of the campaign were placed firmly at Knolles's door, and he was increasingly accused of misjudgement and inexperience;[15] he may have been as unwilling to face the French in open battle as they were him, which could also have increased dissent among men who felt themselves to be "better formed in chivalry";[36] Minsterworth told his companions, "it redounded to their great dishonour to be subjected" to Knolles.[37]

Division of the English force

And before the feast of Christmas, the chief men of the army, out of envy and self-importance, split into four parts, to the great harm of England, and great comfort of the enemies: that is to say, the Lord of Grandson with his men in one part, the Lord FitzWalter in another, and Sir John Minsterworth in the third part, and Sir Robert Knolles in the fourth.

The Anonimalle Chronicle, 64–65

A contemporary chronicler relates how "out of envy and self-importance"[38] the English captains ended up dividing their army into four, and went separate ways, probably to make foraging easier and increase profits.[21][38] Minsterworth's force was the first to leave; Knolles followed, taking the majority of the army with him.[34][38][39] Soon after, in early December 1370, what remained of the English army was routed at the Battle of Pontvallain.[38][40] Minsterworth was at the battle,[41] and clearly far enough away to escape the enemy.[42] It is possible that he was in communication with the French and that his information lead to the English collapse.[43]

Whatever role Minsterworth played, on hearing of the result he fled to Brittany, probably to Knolles's castle at Derval. There, with Knolles, he spent the winter comfortably. Minsterworth decided to return his army to England early the following year.[note 5] Leaving Knolles in Derval, Minsterworth led a force of somewhere between a few hundred and 1,100 men[note 6]—possibly including recently arrived, albeit now useless, reinforcements from England[44]—to the port of Pointe Saint-Mathieu, Finistère. Continual ambushes depleted their numbers en route. Worse news awaited them. When they arrived at the port, there were only two small ships available, far too few for the couple of hundred men who needed transport. Minsterworth was one of the few who could afford passage; those who remained were massacred when the French caught up with them.[41]

Return to England

Minsterworth's return to England

King's Council effectively agreed with him and condemned Knolles and Buxhill for the defeat.[46]

After the Black Prince and John of Gaunt spoke out for Knolles, the King declared that "he should not be held as responsible as his men for their unruliness, disobedience and arrogance".

traducing Knolles.[47] Minsterworth failed to appear before the council's enquiry, and at this point—"humiliated...and frustrated in his ambitions"[47]—renounced his allegiance to Edward III.[43] His failure to appear before the council resulted in automatic outlawry, meaning his estates could be seized by the crown.[48]

Later years, treason and death

Renegade in France

Minsterworth again left for France in 1372.

feudal lord in Gloucestershire and the Marches.[48] Minsterworth appears to have been accompanied by his old comrade-in-arms, Thomas Fauconberg, who defected at the same time; "the fact that both these men took this huge step must be more than coincidence", argues . Describing it as an intriguing choice to make, he posits that Fauconberg was easily led, in this case by Minsterworth.[51][note 7]

By 1376, King Charles had formulated a plan to invade England[53] with a large Franco-Castilian Navy,[54] or "army of the sea", as the French named it.[53] Although the intended logistics of this campaign, or how it was to be implemented, is uncertain, Sumption has speculated that a French fleet was to "burn their way west"[55] along the south coast of England on their way to land Owain Lawgoch at Milford Haven.[55] Owen was a pretender to the throne of the Aberffraw princes,[56] and Charles's plan was for him to lead a French expeditionary force army with the now-renegade Minsterworth. Sumption also argues that "what Minsterworth could contribute, or indeed expected to get out of this adventure, is more difficult to say".[55]

Capture by the English

Minsterworth was accused of "certain misdeeds before the King and fearing the punishment due to him, therefore, like a false and forsworn traitor, he fled to France unto the King's enemies, and then was sworn unto the French King, and conspired against his natural lord and master undertaking to direct the Spanish Navy and bring them into England, to the confusion and destruction of his native country."[50]

George Harrison, Observations in Support of the Title of the King, Jure Ducatus..., 1832

Early in 1377 Minsterworth travelled to Castile to arrange the despatch of troops, materiel and transports for the invasion.[55] In March, he was captured in Pamplona,[50] Navarre, by a Gascon squire;[57][note 8] letters discussing the proposed invasion were found on him.[57] Minsterworth was taken to Bordeaux before being returned to England.[57] He originally landed at Bristol, but as a local landowner, appears to have had some support in the area. When the royal council discovered that an attempt at his rescue was planned, he was immediately transferred to the Tower of London.[50] Under interrogation—including torture—Minsterworth revealed French plans to launch their galley fleet in May the following year.[19]

He was tried for treason within the Guildhall in the City of London before the Mayor, Nicholas Brembre, and other royal justices.[50] Here he also confessed to meeting Owen and stated that they were both to have led the invasion.[19] This was deemed further treason, being "willful support of the King's enemies"[58] and was sentenced to be drawn, hanged and quartered.[57][note 9]

Execution

About this time [1376] exemplary Juftice was done upon Sir John Midfterworth, Knight, who was drawn, hanged and quartered at Tyburn for Treafon by him committed, in defrauding Souldiers of their Wages.

Richard Baker, Chronicle of the Kings of England from the Time of the Romans' Government unto the Death of King James, 1643[59]

Before his execution, Minsterworth was allowed write to the King. Although the letter is lost, it "probably contained an appeal for mercy and the usual kind of promise of information".[49] He never received a response as it was probably opened by the Earl Marshal, Henry Percy, and never seen by Edward.[49] This may have been, as suggested by David Moore, because Minsterworth named prominent sympathisers of Owen's which it was felt the King should be shielded from.[60]

Minsterworth was executed on 12 April 1377 at

Peasant's revolt in 1381, when it was replaced on its pole by the head of Simon Sudbury, Archbishop of Canterbury.[63][64]

Estates

The

City of Gloucester.[65] Minsterworth also held estates further afield; for example, in South Wales (around Usk),[1] and Norfolk (in North Barsham).[66] Since Minsterworth had been condemned as an outlaw in 1373, all his lands in Gloucestershire were forfeited to Gaunt per jure ducatus,[67] while those in Wales and Leonard Stanley went to the King under his right of jure coronae.[68][note 10]

Legacy

Minsterworth was distained by his contemporaries. Walsingham described him as "with a willing hand but a deceptive and distorted mind" (maim quidem promptus, sed mente fallax et perversus).

mental instability.[5] On the other hand, Sumption also suggests that—in view of how Minsterworth was trusted by Charles to make the arrangements with Castille and to lead the invasion fleet—"he must have been a plausible talker in spite of his shady past".[55]

A 16th-century edition of Ranulf Higden's c. 1377 chronicle Polychronicon,[note 11] contained an illustration of Minsterworth and a description of his execution. The image is on an otherwise unillustrated mappa mundi at the beginning of the Polychronicon, possibly suggesting that particular version of the manuscript has a local provenance.[73][74]

Notes

  1. ^ An important aspect of the campaign: the French chronicler Pierre d'Orgemont wrote (in his Chroniques des Regnes de Jean II et Charles V) how, as Knolles's army marched through northern France burning the wheat and "great houses", the English destroyed what they wanted, unless ransoms were paid.[10] On a previous campaign in 1357–1360, Knolles used the same tactic with profitable results. The historian Michael Jones has described how on that occasion Knolles's army "left a trail of ravaged villages, whose charred gables were known as 'Knolles' mitres' "; and how, as a result, Knolles made around £15,000 in booty.[11]
  2. ^ The French chronicler Jean Le Bel also says that Knolles first "became a footsoldier in brigandine".[14] Le Bel's modern editor, Nigel Bryant, comments on Le Bel's description of Knolles as a brigand et soldoyer pyé that[18]

    This could be interpreted as a blunt statement that [Knolles] became "a brigand and a mercenary", but elsewhere ... Le Bel uses "brigand" in reference to the brigandine as he classifies troops by their armour, and Le Bel seems here to be emphasising Knolles's low status, with implicit dismay that one of his origins should acquire power and wealth.[18]
  3. ^ How Minsterworth was able to pay for such a retinue is another question, says Baker, asking: "wealthy magnates like John of Gaunt and the earl of Buckingham might have been able to afford to equip the huge retinues which they took to war. How, though, would a captain like Sir John Minsterworth ... a man of only local, at best regional, standing, and men in his position, be able to afford to equip soldiers from their own pocket in such numbers?"[25]
  4. ^ Occasionally rendered Faucomberge.[28]
  5. ^ Or, as the contemporary Anonimalle Chronicle says, "the said Sir John Minsterworth, hearing of this affair, put to sea with all his men and arrived safely in England. [38]
  6. ^ The exact figure is unknown; Sumption tends towards the lower figure, while the scholar Gary Baker posits the higher.[41][44]
  7. ^ Fauconberg was not captured until July 1378. Unlike Minsterworth, he was imprisoned in various royal castles, not being released until c. 1392, an experience which relatives claimed had "almost destroyed him". He and his son John joined the unsuccessful rebellion of 1405; while John was beheaded, Thomas was pardoned on the grounds of mental illness.[52]
  8. ^ The exact date is of his capture is uncertain, but it was certainly not before 8 March.[50]
  9. chronicler Richard Baker also suggests another, rather more prosaic, element to Minsterworth's prosecution, viz, that Minsterworth had defrauded his soldiers of their wages, although Baker gives no further details as to where or when this may have occurred.[59]
  10. ^ Under a royal charter issued him in 1365, Gaunt was authorised to seize the "houses, lands, and tenements, rents and revenues, with all their appurtenances" of any of his ducal tenants if outlawed. These had been granted to one John de Bath by 10 April 1375.[61]
  11. ^ Actual title: Ranulphi Castrensis, cognomine Higden, Polychronicon (sive Historia Polycratica) ab initio mundi usque ad mortem regis Edwardi III in septem libros dispositum.[72] Held at the British Library under the classification of MS Royal 14 C.II.[73]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Chapman 2015, p. 81.
  2. ^ Ayton 2017, p. 15.
  3. ^ Ayton 2017, pp. 343, 15.
  4. ^ a b Sherborne 1994, p. 7.
  5. ^ a b c d e Sumption 2009, p. 69.
  6. ^ a b c d Sherborne 1994, p. 6.
  7. ^ Bell et al. 2011, p. 45.
  8. ^ a b c d e Jones 2004.
  9. ^ a b Bell et al. 2011, p. 69.
  10. ^ Rogers 2000, p. 189.
  11. ^ Jones 2017, p. 242.
  12. ^ Ormrod 2012, p. 507.
  13. ^ Baker 2018, p. 171.
  14. ^ a b Bel 2011, p. 233.
  15. ^ a b c d e Sumption 2009, p. 87.
  16. ^ Julian-Jones 2020, p. 101.
  17. ^ Tout 1905, p. 358.
  18. ^ a b Bel 2011, p. 233 + n.3.
  19. ^ a b c d e Chapman 2015, p. 85.
  20. ^ a b Prestwich 1996, p. 166.
  21. ^ a b Baker 2018, p. 167.
  22. ^ Baker 2019, p. 208.
  23. ^ Baker 2018, p. 159.
  24. ^ Baker 2011, p. 175.
  25. ^ Baker 2014, p. 204.
  26. ^ Warner 2021, p. 15.
  27. ^ a b Bell et al. 2011, p. 33.
  28. ^ Baker 2018, p. 165.
  29. ^ Baker 2018, pp. 165–166.
  30. ^ Sumption 2009, p. 68.
  31. ^ Fowler 2001, pp. 290–292.
  32. ^ a b Horrox & Ormrod 2006, p. 88.
  33. ^ Ayton 2017, p. 22.
  34. ^ a b Fowler 2001, p. 293.
  35. ^ Baker 2011, p. 152; Baker 2018, p. 171.
  36. ^ Hoskins 2020, p. 60.
  37. ^ King 2019, p. 144.
  38. ^ a b c d e f Rogers 2000, p. 190.
  39. ^ Sumption 2009, pp. 89–90.
  40. ^ Sumption 2009, p. 89.
  41. ^ a b c Sumption 2009, p. 91.
  42. ^ Baker 2018, p. 173.
  43. ^ a b Harrison 1832, p. 21.
  44. ^ a b c d Baker 2018, p. 174.
  45. ^ Baker 2011, p. 343; Baker 2018, p. 174.
  46. ^ a b Sumption 2009, p. 92.
  47. ^ a b c d Sumption 2009, p. 93.
  48. ^ a b Harrison 1832, pp. 21–22.
  49. ^ a b c Armitage-Smith 1905, p. 140.
  50. ^ a b c d e f Harrison 1832, p. 22.
  51. ^ Baker 2018, p. 166.
  52. ^ McNiven 2004.
  53. ^ a b Sumption 2009, p. 268.
  54. ^ Carr 2004a.
  55. ^ a b c d e Sumption 2009, p. 269.
  56. ^ Carr 2004b.
  57. ^ a b c d Sumption 2009, p. 277.
  58. ^ Bellamy 1970, p. 111.
  59. ^ a b Baker 1684, p. 127.
  60. ^ Moore 2007, pp. 165–166.
  61. ^ a b Harrison 1832, p. 23.
  62. ^ Fisher 2010, p. 32.
  63. ^ Simpson 1895, p. 130.
  64. ^ Excursions 1951, p. 210.
  65. ^ Harrison 1832, pp. 20–22.
  66. ^ Blomefield 1807, pp. 47–52.
  67. ^ Harrison 1832, p. 63.
  68. ^ Harrison 1832, p. 24.
  69. ^ Riley 1863, p. 310.
  70. ^ Leland 1770, p. 183.
  71. ^ THP 2022.
  72. ^ Galbraith 1959, p. 1.
  73. ^ a b Dennison & Rogers 2002, p. 80.
  74. ^ Warner & Gilson 1921, p. 137.

Bibliography

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Minsterworth&oldid=1216217418"