- Weakness of Henry's opposition is important in limitin gthe degree of danger
- The great rebellion was such a serious threat becuase of the scale in which it was geogrphcally and the range of differnt coalitions going against the King.
THE LACK OF COORDINATION OF THE REBELS MADE THE SITUATION MORE MANAGABLE, NONETHELESS HENRY WOULD HAVE NOT SURVIVED THE REBELLION WITHOUT SKILFULLY HANDLING THE REBELS IN MILITARY MANOUVERS AND POLITICAL SKILL.
- Serious threat- legitimacy,crowned 1170 He had theocratic strength but practical skill.
- LACKED THE 'CHARISTMATIC KINGSHIP OF HIS FATHER'- Jones
Even with the assistance of Phillip: Poole calls Louis a 'director' in encouraging Louis- under the pretext of visiting his daughter margret he encouraged young Henry to demand more power. Yet Poole also highlights Louis did his job 'clumsily' - failed to develop and objective- also evident in the secnd crusade and failing against Henry in the takeover of Brittany 1158
LOUIS INCREASED PRACTICAL POWER OF YOUNG HENRY BYT FAILED IN HIS LEADERSHIP- OVERALL THE PAIRS LACK OF LEADERSHIP WAS NOTHING TO COMPETE AGAINST THE KING.
The involment of the Barons increased the seriousness, particularly as they held land in the midlands and their was the threat that the north would be cut off from the King
HOWEVER... THE BARONS WERE THE MINORITY-THOSE THAT REBELLED WERE ON THE GROUNDS OF PERSONAL GRIEVENCE-most barons submitted to a King that would create order.
- Hugh Earl of chester-denied inheritence of chester
- Hugh Bigod-would not hand over 3 castles
- robert earl of leister- forced to pay scutage.
Henry never faced a large scale baronial revlot in England as they were the minority andf could therfore fight his rebdellion in stages.
Although Henry's resprces were strtched he used the forces well.
- 1173 drove King Louis from Verneuil and galloped to Brittany where the Earl of chester surrenderd
- Richard de lucy (Justiciar) stormed Leiseter
- 1174-suppressed rebels on continental borders.
Henry was helped by loyalty of Key officials/alongside Willof Scots weak leadership.
King William did add the the severity but the danger was limited by weak leadership.
1174:Battle of Alnwick- William charges ' Now we shall see which of us has the best knights'
William was captured by Henry's troops led by Ranulf de Glanvill. - transfered to Normandy
Durning this time Henry stormed scotland- Led to the treaty of Falaise - William submitted to Henry at York and signed the treaty accepting Henry as a feudal superior.
WILLIAMS RECKLESS LEADERSHIP CONTRIBUTED TO FAILURE BUT THE NORTHERN MENS LOYALITY ASWELL AS ENGLISH GENERALS WAS KEY TO SCOTLANDS COLLAPSE.
DIPLOMATIC AND MILITARY SKILL.
Henry was a highly skilled diplomat
- Penance after the murder of Thomas Becket 3 times in normandy and once in canterbury.In order to appease the popular opinion of him
Good fortune: William the Lion was captured the day after penace implying that God and Becket were on Henry's side.
Skillfull handling; Managing to keep the majority of rebels in his favour worked in his protection against the King of Scotland
his intelligent campaign to Ireland to proplong the negotiations with the result of Pope Alex being on his side led to the Popes support durning the rebellion.
WEAKNESS IN LEADERSHIP MEANT THAT HENRY NEVER FAST EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION + LACK OF WIDESPREAD BARONIAL UPRISING LED TO HENRY BEING ABLE TO DEAL WITH THE REBELLION IN STAGES.
THE REBELLION WAS STILL A SERIOUS ENOUGH THREAT THAT IF IT WAS BADLY HANDLED HENRY WOULD HAVE FAILED.
DIPLOMATIC AND MILITARY SKILL SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE REBELLION