Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T02:01:45.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ships and Mariners in Later Medieval England*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Timothy J. Runyan
Timothy J. Runyan*
Affiliation:
Cleveland State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Contemporary perspectives on the activities of English medieval ships and mariners are somewhat distorted, since historians are rarely able to examine mercantile or marine activity from the personal records of merchants, mariners, shipbuilders, corderers, or others involved in maritime affairs. The sources are overwhelmingly royal and so they reduce the individual efforts of men and their ships to entries of income and expenditures in exchequer records, commissions of arrest or impressment, legal briefs, and occasional parliamentary records. The chroniclers prove of little help because of their general unfamiliarity with maritime affairs or because of the restricted interests of their patrons. Consequently, historians are forced to revert to the well-preserved English archival material which can shed light on the topic. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the value of the administrative records of medieval England in the study of ships and mariners. The focus of the essay is on the early history of the royal navy as opposed to the merchant ships impressed by the crown. Although this approach is not unique, questions regarding the composition, maintenance, or manning of royal fleets are traditionally answered by a discussion of the merchant marine. This study has been confined to the fourteenth century — a period crucial to the English experience because of the origins of the Hundred Years' War with France and the demands which the war placed upon the naval resources of England.

English fleets in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries relied heavily upon the Cinque Ports whose commitment of 57 ships for 15 days' service per year was formalized in the thirteenth century by “ancient custom.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , Spring 1977 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

An earlier version of this paper was read at the New England Medieval Conference held at Mystic Seaport, Connecticut in September 1975. I am indebted to the discussion which followed and in particular to the helpful suggestions of Professors Frederic C. Lane, Archibald R. Lewis, and Bryce D. Lyon.

References

1. See Murray, K.M.E., The Constitutional History of the Cinque Ports (London, 1935)Google Scholar and Brooks's, F. W. chapter on the ports in The English Naval Forces, 1199-1272 (Manchester, 1932, reprint, 1962.)Google Scholar

2. Delays were due either to problems in coordinating soldiers, mariners, ships, and victuals or adverse weather. Sometimes both, as in the expedition to Brittany in 1346. See Hewitt, H. J., The Organization of War Under Edward III (Manchester, 1966), pp. 81–82Google Scholar. The efforts of 1372 were disastrous. Aboard the Gracedieu at Sandwich on 27 August, contrary winds held the fleet to the south coast. Stranded at Winchester until October 14, Edward gave up attempts to reach his objective, La Rochelle, and released the 3,000 soldiers and 3,000 archers enlisted for the expedition. Mariners' wages amounted to over £10,000. PRO, Rolls of Foreign Accounts, E. 364/8 mm. I, K. PRO, Exchequer of Receipt, Issue Rolls, E. 403/446 m. 37.

3. Hewitt, H. J., The Black Prince's Expedition, 1355-1357 (Manchester, 1958), pp. 40–42Google Scholar contains a list of the fleet for the passage to Bordeaux. Curiously, Hewitt omits from his tonnage list the figure for the Saint Mary Cog of Winchelsea, 200 tons, the largest ship of the 73 listed.

4. The ships were kept in port, generally at Rotherhithe or Ratcliff, where they were maintained by a skeleton crew. One is the Cog Johan whose 32-man crew dwindled to six while at London from 1 July to 26 September 1351. PRO, Exchequer Accounts Various, E. 101/24/14 m. 1.

5. Rotuli Parliamentorum, ed. Strachey, J. (hereafter Rot. Parl.) (6 vols.; London, 1832), II, 311Google Scholar. This particular complaint by shipowners expressed their longstanding grievance concerning revenue losses caused by lengthy impressments.

6. For the fifteenth century see the work of Burwash, Dorothy, English Merchant Shipping 1460-1540 (Toronto, 1947, reprint 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Ch. V.; Richmond, C. F., “Royal Administration and the Keeping of the Seas, 1422-1485,” (Unpublished D. Phil, thesis, Oxford University, 1963)Google Scholar.

7. Brooks, F. W., English Naval Forces, pp. 187–88Google Scholar.

8. Prestwich, M., War, Politics, and Finance Under Edward I (London, 1972), p. 142Google Scholar. See British Museum, Add. MS 7965, ff. 89v, 90v-92, 96-7, 105v.

9. BM, Harleian MS 246, f. 12 b.; ibid., MS 3968, f. 130, and ibid., Cotton MS Titus F. III, f. 262.

10. Postan, M. M., “The Costs of the Hundred Years' War,” Past and Present, No. 28 (April, 1964), 34–53Google Scholar.

11. James W. Sherborne, “The English Navy: Shipping and Manpower, 1369-1389,” ibid., No. 37 (July, 1967), 163-75.

12. Whitwell, R. J. and Johnson, C., “The Newcastle Galley, A.D. 1294,” Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., II (1926), 142–93Google Scholar; Johnson, C., “London Shipbuilding, A.D. 1295,” Antiquaries Journal, VII (1927), 424–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anderson, R. C., “English Galleys: in 1295,” Mariner's Mirror, XIV (1928), 220–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tinniswood, J. T., “English Galleys, 1272-1377,” Mariner's Mirror, XXXV (October, 1949), 276–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Prestwich, M., War, Politics, and Finance, p. 138Google Scholar, states that 30 galleys were ordered and claims that they were all completed in 1295. This is not true. Building accounts exist for only eight galleys, although others were probably constructed.

13. Sherborne, J. W., “English Navy,” Past and PresentGoogle Scholar, No. 37, gives the figure of 166 for 1369-75. For 1344-52, see PRO, E. 101/20/14; E. 101/24/1 m. 5; E. 101/24/7 mm. 5-6; E. 101/24/14.

14. Nicolas, N. H., History of the Royal Navy (2 vols.; London, 1847), IIGoogle Scholar, Appendix II.

15. PRO, E. 101/20/22.

16. Guildhall, London, Letterbook G, ed. Sharpe, R. R. (London, 1905), f. ccivGoogle Scholar. See the edition with notes by Moore, A., “A Barge of Edward III,” Mariner's Mirror, VI (Aug. 1920), 229–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This is actually an inventory of the vessel's outfit.

17. PRO, E. 101/24/7 m. 6.

18. Whitwell, and Johnson, , “Newcastle Galley,” Arch. Aeliana (1926), 145Google Scholar.

19. Soper's account is in the Phillipp's Collection (No. 4102) at Greenwich. Dr. Susan P. Rose recently completed a study of Soper with an edition of his accounts: “The Accounts of William Soper, Clerk of the King's Ships to Henry V and Henry VI for 1421–27,” (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1974.)Google Scholar It will be published by the Navy Records Society as will a volume of my own which includes the accounts of several clerks of the king's ships under Edward III.

20. For Wrotham's career, see Brooks, F. W., “William de Wrotham and the Office of Keeper of the King's Ports and Galleys,” EHR, XL (October, 1925), 570–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar and his English Naval Forces, Ch. viii. Also note the conclusions of Powell, W. R., “The Administration of the Navy and the Stannaries, 1189-1216,” EHR, LXXI (April, 1956), 177–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. See Prince, A. E., “The Army and the Navy” in The English Government at Work, eds. Willard, J. F. and Morris, W. F. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940), I, 383Google Scholar; PRO, E. 101/20/9.

22. For the king's crossing to Brittany, see ibid., E. 101/23/18; payment of mariner's wages for 1344-45, E. 101/24/7; for his account see ibid., Exchequer, Enrolled Accounts (Pipe Rolls), E. 372/203 m. 38.

23. For Clewar's account, see ibid., E. 372/209 m. 47; for Torkeseye's, see E. 372/206 m. 49.

24. Ibid., E. 101/27/15, covering the period from Michaelmas 1358 to 2 Feb. 1363.

25. Ibid., E. 101/28/26; for her refitting in 1373, see E. 372/209 m. 47.

26. In 1301 shipowners were paid at a negotiated rate of 7s per ton. BM, Add. MS 7966a, ff. 102-03, 130-31; C.C.R. (1296-1302), 482-83. Prestwich, , War, Politics, and Finance, p. 145Google Scholar. For ton-tight rates, see Rot. Parl., III, 86Google Scholar and the 1385 reduction to 2s, Rot. Parl., III, 212–13Google Scholar.

27. On the French fleet see the plans of 1339 for the invasion of England. These were captured by the Earl of Huntingdon in 1346, BM, Harleian MS 3836, printed in the Black Book of the Admiralty, ed. Twiss, T. (4 vols.; London, 1871), I, 420, 426–27Google Scholar, and in de Avesbury, Robert, De Gestis Mirabilibus Edwardi Tertii, ed. Thompson, E. M., Rolls Series (London, 1889), pp. 205, 259–61Google Scholar; Rot. Parl., II, 158Google Scholar.

28. Chroniques de London depuis L'An 44 Henri III jusqu à l'An 17 Edward III, ed. Anngier, G. J. [Camden Society, Vol. 28] (London, 1844), pp. 26–27Google Scholar, states that 300 ships sailed; Chronicon Monasterii de Melsa, ed. Bond, E. A., Rolls Series (3 vols.; London, 1866–1868), III, 44Google Scholar, says 200; le Baker, Geoffrey, Chronicon, ed. Thompson, E. M., Rolls Series (London, 1889), p. 68Google Scholar, says 260 ships, as does Murimuth, Adam, Continuatio Chronicarum, ed. Thompson, E. M., Rolls Series (London, 1889), p. 105Google Scholar; Chronicon de Lanercost, ed. Stevenson, J. (Edinburgh, 1839), p. 333Google Scholar, states there were 147 ships. Kepler, J. S., “The Effects of the Battle of Sluys upon the Administration of English Naval Impressment, 1340-1343,” Speculum, XLVIII (January, 1973), 74Google Scholar, accepts Baker's estimate.

29. J. S. Kepler, “English Naval Impressment,” ibid. 70-77, argues that English kings were unable to raise large fleets before the 1340s. Although it is difficult to establish standards of effectiveness regarding the impressment of ships, this was not a bad effort. If Avesbury (De Gestis … Edwardi Tertii, pp. 311-12) is correct in stating that the fleet swelled from 40 to 160 ships in 10 days, it may mean that Admirals Huntingdon and Arundel arrived with about 120 ships. But if, as Kepler suggests, the fleet reached a strength of 260, then the missing 100 ships may have been impressed by Edward between 10 June and the battle on 24 June.

30. On the warning given by Archbishop Stratford, see McKisack, M., The Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1959), pp. 152–81Google Scholar.

31. Edward's estimate is included in his dispatch to Prince Edward. Archives of the City of London, Register F, f. 39. Nicolas, , Royal Navy, IIGoogle Scholar, Appendix V. For a figure of 202 ships, see de La Roncière, C., Histoire de la marine française (6 vols.; Paris, 1899–1934) I, 410Google Scholar.

32. Rot. Parl., II, 311Google Scholar.

33. Sherborne, J. W., “The Battle of La Rochelle, 1372-75,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XLII (May, 1969), 17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. PRO, E. 364/12 m.G. For the sale of ships in 1380 see the account of John Lincoln, E. 364/20 m.Cd.

35. Brooks, , English Naval Forces, pp. 164–65Google Scholar.

36. See, for example, Brooks, , “The Cinque Ports' Feud with Yarmouth in the Thirteenth Century,” Mariner's Mirror, xix (January, 1933), 27–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. Portsmouth, Southampton, Harwich, and Hastings were partly burned. Many other ports were harassed and Guernsey in the Channel Islands was occupied.

38. Rymer, T., Foedera (London, 1819–1869), II, 941Google Scholar; Black Book, I, 13Google Scholar.

39. PRO, E. 101/24/9 (b), mm. 1-45. I discovered these documents while working with miscellaneous Exchequer material in the strongrooms of the Public Record Office, and assisted in assigning appropriate designation numbers so that readers may examine them. For their assistance in making these documents available to me as well as for their continued hospitality I would like to thank Dr. R. F. Hunnesett and Ms. Ann Morton. Previously known were the records of damages to three ships, E. 101/24/8; E. 101/24/9 (a). Of these three ships, two are included in E. 101/24/9 (b). The Cristofre of Dartmouth, paid 20 marks st. on 5 April, does not appear. James Sherborne also notes that compensation for loss of ships was a rare event. See his “The English Navy,” Past and Present, No. 37, 165.

40. Knighton, Henrici, Chronicon, ed. Lumby, J. R., Rolls Series (2 vols., London, 1889–1895), II, 27–28Google Scholar; Avesbury, , De Gestis … Edward Tertii, p. 352Google Scholar. Knighton referred to the storm as tempestatibus inevasibilibus circumplusus.

41. PRO, E. 101/24/8; 9 (b), m. 26.

42. Ibid., E. 101/24/9 (b), mm. 1-45.

43. The owners were John Keremer, Richard Dawne, and John Shakelok. Ibid., E. 101/24/9 (b) m. 16.

44. Whitwell, and Johnson, , “The Newcastle Galley,” Arch. Aeliana (1926), 145Google Scholar.

45. On the use of the butler, see Kepler, , “Battle of Sluys,” Speculum (1973), 70Google Scholar.

46. William Edyngton, Keeper of the Wardrobe, paid the costs of the passage of Edward and Sir Walter Manny. His account lists 336 ships and their masters. PRO, Chancery Miscellanea, C. 47/2/35, mm. 2-5.

47. C.P.R. (1343-45), 92. This commission was sent on May 30, 1343 to John de Montgomery, Admiral to the West, to arrest offenders identified in an accompanying roll.

48. C.C.R. (1343-46), 128-34; Rymer, , Foedera, II, ii, 1226Google Scholar. Ibid., II, iv, 126.

49. Kepler, , “Battle of Sluys,” Speculum (1973), 76Google Scholar, estimated 230 ships.

50. C.P.R. (1343-45), 108-09; C.P.R. (1341-43), 663 passim.

51. Rymer, , Foedera, III, i, 4Google Scholar.

52. For Lancaster, PRO, E. 101/25/9 which is printed in K. A. Fowler's thesis at the University of Leeds, 1961, since published as The King's Lieutenant (London, 1969)Google Scholar, but without the Appendix listing ships for the voyage to Bordeaux in 1345. It was printed by H. J. Hewitt, Organization of War Under Edward III, Appendix II. Avesbury, , De Gestis … Edwardi Tertii, p. 357Google Scholar; Walsingham, Thomas, Historia Anglicana, ed. Riley, H. T., Rolls Series (2 vols.; London, 1863–1864), I, 267–68Google Scholar; Knighton, , Chronicon, II, 32–33Google Scholar. For an estimate of 400 ships, see Chroniques de J. Froissart, eds. Luce, S., Raynaud, G., L. and Mirot, A., Société de l'histoire de France (14 vols.; Paris, 1869–1966), III, 355Google Scholar.

53. PRO, French Roll, C. 76/23 m. 21; Hewitt, , Organization of War Under Edward III, p. 92Google Scholar.

54. Ibid., E. 101/68/4 m. 72.

55. See above, note 9, and see also Nicolas, , Royal Navy, IIGoogle Scholar, Appendix VII.

56. Froissart is the main source on this battle, Chroniques (eds. Luce, et al.), IV, 89–98Google Scholar.

57. Hewitt, H. J., The Black Prince's Expedition, pp. 40–42Google Scholar and n. 167.

58. Avesbury, , De Gestis … Edwardi Tertii, p. 412Google Scholar; Murimuth, Adam, Continuatio Chronicarum, ed. Thompson, E. M., p. 102Google Scholar; Otterburne, Thomas, Chronica Regum Angliae, ed. Hearne, T. (Oxford, 1732), p. 135Google Scholar; Walsingham, , Historia Anglicana, I, 274–75Google Scholar; Froissart, , Chroniques, IV, 97Google Scholar.

59. For the general context of these laws and their incorporation into England, see Runyan, Timothy J., “The Rolls of Oléron and the Admiralty Court in Fourteenth Century England,” The American Journal of Legal History, XIX (April, 1975), 95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60. The Rolls of Oléron are available in several editions. The one used here is The Oak Book of Southampton, ed. Studer, Paul (2 vols. and supplement; Southampton, 1910–1911), II, 54–103Google Scholar. The relevant articles for the six items are respectively articles 18, 18, 2, 14, 12 and 14, 14.

61. PRO, C. 76/57 m. 16; C.P.R. (1377-81), 475.

62. Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous (1304–1348), 510–11Google Scholar.

63. C.P.R. (1345-48), 146, 154

64. Hunnesett, R. F., “Pleas of the Crown and the Coroner,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXXII (November, 1959), 130Google Scholar.

65. For a full account of the hospitals and medical care, see Keevil, J. J., Medicine and the Navy, 1200-1900 (4 vols.; Edinburgh, 1957–1963), Vol. IGoogle Scholar covering 1200-1649.

66. Chronicon de Melsa, III, 45Google Scholar.