WHEN CONTEMPORARIES wrote of the conflict that broke out in England and Normandy after the death of Henry I, they described it as a struggle centred around the succession, about the actions of individuals, about castles and inheritances. On the whole subsequent historians have followed suit: ethnic conflicts, religious differences, or economic issues were not fundamental causes, to compare with the central contest for power in which lesser folk were caught up. Where there have been different views, these have centred on motivation and timing: how deep-rooted were the origins of the war? What were the motives of the leading protagonists? How far-reaching were its effects? This article is concerned with the first of these questions, the origins of the war, and specifically with the role of Henry I, whose actions in his later years are judged to have had a direct bearing on the events that followed his death.

The assessments made of Henry's contribution to the civil war have varied considerably. On the one hand, some historians have played it down: it has been argued, for instance, that Henry had planned ahead as best he could, but that his intentions were wrecked by his daughter and her husband's intransigence on the issue of castles. The outbreak of conflict was therefore due to the actions of others. Another view which has seen the causes of war as attributable less to indi viduals than to structural weaknesses in the Anglo-Norman realms is that of Keith Stringer, who has argued that the very effectiveness of Henry's rule masked growing challenges to the ‘Anglo-Norman empire’, as neighbouring powers grew stronger.