The song of Simon de Montfort BOOK REVIEW

'The Song of Simon de Montfort-England's First Revolutionary and the Death of Chivalry '

Sophie Therese Ambler,
Published by Picador in hardback (2019) and also available in kindle. 

An earlier version of this piece was turned down for publication in the Simon de Montfort' Society's  magazine 'The Lion' , so has been overhauled and published on line instead.   Ultimately this  a worthwhile biography which encourages the reader to explore the life and era of Simon de Montfort . At her best Sophie Therese Ambler, both as a writer and speaker, is not over academic nor patronising to her readers. Can appeal to the medieval history enthusiast outside the world of academia and build on their interest. So sincerely hope that my criticism is not taken to be some sort of personal attack on the author. as I do quite admire her.   But to me,  claiming that de Montfort was a 'revolutionary' seems unconvincing. Would add that  minor theme of the book, the account of the horrendous famine that hit England in 1258, has inspired some of my own research and will be the subject of a future Blogpost. 

One of the book's prominent themes is that the writer connects the crusader background of de Montfort's father also named Simon, killed in 1218 at Carcassone fighting the heretical Cathars to Simon de Montfort's own rise to power and brutal death at the Battle of Evesham in 1265. Simon de Montfort was certainly a devout man. He befriended the Bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grosseteste and was inspired by the bishop's theology. Churchmen backed de Montfort's rebellion, though this could partly be to resentment of foreign clerics being appointed to positions of power during the reign of Henry III.Simon de Montfort himself went crusading from 124--1242 . And de Montfort's harsh treatment of Jewish people, particularly when he became Earl of Leicester in 1239, set a dangerous precedent. Here was an earl signalling that such attitudes towards Jews were a sign of religious devotion.

A case is made to show that the very notion of chivalry was in decline by the 1260's. Certainly de Montfort's enemies wanted him killed by the time of the Second Baron's War. There was no chance of ransom or sending de Montfort into exile in 1265. In retrospect it is not surprising that Simon de Montfort's body was so appallingly mutilated after being killed at Evesham. Rebels or those who were caught on the 'wrong' side were to be treated as the equivalent of heretics and traitors. The writers stresses that is approach is a marked contrast with the Battle of Lincoln in 1217 at the very start of the reign of Henry III where few men were killed, and the priority was in trying to capture knights for ransom.

A possible counter argument is that Chivalry as an ideal often didn't extend to those living in towns or villages whose livelihoods could be wrecked by marauding armies. Neither was chivalry universal. The ransom culture was not practised by the Order of the Knight Templars for example. Yet during the Hundred Years Wars, particularly after Agincourt ,the ideals of chivalry seemed to return with an elaborate regard for prominent French prisoners captured by the English, so still seemed a valid principle during a warfare between different the more elite orders of countries at war.

Though the book has received some very positive attention, including a complimentary feature in BBC 'History magazine' and praise from Dan Jones. It is also fair to say that historian Darren Baker, a notable specialist on de Montfort and Henry III has been critical. Have linked the relevant webpage at the foot of this review.

However, my concern is   the possibility that Simon de Montfort might just have been grasping and self-serving is not explored enough for what sets out to be a major biography. What exactly were his motives? Can we really identify an ideology of some sorts that drove de Montfort ? Describing him as a revolutionary just seems a step too far. The consequences of his actions weakened royal power , and certainly the Oxford Provisions of 1258 aimed to ensure that a king could not rule without the involvement of a Council made up of his prominent subjects. In fact that books presents a clear and helpful summary of their terms. Yet so little is offered by way of explanation concerning why Simon de Montfort became their advocate. Cynics would argue that his main aim was to promote his self interest, especially in recovering money owed to his wife , Eleanor , sister to Henry III.

In broader historical terms, when Charles I was defeated, General Fairfax went to the Tower of London to seek out a copy of Magna Carta. No evidence is produced to suggest the Civil War Parliamentarians, even considering the huge crop of radical political writing that emerged during the 17th century, In fact, when Charles I was defeated, General Fairfax went to the Tower of London to seek out a copy of Magna Carta. The notion of a golden again before the 'Norman Yolk, and of course The Bible were far more likely to be cited by those who took up arms against the king.

Personally I favour David Carpenter's definition of Simon de Montfort's legacy "The first sole leader of a political movement in English History and the first political opponent of the king to seize power and govern in his name". ( 'The Reign of Henry III, D.A.Carpenter, Hambledon 1996) . Perhaps the nearest parallel one can find to Simon de Montfort rebellion of 1264-1265 is Thomas of Lancaster and his fellow barons uprising against Edward II , citing the Ordinances, forty one provisions that attempted to restrict the Kings power of 1310,

Sophie Therese Ambler will be giving a talk on 'The Song of Simon de Montfort' , with a book signing , at The National Archives, Kew, on Thursday 23rd January 2020 , 7.30 pm. 
Tickets


Links 

Darren Baker's Review of the Song of Simon de Montfort

Website of  The Simon de Montfort Society