The Founding of Mont-Saint-Michel

In 708, Aubert, Bishop of Avranches, establishes a Benedictine abbey on a rocky islet in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, about one mile (1.6 km) off the northwest coast of France in the English Channel. The abbey, dedicated to Saint Michael the Archangel, soon becomes a major religious center and an important site of pilgrimage in medieval Europe.

Over the centuries, Mont-Saint-Michel evolves into a remarkable architectural marvel, blending Romanesque and Gothic styles as it expands. Its strategic location makes it both a revered monastic sanctuary and a fortified stronghold, resisting sieges, including those during the Hundred Years’ War.

Today, Mont-Saint-Michel stands as one of France’s most iconic landmarks, recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. With its dramatic silhouette rising above the tidal flats, it attracts over three million visitors annually, continuing its legacy as a place of both historical and spiritual significance.

Alan III of Brittany and His Struggle Against Norman Suzerainty (1008–1030s)

Alan III of Brittany, the son of Duke Geoffrey I and Hawise of Normandy, succeeded as Duke of Brittany in 1008. However, as he was still a minor, his mother acted as regent, while Richard II, Duke of Normandy—his maternal uncle—assumed guardianship over Brittany. This early connection with Normandy played a crucial role in shaping Alan’s later conflicts as he sought to assert Brittany’s independence.

Early Rule and Marriage Alliance (1008–1018)

• While his mother, Hawise of Normandy, governed Brittany as regent, Alan was raised under the influence of the Norman ducal court.
• In 1018, Alan married Bertha of Blois, daughter of Odo II, Count of Blois, and Ermengarde of Auvergne, solidifying an alliance with the House of Blois, a long-time rival of Normandy.
• This marriage strengthened Brittany’s political position and provided Alan with an influential continental allyagainst Norman expansion.

Break from Norman Suzerainty (1026–1030s)

• When Richard III of Normandy died in August 1026, his brother Robert I succeeded him. The transition sparked political unrest in Normandy.
• Alan III, seeing an opportunity, attempted to break free from Norman overlordship, effectively declaring Brittany’s independence from Norman control.

Conflict Between Alan III and Robert I of Normandy (1030s)

• The conflict escalated into a series of raids and counter-raids between Brittany and Normandy:
  • Early 1030s: Robert I of Normandy launched an attack on Dol, an important Breton stronghold.
  • In retaliation, Alan III raided Avranches, but his forces were repulsed, leading to continued border skirmishes between Brittany and Normandy.
• The situation worsened as Robert prepared for a full-scale invasion, planning a land assault alongside a fleet attack on Brittany.

The Truce at Mont Saint-Michel (1033–1034)

• As tensions mounted, Robert, Archbishop of Rouen—uncle to both Alan and Robert I—stepped in to mediatebetween his nephews.
• A truce was negotiated at Mont Saint-Michel, a symbolically neutral site between Brittany and Normandy.
• As part of the agreement:
  • Alan III swore fealty to Robert I, acknowledging Norman suzerainty.
  • In return, Normandy halted its invasion plans, stabilizing the region for the time being.

Legacy and Impact

• Alan III’s attempt at independence from Norman overlordship ultimately failed, though he preserved Brittany’s territorial integrity.
• The truce at Mont Saint-Michel ensured temporary peace, but Brittany remained under Norman influence for the remainder of Alan’s reign.
• His alliance with Blois placed Brittany in a strategic position between France and Normandy, a factor that would continue to shape Breton politics in the 11th century.

Alan III’s rebellion and subsequent truce reflected the delicate balance of power in feudal Europe, where dukes and counts continually maneuvered between autonomy and vassalage, depending on the shifting fortunes of war and diplomacy.

Harold Godwinson’s Campaign with William of Normandy Against Conan II of Brittany (1064–1065)

Following his capture and transfer to Duke William of Normandy in 1064, Harold Godwinson reportedly accompanied William on a military campaign against Conan II, Duke of Brittany. This campaign was part of William’s ongoing conflict with Brittany, which had remained a rival power to Normandy.

The Norman-Breton Conflict

• Conan II of Brittany, who had come to power in 1057, had long been a rival of William of Normandy.
• By 1064, tensions between Normandy and Brittany had escalated into open conflict.
• Duke William led an invasion into Brittany, aiming to assert Norman dominance over the region.
• Harold joined William’s forces, possibly as a way to demonstrate his loyalty while still in Norman custody.

Harold’s Role in the Campaign

• According to later Norman sources, Harold fought alongside William’s army, participating in raids and siegesagainst Breton forces.
• As they advanced into Brittany, the Normans crossed past the fortified abbey of Mont Saint-Michel, a key strategic landmark on the Norman-Breton border.
• During the crossing of dangerous tidal flats, two Norman soldiers became trapped in quicksand.
• Harold reportedly saved them, an event that was later recorded in Norman sources, likely to emphasize Harold’s military prowess and bravery.

Aftermath and Consequences

• The Norman campaign was successful, and Conan II was forced to retreat.
• While Harold’s participation may have strengthened his relationship with William, it remains uncertain whether he was acting of his own free will or under obligation.
• The campaign further solidified William’s control over Normandy’s western frontier, weakening Brittany as a regional power.

Significance of Harold’s Participation

• Harold’s presence in William’s military campaign was later used as propaganda by the Normans, reinforcing the idea that Harold had sworn loyalty to William.
• His rescue of Norman soldiers may have been recorded to highlight his military competence, demonstrating that he was respected even among the Normans.
• The campaign likely played a role in Harold’s eventual departure from Normandy, as it may have helped secure his release.

While Harold’s participation in the Norman-Breton war remains debated, it was an important episode in the lead-up to the Norman Conquest, as it reinforced William’s belief in Harold’s loyalty—whether real or imagined.

Henry’s Defeat at Mont Saint-Michel and His Exile (1091)

In March 1091, after being excluded from the Treaty of Rouen, Henry gathered a mercenary army in western Normandy to resist William Rufus and Robert Curthose. However, as their combined forces advanced, Henry’s baronial support collapsed, forcing him to retreat and make a final stand at Mont Saint-Michel.

The siege of Mont Saint-Michel became a pivotal moment in Henry’s struggle, demonstrating both his resilience and the divisions between his brothers. Despite the fortress being easily defensible, Henry ultimately surrendered and went into exile.

The Siege of Mont Saint-Michel (March 1091)

• Henry withdrew to Mont Saint-Michel, a fortress known for its natural defenses, surrounded by tidal waters and cliffs.
• William Rufus and Robert laid siege, trapping Henry and his remaining forces inside.
• The fortress lacked fresh water, creating a serious problem for Henry’s troops.

Robert Curthose’s Act of Mercy

• According to William of Malmesbury, Robert allowed Henry’s forces access to fresh water, an act of chivalric mercy.
• This angered William Rufus, who wanted to force Henry’s complete surrender.
• The brothers began to argue, reflecting their ongoing mistrust and conflicting ambitions.

Henry’s Surrender and Exile

• The final days of the siege are unclear, but it appears that negotiations took place.
• Henry abandoned Mont Saint-Michel, likely as part of a negotiated surrender.
• He fled to Brittany and then crossed into France, where he wandered for over a year with a small group of followers.

Henry’s Time in Exile (1091–1092)

• According to Orderic Vitalis, Henry traveled along the Normandy border in the French Vexin, living as a landless noble with a small retinue.
• During his exile, Henry observed the instability between William Rufus and Robert, waiting for his opportunity to reclaim power.

The Collapse of the Treaty of Rouen (1091–1092)

• By the end of 1091, William Rufus and Robert had fallen out again, leading to the abandonment of the Treaty of Rouen.
• Sensing an opportunity, Henry and his followers seized castles and fortresses in western Normandy, reestablishing his presence in the region.
• This marked the beginning of Henry’s resurgence, as the conflict between his brothers would ultimately work in his favor.

Significance and Consequences

• The Siege of Mont Saint-Michel was a temporary setback for Henry, but it demonstrated his resilience and strategic patience.
• The ongoing tensions between Robert and William Rufus ensured that Henry’s exile would not last long, as he soon regained influence in Normandy.
• The fracturing of the alliance between William and Robert reopened the opportunity for Henry to reclaim his position, setting the stage for his eventual rise to power.

Though Henry’s defeat in 1091 forced him into exile, his patience and opportunism allowed him to seize Normandy again once his brothers turned on each other, marking the next phase in the struggle for the Anglo-Norman throne.

Philip II’s Destruction of Mont Saint-Michel Abbey (1203 CE)

During Philip II’s campaign to conquer Normandy, his forces destroyed the abbey of Mont Saint-Michel in 1203. This was part of his broader war against King John of England, as he sought to eliminate English strongholds and symbols of Angevin power in Normandy.

Why Was Mont Saint-Michel Targeted?

• Mont Saint-Michel, a sacred site and a fortress, was located on the border between Normandy and Brittany, making it strategically important in the Anglo-French war.
• It had long been a stronghold loyal to the Anglo-Norman rulers, as the Dukes of Normandy (including John and his ancestors) were its patrons.
• By destroying the abbey, Philip symbolically erased a key religious and cultural link between England and Normandy, further asserting Capetian dominance over the region.

Consequences of the Destruction

• The abbey was left in ruins, severely damaging one of the most revered pilgrimage sites in France.
• Mont Saint-Michel was later rebuilt under French rule, gradually regaining its religious and architectural grandeur.
• The attack demonstrated Philip’s determination to eradicate English influence from Normandy, reinforcing his control over the duchy.

The destruction of Mont Saint-Michel in 1203 was a calculated act of war, marking Philip II’s ruthless commitment to dismantling Plantagenet authority in France.

Henry V’s Conquest of Normandy and the Siege of Mont Saint-Michel (1419–1440)

Following his decisive capture of Rouen on January 20, 1419, Henry V of England quickly consolidated his control over Normandy, securing nearly the entire duchy. However, one key stronghold resisted English occupation—Mont Saint-Michel.

I. The English Conquest of Normandy (1419–1420)

• With Rouen under English rule, Henry’s forces advanced unopposed, capturing the remaining Norman towns and castles.
• By 1420, Henry controlled all of Normandy, with the exception of Mont Saint-Michel, which remained loyal to the French crown.
• The Treaty of Troyes (1420) cemented Henry’s claim as heir to the French throne, further legitimizing English rule over Normandy.

II. The Resistance of Mont Saint-Michel

• Mont Saint-Michel, a rocky island fortress, was one of the few places in France that never fell to the English.
• Situated on the Norman coast, the monastery-stronghold was virtually impregnable, protected by natural tides, strong fortifications, and a determined garrison.
• Henry’s forces blockaded the island, attempting to starve out the defenders rather than storming the heavily fortified site.

III. The Prolonged Blockade (1419–1440)

• The English maintained a blockade for 21 years, attempting to cut off supplies and starve out the defenders.
• Despite being isolated, French garrisons held out, occasionally receiving supplies by sea.
• The French reconquest of Normandy (1436–1450) eventually led to the lifting of the blockade in 1440, securing Mont Saint-Michel as one of the last bastions of resistance against English rule.

IV. Consequences and Legacy

• Mont Saint-Michel’s survival became a symbol of French resilience, proving that not all of Normandy had submitted to English rule.
• The fortress remained a rallying point for French forces during the later phases of the Hundred Years’ War.
• When France fully reconquered Normandy in 1450, Mont Saint-Michel stood as a reminder of French defiance and the limits of English occupation.

Although Henry V succeeded in capturing nearly all of Normandy, Mont Saint-Michel resisted for more than two decades, proving to be one of the greatest symbols of French resistance during the English occupation.

Aftermath of Verneuil (1424): Bedford Secures Normandy and Repels French Resistance

Following his decisive victory at the Battle of Verneuil (August 17, 1424), John, Duke of Bedford, returned in triumph to Paris, further consolidating English control over northern France.

The defeat of the Franco-Scottish forces at Verneuil eliminated much of the Dauphin's offensive capability, allowing the English to tighten their grip on Normandy and repel further French resistance.

I. Bedford’s Triumph and the Securing of Normandy

• After Verneuil, Bedford marched back to Paris, greeted as the defender of Lancastrian rule in France.
• With the French army in retreat, the English captured all border posts surrounding Lancastrian-controlled Normandy, further strengthening their hold on northern France.
• The only exception to English rule in Normandy was Mont Saint-Michel, where the monks continued to resist.

II. The French Withdrawal and the Failure to Retake Rouen

• La Hire, one of the Dauphinist captains, withdrew eastward, avoiding direct confrontation with Bedford’s victorious forces.
• A French plan to retake Rouen by undermining its defenses (mining the walls) was thwarted due to Bedford’s strategic success at Verneuil.
• The English solidified their defenses in key strongholds, ensuring that Rouen and other major cities remained under English control.

III. Consequences and English Dominance in France

• With Normandy firmly in English hands, the Dauphin Charles VII was forced onto the defensive, struggling to maintain his influence south of the Loire.
• The loss at Verneuil and Bedford’s subsequent conquests weakened French morale, delaying any serious counteroffensive against the English for years.
• The continued resistance at Mont Saint-Michel, however, stood as a symbol of defiance against English rule, even though it had little strategic impact.

IV. Conclusion: Bedford’s Position Strengthened

• The victory at Verneuil and the subsequent English consolidation of Normandy marked a high point in Bedford’s rule.
• His return to Paris in triumph reaffirmed English authority, further delaying the possibility of a French resurgence.
• Although French forces, such as those led by La Hire, still remained active, they were largely on the defensive until the later stages of the war.

The English success in securing Normandy after Verneuil (1424) deepened their hold on northern France, reinforcing Bedford’s control and leaving Charles VII struggling to recover lost territory.