Jonathan Sumption's Account of Neville's Cross: A Historical Examination

Jonathan Sumption's Trial by Battle: The Hundred Years War Vol 1

Jonathan Sumption's Account of Neville's Cross: A Historical Examination

Introduction

Jonathan Sumption’s Trial by Battle: The Hundred Years War, Vol. 1 details the epic early period of the Hundred Years War – a conflict on a grand scale stretching for over a century, as the name suggests. Sumption’s narrative in Vol 1 starts with the funeral of King Charles IV, the King of France in 1328 and stretches on to the fall of the port city of Calais to King Edward III’s English army in 1347. It’s a book I have relied on heavily for study of my latest work: A King’s Ambition: The Crécy Campaign and touched on lightly for my recently completed work: A King’s Gamble: The Neville’s Cross Campaign, 1346 (awaiting publication).

I say touched on lightly because, unfortunately, the information contained within the pages relating to the Neville’s Cross campaign (brief as the section is within the grand narrative) is no longer accepted as stone-cold fact among scholars and historians.

Sumption’s work, while undeniably grand and exhaustive, falls short in its examination of the Neville’s Cross campaign and I can see why this might be the case. Sumption’s work covers the grand campaigns on the continent in vast detail but devotes fewer than six pages to Neville’s Cross. It’s clear that Sumption, like many historians, viewed David II’s campaign in northern England as insignificant and as a minor distraction from the main course: The War in France. Add to that the fact that Sumption’s narrative was written well before ease of access to primary and secondary sources on the internet, instantly comparable by a flick between tabs on your browser, or a glance at an open book while the information is also on the screen. Ease of cross-referencing in the modern era no doubt aids the modern historian’s pursuit of cross referencing no end. So, I write this not to attack Sumption’s work in any degree, simply to point out that theories move on, and we don’t all get it right all the time. Indeed, I find his work overall to be a magnificent insight into the period.

Battle Name

Firstly, Sumption refers to the battle as “The Battle of Neville’s Cross” and implies this was its name to contemporaries, because there was a stone cross near the battlefield. This latter assumption is probably correct, there is reference made in the sources to an old Anglo-Saxon cross situated close to the crossroads to the south of where we believe the battle took place. However, the first claim that the battle was known as The Battle of Neville’s Cross, or the suggestion that the area itself was called Neville’s Cross in 1346 is not supported anywhere. Why would the area be known as Neville’s Cross in 1346? It’s a minor point I suppose, but contemporary accounts make no mention of the name as Neville’s Cross. The Lanercost Chronicle, written at the time of the battle and Jean Froissart in Chronicles simply refer to the Battle of Durham (or the battle fought west of Durham).

It's highly plausible the locality had no name at all at the time, or was simply, known as Beaurepaire, for the priory not far from the battlefield (where the Scottish army had its camp).

Lord Ralph Neville replaced the old Anglo-Saxon cross with a new cross around 1352 to commemorate the victory, which is where the name came from.

Lord Ralph Neville's Coat of Arms

Army Composition

Sumption mentions that the Scottish army is large but gives no real insight into their numbers.

The English army is painted by Sumption as being 3,000 – 4,000 strong. I believe this is a misinterpretation of the sources. Sumption has read into fragmented advance of the English army from Richmond (in north Yorkshire) that the army did not combine. In Sumption’s narrative he states that on the 14 October (three days before the battle of Neville’s Cross on 17 October) Archbishop de la Zouche departs for Barnard Castle upon hearing news that the Scots were advancing from Hexham. True.

Jonathan Sumption states that Ralph Neville was some way to the south with a further 3,000 Yorkshire levies and men-at-arms, true yet again. He presses on to the battle and seems to forget about Neville altogether – stating that Zouche took on the Scottish army with his 3-4,000 men. This is incorrect.

I know what you may be thinking: “Who are you to contradict an historian on the subject as Jonathan Sumption?” Well, the fact is, it’s certainly not only me who does so. Historians such as DeVries, Prestwick & Rollason concur. I have studied the Neville’s Cross campaign in huge detail, as you may imagine, having just completed a full narrative driven non-fiction novel on the subject.

From my extensive research, here is what happened:

Zouche set off on 14 October with his 3,000 men for Barnard Castle. Meanwhile, Henry Percy, Warden of the East March, was en route with around 1,000 men from his holdings in Northumberland to join Zouche at the pre-arranged rendezvous area around Bishop Auckland in the event of a Scottish invasion. By the 15 October 1346 the two forces had combined and after a brief pause at Barnard Castle the combined English force of 4,000 men pressed on to Auckland (now Bishop Auckland), where they arrived early on the 16 October and called a halt. This halt was to allow the footmen (the levied infantry and archers who lacked horses) to catch up with the army. During this pause on the 16 October the forces under Neville and Rokeby (High Sheriff of Yorkshire) arrived at Auckland and Neville took charge of the army. The army spent that night at Auckland and set out before dawn on 17 October towards the Scottish army encamped at Durham.

On it’s way to Durham, elements of the English army under Sir Robert Ogle (a Northumberland based landowner and renowned knight) encountered Sir William Douglas’ large raiding party at Merrington (now Kirk Merrington) in heavy fog around dawn. The Scots were taken utterly by surprise since they had no notion an English army was nearby. Douglas and around two hundred of his five hundred strong force escaped and roused the Scottish camp to the danger.

An Impression of Sir William Douglas

From Merrington, Ogle chased the survivors of Douglas’ force all the way to Durham, where they spotted the English army. Neville, Zouche and the other English troops marched on David’s army, trounced them at Durham and the rest, as they say is history.

In Conclusion

My own work on the battle, informed by modern scholarship and primary sources, paints a far clearer and, I would argue, more accurate picture of the campaign. The battle was not just a footnote in the larger war but a pivotal moment with significant long-term consequences for both England and Scotland.

Sumption’s influence on the popular understanding of the battle is undeniable, but it’s time to reassess his conclusions considering what we now know. As always, history is a conversation between the past and present, and it’s our responsibility to ensure that conversation remains as accurate as possible.

I touched on it earlier, and in no way am I disparaging Sumption’s work, which is, frankly a masterpiece when you consider the scale of the project. I’m simply pointing out the importance of revisiting and discussing narratives that may no longer fit the bill entirely.

If you found my take interesting why not stay updated on my upcoming release, A King’s Gamble: The Neville’s Cross Campaign, 1347, and more historical insights? Click here to join my mailing list.