Factionalism Flashcards
Factionalism:
Factionalism and bastard feudalism are two closely related issues. The political nation broke into groups - factions - that became fierce rivals. They struggled for control of the king. It was Henry VI’s mishandling of the nobility and his inability to rule that led to the emergence of these destabilising factions. Regional rivalries between magnates can also be described as factionalism; these rivalries also merged with the political factionalism surrounding the king. In many ways the Wars of the Roses were an extension of factional politics
Bastard feudalism:
Bastard feudalism (hierarchal power pyramid) was once seen as a key cause of the wars. The corruption of feudalism was believed to have fatally weakened kingship and allowed the nobility to gain power, raise armed affinities and fight private wars
What form did factionalism take?
There is no doubt factionalism was a key cause of the Wars of the Roses. It operated on two levels - political and regional
• By the late 1440’s factions existed at the top of English politics. One faction had emerged to control - or manage - the king. At first this was a faction dominated by Suffolk; when this came crashing down in 1450, Suffolk was replaced by Somerset. The dominant faction was determined to keep its stranglehold
• Those excluded from the dominant faction sought to break the stranglehold. Such a figure was Richard, duke of York. Politics therefore became highly polarised with faction set against faction
• On a regional level noble rivalry became factionalised. The Neville-Percy rivalry in northern England (which can be seen as an example of factionalism itself) merged into the higher political factionalism when the Nevilles (Salisbury and Warwick) threw their weight behind York in 1453
• The most important factional rivalry of the 1450’s was that between York and Beaufort (Somerset)
How widespread was factionalism throughout England?
- When royal authority was at its weakest (1449-50 - loss of Normandy/France, 1453-55 - catatonic stupor) there were outbreaks of lawlessness throughout the kingdom. There was a flurry of private wars fought by rival barons - essentially feuds
Yorkshire:
In 1453 the Percies (led by the earl of Northumberland’s second son, Lord Egremont) ambushed a Neville wedding party at Heworth Moor on the outskirts of York. The Nevilles (including Salisbury) fought off the attack. This led to further clashes in the north, culminating in both sides arraying forces at Stamford Bridge near York in early 1454
Devon and the West Country:
Intense rivalry between the Courtenays (earls of Devon) and Lord Bonville led to a series of violent incidents. In 1455 the Courtenays brutally murdered Bonville’s servant and prominent local lawyer Nicholas Radford. The alarming lawlessness in this area has been suggested as a reason why York was appointed Protector in late 1455. York travelled to the region and arrested the ringleaders
Interlinked feuds:
Ominously, these feuds had the potential to become interlinked. Henry Holland, the duke of Exter, was in dispute with Ralph, Lord Cromwell, seizing his manor of Ampthill (Bedfordshire). Cromwell attempted to recover Ampthill, and when he was in Westminster Hall (in July 1453) Exeter attacked him! Unable to take on Exeter alone, Cromwell turned to the Neviles, with his niece (and joint heiress) Maud marrying Thomas Neville (Salisbury’s second son) - it was this wedding party that was attacked at Heworth Moor by the Percies. It was the combined forces of Exeter and Egremont that tried to seize the city of York in 1454,but were foiled at Stamford Bridge: both were put under arrest by York in his role as Protector
Political alignments:
Political alignments were also affected by regional feuds and rivalries: the Neville decision to support York in 1453 brought the Percies back into royal favour as staunch Lancastrians; the Courtenay earls of Devon shifted towards to the king, causing Lord Bonville to move towards the Yorkists
Wales:
Importanty, in 1453 a dispute developed between the earl of Warwick and Somerset over lands in Glamorgan. Despite royal orders to hand the lands over to Somerset, Warwick continued to hold them by armed force. It was this dispute that caused the Nevilles to back York
Norfolk:
In 1450 a prominent local merchant, John Paston, had one of his manors (Gresham) seized by Lord Moleyns. In response Paston occupied a manor house in the manor which Moleyns sent an armed band to ransack
Post St Albans:
After the First Battle of St Albans (1455), a virulent and destructive edge of vendetta infused these rivalries. The sons and heirs of those killed at St Albans (Somerset and Northumberland) were determined to avenge the deaths of their fathers
How did bastard feudalism come to be?
- There is a long-running historical argument that the land-based feudalism that underpinned medieval society became mutated into a money-based, bastardised version
- The origins of this mutation can be traced to the reign of Edward III (r. 1307-77). Ву marrying his children to England’s higher nobility, he created half a dozen mighty peers of the realm with royal blood in their lineage. Fifteenth century magnates such as Richard, duke of York, were the result of this. From 1399, so the argument goes, English government was dominated by these mighty peers
- The introduction of indentured retainers (two copies of a legal document written in one page and then ripped apart - the pieces were fitted together to prove the document was real) accentuated the importance of money. An indenture was a contract with payment. Originally used to raise armies, magnates and barons began to use indentures to pay men to be part of their affinity
- The wealth of these peers enabled them to create substantial affinities based on money rather than land. This meant they could raise private armies and challenge the power of kings. The classic explanation is that ‘under-mighty’ kings became dominated by ‘over-mighty’ nobles
Did bastard feudalism play a part in causing the Wars of the Roses?
- No, not really! The argument is that bastard feudalism destabilised fifteenth century society by leading to a collapse in central, kingly control. Exploiting this weakness, nobles and barons engaged in private wars to dominate regions and gain land and offices. The most well-known of these clashes was between the Nevilles and the Percies in northern England
- The historian R.L. Storey famously concluded that, ‘the Wars of the Roses were thus the outcome of an escalation of private feuds.’ Storey believed that bastard feudalism, the breakdown of royal authority and private wars caused the Wars of the Roses. Essentially, that medieval society was falling apart and a series of private wars between nobles untied into a major war that engulfed the kingdom
- However, this argument has now largely been put aside. Despite bastard feudalism, the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V were not dominated by private wars. Nor was that of Henry VI for at least the first twenty years of his reign. It was only when Henry VI fumbled his kingship that disturbances flared
- K.B. McFarlane perceptively observed that ‘only an under-mighty ruler had anything to fear from over-mighty subjects.’ Similarly, A.J. Pollard contends that bastard feudalism was essentially neutral, that it ‘could be a force for stability or for instability,’ and that the real problem was the ‘political timidity’ of Henry VI in not taking a firmer line with his magnates. It was more that Henry VI’s poor kingship allowed conflicts to break out, than that Henry was overwhelmed by any changes wrought by bastard feudalism
- Indeed, there was always an element of money to feudalism, and it is almost impossible to pinpoint a time when there was a pure, land-based feudal system in England
