How far do you agree that the Wars of the Roses were little more than the violent escalation of private feuds? Flashcards
Introduction
The Wars of the Roses were affected by the breakdown of law and order caused by the violent escalation of private feuds, however there were many other factors that, arguably, played a more important role in starting the conflicts of the Wars of the Roses, such as over-mighty subjects and the under-mighty monarch.
P1 It could be argued that the Wars of the Roses were little more than the violent escalation of private feuds because they created chaos locally, which undermined the king’s authority.
The Bonville-Courtenay dispute, the Neville-Percy disagreement and the experience of the Paston family epitomise this. Each of these disputes descended into violence and encouraged the breakdown of law and order, for example, the planned assassination attempt at the Neville-Stanhope wedding on the 24th of August 1453. A large force led by Egremont and Richard Percy ambushed the Nevilles and other members of his family due to conflicts over the Neville inheritance of the two former Percy manors of Wressle and Burwell. Moreover, these increasingly hostile private disputes exposed the weakness of Henry VI in dealing with threats to his realm, encouraging unrest and the breakdown of social cohesion; the Nevilles and the Percies disregarded the king’s royal commands to stop their fighting with impunity and were faced with no retribution. This allowed insurgents, such as Over-Mighty subjects, to see that it would be easy to take the crown, so they would understand it to more beneficial than detrimental to fight against Henry. It also helped others, such as Richard duke of York, see that if Henry continued to be on the throne then the law and order within the realm would breakdown. It highlighted how the power vacuum needed to be filled and, to some extent, encouraged York to take up arms against him at the Battle of St Albans because it made Richard duke of York feel he had a duty to put an end to the anarchy and save England. Therefore, it is clear to see that the violent escalation of private disputes were extremely influential in setting the scene for conflicts to emerge and in weakening the king’s authority, enabling overmighty subjects to see the fragility of the king’s power, contributing to him losing control over the kingdom. They undermined the principle that the position of the king, as God’s anointed, was inviolable.
P2- However, it could be argued that the War of the Roses were so much more than the violent escalation of private feuds. They were the result of the King’s Over-Mighty subjects, who presented constant threats and turmoil to the stability of the kingdom.
A key example of this is Richard Neville, who was an exceptionally wealthy magnate with access to a very large private retinue. In 1460, the earl of Warwick used his power and influence to back the duke of York’s claim to be heir to throne. Moreover, Warwick’s vital assistance in March 1461 meant that the Yorkists won a resounding victory over the Lancastrian forces at the Battle of Towton. This demonstrates the considerable influence he held and it could be argued that, without his help and military backing, the throne would have remained in the hands of the Lancastrians, therefore preventing the Wars. Moreover, when Warwick did not like the King, he was able to depose him, which further proves how he sparked the conflicts of the wars to put who he supported on the throne. This highlights his significant role in encouraging the tension and civil war that became known as the Wars of the Roses. This is demonstrated when Warwick and Edward IV’s relationship deteriorated and the king lost his support. Clarence, also unhappy with Edward, returned to England with Warwick in July 1469 and their troops intercepted the earl of Pembroke, who was one of Edward’s principal supporters, defeating him at the Battle of Edgecote. After this, Edward was taken prisoner by Warwick. Warwick then attempted to rule England himself, in Edward’s name. The fact that he had the ability to rule England over a king proves how Neville was such a formidable figure who caused the wars through his strength and influence. While this rule was short-lived, Warwick and Clarence continued to unleash tumult and instability for the crown when they fled to France to enlist support of King Louis XI. Warwick returned to England with a formalised alliance with Margaret of Anjou in September 1470 and Edward IV was forced to flee to burgundy. This facilitated Henry’s readeption to throne. This supports the idea that Warwick was the main catalyst of the conflicts because he was the one who caused the constant shift in the monarchy. Therefore, it is clear that the Wars of the Roses were not just the violent escalation of private feuds because the Over-Mighty subject Richard Neville provided impetus for the Wars of the Roses by causing constant disorder through his actions such as encouraging rebellions- shown through the ‘Robin Rebellions’ (Robin of Redesdale and Robin of Holderness), as well as destabilising the crown by using his power in order to incite battles that disrupted the traditional hereditary monarchy, so this factor is arguably more significant.
P3- However, the Wars of the Roses could instead be regarded as a dynastic conflict. While the violent escalation of private feuds did cause problems for the crown, Henry VI’s inability to control these rivalries allowed them to escalate and he could have prevented them.
Therefore, the local rivalries were a consequence of the under-mighty monarch and the king’s inadequacies were the root cause of Wars of the Roses. This is evidenced by the fact that the most significant moments of tension between the rivalling families happened during the fraught political situation brought about by Henry. For example, the Neville-Stanhope wedding took place during Henry’s mental collapse in August. This could suggest that if Henry was a stronger leader, local rivalries would not have turned violent because they would be unable to exploit the instability of the crown to further their own positions. Furthermore, the Bonville-Courtenay dispute was spurred by the fact that in 1437, the king appointed Bonville as Royal Steward in Cornwall for life, which was seen by Courtenay as a serious threat to his regional authority. Therefore, his weak governance contributed to the breakdown of law and order and the escalation of violence in the realm. Furthermore, Henry’s weak leadership, with many bouts of mental instability and over-generosity to favourites, meant his nobles could weed their way to the top and threaten his leadership. This proves how, if Henry was a stronger monarch, the Wars of the Roses would not have happened. The population would have been settled and there would be no opportunity to exploit the fraught political situation as the nobles’ power would have been more contained.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Wars of the Roses were not caused by the violent escalation of private feuds, instead it was the incompetence of the weak monarch. According to Sir John Fortesque, it was the duty of an English medieval king to ‘maintain the peace both outward and inward’, however Henry’s reign was characterized by disorder and chaos both within and outside of England, for example in France, throwing the entire system of personal kingship into chaos. He enabled the Wars of the Roses to commence through his inability to control England effectively. If he had been more commanding, the over-mighty subject Richard Neville would not have been able to challenge his authority because his position on the throne would not be exposed to be fragile by the private disputes and Neville’s power would have been restrained, so there would be no opportunity for Warwick to spark conflict as this would not have been supported or enabled. Therefore, a power struggle would not have begun as the Wars of the Roses would have no stimulus.
