The vast majority of English men and women held no titles, owned
little or no land, and had little or no political influence. Except
for the residents of LONDON and a few larger towns, the common
people of England lived and worked in the countryside, where over
90 percent of the English population resided in the fifteenth
century. Although comprising the bulk of most civil war armies,
these countrymen were generally little affected in their daily
lives by the WARS OF THE ROSES, which for them meant brief,
intermittent campaigns and little material destruction.
The common soldiers who fought in civil war armies were usually
conscripts, countrymen thrust into battle not by their own
political convictions but by the social conventions of the day. The
PEERAGE and GENTRY expected that able-bodied men living within
their spheres of influence or on their estates would follow them
into combat when summoned. Accustomed both to bearing arms and to a
certain level of violence in their lives, commoners could usually
be persuaded by a local magnate or gentleman, or by a popular
preacher, to take arms in a particular political cause. In 1485,
for example, John HOWARD, duke of Norfolk, recruiting troops to
support RICHARD III against Henry Tudor, earl of Richmond, expected
to raise 1,000 men from the towns and villages on his East Anglian
estates.
Common men had much less stake in the wars than their social
superiors did, and common soldiers usually had much less to lose by
taking sides. While the noble and gentry leadership of civil war
armies was often targeted for death, as the Yorkists likely
targeted Edmund BEAUFORT, duke of Somerset, at the Battle of ST.
ALBANS in 1455, victorious commanders, such as Richard NEVILLE,
earl of Warwick, at the Battle of NORTHAMPTON in 1460, ordered
their men to spare the opposing commons. The common soldiers also
avoided the executions and bills of ATTAINDER that consumed noble
and gentry lives and property after most battles.
During the HUNDRED YEARS WAR, English armies operating in FRANCE
had systematically devastated the countryside, killing villagers,
burning buildings, and destroying crops and livestock. During the
Wars of the Roses, the English countryside saw very little
destruction. In 1461, when the northern army of Queen MARGARET OF
ANJOU plundered Yorkist towns and strongholds during its MARCH ON
LONDON, the great terror that swept over the southern shires was in
part due to the novelty of such pillaging in England. Attacks on or
sieges of towns were also rare, with the 1471 assault on London by
Thomas NEVILLE, the Bastard of Fauconberg, being the major example
during the wars. The great social evils of the civil war period
were the violence, disorder, and corruption of justice inflicted on
the countryside by the RETAINERS and servants of noblemen. In some
parts of the country, riots, murders, assaults, and forcible
dispossessions were common, especially in the 1450s and 1460s.
Although these evils arose chiefly from feeble royal government,
especially under HENRY VI, and from abuses in the system of BASTARD
FEUDALISM, the Wars of the Roses aggravated the problem, at least
during the periods 1459–1461 and 1469–1471. EDWARD IV’s
preoccupation with the uprisings precipitated by Warwick allowed
the five-week siege of CAISTER CASTLE to occur in Norfolk in 1469
and the bloody Battle of NIBLEY GREEN to erupt in Gloucestershire
in 1470. However, the political security achieved by Edward IV in
1471 seemed to end the wars and allowed a strengthened Crown to
reduce the level of violence in the countryside thereafter.
Further Reading: Gillingham, John,Wars of the
Roses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981);
Goodman, Anthony, The Wars of the Roses (New York: Dorset Press,
1981); Harvey, I. M.W.,“Was There Popular Politics in Fifteenth-
Century England?” in R. H. Britnell and A. J. Pollard, eds., The
McFarlane Legacy: Studies in Late Medieval Politics and Society
(Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK: Alan Sutton, 1995), pp. 155–174;
Ross, Charles, The Wars of the Roses (London: Thames and Hudson,
1987).
No comments:
Post a Comment