War of the Roses

[Michael]

I hereby proclaim the War of the Roses to be the ultimate in obscure and unknown wars that weren't really wars - but still lasted decades and killed lots of people!

Has anyone here any idea what that war was about, who fought it, who won, when it occured or anything? (without looking it up!)

I'm just curious. I'm guessing complete zero...

[dilettante]

I hereby proclaim the War of the Roses to be the ultimate in obscure and unknown wars that weren't really wars - but still lasted decades and killed lots of people!

Has anyone here any idea what that war was about, who fought it, who won, when it occured or anything? (without looking it up!)

I'm just curious. I'm guessing complete zero...

That's well before anything I've studied. But shooting completely from the hip...isn't that the conflict in which the Tudors established themselves as the royal house of England?

[Michael]

That's well before anything I've studied. But shooting completely from the hip...isn't that the conflict in which the Tudors established themselves as the royal house of England?
:thumbsup:

I'll give a point for that. I figured either you or Greendruid would pop up with something at least related! ;)

Though, to be perfectly correct, it was rather a situation that the last man standing happened to have Tudor blood (a cousin of Lancaster - Henry VII).

[dilettante]

:thumbsup:

I'll give a point for that. I figured either you or Greendruid would pop up with something at least related! ;)

Though, to be perfectly correct, it was rather a situation that the last man standing happened to have Tudor blood (a cousin of Lancaster - Henry VII).

Yeah, I couldn't really offer any details here. My studies of English/British history, such as they are, pick up with the late Stuart period and mostly focus on the era of the Hanoverians.

[Michael]

Yeah, I couldn't really offer any details here. My studies of English/British history, such as they are, pick up with the late Stuarts and mostly focus on the Hanoverians.
Just for pure trivia off the top of my head, the Stuart claim to the English throne originates from the marriage of Henry VII's daughter Margaret (Henry VIII's sister) to King James IV of Scotland. :)

I happen to find the War of the Roses remarkably interesting as it seems to be a war decided by human drama rather than vast armies on the battlefield.

Many of the battles (and there were lots of them!) were remarkably small with less than 1000 combatants in total, though some of the battles were indeed full medieval slugfests with a cast of thousands.

Sidenote: Being the old English monarchist that I am, I loathe the Hanoverians! Such vulgar brutes they are! One can barely tolerate them, if only to avoid the more hated Stuart alternative. :D

[The Drunk Guy]

That's well before anything I've studied. But shooting completely from the hip...isn't that the conflict in which the Tudors established themselves as the royal house of England?
Well, that takes the thunder out of my reply. :tape:

I know the basic struggle for the crown, but I couldn't argue specifics. I know it is the basis for George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series, which is really, really good reading.

[Michael]

Well, that takes the thunder out of my reply. :tape:
Interesting. The War of the Roses produced the Tudor dynasty seems to be fairly common knowledge. Who knew?

In case anyone is curious, the War of the Roses was between the House of York (who used a White Rose symbol) and the House of Lancaster (who used a Red Rose symbol). Both York and Lancaster were 'branches' of the ruling Plantagenet royal dynasty of England. Both lines were ultimately extinguished in the course of the war.

Henry Tudor, a cousin of the Lancaster dynasty was the last man standing. He married the widow of the last Yorkist (sister of the famous two young "Princes in the Tower" who were murdered) to create the Tudor dynasty, using a red and white rose as the new Tudor symbol of unity.

What I find so interesting is that this long war (1455 to 1487) was about absolutely NOTHING other than pure dynastic partisan rivalry (two branches of the same house). There is absolutely no other political issue involved in the war. :shrug:

And there are all kinds of moral lessons here in that all the bad guys suffer. The worst guys suffer the most. Very interesting and odd war for all that.

[Michael]

Well, for what its worth (and for the tiny number that might be interested), here is a brief explanation of what the 'War of the Roses' was all about. (and yes, for me, 1000 words is brief!)

First of all, we must look to King Edward III (reign: 1327 to 1377) as the essential 'cause' of the war. First and foremost, Edward III inherited a long simmering battle between the Crown and the Baronage of England that had began long before, but had been flaring up with increasing severity throughout the 13th century - first under King John, then continued under Henry III, then Edward I and Edward II (the Battle of Runnymede and the Great Charter signed there in 1215 was but the 'opening round' of this long running battle). Edward III never really addressed any of the long-standing issues here at all - rather he devised the simple expedient of a foreign war to distract the baronage. This of course turned into the 'Hundred Years War' with France. Of course, during his whole reign, nothing was done at all to address the old political conflict about running the government between the baronage and crown. Thus, this conflict just festered in the background during the long running 'French War'.

Secondly, there was the Great Plague (1348-58). This 'event' had an enormous impact upon medieval society - particularly in the socio-political-economic field. By eliminating roughly one-third of the population of Europe at the time, the relative value of all goods and services was abruptly and radically changed. Because there were so many less people to feed, demand for farm produce, farm production and food prices dropped in half. Because there were so many less workers, demand for labor was disproportionately very high - which produced a significant rise in average wages for laborers. Because the nobility was 100% dependent upon farm production for their incomes, and employing laborers to produce it, they were the ones who got squeezed the most by the economic changes (falling land-based income and swiftly rising labor costs). The upshot of this was that the noble elites of western Europe were massively denuded of their traditional source of wealth, power and political authority. As a result of this, the nobility got into war and politics as potential new sources of income. The subsequent hundred years that follow (1350 to 1450) are probably the most politically turbulent (and economically productive) in all of European history.

The third necessary element was the fact that King Edward III (see first point) had seven legitimate sons that lived into adulthood (plus several other illegitimate ones that were subsequently 'legitimized' by wealth and royal decree - i.e. the Beaufort family). Most of these sons married and had children. Edward III created several new royal Duchies to endow these sons with. The result of all this was that in the next generation, the English nobility was up to its eyeballs in direct royal blood.

The fourth element is simple human chance, or fate, or whatever. King Edward III's eldest son and heir to the throne, famed as the most fearsome warrior in all of Europe at the time (nicknamed 'the Black Prince' for the color of his armor), died of the plague, and when old Edward III died of old age, the crown passed to his young son Richard who was but a child at the time. King Richard II seems to have been of some weak character or physique (or feeble-minded). The result being that his 'minority' never really ended - his powerful royal uncles ruled on his behalf. When Richard II died at a relatively young age (33) the crown was due to pass to his own infant son.

Now this was a big problem. In medieval Europe, a nation was only as strong as their king was physically fit. Infant kings and noble regents meant political instability and weak rule. So the English nobility did what they thought was the right thing - they had a 'coup' and handed the crown to Richard's cousin, Henry the Duke of Lancaster, who was an all round highly respected and popular gentleman with lots of experience in handling the affairs of state. It all seemed simple enough - King Henry IV as he became, was indeed a good strong king. His son, Henry V, was also a strong king - and a great general on the battlefields of France (always popular sport in England that was!).

But that was never enough. Many held that Henry IV was a usurper (and it is true) and thus opposed the rule of the Lancaster-royal line and insisted that the crown belonged to the York-royal line that had superior claim upon the crown due to being descended from an elder son of Edward III. Thus, latent baronial restiveness combined with the lingering royal bloodlines and impoverished nobles ambitious for adventure to produce a potential political powder keg.

When Henry V (of Lancaster) unexpectedly died in his prime, he left the crown to his infant son, that was the real spark that triggered the war. The Yorkists made a move to 'coup' against the infant Henry VI. For the rest of his life, Henry VI (who was mentally handicapped as it were) was shuttled back and forth between the factions of York and Lancaster, each seeking to claim/control the crown.

It was a curious war. For 98% of England, the people would likely never even be aware that a civil war was going on. It was a strictly upper-class affair. Throughout the reigns of Henry VI (Lancaster), Edward IV (York) and Richard III (York), the war of noble houses raged on in the background, flaring up and down from year to year until Richard III's death on the battlefield at Bosworth in 1485 - dying childless. A cousin of the Lancastrian line, Henry Tudor (of Wales) was left as the battlefield victor and by default became King Henry VII of England. He quickly married the heiress of the Yorkist line and thus, in this union and their offspring (Henry VIII), the York-Lancaster split in the ruling royal house was re-united as one line (the Tudors).

The moral of the story (I think) is that the 'coup' of Henry IV was evil. Even though it was good in every short term consideration, and fully supported by everyone, it planted an inevitable seed of 'greater evil' to come. In short, legal forms are critically important things to follow - even if they are inconvenient in the short term. :)