Arlequ?n's Worlds: The Wars of the Roses - War and Society

England at this time possessed no permanent army. While there were some professional soldiers employed by the Crown to garrison the royal castles, both within the kingdom itself and within the Calais Pale, their recruitment, training and pay was largely left to their commanders to arrange. The Crown would later reimburse them for their expenses (often much later, if at all) and there was of course a wage for such positions and a degree of power, as well as lucrative 'liberties', which often came with such positions.

Despite the legal and political powers that were invested in the office of king, the situation was that, whoever sat upon the throne was little more than 'first amongst equals' when it came down to the practical application of power. Parts of the realm were quite distant from Royal authority, due to the poor state of English roads and the King relied upon those nobles that he had appointed to state offices, as well as the nobility in general, to act in his name and on their own initiative, to preserve the 'King's Peace' and to defend the kingdom from invasion.

On occasion these nobles abused their power to their own ends, or used their authority to rebel against the crown itself.?References to a king's 'over-mighty subjects' are common throughout English history and is quite an accurate description of men grown so powerful that they were able to challenge royal authority itself. In quite a few instances there were individuals who were actually able to raise larger forces from the lands they held, than would the king be able to from his. In this situation the King relied on other nobles to support him with the forces they could raise on his behalf.

The Wars of the Roses is one such period. It begins with two small but powerful groups of magnates, one which forms the 'court party' and essentially dictates national policy, the other the (initially) 'loyal opposition'. The court party's failure, politically, militarily and economically, to govern the country, results in attempts to separate and replace them from the King, which results. Other factors, not least the polarisation of factions within local political arenas, provide the momentum for the situation to snowball into open war (or more correctly several open wars) and a political scene that could give that of the Byzantines, at their height, a run for their money.

The armies which fought the battles of these wars were somewhat different to those which had fought at Agincourt, conquered France and then abruptly lost it. Not radically different, but sufficiently so for some of the methods used to raise armies in the Hundred Years War, not being wholly applicable to armies of these wars. The armies of Henry VIII, which fought at Flodden and Guinegate in 1513, owe their composition and troop types to changes in the methods of warfare which evolved during the wars.

Indentures of War

Up to the mid-fourteenth century, England had traditionally relied on two methods to raise armies. Firstly there was the requirement for the social elite; the nobles, knights and gentry to provide military service in the manner of the stereotypical medieval knight. Secondly there was the ancient duty for all able bodied freemen (Yeomen), between the ages of 15 and 60 to serve in the militia.

Various statutes laid out requirements as to what men should provide, commensurate with their status, income and property (The Assize of Arms of 1252, the Statute of Winchester of 1285 and the Archery Act 1365), as well as a system of monitoring that the letter of the law was adhered to, by ordering local sheriffs, justices of the peace and constables to conduct regular arrays and musters to inspect men and equipment.

While the system worked for domestic conflict tolerably well, it proved to be problematic for the War in France. While knights and militia men served for forty days within their own county at their community's expense, on leaving their county they were on the King's payroll. At the end of their forty days service they were free to return home and many did. The haphazard methods of selecting and raising men, many of whom were untrained and inexperienced (those who had experience, likely claiming that they had done their service), was far from ideal.

Instead of this a system evolved whereby the King would contract with individuals, often but not always, major magnates, to provide contingents of agreed numbers of fighting men (often also specified by types), at an agreed muster point, for an agreed fee and for a specified time. ?These ancient forebears of the 'Private Military Company' became common throughout Europe, the most famous being the Condottieri of Italy (Condotta being the equivalent of Indenture).

The leaders of these forces were usually granted a quarter year's worth of pay for their men, with the expectation of further instalments at suitable intervals. While subsequent pay was invariably late and nobles usually had to fund their forces out of their own pockets, there was always the realistic expectation of remuneration at some point. That this didn't happen, leaving the Duke of York out of pocket by over ?1m in today's terms, along with the Crown subsequently welching on the deal by granting him worthless 'tallies' (profitable offices etc, granted to individuals, by which they could recoup funds owed to them over time), was one of many grievances York had in 1450.

To provide sufficient numbers of men to form an army, the 'Great Captains' entered into their own sub-contracts with several other 'captains' to provide individual 'companies' of men to serve in the contingents of these magnates. These captains themselves also contracted with others to provide the sub-units of their great company. The whole system cascaded down until you reach individual soldiers who were paid 'retainers' to keep them 'on the books' should a force need to be gathered in a hurry.

So widespread was the practice of retaining individuals for these forces, that commissioners attempting to raise militia in 1457, where unable to meet the quotas set by the Crown for archers (only achieving roughly 70% of the 13,000 required). The commissioners claimed that so many men had been retained by various lords, that other than those they had found, there were barely any archers left in their counties.

While money no doubt changed hands and on campaign the men would be in receipt of royal wages, plus a share of booty and loot acquired while on campaign (as specified in their contracts), service was also paid for with 'good favour'; favours granted, assistance given in other aspects of medieval life and the gaining of various positions (stewardship of a castle or estate, collection of duties for a market or port, the rent from an area of land etc) which might prove profitable, either in plain cash, or in prestige or power. This two way process, of man serving his lord, in return for his support in their affairs, was to lead to a prominent social ill of the day.

Livery and Maintenance

Associated by their service in war and often rewarded by lucrative posts and tallies in peacetime, it might be understandable that the subordinate contractors and individual soldiers, often over several generations, developed both a tradition of service and a degree of loyalty to their superiors, and vice versa. These factors also extended to everyday affairs too.

Very much like today, commercial and social relationships were the core of day to day life, and were also largely governed through indentures. The bulk of these had no military or political relevance; you might indenture an individual to supply bread to your home, in the same way as you might have a 'standing order' with the Milk Man today, which is essentially an informal indenture (which also existed then). Such arrangements permeated English society from the highest to the lowest levels.

Other services might be more significant however and while the cash sums ('retainers') that exchanged hands were often merely token payments, it was the implication that an individual would perform a service, in return for 'good favour', just as they did in a military sense. Two concepts were present in this system, the first was that an individual would be 'maintained' by the?contractee?and that the contractor would serve, or provide a service.

To signify who was 'maintaining' him an individual might often wear a recognisable badge, which identified him to other individuals serving the same person (or indeed his opponents), while those engaged in more direct relationships and duties, might wear a uniform (the 'livery') in that individual's 'colours' (like a present day jockey wears the horse owner's colours).

Arrangements of this type were termed 'Livery and Maintenance'. Some individuals might have a relatively small number of retainers, numbering less than double figures, while others might have thousands. It was also not uncommon for an individual to be retained by more than one person, especially if they were were political allies. If they were not, there were usually clauses in the indentures to prevent the contractor being required to act against another of his employers. ?

While this seems quite an ordered system, it essentially operated in a similar way to the stereotypical mafia, with its 'wise guys', 'goodfellas', 'made men' and 'soldatos'. In fact the entire analogy of American organised crime could be applied to medieval England, with the exception that England's Mafia was running the country and the equivalent of Al Capone was chief advisor to the President.

This might mean that a powerful individual might use his influence to ensure that a legal case was settled in favour of 'his man', even to the point of suborning the judge, or 'packing' or intimidating a jury by a show of force, or even 'rubbing out' witnesses, to ensure this. More importantly in a wargaming sense, is that a man would 'maintain' his superior by turning out alone, or with others (depending on the agreement previously reached when forming the indenture), armed and equipped to act in accordance with his wishes.

Local Politics and Affinities

Whether at the highest levels of government, or in local affairs, there existed informal associations (or factions) of people with shared political aims and objectives, these were known as affinities. At their lowest levels a number of free tenants and a local gentry family might form an affinity. A number of such groups might support a local knight, or mercantile family. A number of all these differing groups might support a local noble, which in effect gave him the power he needed to involve himself in politics on a national, as well as a local scale. For example, amongst the Duke of York's Affinity in 1455 were; the Earl of Salisbury and the Earl of Warwick, each of whom had their own large affinities, which covered several shires. Also in York's affinity were others like Sir Leonard Hastings, who just carried the support of their local community. Regardless of size however the coming together of disparate affinities, united in common purpose, was what was to give the powerful magnates - the 'over-mighty subjects' often referred to, their power.

It should not be assumed however that all these affinities operated in slavish obedience to those above them. Like organised crime (as mentioned above), while disparate organisations might form?'syndicates', or 'commissions' (an affinity), each group has its own goals and aims and generally operates in accordance with these, sometimes in opposition to the others within the larger organisation. Their unifying factor, which allows them to work in conjunction, sometimes even with rival groups, is the presence of a common enemy.

Conflicts between affinities had a direct impact on the Wars of the Roses. The Percy and Neville affinities openly clashed in 1453-54, resulting in the subsequent polarisation of the North into Yorkist and Lancastrian areas in the years following. The Earl of Devon's affinity and that of Lord Bonville clashed in the West Country and when Bonville sided with York, Devon joined with Somerset, making the South West of England a Lancastrian stronghold. These were not isolated incidents, there were numerous other local rivalries across the country, which also resulted in the general York-Lancaster divide, when one protagonist joined one side or the other.

Some affinities were not so rigid in their allegiance, the Stanley family famously played both sides throughout the wars, allying with whoever appeared to have the upper hand at the time. This was a tactic which served them well, but was to see Sir William Stanley to make the wrong call eventually, costing him his head. They were not alone in this however. Others, most famously, the Earl of Warwick and even Edward IV's brother, the Duke of Clarence, changed sides in the conflict as a result of their aims and Edward's diverging.

The point of all this was that if you were on the winning side, you had virtually free?rein to cash in favours, which might result in the dispossession of your enemy, or even his execution. Many local scores were settled in this way throughout the wars, as the winning magnates were keen to support those who had helped them achieve victory.

Men Behaving Badly

15th Century England was a violent place. Outlaws made travel between towns dangerous enough in some parts, for merchants and travellers to hire men to protect them and their entourage. Nobles and gentry alike, employed armed men within their households, both as a core to their military forces if they were regularly engaged in England's wars as a contractor, and also as a means of protecting their properties and family against attack. Besides purely criminal acts, the numbers of property inheritance disputes was considerable and while there was a functioning legal system, aggrieved parties often settled disputes (at least in the short term), or vented their anger and frustration by resorting to violence.

Political rivalries and family feuds added to this background violence and chronicles of the time are full of reports of individuals and their retainers resorting to both petty and quite outrageous acts. At their lowest level, windows might be broken (glass was expensive), someone's retainers might be accosted and beaten up, or even property attacked.

During the Percy Neville dispute of 1453-54, Percy retainers, along with Lord Egremont, entered a Neville property, helped themselves to wine and food, abused the steward and his wife, wrote on walls. They also perpetrated similar acts in other places on occasion. John Neville later rode into a Percy village with his men and threatened to hang Percy's tenants unless they revealed the location of Egremont and his confederates as a response.

While the Percy-Neville dispute is an extreme example of the general background of violence, such events weren't isolated incidents. The Duke of Norfolk formally besieged Caister Castle, inherited by the Paston family (their letters show the family's preparations to defend themselves). Lord Lisle and Lord Berkeley resorted to a pitched battle, involving around a thousand men per side, to settle their differences. None of these petty conflicts were a part of the larger national picture, but merely disputes between individuals.

Over-Mighty Subjects

By relegating the national militia to the background (albeit that it was ineffective and antiquated) and entrusting national defence (and offence) to numerous private contractors, military and political power had been placed in the hands of the rich and powerful. Every prominent and active noble now had access to private armies, which they could employ to further their own personal goals and ambitions. Royal power, such as it was, was diluted and dependent on being able to garner sufficient supporters to overpower the regime's opponents.

Under strong kings, Like Henry IV and Henry V and later Henry VII and Henry VIII, it was still possible for the crown to subject these forces to royal will. Under Henry VI, it was the magnates of the land who dictated royal policy, which invariably followed the course of their own ambitions, which were not always related to the benefit of the country as a whole. Rivalry between these powerful individuals resulted in the outbreak of the Wars of the Roses. Revenge and ambition were to keep the fires burning.

Part Two - Men of War.

Source: http://arlequinsworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-wars-of-roses-war-and-society.html

i have a dream speech fox news debate martin luther king jr mlk mlk school closures being human