source:  A.F. Pollard The Wars of the Roses ,1988

Le Guerre delle Rose vanno dal 1455 al 1485: trent’anni tra i più romazati della storia d’Inghilterra. Ma qual è la verità su questo periodo: fu un’epoca di assassinii efferati e uccisioni di massa o è tutta invenzione dei romanzi ottocenteschi?

A volte si ritiene che non furono anni di completa anarchia, né anni di continua guerra. Non ci furono più di 12 -13 settimane di vera guerra guerreggiata in tutti e trenta gli anni. E la guerra non fu totale, cioè non riguardava tutta la popolazione del regno, ma coinvolgeva, bensì, il ristretto mondo dell’élite politica. In sostanza non ci fu più di una manciata di battaglie. Assassinii e esecuzioni ebbero poco impatto sulla everyday-life di quanti nel regno continuarono a lavorare regolarmente. I motivi delle guerre non risiedevano nemmeno in dispute dinastiche, ma in esplicita rivalità politica: si lottava per il potere. E non c’erano neanche le Rose. Anzi nessuno parlò esplicitamente di guerra delle rose finché Sir Walter Scott non ebbe l’idea nei suoi romanzi.

Ma è tutto così? La storiografia della seconda metà del Novecento demolisce gran parte della mitologia delle Guerre, ma bisogna cercare cosa c’è di storico e separarlo dal mito. E qualcosa in più di quanto ho scritto nel primo paragrafo, in effetti, c’è.

Ci sono tre caratteristiche nelle guerre delle rose che si sovrappongono, ma che sono da considerare separatamente. La prima è la guerra dinastica, ovviamente tra York e Lancaster. Il termine stesso ‘Guerre delle Rose’ si riferisce all’elemento dinastico. Ma dal punto di vista dinastico ci furono due guerre: la prima tra York e Lancaster, la seconda tra York e Tudor. Dal punto di vista dinastico, la seconda guerra coinvolgeva appartenenti alla casa di York su entrambi i versanti, in quanto Richmond (pur essendo Lancaster) difendeva i diritti di sua moglie Elizabeth of York. Richmond ricevette appoggio anche, anzi più, dalla nobiltà yorkista che era stata a corte da Edward IV (York, padre di Elizabeth of York) che dai resti della casa Lancaster. Comunque non si deve concludere che la seconda guerra delle rose era tra York e York, perché Henry VII non fu il ‘pupo’ di nessuno, fu un re forte e astuto e condusse la guerra per la casa Tudor.

Nessuna guerra delle rose fu soltanto dinastica. Fu anche contemporaneamente una guerra politica tra la nobiltà che circondava il re e ne aveva i favori (e quindi governava con lui) e la nobiltà che era esclusa dalla corte e dagli incarichi di governo (e che premeva per entrare). La lotta di Richard, duca di York per imporre la sua presenza a corte e assumerne il controllo viene contrastata da Somerset e Suffolk. La battaglia diventa aspra sotto Henry VI, perché il re attraversa lunghi periodi di depressione e diventa un manichino manovrato dalla corte. In seguito fu Warwick ad essere escluso dalla corte di Edward IV e subito iniziò a tramare per sostituire il re con suo fratello Clarence, non riuscendovi si battè per restaurare il potere di Henry VI. Inoltre il duca di Buckingham è un altro esempio di nobiltà esclusa dalla corte che trama per rientrarvi: egli appoggiò il colpo di stato di Richard of Gloucester. La nobiltà inglese si batteva per entrare a far parte del cerchio magico attorno al re.

La terza caratteristica delle guerre delle rose è la vendetta. La nobiltà inglese si massacrò anche per questioni private che traevano origine, principalmente, da dispute sull’eredità delle terre. Il re veniva spesso chiamato ad arbitrare queste dispute, ma a volte i problemi non erano di facile soluzione e dalle liti la parola veniva lasciata alle armi e quando dalle armi sgorgava sangue si instaurava una faida che interessava anche svariate generazioni. Le faide più importanti furono quelle tra la casa di Beaufort e quella di York e quella tra i Percy e i Neville nel nord.

The causes of the Wars

There are several interlocking reasons for the outbreak of civil war in 1459. The precise weight to be given to each has been and will remain a matter of controversy.

• There were dynastic causes

• there were economic and financial crisis in the ranks of nobility

• there was the defeat in the Hundred Years’ war

• the wars resulted from a long-term shift in the balance of political power between Crown and greater subjects

• shortcomings of Henry VI as a king

Some of these causes were long-term causes; others were short-term causes and some others were immediate causes. The long-term developments may have made the wars possible, the short-term likely, but only the immediate certain.

In the long-term the impact of bastard feudalism and changes in the balance between Crown and subjects are significant. That’s to say that we may read the history of the Late Middle Ages as a struggle for power between Crown and nobility.

In the short-term economic and financial pressures on English landholders, the consequences of defeat in the Hundred Years’ War and the question of dynastic legitimacy are most relevant.

For the immediate the clash of personalities and the characters of Henry VI and his queen are central.

This context applies specifically to the causes of the first War of the Roses. Not to the second.

Long-term causes

For long term causes of the wars of the Roses we mean

• bastard feudalism and

• shift in prestige, authority and power between and greater subjects

Pollard treats the two factors separately and concludes that the first, that’s to say bastard feudalism, cannot be counted among the causes of the wars, whereas the second can.

The process of decrease of prestige and power on the part of the Crown seems to date back to the reign of Edward III. The reign of Edward I is generally acknowledged as the zenith of the prestige and power of the king. But with his son Edward II things started to change and Edward III was to be the king who introduced element in the organization of the state which would result in a profound lack of power on the part of the crown. Edward I

…enforcing royal justice on all subjects and by establishing an effective central administrative machine, the kings of England had achieved a degree of authority within their realm found in few other kingdoms. (pag. 47)

Not in France, for example, where there were barons so strong to defy the authority of the king. The centralising attempts of the kings had been already resisted in the past: we have to remember that under the rule of the sons of Henry II (Richard Lionheart and John Lackland) England had gone through a deeper crisis which had brought to the Magna Charta, a constitution which de facto reduced the power of the king. After the death of Edward I (1307) it became established that the kings could not change laws without the consent of the barons represented in Parliament. Financially too the crown had to submit to the consent of the parliament to levy new taxes. The king had not even an army to be used to win the resistance of the barons: he depended on the forces given, according to the feudal system, by his subjects.

After 1340 Edward III made a transformation. He led his quarrelsome barons to victorious wars in France, on the other hand, he made very generous concessions to his barons. These included

• modification of the treason law to reduce the levying of private war to mere felony

• relaxation of the enforcement of central justice on the provinces and the development in its place of delegated administration of justice

• allowing tenants-in-chief to gain more absolute control of their lands through the development of entailment and enfeoffments to use

• creation of new titles

• encouragement to recruit their own permanent military retinues

Edward III managed to keep his barons under control because he was a brilliant, strong king, very much respected by his subjects, but he surrendered to his magnates elements of judicial, financial, territorial and military power. He damaged the crown and the monarchy in a very singular way.

After Edward III only Henry V was able to keep under control his magnates successfully, but under his son, Henry VI, the country became completely chaotic.

What do we mean by bastard feudalism? It is the sort of feudal bond which evolved in this period for the effect of indentured¹ retinues and retainers. The feudal principle that the lord gave land to the retainer for his service was substituted with the principle that the lord gave money to the retainers for their service.

Short-term causes

The short-term causes are mainly economic and financial. The crown’s revenue during the reign of Richard II was £ 120,000 per annum. It fell to a miserable £ 40,000 in the last 5 years of Henry VI’s reign. This happened not only because of the inability of the king, but also for the large amount of money spent in the Hundred Years’ war. The final loss of Normandy had a psychological effect, but also the loss of great wealth, land and prestige on the part of the great magnates of England.

The collapse of royal finance under Henry VI had profound implications both for his ability to assert his authority over his subjects and for his capacity to satisfy their intensifying demands on him. (pag. 56)

The loss of Normandy clarified also the difference between father and son: Henry V had re-conquered Normandy, Henry VI had re-lost it. It was during the war in 1450 that a sheer contrast among the magnates arose: Somerset commanded the royal force in Normandy whereas Richard of York had been sent to Ireland. It was for Somerset’s fault that York lost a substantial revenue in Normandy. York never forgot it.

As the credibility of Henry VI’s government came under attack … so the question of his right to the throne came to be raised. (pag. 61)

So the problem of the legitimacy of power comes out. Henry was heirless at the time and Richard of York could have raised his own right to be declared heir apparent (because of his descendance from Lionel and Edmund both sons of Edward III). In 1543 Queen Margaret gave birth to Edward, Prince of Wales, and started to play a far more assertive role in defence of her son’s right and her husband’s.

Immediate Causes of the first war

Immediate cause of the first war is to be connected to the king’s mental health. Everybody acknowledges that, in the Middle Ages, the personality of the king had a fundamental importance. In fact, even in a context full of problems, Henry VI’s father had governed with self confidence and strength. Henry VI instead was weak, vacillating, feckless and profligate. He was always manipulated by someone. First by the duke of Suffolk, then by Somerset.

By 1453 the king had become mentally insane and the fight among the parties at court became more bitter. The government of the realm was indeed the government of the temporary winning faction.

By 1459 the figure of Queen Margaret became predominant and capable of destroying York and his friends once for all.

the queen, in a unique position to control the king and Court, took over the leadership of the Beaufort faction in 1455. She was fully in command of the realm by the autumn of 1458. (pag. 64)

The lack of a strong king, nay of a king, because Henry VI was insane, set the country to anarchy: private feuds spread, not everywhere, but locally many lords fought their private war to settle their private controversies.

This context made the civil war more likely.

The causes of the second war

In 1483 the context seemed far more stable. There was a strong king on the throne, the other lancastrian faction was defeated with the death of both Henry VI and his legitimate son and heir. The king had two sons to secure a stable succession after him …

yet within six months, with a speed and from a quarter totally unexpected, this apparent stability was shattered. (pag 66)

This second war had more the character of a broken sequence of murders, executions, insurrections than that of a total war. Edward died unexpectedly in 1483, but he left two male heirs, the major of whom was twelve. What happened to prevent him to become king? Richard II had become king at ten and he had been protected, Henry VI was only nine months when his father died. But Edward V was deposed after only three months and never crowned.

Some historians maintain that Edward IV had not done much to remove the legislation which enabled the barons to keep strong private armies. All the mistakes made by Edward III had not been corrected, so Richard of Gloucester seized the chance to become king. He could have used his strength to protect the young king, instead he got the chance to put the crown on his own head. Richard had been, up to then, a faithful brother. He was also a valiant soldier and a good administrator. In fact he was beloved by his own subjects in the north of England (especially Yorkshire). Edward IV had even appointed him as the protector of his two sons. So the causes of the second war lies in the ambition of a single man and the failure of correcting the mistakes which had led to the collapse of royal authority.