2B - The impact of the baronial wars on English society by 1471: the weakening of the aristocracy
Assess who was affected by the wars and how far political destruction altered English society. Distinguish the severe losses of particular noble families and local communities from the longer economic changes that cannot be attributed to civil war alone.
Selective aristocratic losses
The wars weakened some of the greatest aristocratic networks through repeated deaths, punishment and redistribution of estates. Somerset and Northumberland were among the major casualties at the first Battle of St Albans; Richard of York and Salisbury died after Wakefield; Warwick and Montagu died at Barnet. Tewkesbury completed the destruction of the senior Beaufort leadership. This was a succession of political losses, not one isolated reduction in the size of an army.
A great lord's power depended on estates, offices, reputation, relatives and loyal followers. When he died, an heir might be a minor, and the estate could come under royal wardship. Attainder could prevent inheritance and transfer property to the Crown. Retainers then faced choices about new patrons, changing allegiance or withdrawal. A family might survive biologically while losing its ability to challenge the king.
However, the aristocracy was a social and political order, not just the particular families that led Lancaster or Warwick's opposition. Edward still required nobles to govern regions, command armies and maintain order. Victorious families gained property and office; new or promoted lords filled some gaps. William Herbert's rise and fall illustrates opportunity and danger, while Hastings's continued importance shows the monarchy's reliance on trusted aristocratic servants.
Therefore distinguish three claims: some leading affinities were broken; noble independence could be reduced when estates and appointments depended on royal favour; the nobility as a governing class disappeared. The first is well supported, the second needs qualification, and the third is false. Redistribution could strengthen a loyal magnate as well as the king.
Ordinary people and local disorder
Political elites were prominent casualties, but ordinary people did not live outside the conflict. Men recruited into armies risked death and injury. Towns on campaign routes could face demands for supplies, damage, disrupted markets and occupation. Farms could lose crops, livestock or labour. Communities near a battle or siege experienced the war differently from communities which saw no large army.
The wars were intermittent, with long intervals between major campaigns. They were not fifty years of continuous fighting across every county. This helps explain why farming, markets, marriage and local administration continued while kings and leaders changed. Neither a description of one devastated locality nor evidence of normal life elsewhere can represent the whole country without qualification.
Local aristocratic competition also created violence away from royal battlefields. The Duke of Norfolk's siege of Caister in 1469 endangered the Paston family's defenders during a national political crisis. It concerned a disputed inheritance as well as wider power. Margaret Paston's letter about the defenders' shortages and injuries shows how instability could leave a gentry family vulnerable to a stronger neighbour. This was not simply a Yorkist army fighting a Lancastrian army. The Paston correspondence, volume V preserves the family's efforts to secure property and protection.
Such evidence shows the relationship between central weakness and private power: if the king could not enforce a settlement promptly, a great lord might press a property claim with force. It does not prove that local violence began in the wars or ceased with Edward's victory. Land disputes, patronage and unequal access to justice had older roots.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account