2B - The impact of the Wars of the Roses on English society by 1499: trade and the economy
Assess the wars’ effects on English society without assuming constant national devastation. Explain how violence and royal policy affected trade and property, and why stronger central authority still depended on the regions.
The uneven costs of conflict
The Wars of the Roses brought severe violence but not uninterrupted fighting across every part of England from 1450 to 1499. Battles, raids and periods of mobilisation were separated by longer stretches of ordinary production and government. Assessing social impact requires distinctions between a battlefield district, a family caught in factional struggle, and a community away from the main campaigns. Neither “England was destroyed” nor “ordinary people were unaffected” captures that range.
Armies required food, transport and accommodation; their presence could take labour and resources from local households. Fighting and looting could destroy property and interrupt markets. Sudden changes of allegiance could place servants and tenants at risk because their lord’s political choice affected their obligations and safety. The violence was especially damaging to some noble families: deaths, executions and confiscations broke networks and altered control of estates. Barnet and Tewkesbury in 1471, and Bosworth and Stoke in 1485–1487, were concentrated moments of such change.
Yet the aristocracy did not cease to exist. Surviving families, new title holders and regional landowners continued to control estates and furnish royal officials and soldiers. Attainders could be reversed and confiscated lands redistributed. A new king might need men who had served his predecessor. The wars changed who benefited from lordship more consistently than they abolished lordship itself.
For the common people, the direct burden varied with place and occupation. A merchant faced disrupted routes and credit; a farmer near an army faced requisition or damage; a tenant might need to accommodate a changed landlord. Distance from a battle reduced one danger without insulating a household from taxation or political interference. Effects should therefore be explained through specific mechanisms rather than inferred from the number of royal changes.
Trade and wider economic change
Trade suffered from insecurity when campaigns blocked routes, ships faced danger or a change of regime unsettled dealings with the crown. Merchants depended on predictable payment, enforceable agreements and access to markets. They could therefore support order and cooperate with kings without being permanently committed to one dynasty. The crown also had an interest in maintaining commerce because customs duties and merchant loans helped finance government.
Not every economic difficulty in the period was caused by civil war. A mid-fifteenth-century commercial slump had begun before the major campaigns, and overseas demand, currency conditions and the consequences of the loss of French territories affected trade. Population remained low after earlier plague losses and recurrent disease, influencing labour, rents and land use. These conditions would not vanish merely because the crown changed hands. Chronological overlap is not sufficient proof of causation.
English cloth production and exports recovered and expanded in the later fifteenth century. Rural producers, clothiers and merchants linked the West Country and East Anglia, among other regions, to overseas markets. Cloth manufacture involved spinning, weaving and finishing as well as raising sheep; growth could spread earnings across several occupations. London’s role in cloth exports increased, but the fortunes of particular towns and ports differed. A national expansion did not mean every locality grew equally.
Henry’s embargo on the Burgundian Netherlands in 1493 supplies a specific connection between dynastic insecurity and trade. It sought to pressure those sheltering Warbeck, but disrupted commercial access for English traders too. The agreement of 1496 restored trade. This was an economic cost of policy against a claimant even when no large English battle was taking place. Conversely, later recovery cannot be attributed only to Henry’s victories: wider markets and the organisation of production mattered.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account