The Wars of the Roses E-Book

Martin J Dougherty

• Herausgeber: Amber Books Ltd
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Seitenzahl: 288

Beschreibung

“Westeros is probably closer to medieval Britain than anything else.” George R.R. Martin, creator of Game of Thrones
Kings who were insane, infant or imprisoned; feuding families, disputed successions and monarchs executing their brothers; exiled nobles, war with France and enemies forced to unite against a common foe – the history of The Wars of the Roses is so filled with drama that it feels like fiction. In fact, it has inspired fiction. As Game of Thrones author George R.R. Martin said: “I’ve drawn on many parts of history, but The Wars of the Roses is probably the one A Song Of Ice and Fire is closest to.”
Telling the story of the fifteenth century wars between Lancastrians and Yorkists, The Wars of the Roses follows the course of the conflict from the succession of infant King Henry VI right through to the defeat of rebellions under Henry VII. Its protagonists were twisted by their conflicting loyalties of blood, marriage and, above all, ambition. From mad Henry VI captured in battle to the mystery of the ‘Princes in the Tower’ and the truth behind Richard III’s deformity, the book is a lively account of more than 30 tumultuous years.
Illustrated with more than 200 colour and black-and-white photographs, artworks and maps, The Wars of the Roses reveals the scheming and betrayal, the skullduggery and murder behind the struggle to gain power – and then hold on to it.

Leseprobe

THE WARSOF THE ROSES

THE CONFLICT THAT INSPIREDGAME OF THRONES

MARTIN J. DOUGHERTY

Copyright © 2015 Amber Books Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by anymeans, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Published by Amber Books Ltd United House North Road London N7 9DP United Kingdomwww.amberbooks.co.uk Instagram: amberbooksltd Facebook: amberbooks Twitter: @amberbooks

ISBN: 9781-7827-4282-1

Project Editor: Sarah Uttridge Picture Research: Terry Forshaw Design: Zoë Mellors

DISCLAIMER:The Wars of the Roses is not prepared, authorized, approved or endorsed by any person or entity involved in the making of Game of Thrones or A Song of Ice and Fire. This is not an official publication and is in no way a companion or tie-in to any Game of Thrones or A Song of Ice and Fire product.

www.amberbooks.co.uk

Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1Foundations of the Wars of the Roses

Chapter 2The Early Reign of King Henry VI

Chapter 3Richard, Duke of York

Chapter 4The Parliament of Devils

Chapter 5Edward, Earl of March

Chapter 6The First Reign of Edward IV

Chapter 7The Second Reigns of Henry and Edward

Chapter 8Richard III

Chapter 9The Legacy of the Wars of the Roses

Appendix

Bibilography

Index

Picture Credits

The early life of the first Plantagenet king, Henry II of England, was dominated by conflict between his mother Matilda, daughter of Henry I, and Stephen of Blois who held the English crown. Plague (above) claimed many lives during this period.

THE WARS OF THE ROSES

INTRODUCTION

In the mid- to late fifteenth century a dispute over the complex matter of the royal succession, combined with the general uncertainty and turbulence of the times, erupted into a power-struggle that wracked England for three decades.

——♦——

‘It was far more complex than a simple clash of two factions’.

At stake were not only power and status but even survival – this was not an era in which the vanquished were treated leniently. Nor was it safe to try to stay out of the game. Powerful lords would use their influence, or outright coercion, to increase their following; refusal to join one side might be taken as membership of the other.

The mid-fifteenth century was a time of great uncertainty and instability. Even as the first flowering of the Renaissance took place in Italy, the private armies of English noble houses warred on one another in the traditional fashion. Plague was a constant threat, as was implication in one of the many plots uncovered at the time. It was not necessary to be guilty in order to be executed; indeed, many individuals were killed simply because they might someday be a rallying point for a rebellion.

The English power-struggle that took place in this era became known as the Wars of the Roses, after the emblems of the two main factions. It was far more complex than a simple clash of two factions, of course. Treachery and disaffection caused some powerful figures to switch sides, and it was not always completely clear who the enemy was.

The Wars of the Roses settled a dynastic question about succession to the English throne and permitted the Tudor dynasty – which included world-changing figures such as Henry VIII and Elizabeth I – to take power in England. There were also immediate implications for Scotland and France, and wider consequences that would touch even the New World.

The idea of a ‘War of the Roses’ originated after the conflict ended, with Renaissance writers. Shakespeare’s depiction of lords choosing white or red roses to show factional loyalty in his play Henry VI Part One is dramatic invention.

This was a critical moment in world history. Columbus would set sail in 1492, just five years after the end of the wars, and soon the settlement of the Americas would begin. The victors of the Wars of the Roses dictated English policies in the settlement of North America and throughout the age of exploration. Closer to home, the Renaissance is generally considered to have reached England in 1487, at the end of the Wars of the Roses. Thus the return of stability to England marked the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of a new era.

Everything was changing; gunpowder weapons would soon render castles obsolete and the traditional style of warfare, built around armoured knights, would begin its decline. The very way that people viewed themselves and their world was altered forever by the change in thinking that characterized the Renaissance. This was an uncertain time, a pivotal moment. The outcome of this last great medieval war would determine the course of European and perhaps even world history for the centuries to come.

Although the Wars of the Roses were largely between the houses of York and Lancaster, the factions were not tied geographically to those regions to any great extent. Support came from wherever the lords loyal to each faction had their holdings.

Had the Wars of the Roses turned out differently, there would have been no King Henry VIII to break away from the Catholic Church, no Spanish Armada and perhaps no Wars of Religion – or at least they might have had a different outcome. European history would have taken a completely different path, with significant implications for the rest of the world as well.

None of this was known to the people involved as the first conflict broke out. Noone could have predicted three decades of bloody civil war to depose and reinstall an insane king, with one side and then the other in the ascendant. Yet there is more to the Wars of the Roses than the battles. The politics, the murders, the treachery; all played a vital role in determining the outcome of what was no mere dynastic squabble but a battle for control over the future of England.

The Feudal System

Europe in the Middle Ages was governed on a feudal basis. Feudalism was essentially a system of obligations that determined the responsibilities and duties of one social class to another. Feudalism grew up over time, out of the less formal tribal organizations that had previously existed, and was never a formal system of government as such – feudalism is a fairly modern term used to describe a range of broadly similar societies.

In a feudal society, governance was by a military elite, with the king holding the most power and control. Each social stratum had duties to the one above and, in theory at least, responsibilities to those below. Thus the commoners of a village owed their allegiance to a lord of the manor who was in turn responsible for protecting them and settling disputes between them. This minor lord was usually a knight and owed allegiance to his superior, who might be a baron or higher noble. Loyalty was ultimately to the king, although as time went on this bond became less important than allegiance to the knight’s immediate superior.

The king, and any major nobles who were owed allegiance by other noblemen, were liege lords to those who owed them loyalty. The duties required by each party were spelled out in their agreement, and in the case of knights and higher nobles usually included military service. Commoners also owed a duty of military service to their lord if he chose to call them. A subordinate might be given a specific task, such as to be custodian of a royal castle without taking ownership of it, or might simply be on call when needed for military service and free to pursue his own interests the rest of the time. A great nobleman (including the monarch) might maintain several or even many knights and professional soldiers at his own expense, but there was a limit to how many could be supported by even the richest nobleman.

‘No-one could have predicted three decades of bloody civil war to depose and reinstall an insane king, with one side and then the other in the ascendant’.

Most of the military elite were supported by granting them land as vassals. The term vassal applies to anyone who has entered into an agreement of feudal loyalty, but is often used in the context of landed vassals, i.e. those that have been granted lands in return for their service. Land could be held under various forms of tenure ranging from what was essentially temporary use in return for service to hereditary ownership.

A land grant, or any source of revenue such as rights of taxation or a position of power that created an income, was termed a fief (or formerly a fee). A manor, producing enough revenue to support a knight, was a typical fief. Depending on the terms of enfeoffment in place, the lord of a manor might be free to make as much money as he could from his holdings. This could be very lucrative in the case where a fief was held in return for a fixed rent or for military service. This was typically for 40 days a year. Those that wished to be exempted from military service were sometimes permitted to pay scutage (‘shield money’), essentially a fee in return for exemption from other duties. Scutage could allow a nobleman to use surplus revenue from his holdings to gain exemption from service, keeping the remainder for himself. Other forms of enfeoffment, such as those connected with the clergy, also did not require military service although other duties had to be fulfilled..

In the bastard feudal society of the 1400s, the king no longer held absolute authority. Great lords and Church officials also wielded huge influence, creating endless political intrigues, plots and bargains among those close to the throne.

Granting lands to vassals allowed them to take responsibility for running them rather than the monarch trying to micromanage his whole country, and allowed fighting men to be supported at a local level when not on campaign. During peacetime they would – in theory – contribute to stability and the rule of law in their home area without draining central resources. This was an age when standing armies were not maintained, other than the household forces of the nobility. At need, a force was assembled by calling knights to service, and they would bring with them their own soldiers and any additional personnel recruited by levying them from the common population.

‘Some fiefs reverted to the king upon the vassal’s death but many were hereditary, creating a need to determine who they would pass to’.

However, granting land allowed vassals to become increasingly rich and powerful if their holdings were well (or, in the short term at least, rapaciously) managed. Some fiefs reverted to the king upon the vassal’s death but many were hereditary, creating a need to determine who they would pass to. This was usually the eldest male heir, but more distant relatives might inherit if there was none. Marriages also caused holdings to pass from one family to another, which could result in the fragmentation or consolidation of fiefs.

Consolidation or acquisition of additional fiefdoms permitted the greater nobility to increase their wealth and status, which gradually led to the emergence of great noble houses wielding enormous power. An alliance of such nobles – or just a single house in some cases – could rival the king in terms of political and military power, which had implications for the governance of the kingdom.

As heir to Henry III, the young Edward I played an important part in the Second Barons’ War. Once enthroned, he set about implementing social and legal reforms that addressed some of the causes of the conflict.

Governance of a realm increasingly became a balancing act, in which the king needed the support of the great nobles rather than being able to simply dictate to them. So long as the king had enough supporters at any given time, he could proceed as he wished. However, this support was a two-way street and rulership became increasingly about compromise. Indeed, at times the king might be ineffectual, his power eclipsed by that of the great nobility. However, the office of the king still held a lot of influence; generally speaking, lip-service at least had to be paid to loyalty and obedience.

In this environment, politics and disputes among the great nobility could influence national policy, and private wars between nobles could rage out of control. A strong king, with solid support, could bring those of his nobles who required it to order but there was always a price for support. As the great nobility became increasingly powerful the king went from absolute ruler to just another powerful player in a very dangerous game.

As time went on, the nature of feudalism changed. Rather than everyone owing allegiance to the king, many people at lower levels considered their first loyalty was to their liege lord. This created greater factionalisation and increased the power of the nobility relative to the king. At the same time, there was a shift in the way that military service to the crown was managed. During the reign of Edward I (1272– 1307), the practice of direct service when called was replaced with a system based on money.

Edward I is primarily famous for his campaigns in Scotland, which earned him the nickname ‘Hammer of the Scots’. He was very much a warrior king, fighting in Wales, Scotland and on crusade as well as against rebels in England.

The new system called for a financial contribution paid by each social stratum to their liege lord rather than fighting when called upon to do so. If military service was required then the liege would pay for it. Thus in a quiet year money could be spent on other projects or put into a war chest for future need. Large forces could be raised when required by hiring professional troops as well as paying vassals for their military contribution to the conflict. This new system has been termed ‘bastard feudalism’. Under bastard feudalism, the nobility could afford to maintain bodies of troops under arms on a permanent basis if they chose, although these forces would be small. In times of peace this retinue was used to guard holdings, to deal with trouble and to act as a bodyguard as well as being a status symbol. When there was a conflict with another lord or an overseas campaign, the retinue would be expanded with additional men.

The increasing power of the great nobility under bastard feudalism was one factor in ensuring that the Wars of the Roses era was so bloody. Powerful nobles with their own private armies could engage in conflict with one another, and it might be that the king lacked the capability to stop them. He might also choose not to, allowing his nobles to pursue their own agendas either because he supported them or because he wanted their support in some other matter. Arguably, the weakening of the crown’s position relative to the great nobility was one of the main factors in permitting the Wars of the Roses to take place.

The production of a male heir was an important factor in the stability of a kingdom. Edward I had three sons before the boy who would reign as Edward II was born; two died before his birth and one just after.

‘Primogeniture and the inheritance of an intact position ensured that holdings remained concentrated and power was not diluted’.

Inheritance and Succession

The question of who inherited a fief when the current holder died was an important one; the question of who took the throne upon the death of the king even more so. If the fief was not hereditary then it reverted to the control of the holder’s liege lord, who could then reassign it. Hereditary holdings were generally inherited by the eldest male child of the holder.

This form of inheritance, termed male primogeniture, worked well enough when there was a male child to inherit, although it meant that younger sons might receive very little. It was generally not thought desirable to divide holdings evenly among multiple inheritors, not least because this might subdivide the family’s holdings to the point where none of the fiefs was sufficient to maintain their previous social status. In the case of a kingdom, subdivision among the heirs was unlikely to be a successful measure.

Primogeniture and the inheritance of an intact position ensured that holdings remained concentrated and power was not diluted, though it did at times result in rivalries and bitterness between siblings. Younger sons might be granted a subordinate position or have fiefs of their own, and in addition the royal family and the greater noble houses would commonly grant a lesser fiefdom or title to younger sons. Among such grants, termed appanages, were the duchies of Lancaster and York. These were created for the younger sons of Edward III, granting them wealth and status appropriate to their station as brothers of the king. Most appanages were less substantial, but they did ensure that the younger sons and their families remained part of the nobility or at least the gentry.

John of Gaunt was the first Duke of Lancaster. His son, King Henry IV, was a legitimate child. Other children, with the family name of Beaufort, were born out of wedlock but later legitimized, creating an ambiguous situation regarding inheritance.

A fief or position might pass to a younger son if his elder brother died before producing any male heirs, but if not, then the younger son and his descendants would form what was termed a cadet branch of the noble house. A cadet branch was out of the line of succession for the main branch’s holdings, but would pass its own down the generations by the same mechanism and might increase its power by marriage or other means.

The arms of Edmund of Langley, first Duke of York. Langley was ineffectual in politics and war, despite which he was entrusted with governance whilst Richard II was on campaign. He attempted, unsuccessfully, to oppose the deposition of Richard II by Henry Bolingbroke.

In the event that a royal line or noble house was without heirs, eligibility to inherit could be traced back up the family tree and then down the senior cadet branch of the family until a suitable candidate was found. This ensured that there were always several individuals with a valid blood claim to the throne, albeit a distant one, and that could be a mixed blessing for them. Plots might form around such an individual, whether or not they wanted any part of it, and at times distant relatives were executed to ensure that they did not threaten the current claimant to the throne’s position.

The situation was made more complicated by the fact that lineage could be traced different ways. Agnatic primogeniture considered only descendants of the male line unless there were none, in which case a female relative might inherit. This excluded otherwise eligible candidates who were descended through a female ancestor and might result in succession passing to a more distant relative.

The availability of an adult male heir was thus highly important for stability. Where one existed, the process of installing a new king or the head of a great noble family was relatively straightforward. Where the succession was less clear, or the heir was a young child, things were a lot more complicated. Blood claims to a position could be made by many individuals, and some great nobles might decide that it was not in their best interests to accept the strongest blood claim.

Creative interpretation of blood claims was also a factor, with disputes over what factors made a claim ineligible or stronger than another. Many candidates had more than one claim, being related to the royal line by different paths, or had some factor that their opponents might consider barred them from succession. Negotiation, influence and the threat of force were all brought into play when negotiating a succession, and when that failed open warfare was always an option.

England and France in the Late Middle Ages

The concept of nationhood as we know it today did not exist in the Middle Ages. States such as England or France did exist, but the way they were defined was somewhat different. Rather than being a formally defined nation with borders and territories delineated by international treaties, a state such as England or France was partly a cultural concept, partly a matter of tradition and partly a question of allegiance.

Exactly what regions constituted France (or England) varied over time, and was also a matter of viewpoint. Whilst it is relatively easy to draw a map with neat borders running along mountain ranges, rivers and coasts, and to claim that the areas within are part of a given state, the reality at any time was more complex. It might be reasonable to define England or France as the areas owing allegiance to the crown of that state, either directly or through a great noble house. Even here, there are questions about the reality of this allegiance. Some areas claimed by the French crown were entirely beyond its control for most of the Middle Ages. Other areas were indisputably French but were under the control of nobles whose loyalty to the French throne was slight. In some cases, territories within France were held by noble houses loyal to a foreign king.

‘The name Plantagenet, meaning “Sprig of Broom”, referring to the crest of the Angevin dynasty, was initially a nickname’.

Significant parts of France were held by English nobles whose allegiance was, of course, to the King of England. This was perhaps an inevitable consequence of the existence of noble houses; powerful families intermarried and linked together holdings that might be part of entirely different realms. This created a situation where an individual might be a French count or duke and also the king of England. Such an individual might be received by the French king as a fellow monarch on some occasions, and on others would be expected to pay homage as a subordinate.

The possession of territories in France created a situation whereby the English king was also a French duke and therefore subordinate to the king of France. Attempts to force the king of England to humble himself before a rival monarch greatly increased friction.

The situation in France and England owed much to the life and actions of Henry II of England (reigned 1154–89). Known as Henry Plantagenet, first of that family name, Henry was the child of Matilda, daughter of the English King Henry I, and Geoffrey of Anjou. The name Plantagenet, meaning ‘Sprig of Broom’, referring to the crest of the Angevin dynasty, was initially a nickname; Henry was a member of the Angevin dynasty and was Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou and had several other French titles as well. He married Eleanor of Aquitaine and added that duchy to his family’s list of territories. Thus the king of England had claims to large parts of France, but these were not English territories as such – at least, not according to the French king. Henry II took the throne of England after a long period of instability and civil war, but was not content with re-establishing the rule of the English throne. He campaigned in Wales, Ireland and France, expanding his territories into what is often termed the Angevin Empire.

Already holding large territories in France as a member of the Angevin dynasty, Henry II of England gained the Duchy of Aquitaine by marrying Eleanor of Aquitaine. This represented a peak in England’s fortunes; much of Henry’s ‘Angevin Empire’ would soon be lost.

‘The king of England had claims to large parts of France, but these were not English territories as such – at least not according to the French king’.

The Angevin Empire shrank rapidly after Henry’s death. His son, Richard I (‘The Lionheart’) spent more time in Aquitaine or on crusade than in England, and gave little thought to the management of any of his holdings. Upon his death in 1199 the crown passed to his brother John, whose reign was sufficiently disastrous that there will never be another English king of the same name.

John’s kingship started out well enough. Angevin holdings in France were recognized by the French king, Philip II, in 1200. However, war between England and France soon broke out, and most of the Angevin lands in northern France were lost. John tried to regain them for several years, unsuccessfully, and was then forced to confront a major rebellion in England. This rebellion was significant for many reasons; not least because it resulted in the Magna Carta, a charter which limited the ability of the English king to do as he pleased. Henceforth, even the king could not imprison or harm a free man without some legal reason for doing so. It may seem obvious today that the king’s will should be subordinate to the law, but at that time it was a new concept.

The Magna Carta of 1215 represented a huge change in the balance of power between king and lords; this was the first time an English monarch had been forced into making law by his subjects.

The Magna Carta limited the power of the king, which up to that point had been more or less infinite. No longer could royal judgements be arbitrary; now the king had to follow the law when imposing punishment against his subjects.

The Magna Carta

The Magna Carta was the first legally binding document to be imposed upon the English king by his subjects, and illustrates the changing nature of English feudalism. No longer an absolute monarch, the king was forced to accept an agreement with his senior nobles. Among its clauses, Magna Carta included the provision that the great nobles could, acting in concert, overrule the king and even take possession of his castles if he did not comply with the charter. Of course, John did not comply with the charter; he renounced it as soon as he was able and was supported by the Pope in doing so. The charter outlived him however; he died in 1216 and was succeeded by his nine-year-old son Henry who accepted the provisions of the Magna Carta and thus ensured that it remained as a foundation of British law.

As a young man, Henry III attempted to regain his lands in France, which ended in disaster, and tried again in 1242. In 1259 a treaty was agreed with France whereby Henry gave up all claims to his French lands except Gascony, and in return his position there was recognized. This agreement was not Henry’s own doing; the senior nobles of England had essentially taken power the year before and kept the king as a figurehead.

Royal control was re-established in England after the Second Barons’ War of 1264–7. The first was fought against King John and established limitations on Royal power; the second resulted in further reforms and the giving of a voice in government to non-nobles. Henry and his son Edward were captured and imprisoned, although Henry kept his position as king. This period as a figurehead or puppet ended when Edward escaped and defeated the baronial forces in battle.

The reign of Edward I began upon the death of his father in 1272 and was characterized mainly by wars in Wales and Scotland as well as attempts to reform English law. Edward was something of a peacemaker in Europe, although this was mainly in the hope of aligning support behind his plan for a vast and unified crusade. He was also effective in controlling the growing power of the great nobility in England.

‘Edward was something of a peacemaker in Europe, although this was mainly in the hope of aligning support behind his plan for a vast and unified crusade’.

In one of many attempts to reconcile differences between England and France, Edward I’s son and successor, Edward II, married Isabella, daughter of the French king Philip IV, in 1308. This involved some difficult negotiations, including difficulties over the requirement that Edward pay homage to Philip as one of his vassals rather than interacting as fellow monarchs. Despite efforts to prevent it, war between England and France erupted once more in 1324. As usual, the English possessions in Gascony were a flashpoint; the new French king Charles IV demanded that his vassal, Edward, Duke of Gascony, come to Paris and pay homage. Edward, king of England, decided not to comply. Tensions escalated, resulting in an invasion of Gascony.

In an attempt to end the conflict, Edward II granted Gascony to his son, who was also called Edward, and sent him to Paris to give homage to the French king. Edward II’s wife, Isabella, was also in Paris and did much to facilitate the settlement, although her relations with her husband changed considerably around this time. After concluding a peace with France, Isabella began accumulating support for a military campaign against her husband’s realm.

The Second Barons’ War took place from 1264–1267, putting a group of powerful lords under the leadership of Simon de Montfort against Henry III of England. Henry was captured and for a time ruled as a figurehead controlled by his enemies.

Edward II’s reign ended in disaster. His policies and alliances with unpopular lords had alienated much of the country, and as Isabella and her son landed in England, the population of London rose up against their king. Edward fled, hoping to raise an army in Wales or perhaps escape to Ireland. He was captured and agreed to abdicate in favour of his son, who took the throne as Edward III in 1327.

Edward III reversed many of his father’s unpopular policies and was successful in restoring the authority of the crown despite starting his reign as a figurehead for his mother and her lover, Roger Mortimer. He increased English military capability, basing his tactics around the combined-arms cooperation of armoured cavalry with longbowmen. This system proved to serve well in wars with Scotland, and in due course was employed against France.

Edward II of England married Isabella of France in January 1308. Isabella was the daughter of King Philip IV of France, giving the descendants of Edward and Isabella a claim to the French throne that would cause great friction in the years to come.

In 1328 Charles IV of France died. He had no obvious heirs, but there were potential claimants to the throne. Among them was Edward III, king of England. He asserted his claim to the throne as the son of Isabella, Charles’ sister. This was not to the liking of the French nobility, who cited Salic law to bar Edward’s claim. Salic law had governed French matters of succession since the time of the Frankish kingdoms, basing inheritance on agnatic primogeniture, meaning that the throne would pass to the eldest male child of the monarch, and if there were none then to the closest male relative. Since Edward’s claim was by way of the female line, he was ruled to be completely outside the line of succession. Instead, Charles’ cousin Philip was chosen to succeed him.

Edward II and Isabella of France were married at Boulogne-sur-Mer in January 1308, after which Isabella journeyed to England to be crowned as Queen Consort in February. Their partnership was initially successful, but eventually ended in open military conflict.

Not only was he refused the French throne but, as Duke of Aquitaine, Edward III was required to pay homage to the new French king. He did so in 1329, but decided to wear his own crown whilst doing so. This did little to improve relations, and as tensions escalated the French king decided to strip the Duke of Aquitaine of his lands. In response Edward challenged the right of Philip IV to be king of France and, despite the fact that many in France considered his reluctant homage in 1329 to be a withdrawal of his claims to the French throne, began to press his own claim again. Edward’s attempt to land his army in France in 1340 was resisted, leading to the naval Battle of Sluys which was a decisive English victory. Sluys gave England control over the English Channel, enabling the English kings to mount expeditions whenever they chose and reducing the danger of a French invasion.

After intervening in the Breton War of Succession, Edward launched a major expedition into France in 1346. The campaign was conducted as a raid in force, causing political and economic damage by pillaging rather than attempting to take and hold political centres such as cities and castles. Marching towards the Low Countries from Caen, Edward’s army was forced south by the need to find an unimpeded crossing of the Seine. This took it close to Paris, but Edward did not besiege the city. Instead he continued his march northeastwards with the French army in pursuit.

At the Battle of Crécy in 1346, Edward III of England made use of rising ground to weaken the French charges. Longbowmen protected by dismounted men-at-arms prevented the French from breaking the outnumbered English line.

Edward eventually made a stand, resulting in the Battle of Crécy. Here, he used a combined-arms approach to battle contrasting with the French reliance on heavily armoured cavalry. Dismounted knights and footsoldiers provided protection for longbowmen, who were able to break up disorganized French charges. The result was a decisive victory for England, leading to the capture of the port of Calais.

‘Dismounted knights and footsoldiers provided protection for longbowmen, who were able to break up several gallant but disorganized French charges’.

This opening act of what would become known as the Hundred Years War was followed by a period of disruption caused largely by the Black Death. It was not until 1356 that the English were able to undertake further operations in France. This time they used Gascony as a base and were able to capture King John II of France at the Battle of Poitiers. The resulting regency in France was weak, and the English took advantage of internal troubles to launch another invasion.

The English goal was to capture Reims, the traditional site of French coronations. This did not prove possible; the city resisted a five-week siege, after which the English army marched on Paris where it was again repulsed. In a negotiated settlement, Edward accepted an enlargement of his Aquitanian holdings in return for renouncing his claim to the French throne and to other regions including Anjou and Normandy.

Richard II became King of England at the age of 10, which placed power in the hands of a council of regents. His subsequent seizure of his own power as king led to a period known as his ‘tyranny’.