Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

The impact of the Wars of the Roses on society (Which groups were involved…

- - - - It was only realy those closely connected to the key nobles eg Warwick, York etc...). However, more gentry took part in the north with the Percys and Nevilles. People were more loyal
      - Even fewer fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury, they knew they'd be risking everything
  - - - Calais did become involved, had about 800 men. Were used in Ludford Bridge in 1469 (though defected to the Lancastrian side)
      - Was important as a naval base allowing Warwick to enact acts of piracy as well as being a safehaven to flee to (though Warwick was turned away in 1470)
- - - - Francesco Coppini (Papal Legate sent by Pope Pius II) (though it was unauthorized papal blessing)
      - George Neville
      - Thomas Bouchier of Canterbury
      - William Grey of Ely
      - Mostly due to family loyalties
      - Lawrence Booth, bishop of Durham, was pro-Edward as a result of a feud with Warwick. Booth was very involved politically,
- - - - No English town suffered a prolonged siege, so no fortifications were needed
        
        However there were places that sieges occurred, for example Bamburgh, and the Siege of London on the 12th May 1471. Parts of London were damaged here, such as the bridge and a few pubs of Southwark were burned
      - Military fortifications weren't built in the 15th century, just estates in this time period
      - In France, fortified churches were common, so could be attacked, but this wasn't the case in England
      - Lotting was rare and highly localised
      - Land was not ravaged by sweeping chevauchees
        
        Though the Crowland Chronicle, wrote about the chevauchee of Margaret of Anjou's northern army 25 years later, saying it was like a swarm of locusts 30 miles wide. This was likely exaggerated but her northern army's march south in 1460-61 is the nearest to sustained looting and pillaging of the civilian population
        
        John Leland, in 1540, said most of Stamford had been burnt to the ground
        
        However, recent evidence shows only very localised damage and looting
      - France was greatly harmed by fighting during the Hundred Years War, lots of pillaging then
      - Phillipe de Commynes said England didn't suffer much damage
- - - - MM Postan (historian in the 1930s) said this was because the English government didn't support the merchants well enough, they were responsible for allowing Warwick to commit acts of piracy which meant Burgundy had to look elsewhere for trade
        
        However, JL Bolton said the Dutch were also not supported such by their government but they still thrived, so the problem was, therefore, as a result of political weakness of England