1453, after the fiasco of the Hundred Years' War between Britain and France, the British army returned to China, and almost no one thought that there would be another conflict. However, ten years later, England fell into civil war again, reshaping the ruling elite in England.
Suffering from mental illness, King Henry VI abdicated due to illness and was regent by his most trusted allies. After a period of time, Henry VI recovered, but all these ministers tasted the sweetness of power and wanted more power. 1455 In May, Richard, Duke of York, who coveted the throne, marched into St. Albans. The first open conflict broke out here, and the battle between red and white roses broke out.
How to explain the most famous war in British history? How did this storm come about?
Some scholars pay attention to the long-term interpretation of history, and often blame the heavy historical responsibility on the hundred-year war between Edward III and France, which made Britain pay a heavy economic price. Therefore, the monarch with financial difficulties had to make too many concessions to the nobles.
Worst of all, Edward is said to have said that he would allow the expansion of what historians call "constructivism". Different from the older ruling mode, the relationship between lords and vassals in society is not centered on granting land use rights, but based on a contract system formed by economic means. This model is very effective for conscription, but there are inherent risks.
Nobles can arm their servants, and if there is a civil dispute, these people may also cause serious harm. Loyalty can also be bought and sold, because loyalty is a personal act rather than a hereditary act, so public order is constantly threatened.
The final result of this ruling mode is that the monarchy is constantly weakened, because under the intrigue of "excessively powerful" subjects, the monarchy will become more and more fragile. Therefore, it is not surprising that there will be influential figures such as Richard, Duke of York, or Warwick, King, because they can decide the fate of the country.
But this view was refuted. It should be admitted that "abnormal feudalism" (if we still accept this statement) worked well for most of the time in war and peace. Nobles are usually as eager to share a certain degree of political balance as monarchs.
British historian MacFarlane famously said, "Only incompetent monarchs are afraid of' powerful ministers'." In fact, the kingship has not been fatally damaged, and many systems such as parliament and common law are still working well. However, as MacFarlane said, everything always depends on the character and ability of the ruling monarch. The events that led to the outbreak in wars of the roses will certainly prove this.
Edward III may not have destroyed the structural integrity of the British monarchy, but Edward III did have many children, and their descendants led to a dazzling dynasty struggle. 1399, Henry Bolingbrook, son of John of Gaunt and grandson of Edward III, usurped the throne of Richard II, son of Edward, the black prince, and grandson of Edward III, and was called Henry IV.
In many ways, in the early days of Henry IV's rule, diplomacy was difficult and difficult. It is said that Richard II was a tyrant. He is insatiable and arbitrary. Henry succeeded in seizing power almost entirely because he would become a more reliable ruler. As soon as Henry took office, he quickly promised to limit heavy taxes, but the political environment such as the war with Scotland became a stumbling block on the road to reducing tax burden.
This can be clearly seen from the fact that he changed at least six financial officers from 1399 to 1404. It is not surprising that disillusionment in England is growing, because a large number of former allies of Richard II are dissatisfied because potential competitors are eyeing the English throne.
Soon, complaints were replaced by more urgent threats: owen glendower's rebellion in Dispatch, Henry Hozbo's conspiracy and the rebellion of Archbishop Scrope, and so on. It is not difficult to see that the monarchy of Lancaster dynasty has potential fragility. In Henry V, the situation has obviously improved. Henry V is a more energetic king. He suppressed the riots in the early days of his administration, restored the royal finances, and won praise for defeating Roland's heresy. More importantly, he won great victories in French military campaigns, such as the Battle of Ginkul and the Norman Conquest from 14 17 to 14 19. Therefore, by 1420, Henry V successfully became the heir of French king charles vi.
However, after further observation, we will find that Henry V's legacy has obviously brought many misfortunes to his successor Henry VI. Even people of his time want to know that Henry V's adventure in France depends more on his personal ambition than on his outstanding ability to govern the country. Is this ambition likely to defeat the enemy, or will it trigger a war with no chance of winning and bring unbearable economic burden to his successor? Although Henry VI will face this problem, it is obvious that he is not up to the task at the moment he succeeds to the throne. For Lancaster dynasty, it was very risky to choose a 9-month-old baby as king, but fortunately, there was no serious challenge and no other choice.
The fact that Henry realized the longest "minority decision principle" in British history and successfully consolidated his political power shows that the monarchy is not as fragile as some people think. Unfortunately, however, history has proved that Henry VI is still a very unfortunate and flawed monarch. Many historians point out that Henry VI's shortcomings are the most convincing direct cause of wars of the roses.
According to Henry VI's "minority decision principle", resentment and hostility within the royal family laid the groundwork for future events. There are frequent disputes between Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Bedford, lord protector (just like Duke of Gloucester and brother of Henry V) and Henry beaufort, Bishop of Winchester. At the same time, in the 1920s of 15, the war with France continued to ferment, but due to the appearance of Joan of Arc, the French monarchy became more and more aggressive.
Later, Charles VII was crowned king of France, and by 1435, France signed a contract with Burgundy, a former English ally. This signing will eventually become a major turning point in the long and tortuous war. It was during this period that Henry VI began to play an important role in British politics. He obviously doesn't have the military talent like his father, and he has never led an expedition to France. At home, Henry VI seems to have been vacillating between inaction and pro-government; Although Henry VI should not be regarded as a puppet, he allowed unhealthy factional struggles among consultants. Many of these henchmen are people who have been revolving around the king for personal interests.
Nevertheless, the knowledge of the peacekeeping regime still exists. Therefore, in the forties of 15, the local aristocratic disputes were successfully resolved. However, from the front point of view, Henry VI's rule was really bad, and it was very expensive to go to war with the French. Besides, Henry VI likes flattery and needs to ensure that all countries are loyal to it. So she will give gifts and reward them indiscriminately. As a result, the country's financial difficulties continue to worsen.
Before Henry came to power, the royal family's financial situation was already very poor. 1433, the royal debt has reached 160000, but the balance is only maintained by the annual income of 60000. By 1449, Henry's debt reached an astonishing 372,000 pounds. By the early 1950s of 15, the income of the royal family had shrunk to only 40,000 pounds a year, which was only one third of the income that Richard II earned in the 1990s of 14. All these have undermined the stability of the monarchy. In the mid-1940s, Henry VI found a peaceful solution (including his marriage with Margaret of Anjou), but the war broke out again in 1449.
1453 the fall of Normandy, the fall of Gasconi gave England a final blow. The fall of the two places has seriously affected the morale of England. The fall of Normandy, the economic difficulties in England and the increasing criticism of the advisers around the king eventually led to widespread dissatisfaction among the people. Many people thought Henry's adviser, William de la Bohr, Duke of Suffolk, was the most dangerous, so Congress impeached him and exiled him. Bohr was murdered in exile. In the same year 1450, Richard, Duke of York, returned from Ireland without permission and quickly became the focus. Henry didn't trust Richard, Duke of York, so in the next three years, he formed an uneasy relationship, which almost led to direct conflict. Things will come out one day, but obviously, the influence of the Duke of York in the court, especially the increasingly fierce competition between the Duke of York and Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, may disturb the national political situation.
Perhaps just one more fuse-a short-term reason-can aggravate the tension and internal hostility that England has formed and push England into open civil strife and division. 1453, Henry VI completely collapsed due to mental illness, and the fuse finally appeared.