WAR AND CAPTIVITY IN COLONIAL NEW ENGLAND

March 2, 2008

15. WAR AND CAPTIVITY

IN COLONIAL NEW ENGLAND (4/01/04)

Guns and war

New England colonies full record. Different aspects much studied.

With Indians, much on war, captivity.

Settler colonies like New England worldwide have bad record of harming native populations.

They are less interested than some colonists in controlling and exploiting Indians. We now know that there was more slaving of Indians than thought—shows how understanding changes—esp. in southern colonies. Puritans also some use of Indian labor.

But indigenous labor was not foundation of colonial economy. More interested in Indian lands.

New England, New Zealand, Australia, Tasmania, Argentina, in different ways had terrible record of displacement and mistreatment or extermination of native populations.

In New England, as Cronon and Taylor show, there were several decades of usually peaceful interaction, co-existence. Trade, selling land, some labor.

They even lived together for brief periods, New England Algonkians too refuge from the Mohawks with colonists.

Some areas better than average Indian relations, Rhode Island, also with a Pilgrim rebel, named Morton.

But continuing tension and possibilities for trouble. Some would say just matter of time until war.

In particular, great population growth in settler population, decline in Indian population, continuing incremental dispossession of land. Also in effect bullying Indians. unstable situation.

Guns and military tactics

One might think that understanding of military technology, tactics, strategy would be one of best established historical points.

In fact controversies. Even with very intensively studied wars—Civil War, World War I—enduring controversies.

We know that technology and tactics often very important. Importance of repeating rifles, machine gun to late imperialism. “Light” weapons like AK47s today.

But also cultural dimension, not inevitable. Famous claim that Japanese delayed use of firearms for long time because they would wreck the Samurai system.

For North American Indians, several recent positions, disputes.

Very revealing about nature of historical enterprise.

One recent position historian, Michael Bellesisles, made radical claims.

Said gun culture late to develop in White America. Charlton Heston and others very upset, critical. But won major historical prize, much acclaim.

Then some began cast doubt on validity, even truth of evidence. Said some records used in research were distorted, even non-existent. Investigations, and the award was retracted. Major academic scandal.

Concerning Indians, Bellesisles suggests guns may have hurt their cause: they were adopted for reasons of prestige, copycats, would have done better to stick to bow.

Guns had strong psychological impact, but much less after all Indians adopted them. Bow was quieter, faster, and esp. not tied to white supplies of ammunition. Guns were expensive, hard to load. (Daniel Day Lewis in “Last of the Mohicans” grossly misleading.) Guns misfired, bad on rainy days. Whites palmed off bad guns on Indians.

Unclear how to assess these claims.

Another position, Patrick Malone, Skulking Way of War (on list of recommended books). Others before him. Emphasized impact of guns, intelligent Indian use of guns, eventual impact on colonial war-making.

Malone says guns couldn’t be dodged, made horrendous wounds.

Indian bows not as powerful as English longbows, couldn’t pierce armor.

So two opposed positions, both plausible, hard for us to assess.

Malone also analyses adoption of guns.

Colonial worries about Indians getting guns, there were laws prohibiting, but were subverted, exceptions made. Indians wanted guns for intertribal wars, hunting.

Indians also learned technology: already very adept with copper, flint-working. Making lead shot easy.

Indians learned to repair guns, to blacksmith. One major problem was powder. Even colonists did not make powder themselves. So notion that powder supply major weakness for Indians, esp. in protracted wars, correct.

Indians, according to Malone, also very fussy about kinds of guns.

Two kinds of gun at time: Matchlocks, older technology. Heavy, inaccurate, smoldering match. Saw in “Black Robe”.

Flintlocks newer, expensive, but much better.

Colonists stuck with matchlocks, but Indians insisted on flintlocks. Colonists very bad in use, Indians became experts.

Also Indians more effective, according to this view in forest warfare.

Traditionally, mixed methods.

Some fights in open, masses of men, showers of arrows, low casualties.

Stockades, with sieges and ambushes.

Especially forest fighting, with ambushes.

Colonists saw forest fighting as entirely random, individual—shows dangers of historical testimony—but some say Indians had well worked-out tactics.

In first major colonial conflict, King Phillip’s War, according to this view, colonialists at first blundered around, tried to use European tactics, not adapted to forest. Indians much more effective, skulking, ambushing.

Then Whites did better as they adopted Indian patterns, learned about forest, adopted ranger or guerrilla pattern. Sounds plausible.

Now third view. Guy Chet (see supplementary reading list.)

Says in fact previous view misinterpreted record.

Says that understanding distorted by self-serving memoirs of most famous colonial ranger, who exaggerated his own exploits and the significance of ranger patterns.

Chet says that many Indian successes came much more from attacks on lightly defended western towns; that scorched earth tactics, destruction of subsistence base crucial.

And that battles and defensive tactics much more important than previously claimed.

Colonists’ major weakness was not their use European war patterns but their incompetence in implementing them.

At very beginning of colonization, professional soldiers like Myles Standish were very effective, but within a few years, militia was mostly sloppy, untrained.

Concerning battles, previous interpretations had often emphasized attack: initial volley with guns, then run in, fight with edged weapons.

Chet says campaigns were strategically offense, but effective battle-fighting was tactically defensive: so long as colonial troops held ranks and were fairly well trained, traditional European patterns won battles.

Even if e.g. they were chasing enemy, once engaged in battle, goals was to make them attack you, destroy them from defensive position.

Can see that very different picture altogether of what was going on, what worked.

Very hard for non-experts to assess evidence. Shows complications of historical interpretation, even on what seem basic points.

Pequot War

In 1637 first Indian war, brief but nasty. After series of disturbances, combined Puritan-Pilgrim force moved against Pequots, Algonkians. Fortified village where Mystic, Connecticut is now. Guided by Indian allies, enemies of Pequots

Surrounded fort, invaded at dawn, complete surprise, lit whole village on fire,

as Indians ran out, massacred. Inner ring militia, outer Indian allies.

Killed women and children, maybe total 400.

Puritans justified in Biblical terms, little remorse.

They thought they assured peace by smashing the Pequot, object lesson for other Indians, but effect the opposite. Indians learned to fear colonists and to understand that if war came, it would be total.

King Phillip’s War

Great colonial war later in century.

Many books, articles. Much studied.

For long time blamed on Indians, but near-unanimity in 20th century that they the victims. Some say primary villains were the Plymouth colony, more insecure about land and position because separate from Mass Bay Colony and Rhode Island and its charter was threatened. Made them nervous about Indians to west of Plymouth, whether they would sell to other Puritans, harm Plymouth.

Famous friendly Indian Massasoit had died, his successor Wamsutta (name of mills, towels) captured, hauled into Plymouth, because they were worried he selling land to others. He died on way home, not happy event.

His successor, Metacom, called Philip by Pilgrims, was hauled in, tried to make him agree never to sell to any other settlers. They coerced him into agreement, but Phillip was mad, perhaps plotting. A “praying Indian” informed on Phillip; informer killed, there was a quick trial for 3 accused Indians, one of whom fingered Phillip.

War started 1675. Spread all over New England. Used to be depicted as Indian conspiracy, but rather disconnected series of uprisings, often provoked by colonists. Phillip definitely not in charge of whole thing.

Colonists do badly at first. Unprepared for forest war.

Great fear of all Indians, including “praying Indians” and allies. Interned praying Indians on Deer Island.

One result, blundered about without guides, easily ambushed. Exception was Connecticut colonists, who used Indian allies.

Indians abandoned restraint, killed without mercy. Also western settlements exposed, very vulnerable.

Colonists soon began selling captives as slaves off to West Indies, didn’t improve tone of war. Indians ransomed white captives back, that was interpreted to to show that they were barbaric!

By 1676 Mass Bay leaders began to realize mistake, started using praying Indians and allies. Just a few scouts to keep them out of traps made a huge difference.

Many Indians had not joined in or on fence. Puritans got them on board. Also got Mohawk to harry them from west. No unity among Indians.

Started doing better in forest war.

No mercy, attack neutrals. Most of all scorched earth, destroy subsistence. Indians starving, then epidemics.

Crucial white advantages: secure base, with sea at back, reinforcements. Able to destroy Indian fields, keep them on run

Result was Indian resistance destroyed. Great part of population died, shipped off as slaves. A few descendants, but weak remnants, pockets.

Tremendous losses among whites before won. By percentage of population, worst war in North American history.

First great Indian war, start of long shameful history.

Captivity

Interactions between two sides, as have already seen, not just economic and political but meaningful

Include missionization, marriage and sex, torture, killing, capture—all full of meaning.

Try to make sense of what going on; trying to impose meanings on it.

Also using certain events and customs and supposed character traits to stand for important meanings about the other, or to handle contradictions or ideological dilemmas

Also been argued that figure out own identity—collective identity as people—through contrast with others

Certain things charged with symbolism and meaning

Saw with killing and torture in movie, with Jesuits

Also captivity. Both sides taking captives, but was mostly whites captured by Indians that emphasized

Very beginning: John Smith, supposed rescue by Pocahontas, is a captivity story

The Indian slave trade

Great imbalance. Many more Indians captured, and part of a commercial trade.

But no big deal made of it.

Esp. in South in earliest period.

Full extent just now being realized. (See book in supplementary reading list.)

See Taylor in chapter on Carolinas. To get guns, Indians drawn in as slave raiders.

Would seem to indicate that Europeans saw Indians as radically different, but Colley argues that merely extension of what did in Europe: Cromwell packed defeated Irish rebels off to W. Indies.

Also slaving and captivity during New England Indian wars

“Praying Indians” suspected of throwing lot in with rebels packed off to Deer island, where sewage plant now is. Very like Japanese internment. Great suffering.

Also captured Indians packed off to West Indies as slaves. Huge deal made of two Puritan girls briefly captured in Pequot War, then Pequots who survived all sent off with relatively little fuss.

But Colley argues that quite significant numbers of whites captured, not at all rare:

On frontier further south, over ten-year period, 1755-1765, 2700 whites taken

No one knows total numbers

White captives

Captivity is a charged event. Full of meaning. Very emotional to write and think about.

Not just interaction between two sides, but one taken inside, taken over by other. Intimate, powerful.

About national and ethnic differences; ethnicity, race; power; gender

We see in own time. In 20th century numerous examples: prisoners of war (literature of Allies in Germany; movies on prisoners of Japanese; now attention to internment of Japanese in U.S.); Iranian prisoners and Contragate: Patty Hearst; Aldo Moro; others.

New book by Linda Colley (see supplementary reading list) on Europeans who captured by North African corsairs, made slaves; British captives in India; as well as in colonial North America.

First important white captive to write about experience was Mary Rowlandson, what you have been reading. Became hugely important: being read in at least one other course this Spring.

Rowlandson narrative cannot be read just for events it tells us about, must be seen as text imposing meanings on the events

Started tradition of captivity narratives. Other Puritan ones, more tightly controlled by Puritan preachers than Rowlandson’s. Then many more. Industry. Some were fakes. In way fakes just as revealing as real ones of ideology.

Absorbed into literature. Cooper’s novels heavily influenced.

Great fascination. Study by historians, students of literature.

Agreement that very important, that about race and gender and power

But strikingly different takes on subject, shows how difficult and subjective.

Rowlandson’s Story

Religion informing story at multiple levels:

Providence, God’s will explaining events.

Even when not rescued.

Her use of Bible as divination, tool to understand situation.

For Rowlandson, the story is a kind of “conversion” narrative or testimonial. Story of testing by experience, how changed.

For preachers, was form of narrative of the wonder’s of God’s providence. Cotton Mather published providential stories, even people involved in witch craze.

She and colonists as a whole deserve punishment. Her pride/vanity. Puritans fallen into sin. But still infinitely better than Indians. Strange combination of pride and self-doubt.

How structured? “removes” Is there a symbolic significance to word?

Suggested kind of displacement, like Biblical exile. Puritans already prone to metaphorizing selves as Israelites among enemy peoples in desert.

Are there issues that Rowlandson is trying to deal with in story? Anything she is trying not to say or that she is saying did not occur?

Lepore says important that she feels guilt over letting self be captured.

Showing that had not been touched sexually. (As noted with “Black Robe”, eastern Indians seldom used captives sexually, unless later married them; not so in West.) Important she let readers know.

Even more that she had not “gone Indian”, converted to their way of life. Felt as danger.

Remarks on how hated food.

One male captive who punished when recaptured. Suspected of treachery or at least not resisting.

Within general Indian badness, what are Weetamoo’s faults? Suggested she counterpart of Rowlandson, sin that Rowlandson must struggle against.

Colley and Lepore suggest that also positive affirmation that still English.

Also, insistent contrast between Indians and English, it has been suggested, is not just static reflection of already existing attitudes—it is also an active part of process by which Indians “othered”, i.e. portrayed as totally different, bad. Text as part of process.

Are there ways that Rowlandson loses control of her story or that it is not all consistent?

Some good or partially good Indians. Quinnapin Even bad individuals suggest that they vary, not all same. Examples of kindness.

What besides Indian goodness subverts message, portrayal of Indians as totally alien?

At one point she mistakes them for whites, because dressed like whites.

She enters into economic relations with them.

She knows some of them from before, knows some Indian words. Suggests inter-relationships, not total separation.

Who are the important individual Indians in story?

Philip, Quinnapin, Weetamoo.

She doesn’t give reader full political significance of their roles or hers.

She not ordinary captive, wife of preacher.

Weetamoo was widow of an important chief and herself a leader. When she died, her body was displayed as trophy just as with killed male Indian leaders.

Rowlandson criticizes Weetamoo for dressing up and gifts etc., doesn’t seem to realize this was part of ceremonies for chiefs. Not that Rowlandson didn’t know she was leader, certainly knew very well by time wrote narrative, but damned if she was going to acknowledge it.

What does it mean that Rowlandson was a woman? Almost everyone who comments says important, but interpret it in different ways.

Colley points out that captivity narratives of prisoners of Barbary pirates mostly men, preceded American narratives and some of those who helped publish Rowlandson probably k new Barbary narratives. But significant in this case that families, women and children.

Highly unusual for woman to write or publish, or for that matter, even to speak in public.

Only 4 women in whole 18th century were ever published, Rowlandson only one during her own lifetime.

Very strong insistence on women’s silence.

Rowlandson special case because wife of preacher, preface justified it that way.

May be that woman good symbol in some ways, passive, can represent Puritan self threatened by the other/the wilderness/the world. But to extent she portrayed as resisting, may be conflict with gender role.

One famous later story, woman who kills and scalps captors, became famous, but over top, not in gender role.

Also famous story, Mary Jemison, stays with Seneca, has much positive to say about them, subversive.

So many critics concerned with complicated relations between male/female, Indian/English. Also with sexuality, even if nothing overt occurred.

May also have factual element: Men much much more likely to be killed rather than kept in captivity.

Jill Lepore contrasts Samuel Printer, “Praying” Indian who set Rowlandson’s story in type. He captivity on Deer Island. When released, had to prove loyalty, redeem self. So symmetry with Rowlandson. But she did with story, not open to him. Indian side silence. Rather had to bring scalps.

Colley shows how captivity literature not very important in England until later, 18th century, when British troops in considerable numbers for French and Indian war. Then savagery literature, deal with brutality of colonial war, Indian strongly othered.

The threat of captives going Indian

Axtell wrote very interesting chapter on this (see supplementary reading list).

Quite a few white captives wanted to stay with Indians, didn’t want to return.

Particularly enjoyed relative freedom of Indian society. Moccasins as symbol, much more comfortable and flexible than boots.

Ordeal through which captives put, which could end for lucky in incorporation, acceptance, could bind them emotionally.

Very upsetting to families, to settler society when they didn’t want to go back.

Danger of going native confronts all colonial societies.

French-English captive conversion struggles

Also crisis with captives who turned over to French in Canada, converted to Catholicism. Didn’t become Indians but renounced Protestantism, English identity.

Series of colonial wars between French and English, captives taken by both side imp part of struggle

Analyzed by Axtell (see supplementary reading list)

Says 1600 taken captive by French between late 17th and late 18th century

Contest between cultures. See Demos (supplementary reading list)

Both sides saw captives won over as crucial test

But New England had weaker missionary tradition. Also most of French captives single men. Not needed in New England, so weak efforts to convert

In New France could really use captives to stay, esp. women and men with skills

Major effort on French side. Some coercion. But also what Moonies have called love bombing: previous converts esp. zealous and persuasive.

Prisoners grateful to be freed from Indians, in hands of whites. A number fell in love while there. They knew trip back could be rough. Proved vulnerable to conversion without own ministers to help resist. Tough, theologically knowledge adults held out best, kids push-overs.

Very upsetting back home to know that kin had become Catholic.

See discussion questions on Rowlandson’s narrative.

Advertisements

The Wars of The Roses – Battle of Barnet

February 3, 2008

70

We provide a brief background to this historic War of the Roses clash and a scenario using the Warhammer Ancient Battles rules and army lists that first appeared sometime ago inside Wargames Journal. Bryce has also provided some wonderful banners to adorn the various nobles that are available in the download section of the web site and has provided information on collecting the forces and painting them accurately.

INTRODUCTION

The Wars of the Roses had been rumbling along since 1455. By 1469 all of the most prominent supporters of the Lancaster cause were in exile and their ‘King’, Henry VI, was a prisoner in the tower.

It seemed that the threat to the reign of the Yorkist King Edward IV from the House of Lancaster had waned and he was secure.

Hope for the Lancastrian cause was however rekindled when the King mismanaged his relationship with his most loyal campaigner the Earl of Warwick, the famous Kingmaker, who had done so much to bring Edward the throne of England.

The Earl of Warwick crossed to Calais to find other rebels and to raise an army. He was joined by the King’s own brother Clarence who cemented his loyalty to Warwick by marrying his daughter.

Prior to leaving England, Warwick had fermented rebellion in the north of England which Edward and his army was then forced to suppress. With the King engaged in the north, Warwick landed in Devon with an army funded by the French King and the army continued to recruit as it marched on London.

Edward soon realised that his small force could not fight on two

fronts and with no hope of recruiting in the north he promptly fled the country.

In 1470 Warwick released the hapless King Henry VI from his imprisonment and duly declared him to be King. Warwick was of course the same man who five years previously had led this same man and supposed traitor King to the tower!

King Edward IV spent his short exile drawing upon the support of his brother-in-law the Duke of Burgundy. In March 1471 Edward landed in Yorkshire with a small army and was able to recruit as he pushed south for London.

Warwick knew of Edward’s landing and expected that his son the Earl of Montague would engage Edward in Yorkshire. Edward however simply bypassed Montagues’s forces, avoided Warwick who was in Coventry and marched to London unopposed.

Immediately amidst such treacherous times the loyalty of Warwick’s son was called into question because of his perceived inaction in Yorkshire.

Whilst this was going on Clarence, now of course the Earl of Warwick’s son-in-law, defected again and without Warwick’s knowledge re-joined his brother Edwards cause.

Edward’s duly captured the Lancastrian King Henry VI who faced the humiliation of being held captive in Edward’s baggage train as he pushed north to do battle with Warwick.

The scene was set for the Battle of Barnet.

WARGAMING THE BATTLE

Barnet as a battle is not as well known as the battle of Tewkesbury that occurred around a month later and has often tended to overshadow it.

It is however a good wargaming subject for a variety of reasons and it makes a great subject for wargaming for a number of reasons including:

• The potential for treachery on either side with Clarence and Montague.71 72

• The appalling weather conditions. The battle was fought in dense fog that caused utter confusion. This coupled with doubtful alliances has the potential for totally unexpected outcomes. As a field Commander you would only be aware of what is happening where you are and not to your left or right

• Leading from the front Edward IV has a good chance of being killed in the Battle

• The Duke of Gloucester, who commanded Edward’s left flank at Barnet, was later to become King Richard III

• There is the possibility of friendly troops rescuing, or perhaps even over-zealous troops accidentally killing, the captive Henry VI

As you can see the game has the potential for several twists and turns and potential sub-plots within the battle itself.

Imagine yourself as Edward IV. It’s early morning and you can’t see what is ahead of you but you do know that you are pitched against a man who was once your closest ally.

You know his army is bigger and that his Commanders are better than yours, you even doubt your own brother’s loyalty.

DEPLOYMENT

The map illustrates the deployment of the various contingents. It also illustrates how Edward deployed his army slightly towards one side. This went against all conventional wisdom as normally opposing armies aligned themselves in a more regular fashion.

Barnet is a contest between two similar forces but with Warwick’s army being larger at around 13,000 compared to Edward’s total of around 10,000 men.

The numbers present at any medieval battle are always hotly debated. Just bear in mind the old adage that it is the victor that writes history. Edward’s chronicles put Warwick’s forces at 30,000 to make Edward’s ultimate victory seem more dramatic. It is always safer to opt for somewhere between any two extremes.

In any battle of this period forces were generally aligned conventionally. Casualties would be fairly even on both sides until one army managed to swing in its reserve on an exposed flank and the melee would pivot until breaking point was achieved.

If the break became a rout then as with most ancient or medieval warfare the victor would inflict a disproportionate number of casualties on the fleeing enemy.

Superficially Barnet would have seemed likely to be a victory for Warwick’s larger army however Edward’s unusual deployment was set to change the script.

Edward’s deployment meant that Edward himself would clash with Warwick and Montague’s forces.

On his right his most inexperienced Commander, Richard, Duke of Gloucester had his forces arranged so that when they met the veteran Exeter’s force they could spill around Exeter’s exposed left flank and turn him.

However the flip side to this was going to happen on the opposite wing, as Hastings would be outflanked by Oxford. This unusual deployment may have been a cunning plan by Edward to create the illusion of a larger force but most historians put the misalignment down to the presence of the thick fog.

VISIBILITY

The poor visibility was more of an advantage to the numerically inferior Edward. It also meant that the superior enemy artillery was even more ineffectual than was normal for the times.

Edward had advanced his armies forward to be able to strike at dawn. As the fog began to gather during the night it was so thick by the time the battle began at dawn that the archers would be lucky to fire off one salvo before the forces clashed.

Each command would almost literally have tunnel vision and not be aware of either their own or enemy forces to their left or right.

THE BATTLE OF BARNET

As Edward’s forces advanced his left flank under Hastings was first to engage the enemy as it clashed with Oxford’s force, closely followed by Edward’s centre meeting Montague and Warwick’s troops and Gloucester meeting Exeter on the right wing.

Very soon Oxford’s superior numbers overlapped Hastings’ exposed flank and rather than just falling back in good order, Hastings’ men panicked and ran.

Oxford devastating attack swept away Hastings’ division in a total rout.

Under normal circumstances this would have been a total disaster for the Yorkist forces as Oxford’s men would sweep in on Edward’s flank and rear but instead they disappeared into the fog without anybody noticing the significance.

On the right wing Gloucester’s overlap of Exeter’s forces proved very effective but Exeter’s troops were more disciplined and although pushed back continued to keep their cohesion and fight on.

Oxford’s men meanwhile thought the battle was over and began looting Edward’s baggage train. As a result they rescued King Henry VI who must have felt more like a pawn in a game of chess than the King of England!

It is reported that some of Oxford’s men rode into London and proclaimed their victory not knowing that the rest of their forces were still fully engaged. Oxford being a veteran Commander soon took command of the situation 73

and remarkably under these circumstances managed to rally about a quarter of his force to return to the battle to cement an almost certain victory.

Oxford’s men appeared through the fog and were not presented with Edward’s flank but an arrow storm from Warwick’s own exposed flank. It is popularly believed that Oxford’s badge of a star was mistaken for Edward’s sun badge. Whatever the truth of the matter cries of treason went up from all sides and panic gripped Warwick’s army. Morale crumbled.

Some commentators believe that Montague tried to go over to Edward’s side as believing the battle to be lost and that Warwick’s men cut him down.

Warwick now decided to make his exit but was 44 years old, wearing 50lbs of plate armour and had fought for 3-4 hours. He tried to find his horse tethered towards the rear but never made it. He was found dead and stripped of his armour on the battlefield the next day.

Oxford was more fortunate and managed to escape to Scotland but Henry VI was re-captured and taken back to the tower where he is said to have died of melancholy a year later.

THE AFTERMATH

The number of high-ranking Yorkists who died around Edward and Richard’s contingents illustrates how hard fought the battle was up to the point of the panic that ended it.

The number of dead is hard to estimate but I believe the most accurate figure to be 500 dead on the Yorkist side and 1,500 dead on the Lancastrian side. These figures are recorded in the Paston letters; John Paston of Norfolk was present on the day.

Like many medieval battlefields where there has been a rout the names of the terrain features indicate elements of the battle. At Barnet you probably noticed the marshy area called Deadman’s Bottom. This marks the area where most Lancastrians were slaughtered as they tried to flee through the clinging fog.

ORDERS OF BATTLE

The following are a rough estimate of the orders of battle, plus basic statistics for each unit from our previously-published set of extensions for WAB. For some variety, we have set out a basic points allowance for each army and allowed some basic upgrades.

The numbers given are for a fairly large game, even with the expensive troops available, with around 2,460 points and 150-170 figures for the Yorkists, and 2,740 for the Lancastrians, with around 170-200 figures. This would require a large table and several commanders on each side!

However, the figures can be scaled down in proportion and Montague and his men at arms can be removed from the Lancastrians, and Clarence and his foot knights can be removed from the Yorkists, assuming each personality become absorbed into Warwick’s and Edward’s command figures.

Given this was well past the start of the war, and numbers were larger than at the initial battles, we have ensured that some troops are the equivalent of “Shire Levy”. These are brittle but with care can be used to good effect.

Given the potential for treachery, no general or battle commander can command any troops other than his own, and must remain within 6″ of one of their normal units at all times, or must move as soon as possible to within 6″ of one of their units. Moreover, all command influence (Ld) and Battle standard (reroll) distances are reduced to 8″ due to the fog.

The Duke of Burgundy sent over some mercenaries, but these may have been Flemish or German. For variation, you can either field these as Handgunners or mercenary Pikemen.

For each unit, a standard bearer and musician can be added. Note that the Combined Formations rule insists that casualties from ranged weapons (bar artillery) are taken from all figure types in the unit, not as previously stated, but that figures shooting from behind the front rank still count as half their number.

The artillery described below is Light Artillery with average crew with WS 3 and Ld7. The guns themselves have a range of 15″ in the fog, and otherwise are S4 (-1 per rank penetrated), T 6, W 2 and inflict D3 wounds per hit. Refer to the ballista rules for details, though the artillery should be subject to deviation – for the ranges at which they will be used we suggest half the number specified on the deviation dice.

We have presented the Orbats as a PDF file that you can download from the Wargames Journal web site:

Barnet Orbats

SCENARIO NOTES FOR WARGAMING BARNET

Terrain

There are several marshy areas indicated on the map these should be regarded as rough ground for purposes of movement. The very marshy areas should be impassable for cavalry or men-at-arms in full armour.

Fog

To simulate the effects of the fog play the following special deployment rules:

• Deploy each division aligned as per the map and with the opposing armies 24″ apart.

• No units may move normally until the first combat between units from 74

opposing sides.

• Edward’s troops advance but each unit must roll A D6 to determine which direction they move each turn. On a 1 the unit will oblique 45 degrees to the left on a 6 they will oblique 45 degrees to the right. Any other roll and they move straight ahead.

• If Edward’s troops fight each other during their advance then Warwick’s units may advance to take advantage but also move randomly.

• If a unit veers into contact with a neighbouring friendly unit they must fight at least one turn of melee. If treachery is a real possibility, i.e. with Clarence’s units then fight two turns of combat if required.

In addition half all missile ranges due to the effects of the fog and only test morale due to a unit breaking in combat if the unit is in the same division and is within 6″.

LIVERY COLOURS & BADGES OF ARCHERS/BILLMEN

LANCASTRIAN

EARL OF WARWICK’S COMMAND – Red with white ragged staff

EARL OF MONTAGUE – Halved black and red with white griffin

DUKE OF EXETER – Halved white and red with yellow wheat ear

EARL OF OXFORD – Red with blue boar

YORKIST

KING EDWARD IV’s COMMAND – Halved blue and murray (dark pinky red) with black bull or white rose

DUKE OF CLARENCE – Halved blue and murray with black bull

RICHARD, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER – Halved blue & murray with white boar or White rose

LORD HASTINGS – Halved murray and blue with black bulls head or yellow lion with mans face

FIGURE AVAILABILITY

There are many excellent figure ranges available in a number of scales. I prefer 25/28mm figures and so will concentrate on these.

If you are just starting to collect in this era it is worth considering which figures are compatible with which.

I have found the more traditional “true” 25mm tend to be dwarfed by 28mm figures, especially mounted ones. As a very rough guide use the following for compatible ranges, although the odd figure mixed in will make no great difference:

Traditional ‘Smaller’ 25mm

Old Glory

Wargames Foundry

Newer ‘Larger’ 28mm

Essex

Front Rank

Games Workshop

I personally prefer the larger 28mm figures and rate Front Rank as the best figures available.

The bonus of opting for these ‘larger’ figures is that if you hunt around at shows you can nearly always come away with a bag full of Games Workshop archers from their Brettonian range that is ideal when you need to fill the ranks.

BUILDING AN ARMY

It’s my experience that it’s a great temptation to buy far too many knights, as troops in full plate armour seem to be the image of the War of the Roses soldier.

In the C15th buying a full set of plate armour would be the equivalent to purchasing a brand new prestige car today. It really was for the nobility and well off knights. Troops of this period tended to fight on foot due to the vulnerability of horses to massed longbow fire.

Mounted knights look very nice as models but were something of a rarity if wargaming this period as they would dismount and fight on foot. Lighter cavalry on horses with no armour were often used on the wings to exploit any exposed flanks or fill in breaches.

Exotic troop types such as crossbowmen and handgunners were usually foreign mercenaries and an unusual addition to any army.

The composition of most armies of this period should probably be as follows:-

Longbow (around 50% of any army)

Dismounted men-at-arms (around 10% of any army)

Billmen (around 30% of any army)

The remaining 10% would be made up of hobilar cavalry on unarmoured horses, the crossbowmen, pikemen, spearmen and handgunners.

Artillery was pretty primitive in the C15th and was basically large fixed bombards set into earthworks that were really only used for sieges.

Lighter “slightly” more mobile early cannons were used but the firing rate was very slow and the range was short with no useful arc of fire.

Heraldry can be totally baffling throughout the medieval period but thankfully by the War of the Roses it was generally less intricate as shields were no longer universally used. Having said all of this the flag colours are often different from the livery coats worn by the foot soldier!

If you paint the commander’s badge on his troops in theory they can only be used with that commander and perhaps only for the duration of a single battle.

It’s best to pick a snap shot in history and raise an army for that moment and then re-use it for other battles without getting to carried away with accuracy otherwise it will prove to be an expensive way of raising armies.

This may upset a few heraldry buffs out there but if you want useful generic armies to cover most of the engagements then choose correspondingly generic figures with leather jerkins or gambesons. If you want to capture the right feel of the various armies then you could paint the livery colours but simply omit the badges so troops in red for example could be Warwick’s or Oxford’s.

This is fine for the rank and file but it is important to get the commander’s flag or standard right as this is what will stand out on the gaming table. I use the excellent flag sheets available from Freezywater Publications, 13 Rochester Drive, Lincoln, LN6 OXQ.

They have really good quality flag sheets covering every engagement of the Wars of the roses and other medieval eras also. Through this address you can also purchase various useful booklets on the War of the Roses and could also join the Lance & Longbow Society and receive a quarterly journal on Medieval Warfare.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Battles in Britain by William Seymour, Wordsworth Military Library (1997)

British Battles – Ken & Denise Guest – English Heritage – Harper/Collins (1996)

Standards, badges, livery colours of the Wars of the Roses – Pat McGill & Jonathan Jones – Freezywater Publications (1992)

“We’d like to thank Front Rank for very kindly allowing Wargames Journal to use their images within out articles. As a company Front Rank has supplied high quality figures for many years. Its WoTR figures are full of character and worthy of any battlefield.”

http://www.frontrank.com

THE GREAT WAR – BATTLE OF THE SOMME

January 17, 2008

THE GREAT WAR and the Shaping of the 20th Century
Lesson Plan Three: Killing Fields
© 2004 PBS http://www.pbs.org/greatwar Lesson Plan Four page 1 of 5
Overview
WWI remains one of the bloodiest and most destructive wars ever. Its global impact on
humanity was devastating. The allied and central powers leading the battles — Germany,
France, and Britain – did not make any great gains, despite their efforts to advance their
positions, and suffered and inflicted extraordinary casualties. The Battle of Verdun, for
example, lasted nine months and resulted in 300,000 dead and 7500,000 injured.
Learning Objectives
As a result of completing these activities, students will:
• Describe several of the WWI’s bloodiest battles
• Track the battles’ progression to determine advances made by leading nations
• Write frontline journalistic accounts of one or more of the battles
Standards
This lesson meets the following standards set by the Mid-Continent Research for
Education and Learning (http://www.mcrel.org/compendium/search.asp):
World History
Standard 39
Understands the causes and global consequences of World War I
Benchmarks
Understands events that contributed to the outbreak of World War I (e.g., diverse
long-range causes of World War I, such as political and economic rivalries, ethnic
and ideological conflicts, militarism, imperialism, and nationalism; how
nationalism threatened the balance of power among the Great Powers in Europe,
and why it was considered one of the causes of World War I)
Understands the role of the U.S. and other countries in World War I (e.g., how the
Russian Revolution and the entry of the United States affected the course and
outcome of the war, motivations behind the entrance of the U.S. into the war)
United States History
Standard 6
Understands the changing role of the United States in world affairs through World
War I
Benchmarks
Understands the development of World War I (e.g., the influence of industrial
research in aviation and chemical warfare on military strategy and the war’s
outcome, how technological developments contributed to the war’s brutality, the
© 2004 PBS http://www.pbs.org/greatwar Lesson Plan Four page 2 of 5
system of alliances through which European nations sought to protect their
interests, how nationalism and militarism contributed to the outbreak, how the
war expanded to become a world war)
Understands the United States’ intervention in World War I (e.g., the impact of
U.S. public opinion on the Wilson administration’s evolving foreign policy during
the period 1914 to 1917, Wilson’s leadership during the period of neutrality and
his reasons for U.S. intervention)
Understands the causes, course, and impact of World War I prior to U.S. entry
(e.g., motivations of leading world powers, the relative success of nations in
mobilizing their resources and populations, the relative success of their
propaganda campaigns to influence neutral nations, the successes of military
strategies, and the general spirit of disillusionment)
Materials
• Computers with Internet access
• LCD projector (optional)
• Print and online sources about WWI’s major battles
• A world map representative of geography relevant to WWI time period or
printouts of the battle maps (see Online Resources)
Estimated Time
3 to 4 classroom periods (with some research and writing done at home)
Teaching Strategy
Prior to this lesson, students should have basic understanding of WWI causes, nations
involved, key political and military leaders, and overall impact worldwide.
Provide students with some background on the outbreak of WWI, referring to The Great
War’s Slaughter section, http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/chapters/ch2_slaughter.html.
Explain to students that historically, some of the bloodiest battles ever fought occurred
were fought during WWI, resulting in terrible devastation and a tremendous loss of
human lives. The nations heading these battles – France, Germany, and Britain – made
few gains. Tell students they will explore three of the major battles – The Battle of the
Somme, The Battle of Verdun, and The Battle of Ypres.
Using a world map, pinpoint with the students the locations of the three battles, and using
a marker, chart the routes of each one. (If possible, project The Great War’s animated
maps to accompany this activity.)
© 2004 PBS http://www.pbs.org/greatwar Lesson Plan Four page 3 of 5
Divide students into small groups, each one representing one of the battles (two or more
groups may have the same assignment, depending on the number of students in the class).
Direct students to The Great War site to begin their research on the battles (to be
supplemented by the additional web resources, noted below.)
Verdun
• Battle of Verdun
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/maps/maps_verdun.html
• Verdun—The Battle of France
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_audoin_03_verdun.html
• Battle of Verdun: The Crucible
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_winter_15_verdun.html
• Map – Battle of Verdun, Overview of Battle, Feb-Dec 1916

Somme
• The Battle of Somme
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/maps/maps_somme.html
• John Keegan: The Battle of Somme
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_keegan_04_shells.html
• Too Few Doctors at the Front
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_keegan_05_doctors.html
• July 1, 1916: The Somme
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_simkins_06_somme.html
• Map – Third Battle of Ypres

• Map – Battle of the Somme, Overview of Battle, Jul-Nov, 1916

Ypres
• The Battle of Ypres
© 2004 PBS http://www.pbs.org/greatwar Lesson Plan Four page 4 of 5
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/maps/maps_ypres.html
• The Battle of Passchendaele (Ypres)
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_wilson_06_passchendaele.html
Have each team conduct further research into one of the battles (depending on the
number of students, groups may share battles.) Key aspects to note:
• where the battle occurred,
• what led to its occurrence,
• battle conditions, such as the weather
• who was involved,
• how many casualties,
• types of weapons used,
• the end result of the war (who “won” the battle and its effect on everything
around it, including civilians).
Instruct students to assume the roles of journalists to write individual news accounts of
one of the battles (all three should be equally represented). Students can write a day-today
account of life on the battlefield, an article reflecting soldiers¹ feelings about the war,
etc. Students can create a newspaper in which to run these stories, maybe a special WWI
edition.
Online Resources
The Great War
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/chapters/ch2_overview.html
Interpretation: Battle of the Somme What happened at the Battle of the Somme
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/worldwarone/hq/wfront3_01.shtml
Battles: The Battle of the Somme, 1916
http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/somme.htm
Battle of Passchendaele: 31 July – 6 November 1917
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwone/battle_passchendaele.shtml
World War I/Primary Documents
http://www.historyteacher.net/APEuroCourse/WebLinks/WebLinks-WorldWar1.htm
The First World War: Battles
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbattles.htm
First World War.com: Battles
© 2004 PBS http://www.pbs.org/greatwar Lesson Plan Four page 5 of 5
http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/
Battles of World War I
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battles_of_world_war_one.htm
Battle of the Somme
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWsomme.htm
Wars & Conflict. World War I: Western Front Animation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/games/western_front/index.shtml
Assessment Recommendations
Quiz students, or have them quiz one another, on the various battles. Assess student
involvement in collaborative learning. Have students keep a writing portfolio to review
their writing process.
Extension Activity
• Read the two historians’ perspectives on Gallipoli.
(http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/maps/maps_gallipoli.html) How did the Turkish
view the battle as a “Holy War”? Why was the invasion doomed to failure?
About the Author
Michele Israel has been an educator in varied capacities for more than 20 years. As
founder and director of Educational Consulting Group, Israel currently serves nonprofit
and educational institutions, providing services including strategic planning, educational
product development and project management. In addition, she produces learning
materials and writes articles for companies such as PBS, Education World and
CNN/Turner Learning.

THE WARS OF THE ROSES

January 17, 2008

FURTHER SUBJECT 8/30
The Wars of the Roses, c.1450- c.1500
Bibliography
This Bibliography is
© University of Oxford,
History Faculty
2007
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
CONTENTS
List of Set Texts
General Reading
Interpreting the Sources
Class 1 : The 1450s
Class 2 : 1461-71
Class 3 : 1483-7
Class 4 : Reconstruction under Edward IV and Henry VII
Class 5 : The Practicalities of Warfare
Class 6 : Reform and the Common Weal
Class 7 : Power in the Localities
Class 8 : Overview
List of Set Texts
Where there is a choice, students are free to use any available version of these items,
unless otherwise indicated (AV = alternative version). The top version in each list is
the best, or most up-to-date.
Items marked with a 􀂑 are available in a document pack which can be purchased
from the History Faculty.
[1] Chronicles
1. An English Chronicle, 1377-1461. A New Edition, ed. W. Marx (Woodbridge,
2003), pp. 72-100 (covering 1453-61)
AV: An English Chronicle…, ed. J. S. Davies, Camden soc., old ser., 64 (London, 1856), pp. 70-
110.
Camden soc. version online: (Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse, Uni of Michigan, Ann
Arbor)
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=cme;cc=cme;view=toc;idno=ACV5981.0001.001
2. 􀂑 ‘Vitellius AXVI Chronicle’, in Chronicles of London, ed. C. L. Kingsford
(Oxford, 1905), pp. 158-219 (covering 1450-1497)
3. ‘“Warkworth’s” Chronicle’, in Death and Dissent. Two Fifteenth-Century
Chronicles, ed. L. Matheson (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 93-124 (covering 1461-
73)
AV: A Chronicle of the First Thirteen Years of the Reign of King Edward the Fourth by John
Warkworth, D.D., ed. J. O. Halliwell, Camden soc, old ser., 6 (London, 1839), pp. 1-27
AV: K. Dockray, ed., Three Chronicles of the Reign of Edward IV (Gloucester, 1988), pp. 23-
49.
4. The Crowland Chronicle Continuations, 1459-1486, ed. N. Pronay and J. Cox
(London, 1986), pp. 109-99 (covering 1459-86)
Note: A nineteenth-century translation is available online through the Richard III Society. It is
not an acceptable alternative.
5. The Anglica Historia of Polydore Vergil, ed. and tr. D. Hay, Camden Soc., 3rd ser.,
74 (1950), pp. 3-33, 51-9, 63-111 (covering 1485-7, 1492-7)
Note: a version of a 1555 printed edition is available online at
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/polverg/, but is not recommended.
– 2 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
6. 􀂑 ‘Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV in England and the Finall Recoverye of
his Kingdomes from Henry VI’, ed. J. Bruce, Camden Soc., old ser., 1 (London,
1838)
AV: the same online: http://www.r3.org/bookcase/arrival1.html (some very minor transcription
errors)
AV: K. Dockray, ed., Three Chronicles of the Reign of Edward IV (Gloucester, 1988), pp. 147-
86.
7. The Usurpation of Richard III (Mancini), ed. and tr. C. A. J. Armstrong (Oxford,
1969) (repr. by Alan Sutton, Gloucester, 1984)
8. Philippe de Commynes. Memoirs, ed. and tr. M. C. E. Jones (Harmondsworth,
1972), pp. 80-90 (Book I. chs. 5-7: War of the Public Weal; Wars of the Roses),
141-5 (II. 8: interviews between princes), 179-97 (III. 4-7: 1469-71), 236-48
(IV. 4-8: 1475), 339-56 (V. 18-20: general reflections on mid-15thC politics),
396-8 (VI. 8: Richard III)
AV: the same online: http://www.r3.org/bookcase/de_commynes/index.html (arranged by books
and chapters, as above)
[2] Manifestoes, Pamphlets, Treatises, Speeches
NOTE: some set manifestoes appear in other portions of set text, as follows:
Manifestoes of 1459-60, in item 1, English Chronicle, ed. Marx, pp. 79-80, 82-5, 86-8
Manifestoes of 1450 (York) and 1452 in item 24, Paston Letters, ed. Gairdner, vol i., pp. 80-2,
84, 96-8
Manifestoes of 1455 in item 27, Parliament Rolls, 1455, nos. 19-20.
9. Manifestoes of Jack Cade and his men: I. M. W. Harvey, Jack Cade’s Rebellion of
1450 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 186-91
AV: two of these appear in Kekewich, ed., John Vale’s Book, pp. 204-6, with the third in J. D.
Gairdner, ed., Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, Camden Soc., new ser., 28 (London, 1880),
pp. 94-9.
10. Manifesto of the earl of Warwick and others, 1459: M. L. Kekewich et al., eds.,
The Politics of Fifteenth-Century England. John Vale’s Book (Stroud, 1995),
pp. 208-10
11. The reconciliation of Margaret of Anjou and her son with Warwick and Clarence
(‘The Maner and Guyding…’): Kekewich, John Vale’s Book, pp. 215-18.
AV: This item and 12 are in H. Ellis, ed., Original Letters Illustrative of English History, 2nd
series, 4 vols. (London, 1827), vol. 1, pp. 132-9
12. Proclamation by Warwick and Clarence, 1470: Kekewich, John Vale’s Book, pp.
218-19.
13. Manifestoes of Henry Tudor (1483), Lambert Simnel (1487) and Perkin Warbeck
(1497): A. F. Pollard, The Reign of Henry VII from Contemporary Sources, 3
vols. (London, 1913-14), vol. I, pp. 3-6, 50, 150-5
14. Gilson, J. P., ‘A defence of the proscription of the Yorkists in 1459’, English
Historical Review, 26, 1911, pp. 512-25
AV: the same online: http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XXVI/CIII/512
15. 􀂑 Sir John Fortescue, ‘Replicacion’ against the claim of the house of York:
Kekewich, John Vale’s Book, pp. 202-3
AV: Governance (item 16, below), pp. 353-4.
16. 􀂑 The Governance of England, by Sir John Fortescue, ed. C. E. Plummer
(Oxford, 1885), pp. 109-57
– 3 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
AV: modern English translation in S. C. Lockwood, Sir John Fortescue. On the Laws and
Governance of England, Cambridge, 1997)
AV Plummer’s edition online: (Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse, Uni of Michigan,
Ann Arbor)
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/textidx?
c=cme;cc=cme;view=toc;idno=AEW3422.0001.001
17. 􀂑 Sir John Fortescue, ‘Declaracion upon Certayn Wrytinges’ in T. Fortescue,
Lord Clermont, ed., Sir John Fortescue, Knight. His Life, Works and Family, 2
vols (London, 1869), vol. 1, pp. 523-44.
18. 􀂑 ‘A speech addressed to the commons in parliament’, 1472-5: J. B. Sheppard,
Literae Cantuarienses, III, Rolls ser. (London, 1889), pp. 274-85.
19. Bishop John Russell, draft sermons to parliament, 1483-4: S. B. Chrimes, English
Constitutional Ideas in the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge, 1936), pp. 167-91.
20. 􀂑 William Worcester, The Boke of Noblesse, ed. J. G. Nichols, Roxburghe Club
(London, 1860), pp. 1-11, 56-68, 76-82
21. The Tree of Commonwealth, by Edmund Dudley, ed. D. M. Brodie (Cambridge,
1948) pp. 31-50
AV: an online version of an 1859 edition appears at
http://klausjames.tripod.com/treeofcommonwealth.html. It uses record script and is less easy to
read than Brodie’s edition.
[3] Letters etc.
22. The Plumpton Letters and Papers, ed. J. Kirby, Camden Soc., 5th series, 8
(London, 1996), nos. 3, 13, 16, 18-19, 28, 39, 42-3, 79, 87, 107, 121, 123, 142
Note: the 1839 edition of the Plumpton Correspondence, in the Camden Society old series, is not
a satisfactory alternative.
23. 􀂑 The Stonor Letters and Papers, ed. C. L. Kingsford, Camden Soc., 2 vols, 3rd
series, 29-30 (London, 1919), nos. 112, 172, 201, 219, 230, 239, 243-4, 319-20,
330-1, 333.
AV: C. Carpenter, Kingsford’s Stonor Letters and Papers, (Cambridge, 1996) – same numbers.
24. 􀂑 The Paston Letters, ed. J. D. Gairdner, Library edn., 6 vols. (London, 1904) i,
pp. 80-2, 84, 96-8, and nos. 108, 121, 123, 142-3, 148-50, 170, 193, 235, 283-5,
287, 299, 322, 365-6, 377, 400, 410, 415, 430, 449-50, 455, 463, 470, 477, 480,
484, 509, 513, 533, 618, 684, 716, 719, 724, 730, 736, 753, 758-9, 770-1, 774-5,
777
AV: N. Davis, Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1958-2005),
is a superior edition, which is unfortunately arranged by correspondent, rather than
chronologically, as in Gairdner. Part III of this work, ed. R. W. Beadle and C. F. Richmond,
Early English Text Soc., s.s. 22 (Oxford, 2005) contains a concordance on p. lxx ff, enabling
readers to find where in Davis the letters numbered above can be found. A revised, up-to-date,
chronology of the letters appears in ibid., p. xxxix ff.
25. 􀂑 ‘Narrative of Robert Pylkington’, in Report on Manuscripts in Various
Collections II, Historical Manuscripts Commission, vol. 55 (London, 1903), 28-
56, being an account of the Pilkington-Ainsworth dispute, 1470s-1511. ?
26. York House Books, 1461-1490, ed. L. C. Attreed, 2 vols. (Stroud, 1991), pp. 242,
281-6, 290-2, 296, 359-60, 368-72, 377-9, 390-3, 471-85, 550-1, 555, 569-73,
712-14, 733-9
– 4 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
[4] Parliamentary Material
27. The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, ed. C. Given-Wilson et al. Internet
version, accessed through Oxlip (http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/oxlip/):
1449/50: nos. 17-47, 49 (articles against Suffolk, impeachment, Suffolk’s
defence); 53 (act of resumption)
1453/4: nos. 33-8 (articles of York, appointment of protector) 63 (attainder of
Cade)
1455: nos. 18-25 (declaration and pardon of Yorkists, oath to king) 35-6
(concerning the need for a protector), 41 (appointment of council) 47 (act of
resumption)
1459: no. 7 (attainder of York and others)
1460: no. 8 (repeal of acts of 1459 parliament); 10-30 (title of duke of York;
act of accord; provision for York)
1461: nos. 7-15 (commendation of Edward IV, his title, forfeiture of Henry
VI, resumption of grants since 1399, exceptions), 17-27 (attainder of the
Lancastrians), 38-9 (king’s speech, act on liveries), 41 (petitions and act
concerning status of acts made 1399-1461).
1463: nos. 28 (second attainder of Somerset) 43 (petition of John de Vere for
reversal of act of 1388 – shows manipulation of history, desire of former
Lancastrians to be reconciled etc)
1467: nos. 7 (king’s speech to commons, promising to live of his own), 8 (act
of resumption), 13 (petition of Sir Thomas Tresham for full restoration), 15-16
(commons’ closing observations and chancellor’s response), 24-9 (sermon of
Bishop Stillington on justice), 41 (act concerning liveries)
1472: nos. 8-10 (grants by commons [of 13,000 archers], and by lords, and
statement of speaker about disorder)
1478: Appx 1 (accusations against Clarence); no. 34 (annulment of acts of
1470-1 parliament)
1483: no. 16 (act preserving royal rights of wardship in the Duchy of
Lancaster, even where enfeoffments to use have been made)
1484: nos. 1[5] (royal title of Richard III), 3[7] (attainders following
Buckingham’s rebellion), 18[22] (act cancelling benevolences)
1485: roll1 nos. 1 (chancellor’s speech), 5 (Henry VII’s title), 7 (reversal of
Richard III’s attainders), 8 (attainder of Richard III etc), 15[20] (oath against
unlawful retaining), 16[21] (restoration of Henry VI); roll 2 (act of
resumption)
1487: top item (chancellor’s speech); nos. 17 (act against maintenance [‘Star
Chamber Act’]), 23 (act against retaining of royal officers), 26-7 (acts
providing for investigations in the royal household, in order to protect the
king’s counsellors)
1489: no. 41 (act concerning Justices of the Peace and the enforcement of the
laws)
1491: top item (chancellor’s speech); no. 15 (attainder of John Hayes, showing
perceived links between Yorkist renegades and the French)
1495: top item (chancellor’s speech); nos. 41 (‘De Facto Act’), 43 (act against
riots), 58 (act requiring attendance of the king’s servants in his wars)
28. Diary of the Colchester MPs at the Parliament of 1485 in N. Pronay and J. Taylor,
Parliamentary Texts of the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1980), pp. 177-93
– 5 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
[5] Cultural Material
29. King’s College Chapel, Cambridge, described in R. A. Brown, H. M. Colvin and
A. J. Taylor, The History of the King’s Works, vol. I (1963), pp. 269-78, plates
18, 20; and vol. III, ed. Colvin et al. (1975), pp. 187-95 and plate 17.
30. St George’s Chapel, Windsor, described in Colvin et al., King’s Works, II (1963),
884-8 and III (1975), pp. 311-15 and plate 21
31. Henry VII Chapel, Westminster, described in Colvin et al., King’s Works, III, pp.
210-22 and plates 14-17
32. The Towton mass grave, described in Blood and Roses: the Archaeology of a
Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton, AD 1461, ed. V. Fiorato, A. Boylston
and C. Knüsel (Oxford, 2000).
33. The ‘Edward IV Roll’ (Philadelphia Free Library MS Lewis E201), being a
pedigree roll from Edward IV’s reign, showing Edward’s claim to the thrones of
England, France and Castile, visible, in sections, with editorial, at
http://www.library.phila.gov/medieval/edward.htm. Or all in one go at
http://www.r3.org/bookcase/misc/edward4roll/frame.html
34. 􀂑 The Rous Roll, with an historical introduction, ed. C. D. Ross (Gloucester,
1980)
AV: J. Rows, Thys rol was laburd…, ed. W. Courthope et al. (1859) (This is the edition
republished by Ross in 1980. There is a copy in the Bodleian).
35. ‘A York Pageant, 1486’, by A. H. Smith, London Mediaeval Studies (1939), text
on pp. 386-98.
Note: the plans for the pageant, drawn up by the city government, appear both here and in the set
sections of the York House Books. This article also contains an eyewitness account of events,
written by someone in the king’s party.
36. The Receyt of the Ladie Kateryne, ed. G. Kipling, EETS, no. 296 (Oxford, 1990),
1-3, 12-38 (i.e. 1501 pageant and other celebrations to mark wedding of
Katharine of Aragon to Prince Arthur)
– 6 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
General Reading
Introductory and/or overview works on later medieval England
S. B. Chrimes, C. D. Ross & R. A. Griffiths Fifteenth Century England (1972)
S. J. Gunn Early Tudor Government, 1485–1558 (1995)
Gerald Harriss Shaping the Nation: England, 1360-1461 (2005)
J. R. Lander Government and Community, 1450-1509 (1980)
J.R. Lander The Limitations of Late Medieval Monarchy (1989)
W. M. Ormrod Political Life in Medieval England, 1300–1450 (1995)
A. J. Pollard Late Medieval England, 1399–1509 (2000)
S. H. Rigby (ed.) A Companion to Britain in the Late Middle Ages (2003)
R. H. Britnell The Closing of the Middle Ages? England, 1471–1529 (1997)
Introductory and/or overview works on themes in fifteenth-century
politics (see also Classes 4-7 below)
C. A. J. Armstrong Some examples of the distribution and speed of news at the
time of the Wars of the Roses’ in Essays presented to F M
Powicke (1948) or in his England, France and Burgundy in the
Fifteenth Century (1983)
A. L. Brown The Governance of Late Medieval England, 1272–1461 (1989)
G. L. Harriss ‘Political Society and the Growth of Government in Late Medieval
England’, Past and Present, 138 (Feb 1993)
K. B. McFarlane The Nobility of Later Medieval England (1973)
R. A. Griffiths ‘The Sense of Dynasty…’ in Charles Ross, ed., Patronage,
Pedigree and Power (1979) and see M. Levine, Tudor Dynastic
Problems, 1460-1571 (1973)
V. J. Scattergood Politics & Poetry in the Fifteenth Century (1972)
J. A. F. Thomson (ed.) Towns and Townspeople (1988)
D. Starkey ‘The age of the household: politics, society and the arts’ in S.
Medcalf (ed.) The Context of English Literature: the Later Middle
Ages (1981)
D. A. L. Morgan ‘The House of Policy: the political role of the Late Plantagenet
Household, 1422–1485’, in D.R. Starkey (ed.), The English
Court from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War (1987)
J. Laynesmith The Last Medieval Queens. English Queenship, 1445-1503
(2004)
B. Thompson ‘Prelates and Politics from Winchelsey to Warham’ in Clark
and Carpenter, eds., Fifteenth Century 4: Political Culture in
Late Medieval Britain (2004) (and see also R. G. Davies’ essay
in Pollard, ed. Wars of Roses)
– 7 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
Discussions of the historiography of the fifteenth century
J. R. Lander ‘The Dark Glass of the Fifteenth Century’, in his Conflict and
Stability in Fifteenth Century England (1969)
C. Carpenter ‘Political and Constitutional History before and after
McFarlane’, in R. Britnell & A. J. Pollard, The McFarlane
Legacy (1995)
S. J. Gunn Early Tudor Government, 1485–1558 (1995), introduction
A. J. Pollard Late Medieval England, 1399–1509 (2000), introduction.
Edward Powell ‘After “After McFarlane”: the poverty of patronage and the
case for constitutional history’, in D. Clayton et al. (eds),
Trade, Devotion and Governance (1994)
Colin Richmond ‘After McFarlane’, History, 68 (1983)
John Watts ‘Introduction: History, the Fifteenth Century and the
Renaissance’, in idem (ed.), The End of the Middle Ages?
(1998)
C. Carpenter ‘Introduction: Political Culture, Politics and Cultural History’,
in Clark and Carpenter, eds., Fifteenth Century 4: Political
Culture in Late Medieval Britain (2004)
Works dealing with the Wars of the Roses
C. Carpenter The Wars of the Roses (1997)
A. J. Pollard The Wars of the Roses (1988), 2nd edn (2005)
J. Gillingham The Wars of the Roses (1981)
A. Goodman The Wars of the Roses: Military Activity and English Society,
1452–97 (1981)
K. B. McFarlane ‘The Wars of the Roses’, in idem, England in the Fifteenth
Century (1981) or Procs. Brit. Acad. 50 (1964)
A.J. Pollard (ed.) The Wars of the Roses (1995), collection of essays, notably
Britnell on the economic context, Horrox on personalities,
Watts on political ideas, R.G. Davies on the church, Cliff
Davies on the European context and Richmond on visual
culture.
– 8 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
Interpreting the Sources
Chronicles
C. Given-Wilson Chronicles. The Writing of History in Medieval England
(2004) (focuses on 13th-14th Cs, but has lots of points of general
value on chronicles)
M.-R. McLaren The London Chronicles of the Fifteenth Century: a Revolution
in English Writing (2002).
C. L. Kingsford English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century (1913)
remains useful, though McLaren corrects him on London
chronicles
A. Gransden ‘Politics and Historiography in the Wars of the Roses’, in
Medieval Writing in the Christian and Islamic World, ed. D O
Morgan; see also her Historical Writing in England, c.1307 to
the Early Sixteenth Century (1982)
J. A. F. Thomson ‘Warkworth’s Chronicle Reconsidered’, EHR, 116 (2001)
J. Blanchard Commynes, L’Européen (1996)
R. F. Green ‘The Short Version of “The Arrival of Edward IV”’, Speculum,
56 (1981), and also L. Visser-Fuchs ‘Edward IV’s “Memoir
on Paper” to Charles, Duke of Burgundy: the So-Called “Short
Version of the Arrivall”’, Nottingham Med. Studs., 36 (1992)
A. Hanham Richard III and his Early Historians, 1483–1535 (1975)
M. McKisack Medieval History in the Tudor Age (1971), ch. 5
P. Burke The Renaissance Sense of the Past (1969)
D. Hay Polydore Vergil : Renaissance Historian and Man of Letters
(1952)
M. A. Hicks ‘Crowland’s World : A Westminster View of the Yorkist Age’,
History, 90 (2005). More discussion of the authorship of the
Crowland Chronicle appears in Ricardian vii (1985) and (1987)
See also, generally, the introductions to the editions of the set texts.
Manifestoes and Treatises
M. Kekewich et al. The Politics of Fifteenth-Century England: John Vale’s Book
(1995). Chapters by Watts and Richmond discuss much of the
manifesto literature; Kekewich discusses Fortescue; Sutton and
Visser-Fuchs discuss John Vale’s commonplace book as a text.
D. Grummitt ‘Deconstructing Cade’s Rebellion: Discourse and Politics in the
Mid-Fifteenth Century’, in The Fifteenth Century 6, ed. L.
Clark (2006)
I. Harvey ‘Was there Popular Politics in Fifteenth-Century England’, in
A. J. Pollard and R. H. Britnell, eds., The McFarlane Legacy,
(1995)
Watts Henry VI, pp. 39-51 discuss Somnium Vigilantis, and the works
of Fortescue and Ashby. See also his ‘Ideas, Principles and
Politics’ in Pollard (ed.) Wars of the Roses (1995)
– 9 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
A. Cromartie ‘Common Law, Counsel and Consent in Fortescue’s Political
Theory’, in , in Clark and Carpenter, eds., Fifteenth Century 4:
Political Culture (2004)
K. B. McFarlane essays on Worcester in England in the Fifteenth Century (1981)
C. T. Allmand & M. Keen, ‘History and the literature of war: the Boke of Noblesse
of William Worcester’ in C. Allmand (ed.), War, Government
and Power in Late Medieval France (2000)
Anne F. Sutton and L. Visser-Fuchs, Richard III’s Books: Ideals and Reality in the
Life and Library of a Medieval Prince (1997) (includes
discussions of several of the set-texts as well as of the literary
and political culture of the 1480s)
A. Gross The Dissolution of the Lancastrian Kingship (1996), for
discussion of the Somnium, Fortescue, Worcester and the
speech to the parliament of 1472-5
J. L. Watts ‘ “The Policie in Cristen Remes”: Bishop Russell’s
Parliamentary Sermons of 1483-4’, in S. J. Gunn and G. W.
Bernard, Authority and Consent in Tudor England (2002)
S.J. Gunn ‘Edmund Dudley and the Church’, Jnl Eccl. H, 51 (2000)
P. Strohm Politique (2005), for the Arrivall, Somnium, Fortescue and
other writings of the period.
Letters etc
C. F. Richmond The Paston Family in the Fifteenth Century: I, The First Phase
(Cambridge, 1990); II, Fastolf’s Will (1996); III, Endings
(2000)
H. Castor Blood and Roses: the Paston Family and the Wars of the Roses
(2004)
H. Castor The King, the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster (2000), chs
on East Anglian politics.
C. Carpenter ‘The Stonor Circle in the Fifteenth Century’, in R.E. Archer
and S. Walker (eds.), Rulers and Ruled in Late Medieval
England (1995)
See also the introductions to Carpenter’s edition of the Stonor letters and Kirby’s
edition of the Plumpton letters. For the context of the York House Books, see
Attreed’s introduction, and E. Miller, ‘Medieval York’, VCH Yorkshire: York
Parliamentary Material
Parliament Rolls of Medieval England (online resource: introductions to each roll)
Cultural Material
Richard Marks and Paul Williamson (eds.), Gothic Art for England, 1400–1547
(2003) includes essays on many of the buildings and other artforms
included among the set texts
T. Tatton-Brown ‘The Constructional Sequence and Topography of the Chapel
and College Buildings at St George’s in St George’s Chapel
Windsor in the Late Middle Ages, ed. C. Richmond and E.
Scarff (2006)
– 10 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
C. Wilson ‘The Designer of Henry VII’s Chapel, Westminster Abbey’ and
R. Marks, ‘The Glazing of Henry VII’s Chapel, Westminster
Abbey’ in The Reign of Henry VII, ed. B. J. Thompson (1995)
Westminster Abbey: the Lady Chapel of Henry VII, ed. T. Tatton-Brown and R.
Mortimer (2003)
P. Fleming ‘Telling Tales of Oligarchy in the Late Medieval Town’, in
Revolution and Consumption in Late Medieval England, ed. M.
Hicks (2001), comments on the York pageant
A. Allan ‘Yorkist Propaganda: Pedigree, prophecy and the “British
History” in the Reign of Edward IV’, in C. Ross (ed.),
Patronage, Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England
(1979). See also J. Hughes, Arthurian Myths and Alchemy : the
Kingship of Edward IV (2002), Griffiths, ‘Sense of Dynasty’
and P. Morgan, ‘“Those Were the Days”: a Yorkist Pedigree
Roll’, in Estrangement, Enterprise and Education in Fifteenth
Century England, ed. S. D. Michalove and A. Compton Reeves
(1998), for more on pedigrees.
G. Kipling Enter the King: Theatre, Liturgy and Ritual in Medieval Civic
Triumph (1998)
S. Anglo Images of Tudor Kingship (1992)
See also the introductory material and/or surrounding comment in works listed in
the set texts.
– 11 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
Class 1 : The 1450s
Essential
Set Texts/Primary Sources
Relevant sections of items 1-2, 9-10, 14, 16, 20, 22-4, 27, 32.
Secondary Sources
G. L. Harriss Shaping the Nation, relevant chapters (for an introduction and
outline)
J. L. Watts Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship, ch. 7
R. A. Griffiths ‘The sense of dynasty in the reign of Henry VI’ in Patronage,
Pedigree & Power ed. Ross
M.K. Jones ‘Somerset, York and the Wars of the Roses’, EHR, 105, (1989)
R. A. Griffiths ‘Local Rivalries and National Politics the Percies, the Nevilles
& the Duke of Exeter 1452–55’, Speculum, 43 (1968)
G. L. Harriss ‘Marmaduke Lumley & the Exchequer Crisis of 1446–9’ in
Aspects of Late Medieval Government and Society, ed. J G
Rowe (1986)
M. H. Keen ‘The End of the Hundred Years War: Lancastrian France and
Lancastrian England’ in M Jones & M Vale (eds.) England and
her Neighbours … Essays Presented to P. Chaplais (1989)
M.K. Jones ‘Edward IV, the Earl of Warwick and the Yorkist Claim to the
Throne’ Historical Research, 70 (1997)
Questions to Consider
• Why did the problems of the 1450s produce conflict between the magnates?
• If ‘war was desired by no-one’ (McFarlane), why was it so hard to get peace?
• Were there ‘Lancastrians’ and ‘Yorkists’ in the 1450s?
Background/Further Reading
National politics
B. P. Wolffe ‘Acts of Resumption in the Lancastrian Parliaments, 1399–
1456’, EHR, 73 (1958)
M. Bohna ‘Armed forced and civil legitimacy in Jack Cade’s Revolt,
1450’, EHR, 118 (2003).
R. A. Griffiths ‘Richard of York’s intentions in 1450 and the origins of the
Wars of the Roses’, Jnl.Med.Hist., 1 (1975)
M. A. Hicks ‘From Megaphone to Microscope: The Correspondence of
Richard Duke of York with Henry VI, 1450’, Jnl.Med.Hist. 25
(1999)
C. A. J. Armstrong ‘Politics and the Battle of St Albans, 1455’, Bull.Inst.Hist.Res.,
33 (1960)
J.R. Lander ‘Henry VI and the Duke of York’s second Protectorate’, BJRL,
43 (1960–1) and in Crown and Nobility
G. L. Harriss ‘The Struggle for Calais: an aspect of the rivalry between
Lancaster and York’, EHR, 75 (1960)
– 12 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
C. F. Richmond ‘The nobility and the Wars of the Roses, 1459–61’,
Nott.Med.Stud., 21 (1977)
Local and national politics
R.L. Storey The End of the House of Lancaster (1966)
C. Carpenter Locality and Polity: a Study of Warwickshire Landed Society,
1401–1499 (1992)
H. Castor The King, the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster: Public
Authority and Private Power, 1399–1461 (2000)
M. Cherry ‘The struggle for power in mid-fifteenth-century Devonshire’,
in R.A. Griffiths (ed.), Patronage, the Crown and the Provinces
(1981)
S.J. Payling ‘The Ampthill dispute: a study in aristocratic lawlessness and
the breakdown of Lancastrian government’, EHR, 104 (1989)
A. J. Pollard North-Eastern England during the Wars of the Roses: Lay
Society, War and Politics, 1450–1500 (1990)
R. A. Griffiths ‘Gruffydd ap Nicholas and the fall of the House of Lancaster’
in his King and Country (1991) or Welsh History Review, 2
(1965)
C. M. Barron ‘London and the Crown, 1451-61’, in J. R. L. Highfield and R.
Jeffs, eds., The Crown and the Local Communities … (1981)
J. L. Bolton ‘The City and the Crown, 1456-61’, London Jnl., 12 (1986)
Important individuals
R. A. Griffiths The Reign of King Henry VI (1981)
B. P. Wolffe Henry VI (1981) (and see ‘The Personal Rule of Henry VI’ in
Chrimes, Ross and Griffiths, ed., Fifteenth Century England
(1972))
P.A. Johnson Duke Richard of York, 1411–1460 (Oxford, 1988)
M. Hicks Warwick the Kingmaker (Oxford, 1998)
D. Dunn ‘Margaret of Anjou, Queen Consort of Henry VI: A
Reassessment of her Role; 1445–53’, in Crown, Government
and People, ed. R E Archer
H. E. Maurer Margaret of Anjou: Queenship and Power in Late Medieval
England (Woodbridge, 2003)
Remember the new DNB too: http://www.oxforddnb.com, available through Oxlip.
See also the reading for classes 5-7.
– 13 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
Class 2 : 1461-71
Essential
Set Texts/Primary Sources
Relevant sections of items 2-4, 6, 8, 11-12, 15-17, 22-4, 27, 29-30, 32-3.
Secondary Sources
C. D. Ross Edward IV (1974), chs. 3-7, pp. 414-26.
B. P. Wolffe review of Ross, Edward IV, EHR, (1976), pp. 369-74.
C. Carpenter The Wars of the Roses, ch. 8
M. A. Hicks ‘Edward IV, the Duke of Somerset and Lancastrian Loyalism in
the North’, in his Richard III and his Rivals (1991) or Northern
History, 20 (1984)
M. A. Hicks ‘The Changing Role of the Wydevilles in Yorkist Politics to
1483’, in Patronage, Pedigree and Power, ed. C. Ross (1979).
M. Hicks Warwick the Kingmaker (1998), chs. 8-11, and (for Clarence)
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10542?docPos=3
B. P. Wolffe The Royal Demesne in English History (1971), pp. 143-80.
A. F. Sutton ‘Sir Thomas Cook and his “Troubles”: an Investigation’,
Guildhall Studies in London History, 3 (1978) (this is on open
access in Duke Humfrey)
C. S. L. Davies ‘The Wars of the Roses in European Context’ in Pollard, ed.
The Wars of the Roses (1995)
Questions to Consider
• How competently did Edward IV rule in the 1460s?
• Explain the alienation of Warwick and Clarence, and assess its importance.
• Was the Readeption doomed from the start?
Background/Further Reading
National and Local Politics under Edward IV, including 1470s
J. R. Lander ‘Marriage and Politics in the Fifteenth Century: the Nevilles
and the Wydevilles’, in his Crown and Nobility (1976) or Bull.
Inst. Hist. Res. (1963)
J. R. Lander ‘The Hundred Years War and Edward IV’s 1475 Campaign in
France’ in his Crown and Nobility (1976)
C. Carpenter Locality and Polity: a Study of Warwickshire Landed Society,
1401–1499 (1992)
A. J. Pollard North-Eastern England during the Wars of the Roses: Lay
Society, War and Politics, 1450–1500 (1990)
D. E. Lowe ‘Patronage and Politics: Edward IV, the Woodvilles and the
Council of the Prince of Wales, 1471-1483’, Bull. Board. Celt.
Studs., 29 (1980-2) also ‘The Council of the Prince of Wales
and the Decline of the Herbert Family during the Second Reign
of Edward IV’ in ibid., 27 (1976-8)
– 14 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
M. A. Hicks ‘What Might Have Been: George Neville, Duke of Bedford’, in
his Richard III and his Rivals (1991)
C. F. Richmond ‘Fauconberg’s Kentish Rising of May 1471’, Eng. Hist. Rev.,
85 (1970)
Important individuals
M. A. Hicks Edward IV (2004)
M. A. Hicks False, Fleeting, Perjur’d Clarence. George, Duke of Clarence
(1980)
C. Carpenter ‘The Duke of Clarence and the Midlands: a Study of the
Interplay of Local and National Politics’, Midland History, 11
(1986)
J. Laynesmith Last Medieval Queens – for Queen Elizabeth
M. A. Hicks ‘Richard III as Duke of Gloucester: a Study in Character’,
Borthwick Paper, 70 (1986) or in his Richard III and his Rivals
M. A. Hicks ‘Dynastic Change and Northern Society: the Fourth Earl of
Northumberland’, in his Richard III and his Rivals (1991) and
Northern History, 14 (1978)
Remember the new DNB too: http://www.oxforddnb.com, available through Oxlip.
See also the reading for classes 4-7. Developments in government under Edward IV
are listed under class 4.
– 15 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
Class 3 : 1483-7
Essential
Set Texts/Primary Sources
Relevant sections of
Secondary Sources
Questions to Consider
• ?
• ?
• ?
Background/Further Reading
National and Local Politics, 1483-1509
R. E. Horrox Richard III. A Study in Service (1989)
C. Ross Richard III (1981)
J. Gillingham (ed.) Richard III. A Medieval Kingship (1993)
R. Horrox and P. W. Hammond, British Library Harleian Manuscript 433, 4 vols.
(1979-83). (See introduction, in vol. 1, for discussion of rule
between Edward IV’s death and Richard III’s usurpation.)
A. J. Pollard ‘The Tyranny of Richard III’, Jnl. Med. Hist., 3 (1977)
C. F. Richmond ‘1485 and All That, or What Was Going on at the Battle of
Bosworth?’ in P. W. Hammond, ed., Richard III. Loyalty,
Lordship and Law (1986)
E. W. Ives ‘Andrew Dymmock and the Papers of Anthony, Earl Rivers’,
Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., 41 (1968) (discusses context to the attack
on the Woodvilles in 1483)
R. Horrox, ed., Richard III and the North (1986)
C. S. L. Davies ‘Richard III, Brittany, and Henry Tudor, 1483-1485’,
Nottingham Med. Studs., 37 (1993)
C. S. L. Davies ‘Bishop John Morton, the Holy See and the Accession of Henry
VII’, EHR, 102 (1987)
R. F. Green ‘Historical Notes of a London Citizen, 1483-1488’, EHR, 96
(1981)
D. Grummitt ‘The Establishment of the Tudor Dynasty’, in A Companion to
Tudor Britain, ed. R. Tittler and N. Jones (2004)
D. Luckett ‘Patronage, Violence and Revolt in the Reign of Henry VII’, in
R. E. Archer, ed., Crown, Government and People in the
Fifteenth Century (1995) and see also ‘The Thames Valley
Conspiracies against Henry VII’, Histl. Res., 68 (1995)
M. Bennett Lambert Simnel and the Battle of Stoke (1987)
M. Bennett ‘Henry VII and the Northern Rising of 1489’, EHR, 105 (1990)
I. Arthurson The Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy, 1491-1499 (1994)
– 16 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
D. Dunlop ‘The “Masked Comedian”: Perkin Warbeck’s Adventures in
Scotland and England from 1495 to 1497’, Scott. Histl. Rev., 70
(1990)
I Arthurson ‘The Rising of 1497…’, in J. T. Rosenthal and C Richmond,
eds., People, Politics and Community (1987)
S. Cunningham ‘Henry VII and Rebellion in North-Eastern England, 1485-
1492…’, Northern History, 32 (1996)
C. Carpenter ‘Henry VII and the English Polity’, in The Reign of Henry VII,
ed. B. Thompson (1995)
M. Condon ‘Ruling Elites in the Reign of Henry VII’, in Patronage,
Pedigree and Power, ed. Ross, and also The Tudor Monarchy,
ed. J. Guy (1997)
T. B. Pugh ‘Henry VII and the English Nobility’, in G. W. Bernard, ed.,
The Tudor Nobility (1992)
J. M. Currin ‘Henry VII and the Treaty of Redon (1489): Plantagenet
Ambitions and Early Tudor Foreign Policy’, History, 81
(1996), and also‘“To Traffic With War”? Henry VII and the
French Campaign of 1492’, in The English Experience in
France c. 1450-1558: War, Diplomacy and Cultural Exchange,
ed. D. Grummitt (2002)
P. R. Cavill ‘Debate and Dissent in Henry VII’s Parliaments’,
Parliamentary History 25 (2006)
G. R. Elton ‘Henry VII: Rapacity and Remorse’, Hist Jnl., 1 (1958), and
see also J. P. Cooper’s response in HJ 1959 and Elton’s reply in
HJ 1961
S. J. Gunn ‘The Accession of Henry VIII’, Histl. Res., 64 (1991)
Important individuals
S. B. Chrimes Henry VII (1974) – 2nd edn (1999) has valuable preface by
George Bernard
R. A. Griffiths and R. S. Thomas, The Making of the Tudor Dynasty, 3rd edn (2005)
J. Laynesmith The Last Medieval Queens. English Queenship, 1445-1503
(2004)
M. Jones and M. Underwood, The King’s Mother. Lady Margaret Beaufort,
Countess of Richmond and Derby (1992)
D. J. Guth ‘Climbing the Civil-Service Pole during the Civil War: Sir
Reynold Bray (c.1440-1503)’ in Estrangement, Enterprise and
Education in Fifteenth-Century England, ed. S. D. Michalove
and A. Compton Reeves (1998)
M. M. Condon ‘From Caitiff and Villain to Pater Patriae: Reynold Bray and
the Profits of Office’, in Profit, Piety and the Professions in
Later Medieval England, ed. M. A. Hicks (1990)
D. Luckett ‘Crown Patronage and Political Morality in Early Tudor
England: the Case of Giles, Lord Daubeney’, EHR, 110 (1995)
Remember the new DNB too: http://www.oxforddnb.com, available through Oxlip.
– 17 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
Class 4 : Reconstruction under Edward IV and
Henry VII
Essential
Set Texts/Primary Sources
Relevant sections of
Secondary Sources
S. J. Gunn, Early Tudor Government, 1485-1558 (1995)
? bit of Carpenter, Wars of Roses?
?? S. Gunn, ‘“New men” and “new monarchy” in England, 1485-1524’, in
Powerbrokers in the Late Middle Ages, ed. R. Stein (Turnhout,
2001)
Questions to Consider
• ?
• ?
• ?
Background/Further Reading
Court and Household
J. Stratford (ed.) The Lancastrian Court (2003), overviews by Harriss and Watts
S. J. Gunn ‘The Court of Henry VII’, in The Court as a Stage, ed. S. J.
Gunn and A. Janse (2006)
D.A.L. Morgan ‘The House of Policy: the political role of the Late Plantagenet
Household, 1422–1485’, in D. Starkey, ed., The English Court
from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War (1987)
D. Starkey ‘Court History in Perspective’ and ‘Intimacy and Innovation:
the Rise of the Privy Chamber, 1485-1547’ in idem, ed., The
English Court… (1987)
D. Starkey ‘Court and Government’, in Revolution Reassessed, ed.
Coleman and Starkey
Council and Government
J. R. Lander ‘The Yorkist Council and Administration, 1461-85’, EHR 73
(1958) and ‘Council, Administration and Councillors, 1461-
85’, Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., 32 (1959)
J. L. Watts ‘A newe ffundacion of is crowne: Monarchy in the Age of
Henry VII’ in B.J. Thompson (ed.), The Reign of Henry VII
(Stamford, 1995)
M. Condon ‘Ruling Elites in the Reign of Henry VII’, in Patronage,
Pedigree and Power, ed. Ross, and also The Tudor Monarchy,
ed. J. Guy (1997)
– 18 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
M. Condon ‘Henry VII’s Council Ordinance of 1491/2’, in Kings and
Nobles in the Late Middle Ages, ed. R. A. Griffiths and J.
Sherborne (1986)
N. Pronay ‘The Chancellor, the Chancery and the Council at the end of the
Fifteenth Century’, in British Government and Administration
…, ed. H. Hearder and H. R. Loyn (1974)
P. R. Cavill ‘Debate and Dissent in Henry VII’s Parliaments’,
Parliamentary History 25 (2006)
Finance
M. Jurkowski ‘Parliamentary and Prerogative Taxation in the Reign of
Edward IV’, Parliamentary Hist., 18 (1999)
R. E. Horrox, ed. ‘Financial Memoranda of the Reign of Edward V’ in Camden
Miscellany XXIX, Camden Soc., 5th ser., 34 (1987)
B. P. Wolffe The Royal Demesne in English History (1971)
G. L. Harriss ‘Aids, Loans and Benevolences’, Histl. Jnl., 6 (1963)
D. Grummitt ‘Henry VII, Chamber Finance and the “New Monarchy”: Some
New Evidence’, Hist. Res., 72 (1999)
Law, Justice and Landowning
D. A. L. Morgan ‘The King’s Affinity in the Polity of Yorkist England’, Trans.
Roy. Hist. Soc., 5th ser., 23 (1973)
M. A. Hicks ‘The 1468 Statute of Livery’, Hist Res., 64 (1991)
J. M. W. Bean From Lord to Patron: Lordship in Late Medieval England
(1989), ch. 6, for regulation of livery and retaining
S. E. Thorne, ed. Prerogativa Regis (1949), for Constable’s 1495 ‘reading’ of
this medieval law text, the idea of the royal prerogative and
Henry VII’s adventures with ‘fiscal feudalism’. See also M.
McGlynn, The Royal Prerogative and the Learning of the Inns
of Court (2003) and W. C. Richardson, ‘The Surveyor of the
King’s Prerogative’, EHR, 56 (1941)
J. R. Lander ‘Bonds, Attainder and Forfeiture’ in his Crown and Nobility
and see also M. Hicks, ‘Attainder, Resumption and Coercion,
1461-1509’, Parliamentary History, 3 (1984) and C. J.
Harrison, ‘The Petition of Edmund Dudley’, EHR, 87 (1972);
see also S. Cunningham, ‘Henry VII and Rebellion in North-
Eastern England, 1485-1492…’, Northern History, 32 (1996)
for the deployment of bonds to control the localities
D. Luckett ‘Crown Office and Licensed Retinues in the Reign of Henry
VII’, in Rulers and Ruled in Late Medieval England, ed. R.
Archer and S. K. Walker (1995) and see also A. Cameron, ‘The
Giving of Livery and Retaining in Henry VII’s Reign’,
Renaissance and Modern Studies 18 (1974)
S. J. Gunn ‘Sir Thomas Lovell: (c.1449-1524): A New Man in a New
Monarchy?’ in The End of the Middle Ages?, ed. Watts
J. A. Guy The Cardinal’s Court (1977) (covers the king’s council acting
as a court)
See also the reading for week 7.
– 19 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
Propaganda and Magnificence
A. Allan ‘Royal Propaganda and the proclamations of Edward IV’,
BIHR, lix (1986)
B. Thompson, ed. The Reign of Henry VII (1995), various essays, but esp. Wilson
and Marks
S. Anglo Spectacle, Pageantry and Early Tudor Policy (Oxford, 1969)
S. Anglo Images of Tudor Kingship (1992)
See also the section on ‘Court and household’, above, and the reading for class 6,
below.
– 20 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
Class 5 : The Practicalities of Warfare
Essential
Set Texts/Primary Sources
Relevant sections of
Secondary Sources
Questions to Consider
• ?
• ?
• ?
Background/Further Reading
Overviews
A. Goodman The Wars of the Roses: Military Activity and English Society,
1452–97 (1981)
A. Goodman The Wars of the Roses: the Soldiers’ Experience (2005)
P. Haigh The Military Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses (1995)
A. W. Boardman The Medieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses (1998)
Types of warfare, weaponry and fortifications
D. Grummitt ‘The Defence of Calais and the Development of Gunpowder
Weaponry in England in the Late Fifteenth Century’, War in
History, 7 (2000)
M. Strickland and R. Hardy, The Great Warbow: from Hastings to the Mary Rose
(2005)
H. L. Turner Town Defences in England and Wales (1971)
C. F. Richmond ‘The Earl of Warwick’s Domination of the Channel and the
Naval Dimension to the Wars of the Roses, 1456-1460’,
Southern History, 20-21 (1998-9)
M. W. Thompson The Decline of the Castle (1987).
Specific engagements
A. W. Boardman The Battle of Towton (1994)
P. W. Hammond The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury (1993)
M. Jones Bosworth, 1485: Psychology of a Battle (2002)
M. Bennett The Battle of Bosworth (1985)
There are many other treatments of battles from the period, often written by nonmedievalist
military historians and local historians. Use Google to find them.
– 21 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
Class 6 : Reform and Common Weal: Political
Ideas and Public Debate
Essential
Set Texts/Primary Sources
Relevant sections of items 1, 5, 7-8, 9-21, 27 (note especially the parliaments of
1461, 1484 and 1485), 35-6
Secondary Sources
J. L. Watts ‘Ideas, Principles and Politics’ in Pollard (ed.) Wars of the
Roses (1995)
C. Richmond ‘Patronage and Polemic’, in J.L. Watts (ed.), The End of the
Middle Ages? England in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries
(Stroud, 1998)
C. Ross ‘Rumour, Propaganda and Public Opinion in the Wars of the
Roses’ in Patronage, Crown & the Provinces, ed. R A
Griffiths (1981)
J. L. Watts ‘The Pressure of the Public on Later Medieval Politics’, in The
Fifteenth Century IV, ed. L. Clark and C. Carpenter (2004)
D. Starkey ‘Which Age of Reform?’, in C. Coleman and D. Starkey (eds.)
Revolution Reassessed (1986)
A. F. Sutton ‘ “A Curious Searcher for our Weal Public”: Richard III, Piety,
Chivalry and the Concept of the Good Prince’, in P. W.
Hammond, ed., Richard III. Loyalty, Lordship and Law (1986)
J. L. Watts ‘ “A Newe ffundacion of is Crowne”: Monarchy in the Age of
Henry VII’ in Thompson, B. J., ed., The Reign of Henry VII,
(1995)
S. Anglo Images of Tudor Kingship (1992), ch. 5.
Questions to Consider
• Was the ‘common weal’ just the unavoidable catch-phrase of the ruling king’s
critics and opponents?
• Do you detect a consensus for reform in the sources? If so, what was it?
• How much, and in what ways, did the Wars matter to those who were not
aristocratic landowners?
Background/Further Reading
Ideas and Political Culture
S. B. Chrimes English Constitutional Ideas in the Fifteenth Century
(Cambridge, 1936)
W. H. Dunham & C. T. Wood ‘The right to rule in England: depositions and the
kingdom’s authority, 1327–1485’, Amer. Hist. Rev., lxxxi
(1976); and reply by J. W. McKenna, ‘The myth of
– 22 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
parliamentary sovereignty in late medieval England’, EHR, 114
(1979)
C. A. J. Armstrong ‘The Inauguration Ceremonies of the Yorkist Kings and their
Title to the Throne’, TRHS, 4th ser., 30 (1948), or in his
England, France and Burgundy
A. Gross The Dissolution of the Lancastrian Kingship (1996)
M. Bennett ‘Edward III’s Entail and the Succession to the Crown, 1376–
1471’, EHR cxii (1998)
J. Hughes Arthurian Myths and Alchemy : the Kingship of Edward IV
(2002)
A. B. Ferguson The Indian Summer of English Chivalry (1960)
S. J. Gunn ‘Chivalry and the Politics of the Early Tudor Court’ in Chivalry
in the Renaissance, ed. S. Anglo (1990)
S. J. Gunn ‘War, Dynasty and Public Opinion in Early Tudor England’, in
Authority and Consent in Tudor England: Essays presented to
C. S. L. Davies, ed. G. W. Bernard, S. J. Gunn (2002)
A. J. Pollard Imagining Robin Hood (2004)
D. Starkey ‘England’ in R. Porter and M. Teich, The Renaissance in
National Context (1992)
R. F. Green Poets and Princepleasers (1980), esp. ch. 5.
E. W. Ives The Common Lawyers of Pre-Reformation England (1983) and
see also J. Baker, The Oxford History of the Laws of England,
VI, 1483-1558 (2003) and M. McGlynn, The Royal Prerogative
and the Learning of the Inns of Court (2003)
J. I. Catto ‘Conclusion: Scholars and Studies in Renaissance Oxford’, in
Catto and R. Evans, ed., History of the University of Oxford II.
Late Medieval Oxford (1992)
D. Rundle ‘Humanism before the Tudors: On Nobility and the Reception
of the studia humanitatis in Fifteenth-Century England’, in J.
Woolfson, ed., Reassessing Tudor Humanism (2002) and ‘On
the Difference between Virtue and Weiss: Humanist Texts in
England during the Fifteenth Century’, in: D.Dunn, ed., Courts,
Counties and the Capital in the Later Middle Ages (1996)
D. Rundle ‘Was there a Renaissance Style of Politics in Fifteenth-Century
England?’ in Authority and Consent in Tudor England, ed.
Gunn and Bernard
J.-P. Genet ‘Ecclesiastics and Political Theory in Late Medieval England:
the End of a Monopoly’, in The Church, Patronage and
Politics in the Fifteenth Century, ed. R. B. Dobson (1984)
M. K. McIntosh Controlling Misbehaviour in England, 1370-1600 (1998)
Individual Texts and Thinkers
P. E. Gill ‘Politics and Propaganda in fifteenth century England; the
polemical writings of Sir John Fortescue’, Speculum, xlvi
(1971)
C. Taylor ‘Sir John Fortescue & the French Polemical Treatises of the
100 Years War’, EHR cxiv (1999)
A. Cromartie ‘Common Law, Counsel and Consent in Fortescue’s Political
Theory’, in , in Clark and Carpenter, eds., Fifteenth Century 4:
Political Culture
– 23 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
K. B. McFarlane essays on Worcester in England in the Fifteenth Century (1981)
C. T. Allmand & M. Keen, ‘History and the literature of war: the Boke of Noblesse
of William Worcester’ in C. Allmand (ed.), War, Government
and Power in Late Medieval France (Liverpool, 2000)
Popular Politics and Popular Revolts
I. M. W. Harvey Jack Cade’s Rebellion of 1450, (1991)
I. M. W. Harvey ‘Was there Popular Politics in Fifteenth-Century England?’ in
The McFarlane Legacy, ed. Britnell and Pollard
M. Bohna ‘Armed forced and civil legitimacy in Jack Cade’s Revolt,
1450’, EHR, 118 (2003).
J. N. Hare ‘The Wiltshire Risings of 1450: Political and Economic
Discontent in mid-Fifteenth Century England’, Southern
History, (1982)
C. F. Richmond ‘Fauconberg’s Kentish Rising of May 1471’, EHR, 85 (1970)
M. Hicks ‘The Yorkshire Rebellion of 1489 Reconsidered’, in his
Richard III and his Rivals (1991)
I Arthurson ‘The Rising of 1497…’, in J. T. Rosenthal and C Richmond,
eds., People, Politics and Community (1987)
M. L. Bush ‘Tax Reform and Rebellion in Early Tudor England’, History
(1991)
A. Fletcher and D. MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, 5th ed. (2004)
A. Wood Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics in Early Modern England
(2002)
– 24 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
Class 7 : Power in the Localities
Essential
Set Texts/Primary Sources
Relevant sections of
Secondary Sources
Questions to Consider
• ?
• ?
• ?
Background/Further Reading
Overviews
C. F. Richmond ‘Ruling classes and agents of the state: formal and informal
networks of power’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 10 (1997)
D. A. L. Morgan ‘The King’s Affinity in the Polity of Yorkist England’, Trans.
Roy. Hist. Soc., 5th ser., 23 (1973)
C. Carpenter ‘Law, Justice and Landowners in Late Medieval England’, Law
and History Rev., 1 (1983)
Mechanics
M. A. Hicks ‘Lord Hastings’ Indentured Retainers?’, in his Richard III and
his Rivals (1991)
S. Cunningham ‘Henry VII and Rebellion in North-Eastern England, 1485-
1492…’, Northern History, 32 (1996) (for bonds and
recognisances)
M. Jones and S. Walker, ‘Private Indentures for Life Service in Peace and War,
1278-1476’, in Camden Miscellany XXXII, Camden Soc., 5th
ser., 3 (1994), introduction.
J. M. W. Bean From Lord to Patron: Lordship in Late Medieval England
(1989), ch. 6, for regulation of livery and retaining
D. Luckett ‘Crown Office and Licensed Retinues in the Reign of Henry
VII’, in Rulers and Ruled in Late Medieval England, ed. R.
Archer and S. K. Walker (1995)
Regions
A. J. Pollard North-Eastern England during the Wars of the Roses: Lay
Society, War and Politics, 1450–1500 (Oxford, 1990)
C. Carpenter Locality and Polity. A Study of Warwickshire Landed Society,
1401-1499 (1992)
D. E. Lowe ‘Patronage and Politics: Edward IV, the Woodvilles and the
Council of the Prince of Wales, 1471-1483’, Bull. Board. Celt.
Studs., 29 (1980-2) also ‘The Council of the Prince of Wales
– 25 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
and the Decline of the Herbert Family during the Second Reign
of Edward IV’ in ibid., 27 (1976-8)
R. A. Griffiths ‘The Provinces and Dominions in the Age of the Wars of the
Roses’, in Estrangement, Enterprise and Education in
Fifteenth-Century England, ed. S. D. Michalove and A.
Compton Reeves (1998)
C. E. Moreton The Townshends and their World. Gentry, Law and Land in
Norfolk, c.1450-1551 (1992)
G. W. Bernard The Power of the Early Tudor Nobility (1985)
S.M. Wright The Derbyshire Gentry in the Fifteenth Century (1983)
Towns
C. M. Barron ‘London and the Crown, 1451-61’, in J. R. L. Highfield and R.
Jeffs, eds., The Crown and the Local Communities … (1981)
J. L. Bolton ‘The City and the Crown, 1456-61’, London Jnl., 12 (1986)
R. E. Horrox ‘Urban Patronage and Patrons in the Fifteenth Century’, in R.A.
Griffiths, ed., Patronage, the Crown and the Provinces (1981)
Particular Individuals/Disputes
M. A. Hicks ‘Dynastic Change and Northern Society: the Career of the
Fourth Earl of Northumberland, 1470-89’, Northern History, 14
(1978)
M. E. James ‘A Tudor Magnate and the Tudor State: Henry, Fifth Earl of
Northumberland’, in his Society, Politics and Culture: Studies
in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1986)
D. Luckett ‘The Rise and Fall of a Noble Dynasty: Henry VII and the
Lords Willoughby de Broke’, Histl. Res. 69 (1996)
R. W. Hoyle ‘The Earl, the Archbishop and the Council: the Affray at
Fulford, May 1504’, in Rulers and Ruled in Late Medieval
England. Essays presented to Gerald Harriss, ed. R. Archer, S.
Walker (1995)
S. J. Gunn ‘Sir Thomas Lovell: (c.1449-1524): A New Man in a New
Monarchy?’ in The End of the Middle Ages?, ed. Watts
M. K. Jones ‘Sir William Stanley of Holt: Politics and Family Allegiance in
the Late Fifteenth Century’, Welsh Hist. Rev., 14 (1988)
See also the reading for classes 1-4
– 26 –
This Bibliography is © University of Oxford, History Faculty 2007
Class 8 : Overview
Essential
There is no specially-assigned reading, but re-read selectively, peruse your
notes and essays and spend time thinking about the questions below.
Questions to Consider
• How directly were the conflicts of the 1480s and 90s related to those of the
1450s and 60s?
• What seem to you to be the most important factors in explaining the Wars of
the Roses?
• What part did the Wars of the Roses play in the development of English
kingship?

War of the Roses: The Battle of Barnet

January 8, 2008

70
INTRODUCTION
The Wars of the Roses had been rumbling along since 1455. By 1469 all of the most prominent supporters of the Lancaster cause were in exile and their ‘King’, Henry VI, was a prisoner in the tower.
It seemed that the threat to the reign of the Yorkist King Edward IV from the House of Lancaster had waned and he was secure.
Hope for the Lancastrian cause was however rekindled when the King mismanaged his relationship with his most loyal campaigner the Earl of Warwick, the famous Kingmaker, who had done so much to bring Edward the throne of England.
The Earl of Warwick crossed to Calais to find other rebels and to raise an army. He was joined by the King’s own brother Clarence who cemented his loyalty to Warwick by marrying his daughter.
Prior to leaving England, Warwick had fermented rebellion in the north of England which Edward and his army was then forced to suppress. With the King engaged in the north, Warwick landed in Devon with an army funded by the French King and the army continued to recruit as it marched on London.
Edward soon realised that his small force could not fight on two
fronts and with no hope of recruiting in the north he promptly fled the country.
In 1470 Warwick released the hapless King Henry VI from his imprisonment and duly declared him to be King. Warwick was of course the same man who five years previously had led this same man and supposed traitor King to the tower!
King Edward IV spent his short exile drawing upon the support of his brother-in-law the Duke of Burgundy. In March 1471 Edward landed in Yorkshire with a small army and was able to recruit as he pushed south for London.
Warwick knew of Edward’s landing and expected that his son the Earl of Montague would engage Edward in Yorkshire. Edward however simply bypassed Montagues’s forces, avoided Warwick who was in Coventry and marched to London unopposed.
Immediately amidst such treacherous times the loyalty of Warwick’s son was called into question because of his perceived inaction in Yorkshire.
Whilst this was going on Clarence, now of course the Earl of Warwick’s son-in-law, defected again and without Warwick’s knowledge re-joined his brother Edwards cause.
Edward’s duly captured the Lancastrian King Henry VI who faced the humiliation of being held captive in Edward’s baggage train as he pushed north to do battle with Warwick.
The scene was set for the Battle of Barnet.
WARGAMING THE BATTLE
Barnet as a battle is not as well known as the battle of Tewkesbury that occurred around a month later and has often tended to overshadow it.
It is however a good wargaming subject for a variety of reasons and it makes a great subject for wargaming for a number of reasons including:
• The potential for treachery on either side with Clarence and Montague.
We provide a brief background to this historic War of the Roses clash and a scenario using the Warhammer Ancient Battles rules and army lists that first appeared sometime ago inside Wargames Journal. Bryce has also provided some wonderful banners to adorn the various nobles that are available in the download section of the web site and has provided information on collecting the forces and painting them accurately.
71
72
• The appalling weather conditions. The battle was fought in dense fog that caused utter confusion. This coupled with doubtful alliances has the potential for totally unexpected outcomes. As a field Commander you would only be aware of what is happening where you are and not to your left or right
• Leading from the front Edward IV has a good chance of being killed in the Battle
• The Duke of Gloucester, who commanded Edward’s left flank at Barnet, was later to become King Richard III
• There is the possibility of friendly troops rescuing, or perhaps even over-zealous troops accidentally killing, the captive Henry VI
As you can see the game has the potential for several twists and turns and potential sub-plots within the battle itself.
Imagine yourself as Edward IV. It’s early morning and you can’t see what is ahead of you but you do know that you are pitched against a man who was once your closest ally.
You know his army is bigger and that his Commanders are better than yours, you even doubt your own brother’s loyalty.
DEPLOYMENT
The map illustrates the deployment of the various contingents. It also illustrates how Edward deployed his army slightly towards one side. This went against all conventional wisdom as normally opposing armies aligned themselves in a more regular fashion.
Barnet is a contest between two similar forces but with Warwick’s army being larger at around 13,000 compared to Edward’s total of around 10,000 men.
The numbers present at any medieval battle are always hotly debated. Just bear in mind the old adage that it is the victor that writes history. Edward’s chronicles put Warwick’s forces at 30,000 to make Edward’s ultimate victory seem more dramatic. It is always safer to opt for somewhere between any two extremes.
In any battle of this period forces were generally aligned conventionally. Casualties would be fairly even on both sides until one army managed to swing in its reserve on an exposed flank and the melee would pivot until breaking point was achieved.
If the break became a rout then as with most ancient or medieval warfare the victor would inflict a disproportionate number of casualties on the fleeing enemy.
Superficially Barnet would have seemed likely to be a victory for Warwick’s larger army however Edward’s unusual deployment was set to change the script.
Edward’s deployment meant that Edward himself would clash with Warwick and Montague’s forces.
On his right his most inexperienced Commander, Richard, Duke of Gloucester had his forces arranged so that when they met the veteran Exeter’s force they could spill around Exeter’s exposed left flank and turn him.
However the flip side to this was going to happen on the opposite wing, as Hastings would be outflanked by Oxford. This unusual deployment may have been a cunning plan by Edward to create the illusion of a larger force but most historians put the misalignment down to the presence of the thick fog.
VISIBILITY
The poor visibility was more of an advantage to the numerically inferior Edward. It also meant that the superior enemy artillery was even more ineffectual than was normal for the times.
Edward had advanced his armies forward to be able to strike at dawn. As the fog began to gather during the night it was so thick by the time the battle began at dawn that the archers would be lucky to fire off one salvo before the forces clashed.
Each command would almost literally have tunnel vision and not be aware of either their own or enemy forces to their left or right.
THE BATTLE OF BARNET
As Edward’s forces advanced his left flank under Hastings was first to engage the enemy as it clashed with Oxford’s force, closely followed by Edward’s centre meeting Montague and Warwick’s troops and Gloucester meeting Exeter on the right wing.
Very soon Oxford’s superior numbers overlapped Hastings’ exposed flank and rather than just falling back in good order, Hastings’ men panicked and ran.
Oxford devastating attack swept away Hastings’ division in a total rout.
Under normal circumstances this would have been a total disaster for the Yorkist forces as Oxford’s men would sweep in on Edward’s flank and rear but instead they disappeared into the fog without anybody noticing the significance.
On the right wing Gloucester’s overlap of Exeter’s forces proved very effective but Exeter’s troops were more disciplined and although pushed back continued to keep their cohesion and fight on.
Oxford’s men meanwhile thought the battle was over and began looting Edward’s baggage train. As a result they rescued King Henry VI who must have felt more like a pawn in a game of chess than the King of England!
It is reported that some of Oxford’s men rode into London and proclaimed their victory not knowing that the rest of their forces were still fully engaged. Oxford being a veteran Commander soon took command of the situation
73
and remarkably under these circumstances managed to rally about a quarter of his force to return to the battle to cement an almost certain victory.
Oxford’s men appeared through the fog and were not presented with Edward’s flank but an arrow storm from Warwick’s own exposed flank. It is popularly believed that Oxford’s badge of a star was mistaken for Edward’s sun badge. Whatever the truth of the matter cries of treason went up from all sides and panic gripped Warwick’s army. Morale crumbled.
Some commentators believe that Montague tried to go over to Edward’s side as believing the battle to be lost and that Warwick’s men cut him down.
Warwick now decided to make his exit but was 44 years old, wearing 50lbs of plate armour and had fought for 3-4 hours. He tried to find his horse tethered towards the rear but never made it. He was found dead and stripped of his armour on the battlefield the next day.
Oxford was more fortunate and managed to escape to Scotland but Henry VI was re-captured and taken back to the tower where he is said to have died of melancholy a year later.
THE AFTERMATH
The number of high-ranking Yorkists who died around Edward and Richard’s contingents illustrates how hard fought the battle was up to the point of the panic that ended it.
The number of dead is hard to estimate but I believe the most accurate figure to be 500 dead on the Yorkist side and 1,500 dead on the Lancastrian side. These figures are recorded in the Paston letters; John Paston of Norfolk was present on the day.
Like many medieval battlefields where there has been a rout the names of the terrain features indicate elements of the battle. At Barnet you probably noticed the marshy area called Deadman’s Bottom. This marks the area where most Lancastrians were slaughtered as they tried to flee through the clinging fog.
ORDERS OF BATTLE
The following are a rough estimate of the orders of battle, plus basic statistics for each unit from our previously-published set of extensions for WAB. For some variety, we have set out a basic points allowance for each army and allowed some basic upgrades.
The numbers given are for a fairly large game, even with the expensive troops available, with around 2,460 points and 150-170 figures for the Yorkists, and 2,740 for the Lancastrians, with around 170-200 figures. This would require a large table and several commanders on each side!
However, the figures can be scaled down in proportion and Montague and his men at arms can be removed from the Lancastrians, and Clarence and his foot knights can be removed from the Yorkists, assuming each personality become absorbed into Warwick’s and Edward’s command figures.
Given this was well past the start of the war, and numbers were larger than at the initial battles, we have ensured that some troops are the equivalent of “Shire Levy”. These are brittle but with care can be used to good effect.
Given the potential for treachery, no general or battle commander can command any troops other than his own, and must remain within 6” of one of their normal units at all times, or must move as soon as possible to within 6” of one of their units. Moreover, all command influence (Ld) and Battle standard (reroll) distances are reduced to 8” due to the fog.
The Duke of Burgundy sent over some mercenaries, but these may have been Flemish or German. For variation, you can either field these as Handgunners or mercenary Pikemen.
For each unit, a standard bearer and musician can be added. Note that the Combined Formations rule insists that casualties from ranged weapons (bar artillery) are taken from all figure types in the unit, not as previously stated, but that figures shooting from behind the front rank still count as half their number.
The artillery described below is Light Artillery with average crew with WS 3 and Ld7. The guns themselves have a range of 15” in the fog, and otherwise are S4 (-1 per rank penetrated), T 6, W 2 and inflict D3 wounds per hit. Refer to the ballista rules for details, though the artillery should be subject to deviation – for the ranges at which they will be used we suggest half the number specified on the deviation dice.
We have presented the Orbats as a PDF file that you can download from the Wargames Journal web site:
Barnet Orbats
SCENARIO NOTES FOR WARGAMING BARNET
Terrain
There are several marshy areas indicated on the map these should be regarded as rough ground for purposes of movement. The very marshy areas should be impassable for cavalry or men-at-arms in full armour.
Fog
To simulate the effects of the fog play the following special deployment rules:
• Deploy each division aligned as per the map and with the opposing armies 24” apart.
• No units may move normally until the first combat between units from
74
opposing sides.
• Edward’s troops advance but each unit must roll A D6 to determine which direction they move each turn. On a 1 the unit will oblique 45 degrees to the left on a 6 they will oblique 45 degrees to the right. Any other roll and they move straight ahead.
• If Edward’s troops fight each other during their advance then Warwick’s units may advance to take advantage but also move randomly.
• If a unit veers into contact with a neighbouring friendly unit they must fight at least one turn of melee. If treachery is a real possibility, i.e. with Clarence’s units then fight two turns of combat if required.
In addition half all missile ranges due to the effects of the fog and only test morale due to a unit breaking in combat if the unit is in the same division and is within 6”.
LIVERY COLOURS & BADGES OF ARCHERS/BILLMEN
LANCASTRIAN
EARL OF WARWICK’S COMMAND – Red with white ragged staff
EARL OF MONTAGUE – Halved black and red with white griffin
DUKE OF EXETER – Halved white and red with yellow wheat ear
EARL OF OXFORD – Red with blue boar
YORKIST
KING EDWARD IV’s COMMAND – Halved blue and murray (dark pinky red) with black bull or white rose
DUKE OF CLARENCE – Halved blue and murray with black bull
RICHARD, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER – Halved blue & murray with white boar or White rose
LORD HASTINGS – Halved murray and blue with black bulls head or yellow lion with mans face
FIGURE AVAILABILITY
There are many excellent figure ranges available in a number of scales. I prefer 25/28mm figures and so will concentrate on these.
If you are just starting to collect in this era it is worth considering which figures are compatible with which.
I have found the more traditional “true” 25mm tend to be dwarfed by 28mm figures, especially mounted ones. As a very rough guide use the following for compatible ranges, although the odd figure mixed in will make no great difference:
Traditional ‘Smaller’ 25mm
Old Glory
Wargames Foundry
Newer ‘Larger’ 28mm
Essex
Front Rank
Games Workshop
I personally prefer the larger 28mm figures and rate Front Rank as the best figures available.
The bonus of opting for these ‘larger’ figures is that if you hunt around at shows you can nearly always come away with a bag full of Games Workshop archers from their Brettonian range that is ideal when you need to fill the ranks.
BUILDING AN ARMY
It’s my experience that it’s a great temptation to buy far too many knights, as troops in full plate armour seem to be the image of the War of the Roses soldier.
In the C15th buying a full set of plate armour would be the equivalent to purchasing a brand new prestige car today. It really was for the nobility and well off knights. Troops of this period tended to fight on foot due to the vulnerability of horses to massed longbow fire.
Mounted knights look very nice as models but were something of a rarity if wargaming this period as they would dismount and fight on foot. Lighter cavalry on horses with no armour were often used on the wings to exploit any exposed flanks or fill in breaches.
Exotic troop types such as crossbowmen and handgunners were usually foreign mercenaries and an unusual addition to any army.
The composition of most armies of this period should probably be as follows:-
Longbow (around 50% of any army)
Dismounted men-at-arms (around 10% of any army)
Billmen (around 30% of any army)
The remaining 10% would be made up of hobilar cavalry on unarmoured horses, the crossbowmen, pikemen, spearmen and handgunners.
Artillery was pretty primitive in the C15th and was basically large fixed bombards set into earthworks that were really only used for sieges.
Lighter “slightly” more mobile early cannons were used but the firing rate was very slow and the range was short with no useful arc of fire.
Heraldry can be totally baffling throughout the medieval period but thankfully by the War of the Roses it was generally less intricate as shields were no longer universally used. Having said all of this the flag colours are often different from the livery coats worn by the foot soldier!
If you paint the commander’s badge on his troops in theory they can only be used with that commander and perhaps only for the duration of a single battle.
It’s best to pick a snap shot in history and raise an army for that moment and then re-use it for other battles without getting to carried away with accuracy otherwise it will prove to be an expensive way of raising armies.
This may upset a few heraldry buffs out there but if you want useful generic armies to cover most of the engagements then choose correspondingly generic figures with leather jerkins or gambesons. If you want to capture the right feel of the various armies then you could paint the livery colours but simply omit the badges so troops in red for example could be Warwick’s or Oxford’s.
This is fine for the rank and file but it is important to get the commander’s flag or standard right as this is what will stand out on the gaming table. I use the excellent flag sheets available from Freezywater Publications, 13 Rochester Drive, Lincoln, LN6 OXQ.
They have really good quality flag sheets covering every engagement of the Wars of the roses and other medieval eras also. Through this address you can also purchase various useful booklets on the War of the Roses and could also join the Lance & Longbow Society and receive a quarterly journal on Medieval Warfare.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Battles in Britain by William Seymour, Wordsworth Military Library (1997)
British Battles – Ken & Denise Guest – English Heritage – Harper/Collins (1996)
Standards, badges, livery colours of the Wars of the Roses – Pat McGill & Jonathan Jones – Freezywater Publications (1992)
“We’d like to thank Front Rank for very kindly allowing Wargames Journal to use their images within out articles. As a company Front Rank has supplied high quality figures for many years. Its WoTR figures are full of character and worthy of any battlefield.”
http://www.frontrank.com

Henry V, Agentcourt & Teaching the Deaf

January 4, 2008

Candi Mascia Reed, Ed.S., coordinator/teacher for
the Mountain Lakes high school and middle school programs,
in Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, and adjunct
professor at Kean University, is excited to be teaching
Henry V to a new class of deaf and hard of hearing students
this year. She welcomes comments to this article:
reedspad@bellatlantic.net.
When I announced to my colleagues
that my English classes would be doing
Shakespeare’s Henry V, I was greeted
with stares of incredulity mixed with
the proverbial raised eyebrows!
Weren’t they struggling enough with
modern English usage? Wouldn’t I
totally confuse them with words like
thee and thou? I explained that not only
would my seniors study the play, but all
my deaf and hard of hearing students,
regardless of their ages, reading levels,
or academic abilities, would study it. In
fact, in its treatment of war, swords,
death, sex, guts, blood, and betrayal,
Henry V is excellent reading for impressionable
teens.
I must admit, my bravado was
tinged with self-doubt. I had never
before attempted to teach a
Shakespearean play, but felt responsible
to do so when one of my former
students came to visit and asked why
I had never taught her William
Shakespeare in high school. I vowed,
then and there, to introduce my students
to the foremost poet and playwright
in the English language.
My initial introduction to Henry V
was through Mobil Masterpiece Theatre,
a Kenneth Branagh presentation
broadcast on PBS in its entirety on
April 26, 1992. This two-and-one-half
hour closed-captioned film was the
perfect visual supplement to the written
text. Additionally, Mobil provided
an excellent teacher’s guide that
included previewing background information,
five teaching units, and a pullout
poster for classroom display.
Set in British history and Elizabethan
language, this Shakespearean play
20 Winter 2000
Once more
unto the breach…
Shakespeare’s Henry V and Deaf and Hard of Hearing Teens
By Candi Mascia Reed
Perspectives Around the Country
presents a challenge to any modern
reader, and my first goal had to be to
understand it myself. I began by setting
aside a relaxed weekend to view
the movie in the quiet of my own
home. With paper and pen in hand—
and the much maligned but extremely
helpful Cliff’s Notes—I proceeded to
watch one scene at a time. I viewed a
scene, paused the videotape, read the
Cliff’s Notes, and watched the scene
again. I did this throughout the whole
production, writing notes and recording
the minutes where each scene
started and stopped as indicated on
the VCR. After watching the entire
film and reading the Cliff’s Notes and
teacher’s guide, I noticed that my
appreciation and understanding of the
written text intensified, and I became
more adept at understanding 16th
century English.
My goal was for all students to
attain familiarity with the author
William Shakespeare, the plot of the
play, and the writing/speaking style
of the 16th century in comparison to
modern English usage.
I taught four periods of English.
Students in two periods were reading
at a 3.0 to 3.5 grade level. Students in
the other two periods were reading
at approximately the 7.0 to 9.0 grade
level. I adapted each lesson to fit the
language/reading levels of each class.
Every class was introduced to the general
plot line, some of the characters,
Shakespeare as a historical individual,
the Globe Theater, England’s Elizabethan
era, brief excerpts of the
Branagh film, and at least one of the
themes discussed below. The advanced
readers were also exposed to the whole
play, all the characters, and the entire
plot line.
Writing Themes
For readers at the 3.0 and 3.5 grade
levels, the play’s primary themes—love
and war— were the topics for thematic
writing and discussion. Readers at the
7.0 to 9.0 grade level discussed all of
the following themes and wrote about
one of them:
• The burden (hard life choices) of
being a leader
• Friends—torn between old friends
and new responsibilities
• Growing from a reckless youth into
a mature, responsible adult
• Patriotism (love of one’s country)
• War Power! How does one handle
it? Can it change you?
• What does war power do to people?
To countries?
• Love! Can you marry without love?
Class Discussions
All classes discussed the history on
which Shakespeare’s play was based.
A classroom map displayed the location
of England, France, and the
surrounding countries. I typed up a
summary of each act and scene and
displayed each on an overhead. For
less sophisticated readers, we read the
overheads together and I provided
additional background and vocabulary
definitions.
Questions Please!
Henry V offers students an opportunity
to connect the events in the story with
real-life situations and experiences.
Students in both reading groups discussed
the questions, and those in the
higher group had to write their
answers. Some questions were the basis
for some lively class debates and writing
assignments, particularly those
based on the battle scene. Here are
some examples of questions:
1. Describe some of the violent scenes
you saw in the battle scene; describe
some of the more compassionate
scenes. How can war be both violent
and compassionate? Can it?
2. The French suddenly realized they
were losing the battle. In anger, they
decided to kill all the young boys
(helpers) who joined King Henry’s
army. How did King Henry feel
about this? How did King Henry
feel about honor during war?
3. The Battle of Agincourt was very
brutal. Describe some of the scenes
that really affected you. What did
the battlefield look like after the
battle was over?
4. The English army was outnumbered
(what does this mean?). Why do you
think the English soldiers fought
so bravely and won? What did King
Henry say to the soldiers that
inspired them (motivated them)
so much? Think about the famous
speech that King Henry makes
before the battle.
Winter 2000 21
Henry V offers students an
opportunity to connect the events in
the story with real life situations and
experiences.
Example of an Overhead
England and France were bitter enemies and
fought wars between 1413–1415. King Henry
was a real king of England. Shakespeare
wrote the play Henry V in 1599.
1. France and England were enemies
for many years.
2. King Henry really did attack France
in a real war.
3. King Henry was one of the most
loved English kings and a great hero.
4. When Henry was a youth (teenager),
he was wild! The people called
him “Prince Hal”—which showed
that they did not have respect for
him. Why?
5. Henry became the king when his
father died. He promised his father
he would mature and be a great
king. He had to abandon his old
habits. He had to give up his “drinking
pals” because he realized he
had to become more responsible.
He was determined (really wanted)
to become a great king.
Example of a Summary—
“The Battle of Agincourt”
Plot Summary—Act IV, Scene 3:
The Battle at Agincourt in France
King Henry is the king of England. He
invades (goes into) France to take the throne
(power) away from the King of France
because he thinks the French king is against
him. King Henry is a good leader and his
people love him. They believe he is right to
invade France. His army follows him into
battle in a field called Agincourt in France.
The battle at Agincourt takes place
(happens). The French can’t believe how
bravely the small English army fights! The
English are winning! The French become
angrier and angrier. They kill all the boy
messengers (these are boys about 12 years
old who do not fight. Their job is to help
the soldiers with their weapons, take care of
the horses and the supplies, and help cook
and clean for the soldiers). The boys didn’t
even have weapons!
Now King Henry, who is a kind king,
becomes furious (extremely angry). He can’t
believe it! He orders all the French prisoners
to be executed (killed) instead of showing
mercy (kindness).
At the conclusion, King Henry discovers
that many French soldiers died but, surprisingly,
few English soldiers did. King Henry
thanks God and his soldiers.
Much Ado About Something!
Contacted by Dr. Reed, her former high
school students offered the following comments
about their encounters with Henry V.
The first time I saw the movie, I hardly
understood the language at all because it
was very new to me. That was the time
before our own modern language was born…
The acting itself was great, and once I saw
the movie it made me feel [that] I understood
most of it.
Mark Young—Gallaudet University
During class, when we were watching the
movie about King Henry V, I found the
beginning of the story diffiicult, and it made
me feel frustrated because they used the Old
English language that I never saw before…
[seeing the movie, studying Shakespeare]
was a good opportunity for me.
Christie DeBaco—Bergen Community College
It was interesting when I first learned about
the myths and war…It gave me the idea of
history with many different characters…It
was [an] experience…to learn about the
lives before us.
Rachel Moore—1995 graduate, now working full
time
22 Winter 2000
The students particularly enjoyed
the Shakespearean vocabulary and would
try to discern the meaning through the
actions in the movie.
Strategies For Studying Henry V
Grade Level 3.0–3.5 Grade Level 7.0–9.0
Characters Major Only All—major and minor
Plot Highlights Complete
Themes Two: War/love Seven: See listing, page 21
Language Copy passages in 16th century text Reading scenes in 16th century English
Captioned PBS Film Captioned PBS Film
Discussion in PSE Discussion in PSE
Written English assignment Written assignments on selected themes
Support Maps, overheads, transparencies Maps, overheads, transparencies
Branagh film Branagh film
Shakespeare Made Easy, Barrons, 1985 Shakespeare Made Easy, Barrons, 1985
Meaning Through Language
I used Shakespeare Made Easy, a guide
published by Barrons (1985 series),
that presents a scene by scene rendering
of the Shakespearean text in present
day and Elizabethan English for
students at both reading levels. Since I
knew exactly where each act and scene
began and ended from my notes, I was
able to comfortably and quickly start
and stop the movie to give students
enough time to answer questions and
discuss vocabulary and usage. The
students particularly enjoyed the
Shakespearean vocabulary and would
try to discern the meaning through the
actions in the movie. They were able to
discuss the meaning behind each line,
appreciate the beauty of the language,
and also realize its complexity.
For higher level readers, we read
some scenes—the battle scene and the
love scene—in the original text. For
lower level readers, I made copies of
the introduction. This activity was a way
to showcase the beauty of the language,
and afforded students the opportunity
to discuss how to interpret it into signs.
In the end the experience was
highly successful. Not only did all
my classes find the story interesting,
but the students were also intrigued by
the language and thoroughly enjoyed
the movie. Each year, my classes have
studied other Shakespearean plays.
Some plays are better received than
others, yet nothing is more memorable
than the first time my students
met Henry.
Shakespearean Web Sites
The Bard Conquers New Territory
With the advent of our classroom
hookup to the Internet, we look forward
to exploring the plays of Shakespeare
through the World Wide Web.
Of special interest perhaps is the site:
http://www.4shakespeare.com. This site provides
links to everything from the text
of Shakespeare’s plays to dramatic,
historical, and educational materials.
Vocabulary throughout the plays
is in hypertext for easy access to
definitions. 
Winter 2000 23
The Web provides a rich source for information about Shakespeare. TOP: http://www.tech-two.
mit.edu/Shakespeare. BOTTOM: http://library.advanced.org/19539/front.htm.

Henry V & The Battle of Agincourt

January 4, 2008

1
Using Shakespeare’s Henry V to Teach Just-War Principles1
David L. Perry
Department of Command, Leadership and Management, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle,
PA 17013, (717)245-3429, david.l.perry@us.army.mil.
The author employs a careful reading of Shakespeare’s Henry V, supported by insights
from scholars Theodor Meron, Peter Saccio and Gary Taylor, to draw out some points
for teachers to use in courses on ethics and warfare in general or the just-war tradition
in particular. Detailed lesson plans and discussion questions are provided in an
Appendix.
Introduction
Most of us assume that we have a basic right not to be killed. We might not consider that
to be an absolute right—since that would entail strict pacifism—but rather what philosophers call
a prima facie right.2 For example, we might be said to forfeit our right not to be killed if we
commit a particularly heinous crime like aggravated murder. Or we might waive that right if we
suffer from a terminal illness and can’t end our own life without assistance from others. And any
right that can be forfeited or waived cannot be absolute. But we’re certainly on solid ground in
believing that we have to have very serious moral reasons to justify killing people.
In the Western just-war tradition, war is thought to be morally acceptable if it can satisfy
certain ethical and procedural criteria. But that tradition also regards war as potentially causing
so much suffering, death and destruction that leaders must carefully weigh those harms against
the goals they hope to achieve through war. Even if one’s country has been seriously harmed,
one’s soldiers or other citizens unjustly killed by foreign powers or terrorists, leaders still face
significant moral constraints under just-war criteria on what they may do in response. Having
just cause to go to war, for example, does not permit one to wage total war.
2
William Shakespeare’s play about King Henry V of England,3 loosely based on historical
events in the early 1400’s, provides a rich source of ethical issues in warfare and military
leadership. In what follows, I’ll explain how I’ve found Shakespeare’s play helpful in my own
university courses in illustrating specific just-war concerns, and indicate specific ways in which
teachers might use the play to nurture significant moral reflection and discussion by their
students.
Jus ad Bellum: Just Cause, Right Intention, Proportionality, and
Legitimate Authority
Henry V was not only heir to the English throne, but was also descended from a French
king, and had other claims to parts of France through other ancestors as well as some recent
treaties.4 At the beginning of Shakespeare’s play, Henry is deliberating with his close advisors
about whether his claim on the French throne is strong enough to justify his going to war against
the French if they refuse to recognize him as their true king. Henry asks the Archbishop of
Canterbury for an assessment of his claim, and warns him to be scrupulously honest:
God forbid, my dear and faithful lord,
That you should fashion … or bow your reading….
For God doth know how many now in health
Shall drop their blood in approbation
Of what your reverence shall incite us to.
Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,
How you awake our sleeping sword of war….
For never two such kingdoms did contend
Without much fall of blood, whose guiltless drops
Are every one a woe, a sore complaint
‘Gainst him whose wrongs gives edge unto the swords
That makes such waste in brief mortality. (1.2, i.e., act 1, scene 2)
In this moving passage, Henry indicates that he is keenly aware of the high cost of war in
innocent human lives, and therefore the moral importance of sincere and careful appraisal of the
reasons offered in support of war.5 And later he expresses great affection and admiration for his
3
troops, e.g., at the battles of Harfleur (3.1) and Agincourt (4.3) where he praises the courage even
of the lower-class yeomen and calls them his brothers: “We few, we happy few….”
In teaching the play, I’ve found it intriguing to compare Henry’s deliberations with the
advice of Francisco de Vitoria, who lived after the real Henry but before Shakespeare. Legal
historian Theodor Meron doubts that Shakespeare knew the work of Vitoria or other just-war
theorists like Suarez or Gentili, though the latter were his contemporaries, and Gentili even
taught at Oxford. But Meron infers from the play that Shakespeare was quite familiar with
existing laws of war as well as the customary ways in which royals deliberated about war.6
According to Vitoria, when a head of state is trying to determine whether there is just
cause to go to war, “One must consult reliable and wise men who can speak with freedom and
without anger or hate or greed…. [I]f he is in doubt about his rightful title [to a particular region,
e.g.] he must carefully examine the case and listen peacefully to the reasons of the other side, to
see if a clear decision can be reached in favor of himself or the other party.”7 Unfortunately,
Shakespeare’s Henry V has surrounded himself with advisors who are all biased in favor of war.
And the Archbishop whom Henry trusts to provide an objective opinion has a hidden agenda, to
fund Henry’s war in France in the hope of quashing a parliamentary bill that would have taken
enormous tracts of church land (1.1).
The Archbishop effectively refutes the French argument against Henry’s claim via his
female ancestor (1.2). But he ignores the fact that there have been nearly 100 years of rule by
another family line in France, making French nobles and commoners unlikely to want to shift
their allegiance abruptly to Henry.
Furthermore, was it realistic to believe that people speaking different languages and
separated by the Channel could become a unified nation under Henry V? I think that
4
Shakespeare implies otherwise in his striking insertion of a comic scene in 3.5 with its dialogue
almost entirely in the French language. The conversation there also focuses on words for body
parts, which Shakespeare may have meant to hint that Katherine, the French king’s daughter,
would be treated as a form of property, part of the spoils of Henry’s military victories. And
there’s an analogy drawn in 5.2 between virgins and fortified towns (“girdled with maiden
walls”). Shakespeare may have intended these elements of the play to remind his audience that
the French were conquered against their will: that Henry’s invasion was akin to the rape of a
virgin. Then again, it’s tempting but quite possibly anachronistic to imagine Shakespeare as a
feminist ahead of his time: Shakespeare and his audience may have assumed that Henry was
merely taking what was his by right anyway, whether it was French land or the daughter of the
French king.
Returning to Henry’s initial deliberations about whether to war against France, his other
advisors suggest that European monarchs will expect him to enforce his claims, like his ancestors
did. And they appeal to his warlike courage and youthful desire to expand his power. None of
them urges caution or careful consideration of French counter-claims. All of this has the effect
of persuading Henry to go to war: “France being ours, we’ll bend it to our awe or break it all to
pieces” (1.2).8
He then receives a message from the French dauphin (the crown prince), who repudiates
Henry’s demands and offers in their place a “treasure” of tennis balls, an insulting reference to
Henry’s former reputation as a rowdy, irresponsible playboy. Even though it’s not clear that this
message was sent with the knowledge or permission of the French king, Henry is deeply insulted
by it, and says to the French ambassador:
Tell the pleasant Prince this mock of his
Hath turned his balls to gunstones, and his soul
5
Shall stand sore charged for the wasteful vengeance
That shall fly from them—for many a thousand widows
Shall this his mock mock out of their dear husbands,
Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down…. (1.2)
Here Henry seems to have allowed a personal insult to cloud his objective moral
assessment of jus ad bellum. His anger and his obsession with winning the French crown
overwhelm the more humane disposition he exhibited at the beginning of the play. In just-war
terms, he’s not clearly satisfied the criteria of just cause, right intention or proportionality. He’s
hurtling headlong into war.9 (According to Saccio, the tennis-ball incident never actually
occurred.10 But no matter, as it reminds us how personal animosities between national leaders
can sometimes drive or exacerbate momentous international crises.)
Just before Henry leads his army against the French, an assassination attempt sponsored
by them is uncovered (2.2). The real Henry V did indeed quash an assassination plot, but the
conspirators didn’t need French money to have a motive for deposing him: they sought to
replace him with someone whom they believed had a stronger claim to it than Henry, due to his
father’s usurpation of the crown from Richard II. In other words, the assassination was rooted in
a controversy concerning Henry’s legitimate authority, not foreign intervention.11 The only hint
of this in the play occurs on the eve of the battle of Agincourt, when Henry prays that God will
be with his troops and not hold his father’s sin against him (4.1).
Curiously, Shakespeare doesn’t portray Henry as holding a grudge against the French for
trying to assassinate him, even though that would have dramatically strengthened his rationale
for war. In other words, having invented a French role in the conspiracy to murder him,
Shakespeare subsequently forgets all about it! In Act V, Henry treats the French king—the
sponsor of his would-be assassins—with surprising cordiality.
6
After Henry lands in France with his army, his relative Exeter delivers an ultimatum
directly to the French king, similar in its ominous tone to Henry’s earlier retort to the dauphin:
[King Henry bids you to] deliver up the crown, and to take mercy
On the poor souls for whom this hungry war
Opens his vasty jaws; and on your head
[Are laid] the widows’ tears, the orphans’ cries,
The dead men’s blood, the pining maidens’ groans,
For husbands, fathers, and betrothed lovers
That shall be swallowed in this controversy. (2.4)
Notice that like Henry’s retort to the dauphin’s insult, and in contrast to his initial
warning to his Archbishop, with Exeter’s ultimatum Henry has completely shed any sense of
personal responsibility for the destruction that the war will cause. All of its carnage will be the
fault of the French. Now there’s obviously an important sense in which those who cause an
unnecessary war are primarily responsible for the deaths that result. But it doesn’t follow that
the other side is not also accountable for at least some of those deaths.
One additional topic relevant to Henry’s authority to wage war and the justice of his
cause concerns the conditions under which citizens must obey the order of their government to
fight. This issue is wonderfully explored by Shakespeare in a conversation on the eve of the
battle of Agincourt between Henry (in disguise) and some of his men (4.1):
Henry: “Methinks I could not die anywhere so contented as in the King’s company, his
cause being just and his quarrel honorable.”
Williams: “That’s more than we know.”
Bates: “Ay, or more than we should seek after. For we know enough if we know we are
the King’s subjects. If his cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it
out of us.”
Williams: “But if the cause be not good, the King himself hath a heavy reckoning to
make, when all those legs and arms and heads chopped off in a battle shall join together at
the latter day, and cry all, ‘We died at such a place’—some swearing, some crying for a
surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some
upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle, for how
can they charitably dispose of anything, when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do
not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it—who to disobey were
against all proportion of subjection.”
7
Bates later pledges to fight “lustily” for Henry, but here he argues that because soldiers
must obey their king, they can’t be blamed if the king’s reasons for going to war are unjust.
Williams adds, though, that if the king’s cause is truly unjust, he’ll have a lot to answer for in
terms of the unnecessary deaths of his soldiers and the effects on their wives and children. He
also seems to imply that the Christian souls of soldiers are endangered in battle, perhaps because
they can’t maintain dispositions of Christian love and repentance while they’re killing, and thus
may die in a sinful state. So even if soldiers are innocent in some sense, the king in effect forces
them to incur moral taint.12
These are important concerns that almost any soldier in combat might express,
emphasized by Shakespeare with vivid and emotionally charged images. Unfortunately, the
King’s subsequent reply completely evades the issue of his responsibility in forcing his soldiers
to kill and endanger their own lives and souls for a possibly unjust cause. Military leaders owe
their troops much more careful consideration before placing them in harm’s way.
Theodor Meron mentions an intriguing fact about Henry that apparently Shakespeare
didn’t know. After conquering Harfleur, Henry challenged the French dauphin to a duel, the
result of which would determine which of them would rule France. Henry ostensibly sought to
prevent further destruction, suffering, and losses of life that the war would continue to produce,
which in itself would be attractive under jus ad bellum principles of proportionality and last
resort. But the dauphin apparently never responded to the challenge, either because he feared
losing his life to an older and stronger warrior, or because he would not wager the throne of
France on such an unpredictable scenario, or perhaps because it would imply that the issue of
just cause in that war was of no real consequence.13
Jus in Bello: Noncombatant Immunity and Proportionality
8
Under modern just-war criteria, soldiers are subject to being killed in combat until they
surrender or are incapacitated by their wounds. The point is that combatants may justly be
harmed only so long as they pose a credible threat to others. Most civilians pose no such threat,
and thus may not be intentionally killed except in rare circumstances (e.g., if they work in
munitions factories). Moreover, if civilians are determined to be at risk in legitimate military
attacks, then officials must carefully consider whether the target needs to be hit at all. If so, it
should involve the least destructive force necessary to do the job, to minimize “collateral
damage.” Those moral ideas are often encapsulated as rules of noncombatant immunity and
proportionality, and have been incorporated into international treaties such as the Hague and
Geneva conventions. Even if our enemies do not hold themselves to those high standards, we
cannot shirk our own responsibility to do so.
Of course, King Henry V lived well before the formulation in just-war theory or
international law of a comprehensive principle of noncombatant immunity, not to mention
technologies like satellite surveillance and smart weapons that help us to uphold such a principle.
Many battles in Henry V’s era involved sieges of fortified towns, which often led to horrific
losses of both soldiers and civilians from indiscriminate weapons. Captured towns were also
frequently subject to total annihilation.14
But even in Henry’s day, it was understood that direct attacks on civilians violated
Christian prohibitions on killing the innocent, as well as a secular code of chivalry among
knights that ruled out intentional harms to defenseless people as unprofessional.15 With that in
mind, consider the frightening ultimatum16 that Henry delivers to the fortified city of Harfleur,
the first town that he attacks after landing in France.
How yet resolves the Governor of the town?
9
This is the latest parle we will admit [i.e. the last cease-fire we’ll allow].
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves,
Or like to men proud of destruction
Defy us to do our worst. For as I am a soldier…
If I begin the batt’ry once again
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the fleshed soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh fair virgins and your flow’ring infants….
What is’t to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career…?
Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command,
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O’erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil, and villainy.
If not—why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dashed to the walls;
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds….
What say you? Will you yield, and this avoid?
Or, guilty in defense, be thus destroyed? (3.4)
In sum, if Harfleur won’t surrender, the English will do their worst and have no mercy.
His soldiers will rape women and slaughter infants and the elderly. Henry won’t be able to stop
them, and doesn’t much care to. In the end he’ll burn the city to the ground, and their destruction
will be their own fault.
In the face of this ultimatum, Harfleur duly surrenders, and Henry then tells Exeter to
“use mercy to them all.” So was his ultimatum just a bluff? Possibly, since elsewhere (3.7) he
10
set strict rules ordering his soldiers not to molest or plunder civilians, and punished soldiers who
broke those rules. In other words, he cared more about military ethics—and was better able to
control his troops—than he let on in his ultimatum. On the other hand, his angry speech at
Harfleur was consistent with his earlier threats against the French dauphin and king that innocent
people would die if his rule in France were not accepted.17 Meron notes an actual precedent for
this in the year 1370 when the English massacred 3,000 unarmed French residents of Limoges
after the town surrendered. Henry himself after capturing Caen spared only its women, children
and priests; all other adult males were massacred. And in spite of his order in the play to “use
mercy” against Harfleur, the real Henry expelled most poor people from the town.18
But even if Shakespeare intended us to infer that Henry was bluffing at Harfleur in
threatening atrocities, his ultimatum clearly went well beyond predicting “collateral damage”
from his siege tactics. We might well question whether it was ethical for him to threaten
something that would be immoral to do, even if the threat was intended to achieve a legitimate
military goal. (Compare our possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent against their use
against us by other countries.)
During the battle of Agincourt, there is another powerful scene where marauding French
soldiers are reported to have killed a group of English boys who had been assigned to guard the
supplies (4.7). One of the English soldiers, outraged at the slaughter of those defenseless boys,
cries that it’s “expressly against the law of arms” and “an errant piece of knavery.” But no one
(including Henry) evinces any regret or remorse at having brought the boys along on the
campaign and thus placing their lives at risk.
Shakespeare’s play also provokes ethical reflection on the proper treatment of prisoners
of war. In the midst of the battle of Agincourt (4.6), Henry’s army was well on its way to
11
defeating a much larger French army. But he didn’t yet know that, and fearing at one point that
French forces were regrouping for a counterattack, he ordered his men to kill their prisoners. In
the play that line usually goes by so quickly that readers or viewers might completely miss its
import. But Gary Taylor in his scholarly edition of the play claims that Shakespeare’s original
text gave an explicit stage direction, “The soldiers kill their prisoners,” which when performed
by the actors would have a much more powerful effect on audiences than simply hearing Henry’s
order by itself.19 (Unfortunately, Kenneth Branagh and Lawrence Olivier completely excised
that scene from their films of the play, perhaps because it would undermine their otherwise
consistent portrayal of Henry as a noble hero.)
Today the international law of war explicitly prohibits the killing of prisoners:
It is especially forbidden to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or
having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion…. A commander may not
put his prisoners to death because their presence retards his movements or diminishes his
power of resistance by necessitating a large guard, or by reason of their consuming supplies,
or because it appears certain that they will regain their liberty through the impending success
of their forces. It is likewise unlawful for a commander to kill his prisoners on grounds of
self-preservation, even in the case of airborne or commando operations, although the
circumstances of the operation may make necessary rigorous supervision of and restraint
upon the movement of prisoners of war.20
But we might imagine ourselves in a situation similar to that of Henry V, commanding
soldiers in the face of a much larger force. In spite of the strict legal regulations just cited, would
it really be unethical to order that no quarter be given or that prisoners be killed, if we thought
that our own soldiers were at risk of annihilation and we couldn’t spare any of them to guard
prisoners?21 Granted that killing surrendered and disarmed soldiers is a horrific thing, bordering
on murder, is it really fair to prohibit their captors from doing so in the heat of battle, if they have
reason to fear that they themselves will otherwise be killed? These are questions that I pose to
my students in wrestling with the implications of the play.
12
Appendix: Lesson Plans
I typically reserve three one-hour class sessions for Henry V during a 10-week
undergraduate Ethics and Warfare course. A similar approach might be used in a high school
Advanced Placement course:
Session 1: I recommend to my students as background reading pages v-xli, 147-149 and
153-154 of Roma Gill’s edition of the play, which contains useful information on the real Henry
V’s family tree (important regarding just cause and legitimate authority), and brief introductions
to each scene. In class, I show brief excerpts from two film versions of the play: Henry’s initial
deliberations in 1.2, his ultimatum to Harfleur in 4.1, and his pep-talk to his soldiers prior to the
battle of Agincourt, all from Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 film; and Henry’s conversations with his
soldiers on the eve of that battle, from a 1980 film version of the play by the BBC.
Session 2: Discuss the play’s Prologue and most of Acts 1-3. (The following sections
are recommended but not required: 2.1, 2.3, 3.3, 3.5, 3.8.)
Session 3: Discuss Act 4. (4.8 and Act 5 are recommended but not required.)
At the end of session one, I provide my students with the following questions to guide
their reading of the play and our discussions of it during sessions 2 and 3:
1) King Henry V came to believe that he had just cause to go to war against France.
What reasons he would give in support of that belief?
2) Francisco de Vitoria wrote that when a head of state is deliberating as to whether there
is just cause to go to war, “One must consult reliable and wise men who can speak with freedom
and without anger or hate or greed.” Also, “if he is in doubt about his rightful title [to a
particular region, e.g.] he must carefully examine the case and listen peacefully to the reasons of
13
the other side, to see if a clear decision can be reached in favor of himself or the other party.” By
those standards, how would you judge King Henry’s deliberations?
3) Consider the following matters of “proportionality”:
a) Were his objectives and motives weighty enough to justify war?
b) Before deciding to go to war against France, did Henry adequately recognize and
accept responsibility for the death and suffering that would probably result?
c) Did he wage war only as a last resort?
4) In 4.1, what do soldiers Bates and Williams have to say about obedience to the king,
and the implications if the king’s reasons for going to war are unjust?
5) Is Henry’s response to their concerns adequate?
6) In 3.4, examine Henry’s chilling ultimatum to Harfleur:
a) Do you think that Henry would have been unable, as he claimed, to stop his men
from committing the atrocities he warned about?
b) Was it fair for him to blame the leaders of Harfleur for those atrocities if they
refused to surrender?
c) How would you interpret his ultimatum in light of his subsequent order to Exeter to
“use mercy to them all”? Was the ultimatum merely a bluff? If so, do you think it was ethical
for him to use that to try to end the siege?
7) Consider Henry’s orders and threats to kill captured French soldiers in 4.6-4.7. Under
the circumstances, do you think that they were justified?
8) If you were in command of an army that was greatly outnumbered and about to be
overrun, would it be ethical for you to order your soldiers to give no quarter (i.e., to kill every
enemy soldier whom they disable or capture)?
14
9) In 4.7, Llewellyn condemns the French slaughter of the boys who had been guarding
the English supplies as “expressly against the law of arms” and an “arrant piece of knavery.”
But do you think that the English also bear some responsibility for bringing boys that close to a
battle?
10) What do you think we can learn from Henry V about ethical issues in modern war?
For example: In what ways are contemporary political/military leaders similar to and different
from the character of Henry? In what respects might people today be tempted to make some of
the same moral mistakes that Henry made, either in their decisions to go to war, or in the
strategies, tactics and weapons that they use in war?
Biography
David L. Perry is Professor of Ethics at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
He teaches courses on ethics and warfare, strategic leadership, and U.S. defense policies,
planning, organizations and processes. He also edits and writes materials for a web-based
educational module on Just-War Theory, and is an author of core-course lessons on ethical
reasoning, the military profession, military ethics, and critical thinking. He earned a Ph.D. in
ethics at the University of Chicago Divinity School. His numerous publications include articles
on ethics and war in comparative religious perspective, and diverse ethical issues in espionage,
covert action, medicine, and business. None of the views expressed in his article should be
construed necessarily to reflect the official position or policy of the U.S. Army or any other
federal government entity.
15
Notes
1 Previous versions of this essay were presented at the National Character and Leadership Symposium, U.S. Air
Force Academy, 21 February 2002, and the International Studies Association, Portland, OR, 28 February 2003.
2 Ross (1930; 2003) argued that there is a cluster of prima facie moral duties, none of which is absolute, but all of
which are binding on rational persons across cultures. Childress (1980) applied Ross’s theory to the just-war
tradition.
3 Shakespeare (2001) is an inexpensive version suitable for classroom use. But Shakespeare (1998) is indispensable
for professors, due to the depth of editor Gary Taylor’s scholarly annotations.
4 Saccio (2000: 75-79); Meron (1993: ch. 3).
5 Mattox (2000: 32-34).
6 Meron (1993: 10-11).
7 Vitoria (1991: 307, 310).
8 Mattox (2000: 35-36) unfortunately ignores that ominous line in assessing whether Henry satisfies the criterion of
right intention.
9 On this point I differ from Mattox (2000: 34-35).
10 Saccio (2000: 80).
11 Saccio (2000: 72-75).
12 On the need for medieval Christian soldiers to perform penance for killing enemy soldiers, even in a just war, see
Verkamp (1993: chs. 1-2).
13 Meron (1993: ch. 7).
14 Meron (1993: ch. 6).
15 Meron (1993: 91-93).
16 An abridged version of this speech was delivered with chilling effect by the actor Kenneth Branagh in his 1989
film of the play.
17 I don’t believe that a close reading of the play supports Mattox’s claim (2000: 49) that Shakespeare sought to
portray Henry V as a consistently just warrior.
18 Meron (1993: ch. 6).
19 Shakespeare (1998: 243).
20 U.S. Army (1976: 2.29 and 3.85).
21 Keegan (1978: 108-112) connects that specific rationale with the killing of French pris oners at the actual battle of
Agincourt.
References
Keegan, J. (1978). The Face of Battle (New York: Penguin Books).
Mattox, J. (2000). “Henry V: Shakespeare’s just warrior.” War, Literature & the Arts 12/1, pp. 30-53.
Meron, T. (1993). Henry’s Wars and Shakespeare’s Laws: Perspectives on the Law of War in the Later Middle
Ages (New York: Oxford University Press).
Ross, W. (1930; 2003). The Right and the Good (New York: Oxford University Press).
Saccio, P. (2000). Shakespeare’s English Kings (New York: Oxford University Press).
Shakespeare, W. (2001). Henry V. Ed. by R. Gill (New York: Oxford University Press).
________ (1998). Ed. by G. Taylor (New York: Oxford University Press).
U.S. Army (1976). Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare.
Verkamp, B. (1993). The Moral Treatment of Returning Warriors in Early Medieval and Modern Times (Scranton,
PA: University of Scranton Press).
Vitoria, F. (1991). On the Law of War (1539). In A. Pagden and J. Lawrence, eds. Francisco de Vitoria: Political
Writings (New York: Cambridge University Press).

War In History

January 4, 2008

War in History from Oxford 5
Modern Britain
and Ireland
4 War in History from Oxford
Modern Britain
and Ireland
JOINT WINNER OF THE WOMEN’S
HISTORY NETWORK BOOK PRIZE, 2005
Boys in Khaki, Girls in Print
Women’s Literary Responses to the
Great War 1914-1918
Jane Potter, Oxford Brookes University
Oxford English Monographs
2005 I 272 pages I Clarendon Press
0-19-927986-1 978-0-19-927986-9 I Hardback I £50.00/$99.00
Spies in Uniform
British Military and Naval
Intelligence on the Eve of the First
World War
Matthew S. Seligmann, University of
Northampton
‘Spies in Uniform is an excellent work of
scholarship that is of particular value
for intelligence specialists but also of
more general importance for its
rejection of the revisionist case that
the decision for war in 1914 was
mistaken and based on a spurious
German threat.’ History
2006 I 286 pages
0-19-926150-4 I 978-0-19-926150-5 I Hardback I £55.00/$99.00
Steady The Buffs!
A Regiment, a Region, and the
Great War
Mark Connelly, University of Kent
A reinvention of the traditional
regimental history examining the role
of a famous Kentish regiment, the Buffs,
in the Great War.
2006 I 296 pages
0-19-927860-1 I 978-0-19-927860-2 I Hardback I £55.00/$99.00
The I.R.A. at War
1916-1923
Peter Hart, Memorial University of
Newfoundland
2005 I 296 pages
0-19-927786-9 I 978-0-19-927786-5 I Paperback I £17.00/$27.50
Churchill
The Unexpected Hero
Paul Addison, University of Edinburgh
‘…this volume is ideal as a very short
introduction to a very big man.’
The English Historical Review
2006 I 320 pages
0-19-929743-6 I 978-0-19-929743-6 I Paperback I £8.99
The Politics of the Irish
Civil War
Bill Kissane, London School of Economics
‘an important contribution to the
literature of the Irish Civil War. […]
the author’s emphasis on the way in
which antecedent historical forces
contributed to the outbreak of the
Civil War is both novel and
valuable.’ Garret FitzGerald, The Irish Times
2005 I 276 pages
0-19-927355-3 I 978-0-19-927355-3 I Hardback I £45.00/$85.00
The Orange Order
A Contemporary Northern Irish
History
Eric P. Kaufmann, Birkbeck College, University
of London
The first systematic social history of
the Orange Order. Based on
unprecedented access to the Order’s
archives, the book charts the Order’s
path from the peak of its influence, in
the early 1960s, to its present crisis.
April 2007 I 386 pages
0-19-920848-4 I 978-0-19-920848-7 I Hardback I £30.00/$45.00
Advancing with the Army
Medicine, the Professions and Social Mobility in the British Isles 1790-1850
Marcus Ackroyd, Laurence Brockliss, Magdalen College, Oxford, Michael Moss, University of Glasgow,
Kate Retford, University of London, and John Stevenson, Worcester College, Oxford
A detailed biographical study of the members of the army medical service during
the Revolution and Napoleonic wars that charts their background and life both in
and outside the army.
2006 I 432 pages
0-19-926706-5 I 978-0-19-926706-4 I Hardback I £65.00/$120.00
War, State, and Society in Mid-Eighteenth-Century
Britain and Ireland
Stephen Conway, University College London
The middle of the eighteenth century was a period of more or less continuous
warfare. This book explores the impact of these wars on Britain and Ireland,
looking at the mobilization of manpower, resources, and money to fight the wars,
and the consequences for the economy, society, politics, religious divisions,
national consciousness, and attitudes to empire.
2006 I 368 pages
0-19-925375-7 I 978-0-19-925375-3 I Hardback I £55.00/$99.00
Naval Engagements
Patriotism, Cultural Politics, and the Royal Navy 1793-1815
Timothy Jenks, East Carolina University
Timothy Jenks reveals the ways in which eighteenth-century battles and the
heroes who fought them were deployed in British politics.
2006 I 352 pages
0-19-929771-1 I 978-0-19-929771-9 I Hardback I £55.00/$99.00
Nelson’s Surgeon
William Beatty, Naval Medicine, and the Battle of Trafalgar
Laurence Brockliss, Magdalen College, Oxford, John Cardwell, and Michael Moss,
University of Glasgow
2005 I 236 pages
0-19-928742-2 I 978-0-19-928742-0 I Hardback I £45.00/$90.00
WINNER OF THE TEMPLER MEDAL BOOK PRIZE 2005
Military Identities
The Regimental System, the British Army, and
the British People c.1870-2000
David French, University College London
‘an exemplary study of the British Army in the
Second World War… his book is meticulously
scholarly’ Max Hastings, The Sunday Telegraph
The regimental system has been the foundation of the British army for
three hundred years. This iconoclastic study shows how it was refashioned
in the late nineteenth century, and how it was subsequently and repeatedly
reinvented to suit the changing roles that were forced upon the army.
2005 I 414 pages
0-19-925803-1 I 978-0-19-925803-1 I Hardback I £47.00/$74.00
Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson
A Political Soldier
Keith Jeffery, Queen’s University, Belfast
‘An admirable biography which does justice to
its subject without glossing over his faults and
limitations…impressive’ TLS
Henry Wilson was the only British field marshal ever to die in action, killed
on his own doorstep in 1922 by two IRA men (one of whom had a wooden
leg). Wilson was a flamboyant, maverick Irishman, at the centre of affairs
during the First World War years and after, recording everything in his
wildly indiscreet diary. Using a wide range of official and private sources, this
is the first modern biography of this controversial and misunderstood figure.
2006 I 344 pages
0-19-820358-6 I 978-0-19-820358-2 I Hardback I £35.00/$65.00
New in
Paperback
New in
Paperback
Order online at: http://www.oup.com Order online at: http://www.oup.com

Hello world!

January 4, 2008

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!