So why is this conflict known as “The Wars of the Roses”?
In fifteenth-century England, there was a conflict between two families for the throne of England. This conflict lasted for 32 years, and claimed thousands of lives by the time it was over with. But this conflict carries the strange name of “The Wars of the Roses.” Why do historians call it that? The reason is that the House of York was symbolized by a white rose, while the House of Lancaster was symbolized by a red rose. These were the two families that were battling each other for the throne of England. Technically, they were two rival branches of the same family - namely, the Plantagenets.
The Wars of the Roses were not really about ideas, but about who controlled the throne …
It is important to be clear on this: In contrast to later wars like the “English Civil War,” this was not a war about ideas. Rather, it was just a war about which family would control the throne, both during their lifetimes and beyond. Although I know that thousands perished during the “Wars of the Roses,” I have no information about whether it was bloodier than the later “English Civil War.” But one thing is clear: both wars were civil wars. And something else is clear, too: the “Wars of the Roses” lasted far longer than this later conflict - over two-and-a-half times longer, in fact.
20th-century rendition of “The Battle of Towton” (1461), possibly the largest and bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil
This film makes use of the archeological evidence, including a mass grave from one of the battlefields …
Like other television programs, this documentary needed good visuals to tell the story. As a documentary, this meant that they tried to film the actual battle sites as much as possible (a worthy approach). Thus, there is a certain “archaeological” element in this documentary, which helps its visuals to be more authentic. Until the twenty-first century, the exact location of the Battle of Bosworth Field was not really known for certain. But recent archaeology has placed it about a kilometer west of where previous archaeologists had been placing it. Thus, this is the site that their film uses for their segment on this, and I suppose that their theory about this is as good as any. But regardless of where one places these things, the authentic visuals are one advantage of their “archaeological” approach, and of the television format more generally. Another advantage was their use of recent archaeological research on a mass grave at the battlefield of Towton. This underscored the bloodiness of the actual battles, because they were able to do forensic analysis on the bodies found there. For example, they found a number of “overkill” wounds (particularly to the heads), and evidence of mutilation that may have occurred after death. Thus, to paraphrase this documentary, we do not need to “use our imaginations” to see the bloodiness. X-ray photographs in the local museum give us grim evidence of this conflict's brutality. Of course, one doesn't often see X-ray pictures in films about the Middle Ages, but such is the nature of archaeology – and anthropology more generally. They add a scientific element to this documentary, and free it from the limitations of relying exclusively on written records. (Although these are also used to great effect in this film.)
Hypothesized site for the Bosworth Battlefield, on Fenn Lane Farm
This is a complicated story, which is sometimes difficult to keep track of …
The story that they tell is a complicated one, as it turns out, and there is no avoiding this. It's sometimes difficult to keep track of all of the major players, and the (often shifting) alliances that characterized certain parts of this period. There are multiple “Henry's,” multiple “Richard's,” and multiple “Edward's” in this film; which also made this film somewhat confusing at times. For example, it was sometimes hard for me to keep track of which “Henry” they were talking about. But fortunately, in talking about why the war was fought, they showed the relevant parts of the royal family tree; and thus showed why the succession was disputed in this violent way. Such things might seem unimportant to a modern audience, but they were of vital importance to the people involved, because they help to explain why so many of them spilled their blood (and that of others). Another complicated aspect of this conflict is the intervals of peace between the different wars, with an “on again, off again” pattern throughout the conflict. What people wanted most at this time was a permanent and lasting peace, and they sided with anyone who seemed willing (and able) to offer it to them. Since this was not really a war about ideas (as mentioned earlier), few of them cared much about who would eventually control the throne. In their minds, one monarch was more or less as bad as another, and not worth fighting for without some prospect of rewards – namely, the payments to the soldiers.
White Rose of York, the symbol of the Yorkist side in this war (the “House of York”)
Red Rose of Lancaster, the symbol of the Lancastrian side in this war (the “House of Lancaster”)
Comments on how they dramatize this conflict, and on their storytelling style
They also make use of period paintings of the people involved, and show some of the actual places where these things happened – even when these places look very different than they did at this time. Their filming of historical sites in London is particularly vulnerable to this, as you might expect, because there are so many modern anachronisms like cars and paved roads, which obviously do not belong in the period. But in discussing the battles themselves, they use re-enactments which (despite the obvious limitations of their budgets) are actually quite helpful; and show the hellish nature of this medieval warfare. Their talking heads are quite helpful as well, including those who dress in period armor to demonstrate to us what the warfare of the time was like. This brings these battles to life, and probably in ways that words alone could not do. They also mention how battles typically started with ranged arrow and cannon attacks, but then moved on to closer quarters as they fought each other with swords. Sword-fighting is more “up close and personal,” as you might expect, and thus makes for more dramatic re-enactments than the firing of projectiles (although this is fairly dramatic, too). Even the politics leading up to these battles make for great television, and help you to understand why all of these things happened as they did.
Plucking the Red and White Roses in the Old Temple Gardens – 1910 fresco painting, dramatizing a relevant scene from Shakespeare's “Henry VI, Part 1” where people choose sides in this conflict
Comments on the wars themselves
As mentioned earlier, the war was fought between the House of York and the House of Lancaster. There was an initial Yorkist victory in certain parts of the war, but an eventual Lancastrian victory at the end. Ironically, the two sides later reconciled when the Lancastrian king from the one house married a Yorkist lady from the other. This was a smart political marriage, and one that helped to ease the tensions between the two sides at the end of the wars. As with other parts of the Middle Ages, the royal marriages of this time were not really about love, but were done to bring rival groups together (and thus end the wars between them). With other wars, the “rival groups” were usually warring nations; but in the case of a civil war like the Wars of the Roses, these groups were internal factions within England itself. This film also has much intrigue and political backstabbing, as well as brutal treatment of those on the opposing sides who were trying to surrender. Thus, when one watches a film like this, one sometimes wonders why so many people romanticize the medieval period. In many ways, the Middle Ages seem to me a barbaric period; whose code of honor is hard for modern people to understand. But I'll agree with the medieval romantics about one thing: this period is extremely interesting.
King Edward the Fourth of England, the first Yorkist king of England
Conclusion: This film belongs on the shelf of true military history buffs
This film belongs on the shelf of true military history buffs, who are likely to find much of interest in this film, if they decide to watch it. I imagine many of them couldn't get past the strange name of this conflict, but the subtitle of “A Bloody Crown” helps to clarify what this documentary is really about. In some ways, it is the bloodiest crown that any English monarch has ever held, as this documentary makes clear in its two hours. It's a story about kings and princes, wars and battles, and blood and carnage. But it's also about the political history of England, and the very human story of the English monarchy, in one of its most turbulent periods. It's a “politics and the military” kind of story with a very human feel; and is all the more fascinating because it really happened.
DVD at Amazon
Disclosure: I am an Amazon affiliate marketer, and can sometimes make money when you buy the product using the link(s) above.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
When King John signed the Magna Carta, it was like signing a surrender document ...
A review of “The Dark Ages” (History Channel)
A review of “The Plague” (History Channel)
A review of “The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross” (History Channel)
A review of Robert Bartlett’s “The Plantagenets” (BBC)
A review of “Cromwell” (about the English Civil War)
Part of a series about
British history
Wars of the Roses
Part of a series about
British military history
Korean War 1950-1953
Other wars to be covered later
Other wars to be covered later
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment