Covering a period which starts with the Hundred Years War already in full swing, contains the start of the Wars of the Roses and ends with last English king to die in battle the level of participation of the aristocracy and the roles which they fulfilled is a natural continuation of the topic, especially given how kings can be lauded or vilified for their participation or non-participation in military matters but it was the nobility who functioned as military commanders or otherwise notable figures in the battles who had much greater military command, often give entirely to their discretion. Whether the role changed drastically during the hundred and fifty year period is debatable, as it what would constitute a drastic change and how it …show more content…
There were fewer high level aristocrats who went along with the Black Prince’s chevauchee’s in France during the early 1350’s and more Knights of the Garter, which was an honour often bestowed on those who came from minor nobility but who rode with the Black Prince.
However the first expedition in the period involved the Earls of Warwick, Oxford and Stafford as well as a number of knights and each of the three earls was placed in charge of a battalion and, rather than fighting any French they instead sacked the town of Languedoc. The next was 1359-60 where far more nobles, the Earls of Northampton, Warwick, Oxford, Suffolk and the Duke of Lancaster although all bar the Earl of Suffolk were dead by 1361. The amount of higher aristocracy
The Battle of Agincourt had the Dukes of Gloucester and York present who were given command of sectors which suggests a continuing role for the aristocracy in battles. K.B McFarlane talks about ‘professional military contractors’ meaning the upper aristocracy with earls being the most numerous military leaders and, although he admits that the course of war allowed the odd man from the gentry to distinguish himself it was
“upon the King’s return from oxford there appeared nothing, but dejection of mind , discontent, and secret mutiny in the army.” (a historian from the 1800s described the King’s army).
The War of the Roses was a crucial and significant period in the England’s history playing an important role in it. There were many factors which can be seen as the causes of the war. However, it is vital to clarify to what extent its outbreak was caused by Henry’s inadequacies.
During the time period of the late sixteenth century to the late eighteenth century the concept of what nobility is and what it was conceived to be varied greatly as more modern thoughts developed and desperation of monarchs grew to meet such demand. The arguments related to nobility differed greatly, but these were the most crucial; the difference between the sword and the robe and the right to even hold such a position at all.
It is largely acknowledged by historians that, while it is difficult to be definitive in the meaning of chivalry-with Maurice Keen believing it to be a ‘word elusive of definition’- it came to denote the culture of a martial estate which ‘regarded war as its hereditary profession’. Thus, it could be considered that the violence of war had large implications on what people began to perceive to be chivalry. Additionally, the focus on violence- such as the participating in tournaments and jousts- further emphasises the close link between carrying out violent acts and the idea that a knight was being chivalrous.
The fact that it is a hierarchy, with one allegiance after the next, means that everyone in the end is loyal to the King. And indeed, a Knight's (the mounted riders that composed the nobility, and that were the mainstay of the army) first allegiance was to his King, and then his Lord. His family came last. Because everyone was loyal to the one above him, and he was the top, everyone was loyal to him. Therefore, even though he himself didn't really own much land anymore, he still had the loyalty of all of the army.
Traditional: royals were extremely wealthy with military but local nobles challenged their rules as in the French parlements and the English house of Lords
8. Why did Europe’s warrior nobility become so powerful during the 9th and 10th centuries? What were the main roles of vassals, manors, lords, and serfs?
From his fifteen year minority to the inept rule of the rest of his reign, Henry VI was a "child", at least as far as governing ability was concerned. The period of his minority and the time that he was the titular king laid the groundwork for the Wars of the Roses. Had Henry been an intelligent king, with at least some political acumen, and the ability to win the respect of his nobles, their may have never been any Wars of the Roses. But his weakness in allowing government by favorites and governing foolishly on his own, at the very least directed his country down the road to a bloody civil war.
The Nobles or Lords were the upper and middle class. These were the people who owned the land and were the rulers. It was their responsibility to insure that the peasants and churchmen were protected so that they could live in peace and act as judges to handle domestic disputes. The serfs, peasants, and Yeomen kept the economy going with hard work. Church would now begin to play a huge role during this time. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/615557/United-Kingdom/44830/England-in-the-15th-century
The lords confused the ruling class bound to a fight militarized way of life includes appetite for bloodshed but an appreciation for music and poetry and dancing and drinking and love making (1, pages 108)
decline of the power of the nobles, which had a severe impact on the loyalty of
The social classes had many varying roles which were important to the different classes and their functions in society. Queen Elizabeth was at the top of the social pyramid (“The Social Structure in Elizabethan England”). Being the head of the country, the Queen was the most respected person in England. She had full control and governed everyone. Following the Queen, came the higher middle classes such as the nobility. The nobility were the fighters and knights, which many had died in the War of the Roses. The Queen saw this class as a threat and
The nobility of the Kingdom of France has been evaluated by various scholars of history. There is something to be said, however, for those who chronicled their impressions while living them in the 17th and 18th centuries. The excerpts of Charles Loyseau’s A Treatise on Orders, written in 1610, and Isabelle de Charriere’s The Nobleman, written in 1763 provide two very different glimpses on the French nobility from differing time periods. From these two accounts, it is clear that there was a marked shift in the way some viewed the nobility and their role in the operation of the French state. While Loyseau praises the nobility nearly wholeheartedly,
Auxiliaries are just as unreliable and dangerous as the mercenaries, but they are loaned to a ruler from others. The most desirable troops are the natives, the citizens and subjects. Mixed troops are less desirable than fully native troops because they are a mixture of natives and mercenaries or auxiliaries. These descriptions are accompanied by examples to help the reader better understand the roles different types of troops served and how effective each type was for the rulers mentioned.
“The Siege of La Rochelle was one of the great political events of the reign of Louis XIII, and one of the great military enterprises of the Cardinal” (Dumas, 420). This was a battle or more of a war between France and England. The Ruler of the English military was Duke of Buckingham, who ruled England the same way that the Cardinal ruled France, and military strategist of