"Interesting Info to share on WotR" Topic

I came across these maps and a list of people that I thought I'd share. There are other interesting things on the site as well.

link

link

Interesting, though the WotR was not really about holding territory but rather about who should be King. The only thing that who holds what relates to is the ability of a magnate to raise troops.

Yes. That is how it's helpful.

Good sites, Deucey. Thanks.

@MajorB:
While the "Man who should be king" element has been much looked-at by most scholars I should point out that the in-fighting between Nevilles and Percys started in 1454 (the year BEFORE St Alban's 1) and was as much about greed, money, inheritance of land and titles as anything else.
In my upcoming book (England's Livery Wars – not finished yet) I make the point that nearly every lord on one side of the York/Lancaster divide had a property or inheritance beef with someone on the other side many years BEFORE 1455.
Henry VI changed hands several times and could have been killed by the three Richards (York, Salisbury, Warwick) in 1455 but was not. He was put back on the throne. He was also well treated after Northampton and even had Yorkist bodyguards protecting him at St Albans 2 when he was freed by his wife Queen Margaret. The Yorkist bodyguards were executed on the orders of his son, young Edward Prince of Wales.
Henry was not imprisoned and deprived of the throne until 1464 and was not killed until 1471. This partly implies that he was not seen as the real problem in the beginning – indeed Richard of York was happy to let Henry rule and would only have taken over the throne after Henry's death, disinheriting Edward Prince of Wales.
Being one of the "king's bad counsellors" may have been nothing more than an excuse to go after men like Somerset with whom the three Richards had real issues.

In my book I compare the situation to Al Capone or Tony Soprano. What we are really dealing with is the medieval Mafia, the 'cosa nostra in chainmail' who were first vying for local or regional dominance and who – only later – decided to replace the 'capo dei capi' as head of 'England Inc'.

Instead of calling out his 'torpedoes' with heaters or Thompsons to go after the other Mafia leader, the English lord called out his boys, his retinue men with bills and bows. Instead of a bullet-proof vest he wore a brigandine or a breast plate. The parallels are glaringly obvious.

It is worth noting that Mallory's epic romantic 'Morte D'Arthur' (death of King Arthur) was written during the WOTR by a suspected felon who wrote about "the good old days" while banged up on charges of rape and extortion. Nice guy! He was looking back to the good old days which probably never existed but nostalgia always has a rosy pink glow to it.

See: link

Barry Slemmings

Certainly petty rivalries over land and property did lead to armed engagment, Britain was also a very litigous society and there are many accounts of noblemen loosing to others over a castle or land. To say Henry was not a real problem is a huge mistake, there are problems from having a fall guy in your power when he was out of his mind or not, but also the unwillingness to murder a king and a relative, hence why Margret Beafort survivied. Therefore it was about which strong man led the country as many who rose up like lancaster met a sticky end, so holding the king being a strong man was all important in these wars but also a prerequisite for a medieval king. Why does Mallory,s writing skills of writing have toi be dragged down into the gutter, these allegations could have been levelled at many nobles as extortion was wide spread, and rape sadly and marraige rape where not looked upon with modern eyes

In my book I compare the situation to Al Capone or Tony Soprano.

Agreed, Barry. It's probably the most accurate analogy for not just the Mediaeval period, but most of history. Though these days they try to kill reputations rather than people.

Most of the time.