|
|
26 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A Decent Summary of a Tough Subject, April 28, 2003
Despite Shakespeare's play Richard III, the Wars of the Roses is one of the tougher subjects in military history to write about. Nevertheless, English scholar Michael Hicks makes a valiant effort to summarize the wars in Osprey Essential Histories volume #54. It is a daunting task. American readers in particular, will find this subject obscure and confusing. Unlike our own Civil War or the English Civil War in the 17th Century, the Wars of the Roses were a series of dynastic struggles where there was little to distinguish the two sides from each other. The opposing Yorkist and Lancastrian factions fought a series of mini-wars over thirty years to determine who would legitimately rule England, but the warring sides were never marked by ideological, geographical, economic or social distinctions. Opposing leaders even switched sides and loyalties seemingly at will, making it difficult to determine who was fighting for whom or what. Frankly, this book is rather difficult to absorb but the author has done his best, and that appears to be enough. The Wars of the Roses 1455-1485 begins with 23 pages of background material to the wars, and then plunges into the main campaign narrative, of 31 pages. The volume includes nine strategic maps of the main campaigns, as well as an excellent bibliography. Throughout this volume, the author is hindered by the paucity of surviving details about these conflicts; as he notes, there are no surviving muster lists from any of the campaigns, which makes it estimation of the size and composition of the opposing armies guesswork. Nor is there are any detailed information on casualties, economic costs and even the locations of the major battles are debatable. Furthermore, the subject is hardly compelling to modern readers. As Professor Hicks notes, the wars had little impact on the English population at large, society or the economy. Unlike the Hundred Years War, there was no "scorched earth" tactics or pillaging by marauding armies to ravage the land and people. Instead, the Wars of the Roses were a series of extremely brief campaigns, fought by less than 1% of the population and affecting primarily the noble classes. Militarily, the Wars of the Roses stands out since at a time when methodical siege warfare was popular, the warring English factions consistently sought to settle their political differences with short maneuver campaigns leading to a decisive battle. Indeed, virtually all of the battles ended in "winner-take-all" circumstances, with the losers forced to disperse and flee or face execution. Nor were there any serious attempts at negotiations between the warring factions, since the long period of political debate that had preceded the conflict had proved so fruitless. However the armies in the Wars of the Roses were second-rate by continental standards, poorly armed and virtually untrained, and the author notes that these wars held no lessons for military theory or practice. The author notes that the Tudors, who were the eventual victors in these wars, learned four main strategic lessons that were taken to heart. These lessons were (1) invasions must be prevented at all costs, (2) keep internal and external foes divided, (3) prevent regular English troops from being used against the regime and (4) prevent domestic dissent from escalating by "a mixture of conciliation, deterrent and propaganda, so that Englishmen learn to regard resistance and rebellion as wrong." Overall, this volume is a tough read, but it gives good insight into how nasty medieval dynastic struggles could become and how protracted struggles evolve over time.
|
by Peter Gaunt
by Richard Bonney
by David Nicolle
by Gregory Fremont-Barnes
by Daniel Marston
See all Editorial Reviews
