{"id":4845,"date":"2018-08-30T07:37:05","date_gmt":"2018-08-30T07:37:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/schoolshistory.org.uk\/topics\/?p=4845"},"modified":"2019-08-08T19:34:59","modified_gmt":"2019-08-08T19:34:59","slug":"hicks-on-the-causes-of-the-wars-from-a-review-by-professor-j-watts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/schoolshistory.org.uk\/topics\/hicks-on-the-causes-of-the-wars-from-a-review-by-professor-j-watts\/","title":{"rendered":"Hicks on the causes of the Wars (From a Review by Professor J Watts)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Michael Hicks’ work on the Wars of the Roses<\/a> is one of the best known recent interpretations of the conflict. Hicks is known for having a different approach to the wars than many other historians. He looks at the causes from different perspectives, using several analytical frameworks to explain the causes and ending of the wars. Whereas most historians would define the struggles in three phases ending in 1487, Hicks extends this to 1525. The source below is from a review of Hicks’ 2010 book on the Wars of the Roses. It was written by Professor John Watts and published in Reviews in History.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Let us turn to Hicks\u2019s attempt to \u2018make sense of it all\u2019 (p. xi). At its centre is a claim that the interaction of four factors underlay the Wars. These were: the weakness of the crown (essentially a financial weakness); the participation of the common people in politics; the intervention of foreign powers; and the sense on the part of the nobility that it was legitimate to try to overthrow the king. In fact, there are other problems behind these. One, given emphasis throughout, is the varied set of economic problems that set in around 1440 and lasted perhaps into the 1470s, which Hicks, following John Hatcher, but adding capitals and italics, calls the \u2018Great Slump<\/em>\u2019.(1)<\/a>\u00a0These problems \u2013 a credit crisis, a drastic fall in overseas trade, and a collapse in agrarian revenues, rents, wages and prices \u2013 are treated as major causes of the first two factors: the crown\u2019s revenues from customs were directly affected, and \u2013 since impoverishment affected taxpayers of all classes \u2013 it faced a harder task in eliciting grants of direct taxation from Parliament; equally, it is argued that economic problems underlay much of the popular ferment of this period, helping to cause the revolt of 1450 and the reservoir of popular disaffection on which figures like Richard of York and Warwick the Kingmaker eagerly drew. Another problem, merging into but also influencing the willingness of the nobility to push the boundaries of their obedience, was the dynastic division \u2013 not, for Hicks, a real factor before 1460, but thereafter an easy and persistent means of challenging the authority of the ruling king. These four (or six) factors are the main causes of the Wars, and their departure from the scene, at various points during the period 1485\u20131525 (or later), explains the ending of the conflict.<\/p>\n

Dr John Watts, review of\u00a0The Wars of the Roses<\/em>, (review no. 1218)
\nhttps:\/\/www.history.ac.uk\/reviews\/review\/1218<\/a>
\nDate accessed: 29 August, 2018<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"Hicks<\/a><\/p>\n

Questions to consider<\/h4>\n