Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Military summons

Your conclusion tends to suggest that educational material is institutionally biased against us. Is this the case?
----- Original Message -----
From: brunhild613
To:
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Military summons



>
> ***
>
> Here's a more detailed answer from pp. 220-223 of
> Military obligation in medieval England:
>
> Writs of array, as has been noted, did not, in the
> main, depart far from the rules laid down in the first
> decade of the century ... (p. 220)
>
> Late in 1469 the dukes of Suffolk and Norfolk, along
> with Earl Rivers, were to array all lieges and
> subjects in Suffolk and Norfolk according to 'gradus,'
> and to lead them to Edward if called. As the crisis of
> spring 1470 approached, similar arrays (with less
> august arrayers, except for the duke of Gloucester)
> were ordered by Edward in many other counties. The
> rebel arrays were addressed to all 'manere of men',
> and now the death penalty was invoked against the
> recalcitrant. The autumn of 1470 brought similar
> arrays of the whole population, as well as the
> well-known assemblies of fee-holders and 'fellowships'
> of the lords; it is probably to this season that we
> must assign the joint summons by Clarence, Pembroke,
> Warwick, and Oxford of all between sixteen and sixty,
> on pain of death and forfeiture." (p. 221)
>
> "...Warwick raised troops in Warwickshire at first by
> goodwill and later 'upon payne of deathe'. (p. 222)
>
> "...during the Wars of the Roses, there had been a
> marked revival of service frequently at the cost of
> the local communities and, occasionally, under pain of
> death."
>
> This sounds to me like Edward IV did not threaten
> soldiers with "pain of death," but that Warwick did.
>
> Marion
>
>
Thanks Marion, so they were not exceptional. The examination board's
question on this source tended to imply that it was, and when you
discover something you don't know you worry!
Brunhild
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> Your conclusion tends to suggest that educational material is
institutionally biased against us. Is this the case?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: brunhild613
> To:
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 9:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Military summons
>
>
>
Well, not so it would make one leap up and down screaming, but there
is certainly a suggestion at times that Richard was not nice. Having
said that on the same exam was a much nicer source against 2
negative ones. In any case, I make sure - and no doubt so do many
other teachers - that the students get a fairer view of Richard.
(When I say "fairer" read "outrageously pro-Richard"!!!) The
syllabus certainly explores the notion of whether Henry was a great
king who revives good rule, and I have seen negative sources on him
included on the paper. In fact we only cover Richard in order to
understand this about Henry and to evaluate the impact of Bosworth
itself.