The Battle of Barnet of 1471, an often overlooked battle of the Wars of the Roses, is important both to the history of England and as an example of the effect of fortune or luck on the pages of history. Should probability be measured against the success of the battle, it would have had a drastically different outcome and England would have taken a different path.
The Wars of the Roses began in its military form in 1455 with the battle of St. Albans, though its causes could be drawn to over a half a century earlier.1 The ruling house of Lancaster, headed by King Henry VI, son of the hero/king of Agincourt, met with the house of York, a house with its own claim to the throne, in a series of battles to resolve the hierarchy of England's ruling class. A devastating blow was made to the cause of York in the battle of Wakefield in 1460, when its head, Richard of York was killed. The fight, however, continued with Richard's eighteen year old son, Edward, taking the reins under the supervision of his cousin, Richard Neville.
In 1461, at the battle of Towton, the Yorkist victory ensured Edward's throne and the remaining Lancastrian forces fled to various points throughout Europe. King Henry VI fled to Scotland where he was eventually captured and thrown into the tower of London. It was an unfortunate effect of the Wars that this good and pious man would be continuously mistreated due to his failings as a ruler. Edward IV became the first of the Yorkist kings, though the Wars were far from over. Edward's throne depended on the goodwill of his cousin, Richard, who would be known throughout history as the Kingmaker. A powerful baron and hero to the people, Richard essentially ruled the kingdom for several years before trouble began to brew between the two.2
In 1464, Edward secretly married Elizabeth Woodville, widow of a Lancastrian knight and noted for her beauty. Immediately, she and Edward began to marry her brothers and sisters into noble positions and high rank within the court, and the Neville family began to be pushed aside from the center of politics. To add to this insult to Richard's position, Edward began negotiating secret treaties with Burgundy, while openly supporting Richard's desire of a treaty with France, Burgundy's current enemy. As a final blow, Edward went to Richard's brother, who was lying ill in his house by Westminster barrs, and dismissed him from the Chancellorship, taking from him the Great Seal.3 The rift between them grew and soon Richard was openly defying his King.
In 1469, open defiance turned into open rebellion as Richard raised an army against his sovereign. At the battle of Edgecote, Edward's army was defeated, though Edward himself had taken refuge at Olney. Edward was soon captured by Richard's brother and made prisoner at Warwick Castle. Richard found he could not rule the government, however, without some royal figurehead,4 and he soon released Edward and fled to France.
In 1470, Richard, through the diplomacy of Louis, the king of France, made peace with the Lancastrian cause and resolved to put Henry VI back on the throne. Near the end of that year, he returned to England gathering his allies as he moved throughout the realm and forcing Edward to flee to Burgundy. Henry VI was made figure head once more and Richard returned back to ruling the government all the while knowing that Edward would inevitably return.5
Several individuals were directly significant to the design and outcome of the Battle of Barnet and they should be dealt with to aid in the understanding of the battle. Of primary importance are the two former allies turned adversaries, Edward IV and Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick and Salisbury.
Edward IV is generally considered to be the most successful general of the times having lost no battles, though in actuality, he was involved in only four battles and was not in command in all of them. He was known in his time as one of the most attractive of men, strong and tall, though in later years his overindulgence of food would show upon his appearance. He was very intelligent and not one to be dealt with lightly. He was crafty and strong in battle but known for occasional lapses in judgment and a preference for lavishness over statehood. Nevertheless, history remembers him a highly successful king who created a strong government and economy for the first time in that century.
Richard Neville, Shakespeare's 'proud setter up and puller down of kings'from Henry VI, is often overlooked as a positive force shaping England6 and tends to be dismissed simply as a traitor to the crown. Paul Murray Kendall surmised the reasons for this disdain with the following lines in his preface to Warwick the Kingmaker. He represents a direction that history did not take. He was molded by an age of endings and beginnings, the collapsing reign of Henry VI; and though he helped to create a new monarchy that would rule England until 1688, he soon revolted against his own handiwork.7
Neville was a man who loved business and work and from the moment he really began moving into the political front in 1455, he was scarcely ever to be found in periods of idleness. He was always fulfilling his offices as Captain of Calais or as Admiral of England's navy. When not involved in those pursuits, he might be found defending the north against Scottish uprisings or in France negotiating. While called the last of the barons by some historians, Charles Oman thought it more appropriate to call him the first of the statesmen.8 In his opinion, Neville was not so much a Baron in the traditional sense, as he was a politician. Certainly he had power from his office, but even that would not have allowed him to get to the point which he got to. It was his popularity with both common people and foreign rulers which allowed him his special brand of power.
Beneath these two adversaries were many others inspired by the one cause or the other. Sir William Hastings was the best friend of Edward IV and was staunchly Yorkist throughout his career. A knight in the Arthurian sense, he was "honorable and chivalrous, deeply admired by everyone who knew him."9 He would ultimately be executed by his comrade in the battle of Barnet, Richard of Gloucester.
Richard of Gloucester is one of the more well known individuals of the time for his more dubious role as King Richard III. Little is known about him or many of the circumstances concerning his life, but he was known as a brave soldier and was well trusted if not particularly liked by his brother, Edward.
Edward's other surviving brother in 1471 played a very significant role in the battle, though his actual participation in it was unrecorded save that he made up part of Edward's main force. George of Clarence, brother to Edward and son-in-law to Warwick was known for his ambition and not for his loyalty. Having supported Warwick for several years prior to 1471, he switched sides at this critical point, only to be executed a few years later for another plot against Edward.
John Neville, the Marquess Montague, was brother to Warwick and remained loyal to his brother whichever side Warwick worked with. He was highly involved throughout the Wars whether within the battles or in confronting the Scots in border skirmishes.
John de Vere was the longest surviving commander of Barnet. As the thirteenth earl of Oxford, he fought for the Lancastrian cause with the same loyalty his brother-in-law Hastings showed the Yorkists. His father and brother were executed by Edward in 1462 and Oxford never forgave him, becoming at one point the only major Lancastrian force. He fought against Richard III at Bosworth Field in 1485, and was called by Francis Bacon, Henry VII's "principal servant for both war and peace."10
The primary existing source for the details of the Battle of Barnet is the Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV, in England and the Finall Recouerye of his Kingdomes from Henry VI. A.D.MCCCCLXXI a contemporary reporting by an unknown individual. Most modern historians draw their facts from this work, for while it is partisan toward the Yorkists, it is less so than many and it seems to have been written by an eye witness to the events shortly after they occurred.
On the 11th of March, Edward set sail from Burgundy with a force of three thousand men to regain his kingdom. He headed to the coast of Norfolk sending forth two of his knights, Sir Robert Chamberlain and Sir Gilbert Debenham, ahead to inquire about the possability of safely landing there. They returned to the ship stating that Warwick had sent forth men to arrest supporters of Edward and to gain support of the people against his possible landing.11
On the 14th of March furious storms hit them and separated the ships forcing them to land wherever they could. Edward landed at Humberhead with just his ship "wherein was the Lord Hastings, his Chamberlayne, and other to the number of v{c} [500] well chosen men.12 Gloucester arrived soon landing about 2 miles away and Earl Rivers ended up about 14 miles north. Nevertheless, in a season that was noted for sinking ships and keeping them in port, fortune had shined on Edward, keeping him alive and his army intact.
Their arrival was not well met by the people of the northern cities and villages. They were not allowed to enter Hull, and York only allowed them entrance when Edward assured them that he did not seek the crown, but merely his birthright from his father's death as the Duke of York. He had his men take an oath of loyalty to King Henry VI and after a few days began his trek south.
Warwick, perhaps, relied too much on his brother's abilities at this point. Moving quickly at this point, he would easily have been able to crush Edward's small force, but he remained in London.
Montague, on the other hand, found himself lacking the ability to do much. The Earl of Northumberland was sympathetic to the Yorkist cause and would not raise a hand against Edward's armies, and his popularity with the people undermined Montague's ability to raise any substantial force.13
Meanwhile, secret letters were traveling between Edward and his brother, the Duke of Clarence. Clarence, for reasons that can only be speculated about, had turned his loyalties from his father-in-law to his brother. It seems likely it was his fear that he would be further from the crown under Henry VI than he was under Edward IV. If Edward died without an heir then Clarence would become king; however, should Henry die he had an heir already and it would only be if Edward, Prince of Wales, died without an heir that Clarence would be potentially back in the picture. Within the following decade, though, Clarence would be ordered executed by Edward for continued insurrections. It is impossible to know what the effect to him would have been had he remained loyal to Warwick, but it is known with certainty that his switching sides was not conducive to his lifespan.
Edward continued his journey toward London, and Warwick, thinking that London could hold on its own, moved out into the smaller towns around drumming up support for his cause. As Edward neared the city, Warwick's brother the Archbishop brought Henry out amongst the Londoners to rally them against Edward. Unfortunately for the Lancastrian cause, Henry was never one to inspire people, and his appearance in his shabby blue gown and his sad tired eyes had quite the reverse effect. The Archbishop, seeing Henry's pitiful effect on people, also began to think about joining once more with Edward.14 As Edward arrived at the city gates, the leaders of London were in session already discussing the matter. Soon the "aldermen, such that hade reule of the cyte, commaundede alle the peple...to goo home to dynere: and in dyner tyme Kynge Edwarde was late in, and so went forthe to the Bisshoppes of Londone palece, and ther toke Kynge Herry and the Archebisschoppe of Yorke, and put theme in warde," according to Warkworth's Chronicle.15
Warwick, meanwhile, was waiting for Clarence to join him as several letters had asked him to do. Clarence, however, met with King Edward in London, and Warwick had lost precious time in waiting for him. For a short time, Edward and Warwick moved around one another throughout the suburbs of London. Each side moved out on Saturday, the thirteenth of April, and late that night moved into position outside of Barnet. The battle was almost inevitable long before this point. Warwick and Edward simply could no longer try to rule around the other. Furthermore, being the first battle of Warwick's power it would be decisive to the Wars. Whichever side won would be seen as the side with the most power, and resistance to them would undoubtedly begin to fade away.
It was late and nearly pitch black when Edward brought his army into place opposite Warwick, according to the Arrivall. Consequently, his army was far closer to Warwick's than either one of them suspected or would have been placed could they have seen. Furthermore, the two columns were misaligned with the right hand side of each, commanded by Oxford and Gloucester respectively, overextending the other's left hand sides. Throughout the night, Warwick let his cannons fire continuously, though with the unknown closeness of the lines his shots went over the heads of Edward's army and caused no damage. Alison Weir attributes this to the mismatched lines,16 but most historians, including the Arrivall, consider it to be the nearness of the two armies.17 Once again, pure chance kept Edward's army from being shattered. In one of the few remaining tactical moves of the battle, Edward ordered his guns not to return fire. Warwick had a far superior artillery, and in not returning the fire, Edward kept his army hidden. Between four and five o'clock the next morning, Edward attacked. It was meant to be a surprise attack, but it was likely that Warwick was expecting it. Both sides had slept in their armor that night. With that morning attack, fortune stepped in one more time with a thick fog which covered the field and made it no easier to see than it had been that night. While not readily apparent, this fog would prove crucial to the Yorkist victory. As the armies joined the mismatched lines had their affect. As Gloucester moved forward he swarmed over Exeter, and Warwick moved in his reserves, himself included, to keep the hard pressed line together. On the other side, Oxford had a far greater effect. As he crashed through Hastings' forces, they broke and ran. Oxford's men chased them as far as Barnet, though many of Hastings' men didn't stop running until they reached London, carrying with them news that Edward's cause was finished and the Lancastrians had one the day.18
The fog, however, had protected the Yorkists well, for only those men immediately next to Hastings' had seen them break and run. Consequently, it had no affect on morale and they fought as hard as ever. The fog would play one more move before it was done, though. As Oxford's men returned and regrouped, some time had passed and the lines, again due to their mismatching, had shifted around at a ninety degree angle. Oxford and his men moved to a point which had been the rear of Edward's army, but it was, at this point the right hand side of Montague's forces. With the fog, Oxford's emblem of a star with streaming beams of light looked very much like the Yorkist badge of the Sun with streaming beams of light and it had devastating results.19 Montague's forces, thinking they were being flanked by Edward, loosed their arrows at the newcomers.20 In this war of frequently changing sides, this case of mistaken identity was enough. Oxford believed that Montague had joined with Edward, and so he led his troops from the field with cries of "traitor!"21
Unlike the unseen rout of Hastings, the news of this event traveled quickly throughout the Lancastrian line with destructive effects. After about five hours of fighting, the battle was over and the Yorkists were victorious. Montague and Warwick were dead, and Essex was soon captured. Oxford had fled to Scotland and would be little more than a nuisance until the Tudor invasion and the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. There would be one more battle the following month in Tewkesbury, but that would conclude the wars for Edward's reign.
The Battle of Barnet and later at Teweksbury brought about a new stage in English history; the beginning of the modern age. Many historians mark the Battle of Bosworth as the beginning of the modern age in England,22 and yet Henry VII merely inherited his form of government. In coming to power, he made no major changes to policy. He was simply a new ruler of a government that had been built twenty years before by Warwick and Edward IV. The two had built a central monarchy that was no longer heavily influenced by the barony. They had created "a new monarchy that would rule England until 1688."23 With the conclusions of the Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury, Edward was able to take advantage of the new centralized monarchy with no major threats to his power. His government and country enjoyed a prosperity and security unseen since well before the Hundred Years War. Truly this signified the beginning of the modern age and yet it resulted almost entirely on chance and fortune. "Generalship," as Ross puts it, "had little to do with the outcome."24 Edward could easily been destroyed in the storm while heading north to reclaim his kingdom. The weather had kept a large force of the Lancastrians in France (they later fought at Tewkesbury), and it could easily have had a similar effect on Edward. 25 Moreover, it is unlikely that he could have defeated the combined forces of those fighting against him at Barnet and Tewkesbury which certainly would have been the case if he had waited. He might, too, have been destroyed had Clarence remained loyal to Warwick; certainly a matter of fortune considering what ultimately happened to Clarence. Had the darkness not made the two armies unaware of one another's positions on April thirteenth, Warwick's cannons would certainly have decimated him. Had the fog not masked Hastings' defeat and Oxford's return; that too might easily have proved fatal to Edward. Yet, fortune played its part and Edward was victorious. England's government was decided for the next two hundred years.
Notes
Return to the Battles Page