![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mousetrapplingThis isn't a review, just a small collection of thoughts on the book as a whole followed by a dump of my notes from when I was reading it (which gets long).
"Shaping the Nation: England 1360-1461" Gerald Harriss is part of The New Oxford History of England series, and is I think aimed at actual historians (or at least at undergraduate level). Which is part of why I found it took me a long time to read it (50-ish hours over 9 months) - my last formal education in history was 30 years ago, and I'd dropped the subject before I started my GCSEs. So whilst I have a reasonably good grasp of the story line of English history, I was aware while reading this that I really don't know enough about other aspects of history - like political theory or economic theory. So I read this in "absorb like sponge" mode, rather than with a critical eye as to whether I agreed with it or not.
For a bit of context: This book covers the time from the last years of Edward III through to the early part of the Wars of the Roses. The time of Richard II, the time of Henry V & Agincourt. The Black Death was less than a decade before this book's period of focus, and the mid & long term effects on society are a large part of what's driving the changes in this time period.
Harriss's overall thesis is that while this was once seen as a time of collapse & chaos, it's better seen as a period of transition - from feudalism to capitalism in particular, driven by the new scarcity of labour. But also from war as chivalric seeking for individual glory, to conquest in the service of the nation. In fact the rise of the idea of community with the nation - English-ness becomes important as juxtaposed against the French that are the enemy. And political society continues the evolution from the Magna Carta of the King not being above but being part of the political community. You also see the seeds of the coming Reformation - it may still be half a century away by the end of this book, but the signs of dissatisfaction with the Church are already there.
Read on for my notes section by section as I read, which are of varying quality ;)
Political Society:
Concepts of Governance:
Theories of Authority: a balance between two sorts of power, top down theocratic divinely appointed king and contractual feudalism. By 1300 had developed in England into an unstable form of mixed monarchy. Conversely in France the same tensions had resolved into divine monarchy.
The Literary Model of Governance: lots of books written during this period as advice books to Princes and Kings for how to rule. God might've appointed you but that just meant you needed to make sure you were worthy of that. Shouldn't overspend, should uphold justice, only fight just wars, strive to better the common good, listen to and appoint wise councillors.
The King and Court:
The Court as the King's Domestic Environment: Court was still highly peripatetic although a third of the year was spent at one or another of the great palaces. Westminster declining as a royal residence but still where the admin staff were. Household might be around 400 persons, both the high officials & courtiers and the lower classes who supported the household. Expenses a source of conflict. Theoretically the king should "live of his own", but in practice that wasn't feasible and the king saw maintaining a fine household as part of his imperial dignity so felt public funds should also be allocated.
The Court as a Centre of Patronage and Service: Court was the intersect between the king & the political elite. Lands/titles/annuities could be used to reward loyalty and to create a link that the king could call on. The make up of the court was different under each monarch & could be divisive or lose him general support - i.e. Richard II's favoured courtiers weren't well respected by the rest of the political class. Henrys IV & V paid out a lot of annuities to get themselves military support - IV to gain the throne & keep it, V to wage war in France. Henry VI used the same mechanism more as a mark of (profligate) favour, which didn't help him when he did need it.
The Court as a Religious and Cultural Centre: the Royal Chapel as the spiritual heart of the court. Richard II identifies with Christ the King, whereas Henry IV more anti-clerical but perhaps more personally pious. Henry V as the spiritual leader of his people (and definitely personally pious). Henry VI as having a more priestly piety, looking to save his people not defend them like his father. Material culture important to the court but book only briefly touches on it. Literary culture gets more time - this is era of Chaucer and Gower, at first court writers doing chivalric romances, then later not so welcome in court and writing more about politics or the common man. The Lancastrian kings were more serious patrons, of more serious books and promoted use of English. Also promoted humanism.
Central Government:
The Secretariat: three offices of clerks. First the Chancery, biggest, most formal and based in Westminster. Next the privy seal, originally travelled with the king later in Westminster. Then the signet, effectively the king's private correspondence and most informal. Over this period clerks went from being celibate clerics to married lay people. English develops as language used, particularly after Henry V lands in Normandy. Formal written English called Chancery English develops with a syntax and style based on Latin. Age of great letter writing by the political class including the Paton family.
Law and Justice: Increasingly litigious society, and a time of increasing organisation & formalisation of the legal process. Some (lower) courts now in English, rather than Latin or French, so more accessible. This is the time when Inns of Court and Inns of Chancery start to appear to train the elite of lawyers. But it's a corrupt legal system - judges can be bought, juries intimidated, and even when not overt the wealthy have access to better lawyers and patronage means that judges & juries will be looking to please their lord.
State Finances: Income was from the Crown estates, from customs duties on wool export (and some other things but mostly wool), from direct taxation. The latter had to be granted by Parliament and usually only done so in times of war (or half-tax in time of truce). Income declined in general over the period as wool export dropped (replaced with cloth export but duty wasn't raised on this so it'd be competitive with the Flanders cloth market). Expenditure can be separated as domestic & defense, and in times of peace with a non-extravagant king it was mostly within income. War was expensive, and an extravagant king could also strain finances. No real attempts to budget at first, the invoices arrived at the Exchequer as and when and the Chancellor had to do his best. Later attempts to prioritise which people or departments got priority, plus estimation of future expense based on previous years. The amount of debt & arrears was a political matter, and the political elite were often the pissed off creditors.
Parliament: At the beginning of this period something called Parliament has existed for ~120 years, by the end of the period it's become recognisably the body that challenged Charles I in the 17th Century civil wars. Called most years, and the length of session got longer over this period. Composed of all 3 estates & needing all to be on board for things like taxation. One was the King, who was sovereign as king-in-parliament, and he generally set the agenda & order of business. One was the Lords, both spiritual & temporal, summoned individually by hereditary right (or coz they were bishop of X or judge Y). They advised the king on matters of state (war, peace, also other matters of political import). The last was the Commons - elected from the gentry of the country, 2 knights per county, 2 burgesses per borough. Had to agree to taxation demands, mostly did when convinced of the need but concerned to keep direct taxation something unusual and occassional not regular. Also put forward petitions of either individual or general interest to the Lords + King - general idea was that this would bring forth matters of concern before they got to the point of revolt.
Council: The king was expected/wanted to receive counsel from a variety of sources - those around him, the political elite, the great lords. There were also more formal councils, the primary continual one was one that met in the Star Chamber. It did some mundane business itself, although all was still signed off by the king. It also investigated options and proposed courses of action for greater matters - providing the king with the necessary knowledge to make sensible decisions, basically. There were also councils appointed during incapacity of the king: when Richard II and Henry VI were minors, when Henry VI was unable to govern. They governed on behalf of the king, and were limited in term. The king might also have a council imposed upon him if Parliament thought he was misgoverning, these were less welcomed by the king - and tended to be less effective as he could just ignore them.
Diplomacy: More top down than other areas of Government, some was almost entirely the king's business like marriages. Other things like peace negotiations were still between the monarchs concerned. Conducted via intermediaries, some professional diplomats plus noblemen. Lot of diplomacy of this period was between king and Pope, and papal officials would act as mediators in situations like the Anglo-French conflict.
Defence: war as an act of state, under authority of monarch. War in France good for both king (gaining territory) and army (loot) the way it was fought early in the period. Later the way Henry V did it was more concentrating on territory. If he'd stayed alive then this might've lead to development of a standing army, but continued to be voluntary and paid by taxes raised for the purpose. Naval was different. Ships were impressed and served for 6 months at a time at the king's expense. Victory normally went to the side whose fleet sailed first and could trap the other in port.
The Nobility:
The Peerage: the Peerage was much reduced in number over the period, due in large part to the Black Death. Some titles died out, some amalgamated as heiresses married into other noble families. But new peers did gain rank. The king got great powers to grant titles (mostly but not entirely limited to the royal family), also men whose fathers had bought land married heiresses to gain titles.
The Inheritance: the wealth of the nobility varied greatly, between then and over time. Tension between providing for ones children and keeping the estate together. Estates could increase or decrease through marriage, purchase and very rarely favour from the king. Widows were actually the biggest drain on estates as they might carry their jointure on to a subsequent husband for his lifetime. Change during this period from direct management (serfs working the land) to renting out estates. Day to day running carried out normally by a council and officers who collected rents etc. That could be good (more expertise, continuity when lord was a minor or away at war) or bad (embezzlement or mismanagement).
Domestic Culture: how big a household was mattered - it showed status and wealth. Castles were becoming residences not fortresses, and mostly built by the nouveau riche at this time. Feeding both household and guests was an important display of magnificence. Education happened within a household for boys, perhaps not their parents as they got older, girls were often sent to nunneries in later childhood. Most, including women, were taught to read English and perhaps French, Latin was generally restricted to liturgical necessities.
Religion: nobles didn't endow monasteries as much during this period, instead focusing on chantry priests to say masses after their deaths to quicken their progress through purgatory. Could double as almshouses but focus on soul of noble. A lot of the religion and endowments during life and after were also to show off wealth and status as with any else in their lives. Some evidence of personal piety, even in a couple of cases of Lollard leanings but this was rare. Women's religion much the same as men's.
Chivalry and War: war an important part of a noble's duty. It was becoming more of a science during this time, books were being written about tactics and there was an expectation that a lord should know the craft of war. Chivalry still important at beginning of period but personal honour becoming less so by end, change driven partly by Henry V's French war. War not profitable per se but loot and ransoms could bring wealth. Flip side is that one could die or need ransomed oneself which could be ruinous.
The Gentry:
Status, Economy, and Inheritance: this period the gentry rose in importance, mostly by becoming more clearly defined rather than a fuzzy area between noble and peasant. Knights and esquires as the two sorts, Knight status might confer greater respect and status but also acquired more costs. Role was becoming more about magisterial business not martial prowess. Because smaller estates than the nobility they were more tightly squeezed by the economic circumstances - not enough people so labour was expensive and rents were often in arrears. Those that managed their lands well and innovated tended to survive, those that didn't declined in wealth and status. Otherwise a lot of the concerns are same as that of the nobility, the tensions between keeping the estate together and looking after second sons, widows, second wives etc.
Domestic Culture and Religion: as with the nobility households were based on the nuclear family. Sons were well educated, perhaps in a noble house as a page, more likely in a grammar school. English beginning to take over as the vernacular language with French becoming a learnt language. Latin still key. Upper echelons had interest in chivalric and courtly culture. Lower eschelons more anti-clerical and anti-court. Involved in their local church communities but also often had their own chapels and set themselves apart from the commoners.
Magistracy: local authority and administration was done by the gentry. The sheriff was appointed from this class, and his officials came from the lower gentry. MPs were elected from the gentry, tho elections were not often contested, back room negotiations put forward acceptable candidates to the local elite, and a contested election was a sign the system had failed and there was division in the county.
War and Chivalry: Gentry often were involved in campaigns. In 14th century every man/family might expect to be involved in one or two campaigns of 6 to 12 months in France. Built ties between them and nobility and between them and lower classes, was a means of advancement. Then peace for a quarter century breaks these traditions, so situation in 15th century is a bit different. Longer campaigns, more chances of capture. But also lands given out in France as part of Henry V's occupation strategy. Gap begins to widen between military Gentry in France and demilitarised gentry in England. Also considers what the gentry thought of war - difficult to ascertain directly as they didn't write about it. At beginning of period Chivalry is in full swing, it's almost religious in tone and there's the tension between the ideal and reality as reflected in Gawain and the Green Knight and in Le Morte d'Arthur. By end of period Chivalry is seen as getting in the way of war fought for the common good of the realm as it's based on personal glory. But also seen as better than the new ways of fighting for money and gain. Knighthood is now becoming about civil governance and status not about being a warrior.
The Local Polity:
County Community or Magnate Affinity?: Looking at the question of whether county political society was a community of the (gentry of the) county or was it more to do with the feudal relationships between men & lords. More affinity than community, as he presents it in this section. The links between the community were less important than the affinities & retainers of a lord. Retainers include the knights & esquires who might be expected to turn up with armed men when called on, this was a lifelong relationship & based in chivalry. Also includes lawyers etc, this would be more contractual. Affinity is more diffuse & includes much fuzzier relationships of well-wishing and good-lordship between the parties. The affinity of a lord probably didn't see themselves as a community, although the retainers likely did.
The Affinity in the Local Community: lords didn't retain all of the gentry of an area, and couldn't afford to. Some areas had only one lord, and then had to be careful not to cause tensions with non retainers. Some areas had multiple lords and a complex web of affinity, which made society more complex and also caused tensions.
Dispute and Disorder in Gentry Society: disputes focused on land and inheritance, and were a matter of honour as well as wealth. Often went to court, but as much or more to force settlement out of court than to get a verdict. If arbitration or legal avenues failed then they might resort to violence, as honour would demand. People further up the social scale were expected to intervene to restore peace, up to having the Crown intervene (at which point both parties would probably count as losing).
Central Politics and the Local Polity: there's an intersect between local and national politics, for instance local or personal rivalries might affect national politics. The ideal was that the elite of the country were then leaders in their local areas, but in practice many factors meant that wasn't the case.
Work and Worship:
Agrarian Society:
The Agricultural Framework: lots of variety in land use, even in local regions. But overall picture is of the southeast being more fertile and thus more wealthy and more populous. Villages in the southeast as a cluster of houses surrounded by their fields, in the North and West they're more strung out. Farming bit as efficient as might be, but systems of crop rotation (with fallow years or animals grazing to allow the fields to recover) did exist.
Agrarian Structures Before the Black Death: population growth since the 11th Century had put pressure on the economy. Less land per peasant meant that the distinction wasn't between free and unfree but between those who had enough land to live from and those who didn't. But there had also been done improvements in yield and in commercialising did production. And some signs economy was improving up until the Black Death.
Population Decline and Economic Change: initial outbreak of plague reduced population to the same level as 1086 - c.2.5 million. Remained depressed for around a century for reasons that are unclear. Some due to change in social patterns, like later marriage among the lower classes. But some was likely biological, perhaps greater mortality perhaps depressed birthrate. Altered the economy, less profits for the landowners and more food and work available for the peasants. Stone villages abandoned as the survivors moved to areas with more work. Also changed the patterns of agriculture, with more animal husbandry which was probably better long term for farming.
Lords and Peasants, 1360-1381: the government/elites tried to keep a lid on the knockon effects of the population drop by enforcing wage freezes at first. But that caused discontent and when additional taxes (to pay for war) were sternly enforced that tipped over into outright revolt in 1381. This is the Peasant's Revolt, although he didn't call it such - and it also included multiple other uprisings/revolts. Their demands were effectively the removal of serfdom, letting peasants have free choice over taking work (rather than having to take the job offered at the rate offered). Wanted a removal of all lordship except the king - this is mostly about serfdom too.
A New Agrarian Order, 1381-1461: first generation of this period went through massive change as serfdom pretty much vanished in favour of rental tenancies. Wages went up, more food was available, more land was available, more houses (of good quality) were available. A yeoman class developed, clothing got better fitting and brighter, more luxury goods at the tables of foreigners. Sumptuary laws passed to restrict some of the excess.
The Village Community and Culture: increased mobility and wealth changed the way the community was bound together. In particular it broke up kin networks. It also lead to a rise in so-called sturdy beggars, who could work but didn't. Women in general were insecure, particularly poor older widows. Wages were less for women for the same work but often they didn't do the same work. The year of the peasant was marked out by religious festivals which also drew on peasant superstition. Rhetoric was positioning them as an important part of the king's realm but not to the extent that the Peasant Revolts of 1381 would've liked.
Trade, Industry, and Towns:
Overseas Trade: Trade is the provider of wealth for society at this time (whereas agriculture provides subsistence). Primary export for England is wool, and also cloth. At the beginning of the period wool exports are the most lucrative & largest market, by the end wool exports have dropped and cloth now brings in at least as much wealth. Wool can only be traded at Staples, of which the most important is in Calais (wool traded here goes mostly to Flanders) - Calais becomes wealthy & influential due to their monopoly & the political clout it gives them (duties on wool are a major source of income for the crown so the Staples needs to be kept onside). England also trades in other commodities - is plugged into a great European network of trade, but it is still medieval in nature (little capital investment, banking and financing is rudimentary). Foreign merchants trade within England, setting up little enclaves as bases from which they operate. English sentiment hardens towards isolationism & mistrust of alien merchants over the period.
Internal Trade and Industry: network of trade connected the country, and pre-Black Death there were several towns above 2k population, plus a small handful above 3k and London at 80,000 to 100000. Post Black Death all numbers drop, but London still biggest city. Cloth is the big success story but evidence for how it happened is all slim.
Urban Society: long exploration of how society in towns was organised. Self regulating in practice although not many were in theory. Run by an oligarchy, and dominated by trade guilds which were just starting up in this period. Population needed constant replenishment from inward migration. But everyone counted as a citizen, labourers were often still counted as foreign. Identity not that cohesive - fractured along class lines and between trades, and also in larger cities along geographical lines. London discussed as a special example as so much bigger than any other. One key point here is that it was much more a collection of villages/parishes than a cohesive city as we'd expect, but there was still some degree of identification with it as a whole particularly at the elite level.
The Institutional Church:
The Bishops in Church and State: the high offices of the Church were actually a meritocracy with only a few highborn yet less educated Bishops. Even those were in general competent. Church and Crown were highly intertwined, senior officials in the court were often made Bishops. Over the period the level of formal education increased, with more clerics having higher degrees. Before Henry VI Bishops were generally lawyers but pious King Henry promoted more theologians (this was also a time of peace).
Cathedrals and Religious Houses: cathedrals were where canons lived (in colleges) and kept the round of services, although few canons were actually resident by this period. The monasteries were no longer as secluded from secular life as they had been, and the lifestyle might be as good as a member of the nobilty's. No concerted move towards dissolution but reform was often promoted due to the excesses and abuse of privilege. Nunneries not as well funded and tended more to have women of gentle birth.
Perpendicular Rebuilding, 1360-1461: this is late Gothic style. Like Kings College Chapel. No major church completely rebuilt, and those that had repairs or expansion generally had the new style parts designed to fit with the style etc of the existing parts.
The Universities: Oxford and Cambridge were part of the church, institutionally speaking. Degrees started with the Arts, with the emphasis on the Trivium (grammar, rhetoric and logic) - more so than in continental universities where the Arts degree was compressed so you got to the higher degrees quicker. Many students never took a degree, and many stopped after the initial BA. Higher degrees were in theology, or law (civil or canon), or medicine. Students mostly still lived in halls, but colleges are increasing in number. Accommodation and board was expensive which limited who could afford it, but charitable grants were available. However greater social mix than at any time after until the 20th century.
Religion, Devotion, and Dissent:
Parochial Structures and Religion: there was a great shortage of parish priests during this time, due to the plague. It was more important that the priest be sound in body than that he had a vocation or even much more than a minimal education. It was hard to sack a priest, but there were mechanisms to make complaints and have him disciplined. Most common complaint was that he was failing in his vow of chastity, and after that that he wasn't performing his duties. Lay people could also be brought before the Church courts on matters of breaking the social contract, like adultery. The laity also got involved in parish life and upkeep of the church fabric via fraternities.
Public Worship: the Mass was mysterious to the laity and intentionally so. They only got to take communion once a year. Confession was required at least once a year and sin was an integral part of the teaching of the church. But the laity had turned this into a contractual arrangement, thus purchasing masses to shorten time in purgatory and indulgences ditto.
Private Devotion: books of hours provided the laity with private devotional prayers. Devotion was very Christ centered, with an increasing emphasis on the suffering Christ not on the ascended triumphant Christ. This is the age of mystics such as Margery Kempe and Julian of Norwich. The teachings of the mystics generally flirted with unorthodox views, and encouraged private connections to the divine.
Wyclif and Wycliffism: Wyclif was an Oxford academic who applied his logical reasoning to his theology and metaphysics and theology and took them to their logical conclusion. He called for the Church to return to the purely spiritual authority of the time of the apostles, as nothing else is mentioned in the Bible. He also denied a literal transubstantiation, although he did believe in its symbolic occurrence. His anticlerical views first had support from the Crown, but later were suppressed by the Lancastrians as an expression of their own piety. His lasting legacy was in the movement to translate the Bible so that lay people might read and understand it.
The Persecution of Lollardy: the heresy spread despite suppression, but only really remained strong in rural areas in East Anglia. However their theology wasn't really that of Wyclif. Some academics did take it up, primarily Pecock. Wyclif wasn't as important in his own time or for what he did as he is with the benefit of hindsight where he shows the growing movement of personal religion that will lead to the Reformation in the next century.
Men and Events:
England, France, and Christendom, 1360-1413:
Losing the Peace, 1360-1369: the only peace both sides acknowledged during the Hundred Years War was this one. It started w/ the capture of King John of France, and then the two countries signed a treaty which both sides found a bit overmuch. Edward III was supposed to give up his claim to the French crown, and admit overlordship of France in Normandy & Brittany. The French were to cede Aquitaine entirely to the English. In practice neither side wanted to give away that much. The Black Prince did rule over Aquitaine for 6 years, but it was harder to rule than the more cohesive territories of northern France or England - it was a patchwork of small lords & towns whose identity was with themselves not the region as a whole. The Black Prince didn't succeed in asserting much authority. He did use the region as a base for campaigning in Spain - coming in on the side of one of the claimants to the throne of Castile. He won the military battle, but then his partner reneged on the deal to pay him back the money he'd spent bringing the army & he made no territorial gains - the taxes he had to impose to try & pay the army's costs lost him support in Aquitaine. The death of John of France lead to new flexings of French muscle, and in a few years hostilities resumed.
Losing the War, 1369-89: war in three theatres, none of which went well for the English. In France the enemy's tactics negated the English strengths and large parts of English ruled territory reverted their loyalties back to France. In Spain John of Gaunt tried unsuccessfully to establish himself as king of Castile, a purely personal affair that diverted English resources. In Flanders the English forces that came to the aid of their allies was small and ineffective.
The Search for a Settlement, 1374-1396: despite a lack of actual hostilities peace took a while to negotiate. Neither side was willing to compromise enough to make it workable. Political forces in England also worked against it, partly Gaunt's ambitions caused problems but also people whose livelihoods depended on being able to join the army. Richard II wasn't interested in war, however, and used his remarriage to threaten alliance with Aragon so that he could be "persuaded" to marry young Isabella of France. What was agreed was a truce and acceptance of the status quo rather than either side getting a peace deal they actually wanted.
Schism, Secession, and Crusade: the papacy was split in this period with popes in both time and Avignon. Part of the truce between England and France involved a scheme to reunite the Church by forcing both popes to resign and elect a single new one. But Richard wasn't really interested in following through. There was also an international effort to send a Crusade to halt the Ottoman expansion into the Balkans. Richard also not interested.
Enemies and Allies, 1399-1413: the French were horrified by Henry IV's deposition of Richard II. But their own civil war stopped them from doing anything about that. England started to get more involved in continental affairs after both sides asked for England's help. They also get more involved in resolving the papal situation.
Ruling England, 1360-1413:
Peace and Plenty,1360-1369: a decade of peace & prosperity and stability, if you were at the top levels of society - the King was wealthy, he & his nobles were taking advantage of the peace & their spoils from war to build & rebuild their estates and nothing major happened to disturb the status quo. Lower down tho the social effects of the Black Death were beginning to shake things up, with calls for abolition of servile status & increased wages beginning to surface, but nothing had really percolated through to the upper levels of society. Harriss also suggests we don't know enough about the details of politics etc for this decade to properly assess it.
The Court and the Commons, 1369-1377: the decade started with war going well but expensively but as it goes sour it becomes less popular. Whilst the Commons granted taxes to finance it this still left normal expenditure to be covered so the Crown turned increasingly to moneylenders. Edward III's mind was failing, his son the Black Prince was dying, the heir Richard II was a baby, and Gaunt was abroad a lot prosecuting the war. Into this power vacuum came several close associates of the king to take advantage of it. The "Good Parliament" saw the Commons come together to petition "the king" to replace these, treading the line between treason & desire to serve the common good of the land. The measures taken were temporary, and once Edward III's condition deteriorated further Gaunt did his best to take revenge on those who had defied the royal authority. But this is still important as a sign of the Commons beginning to seem themselves as defenders of the common good & as a political force in the country.
Uneasy Consensus, 1377-1383: this period includes the Peasant's Revolt in 1381. The leadup to this is characterised by war in France leading to high taxes, and growing dissatisfaction in the country with this. Parliament, particularly the Commons, is also not happy with how the government is being run in Richard II's minority. Main lesson Richard takes from the Peasant's Revolt is a distrust & fear of the "rustici" and a desire to assert his regal authority. He wants a brutal crackdown in the aftermath, but this is ameliorated by the people who actually run the counties - yet they still have no empathy for the wishes of the common people they have authority over. 1383 marks the end of governance by a council on Richard's behalf.
The Assertion of Regality, 1384-1386: Richard II starts to govern alone at the age of 17. He promotes & rewards a clique of mostly younger, mostly non-great magnates, which leads to resentment from the established nobility. Richard also is keen to reassert his regality & powers, which doesn't go down well. Relationships even with his uncles (including John of Gaunt) begin to breakdown amidst suspicion & paranoia. Spending gets out of control, which prompts Parliament to try & curb that. Richard is clearly not interested in military campaigns, and those he begins mostly get aborted without result. Finally in 1387 Parliament forces on the king a new council, making reference back to Edward II and presumably also to his ultimate death.
The Magnate Backlash, 1387-1389: The council does successfully undertake material reform of the finances of the realm (and some of the court/household of the King). But Richard seethes under the perceived indignity of it, and obtains verdicts in advance of the expiry of the commission of the council condemning it and its members & supporters as illegal & treasonous. The lords act first - a group of three who come to be known as the Appellants overcome the king's intended show of force and condemn several of his favourites & retinue as traitors. The Parliament in which this happens comes to be known as the Merciless Parliament. Deposition of the king is considered but rejected. Although the bulk of the political community is in agreement with the Appellants they back themselves & the king into a corner.
Uneasy Equilibrium, 1389-1396: Despite Richard proclaiming his sole rule at the start of this period he actually ruled with advice of a council, who managed to contain any excesses of the king & there was greater harmony between the king & his nobles. This meant that the political situation seemed to return to the status quo ante & perhaps looked like things might now settle down. However Richard was also using this time to more fully articulate (to himself & others) his notion of regality & the authority of kingship - particularly its sacred nature & its absolutist nature. He's still childless by the end of this time & seems much less concerned than everyone else by his lack of an heir.
King Richard's Rule, 1397-1399: last few years of Richard's reign. Now truly running the country himself, but also getting increasingly isolated from the political elite by the courtiers (and sycophants) around him. Governing by asserting his divine right and by using intimidation. The exiled son of John of Gaunt seizes an opportunity and comes back to lead a rebellion. Henry IV gets support not just from his and his father's allies but also other nobles who fear Richard will turn on them. Richard is induced to resign after being captured, but to the end insists that the divine nature of his kingship can't be revoked. Summing up Richard's rule at the end of the section: he had a clear vision of a peace culture centered on the divine king that he wanted to replace his grandfather's chivalric war culture with. His idols/role models were Edward II and Edward the Confessor. Given more time he may've succeeded but he lost too much support.
Legitimation and Consent, 1399-1406: Henry IV's first problem was to legitimise his usurpation. He leant heavily on how Richard II had been a tyrant, and promised to bring back good governance. He also made much of his descent from Henry III while trying to ignore a cousin who had a better claim. One problem he faced was that after a rebellion that saw several Ricardian nobles executed there weren't many adult members of the nobility to provide leadership. He also very quickly became insolvent, particularly due to not receiving as much in tax as Richard. Eventually tensions resolved by the king ruling in conjunction with a council in a way that let things be sorted out without trampling on anyone's honour.
The King and the Prince: Henry's acceptance of the council was grudging. But as his health was also ailing this let the Prince, his son Henry, interact more with the council and fill it with his associates and effectively take over rule. This lead to a political struggle between father and son, and fit the last but of his reign Henry IV ruled without the council under his own authority. Overall his reign had a good start but fell into problems due to insolvency and tensions with parliament.
England and Her Neighbours:
Ireland: both ruled as a colony by England and ignored and allowed to fall into anarchy. Richard II made some effort to assert his kingship over it, and was there doing so when Henry IV launched his bid for the throne. The Lancastrians mostly ignored it but still appointed English governors. There were major fault lines between the Gaelic lords, the Anglo-Irish and the English. Within the Gaelic and Anglo-Irish there were also divisions between clans and families. When there was no strong English control there was anarchy.
Wales: the story of Wales over this period is first of direct rule by English colonists, and then after a failed revolt under the leadership of Owain Glyn Dŵr a gradual decolonisation and replacement by rule by a Welsh squirearchy. The situation was different to Ireland as there was no cohesive Welsh government imposed by England (Ireland had its own parliament and a governor), and the Welsh themselves were even more fragmented. Some Welsh fought in the wars in France, and they also got involved in the English feuds in the later years (i.e. York & Lancaster). As landlords became absentee & cared only about the revenue the Welsh took over the actual governance.
The Anglo-Scottish Border: The English had failed (twice) to conquer and colonise Scotland in the same way that they had the Irish & Welsh. In fact their attempts provoked a sense of identity within the Scottish that made them more unified and even harder to conquer. Mostly during this period there were truces, although raiding back & forth did happen. Once Henry IV usurped the throne he went to war against the Scottish (to assert his authority, rather than to conquer). There were Marcher lords in the border region in much the same way as Wales, who were quasi-autonomous, and their feuding and rivalries fed into the fighting during the Wars of the Roses. But mostly it was restricted to the borders, it was the unusual circumstances of Henry VI's incapacity rather than the borders becoming inherently too strong.
The English in France, 1413-1453:
The Lancastrian Conquest in France, 1413-1429: Henry V resumed the French war, but the flavour had changed. This was a war of conquest and more concerned with effectiveness than chivalry. Henry was using war as a means to the end of gaining the French throne. Agincourt was an example of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat that cemented Henry's reputation while the tactical errors that lead to it were forgotten. After securing Paris and marrying the French king's daughter Henry looked set to finish conquering France, but his unexpected death meant instead the army was under control of Bedford during the regency for Henry VI. Turning point of the war was a seige of Orléans that the English lost, and their strategy became to keep Normandy safe rather than push on with conquest.
Lancastrian Rule in France, 1417-1435: Henry V had successfully got himself as heir to the king of France, but still had to rely on "good governance" to assert legitimacy. His death meant control devolved to his brother the Duke of Bedford. He didn't have the legitimacy and relied on Burgundy in Paris and surrounding, and even more firmly on good government. Normandy had been English for a while but not securely. Bedford again was effective even if they pressed the French hard in Normandy to get taxes. Charles VII's coronation in Reims swung support his way, and eventually that was enough to make the Duke of Burgundy break the alliance wth England. Notable that Harriss doesn't much mention Joan of Arc.
The Defence of Normandy, 1435-1444: As hope of conquering and uniting France under an English king waned the English time of Normandy became more and more like an occupation. The death of Bedford also decapitated the command structure and fragmented the army. Charles VII was now the symbol of unified France and promised to reinstate the ousted Normandy nobility, so they were more inclined to rally round him than the distant and young Henry VI. Eventually Henry VI negotiated a truce with Charles VII, by marrying a daughter of a prominent French family - Margaret of Anjou.
The Loss of Normandy, 1445-1450: the diplomatic situation collapsed due to Suffolk being out of his depth, he made concessions to the French that weren't tied explicitly to concessions from their side. Charles VII was only after a breathing space to regroup and then restarted hostilities. The English took too long to realise that they needed a bigger and more well organised army to counter Charles VII's forces and so Normandy was lost. The whole adventure soured the English on foreign adventures (although the civil war also did that). But Henry V and Agincourt weren't forgotten and informed later English culture. If Henry V had lived a sort of joint kingdom of England and France might've taken root but his successors just didn't have the ability, legitimacy or vision to carry it off.
Ruling England, 1413-1461:
Henry V, the Model King: Henry V came to the throne better prepared than many of his immediate predecessors. He'd had a political apprenticeship on the council that governed while his father was ailing. He put down a couple of revolts early on which helped his image as in charge of the government. He was a good judge of character and governed decisively. During his absences abroad his brother, the Duke of Bedford, was regent. His governance was approved of by parliament, and taxes were generally granted when he asked.
The Minority of Henry VI, 1422-1435: can be divided into two phases, pre and post Henry's coronation in France. Rule was via a council with the leading persons being Henry V's brothers and half-uncle Cardinal Beaufort. Bedford was senior but spent most of his time on the war in France. His brother Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort were in opposition to each other but the situation never quite devolved into civil war. Parliament's rule increased during this period to make up for the lack of royal authority. Finances are strained by the French war but otherwise spending is kept under control. All in all the regency was successful in avoiding the many pitfalls that existed.
King and Council, 1435-1443: during the king's rather prolonged adolescence power shifted from the soldiers to the court. Henry was permitted to exercise power in things like patronage but kept away from politics (mostly), and he didn't seem to mind this. His boundless generosity meant that he gave away at least life interests in many of the royal lands which brought him close to bankruptcy. Real power began to devolve to the Duke of Suffolk, and Henry again was content with this. Some of the seeds of the upcoming civil wars are sown in this and the preceding period, particularly via the rivalry between Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort.
Suffolk's Rule, 1444-1449: Henry VI wasn't much interested in exercising his royal will - there were only really two things he had opinions on: that he wanted peace and to heal the rift in Christendom. Which left domestic politics wth little direction. The Duke of Suffolk stepped into the gap and attempted to rule in accordance with the only opinions Henry had and with the support of the other nobles. He did a bit quite good enough job - poor at diplomacy as discussed in the France chapter and too partisan domestically. His regime wasn't robust enough to survive a crisis.
Rebellion, Popular and Political, 1449-1453: Suffolk's murder and that of several other prominent courtiers and officials were part of what destabilised domestic politics. There was a popular uprising led by Jack Cade and further rumblings in Kent and the king's general ineffectiveness lead to a general underlying feeling that he wasn't fit to rule. Gradually power coalesced around Somerset, leaving York out on the political wilderness with his chief rival in power. Somerset's rule was more divisive than Suffolk's had been leading to deepening of existing rivalries that flared into violence between Neville and Percy in the north. This can be seen as the turning point leading to civil war, but at the time was not necessarily so - but Henry's collapse into a comatose state was what tipped the balance.
The Rule of York, 1453-1456: Henry's loss of his faculties removed Somerset's claim to be enacting Henry's will. York had allied with the Nevilles by this stage so came to wield power by virtue of being biggest kid on the block. In this first Protectorate he had some degree of support from Margaret of Anjou, and since of the nobility. But Henry's recovery returned the situation to the status quo ante, and Somerset was returned to power. After a battle near London in which Somerset and his chief supporters were killed York persuaded the king to regrant him the Protectorateship. This time however he had less support and Henry was subsequently persuaded to sack him.
Queen Margaret's Rule, 1456-1459: If Henry VI had either died or exerted his own personal authority as king at this point then civil war might've been avoided - royal authority would once again have been clear & singular (albeit invested in a minor if Henry had died, but that's a standard situation that politics would've coped with). But neither of those happened. Instead the elite continued to polarise into two camps. Queen Margaret had control of the king's person, and set up court in Coventry, but lacked the power & legitimacy to assert herself fully; York and his allies made no overt moves but were an alternate source of authority (albeit with even less legitimacy). London gradually became less & less on the Crown's side by default, which was shifting the balance of power. Eventually government was breaking down, and the discord moved onto the next phase.
York vs Lancaster, 1459-1461: Even when civil war proper breaks out it's at first not intended to replace Henry VI just to replace who controls him. But then York "persuades" Henry to proclaim him his heir (after capturing Henry), and then after his death in battle his son Edward has himself proclaimed as King in his own right (saying that Henry had broken the agreement with York). In the fighting first Lancaster have the upper hand, including the killing of York, and then Edward subsequently wins decisively at Towton which secures his rule for 9 years after that. Harriss notes that if the other side had won in similar style then it would probably have put the issue to bed once & for all. Second half of this section sums up how Harriss sees the causes & the general effects of the civil war. It stems ultimately from Henry VI's incompetence - and the fact that anyone trying to "speak for" him was suspect in the eyes of others as furthering their own interests. So there was a breakdown in the coherence of government. At the top of society it broke the reciprocal bonds between king & the wealthier/more powerful lords - kings in future were more distrustful, and authoritarian. And as society was so stratified this sort of rippled down, with less deference being shown to one's betters. And the crisis was redefining how the Commonweal was seen, and more people further down the strata of society felt that they had a right to critique the government.
Conclusion: Harriss sums up the century covered in this book in about 4 pages. A time of change from a feudal society to an integrated political society. Society stops being quite so dictated to from above, and the "middling sort" feel entitled to demand good governance via the Commons. The Black Death altered agrarian society irreversibly - the key point being a change from wages etc being determined by law to having the market dictate them. The differences in status between the peasantry came to be based on wealth rather than the old free/un-free distinctions. The Church also went through a period of change prefiguring the later Protestant Reformation and both clerics & reformers encouraged the greater participation of laity in the devotions of the church leading to a rise in individual piety. But there were no structural changes resulting from the call to reform, and movements like Wycliffe's were suppressed. The war in France despite its failure to achieve any of the original goals changed the conception of warfare from chivalric to a more practical national endeavour (under Henry V). It and its failure also lead to increasing isolationist thought in England and a turning away from the Continent.
"Shaping the Nation: England 1360-1461" Gerald Harriss is part of The New Oxford History of England series, and is I think aimed at actual historians (or at least at undergraduate level). Which is part of why I found it took me a long time to read it (50-ish hours over 9 months) - my last formal education in history was 30 years ago, and I'd dropped the subject before I started my GCSEs. So whilst I have a reasonably good grasp of the story line of English history, I was aware while reading this that I really don't know enough about other aspects of history - like political theory or economic theory. So I read this in "absorb like sponge" mode, rather than with a critical eye as to whether I agreed with it or not.
For a bit of context: This book covers the time from the last years of Edward III through to the early part of the Wars of the Roses. The time of Richard II, the time of Henry V & Agincourt. The Black Death was less than a decade before this book's period of focus, and the mid & long term effects on society are a large part of what's driving the changes in this time period.
Harriss's overall thesis is that while this was once seen as a time of collapse & chaos, it's better seen as a period of transition - from feudalism to capitalism in particular, driven by the new scarcity of labour. But also from war as chivalric seeking for individual glory, to conquest in the service of the nation. In fact the rise of the idea of community with the nation - English-ness becomes important as juxtaposed against the French that are the enemy. And political society continues the evolution from the Magna Carta of the King not being above but being part of the political community. You also see the seeds of the coming Reformation - it may still be half a century away by the end of this book, but the signs of dissatisfaction with the Church are already there.
Read on for my notes section by section as I read, which are of varying quality ;)
Political Society:
Concepts of Governance:
Theories of Authority: a balance between two sorts of power, top down theocratic divinely appointed king and contractual feudalism. By 1300 had developed in England into an unstable form of mixed monarchy. Conversely in France the same tensions had resolved into divine monarchy.
The Literary Model of Governance: lots of books written during this period as advice books to Princes and Kings for how to rule. God might've appointed you but that just meant you needed to make sure you were worthy of that. Shouldn't overspend, should uphold justice, only fight just wars, strive to better the common good, listen to and appoint wise councillors.
The King and Court:
The Court as the King's Domestic Environment: Court was still highly peripatetic although a third of the year was spent at one or another of the great palaces. Westminster declining as a royal residence but still where the admin staff were. Household might be around 400 persons, both the high officials & courtiers and the lower classes who supported the household. Expenses a source of conflict. Theoretically the king should "live of his own", but in practice that wasn't feasible and the king saw maintaining a fine household as part of his imperial dignity so felt public funds should also be allocated.
The Court as a Centre of Patronage and Service: Court was the intersect between the king & the political elite. Lands/titles/annuities could be used to reward loyalty and to create a link that the king could call on. The make up of the court was different under each monarch & could be divisive or lose him general support - i.e. Richard II's favoured courtiers weren't well respected by the rest of the political class. Henrys IV & V paid out a lot of annuities to get themselves military support - IV to gain the throne & keep it, V to wage war in France. Henry VI used the same mechanism more as a mark of (profligate) favour, which didn't help him when he did need it.
The Court as a Religious and Cultural Centre: the Royal Chapel as the spiritual heart of the court. Richard II identifies with Christ the King, whereas Henry IV more anti-clerical but perhaps more personally pious. Henry V as the spiritual leader of his people (and definitely personally pious). Henry VI as having a more priestly piety, looking to save his people not defend them like his father. Material culture important to the court but book only briefly touches on it. Literary culture gets more time - this is era of Chaucer and Gower, at first court writers doing chivalric romances, then later not so welcome in court and writing more about politics or the common man. The Lancastrian kings were more serious patrons, of more serious books and promoted use of English. Also promoted humanism.
Central Government:
The Secretariat: three offices of clerks. First the Chancery, biggest, most formal and based in Westminster. Next the privy seal, originally travelled with the king later in Westminster. Then the signet, effectively the king's private correspondence and most informal. Over this period clerks went from being celibate clerics to married lay people. English develops as language used, particularly after Henry V lands in Normandy. Formal written English called Chancery English develops with a syntax and style based on Latin. Age of great letter writing by the political class including the Paton family.
Law and Justice: Increasingly litigious society, and a time of increasing organisation & formalisation of the legal process. Some (lower) courts now in English, rather than Latin or French, so more accessible. This is the time when Inns of Court and Inns of Chancery start to appear to train the elite of lawyers. But it's a corrupt legal system - judges can be bought, juries intimidated, and even when not overt the wealthy have access to better lawyers and patronage means that judges & juries will be looking to please their lord.
State Finances: Income was from the Crown estates, from customs duties on wool export (and some other things but mostly wool), from direct taxation. The latter had to be granted by Parliament and usually only done so in times of war (or half-tax in time of truce). Income declined in general over the period as wool export dropped (replaced with cloth export but duty wasn't raised on this so it'd be competitive with the Flanders cloth market). Expenditure can be separated as domestic & defense, and in times of peace with a non-extravagant king it was mostly within income. War was expensive, and an extravagant king could also strain finances. No real attempts to budget at first, the invoices arrived at the Exchequer as and when and the Chancellor had to do his best. Later attempts to prioritise which people or departments got priority, plus estimation of future expense based on previous years. The amount of debt & arrears was a political matter, and the political elite were often the pissed off creditors.
Parliament: At the beginning of this period something called Parliament has existed for ~120 years, by the end of the period it's become recognisably the body that challenged Charles I in the 17th Century civil wars. Called most years, and the length of session got longer over this period. Composed of all 3 estates & needing all to be on board for things like taxation. One was the King, who was sovereign as king-in-parliament, and he generally set the agenda & order of business. One was the Lords, both spiritual & temporal, summoned individually by hereditary right (or coz they were bishop of X or judge Y). They advised the king on matters of state (war, peace, also other matters of political import). The last was the Commons - elected from the gentry of the country, 2 knights per county, 2 burgesses per borough. Had to agree to taxation demands, mostly did when convinced of the need but concerned to keep direct taxation something unusual and occassional not regular. Also put forward petitions of either individual or general interest to the Lords + King - general idea was that this would bring forth matters of concern before they got to the point of revolt.
Council: The king was expected/wanted to receive counsel from a variety of sources - those around him, the political elite, the great lords. There were also more formal councils, the primary continual one was one that met in the Star Chamber. It did some mundane business itself, although all was still signed off by the king. It also investigated options and proposed courses of action for greater matters - providing the king with the necessary knowledge to make sensible decisions, basically. There were also councils appointed during incapacity of the king: when Richard II and Henry VI were minors, when Henry VI was unable to govern. They governed on behalf of the king, and were limited in term. The king might also have a council imposed upon him if Parliament thought he was misgoverning, these were less welcomed by the king - and tended to be less effective as he could just ignore them.
Diplomacy: More top down than other areas of Government, some was almost entirely the king's business like marriages. Other things like peace negotiations were still between the monarchs concerned. Conducted via intermediaries, some professional diplomats plus noblemen. Lot of diplomacy of this period was between king and Pope, and papal officials would act as mediators in situations like the Anglo-French conflict.
Defence: war as an act of state, under authority of monarch. War in France good for both king (gaining territory) and army (loot) the way it was fought early in the period. Later the way Henry V did it was more concentrating on territory. If he'd stayed alive then this might've lead to development of a standing army, but continued to be voluntary and paid by taxes raised for the purpose. Naval was different. Ships were impressed and served for 6 months at a time at the king's expense. Victory normally went to the side whose fleet sailed first and could trap the other in port.
The Nobility:
The Peerage: the Peerage was much reduced in number over the period, due in large part to the Black Death. Some titles died out, some amalgamated as heiresses married into other noble families. But new peers did gain rank. The king got great powers to grant titles (mostly but not entirely limited to the royal family), also men whose fathers had bought land married heiresses to gain titles.
The Inheritance: the wealth of the nobility varied greatly, between then and over time. Tension between providing for ones children and keeping the estate together. Estates could increase or decrease through marriage, purchase and very rarely favour from the king. Widows were actually the biggest drain on estates as they might carry their jointure on to a subsequent husband for his lifetime. Change during this period from direct management (serfs working the land) to renting out estates. Day to day running carried out normally by a council and officers who collected rents etc. That could be good (more expertise, continuity when lord was a minor or away at war) or bad (embezzlement or mismanagement).
Domestic Culture: how big a household was mattered - it showed status and wealth. Castles were becoming residences not fortresses, and mostly built by the nouveau riche at this time. Feeding both household and guests was an important display of magnificence. Education happened within a household for boys, perhaps not their parents as they got older, girls were often sent to nunneries in later childhood. Most, including women, were taught to read English and perhaps French, Latin was generally restricted to liturgical necessities.
Religion: nobles didn't endow monasteries as much during this period, instead focusing on chantry priests to say masses after their deaths to quicken their progress through purgatory. Could double as almshouses but focus on soul of noble. A lot of the religion and endowments during life and after were also to show off wealth and status as with any else in their lives. Some evidence of personal piety, even in a couple of cases of Lollard leanings but this was rare. Women's religion much the same as men's.
Chivalry and War: war an important part of a noble's duty. It was becoming more of a science during this time, books were being written about tactics and there was an expectation that a lord should know the craft of war. Chivalry still important at beginning of period but personal honour becoming less so by end, change driven partly by Henry V's French war. War not profitable per se but loot and ransoms could bring wealth. Flip side is that one could die or need ransomed oneself which could be ruinous.
The Gentry:
Status, Economy, and Inheritance: this period the gentry rose in importance, mostly by becoming more clearly defined rather than a fuzzy area between noble and peasant. Knights and esquires as the two sorts, Knight status might confer greater respect and status but also acquired more costs. Role was becoming more about magisterial business not martial prowess. Because smaller estates than the nobility they were more tightly squeezed by the economic circumstances - not enough people so labour was expensive and rents were often in arrears. Those that managed their lands well and innovated tended to survive, those that didn't declined in wealth and status. Otherwise a lot of the concerns are same as that of the nobility, the tensions between keeping the estate together and looking after second sons, widows, second wives etc.
Domestic Culture and Religion: as with the nobility households were based on the nuclear family. Sons were well educated, perhaps in a noble house as a page, more likely in a grammar school. English beginning to take over as the vernacular language with French becoming a learnt language. Latin still key. Upper echelons had interest in chivalric and courtly culture. Lower eschelons more anti-clerical and anti-court. Involved in their local church communities but also often had their own chapels and set themselves apart from the commoners.
Magistracy: local authority and administration was done by the gentry. The sheriff was appointed from this class, and his officials came from the lower gentry. MPs were elected from the gentry, tho elections were not often contested, back room negotiations put forward acceptable candidates to the local elite, and a contested election was a sign the system had failed and there was division in the county.
War and Chivalry: Gentry often were involved in campaigns. In 14th century every man/family might expect to be involved in one or two campaigns of 6 to 12 months in France. Built ties between them and nobility and between them and lower classes, was a means of advancement. Then peace for a quarter century breaks these traditions, so situation in 15th century is a bit different. Longer campaigns, more chances of capture. But also lands given out in France as part of Henry V's occupation strategy. Gap begins to widen between military Gentry in France and demilitarised gentry in England. Also considers what the gentry thought of war - difficult to ascertain directly as they didn't write about it. At beginning of period Chivalry is in full swing, it's almost religious in tone and there's the tension between the ideal and reality as reflected in Gawain and the Green Knight and in Le Morte d'Arthur. By end of period Chivalry is seen as getting in the way of war fought for the common good of the realm as it's based on personal glory. But also seen as better than the new ways of fighting for money and gain. Knighthood is now becoming about civil governance and status not about being a warrior.
The Local Polity:
County Community or Magnate Affinity?: Looking at the question of whether county political society was a community of the (gentry of the) county or was it more to do with the feudal relationships between men & lords. More affinity than community, as he presents it in this section. The links between the community were less important than the affinities & retainers of a lord. Retainers include the knights & esquires who might be expected to turn up with armed men when called on, this was a lifelong relationship & based in chivalry. Also includes lawyers etc, this would be more contractual. Affinity is more diffuse & includes much fuzzier relationships of well-wishing and good-lordship between the parties. The affinity of a lord probably didn't see themselves as a community, although the retainers likely did.
The Affinity in the Local Community: lords didn't retain all of the gentry of an area, and couldn't afford to. Some areas had only one lord, and then had to be careful not to cause tensions with non retainers. Some areas had multiple lords and a complex web of affinity, which made society more complex and also caused tensions.
Dispute and Disorder in Gentry Society: disputes focused on land and inheritance, and were a matter of honour as well as wealth. Often went to court, but as much or more to force settlement out of court than to get a verdict. If arbitration or legal avenues failed then they might resort to violence, as honour would demand. People further up the social scale were expected to intervene to restore peace, up to having the Crown intervene (at which point both parties would probably count as losing).
Central Politics and the Local Polity: there's an intersect between local and national politics, for instance local or personal rivalries might affect national politics. The ideal was that the elite of the country were then leaders in their local areas, but in practice many factors meant that wasn't the case.
Work and Worship:
Agrarian Society:
The Agricultural Framework: lots of variety in land use, even in local regions. But overall picture is of the southeast being more fertile and thus more wealthy and more populous. Villages in the southeast as a cluster of houses surrounded by their fields, in the North and West they're more strung out. Farming bit as efficient as might be, but systems of crop rotation (with fallow years or animals grazing to allow the fields to recover) did exist.
Agrarian Structures Before the Black Death: population growth since the 11th Century had put pressure on the economy. Less land per peasant meant that the distinction wasn't between free and unfree but between those who had enough land to live from and those who didn't. But there had also been done improvements in yield and in commercialising did production. And some signs economy was improving up until the Black Death.
Population Decline and Economic Change: initial outbreak of plague reduced population to the same level as 1086 - c.2.5 million. Remained depressed for around a century for reasons that are unclear. Some due to change in social patterns, like later marriage among the lower classes. But some was likely biological, perhaps greater mortality perhaps depressed birthrate. Altered the economy, less profits for the landowners and more food and work available for the peasants. Stone villages abandoned as the survivors moved to areas with more work. Also changed the patterns of agriculture, with more animal husbandry which was probably better long term for farming.
Lords and Peasants, 1360-1381: the government/elites tried to keep a lid on the knockon effects of the population drop by enforcing wage freezes at first. But that caused discontent and when additional taxes (to pay for war) were sternly enforced that tipped over into outright revolt in 1381. This is the Peasant's Revolt, although he didn't call it such - and it also included multiple other uprisings/revolts. Their demands were effectively the removal of serfdom, letting peasants have free choice over taking work (rather than having to take the job offered at the rate offered). Wanted a removal of all lordship except the king - this is mostly about serfdom too.
A New Agrarian Order, 1381-1461: first generation of this period went through massive change as serfdom pretty much vanished in favour of rental tenancies. Wages went up, more food was available, more land was available, more houses (of good quality) were available. A yeoman class developed, clothing got better fitting and brighter, more luxury goods at the tables of foreigners. Sumptuary laws passed to restrict some of the excess.
The Village Community and Culture: increased mobility and wealth changed the way the community was bound together. In particular it broke up kin networks. It also lead to a rise in so-called sturdy beggars, who could work but didn't. Women in general were insecure, particularly poor older widows. Wages were less for women for the same work but often they didn't do the same work. The year of the peasant was marked out by religious festivals which also drew on peasant superstition. Rhetoric was positioning them as an important part of the king's realm but not to the extent that the Peasant Revolts of 1381 would've liked.
Trade, Industry, and Towns:
Overseas Trade: Trade is the provider of wealth for society at this time (whereas agriculture provides subsistence). Primary export for England is wool, and also cloth. At the beginning of the period wool exports are the most lucrative & largest market, by the end wool exports have dropped and cloth now brings in at least as much wealth. Wool can only be traded at Staples, of which the most important is in Calais (wool traded here goes mostly to Flanders) - Calais becomes wealthy & influential due to their monopoly & the political clout it gives them (duties on wool are a major source of income for the crown so the Staples needs to be kept onside). England also trades in other commodities - is plugged into a great European network of trade, but it is still medieval in nature (little capital investment, banking and financing is rudimentary). Foreign merchants trade within England, setting up little enclaves as bases from which they operate. English sentiment hardens towards isolationism & mistrust of alien merchants over the period.
Internal Trade and Industry: network of trade connected the country, and pre-Black Death there were several towns above 2k population, plus a small handful above 3k and London at 80,000 to 100000. Post Black Death all numbers drop, but London still biggest city. Cloth is the big success story but evidence for how it happened is all slim.
Urban Society: long exploration of how society in towns was organised. Self regulating in practice although not many were in theory. Run by an oligarchy, and dominated by trade guilds which were just starting up in this period. Population needed constant replenishment from inward migration. But everyone counted as a citizen, labourers were often still counted as foreign. Identity not that cohesive - fractured along class lines and between trades, and also in larger cities along geographical lines. London discussed as a special example as so much bigger than any other. One key point here is that it was much more a collection of villages/parishes than a cohesive city as we'd expect, but there was still some degree of identification with it as a whole particularly at the elite level.
The Institutional Church:
The Bishops in Church and State: the high offices of the Church were actually a meritocracy with only a few highborn yet less educated Bishops. Even those were in general competent. Church and Crown were highly intertwined, senior officials in the court were often made Bishops. Over the period the level of formal education increased, with more clerics having higher degrees. Before Henry VI Bishops were generally lawyers but pious King Henry promoted more theologians (this was also a time of peace).
Cathedrals and Religious Houses: cathedrals were where canons lived (in colleges) and kept the round of services, although few canons were actually resident by this period. The monasteries were no longer as secluded from secular life as they had been, and the lifestyle might be as good as a member of the nobilty's. No concerted move towards dissolution but reform was often promoted due to the excesses and abuse of privilege. Nunneries not as well funded and tended more to have women of gentle birth.
Perpendicular Rebuilding, 1360-1461: this is late Gothic style. Like Kings College Chapel. No major church completely rebuilt, and those that had repairs or expansion generally had the new style parts designed to fit with the style etc of the existing parts.
The Universities: Oxford and Cambridge were part of the church, institutionally speaking. Degrees started with the Arts, with the emphasis on the Trivium (grammar, rhetoric and logic) - more so than in continental universities where the Arts degree was compressed so you got to the higher degrees quicker. Many students never took a degree, and many stopped after the initial BA. Higher degrees were in theology, or law (civil or canon), or medicine. Students mostly still lived in halls, but colleges are increasing in number. Accommodation and board was expensive which limited who could afford it, but charitable grants were available. However greater social mix than at any time after until the 20th century.
Religion, Devotion, and Dissent:
Parochial Structures and Religion: there was a great shortage of parish priests during this time, due to the plague. It was more important that the priest be sound in body than that he had a vocation or even much more than a minimal education. It was hard to sack a priest, but there were mechanisms to make complaints and have him disciplined. Most common complaint was that he was failing in his vow of chastity, and after that that he wasn't performing his duties. Lay people could also be brought before the Church courts on matters of breaking the social contract, like adultery. The laity also got involved in parish life and upkeep of the church fabric via fraternities.
Public Worship: the Mass was mysterious to the laity and intentionally so. They only got to take communion once a year. Confession was required at least once a year and sin was an integral part of the teaching of the church. But the laity had turned this into a contractual arrangement, thus purchasing masses to shorten time in purgatory and indulgences ditto.
Private Devotion: books of hours provided the laity with private devotional prayers. Devotion was very Christ centered, with an increasing emphasis on the suffering Christ not on the ascended triumphant Christ. This is the age of mystics such as Margery Kempe and Julian of Norwich. The teachings of the mystics generally flirted with unorthodox views, and encouraged private connections to the divine.
Wyclif and Wycliffism: Wyclif was an Oxford academic who applied his logical reasoning to his theology and metaphysics and theology and took them to their logical conclusion. He called for the Church to return to the purely spiritual authority of the time of the apostles, as nothing else is mentioned in the Bible. He also denied a literal transubstantiation, although he did believe in its symbolic occurrence. His anticlerical views first had support from the Crown, but later were suppressed by the Lancastrians as an expression of their own piety. His lasting legacy was in the movement to translate the Bible so that lay people might read and understand it.
The Persecution of Lollardy: the heresy spread despite suppression, but only really remained strong in rural areas in East Anglia. However their theology wasn't really that of Wyclif. Some academics did take it up, primarily Pecock. Wyclif wasn't as important in his own time or for what he did as he is with the benefit of hindsight where he shows the growing movement of personal religion that will lead to the Reformation in the next century.
Men and Events:
England, France, and Christendom, 1360-1413:
Losing the Peace, 1360-1369: the only peace both sides acknowledged during the Hundred Years War was this one. It started w/ the capture of King John of France, and then the two countries signed a treaty which both sides found a bit overmuch. Edward III was supposed to give up his claim to the French crown, and admit overlordship of France in Normandy & Brittany. The French were to cede Aquitaine entirely to the English. In practice neither side wanted to give away that much. The Black Prince did rule over Aquitaine for 6 years, but it was harder to rule than the more cohesive territories of northern France or England - it was a patchwork of small lords & towns whose identity was with themselves not the region as a whole. The Black Prince didn't succeed in asserting much authority. He did use the region as a base for campaigning in Spain - coming in on the side of one of the claimants to the throne of Castile. He won the military battle, but then his partner reneged on the deal to pay him back the money he'd spent bringing the army & he made no territorial gains - the taxes he had to impose to try & pay the army's costs lost him support in Aquitaine. The death of John of France lead to new flexings of French muscle, and in a few years hostilities resumed.
Losing the War, 1369-89: war in three theatres, none of which went well for the English. In France the enemy's tactics negated the English strengths and large parts of English ruled territory reverted their loyalties back to France. In Spain John of Gaunt tried unsuccessfully to establish himself as king of Castile, a purely personal affair that diverted English resources. In Flanders the English forces that came to the aid of their allies was small and ineffective.
The Search for a Settlement, 1374-1396: despite a lack of actual hostilities peace took a while to negotiate. Neither side was willing to compromise enough to make it workable. Political forces in England also worked against it, partly Gaunt's ambitions caused problems but also people whose livelihoods depended on being able to join the army. Richard II wasn't interested in war, however, and used his remarriage to threaten alliance with Aragon so that he could be "persuaded" to marry young Isabella of France. What was agreed was a truce and acceptance of the status quo rather than either side getting a peace deal they actually wanted.
Schism, Secession, and Crusade: the papacy was split in this period with popes in both time and Avignon. Part of the truce between England and France involved a scheme to reunite the Church by forcing both popes to resign and elect a single new one. But Richard wasn't really interested in following through. There was also an international effort to send a Crusade to halt the Ottoman expansion into the Balkans. Richard also not interested.
Enemies and Allies, 1399-1413: the French were horrified by Henry IV's deposition of Richard II. But their own civil war stopped them from doing anything about that. England started to get more involved in continental affairs after both sides asked for England's help. They also get more involved in resolving the papal situation.
Ruling England, 1360-1413:
Peace and Plenty,1360-1369: a decade of peace & prosperity and stability, if you were at the top levels of society - the King was wealthy, he & his nobles were taking advantage of the peace & their spoils from war to build & rebuild their estates and nothing major happened to disturb the status quo. Lower down tho the social effects of the Black Death were beginning to shake things up, with calls for abolition of servile status & increased wages beginning to surface, but nothing had really percolated through to the upper levels of society. Harriss also suggests we don't know enough about the details of politics etc for this decade to properly assess it.
The Court and the Commons, 1369-1377: the decade started with war going well but expensively but as it goes sour it becomes less popular. Whilst the Commons granted taxes to finance it this still left normal expenditure to be covered so the Crown turned increasingly to moneylenders. Edward III's mind was failing, his son the Black Prince was dying, the heir Richard II was a baby, and Gaunt was abroad a lot prosecuting the war. Into this power vacuum came several close associates of the king to take advantage of it. The "Good Parliament" saw the Commons come together to petition "the king" to replace these, treading the line between treason & desire to serve the common good of the land. The measures taken were temporary, and once Edward III's condition deteriorated further Gaunt did his best to take revenge on those who had defied the royal authority. But this is still important as a sign of the Commons beginning to seem themselves as defenders of the common good & as a political force in the country.
Uneasy Consensus, 1377-1383: this period includes the Peasant's Revolt in 1381. The leadup to this is characterised by war in France leading to high taxes, and growing dissatisfaction in the country with this. Parliament, particularly the Commons, is also not happy with how the government is being run in Richard II's minority. Main lesson Richard takes from the Peasant's Revolt is a distrust & fear of the "rustici" and a desire to assert his regal authority. He wants a brutal crackdown in the aftermath, but this is ameliorated by the people who actually run the counties - yet they still have no empathy for the wishes of the common people they have authority over. 1383 marks the end of governance by a council on Richard's behalf.
The Assertion of Regality, 1384-1386: Richard II starts to govern alone at the age of 17. He promotes & rewards a clique of mostly younger, mostly non-great magnates, which leads to resentment from the established nobility. Richard also is keen to reassert his regality & powers, which doesn't go down well. Relationships even with his uncles (including John of Gaunt) begin to breakdown amidst suspicion & paranoia. Spending gets out of control, which prompts Parliament to try & curb that. Richard is clearly not interested in military campaigns, and those he begins mostly get aborted without result. Finally in 1387 Parliament forces on the king a new council, making reference back to Edward II and presumably also to his ultimate death.
The Magnate Backlash, 1387-1389: The council does successfully undertake material reform of the finances of the realm (and some of the court/household of the King). But Richard seethes under the perceived indignity of it, and obtains verdicts in advance of the expiry of the commission of the council condemning it and its members & supporters as illegal & treasonous. The lords act first - a group of three who come to be known as the Appellants overcome the king's intended show of force and condemn several of his favourites & retinue as traitors. The Parliament in which this happens comes to be known as the Merciless Parliament. Deposition of the king is considered but rejected. Although the bulk of the political community is in agreement with the Appellants they back themselves & the king into a corner.
Uneasy Equilibrium, 1389-1396: Despite Richard proclaiming his sole rule at the start of this period he actually ruled with advice of a council, who managed to contain any excesses of the king & there was greater harmony between the king & his nobles. This meant that the political situation seemed to return to the status quo ante & perhaps looked like things might now settle down. However Richard was also using this time to more fully articulate (to himself & others) his notion of regality & the authority of kingship - particularly its sacred nature & its absolutist nature. He's still childless by the end of this time & seems much less concerned than everyone else by his lack of an heir.
King Richard's Rule, 1397-1399: last few years of Richard's reign. Now truly running the country himself, but also getting increasingly isolated from the political elite by the courtiers (and sycophants) around him. Governing by asserting his divine right and by using intimidation. The exiled son of John of Gaunt seizes an opportunity and comes back to lead a rebellion. Henry IV gets support not just from his and his father's allies but also other nobles who fear Richard will turn on them. Richard is induced to resign after being captured, but to the end insists that the divine nature of his kingship can't be revoked. Summing up Richard's rule at the end of the section: he had a clear vision of a peace culture centered on the divine king that he wanted to replace his grandfather's chivalric war culture with. His idols/role models were Edward II and Edward the Confessor. Given more time he may've succeeded but he lost too much support.
Legitimation and Consent, 1399-1406: Henry IV's first problem was to legitimise his usurpation. He leant heavily on how Richard II had been a tyrant, and promised to bring back good governance. He also made much of his descent from Henry III while trying to ignore a cousin who had a better claim. One problem he faced was that after a rebellion that saw several Ricardian nobles executed there weren't many adult members of the nobility to provide leadership. He also very quickly became insolvent, particularly due to not receiving as much in tax as Richard. Eventually tensions resolved by the king ruling in conjunction with a council in a way that let things be sorted out without trampling on anyone's honour.
The King and the Prince: Henry's acceptance of the council was grudging. But as his health was also ailing this let the Prince, his son Henry, interact more with the council and fill it with his associates and effectively take over rule. This lead to a political struggle between father and son, and fit the last but of his reign Henry IV ruled without the council under his own authority. Overall his reign had a good start but fell into problems due to insolvency and tensions with parliament.
England and Her Neighbours:
Ireland: both ruled as a colony by England and ignored and allowed to fall into anarchy. Richard II made some effort to assert his kingship over it, and was there doing so when Henry IV launched his bid for the throne. The Lancastrians mostly ignored it but still appointed English governors. There were major fault lines between the Gaelic lords, the Anglo-Irish and the English. Within the Gaelic and Anglo-Irish there were also divisions between clans and families. When there was no strong English control there was anarchy.
Wales: the story of Wales over this period is first of direct rule by English colonists, and then after a failed revolt under the leadership of Owain Glyn Dŵr a gradual decolonisation and replacement by rule by a Welsh squirearchy. The situation was different to Ireland as there was no cohesive Welsh government imposed by England (Ireland had its own parliament and a governor), and the Welsh themselves were even more fragmented. Some Welsh fought in the wars in France, and they also got involved in the English feuds in the later years (i.e. York & Lancaster). As landlords became absentee & cared only about the revenue the Welsh took over the actual governance.
The Anglo-Scottish Border: The English had failed (twice) to conquer and colonise Scotland in the same way that they had the Irish & Welsh. In fact their attempts provoked a sense of identity within the Scottish that made them more unified and even harder to conquer. Mostly during this period there were truces, although raiding back & forth did happen. Once Henry IV usurped the throne he went to war against the Scottish (to assert his authority, rather than to conquer). There were Marcher lords in the border region in much the same way as Wales, who were quasi-autonomous, and their feuding and rivalries fed into the fighting during the Wars of the Roses. But mostly it was restricted to the borders, it was the unusual circumstances of Henry VI's incapacity rather than the borders becoming inherently too strong.
The English in France, 1413-1453:
The Lancastrian Conquest in France, 1413-1429: Henry V resumed the French war, but the flavour had changed. This was a war of conquest and more concerned with effectiveness than chivalry. Henry was using war as a means to the end of gaining the French throne. Agincourt was an example of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat that cemented Henry's reputation while the tactical errors that lead to it were forgotten. After securing Paris and marrying the French king's daughter Henry looked set to finish conquering France, but his unexpected death meant instead the army was under control of Bedford during the regency for Henry VI. Turning point of the war was a seige of Orléans that the English lost, and their strategy became to keep Normandy safe rather than push on with conquest.
Lancastrian Rule in France, 1417-1435: Henry V had successfully got himself as heir to the king of France, but still had to rely on "good governance" to assert legitimacy. His death meant control devolved to his brother the Duke of Bedford. He didn't have the legitimacy and relied on Burgundy in Paris and surrounding, and even more firmly on good government. Normandy had been English for a while but not securely. Bedford again was effective even if they pressed the French hard in Normandy to get taxes. Charles VII's coronation in Reims swung support his way, and eventually that was enough to make the Duke of Burgundy break the alliance wth England. Notable that Harriss doesn't much mention Joan of Arc.
The Defence of Normandy, 1435-1444: As hope of conquering and uniting France under an English king waned the English time of Normandy became more and more like an occupation. The death of Bedford also decapitated the command structure and fragmented the army. Charles VII was now the symbol of unified France and promised to reinstate the ousted Normandy nobility, so they were more inclined to rally round him than the distant and young Henry VI. Eventually Henry VI negotiated a truce with Charles VII, by marrying a daughter of a prominent French family - Margaret of Anjou.
The Loss of Normandy, 1445-1450: the diplomatic situation collapsed due to Suffolk being out of his depth, he made concessions to the French that weren't tied explicitly to concessions from their side. Charles VII was only after a breathing space to regroup and then restarted hostilities. The English took too long to realise that they needed a bigger and more well organised army to counter Charles VII's forces and so Normandy was lost. The whole adventure soured the English on foreign adventures (although the civil war also did that). But Henry V and Agincourt weren't forgotten and informed later English culture. If Henry V had lived a sort of joint kingdom of England and France might've taken root but his successors just didn't have the ability, legitimacy or vision to carry it off.
Ruling England, 1413-1461:
Henry V, the Model King: Henry V came to the throne better prepared than many of his immediate predecessors. He'd had a political apprenticeship on the council that governed while his father was ailing. He put down a couple of revolts early on which helped his image as in charge of the government. He was a good judge of character and governed decisively. During his absences abroad his brother, the Duke of Bedford, was regent. His governance was approved of by parliament, and taxes were generally granted when he asked.
The Minority of Henry VI, 1422-1435: can be divided into two phases, pre and post Henry's coronation in France. Rule was via a council with the leading persons being Henry V's brothers and half-uncle Cardinal Beaufort. Bedford was senior but spent most of his time on the war in France. His brother Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort were in opposition to each other but the situation never quite devolved into civil war. Parliament's rule increased during this period to make up for the lack of royal authority. Finances are strained by the French war but otherwise spending is kept under control. All in all the regency was successful in avoiding the many pitfalls that existed.
King and Council, 1435-1443: during the king's rather prolonged adolescence power shifted from the soldiers to the court. Henry was permitted to exercise power in things like patronage but kept away from politics (mostly), and he didn't seem to mind this. His boundless generosity meant that he gave away at least life interests in many of the royal lands which brought him close to bankruptcy. Real power began to devolve to the Duke of Suffolk, and Henry again was content with this. Some of the seeds of the upcoming civil wars are sown in this and the preceding period, particularly via the rivalry between Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort.
Suffolk's Rule, 1444-1449: Henry VI wasn't much interested in exercising his royal will - there were only really two things he had opinions on: that he wanted peace and to heal the rift in Christendom. Which left domestic politics wth little direction. The Duke of Suffolk stepped into the gap and attempted to rule in accordance with the only opinions Henry had and with the support of the other nobles. He did a bit quite good enough job - poor at diplomacy as discussed in the France chapter and too partisan domestically. His regime wasn't robust enough to survive a crisis.
Rebellion, Popular and Political, 1449-1453: Suffolk's murder and that of several other prominent courtiers and officials were part of what destabilised domestic politics. There was a popular uprising led by Jack Cade and further rumblings in Kent and the king's general ineffectiveness lead to a general underlying feeling that he wasn't fit to rule. Gradually power coalesced around Somerset, leaving York out on the political wilderness with his chief rival in power. Somerset's rule was more divisive than Suffolk's had been leading to deepening of existing rivalries that flared into violence between Neville and Percy in the north. This can be seen as the turning point leading to civil war, but at the time was not necessarily so - but Henry's collapse into a comatose state was what tipped the balance.
The Rule of York, 1453-1456: Henry's loss of his faculties removed Somerset's claim to be enacting Henry's will. York had allied with the Nevilles by this stage so came to wield power by virtue of being biggest kid on the block. In this first Protectorate he had some degree of support from Margaret of Anjou, and since of the nobility. But Henry's recovery returned the situation to the status quo ante, and Somerset was returned to power. After a battle near London in which Somerset and his chief supporters were killed York persuaded the king to regrant him the Protectorateship. This time however he had less support and Henry was subsequently persuaded to sack him.
Queen Margaret's Rule, 1456-1459: If Henry VI had either died or exerted his own personal authority as king at this point then civil war might've been avoided - royal authority would once again have been clear & singular (albeit invested in a minor if Henry had died, but that's a standard situation that politics would've coped with). But neither of those happened. Instead the elite continued to polarise into two camps. Queen Margaret had control of the king's person, and set up court in Coventry, but lacked the power & legitimacy to assert herself fully; York and his allies made no overt moves but were an alternate source of authority (albeit with even less legitimacy). London gradually became less & less on the Crown's side by default, which was shifting the balance of power. Eventually government was breaking down, and the discord moved onto the next phase.
York vs Lancaster, 1459-1461: Even when civil war proper breaks out it's at first not intended to replace Henry VI just to replace who controls him. But then York "persuades" Henry to proclaim him his heir (after capturing Henry), and then after his death in battle his son Edward has himself proclaimed as King in his own right (saying that Henry had broken the agreement with York). In the fighting first Lancaster have the upper hand, including the killing of York, and then Edward subsequently wins decisively at Towton which secures his rule for 9 years after that. Harriss notes that if the other side had won in similar style then it would probably have put the issue to bed once & for all. Second half of this section sums up how Harriss sees the causes & the general effects of the civil war. It stems ultimately from Henry VI's incompetence - and the fact that anyone trying to "speak for" him was suspect in the eyes of others as furthering their own interests. So there was a breakdown in the coherence of government. At the top of society it broke the reciprocal bonds between king & the wealthier/more powerful lords - kings in future were more distrustful, and authoritarian. And as society was so stratified this sort of rippled down, with less deference being shown to one's betters. And the crisis was redefining how the Commonweal was seen, and more people further down the strata of society felt that they had a right to critique the government.
Conclusion: Harriss sums up the century covered in this book in about 4 pages. A time of change from a feudal society to an integrated political society. Society stops being quite so dictated to from above, and the "middling sort" feel entitled to demand good governance via the Commons. The Black Death altered agrarian society irreversibly - the key point being a change from wages etc being determined by law to having the market dictate them. The differences in status between the peasantry came to be based on wealth rather than the old free/un-free distinctions. The Church also went through a period of change prefiguring the later Protestant Reformation and both clerics & reformers encouraged the greater participation of laity in the devotions of the church leading to a rise in individual piety. But there were no structural changes resulting from the call to reform, and movements like Wycliffe's were suppressed. The war in France despite its failure to achieve any of the original goals changed the conception of warfare from chivalric to a more practical national endeavour (under Henry V). It and its failure also lead to increasing isolationist thought in England and a turning away from the Continent.
