Opening page of the First Folio King JohnIn the, the plays of were grouped into three categories:, histories,. The histories—along with those of contemporary Renaissance playwrights—help define the genre of. The Shakespearean histories are biographies of of the previous four centuries and include the standalones, and as well as a continuous sequence of eight plays. These last are in two cycles. The so-called first tetralogy, apparently written in the early 1590s, covers the entire saga and includes, &.

The second tetralogy, finished in 1599 and including, & and, is frequently called the after its protagonist, the future.The folio's classifications are not unproblematic. Besides proposing other categories such as and, many modern studies treat the histories together with those tragedies that feature historical characters. These include, set in the mid-11th century during the reigns of and and the legendary and also the Roman plays,. Contents.List of Shakespeare's histories English histories As they are in the, the plays are listed here in the sequence of their action, rather than. Short forms of the full titles are used.Roman histories As noted above, the first folio groups these with the tragedies.Set in ancient Rome, dramatises a fictional story and is therefore excluded as a Roman history.Other histories As with the Roman plays, the First Folio groups these with the tragedies. Although they are connected with regional royal biography, and based on similar sources, they are usually not considered part of Shakespeare's English histories.Sources The source for most of the English history plays, as well as for Macbeth and King Lear, is the well-known 's of English history.

The 'War of the Roses' was rekindled with the sound of celebratory cannon-fire at the start of the 2007 Atlantic League season in Wrightsville, a borough located on the Susquehanna River, the natural boundary between Lancaster and York counties.

The source for the Roman history plays is 's, in the translation made by Sir in 1579. Shakespeare's history plays focus on only a small part of the characters' lives, and also frequently omit significant events for dramatic purposes.Politics in the English history plays Shakespeare was living in the reign of, the last monarch of the, and his history plays are often regarded as Tudor propaganda because they show the dangers of civil war and celebrate the founders of the Tudor dynasty.

In particular, depicts the last member of the rival as an evil monster ('that bottled spider, that foul bunchback'd toad'), a depiction disputed by many modern historians, while portraying his successor, in glowing terms. Political bias is also clear in, which ends with an effusive celebration of the birth of Elizabeth. However, Shakespeare's celebration of Tudor order is less important in these plays than his presentation of the spectacular decline of the medieval world.

Some of Shakespeare's histories—notably Richard III—point out that this medieval world came to its end when opportunism and infiltrated its politics. By nostalgically evoking the late Middle Ages, these plays described the political and social evolution that had led to the actual methods of Tudor rule, so that it is possible to consider the English history plays as a biased criticism of their own country.Lancaster, York, and Tudor myths. 'Henry VII crowned at Bosworth', by —a key moment in the 'Tudor myth'Shakespeare made use of the Lancaster and York myths, as he found them in the chronicles, as well as the Tudor myth.

The 'Lancaster myth' regarded Richard II's overthrow and Henry IV's reign as providentially sanctioned, and Henry V's achievements as a divine favour. The 'York myth' saw Edward IV's deposing of the ineffectual Henry VI as a providential restoration of the usurped throne to the lawful heirs of Richard II. The 'Tudor myth' formulated by the historians and poets recognised Henry VI as a lawful king, condemned the York brothers for killing him and Prince Edward, and stressed the hand of divine providence in the Yorkist fall and in the rise of Henry Tudor, whose uniting of the and had been prophesied by the 'saintly' Henry VI. Henry Tudor's deposing of Richard III 'was justified on the principles of contemporary political theory, for Henry was not merely rebelling against a tyrant but putting down a tyrannous usurper, which allowed'. 'Joan of Arc conjures demons in Shakespeare's Henry VI' (engraving by C.

Warren, 1805, after J. 'Next to her, Talbot is a blundering oaf, who furiously attributes her success to sorcery, whereas the audience knows that she has simply outfoxed him by superior military strategy.'

Kelly (1970)Accordingly, Shakespeare's moral characterisation and political bias, Kelly argues, change from play to play, 'which indicates that he is not concerned with the absolute fixing of praise or blame', though he does achieve general consistency within each play:Many of his changes in characterisation must be blamed upon the inconsistencies of the chroniclers before him. For this reason, the moral conflicts of each play must be taken in terms of that play, and not supplemented from the other plays.Shakespeare meant each play primarily to be self-contained.

Thus in Richard II the murder of, inaugurates the action—John of Gaunt places the guilt on Richard II—but Woodstock is forgotten in the later plays. Again, Henry IV, at the end of Richard II, speaks of a crusade as reparation for Richard's death: but in the next two plays he does not show remorse for his treatment of Richard. As for the Henry VI plays, the Yorkist view of history in 1 Henry VI differs from that in 2 Henry VI: in Part 1 the conspiracy of the Yorkist Richard Earl of Cambridge against Henry V is admitted; in Part 2 it is passed silently over. Henry VI's attitude to his own claim undergoes changes. Richard III does not refer to any events prior to Henry VI's reign.Kelly finds evidence of Yorkist bias in the earlier tetralogy. 1 Henry VI has a Yorkist slant in the dying Mortimer's narration to Richard Plantagenet (later Duke of York).

Henry VI is weak and vacillating and overburdened by piety; neither Yorkists nor Queen Margaret think him fit to be king. The Yorkist claim is put so clearly that Henry admits, aside, that his own is weak —'the first time,' notes Kelly, 'that such an admission is conjectured in the historical treatment of the period'. Shakespeare is suggestively silent in Part 3 on the Yorkist Earl of Cambridge's treachery in Henry V's reign. Even loyal Exeter admits to Henry VI that Richard II could not have resigned the crown legitimately to anyone but the heir, Mortimer.

Edward (later IV) tells his father York that his oath to Henry was invalid because Henry had no authority to act as magistrate.As for Lancastrian bias, York is presented as unrighteous and hypocritical in 2 Henry VI, and while Part 2 ends with Yorkist victories and the capture of Henry, Henry still appears 'the upholder of right in the play'. In Richard III in the long exchange between Clarence and the assassins we learn that not only Clarence but also implicitly the murderers and Edward IV himself consider Henry VI to have been their lawful sovereign. The Duchess of York's lament that her family 'make war upon themselves, brother to brother, blood to blood, self against self' derives from Vergil and Hall's judgment that the York brothers paid the penalty for murdering King Henry and Prince Edward. In the later tetralogy Shakespeare clearly inclines towards the Lancaster myth.

He makes no mention of Edmund Mortimer, Richard's heir, in Richard II, an omission which strengthens the Lancastrian claim. The plan in Henry IV to divide the kingdom in three undermines Mortimer's credibility. The omission of Mortimer from Henry V was again quite deliberate: Shakespeare's Henry V has no doubt about his own claim. Rebellion is presented as unlawful and wasteful in the second tetralogy: as Blunt says to Hotspur, 'out of limit and true rule / You stand against anointed majesty'.Shakespeare's retrospective verdict, however, on the reign of Henry VI, given in the epilogue to Henry V, is politically neutral: 'so many had the managing' of the state that 'they lost France and made his England bleed'. In short, though Shakespeare 'often accepts the moral portraitures of the chronicles which were originally produced by political bias, and has his characters commit or confess to crimes which their enemies falsely accused them of' ( Richard III being perhaps a case in point), his distribution of the moral and spiritual judgements of the chronicles to various spokesmen creates, Kelly believes, a more impartial presentation of history.Shakespearean history in the wider sense John F. Danby in Shakespeare’s Doctrine of Nature (1949) examines the response of Shakespeare's history plays (in the widest sense) to the vexed question: ‘When is it right to rebel?’, and concludes that Shakespeare's thought ran through three stages: (1) In the plays, Henry VI to Richard III, Shakespeare shows a new thrustful godlessness attacking the pious medieval structure represented by Henry VI.

He implies that rebellion against a legitimate and pious king is wrong, and that only a monster such as Richard of Gloucester would have attempted it. (2) In King John and the Richard II to Henry V cycle, Shakespeare comes to terms with the Machiavellianism of the times as he saw them under Elizabeth. In these plays he adopts the official Tudor ideology, by which rebellion, even against a wrongful usurper, is never justifiable. (3) From Julius Caesar onwards, Shakespeare justifies, but in order to do so moves away from English history to the camouflage of Roman, Danish, Scottish or Ancient British history.

'Falstaff', —according to Danby, 'in every sense, the bigger man' than HalDanby argues that Shakespeare's study of the Machiavel is key to his study of history. His Richard III, Faulconbridge in King John, and are all Machiavels, characterised in varying degrees of frankness by the pursuit of 'Commodity' (i.e. Advantage, profit, expediency). Shakespeare at this point in his career pretends that the Hal-type Machiavellian prince is admirable and the society he represents historically inevitable. And Hal are joint heirs, one medieval, the other modern, of a split Faulconbridge. Danby argues, however, that when Hal rejects Falstaff he is not reforming, as is the common view, but merely turning from one social level to another, from Appetite to Authority, both of which are equally part of the corrupt society of the time.

Of the two, Danby argues, Falstaff is the preferable, being, in every sense, the bigger man. In Julius Caesar there is a similar conflict between rival Machiavels: the noble Brutus is a dupe of his Machiavellian associates, while Antony's victorious 'order', like Hal's, is a negative thing. In Hamlet king-killing becomes a matter of private rather than public morality—the individual's struggles with his own conscience and fallibility take centre stage. Hamlet, like Edgar in King Lear later, has to become a 'machiavel of goodness'. In Macbeth the interest is again public, but the public evil flows from Macbeth's primary rebellion against his own nature. 'The root of the machiavelism lies in a wrong choice.

Macbeth is clearly aware of the great frame of Nature he is violating.' King Lear, in Danby's view, is Shakespeare's finest historical. The older medieval society, with its doting king, falls into error, and is threatened by the new Machiavellianism; it is regenerated and saved by a vision of a new order, embodied in the king's rejected daughter. By the time he reaches Edmund, Shakespeare no longer pretends that the Hal-type Machiavellian prince is admirable; and in Lear he condemns the society we think historically inevitable. Against this he holds up the ideal of a transcendent community and reminds us of the 'true needs' of a humanity to which the operations of a Commodity-driven society perpetually do violence. This 'new' thing that Shakespeare discovers is embodied in Cordelia.

The play thus offers an alternative to the feudal-Machiavellian polarity, an alternative foreshadowed in France's speech (I.1.245–256), in Lear and Gloucester's prayers (III.4. 28–36; IV.1.61–66), and in the figure of Cordelia. Cordelia, in the allegorical scheme, is threefold: a person; an ethical principle (love); and a community.

Until that decent society is achieved, we are meant to take as role-model Edgar, the Machiavel of patience, of courage and of 'ripeness'. After King Lear Shakespeare's view seems to be that private goodness can be permanent only in a decent society.

Shakespeare and the chronicle play genre. Henry VI (Jeffrey T. Heyer) and a young Richmond (Ashley Rose Miller) in the West Coast premiere of The Plantagenets: The Rise of Edward IV, staged by in 1993.' ' is a phrase used to describe the civil wars in England between the Lancastrian and Yorkist dynasties. Some of the events of these wars were dramatised by Shakespeare in the history plays,.

In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries there have been numerous stage performances, including:. The first tetralogy ( Henry VI parts 1 to 3 and Richard III) as a cycle;. The second tetralogy ( Richard II, Henry IV parts 1 and 2 and Henry V) as a cycle (which has also been referred to as the ); and. The entire eight plays in historical order (the second tetralogy followed by the first tetralogy) as a cycle.

Where this full cycle is performed, as by the in 1964, the name The Wars of the Roses has often been used for the cycle as a whole. A 10-play history cycle, which began with the newly attributed, the anonymous, and then the eight plays from Richard II to Richard III, was performed by under the title, Royal Blood, a phrase used throughout the works. The entire series, staged over four consecutive seasons from 2001 to 2004, was directed by PacRep founder and Artistic Director. A conflation of the eight plays by and, under the title The War of the Roses, was performed by the in 2009.The tetralogies have been filmed for television five times, twice as the entire cycle:. for the 1960 UK serial directed.

Featuring as Richard II, as Henry IV, as Henry V, as Henry VI, as Richard III, as Edward IV, as Queen Margaret, as Princess Catherine, as Joan la Pucelle, as Falstaff, as The Chorus and Justice Shallow, and, as Hotspur. for the 1965 UK serial, based on the RSC's 1964 staging of the Second Tetralogy, which condensed the Henry VI plays into two plays called Henry VI and Edward IV. Adapted by and; and directed by Hall. Featuring as Richard III, as Henry VI, as Margaret, as York, as Edward and Jack Cade, as Joan and Lady Anne and as Buckingham and Suffolk. Second Tetralogy filmed for the in 1978/1979 directed. Richard II was filmed as a stand-alone piece for the first season of the series, with the Henry IV plays and Henry V filmed as a trilogy for the second season.

Featuring as Richard II, as John of Gaunt, as Henry IV, as Falstaff, as Henry V, as Hotspur, as York, as the Duchess of Gloucester, as Mistress Quickly, and as Lady Percy. First Tetralogy filmed for the in 1981 directed by, although the episodes didn't air until 1983. In the First Tetralogy, the plays are performed as if by a repertory theater company, with the same actors appearing in different parts in each play.

Featuring as Richard III, as Henry VI, as Joan, as York, as Margaret, as Edward, as Clarence, as Warwick, as Cardinal Beaufort, as Talbot and Jack Cade, as Suffolk and Rivers, as Gloucester and as Lady Anne. for a straight-to-video filming, directly from the stage, of the 's 1987 production of 'The Wars of the Roses' directed. Featuring Pennington as Richard II, Henry V, Buckingham, Jack Cade and Suffolk, Andrew Jarvis as Richard III, Hotspur and the Dauphin, Barry Stanton as Falstaff, The Duke of York and the Chorus in Henry V, Michael Cronin as Henry IV and the Earl of Warwick, Paul Brennan as Henry VI and Pistol, and June Watson as Queen Margaret and Mistress Quickly. The three Henry VI plays are condensed into two plays, bearing the subtitles Henry VI: House of Lancaster and Henry VI: House of York. Second Tetralogy filmed as for BBC2 in 2012 directed by ( ), ( ) and ( ).

Allegiant was considered a box-office fail.Unfortunately, things came down to money. So what really happened? When Allegiant hit theaters in March 2016, it than the other films in the franchise and although the finale was to be split into two movies, the first half didn’t do as well as Lionsgate, the studio behind the movies, had hoped. Ascendant movie release date. The first three films came out, but then, there was nothing after that. Ascendant was suddenly scrapped it seemed and as fans of the book series know, the way the final book ends is much different than how Allegiant the movie ends.

Featuring as Richard II, as John of Gaunt, as Henry Bolingbroke (in Richard II) and as Henry IV, as Henry V, as Falstaff, as Hotspur, and as Mistress Quickly. The first tetralogy was later adapted in 2016.Many of the plays have also been filmed stand-alone, outside of the cycle at large.

Famous examples include (1944), directed by and starring, and (1989), directed by and starring; (1955), directed by and starring Olivier, and (1995), directed by and starring; and (1965) (also known as Falstaff), directed by and starring, combining Henry IV, Part I and Part II, with some scenes from Henry V.Notes. Ostovich, Helen; Silcox, Mary V; Roebuck, Graham (1999). Retrieved 7 August 2014. Kelly, 1970, p. 293.

Tillyard, E. W., Shakespeare's History Plays (London 1944), pp. 89–90, 212.

Kelly, Henry Ansgar, Divine Providence in the England of Shakespeare's Histories (Cambridge, MA, 1970), dust-jacket summary. Kelly, Henry Ansgar, Divine Providence in the England of Shakespeare's Histories (Cambridge, Mass., 1970). Kelly, 1970, dust-jacket summary. Kelly, 1970, p. 262. Kelly, 1970, p. 216.

Richard II 3.3.72–120. 1 Henry IV 3.2.4–17. Henry V 4.1.306–322. Richard III 1.4.1–75. Kelly, 1970, p. 252.

1 Henry VI 3.2.117; 3.4.12. Kelly, 1970, p. 247. Kelly, 1970, p. 248.

^ Kelly, 1970, p. 282. 3 Henry VI 4.6.65–76. Kelly, Henry Ansgar, Divine Providence in the England of Shakespeare's Histories (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), p. 247. Kelly, 1970, p. 306.

Kelly, 1970, p. 259. Kelly, 1970, p. 250. 2 Henry VI 1.3.56–67. 3 Henry VI 1.1.134. 3 Henry VI 1.1.132–150.

Kelly, 1970, pp. 253, 259.

Killing Floor: Incursion is a fully-realized, multi-hour, story-driven VR adventure with an additional endless mode. In solo or co-op mode, travel diverse environments, from creepy farmhouses to the catacombs of Paris. Killing floor incursion walkthrough. Killing Floor: Incursion: Cheats and cheat codes And now finally the long-awaited walkthrough for this game. The guide is divided into several videos, unless the game is short.

Kelly, 1970, p. 261. Richard III 2.4.60–62. Kelly, 1970, p. 219.

1 Henry IV 4.3.38–40. Henry V, epilogue, 5–14. Kelly, 1970, p. 305., 2.1.574. John F. Danby, Shakespeare’s Doctrine of Nature – A Study of ' (London 1949), pp. 72–74.

e.g., Discovering Shakespeare (London, 1989), pp. 92–93. Danby, 1949, pp. 57–101. Danby, 1949, p. 151.

Danby, 1949, p. 167. John F. Danby, Shakespeare’s Doctrine of Nature – A Study of, (Faber, London, 1949). Briggs, W.

D., Marlowe's 'Edward II' (London 1914), p. Xlii. Briggs, W. D., Marlowe's 'Edward II' (London 1914), p. Xi. Royal proclamations of 16 May 1559 and 12 November 1589. ^ Lee, Sidney, A Life of William Shakespeare (London, 1915), pp.

126–127. Chambers, E. K., The Elizabethan Stage (Oxford, 1923), vol. 305.

Dowden, Edward, ed., Histories and Poems, Oxford Shakespeare, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1912), p. W., The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare (Oxford, 1942), p.

Xxxviii. Tillyard, E. W., The Elizabethan World Picture (London 1943); Shakespeare's History Plays (London 1944). Campbell, L. B., Shakespeare's Histories (San Marino 1947). Briggs, W.

D., Marlowe's 'Edward II' (London 1914), p. Cxxv. ^ Ogburn, Dorothy, and Ogburn, Charlton, This Star of England: William Shakespeare, Man of the Renaissance (New York, 1952), pp. 709–710. ^ Pitcher, Seymour M., The Case for Shakespeare's Authorship of 'The Famous Victories' (New York, 1961), p. 186., The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford (1550–1604), from Contemporary Documents (London, 1928), pp.

257, 282. Ward, B. M., ' The Famous Victories of Henry V: Its Place in Elizabethan Dramatic Literature', Review of English Studies, IV, July 1928; p. 284.

Charlton, H. B., Waller, R. D., eds., Marlowe: Edward II (London 1955, 1st edn.), p. 54. Charlton, H.

B., Waller, R. D., eds., Marlowe: Edward II (London 1955, 1st edn.), Introduction. Charlton, H. B., Waller, R.

N., eds., Marlowe: Edward II (London 1955, 2nd edn.), Reviser's Notes. Charlton, H. B., Waller, R. D., eds., Marlowe: Edward II (London 1955, 1st edn.), p. 25. ^ Ruoff, James E., Macmillan's Handbook of Elizabethan and Stuart Literature, London, 1975.

Braunmuller, A. R., Shakespeare: King John (Oxford, 1989), p. 10.

Briggs, W. D., Marlowe's 'Edward II' (London, 1914), pp. Xlii–xliii. Briggs, W. D., Marlowe's 'Edward II' (London, 1914), p.

Xvii. Briggs, W. D., Marlowe's 'Edward II' (London, 1914), pp. Cix, 125. Briggs, W. D., Marlowe's 'Edward II' (London, 1914), p.

Xcvii. Briggs, W.

D., Marlowe's 'Edward II' (London, 1914), pp. Lxvii, lxx. Gillie, Christopher, Longman Companion to English Literature, London, 1972. ^, Richard II & Woodstock (London 1988). ^. Tillyard, E.

W Shakespeare's History Plays. New York, 1944, p.

174. Pitcher, Seymour M., The Case for Shakespeare's Authorship of 'The Famous Victories' (New York 1961, p.

6. Keen, Alan; Lubbock, Roger, The Annotator; The Pursuit of an Elizabethan Reader of Halle's 'Chronicle' Involving Some Surmises About The Early Life of William Shakespeare (London 1954). ^ Courthope, W. J., A History of English Poetry, Vol.

4 (London 1905), pp. 55, 463. Everitt, E.

B., Six Early Plays Related to the Shakespeare Canon (1965). Sams, Eric, The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Early Years, 1564–1594 (New Haven 1995), pp. 146–153. Sams, Eric, 1995, p. 152. ^ Sams, Shakespeare's Lost Play, Edmund Ironside, 1986. ^ Charlton, H.

B., Waller, R. D., eds., Marlowe: Edward II (London 1955, 1st edn.), pp. 25–27. ^ Charlton, H.

B., Waller, R. N., eds., Marlowe: Edward II (London 1955, 2nd edn.), p. 219. Eliot, T.

S., 'John Ford' in Selected Essays. Prynne, William,. Briggs, W.

D., Marlowe's 'Edward II' (London, 1914), pp. Cxxi–cxxx. ^ Sams, Eric, The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Early Years (New Haven, 1995), pp. 146–153. ^ Charlton, H.

B., Waller, R. D., eds., Marlowe: Edward II (London 1955, 1st edn.), p. 10. ^ Sams, Shakespeare's Edward III: An Early Play Restored to the Canon, 1996.

^ Sams, Eric, The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Later Years, 2008, p. 151. ^ Sams, 1995, p.

115. ^ Sams 1995, pp. 154–162;.

^ Sams 1995, pp. 154–162.

Chambers, E. K., The Elizabethan Stage (Oxford 1923), Vol. 43–44; Logan, Terence P., and Smith, Denzell S., eds., The Predecessors of Shakespeare: A Survey and Bibliography of Recent Studies in English Renaissance Drama (Lincoln, NE, University of Nebraska Press, 1973), pp. 273–274. Briggs, W.

D., Marlowe's 'Edward II' (London, 1914), pp. Lxxxii. Based not on the chronicles but on and 's Life of Thomas More. Chambers, E.

K., The Elizabethan Stage, 4 Volumes, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1923; Vol. 43–44; Terence P. Logan and Denzell S. Smith, eds., The Predecessors of Shakespeare: A Survey and Bibliography of Recent Studies in English Renaissance Drama, Lincoln, NE, University of Nebraska Press, 1973; pp. 273–274. Rossiter, A.

P., ed., Thomas of Woodstock (London 1946), p. 63. Sams, Eric, 1995 and 2008. Sams 2008, p. 269. Lucas, F. L., The Complete Works of John Webster (London, 1927), vol.

125–126. Danby, John F., Shakespeare's Doctrine of Nature (London, 1949). Leggatt, Alexander, Shakespeare's Political Drama: The History Plays and the Roman Plays (London 1988). Spencer, T. B., Shakespeare: The Roman Plays (London 1963). Butler, Martin, ed., Re-Presenting Ben Jonson: Text, History, Performance (Basingstoke 1999)., pp. 37–38 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAyres1990. Briggs, W.

D., Marlowe's 'Edward II' (London, 1914), pp. X–xi. Park Honan, Shakespeare: A Life, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999, p. 342. ^ Duncan-Jones, K., Ungentle Shakespeare (London 2001). ^ Tucker Brooke, C. F., The Works of Christopher Marlowe (Oxford 1946), pp.

387–388. ^ Gunby, David; Carnegie, David; Hammond, Antony; DelVecchio, Doreen; Jackson, MacDonald P.: editors of The Works of John Webster (3 vols, Cambridge, 1995–2007), Vol. 2.

^ Chambers, E. K., The Elizabethan Stage (Oxford 1923) Vol. 259.

Dorsch, ed., Julius Caesar (London 1955), p. Xx. Dorsch, ed., Arden Julius Caesar (London 1955), p. Xx. Duncan-Jones, K., Ungentle Shakespeare (London 2001), p. 51.External links.

at the British Library., essay by historian, Vol. 3, Cambridge, 1965; pp. 293–308. Roy, Pinaki.

' Much Ado about Politics:A Very Brief Survey of 's Tumultuous History during Shakespeare's Lifetime'. Yearly, XV (July 2017): 16–24. Roy, Pinaki. ' What exactly went wrong with between 1599 and 1608?: A very brief -based Introspection'. Yearly, XVI (July 2018): 26–32.

The South Central Pennsylvania cities of Lancaster and York have a historical rivalry in all sporting events from the high-school level to the professional. Since both cities are named after the English cities of Lancaster and York, the former Pennsylvania baseball teams were named for the opposing sides of the Wars of the Roses. As a metaphor, 'War of the Roses' describes the intense baseball matches fought between the Lancaster Red Roses and the York White Roses. With the addition of York to the Atlantic League, the Barnstormers continue the Red Roses' tradition as they battle the York Revolution for lower Susquehanna supremacy.

The 'War of the Roses' was rekindled with the sound of celebratory cannon-fire at the start of the 2007 Atlantic League season in Wrightsville, a borough located on the Susquehanna River, the natural boundary between Lancaster and York counties. The winner of the War of the Roses is presented with the Community Cup, while the defeated team is obligated to sing the ballpark classic 'Take Me Out to the Ball Game' and plant a rose garden at the opponent's ballpark with their representative color: red for Lancaster, white for York. The first Community Cup was championed by the Barnstormers in the 2007 season, though the Revolution avenged them by winning it in 2008.^[1] The clubs also competed in the Route 30 Showdown in 2009–2011, an annual cross-county doubleheader inadvertently created at the conclusion of the 2008 season by a rain-delay.^[2]

1. ^'Revolution Home and Alternate Uniforms Unveiled'. York Revolution. May 2, 2007. Archived from the original on September 28, 2007. Retrieved May 5, 2007.
2. ^'Barnstormers Announce Fifth Anniversary Home Schedule'. Lancaster Barnstormers. November 13, 2008. Archived from the original on July 19, 2011. Retrieved November 13, 2008.
3. ^'War of the Roses'. Lancaster Barnstormers. Archived from the original on May 16, 2012.
4. ^Marcantonini, Michael (August 23, 2018). 'Revs Drop Finale'. York Revolution. Retrieved September 4, 2019.
5. ^Pietrzak, Brett (September 20, 2019). 'Revs Win the Cup!'. York Revolution. Retrieved September 24, 2019.