Battle of Bosworth Field

gigatos | February 16, 2022

Post Views: 8

Summary

The Battle of Bosworth was the penultimate battle of the Wars of the Roses, the civil war fought between the House of Lancaster and the House of York in England in the second half of the 15th century. It took place on 22 August 1485, and was won by the House of Lancaster. Its leader, Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, became the first English monarch of the Tudor dynasty, marrying a princess of the House of York. His enemy, Richard III, the last King of the House of York, died in battle. Historians believe that the Battle of Bosworth represented the end of the Plantagenet dynasty, a defining moment in English history.

Richard”s reign began in 1483 when he took the throne from his twelve-year-old nephew”s brother, Edward V. The boy and his younger brother disappeared soon after, and support for Richard was shaken by rumours of his involvement in his wife”s death. Across the Channel, Henry Tudor, a descendant of the House of Lancaster, took advantage of Richard”s difficulties and claimed the throne. Henry”s first attempted invasion of England in 1483 was stopped by bad weather, but a second landed on 1 August 1485 on the south-west coast of Wales. Stepping inland, Henry gathered increasing support on his way to London. Richard hastily assembled his army and met Henry in the market town of Bosworth in Leicestershire. Lord Thomas Stanley and Sir William Stanley also arrived with an army on the battlefield, but stood aside undecided which side would be more advantageous to support.

Richard divided his army, larger than Henry”s, into three groups. One was led by the Duke of Norfolk and the other by the Earl of Northumberland. Henry kept his forces together and put them under the experienced Earl of Oxford. Richard”s vanguard, led by Norfolk, attacked, but ran into difficulties against Oxford”s men and some of Norfolk”s soldiers fled. Northumberland did not act when signalled to help the king, so Richard decided to risk it all on a frontal charge with the aim of killing Henry and ending the fighting. Seeing the king”s knights separating from his army, the Stanleys intervened; Sir William put his men on Henry”s side, surrounding and killing Richard. After the battle, Henry was crowned on Crown Hill.

Henry hired chroniclers to describe his reign favourably; the Battle of Bosworth was popularised as representing the beginning of a new era of the Tudor dynasty. Between the 15th and 18th centuries, the battle was portrayed as a victory of good over evil, and as the climax of William Shakespeare”s play about the rise and fall of Richard, it became a focus for critics in later film adaptations. The exact location of the battle is not known for certain due to a lack of conclusive data, and monuments have been erected in several places. In 1974 The Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre was built on a site chosen on a theory disputed by several historians in the years that followed. In October 2009, a team of researchers who had been carrying out geological surveys and archaeological excavations in the area since 2003 suggested that the actual position would be somewhere 3km south-west of Ambion Hill.

Throughout the 15th century, England was wracked by a civil war waged by the Houses of York and Lancaster for the English throne. In 1471, the Yorkists defeated their rivals at the Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. King Henry VI and his only son, Edward of Lancaster, died in the second. Their deaths left the House of Lancaster with no credible claim to the throne. The Yorkist king, Edward IV, had complete control of England. He condemned all those who refused to obey him, such as Jasper Tudor and his nephew Henry, declaring them traitors and confiscating their lands. The Tudors tried to flee to France but strong winds forced them to land in Brittany, then a semi-independent duchy, where they were captured by Francis II, Duke of Brittany. Henry”s mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, was a distant descendant of John de Gaunt, uncle of King Richard II and father of King Henry IV. The Beauforts were descended from an illegitimate son, but Henry IV legitimised the family on condition that their descendants were not eligible to inherit the throne. Henry Tudor, the last Lancastrian nobleman with a trace of royal blood between his ancestors, had a vague chance of claiming the throne, and Edward considered him ”a nobody”. Francis, however, saw Henry as a valuable tool in negotiations for English aid and kept the Tudors under his protection.

Edward IV died after 12 years on 9 April 1483. His twelve-year-old son succeeded to the throne as Edward V; his nine-year-old youngest son Richard of Shrewsbury was next in line. Edward V was too young to rule and a Royal Council was set up to rule in his name until he came of age. The Royal Court became concerned when it learned that the Woodville family, related to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, were planning to take control of the council. Having offended many in their desire for wealth and power, the Woodvilles did not have many friends. To thwart their plans, Lord Hastings and other members of the council turned to the King”s uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester, brother of Edward IV. The courtiers asked Gloucester to take over as Protector, as his late brother had requested. On 29 April, Gloucester, accompanied by a contingent of guards and Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, took Edward V into custody and arrested several important members of the Woodville family. After the young king was brought to London, Gloucester ordered the Woodvilles executed without trial on charges of treason.

On June 13, Gloucester accused Hastings of collaborating with the Woodville family and ordered him beheaded. Nine days later, Gloucester persuaded Parliament to declare the marriage between Edward IV and Elizabeth illegal, making their children illegitimate and removing them from the line of succession to the throne. Having thus rid himself of his grandchildren, he became next in line for the succession and was proclaimed king as Richard III on 26 June. The timing and out-of-court nature of the deeds by which he gained the throne made him unpopular, and rumours spread throughout England that he was being maligned. After being declared bastards, the two princes were imprisoned in the Tower of London and never seen in public again. Except in the north, the English believed Richard, the “tyrant”,

In the summer after he took the throne, dissatisfaction with Richard”s actions began to be voiced, and plans began for his dethronement. The rebels were largely loyal to Edward IV, and considered Richard a usurper. Their plans were coordinated by a Lancastrian, Henry”s mother, Lady Margaret, who was promoting her son as a candidate for the throne. The highest-ranking plotter was Buckingham. There are no chronicles to explain his reasons for joining the plot, although historian Charles Ross suggests that Buckingham may have been trying to distance himself from a king who was becoming increasingly unpopular with the people. Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood suggest that Margaret lied to Buckingham, leading him to believe that the rebels were backing him for the throne.

The plan was to stage mutinies at short notice in the south and west of England, overwhelming Richard”s forces. Buckingham was to support the rebels invading from Wales, and Henry was to come by sea. Weather and bad timing thwarted the plans. An uprising in Kent broke out 10 days earlier than it should have, giving Richard time to assemble the royal army and take measures to quell the riots. Richard”s spies informed him of Buckingham”s activities, and the king”s men captured and destroyed bridges across the Severn. When Buckingham and his army reached the banks of the river, they found it high and impossible to cross because of a violent storm that broke on 15 October. Buckingham was surrounded and had nowhere to retreat; his Welsh enemies occupied his castle after he left with the army. The Duke abandoned his plans and fled to Wem, where he was betrayed by his servant and arrested by Richard”s men. On 2 November, he was executed. Henry attempted to land on 10 October (or 19 October), but his fleet was scattered by a storm. He reached the coast of England (either Plymouth or Poole), and a group of soldiers called him ashore. These were actually Richard”s men, ready to take Henry prisoner as soon as he set foot on English soil. Henry was not fooled and returned to Brittany, giving up the invasion. Without Buckingham and without Henry, the rebellion was easily put down by Richard.

Survivors of the failed revolt also fled to Brittany, where they openly supported Henry”s claim to the throne. At Christmas, Henry Tudor vowed to marry Edward IV”s daughter, Elizabeth of York, to unite the two feuding noble houses of York and Lancaster. Henry”s growing popularity made him a great threat to Richard, and the Yorkist king made several requests to the Duke of Brittany to surrender the young Lancastrian to him. Francis refused, hoping Richard could offer him better terms. In mid 1484, Francis fell ill and, while convalescing, his treasurer, Peter Landois, took over the government of the duchy. Landois reached an agreement with Richard to send Henry and his uncle to him in exchange for financial and military aid. John Morton, Bishop of Flanders, learned of these plans and warned the Tudors, who took refuge in France. The French court allowed them to stay; the Tudors were useful pawns for the French monarchs in their desire to ensure that Richard”s England would not interfere with French plans to annex Brittany. On 16 March 1485, Richard”s queen, Anne Neville, died, and rumours spread across the country that she had been murdered so that Richard could marry his niece, Elizabeth. The gossip also caused Richard to lose some of his northern supporters, and saddened the exiled Henry. The loss of Elizabeth”s hand could have led to the break-up of the alliance between Henry”s Lancastrian supporters and the Yorkists loyal to Edward IV. Eager to secure his marriage, Henry mustered some 2,000 men and weighed anchor in France on 1 August.

By the 15th century, English chivalric ideas of self-sacrifice for the king had already been distorted. Armies were raised only at the level of individual estates; all men able to bear arms had to answer their lord”s call, and each noble had exclusive authority over his militia. Although the king could raise such an army from his own lands, he could only raise a large enough army with the help of the nobles. Richard, like his predecessors, had to win them to his side by giving them gifts and maintaining close relations with them. Powerful nobles could demand greater favours to stay on the monarch”s side, or else turn against him. At Bosworth, three groups gathered, each with its own goals: Richard III and his Yorkist army; his enemy, Henry Tudor, at the head of the Lancastrian camp; and the undecided Stanleys.

Also read, biographies – Lady Jane Grey

Yorkists

Short and lean, Richard III lacked the robust physique of many of his Plantagenet ancestors. He did, however, engage in hard sports and activities considered manly. His performance on the battlefield had deeply impressed his brother, and so he became Edward”s right-hand man. In the 1480s, Richard defended England”s northern frontiers. In 1482, Edward commissioned him to lead an army into Scotland to replace King James III with the Duke of Albany. Richard”s army defeated the Scottish defences and occupied the capital, Edinburgh, but Albany decided to give up the throne in exchange for the post of Lieutenant General of Scotland. As a result of this campaign, however, Richard obtained a guarantee that the Scottish government would cede territory and diplomatic benefits to the English crown, and regained the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, which the Scots had conquered in 1460. Edward was not happy with these gains, which Ross says would have been more substantial if Richard had been determined enough to take advantage of the situation when he controlled the city of Edinburgh. Christine Carpenter has analysed Richard”s character, seeing him as a soldier more used to taking orders than giving them. But he did not shrink from flaunting his militaristic ambitions; on ascending the throne he made known his desire to lead a crusade against “not only the Turks, but all enemies”.

Richard”s most loyal subject was John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk. The Duke served Richard”s brother for many years and was one of Edward IV”s closest confidants. He was a military veteran, having fought at the Battle of Towton in 1461 and was Hastings” second-in-command at Calais in 1471. Ross speculates that he would have held a grudge against Edward for depriving him of a considerable fortune. Norfolk was to inherit part of the wealthy Mowbray estate after the death aged just eight of Anne of Mowbray, the last of her family. But Edward persuaded Parliament to bypass the Inheritance Act and transfer the estate to his youngest son, who was married to Anne. As a result, Howard supported Richard III when he removed Edward”s sons, for which he received the Duchy of Norfolk and his coveted share of the Mowbray estate.

Henry Percy, fourth earl of Northumberland, also supported Richard”s enthronement. The Percys were loyal Lancastrians, but Edward IV eventually won the earl”s loyalty. Northumberland had been captured and imprisoned by the Yorkists in 1461, losing his titles and estates, but Edward freed him after eight years and made him earl again. From then on, Northumberland served the Yorkist crown, helping to defend northern England and keep order there. At first, the earl was annoyed by Richard III at a time when Edward was promoting him as the main force in the north. Northumberland was emboldened when he was promised that he would be appointed Lord Warden of the Eastern Marches, a hereditary title that had previously belonged to the Percy family. He served Richard in the invasion of Scotland in 1482, and being put in a position to dominate the north of England when Richard went south to take the crown served as his motivation to support Richard on the throne. After he became king, however, Richard began training his nephew John de la Pole, the first earl of Lincoln, to rule the north, bypassing Northumberland. According to Carpenter, although the earl was generously compensated for his ambitions, he lost any chance of promotion under Richard.

Also read, history – Great Retreat (Serbian)

Lancastrians

Henry Tudor was not a connoisseur of the art of war and was a stranger to the country he wanted to conquer. He had spent the first fourteen years of his life in Wales and the next fourteen in Brittany and France. Thin but strong and determined, Henry lacked the fighting spirit and was not a great warrior; chroniclers like Polydore Vergil and ambassadors like Pedro de Ayala saw him as more interested in trade and finance. Henry recruited several experienced veterans to rely on for military advice and to command his armies.

John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford, was Henry”s principal military commander. He was skilled in warfare. At the Battle of Barnet, he commanded the Lancastrian right flank and drove out the opposing division. As a result of the confusion, however, Oxford”s group was attacked by the main Lancastrian force and withdrew from the battlefield. Earlul fled abroad and continued his fight against the Yorkists, eventually capturing the island fortress of St Michael”s Mount in 1473. He surrendered because he did not receive aid and reinforcements, but in 1484 he escaped from prison and joined Henry”s court in France, bringing with him his former jailer Sir James Blount. Oxford”s presence boosted the morale of Henry”s camp and worried Richard III.

Stanley Family

In the early stages of the War of the Roses, the Stanleys of Cheshire were predominantly Lancastrians. Sir William Stanley, however, was a staunch supporter of the Yorkists, fighting at the Battle of Blore Heath in 1459 and helping Hastings put down rebellions against Edward IV in 1471. When Richard was crowned, Sir William showed no sign of turning against the new king, refraining from joining Buckingham”s rebellion, for which he was handsomely rewarded. Sir William”s older brother, Thomas Stanley, 2nd Baron Stanley, did not share his views. By 1485, he had already served three kings, Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. Lord Stanley”s skilful political machinations-fluctuating between opposing sides until it was clear who would emerge victorious-earned him high office; he was Henry”s chamberlain and Edward”s steward. His unflinching attitude, until the crucial moment of a battle, won him the loyalty of his soldiers, who knew he would not send them to their deaths.

Although Lord Stanley had been Edward IV”s steward, his relations with the king”s brother, the future Richard III, were not cordial. The two had been at loggerheads, which had broken out violently by March 1470. Moreover, after marrying Lady Margaret in June 1472, Stanley became Henry Tudor”s stepfather, a relationship that won him no favour with Richard. Despite these differences, Stanley did not join Buckingham”s rebellion of 1483. When Richard executed the conspirators who had failed to flee England, he spared Lady Margaret. But he stripped her of her titles and passed her estates into Stanley”s name, to be held in pledge to the Yorkist crown. Richard”s pity was calculated to reconcile himself to Stanley, but it seems to have been in vain-Carpenter identified another cause of quarrel in Richard”s intention to reopen an old land dispute involving Thomas Stanley with the Harringtons. Edward IV had decided the dispute in Stanley”s favour in 1473, but Richard wanted to overturn his brother”s decision and give the rich estate to the Harringtons. Richard feared Stanley, and took his son, Lord Strange, hostage to discourage him from joining Henry.

Henry”s crossing of the English Channel in 1485 was uneventful. He sailed from Harfleur on 1 August and, with a fair wind, landed in Mill Bay north of Milford Haven on 7 August, easily capturing nearby Dale Castle. Although hailed by contemporary Welsh bards as the native prince come to restore glory to their country, Henry”s arrival was passively welcomed by the local population. No enthusiastic response awaited him on shore, and very few Welshmen joined his army on the way to the centre of the island. Historian Geoffrey Elton suggests that only Henry”s staunch supporters felt proud of his Welsh origins. When Henry reached Haverfordwest, the centre of Pembrokeshire, things changed. Richard”s South Wales lieutenant, Sir Walter Herbert, did not act against Henry and two of his officers, Richard Griffith and Evan Morgan, deserted, siding with Henry with their men. Henric was joined by another local figure, Rhys Fawr ap Maredudd.

Perhaps the most important arrival in Henry”s camp at the start of this campaign was Rhys ap Thomas, the local West Wales leader. Richard had appointed Rhys lieutenant in West Wales for his refusal to join Buckingham”s rebellion, requiring him to pledge his son Gruffydd ap Rhys ap Thomas to him, although by some accounts Rhys had avoided this condition. Henry, however, courted Rhys, offering him the post of lieutenant throughout Wales in return for his loyalty. Henry advanced through Aberystwyth while Rhys went further south, recruiting 500 Welshmen on the way, raising the number of Henry”s soldiers when they met at Welshpool. By 15 or 16 August, Henry and his men had crossed into England proper, heading for the town of Shrewsbury.

By 22 June 1485, Richard knew of Henry”s impending invasion, and had ordered his lords to be ready. News of Henry”s landing reached Richard on 11 August, but it took 3 or 4 days for messengers to notify all the lords of the mobilisation ordered by the king. On 16 August, the Yorkist army began to assemble; Norfolk set off for Leicester, the assembly point, that very night. The city of York, Richard”s traditional family stronghold, asked the king for instructions and, after receiving a reply three days later, sent 80 men to the king. Simultaneously, Northumberland, whose northern territory was furthest from the Capital, gathered its men and sent them to Leicester.

Although London was his target, Henry did not go directly to the city. After resting at Shrewsbury, his forces moved east and took Gilbert Talbot with other English allies, including deserters from Richard”s forces. Although its size had increased substantially after the landing, Henry”s army was still not large enough to match the number of troops Richard could muster. Henry”s speed through Staffordshire was slow, delaying the confrontation with Richard in order to gather as many recruits as possible. Henry had been in friendly communication with the Stanleys for some time before entering England, and the Stanleys had mobilised their forces on hearing of Henry”s landing. They acted in advance of Henric”s march through the English countryside, meeting him twice in secret in Staffordshire. At the second such meeting, which took place at Atherstone in Warwickshire, they advised each other ”in what craft to fight King Richard, whom they had heard was not far off”. On 21 August, the Stanleys were camped on the slope of a hill north of Dadlington, while Henry had set up camp at the White Moors to the north-west of their camp.

On August 20, Richard arrived in Leicester, along with Norfolk. Northumberland arrived the next day. The Royal Army set off west to intercept Henry”s march on London. Passing Sutton Cheney, Richard moved his army to Ambion Hill-deal he considered of strategic value-and encamped on it. Richard did not sleep peacefully and, according to the Croyland Chronicle, in the morning his face was ”paler and more cadaverous than usual”.

The Yorkist army, numbering about 10,000 men, deployed along the hill”s ridge from west to east. Norfolk”s group of spearmen remained on the right flank, protecting the guns and about 1,200 archers. Richard”s group of 3,000 foot soldiers took the centre. Northumberland”s men guarded the left flank; he had about 4,000 men, many on horseback. From the crest of the hill, Richard had a panoramic view of the area. He could see Stanley with his 6,000 men in position on Dadlington Hill, and to the south-west he could see Henry”s army.

Henry had very few Englishmen-less than a thousand-in his army. Between 300 and 500 of them were exiles who had left the country during Richard”s reign, and the rest were Talbot”s men and a few recent deserters from Richard”s army. Historian John Mackie believes that 1,800 French mercenaries, led by Philibert de Chandée, formed the core of Henry”s army. John Mair writes, thirty-five years after the battle, that this force contained a significant Scottish component, and some modern scholars accept this claim, but Mackie argues that the French would not have sent their elite Scottish knights and archers, concluding that there were probably few Scottish soldiers in the army, although he accepts the idea of the presence of captains such as Bernard Stewart, Lord de Aubigny. In all, Henry”s army numbered about 5,000 soldiers, a substantial proportion of whom were recruits from Wales. Rhys ap Thomas”s Welsh force was described as large enough to ”annihilate” the rest of Henry”s force.

Interpreting the vague mentions of the battle in the sources of the time, historians have deduced that the site of the battle could be the foot of Ambion Hill, and have thought up possible scenarios of the battle. In reconstructions of the battle, Henry began by moving his army to Ambion Hill where Richard and his men were standing. As Henry”s army advanced across the marshes southwest of the hill, Richard sent Stanley a message threatening to execute his son, Strange, if he did not join him immediately in the attack on Henry. Stanley replied that he had other sons. Enraged, Richard ordered Strange to be beheaded, but his officers calmed him down, telling him that the battle was imminent, and that it would be more convenient for the execution to take place afterwards. Henry also sent Stanley messengers asking him to declare whose side he was on. The reply was evasive-the Stanleys said they would come “of course” after Henry had given orders to the army and arranged it for battle. Henry had no choice but to face Richard”s forces alone.

Aware of his own lack of military experience, Henry surrendered command of his army to Oxford and retreated to the rear with his bodyguards. Oxford, seeing the vast line of Richard”s army stretched along the ridge, decided to keep his men grouped together instead of dividing them into three groups as was customary: vanguard, centre and rearguard. He ordered his men to stay within 10 feet of the flags, fearing they might be enveloped. The individual groups gathered close together, forming one large mass flanked by knights.

Lancastrians were harassed with cannons as they moved through the marshes looking for hard ground. Once Oxford and his men were out of the marshes, Norfolk”s party along with several contingents from Richard”s party began to advance. Arrow volleys came from both sides. Oxford”s men proved stronger in the hand-to-hand fighting that followed; they held their ground, and a few of Norfolk”s men, recruits from southern England, fled. Recognising that his army was at a disadvantage, Richard signalled to Northumberland to help him, but Northumberland”s group showed no sign of moving. Some historians, such as Horrox and Pugh, believe that Northumberland chose not to help the king for personal reasons. Ross doubts that Northumberland would have wavered in his loyalty, suggesting that the narrow ridge of Ambion Hill would have prevented him from joining the battle. Earlul would either have had to go through his allies or execute a broad flanking move-almost impossible given the standard of military training of the time-to engage Oxford”s men.At this point, Henry left for the Stanleys. Seeing him, Richard decided to end the fighting quickly by killing the enemy commander. He led a charge of 800 horsemen around the encirclement and rode towards Henry”s group. Richard killed Henry”s standard bearer Sir William Brandon in the initial charge and knocked the mighty John Cheyne, former standard bearer of Edward IV, from his horse with a blow to the head from a broken lance. Henry”s henchmen surrounded their master and managed to protect him from the Yorkist king. Seeing Richard in battle with Henry”s men and separated from his army, William Stanley sprang into action and led his men to Henry”s side. Outnumbered, Richard”s party was surrounded and driven back to the marshes. Richard”s standard-bearer-Sir Percival Thirwell-lost his legs but held the Yorkist flag aloft until he was killed. The King”s horse got stuck in the soft ground and he was forced to continue fighting on foot. His men offered him their horses to escape, but Richard refused. All chroniclers agree that Richard fought valiantly to the end; overwhelmed by the masses of Welsh spearmen around him, the last Yorkist king died in battle. As news of Richard”s death spread, his forces disintegrated. Northumberland and his men fled north, and Norfolk was killed.

After the battle, Richard”s small crown was found and brought to Henry, who was crowned on Crown Hill near the village of Stoke Golding. According to the account of Vergil, Henry”s official historian, Lord Stanley found the small crown. Historian Stanley Chrimes and Professor Sydney Anglo contradict the legend of finding the crown in a hawthorn bush; no contemporary source has reported such an event. Ross does not ignore the legend, however. He opined that the hawthorn bush would not be part of Henry”s coat of arms if it were not closely connected with his accession to the throne. In Vergil”s chronicle, 100 of Henry”s men, compared to 1,000 of Richard”s, died in battle-a ratio that Chrimes considers exaggerated. The bodies of the fallen were brought to St. James”s Church in Dadlington for burial. Henry refused to allow Richard”s burial; instead, the body of the last Yorkist king was stripped naked and tied to a horse, then taken in this way to Leicester and displayed in a church to demonstrate his death. Two days later, he was buried in a simple unmarked grave.

Henry discharged the mercenaries from his army, retaining only a small core of local soldiers who formed the Yeomen of the Guard, with whom he laid the foundations of his reign in England. He persuaded Parliament to repeal the Succession Act and declare Richard”s coronation illegal, although the Yorkist king”s reign officially remains in the annals of English history. The proclamation of Edward IV”s children as illegitimate was also annulled, restoring Elizabeth to the status of Princess Royal. The marriage of Elizabeth, heiress to the House of York, to Henry, Lord of Lancaster, ended the struggle between the two houses and laid the foundations of the House of Tudor. But the royal wedding was postponed until Henry was crowned and consolidated his succession to the throne sufficiently to remove Elizabeth and her lineage from his path to the throne. Henry persuaded parliament to retroactively register his reign from the day before the battle, so he could declare those who fought against him at Bosworth traitors. Northumberland, who remained inactive during the battle, was imprisoned but then released and set to govern the north in Henry”s place. The purge of those who had fought for Richard occupied the first two years of Henry”s reign, although he later proved prepared to accept those who submitted to him regardless of which side they took in the conflict.

Of his supporters, Henry most generously rewarded the Stanleys. As well as making William his personal chamberlain, Lord Stanley was made earl of Derby and given offices, titles and estates. Henry rewarded Oxford by giving him back the lands and titles seized by the Yorkists and appointed him Constable of the Tower and Admiral of England, Ireland and Aquitaine. For his family, Henry made Jasper Tudor Duke of Bedford. He gave back to his mother the lands and titles Richard had taken from her, and installed her as Queen Mother in the palace, looking after her for the rest of his reign. Margaret”s declaration by parliament as femme sole gave her power; she no longer had to manage her estates through the Stanleys. Elton showed that despite his early generosity, Henry of Bosworth”s supporters enjoyed his special favours only briefly; in the years that followed, he promoted those who best served his interests.

Like the kings before him, Henry faced discontent. The first open revolt took place two years after the Battle of Bosworth; Lambert Simnel claimed to be Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick, who was the grandson of Edward IV. The Earl of Lincoln supported him and led the rebel forces on behalf of the House of York. The rebel army repulsed several attacks by Northumberland”s forces, before fighting Henry”s army directly at the Battle of Stoke Field on 16 June 1487. Oxford and Bedford led Henry”s army, which included former supporters of Richard III. Henry easily won the battle, but further grievances and conspiracies followed. In 1489 a mutiny began after Northumberland”s murder; military historian Michael C. C. Adams states that the author of a note left near Northumberland”s body blamed the earl for Richard”s death.

Contemporary accounts of the Battle of Bosworth come from four main sources, one of which is the English chronicle Croyland, written by a Yorkist chronicler who relied on information taken from nobles and soldiers. The other accounts were written by foreigners-Vergil, Jean Molinet and Diego de Valera. Molinet leaned towards Richard”s side, while Vergil was in Henry”s service and obtained information from the king and his subjects, presenting him in a favourable light. Diego de Valera, whose information is considered untrustworthy by Ross, compiled his work from letters of Spanish merchants. Other historians have also used Valera”s work to deduce some potentially valuable data not immediately apparent from other sources. Ross finds The Ballad of Bosworth Field a useful source of battle details. The plethora of other accounts, mostly based on second- or third-hand information, has proved a stumbling block to historians trying to reconstruct the facts. They complain that, except for the outcome, very few details of the battle appear in the chronicles. Historian Michael Hicks said the Battle of Bosworth is one of the most poorly reported clashes of the Wars of the Roses.

Henry tried to present his victory as a new beginning for the country; he hired chroniclers to describe his reign as a “modern era” that began in 1485. Hicks says that the works of Vergil and the blind historian Bernard André, promoted by Tudor administrations, became primary sources for writers over the next 400 years. As such, Tudor literature paints a glowing portrait of Henry”s reign, depicting the Battle of Bosworth Field as the final battle of the Civil War, and downplaying the importance of subsequent uprisings. For England, the Middle Ages ended in 1485, and English Heritage argues that apart from William the Conqueror”s successful invasion of 1066, no other year has more significance in English history. By portraying Richard as a hunchbacked tyrant who usurped the throne by murdering his nephews, Tudor historians gave the battle a legendary flavour: it became a clash of good and evil, with a morally satisfying outcome. According to reader Colin Burrow, André was so overwhelmed by the historical significance of the battle that he depicted it with a blank page in his Henry VII (1502). For Professor Peter Saccio, the battle was indeed a unique clash in the annals of English history, because “victory was determined not by those who fought, but by those who delayed fighting until they were sure they were on the winning side.”

Historians like Adams and Horrox believe that Richard lost the battle not for some mythical reason, but because of morale and loyalty problems within his own army. Most common soldiers found it hard to fight for a leader they didn”t trust, and some Lords thought their situation might improve if Richard were dethroned. Adams suggests that against such duplicity, Richard”s desperate charade was the only truly kingly act on the battlefield. As historian Michael Bennet writes, the attack was ”the swan song of English chivalry Adams believes that in his time this idea was also shared by the printer William Caxton, who was also supported by Edward IV and Richard III. Nine days after the battle, Caxton published Thomas Malory”s story of chivalry and death by treachery-Le Morte d”Arthur- as a response to the conditions of Richard”s death.

Elton doesn”t believe Bosworth Field would have had any significance, pointing out that the 20th century English public ignored the battle on its 500th anniversary. In his view, the paucity of accurate information about the battle-it is not even known exactly where it took place-demonstrates its lack of importance to English society. Elton believes that the battle was just one part of Henry”s struggle to seize the throne, underlining his view that the young king had to spend another ten years suppressing various rebel factions to consolidate his throne. Mackie agrees that contemporary historians, weary of three royal successions during the long Rose War, considered Bosworth Field to be just another in a long line of such battles. It was only through the work and efforts of Francis Bacon and his successors that the public began to believe that the battle had determined their future by bringing about the ”fall of a tyrant”. Mackie concludes that, in retrospect, Bosworth Field remains the decisive battle that laid the foundation for a reign that would rule unchallenged in England for over a hundred years.

Shakespearean Dramatization

William Shakespeare highlighted the Battle of Bosworth in his play, Richard III. It is the ”great battle”; no other battle scene draws the audience”s attention, depicted as a straight sword fight between Henry Tudor and Richard III. Shakespeare used their duel to build the climax of the play and the War of the Roses; he also uses it to promote morality, presenting the “unequivocal triumph of good against evil”. Richard, the main villain, had been constructed in the battles of Shakespeare”s other play, Henry VI, Part 3, as a “formidable swordsman and valiant military leader”-in contrast to the despicable means by which he becomes king in Richard III. Although the Battle of Bosworth Field is governed by only five directorial cues, it is preceded by three scenes and over four hundred lines, developing the context and motivations of the characters before the battle.

Shakespeare”s presentation is based mainly on the dramatic versions of the story written by the chroniclers Edward Hall and Raphael Holinshed, who in turn drew on Vergil”s chronicle. Shakespeare”s attitude to Richard, however, was shaped by the scholar Thomas More, whose writings were strongly biased against the Yorkist king. The result of these influences is a scenario in which the king is a villain, and Shakespeare had no trouble departing from history to make the plot more interesting. Margaret of Anjou had actually died in 1482, but Shakespeare had her speak to Richard”s mother before the battle to foreshadow Richard”s fate and to fulfill the prophecy she had given in Henry VI. Shakespeare exaggerated the causes of Richard”s restless night before the battle, imagining him haunted by the ghosts of those he had killed, including Buckingham. Richard appears to be suffering from pangs of conscience, but as he speaks, he regains his confidence and declares that he will be evil if that”s what it takes to keep his crown.

The battle between the two armies is simulated by off-stage noises (alarums) as the actors enter the stage, say their lines and exit. To build tension before the duel, Shakespeare calls for more alarums after Richard”s advisor, William Catesby, announces that the king “more wonders than a man”. Richard makes his entrance with the famous line, “A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!” He refuses to back down, continuing to kill Henry”s doubles until he is killed by his nemesis. There is no documentary evidence that Henry used five stuntmen at Bosworth Field; the idea is entirely Shakespeare”s invention, inspired by the fact that Henry IV used them at the Battle of Shrewsbury (1403) to heighten the perception of Richard”s bravery on the battlefield. Similarly, the direct battle between Henry and Richard is Shakespeare”s creation. The real tragedy of Richard III, an earlier play than Shakespeare”s, has no such encounter: the directorial guidelines give no hint of one.

Despite dramatic license, the Shakespearean version of the Battle of Bosworth was the model used in many English textbooks for many years in the 18th and 19th centuries. This romanticized version of history, promoted in maps and paintings and played out on stages across the country, disturbed the humorist Gilbert Abbott à Beckett. He expressed his criticism in the form of a poem, equating the fictionalised versions of the battle to “a fifth-rate production of Richard III”: poorly costumed actors fight the Battle of Bosworth Field on stage while those in supporting roles stand back, uninterested in what is happening.

In Laurence Olivier”s 1955 film adaptation, the Battle of Bosworth is represented not by a single duel, but by a general huddle that became the film”s most famous scene and runs constantly at the Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre. The film depicts the clash between the Yorkist and Lancastrian armies in the open, focusing on individual characters in the wilderness of hand-to-hand combat, and is praised for its realism. However, one reviewer for The Manchester Guardian newspaper was unimpressed, saying that the number of combatants was too small for the open plain and that Richard”s death scene lacked subtlety. Richard”s portrayal of preparing his army for battle was also praised. As Richard speaks to his men and draws his plan with his sword in the sand, his units appear on the screen, arrayed according to the lines drawn by Richard. Tightly intertwined, the narrative and visual elements practically transform Richard into the narrator, playing out the action he constructs. Shakespearean critic Herbert Coursen expands on this presentation: Richard pretends to be a creator of people, but dies in the wilderness of his own creation. Coursen sees this as contrasted with that of Henry V and his “band of brothers”.

The adaptation of Richard III to a fascist 1930s England in Ian McKellen”s 1995 film has not been well received by historians. Adams said the Shakespearean setting of Richard”s death at Bosworth teaches viewers the moral of meeting one”s fate, no matter how unjust, “with nobility and dignity.” By smothering dramatic morality in special effects, McKellen”s film reduces the battle to a pyrotechnic spectacle about the death of a one-dimensional villain. Coursen agrees that in this version the battle and Richard””s end are trite and trivialized.

Also read, history – Nigerian Civil War

Battlefield

Leicestershire County Council has officially designated the site of the battle near Market Bosworth. The council commissioned historian Daniel Williams to research the battle, and in 1974 the results of his research were used to build the Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre and the display it houses. Williams”s interpretation, however, was disputed. Triggered by the 500th anniversary of the battle in 1985, a dispute among historians has caused Williams” theory to be questioned. In particular, geological studies carried out between 2003 and 2009 by the Battlefields Trust, a charity that protects and studies battlefields in England, show that the southern and eastern flanks of Ambion Hill were solid ground in the 15th century, contrary to Williams” claims that it was a great moor. Landscape archaeologist Glenn Foard, who carried out the study, said the soil collected and finds of medieval military equipment suggest that the battle would have taken place two miles south-west of Ambion Hill (52°34′41″N 1°26′02″W), contrary to the long-held belief that it would have taken place at the foot of the hill.

English Heritage claims that the battle was named after Market Bosworth because the town was the closest significant settlement to the battlefield in the 15th century. Professor Philip Morgan suggested that a battle could be treated by society as an insignificant event, considering it insignificant and not giving it a name. As time went on, administrative and historical annals authors found it necessary to identify the battle, giving it a toponymic name based on the combatants” observations. The official name was adopted by society and future generations without challenge. Early records associated the Battle of Bosworth Field with ”Brownehethe”, ”bellum Miravallenses”, ”Sandeford” and ”Dadlyngton field”. The earliest record, a municipal memorandum of 23 August 1485 in York, places the battle ”on Redemore Field”. This is corroborated by a letter of 1485-86 which lists the site of the battle as “Redesmore”. According to historian Peter Foss, the battle was not recorded in documents as taking place “at Bosworth” until 1510.

Foss has been named by English Heritage as the main supporter of ”Redemore” as the site of the battle. He suggests that the name comes from Hreod Mor, an Anglo-Saxon term meaning ”bushy moor”. Basing his opinion on church records from the 13th and 16th centuries, he believes that ”Redemore” was a marshy area between Ambion Hill and the village of Dadlington, being close to the Fenn Lanes, a Roman road running east to west through the region. Foard believes this road is the most likely route by which both armies reached the battlefield. Williams ignores the notion of “Redmore” as a specific place, claiming it is just a general term describing a large area of reddish soil; Foss points out that Williams” sources are local legends and faulty interpretations of documents. Furthermore, he suggests that Williams was influenced by William Hutton”s The Battle of Bosworth-Field of 1788, which Foss accuses of introducing the idea that the battle was fought west of Ambion Hill on the north side of the River Sence. Hutton, Foss suggests, misinterpreted a passage in his source, Raphael Holinshed”s chronicle of 1577. Holinshed writes: “King Richard set his field on a hill called Anne Beame, rested his hosts and rested himself”. Foss believes that Hutton confused ”field” with ”battlefield”, giving rise to the idea that the battle took place on Anne Beame (Ambion) Hill. “To his field”, Foss clarifies, was an archaic expression meaning “to set up camp”.

Foss provides further evidence in support of his theory with ”Redemore”, citing Edward Hall”s chronicle of 1550. Hall states that Richard”s army broke through to a plain after he had gathered camp the next day. Furthermore, the historian William Burton, author of Description of Leicestershire (1622), wrote that the battle was fought “on a large, flat and spacious field, three miles , between the towns of Shenton, Sutton”. According to Foss, both sources describe a wide area north of Dadlington.

English Heritage, the institution responsible for managing England”s historic sites, used both theories to designate the site of the Battle of Bosworth Field. Without preferring either of them, the institution has constructed a single battlefield boundary encompassing the sites proposed by both Williams and Foss. The region has changed much over the years since the battle. Holinshed wrote in his chronicle that he found solid ground where he expected marshland, and Burton confirmed that by the late 16th century, areas of the battlefield had been fenced and cleared to make them productive for agriculture. Trees were planted on the southern slope of Ambion Hill, forming Ambion Forest. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Ashby Canal cut the land to the west and southwest of Ambion Hill. Along the canal, in the distance, the Ashby -Nuneaton railway crosses the area on a high embankment. The changes to the landscape were so great that Hutton revisited the region in 1807 after an earlier visit in 1788, and was unable to find his way.

Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre was built on Ambion Hill near Richard”s Well. According to legend, Richard III drank from one of the springs in the area on the day of the battle. In 1788, a local pointed out one of the springs to Hutton as the one mentioned in the legend. A stone structure was then built over that point with an inscription:

The stone mound was erected by Dr Samuel Parr in 1813 to mark the well from which the king is said to have drunk during the battle.

Northwest of Ambion Hill, across the northern tributary of the Sence, Richard”s Field is marked by a flag and memorial stone. Erected in 1973, the site was chosen based on Williams” theory. St James”s Church in Dadlington is the only structure in the area definitely associated with the Battle of Bosworth Field; the bodies of those killed in battle were buried there.

Sources