Tuesday, 2 April 2013

Battle of Bosworth

Continuing the A-Z Challenge, the letter B is probably the most well-known battle of the Wars of the Roses
 
The Battle of Bosworth in August 1485 was the culmination (apart from a few later skirmishes) of the Wars of the Roses, when the Lancastrian Henry Tudor defeated and killed Richard III, and claimed the throne.

Tudor’s claim to the throne was tenuous, to say the least. It came through his mother, Margaret Beaufort, who was descended from John of Gaunt and his mistress, Katherine Swynford. Their children, all born illegitimately, were ‘legitimised’ later, but were barred from the succession. Nevertheless, the Lancastrians looked to Henry Tudor as the ‘rightful heir’, as did some disaffected Yorkists such as the Duke of Buckingham.

Tudor, after many years of exile in France, landed in Wales on August 7th with about 2,000 men. With no battle experience, he relied on his commanders, but his hopes of the Welsh flocking to his cause were disappointed. His force numbered about 5,000 as he marched across Wales and England to meet Richard’s army.


Richard had been aware since June of Henry’s impending invasion, and his forces (about 10,000 men) convened at Leicester, and then proceeded westward to Sutton Cheney, and a low ridge called Ambion Hill, about 12 miles west of Leicester.

The result of the battle, on August 22, should have been a foregone conclusion, considering the strength of Richard’s forces. However, one man held the key to Richard’s victory or defeat – Thomas Stanley. Well-known for changing allegiance during the wars, depending on which side was likely to win at any given time, Stanley played the same game at Bosworth, and held back his force of about 5-7,000 men.

There are differences in the accounts of what happened after the battle (mainly hand-to-hand combat) had been in progress for some time. One view is that Tudor, facing defeat, headed in the direction of Stanley’s forces to persuade them to enter the battle on his side. Another view is that the Stanley forces began to advance to side with Tudor.

Richard then led what was to be the last great cavalry charge of the medieval era, and thundered down directly towards Tudor himself, intending to kill him before the Stanley forces could enter the battle and change its course. In the ensuing melee, Richard was unhorsed, but continued fighting on foot until he was surrounded by Stanley’s men and killed.

The death of the king signalled the end of the battle, and Richard’s forces disintegrated.

Tradition says that Richard’s crown was retrieved from a hawthorn bush by Thomas Stanley (boo! hiss! I make no apologies for my allegiance to Richard III), who then placed it on Tudor’s head.


The actual site of the battle has been disputed by historians, but Leicester County Council has built an excellent battlefield centre near Ambion Hill, and laid out a sign-marked route around the battlefield. I will never forget my first sight of Richard’s standard flying on Ambion Hill!

This stone marks the traditional site of where Richard was killed. However, since I took this photo in 1999, this site has been disputed, and the stone has now been moved to the Battlefield Centre.

38 comments:

  1. Fascinating account of a piece of English History that I missed out on in my education. Must take a trip to Leicester some time :)

    Happy AtoZing!

    Jemima at Jemima's Blog

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lesicester and its surroundings is definitely worth a trip, Jemima!

    Many thanks, Claudia :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great Paula, anything that can show what an heroic man our Richard was is fine by me. Fascinating details. You have a way of telling it that makes it easy to understand yet reveals so much.
    Can't wait (or guess what tomorrow's will be).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very interesting! I love that I am getting a history lesson during this challenge...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fascinating learning about British history in your A-Z posts, Paula. You do have a great way of making it clear for us to understand, unlike my history books in school which made Canadian history seem like the dullest subject imaginable. I've since found out that history is interesting thanks to good writers like you that bring the details alive.

    CATTITUDE AND GRATITUDE

    ReplyDelete
  6. Loved reading this! Going back into History is a hobby of ours.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What an original theme! This is my first visit to your blog. Please visit ours at http://citymusecountrymuse2012.blogspot.com/ and please sign up to join our site if you like what you see!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fascinating English History! Great photos, too.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks, Margaret - at least historians arev all agreed about Richard's courage in leading that last heroic charge!

    Talya - glad you're finding the history interesting!

    Cathy - I spent 25 years as a history teacher, so got used to making history interesting (or at least trying to!)

    Serenity - all my blogs this month are linked to history, so hope you'll revisit!

    Juliet - thanks for visiting - will now go and visit yours!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Very enjoyable, Paula. Had read about this years ago but had forgotten most of it- the bane of my life being my poor memory. Lookign forward to more of your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This royal history is so juicy, isn't it? I love this stuff. It's funny, because that legitimizing illegitimate children calls to mind Game of Thrones--the War of Roses is nearly as exciting as the fiction (and the fiction has dragons)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Great historical post. I love reading about the Tudor's.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You make it all so interesting, Paula!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Loved today's history lesson Paula - thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks, Margo.

    I'm the same with Romano-British history, Nancy!

    I admit I've not watched Game of Thrones, Hart. I think 'real' history is much more interesting!

    Caathrina - the Medieval period is MUCH more interesting than the Tudors :-)

    Many thanks, Corinne and Amy!

    ReplyDelete
  16. So interesting- crikey, you couldn't make stuff like this up!
    Lx

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh, Paula, thanks so much for this. You know my allegiance is the same as yours. I would love to visit Bosworth someday. Those Stanleys were opportunistic traitors (and of course one of them was married to Henry Tudor's mother). History will always know that Richard rode into battle himself to face Tudor, but where was Henry? He relied on his men to do the dirty deed. Great post.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Laura - that's very true, real history is often better than fiction!

    Elaine - you are a true soul mate! Yes, the cowardly Tudor was skulking behind his men while Richard displayed the courage of a true king!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I love your bite-sized history lessons, Paula. Really looking forward to each day. I've never been to Bosworth, but I had a friend who went and said she had never felt any place so sad.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It always has intrigued me about what circumstances led to a battle. Very interesting, Paula!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Gill, I didn't really 'feel' anything at Bosworth (maybe because the actual battlefield is some distance away according to new theories) but the Towton battlefield was definitely one that affected me - I'm looking at that with the letter D as you'll discover on Thursday!)

    Linda - all the battles during the Wars of the Roses were the Yorkists versus the Lancastrians, sometimes actually in towns, or just outside them, others in open country like Bosworth.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fascinating! I love the daily history lessons and seeing your photos!

    Kathy
    http://gigglingtruckerswife.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  23. I really enjoyed this post, Paula. I mostly know of Richard II from Shakespeare, who wrote him as a villain (no surprise since he wrote for a Tudor monarchy!) and it's fascinating to learn more.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lots more history to come, Kathy - and more photos too!

    Ellen - Shakespeare based his Richard III play on the book by Thomas More, who in turn got his so-called facts from John Morton, a dyed-in-the-wool Lancastrian supporter! And, of course, as you say, he was writing for Elizabeth I, the grand-daughter of Henry Tudor who defeated Richard at Bosworth. The Tudors tried to defend their usurpation of the throne by portraying Richard as evil, and themselves as 'saviours' of England.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Good series, Paula. Another Richard supporter here. How many (quote, unquote) leaders of today can you see leading a charge? (unless it might be to the money trough)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks, John, glad to know you're another Ricardian! Richard was the last English king to be killed in battle. After that, they let others fight for them! Rather like the leaders of today.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thanks for the information - I know very little of English history so this is a very interesting read. I think if the leaders of today were to lead a charge like Richard III did, they might be inclined towards settling differences amicably and the world would be a peaceful place. Nice. I enjoyed that.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Suzy, battles were the usual way of settling disputes in the Middle Ages - but at least the leaders fought with their troops, unlike today.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Great piece Paula. Loved getting more detail on the history of this battle :D

    ReplyDelete
  30. Fascinating. Just the words "Bosworth Field" have always struck a chord with me - thanks so much for bringing it alive for me today!

    ReplyDelete

  31. Great read, Paula! I make no apologies for being a Ricardian, either. Richard was brave enough to ride toward battle by himself while Henry hid and let his toadies do the dirty work. Couldn't even face him like a man.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Exactly, Elaine! Agree with this completely!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Warfare is a fascinating subject. Despite the dubious morality of using violence to achieve personal or political aims. It remains that conflict has been used to do just that throughout recorded history.

    Your article is very well done, a good read.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Warfare is a fascinating subject. Despite the dubious morality of using violence to achieve personal or political aims. It remains that conflict has been used to do just that throughout recorded history.

    Your article is very well done, a good read.

    ReplyDelete