Minnie wrote:

How wonderful are the certainties of a closed mind.

I wouldn't know - I'll defer to your better judgement in that matter.

Shore wasn't a "spy". She was accused of conspiracy in helping create a Hastings/Woodville alliance, something that Richard reckoned he couldn't afford to have in the background if he was to consolidate power. Also she was a difficult woman to prosecute, even if Richard detested her (and there is ample evidence to suggest he did, despite your image of him as a gallant squire lending out his attorney to defend her even after she had slighted him). Executing Shore, given the way she had operated as a prototype courtesan (your other "hero's" court brought that profession later to its pinnacle in terms of influence), would have left Richard with too many toes stepped upon belonging to people he needed later. Rather than an example of Plantagenet magnaminity versus later Tudor ruthlessness in these matters, that particular incident actually highlighted Richard's shrewd and unsentimental machinations by which he advanced his hold on power. And though she did indeed end up marrying Lynom, Richard's Solicitor General, it was most definitely not in accord with what Richard wanted - his detestation for Shore is obvious in his own words on the matter of the impending nuptials; "....it is shewed unto us that our servant and Sollicitor Thomas Lynom merveillously blynded and abused with the late wife of William Shore nowe being in Ludgate by our commandement hathe made contract of matrymony with hir, as it is said, and entendethe to our full grete mervaile to procede to theffect of the same...". Shore was playing a "get out of jail card" (literally) and had outfoxed the Plantagenet (not for the first time either). But trying to imply there was any respect, forgiveness or affection on Richard's part in the matter is stretching things (again) beyond the credible as an historical assertion. This is precisely where your adulation seeps in, you see ...

Minnie wrote:

And so nordmann my research etc., is wasted because I cannot understand nor apply it. Thanks for that.

You're welcome. No need to mention it.

Minnie wrote:

Who would you have to shout at, and pour scorn upon, if people like me were not here?

Dunno - maybe someone who can actually draw logical conclusions?

Minette M, I wondered for a moment if you were Historum's "Crystal Rainbow" but that lady definitely has no Welsh accent.  We all have opinions.  Earlier I said something to the effect that I personally could not decide anything for certain either way about Richard III as to whether he was a wonderful person or otherwise - it's all so very long ago.  I doubt anybody (any thinking person at least) thinks that the Richard of history was the Richard depicted by Shakespeare.  I sometimes think Shakespeare gets a "bum rap" for his portrayal, because if he wanted to keep his head he would have to write something that would be accepted by the Tudor family, who ruled England for most of his life-time.  One might speculate that if the Battle of Bosworth had been won by Richard, Shakespeare would have written a play which praised Richard. Anybody printing a "Private Eye" type magazine certainly would be taking a risk in those days.

You are free to read and research as you will - your findings may not convert the non-Ricardians on this site though.  When I was doing my secretarial course several years ago, I had an assignment to write a report.  Now, I put quite a bit of work into the report and I was quietly confident that I had done a good job.  When I received it back the tutor's comment was "sounds somewhat pompous and verbose".  The fact that I had put quite a bit of work into something that the tutor didn't like was disappointing at the time but I survived - although it was probably as well that I had been "quietly" rather than noisily confident.  It was not the end of the world.  It can even happen here - I sometimes post something on a thread that I think might be of general interest and it is never picked up or responded to by other visitors to the site.  But I can't tell the other members of the site what they should or should not like or find intriguing and interesting.

Did you find the fact that I mused on whether a Henry Tudor Society might have been in existence if Richard III's team had won the day at Bosworth frivolous?  It was, literally, a random thought that came into my head.  I have lots of random thoughts, so I posted it while I had it in my mind, so that I would not forget it.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

 I sometimes think Shakespeare gets a "bum rap" for his portrayal, because if he wanted to keep his head he would have to write something that would be accepted by the Tudor family, who ruled England for most of his life-time.  One might speculate that if the Battle of Bosworth had been won by Richard, Shakespeare would have written a play which praised Richard. Anybody printing a "Private Eye" type magazine certainly would be taking a risk in those days.

That's an interesting point, LiR, but I would suggest that much of the material produced by the pamphleteers - and the playwrights -  of the 1590s and early 1600s was the Elizabethan/Jacobean equivalent of our beloved Private Eye!

Writing/presenting political satire disguised as historical drama (or slipped into a tragedy or a comedy for that matter) was a thrilling but - as you rightly say - very dangerous sport. It was a game at which Shakespeare excelled and, boy, did it appeal to the London audiences. WW's  plays are full of cunning allusions to topical events, but his slyly ambiguous language enabled him to get away with some pretty controversial stuff - most of the time. Other dramatists were not so lucky or so clever: in 1597 Thomas Nashe co-wrote the play The Isle of Dogs with Ben Jonson. The work caused a major controversy for its "seditious" content. The play was suppressed and never published. Jonson ended up in the Marshalsea; Nashe's house was raided and his papers seized, but he had already legged it. Poor old Nashe had to skulk about in Great Yarmouth of all places for months before he dared show his face again in London.

But what has this got to do with Richard III? Well, you may find this short piece, Richard III Tudor Propaganda or Political Satire?, from Dr Huw Griffiths of the University of Sydney of some interest. You can listen to Dr Griffiths here:


http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2012/10/10/3607973.htm

But it can be argued that is it pure political satire. Written and performed in the early 1590s, this was not a particularly stable time for the Elizabethan government, riven by factions at court and subject to satiric attacks in the press - pamphlets and ballads circulating that attacked both crown and church. The language of satire is precisely the language that Shakespeare exploits in these attacks on Richard. Shakespeare's audience might have considered that the England that they were living in looked a lot more like the factionalised and hypocritical world of Richard III than the Tudor peace that Henry VII promises at the end of the play.

I have suggested elsewhere that Richard III  was written as a satire directed, not just at the "Regnum Cecilianum", but in particular at Robert Cecil, the up-and-coming son of William Cecil. Robert Cecil was deeply unpopular, especially with the Essex House crowd and, surprise, surprise, he was also hunchbacked. A popular ballad circulating at his death sums up his image:

Little bossive (hunchbacked) Robin that was so great...
Who seemed as sent from Ugly Fate
To spoil the Prince and rot the State.
Owing a mind of dismal ends
As trap for foes and tricks for friends.

Shakespeare was hobnobbing with the trendy crowd who gathered at Essex House, and the play was probably written to be performed there circa 1592/3. I won't give references found in the play itself - don't want to bore everyone - but there are many which possibly refer to Cecil. He was known as "Robertus Diabolus" to the Essex circle, by the way, and Richard is called "Devil" throughout the play.

Oh, I didn't know that, Temperance.  I knew of the existence of pamphleteers - and playwrights for that matter - of course.  I'll have to see what background reading I can find on the life and times of Master Shakespeare at my local library.  I have not really learned an awful lot about him - formally at least - since I studied "Othello" as part of my "A" level syllabus more years ago than I care to remember.  I simply couldn't afford £9000 to do an English degree now.  There are organisations like the Workers' Educational Organisation of course [and the good old U3A for the retired and semi-retired]. They have a "Reading the Classics" group at my local U3A.  There's a history group too, but although the chap who runs it is really nice (and University educated) he thinks She Who Shall Not Be Named is the bee's knees, which does not really inspire me to join that group.

Minette Minor wrote:

How do I respond when I'm not quite sure whom I am addressing.

In post 1724 I was told to, "cut the crap" by Islanddawn; no ashes were heaped upon his head for using such words, it was not pleasant. Bloody rude actually. I know this place is meant for people who enjoy History, yet one hopes they know something about it too. Being sworn at does very little for informed debate.

What was 'bloody rude' Minette was you calling me pompous before attributing a whole paragraph of stuff to me that I hadn't said at all, so sorry but your little rant was indeed crap.

What was also 'bloody rude' was you naming everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion as 'not having a brain', that includes people here who don't agree with you btw. Both (to which I was responding) are personal insults from you and no where near the 'informed debate' you seem to think you are participating in. And then you dare retreat into sulks when people respond to your disparaging insults? Oi oi oi.  

PS. I am a SHE not a HE, that you haven't worked that out after all these years shows how little you read nor understand other people's posts, both here and on the Beeb. I have no idea why you even bother if you have so little interest in the thoughts and ideas of others.

New biography of our man is to be published this week (August 13th): The Lives of Richard III by Chris Skidmore.

I enjoyed Skidmore's book about Bosworth, so it'll be interesting to see if he has anything new to say.

Skidmore is a "proper" historian: he was awarded a double first in Modern History from Oxford (Christ Church), so hopefully he will present his subject in a fairly sane manner.

That said, Skidmore is now a Conservative MP, one of group of MPs who support tough austerity measures in the UK with the argument that "no one is dying in the streets".

Not an old softy then, so I expect he'll not be sentimental about our Richard, but then you never can tell.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10162740/Bosworth-the-Birth-of-the-Tudors-by-Chris-Skidmore-review.html

Temperance wrote:

New biography of our man is to be published this week (August 13th): The Lives of Richard III by Chris Skidmore.

I enjoyed Skidmore's book about Bosworth, so it'll be interesting to see if he has anything new to say.

Skidmore is a "proper" historian: he was awarded a double first in Modern History from Oxford (Christ Church), so hopefully he will present his subject in a fairly sane manner.

Skidmore is now a Conservative MP, one of group of MPs who support tough austerity measures in the UK with the argument that "no one is dying in the streets".

Not an old softy then, so I expect he'll not be sentimental about our Richard, but then you never can tell.

I would imagine that the homeless manage to get a hospital bed when they are literally on their last legs so they expire in hospital rather than on the streets. That's not to say this writer may have not have something valid to say about Richard III.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

I would imagine that the homeless manage to get a hospital bed when they are literally on their last legs so they expire in hospital rather than on the streets. That's not to say this writer may have not have something valid to say about Richard III.

A hospital bed to die in! Luxury! Good grief, this country can't afford such sybaritic nonsense, LiR.

PS I seem to remember that Skidmore suggests (in Bosworth) that Richard did do away with his nephews. Can't remember now. I've pre-ordered the new book - I should get it this week, so will report here what his verdict on the Princes is.

I don't know whether to put this here or on the War of the Worlds thread but here it is anyway.
Minette - only look at this if you're already lying down!



Why didn't they give him a liight sabre rather than a sword?

Ah, the space suit must be for this. Honestly, talk about milking it, Channel 4's determined to get its money's worth. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/richard-iii-the-new-evidence/episode-guide

The sign is very definite that that is the same as Richard's armor, but now can they possibly know? It can only be an approximation based on the design of that period, when Richards real armor would have been made to his specifications and personal taste surely?

ferval wrote:

Honestly, talk about milking it, Channel 4's determined to get its money's worth. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/richard-iii-the-new-evidence/episode-guide

Well, that's one way of looking at it, I suppose.

Then again, it's nice that people are interested in stuff that happened over five hundred years ago.

ferval wrote:

Why didn't they give him a light sabre rather than a sword?

Where is the suit from, Ferval?  It looks a bit like a giant airfix kit (wrong thread I know).

Oh dear LiR, this is embarrassing but it's from the Daily Mail. Honestly, I found the link in another website I was reading, I only ever see the DM that way. Oh dear again, does that sound really condescending?
Anyway, it's here - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709892/In-museum-far-far-away-Anger-reconstruction-Richard-III-s-armour-looks-like-STAR-WARS-stormtrooper.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Actually years ago my Mum used to take the Daily Mail before it went tabloid.  I used to like the Fred Bassett and Flook cartoons - don't know if they're still going.  You can be allowed an occasional glimpse at the Daily Mail site as a "guilty pleasure" (or maybe it isn't a pleasure for you).

I am very disappointed. I expected my new Richard III book to arrive today and when it didn't I went on the Amazon "Where's My Stuff?" page. My delivery date is 14th August 2015. I had excitedly pre-ordered my copy assuming it was coming out on August 13th this year.

What a swizz. A long, long wait then. Let's hope we are all still around this time next year.

Christ Temp, that man just can't stop screwing with people!

I watched a preview of the Channel 4 programme at a special showing in Trinity College Dublin this week. It's funny, especially when one considers this might still be a nun they found. Prof. David More (and yes, that's how he spells his surname) did an excellent commentary and an even more excellent summary in the pub afterwards. If the University of Leicester survives this debacle with a single shred of academic credibility it will be down to people like More who at least has helped them assume an alternative trajectory in the complex world of modern academia - namely reinterpreting history in surreal comic book fashion. What made the evening was when the "reconstructed" head of Dick appeared at the start and a five year old in the audience asked loudly "Who's she, mammy?".

By the way, was Richard so thick that he actually needed labels on every item of armour?

And further by the way, Why has nothing from this "dig" still been made available for peer review? Even by the standards of a "university" which is blatantly toying with the idea of going into stand-up this is getting ridiculous!

Nordmann wrote:

If the University of Leicester survives this debacle with a single shred of academic credibility it will be down to people like More who at least has helped them assume an alternative trajectory in the complex world of modern academia - namely reinterpreting history in surreal comic book fashion. 

If this is the case, perhaps the Historian Who Shall Not be Named should not be judged as harshly as previously if she's not the only one at it.  Doesn't mean I would like her books any better though and I will continue to avoid them.  Apparently the (fairly) recent "300 Rise of an Empire" film was based on a "graphic novel" (is that a posh name for a comic?) - I haven't seen it but have heard it distorts history somewhat; Artemisia died in the film whereas in real life she survived the battle (of Thermopolae???)  At least She Who Shall Not be Named doesn't use pictures, though as people have previously stated she doesn't stick rigidly to the facts.

That said, I shall always have a soft spot for Dennis the Menace and Minnie the Minx though from recollection they were too busy causing havoc to get involved with the history lark.

Of course not everybody has had the benefit of a University education; maybe I should not judge too harshly if people who are not the overloaded with grey matter type access history by simplified means.  At least it shows a willingness to learn something of history (as long as it's not false history).  Obviously "300, Rise of an Empire" took a few liberties.

Seems that belligerent nun was fond of her drink!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726951/King-Richard-III-drunk-say-researchers-claim-drank-three-litres-alcohol-day.html

Don't forget tonight - Channel 4 - 9.00pm. They've got a "body double" on the show too to prove that Richard could fight in armour despite his disability. Should be interesting.

I regret to say that this was considered the most hilarious part amongst the history aficianados in Dublin last week. Actually I don't regret it - the body double was honest, competent and took his profession seriously. What was hilarious was how alone he must have felt during the making of the programme.

She must have been a Celtic nun. You know what they're like. Isn't that right?

nordmann wrote:

She must have been a Celtic nun. You know what they're like. Isn't that right?

Absolutely. She wrote some bloody good poetry too.

I was going to mention that she was a Celtic nun (really) - but thought I'd better not. ID's gunning for me about that. You too no doubt.

That's what happens when a communal term for various related languages gets into one's DNA. Guns everywhere.

In the 15th and 16th centuries it was the English who held the unenviable position of being Europe's stereotypical habitual drunkards, much commented upon by foreign visitors of the day (including Irish and Scottish). The English poor had to content themselves with 17 pints of "mad dog" a week (figures from Coventry in 1520 calculated by an Italian observer). The well-to-do could do as much in a day and singlehandely invented binge drinking in frequently fatal proportions. The term "binge drinking" is itself an English invention of the 19th century (a coopers' term for the soaking of barrel staves) showing a long and proud unbroken tradition amongst my non-Celtic insular neighbours.

Some of the biggest drunkards in England were also - surprise surprise - rather creative too. Though of course the vast majority just pissed and vomited a lot and died early.

nordmann wrote:

Some of the biggest drunkards in England were also - surprise surprise - rather creative too. Though of course the vast majority just pissed and vomited a lot and died early.

  

All right. All right. Points taken.


IAGO
I learned it in England, where, indeed, they are
most potent in potting: your Dane, your German, and
your swag-bellied Hollander--Drink, ho!--are nothing
to your English.

CASSIO
Is your Englishman so expert in his drinking?

IAGO
Why, he drinks you, with facility, your Dane dead
drunk; he sweats not to overthrow your Almain; he
gives your Hollander a vomit, ere the next pottle
can be filled.

("Othello" Act II sc iii)

Egrets, I've had a few...

PS I thought the programme was really interesting, especially when it was shown how the medieval wooden saddle and the armour - despite its weight - actually made fighting easier for Dominic. So it would have been lack of stamina (lung capacity?) that did for Richard once he was unhorsed. "My Kingdom for a horse!" really does make sense then?

Didn't that young lad do well! It was good to see how his confidence increased as his training progressed. Fascinating stuff.

Is the bone analysis suspect, or may we accept it as being accurate?

Temp wrote:

Is the bone analysis suspect, or may we accept it as being accurate?

Your guess is as good as the rest of the peer-review community.

In the meantime the lad did prove right enough that a nun could be handy on horseback, even despite her innate Catholic Celtic alcoholic spinal problems. I'm beginning to think that Shakespeare missed out on a particularly stunning dramatic twist in Act V, scene iv.

A bottle of wine a day? What a wimp, and I noticed that the effects of worm infestation while encased in armour weren't addressed in the reconstruction........

There has been a re-evaluation of the skeleton apparently. This new reconstruction will be unveiled in a forthcoming Channel 4 production ...

I bet the royal worms were happy worms.

 


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetically-engineered-worms-that-cant-get-drunk-could-lead-to-a-james-bond-sobriety-pill-9608939.html

Oh, I can't make the pictures of the drunk and sober roundworms appear - what a shame.

I'd better go and do some chores now - this is getting silly.

Temp wrote:

I bet the royal worms were happy worms.

Or nappy worms?

The University of Texas study does not mention obdurate Celtic worms - possibly a scientific oversight that could invalidate the whole investigation.

I'm surprised the drunk worm appears to be supine - you'd think an inebriated worm would actually wriggle more than a sober one.

I've just watched the programme again. I wonder if it is available on YouTube yet?

May we now assume that the performance of the valiant little Dominic has shown that the following reports of Richard's courage and skill as a warrior (several written by his enemies) were not exaggerated?

"(Richard's) success is so proven that he alone would suffice to chastise the whole kingdom of Scotland". - Edward IV, letter to Pope Sixtus IV, 1482


"None evil captain was he in war, as to which his disposition was more meetly than for peace". - Sir Thomas More

"His courage also high and fierce, which failed him not in the very death". - Polydor Vergil, Historian, 1520

Victory over the Scots was through "his skill in naval warefare". - Croyland Chronicle Continuator, 1486

"Such was his renown in warfare, that when ever a difficult and dangerous policy had to be undertaken, it would be entrusted to his discretion and his generalship". - Dominic Mancini, 1483

"...trusting with full powers our illustrious brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, in whom not only for his nearness and fidelity of relationship, but for his proved skill in military matters and his other virtues..." - Edward IV, Richard as Commander at Scottish campaign, 1482



The Duke of Gloucester, that most noble prince, young of age, victorious in battle. Grace him followeth, fortune and good speed. I suppose he is the same that clerks of read, Fortune hath him chosen and forth with him will go. Her husband to be, the will of God is so. - Verses on the recovery of the throne by Edward IV after the Battle of Barnet, 1471


"In his small body the greatest valor held sway". - Archibald Whitelaw, 1484

"And I shall pray almighty god for his long life and prosperous welfare and that he may have victory of all his enemies and after this short and transitory life in heaven where is joy and bliss world without end. Amen". - William Caxton, Book dedication, 1484

"...and having donned his coat of arms began to fight with much vigor, putting heart into those who remained loyal, so that by his sole effort he upheld the battle for a long time". - Diego de Valera, Castilian Ambassador-Report, 1486

"King Richard alone was killed fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies". - Polydor Vergil

"For in the thick of the fight, and not in the act of flight, King Richard fell in the field, struck by many mortal wounds, as a bold and most valiant prince". - Croyland Chronicle Continuator, 1486

"If I may speak the truth to his honor, although small of body and weak in strength, he most valiantly defended himself as a noble knight to his last breath". - John Rous

"King Richard at the first brunt killyd certaine, overthrew Henryes standerd, together with William Brandon the standerd bearer, and matched also with John Cheney a man of much fortytude, far exceeding the common sort, who encountered him as he cam, but the king with great force drove him to the ground, making way with weapon on every side". - John Rous

I think Dominic ought to note this one especially:

"In his small body the greatest valor held sway". - Archibald Whitelaw, 1484

Temp wrote:

May we now assume that the performance of the valiant little Dominic has shown that the following reports of Richard's courage and skill as a warrior (several written by his enemies) were not exaggerated?

Or can we maybe assume that had Dominic been around to lead the troops on the day things might have gone a bit better for the Plantaganet army? Leaving them all in the charge of a scoliotic nun was simply asking for it anyway!

But seriously - Bosworth can be interpreted as damning proof of just how inferior Richard's strategies and tactics were militarily compared to his foe. Leadshot found at the revised location for the battle confirms that Henry Tudor's mercenaries included French handgunners as well as sundry artillery units, then a novel and quite devastatingly lethal addition to the medieval arsenal. In addition the early stages of the battle would have confirmed that the Earl of Oxford, Henry's military commander on the day, had really only one tactic open to him upon which success rested - the engagement with and defeat of the Duke of Norfolk's vanguard force (traditionally arranged to attack from the right). For Richard to counter this - for example by promoting Northumberland's rearguard force to join battle at this point - would have most likely ended any hope of Henry winning, even with his guns. The battle would have quickly become one of attrition, like at Towton, in which the army with the greatest number of combatants would inevitably win the day. Richard and his household cavalry wouldn't even have had to charge. His tactical naivety was thoroughly exposed - while Norfolk was making only grudging headway Richard instead seemed to have decided at this point to lead his own army against a barrage of armour piercing artillery - Northumberland and his men having little to do but watch with horror as their leaders and their army's elite troops were mown down.

Strategically there was also his huge mistake regarding the 5,000 strong contingent led by the Stanleys, a family which Richard had methodically reduced in status to the point of ignominy and whose enmity for him was long acknowledged. This force, as the battle began, hovered non-committally in the wings and later - surprise surprise - engaged on Henry's behalf after Oxford's tactical success had been established. Their reticence suggests several things, but it definitely points to indecision as to whether they should be seen at the outset as open aggressors against the crown. Long before Bosworth this cautious ambivalence should have been employed in order to neutralise their potential ability to scupper Richard's chances in any head-to-head. Instead they were actually encouraged to attend even by Richard himself in the mistaken belief that they would be forced to commit to his side as his superior numbers on the day won out.

Richard, raised on silly and outdated notions of chivalric conduct in warfare, and steeped in a tradition of archer versus archer with billmen wading in for the dregs, the mounted knights being more rallying points than combatants unless things got really sticky, had proven only in the past that he could dash about on horseback with the best of them in battles fought against tacticians of similar mind. When pitted against the more modern army augmented by mercenaries experienced in continetal warfare he - as indeed would have been true of many English commanders - hadn't really a clue how to go about things. Bosworth was the proof of this. One can argue that he was brave, but one can more safely argue that he was naive to the point of being more lethally dangerous for the men under his command than the enemy, once that enemy had been schooled in continental warfare.

Maybe Dominic would have done better. Getting the Stanleys drunk out of their skulls on August 21st might have helped a lot, and Dominic seems up to that in any case.

Ah, chivalric conduct - I've argued before (with Andrew Spencer) that Richard's tragedy was that he really believed it all. Believed in duty too, and the rest of all that "silly" nonsense. Yes, he was indeed completely outclassed by the brave new men like Tudor and Morton, both on and off the battlefield.

Wasn't it the new pike manoeuvre that did for Richard? In Bosworth: Psychology of a Battle 1485, Michael K. Jones says this:

Then something completely unexpected happened. The French account hints at the pandemonium among Henry's own retinue as Richard's force was sighted. Henry dismounted, to present a less easy target for his opponent, and following a desperate appeal for help, pikemen were hurriedly pulled back from the vanguard to protect him. What is then described is a complex military manoeuvre only recently devised by the Swiss to counter Burgundian cavalry, and first deployed in the Battle of Grandson in 1476. We know that the French recruited by Tudor had been drilled in Swiss fashion. Their training enabled them to drop back at a run and close around Henry in a square formation through which cavalry was scarcely able to penetrate. A bristling mass of weaponry would now be presented to the opposing horsemen. The pike was an eighteen-foot long wooden stave with a steel head. It was formidable in tight, unbroken formation. The manoeuvre perfected by the Swiss allowed a reformed front rank to kneel with their pikes sloping up, the second standing behind them with their weapons angled, the third held at waist level. No mounted attack could break through such a line. To enact this at speed and over distance required years of training and an instinctive drill technique. It was a tactic Richard could not have seen before, and he had no way of anticipating it when he ordered his charge.

Richard and his men had to dismount - no option. Or had White Surrey - dreadful thought - been disembowelled by the pikes? Had Tudor and his men done their homework? Did they know - as last night's programme demonstrated - that, unhorsed, Richard's stamina would soon give out? Yet Richard refused at this point to leave the fight, even though he was offered a replacement mount and urged to flee. "All contemporaries, even the most critical, spoke with admiration of Richard's courage, seeing his actions as those of a bold and valiant knight..."

Yes, a bold and valiant knight, but, as you point out, a stupid one. A cleverer, lesser man would have run - and lived to fight Tudor another day. I'm sure that's what brother Edward would have done.

PS What I do find odd is that the pike manoeuvre described above, if used nine years before by the Swiss, would not have been known by the English forces. Surely they kept up-to-date with continental fighting technique? Obviously not, if what Jones and you say is correct. Wish Catty was around: he knew a lot about this sort of stuff.

Temperance wrote:

PS What I do find odd is that the pike manoeuvre described above, if used nine years before by the Swiss, would not have been known by the English forces. Surely they kept up-to-date with continental fighting technique? 

Indeed, but the effectiveness of the pike wasn't just about the weapon itself (which had anyway been around since Alexander the Great's days) but how it was used by trained and disciplined troops. Its use might also be seen as yet another symptom of the end of classic feudalism.

The Swiss, having successfully fought their wars for independence by deploying disciplined 'citizen' armies of pikemen, in the late 15th century found themselves much in demand by other potentates. They became, almost uniquely for the time in Europe, a professional army, albeit a mercenary one, that drilled and trained in units under their own officers, and expected to be paid for their services. This is very different from the majority of English troops deployed at Bosworth, who, if they were not soldiers of fortune, were there just because they had to fulfill certain military obligations that they owed to their local lordling who in turn had promised to support a bigger lord, who in turn thought it was in his best interest to join with one side over the other. So at the battle itself they probably found themselves grouped in a unit alongside complete strangers under the command of some unknown captain, and begrudging every hour spent away from their family and farm. In short the feudal system does not generally allow for the intense training, discipline and 'regimental' loyalty, that is required for a massed pike unit is to be effective.

I am more au fait the armies of Henry VIII and his enemies - but although being over a generation after Bosworth they all still have the same problems in recruiting trained and effective pike units. For Henry in 1513 the only native English pike units available were the Trained Bands of London (note the word 'trained'), and to a lesser extent those of other cities. These men were a bit like todays part-time territorials, but were funded by the Corporation of the City for its local, rather than national, defense. However once Henry agreed to pay their wages the Corporation was quite happy to let their part-time troops see service abroad, and indeed in Northern France they seem to aquitted themselves quite well. But for the rest of his pikemen Henry had to purchase German landsnechts who, like Swiss, came in complete ready-trained units under their own officers ... but for a price. King Louis XII likewise couldn't recruit enough native French, ready-trained pike units so also had to buy them in, he tending to purchase Swiss soldiers. And at the same time at the battle of Flodden it is worth noting that the Scots, who had only recently also adopted the pike in place of the shorter spear, came a cropper at least in part because again their feudal levies were not adequately trained and disciplined in the use of the new weapon.

You can give a soldier a pike but unless he's trained to operate as part of a tight-knit formation he's just going to be a liability waving a big unwieldy pole.

Isn't the pike manoeuvre rather like that used by Bruce at Bannockburn, not 9 but over 150, years before although in that case the pike hedge advanced against the cavalry rather then fell back to form a square.  Bruce also had spent months drilling his men in perfecting the tactic.

Regarding Flodden, there's a theory, espoused by Chris Burgess, the lead archaeologist, that rather than inexperience, it was hydrology that buggered it up for James IV, indeed his lecture on the battle is entitled, "James wis robbed'.  Briefly, at the base of the hill was an area of regional groundwater discharge covered by a crust of solid ground: the first formation crossed to the side of the treacherous area and successfully engaged the English but the second, swinging down to their flank, became bogged down as did the third and forth. The area of most intense slaughter coincides with the this ground water seepage zone.
Something very much the same happened at Prestonpans, not far away.

Sorry for the deviation - back to Richard, he doesn't seem to have read his military history and tactics manuals, does he?

That as you say "Bruce also had spent months drilling his men in perfecting the tactic" just shows how important training and discipline were when deploying big defensive pole-arm units, such as Scottish schiltrons ... which is all the more reelvant to the current discussion when one remembers that Bruce's troops were using spears only about half the length of 15th century pikes!

But regarding Flodden, I did say the Scots came a cropper "in part" because of their handling of the new pikes. Flodden is actually not at all typical for the time. The Scots had all the modern technology: pike formations integrated with handgunners, superb artillery, a preference for defensive infantry formations rather than offensive heavy cavalry charges .... and they even had the advantage of higher ground. But unfortunately for them it was to be a medieval battle rather than the renaissance one they were prepared for. Terrain, difficulties in getting the artillery to fire downhill, unexpected ditches and bogs, a general lack of cavalry on both sides, all meant that the battle ended up as a hand-to-hand bitter brawl, and under these rather unusual conditions, the obsolete English billmen actually managed to come to close quarters and so break open the Scottish schiltrons. Howard certainly got lucky, but it didn't help that nearly all the Scottish nobility and commanders including King James himself, insisted on fighting on foot, amongst their troops in the front rank.

This is all terribly interesting - thank you for the info, MM. I had no idea about any of this.

MM wrote:

But unfortunately for them it was to be a medieval battle rather than the renaissance one they were prepared for.

And for Richard at Bosworth it was the other way round. I wonder if it was the Plantagenet arrogance that did for him? Henry Tudor was a hopeless fighter, but in an ironic way that was  his strength: he had to rely on paid experts. And the paid experts were good - not the raggle-taggle mob Richard had assumed them to be.

Got to go - no time now, but hope this discussion continues, even though it does give you all a chance to have a go at Richard.

   As Catty would put it.

MM, there's a fuller account of the effect of the geology here, from p 21.

Link

Contemporary accounts of Bosworth are sketchy and even contradictory when it comes to the exact manner in which the battle unfolded. Moreover, much assumption in the meantime was based on terrain which, in recent years, has proven not to have been where the actual battle took place at all. For this reason one is loath to draw quite as many highly detailed conclusions as Jones (above) was prepared to do as recently as 2004.



However the points about the use of pikes and firearms by the Tudor forces on the day are still valid and the question still remains concerning Richard's intelligence (in both a military and usual sense) as commander of his own troops on the day. Expecting to counter such a formidably difficult deployment with what amounted to a cavalry charge on marshy ground sounds suicidal, something that doesn't seem to square at all with contemporary descriptions of Richard's acumen and reputation for sound military planning prior to Bosworth.

A crucial unanswered question (which is being actively investigated through battlefield archaeology now that the actual site appears to have been pinpointed) is into how many divisions Richard's forces had been arranged. The traditional view is three under his, Norfolk and Northumberland's separate command. Others cite precedent to reduce this to two, Richard's direct command being limited to his own defensive unit with the main armies being directed by the other two men. The problem with both of these speculative formations is that neither of them helps to explain Richard's alleged behaviour once the battle was joined, which would appear to leave Northumberland's forces as either badly utilised or not utilised at all, an unforgiveable military error in the context of what they were facing.

Pikemen arrayed defensively inviting attack was probably not as novel an innovation to English soldiers as some military historians have suggested either in the case of Bosworth. Apart from experience countering this tactic on the continent many of Richard's soldiers would also have seen this tactic used in Ireland by the Gallowglass regiments, private mercenary militia that had learned this tactic abroad too and had already used it to great effect against English armies (and sometimes for English armies) in the long-running Butler/Fitzgerald conflict, an often overlooked component of the Wars of the Roses with which Richard would have been very familiar growing up and learning military strategy.

If, as is generally believed, Richard was no fool when it came to knowing how to win military encounters, the logic behind his behaviour on 22nd August 1485 is very hard to fathom indeed.

Interesting points noted re Irish wars - I too find it hard to believe the pike manoeuvre was such a surprise - unless it was the novel triple-formation that Richard's cavalry had not encountered before. I have no idea.

nordmann wrote:

If, as is generally believed, Richard was no fool when it came to knowing how to win military encounters, the logic behind his behaviour on 22nd August 1485 is very hard to fathom indeed.

Well, intelligent, usually capable people have been known to do crazy things - things completely out of character - when they are bereaved, ill and drinking too much.

I am now straying into the realms of psychological speculation which I know is anathema to serious historians such as yourself, nordmann, but is it fanciful to suggest that, having lost his brother in 1483, his beloved son and heir in 1484, and having watched his wife slowly wasting away and finally dying in 1485 - just five months before Bosworth and during a spectacular total eclipse of the sun (16th March 1485) - Richard's state of mind was not good?  Was he suffering from what today would be diagnosed as a serious depressive illness? Did he care very much at Bosworth whether he lived or died? Please don't laugh. The evidence given in the Channel 4 programme that his drinking had significantly increased is perhaps relevant (no more references to my foolish comments about Celts, please). I don't think he was just having a good time as king, partying hard.

Ashdown-Hill tells us that the king may actually have also been physically ill at Bosworth: he gives some interesting evidence that suggests that Richard may have contracted the newly arrived sweating sickness - annoyingly I can't find his book this morning, but the Amazon site gives this comment from one reviewer, a doctor:

As a Dr I was very much persuaded by his conjecture that Richard may have been ill before Bosworth, accounting for his possible nightmares. We all have apprehensions before a big day, but Richard's possible dreams sound much more like a pyrexia than just nerves. Did he suffer from the contemporary sweating sickness? Was he ill on the morning of Bosworth and was he overkeen to get the thing over with?

It does have to be admitted that Richard messed up big time at Bosworth, but I think even the hardest of you here will admit that he was under considerable pressure and was, perhaps, not quite himself that August day. But no excuses allowed. Henry Tudor was a lucky so-and-so, fortunate in his hired help, his French allies and his canny step-father. Perhaps too he was more intelligent than Richard - a different kind of man with a different kind of brain.

Even attending the battle was very high risk strategy. We tend to think of Bosworth as two kings in battle, but really it was an obvious pretender to the throne challenging one whose pretender status had been largely resolved, though not quite. Richard's attendance transformed the encounter into a chess competition in which the capture of the king conferred almost by default royal status on the victor. It could however have been handled very differently - Henry Tudor's support base (as evidenced by his reliance on hired help) was nowhere near as extensive or strong as Richard's. The Plantaganet king, with so much tradition and practical power at his disposal, could have almost defeated Henry through ridicule alone. A refusal to take the Tudor claim seriously would have at least limited Henry's chances of drawing more support from within the English aristocracy (the Stanleys' behaviour is probably quite typical of how even disaffected English artistocrats might have been expected to behave) and probably might even have dealt Henry's chances in that respect a fatal blow. By rising to the challenge in the manner he did he actually ennobled it to an extent. I suspect his notions of chivalry played a role, or perhaps too his wish to cement his own royal status in the public eye by so definitively and visibly quashing another claimant. However to me this actually advertises insecurity on his part if it were true. A king confident in his tenure of the title would have many alternatives to so risky a method of demonstrating it.

As regards his physical or mental state on the day I will not draw any conclusions based on the Leicester skeleton until we know whose it is. The points regarding his recent bereavements however are ones that have been made in the past, sometimes quite convincingly, and have been countered normally by analysing his other behaviour in the period with regard to administration, planning and contemporary accounts of his mood - none of which suggest a monarch being pushed through grief into a "do or die" mentality. But of course this is mere conjecture and will never be answered now.

Incidentally his complicitness in the murder of the two princes in late 1483, as a theory, actually plays into the latter view - that far from being deranged or suicidal in his tendencies right up to August 1485 he was actually becoming ever more methodical and effective in securing his own dynastic hold on the throne. Their apparent complete elimination, his handling of that situation as a political lever, as well as his efforts to isolate and neutralise opposition in the form of Stafford, Duke of Buckingham and even Henry Tudor, a man basically on the run between 1483 and 1485, show a consistent, thorough and accomplished strategist in full control of his faculties and policies. Had Henry not had the fortuitous (from his viewpoint) support of Anne de Beaujeu whose regency at that point was in turmoil while she attempted to placate and compensate her father's foes and which would soon be engulfed by a "Mad War" in which she'd need all the loyal troops she could use herself, it is doubtful he would have had the arrogance to mount a challenge at all. In fact there is every likelihood that he couldn't and we must assume Richard's otherwise faultless pursuit of him diplomatically and militarily would have reached its inevitable conclusion in his removal from the stage altogether (a factor that played a huge role in forcing Tudor to play his hand as he did when he did).

All in all the actions of a fully functioning and effective monarch, I would have thought, and not those of a sick, or alcoholic, or deranged man losing the will to live.

Which moves his alleged "charge" at Bosworth even further into the realms of the completely inexplicable.

I'm going to ask something which may sound ridiculous, but what the heck...

The Channel 4 programme said that Richard would have been in fairly constant pain - because of his scoliosis, of course, but also because he was arthritic. Surely his physicians would have been prescribing pain relief for him? If he had been dosed with some kind of opium medication, would this have shown up in the bone analysis? Opium was not widely used, I know, but it had been known in England since the Crusades, I think?

Regular use of analgesics of any kind - opium-based or not, especially when supplemented with copious amounts of alcohol - would surely cloud anybody's judgement. Probably a mad idea, but I thought worth mentioning.


PS

nordmann wrote:

Which moves his alleged "charge" at Bosworth even further into the realms of the completely inexplicable.

The use of "alleged" and the inverted commas around "charge" in that final sentence of your post are interesting, nordmann. It certainly seems that historians (not just Jones) have been wrong about the site of the Battle of Bosworth for many years: could it be that they have also been wrong about Richard's famous last attempt to reach Tudor? Was something mooted about this when you were in Dublin last week?

I wondered about those commas too, could it be that H.E. is suggesting that the laudatory accounts of Richard's conduct during his final battle have been spun to further legitimise Henry's taking of the crown? The defeat of an incompetent, inadequate, even perhaps physically disadvantaged opponent (was knowledge of his condition wide spread?) is not the best basis on which to build the persona of a mighty warrior and worthy king. The Romans played that card often enough. I assume that even his supporters wouldn't want to see their man ridiculed and he was dead anyway.

Oh for the slightly more secure evidence of archaeology.

Temperance wrote:

Ah, chivalric conduct - I've argued before (with Andrew Spencer) that Richard's tragedy was that he really believed it all. Believed in duty too, and the rest of all that "silly" nonsense. Yes, he was indeed completely outclassed by the brave new men like Tudor and Morton, both on and off the battlefield.

Wasn't it the new pike manoeuvre that did for Richard? In Bosworth: Psychology of a Battle 1485, Michael K. Jones says this:

Then something completely unexpected happened. The French account hints at the pandemonium among Henry's own retinue as Richard's force was sighted. Henry dismounted, to present a less easy target for his opponent, and following a desperate appeal for help, pikemen were hurriedly pulled back from the vanguard to protect him. What is then described is a complex military manoeuvre only recently devised by the Swiss to counter Burgundian cavalry, and first deployed in the Battle of Grandson in 1476. We know that the French recruited by Tudor had been drilled in Swiss fashion. Their training enabled them to drop back at a run and close around Henry in a square formation through which cavalry was scarcely able to penetrate. A bristling mass of weaponry would now be presented to the opposing horsemen. The pike was an eighteen-foot long wooden stave with a steel head. It was formidable in tight, unbroken formation. The manoeuvre perfected by the Swiss allowed a reformed front rank to kneel with their pikes sloping up, the second standing behind them with their weapons angled, the third held at waist level. No mounted attack could break through such a line. To enact this at speed and over distance required years of training and an instinctive drill technique. It was a tactic Richard could not have seen before, and he had no way of anticipating it when he ordered his charge. 


PS What I do find odd is that the pike manoeuvre described above, if used nine years before by the Swiss, would not have been known by the English forces. Surely they kept up-to-date with continental fighting technique? Obviously not, if what Jones and you say is correct. Wish Catty was around: he knew a lot about this sort of stuff.

 Before the Battle of Granson, in 1471 to be exact, the Scots Parliament has issued an instruction that no spears of less than six ells* in length were to be manufactured or imported. This was later amended, in 1481, to five and a half ells length. The main influence for this was not the Swiss, or at any rate not directly, but the Ordinances of Charles the Bold of Burgundy.
Historians tend to get fixated on the Swiss, forgetting that other people, like the Hollanders and Flemings also used pikes, and it was the cordial relations between Scotland and the Low Countries (the most notable extant being Mons Meg) which prompted Scotland to adopt the pike ( a whole generation before Flodden)


*Scots ell=37.1 inches, 6ells roughly 18.5 feet.

The attached link has been copied from the Osprey book "Armies of Medieval Burgundy":

http://www.wolfeargent.com/ordonnances.htm

But weren't Charles the Bold's forces hammered at Grandson? Seems the Swiss drills and discipline - like those of the Romans? - were superior to anyone's. Size of pike perhaps didn't matter: it was how you used them?

But I honestly don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to military equipment and tactics - I'd better pipe down.

The Burgundians weren't so much hammered at Grandson as panicked. Charles' tactical innovations were not fully understood and a fairly basic command to retreat, to gain a tactical advantage, turned into a full blown rout.

From wiki;
"After brief skirmishing, Charles ordered his cavalry to pull back so the artillery could reduce the Swiss forces before the attacks were renewed. At this time, the main body of the Swiss emerged from a forest which had hitherto obscured their approach. The Burgundian army, already pulling back, soon became confused when the second, and larger, body of Swiss troops appeared. The speed of the Swiss advance did not give the Burgundians time to make much use of their artillery and missile units. Charles attempted a double envelopment of the leading Swiss column before the other two arrived, but as his troops were caught shifting to make this attack, they caught sight of the other Swiss columns and retreated in panic. The withdrawal soon turned into a rout when the Burgundian army broke ranks and ran. For a time, Charles rode among them shouting orders for them to stop and hitting fleeing soldiers with the flat of his sword. But once started the rout was unstoppable, and Charles was forced to flee as well. Few casualties were suffered on either side: the Swiss did not have the cavalry necessary to chase the Burgundians far." 


The combination of cavalry charges and artillery fire that Charles was trying to achieve at Grandson was actually achieved against the Swiss by the French at Marignano in 1515.

The Burgundians lost at Morat because they weren't in their entrenchments. Again the idea was good, but the execution was poor. And again, someone else tried it successfully against the Swiss. this time the Spanish-Imperial army at La Bicocca, 1522.

ferval wrote:

I wondered about those commas too, could it be that H.E. is suggesting that the laudatory accounts of Richard's conduct during his final battle have been spun to further legitimise Henry's taking of the crown? The defeat of an incompetent, inadequate, even perhaps physically disadvantaged opponent (was knowledge of his condition wide spread?) is not the best basis on which to build the persona of a mighty warrior and worthy king. The Romans played that card often enough. I assume that even his supporters wouldn't want to see their man ridiculed and he was dead anyway.

Oh for the slightly more secure evidence of archaeology.

Slightly more secure evidence of anything in these uncertain times would be nice, ferval. What a strange and unstable thing yer proper history - as delivered by yer proper historians - is. What are we to make of Richard's "alleged 'charge' " at Bosworth then? Why "alleged" and why inverted commas? Genuine confusion here. I'm reminded of Orwell and "Animal Farm":



Suppose you had decided to follow Snowball, with his moonshine of windmills–Snowball, who, as we now know, was no better than a criminal?"

"He fought bravely at the Battle of the Cowshed," said somebody.

"Bravery is not enough," said Squealer. "Loyalty and obedience are more important. And as to the Battle of the Cowshed, I believe the time will come when we shall find that Snowball's part in it was much exaggerated. Discipline, comrades, iron discipline! That is the watchword for today. One false step, and our enemies would be upon us. Surely, comrades, you do not want Jones back?"

This is an interesting article from what would appear to be a reputable source (?) - mentions the importance of the new technology. Oxford and Richard III are both described as hardened professional soldiers - no suggestion that the Yorkist king was a useless commander who just galloped about a bit in his posh armour on a big horse. But seems Richard met his match in Oxford: the latter is an interesting and much neglected player in this story.

http://www.military-history.org/articles/richard-iii-at-bosworth.htm


Finally, if Richard was an experienced military commander, so too was the Earl of Oxford, Henry’s field commander. Bosworth, then, was no clash of blundering amateurs, neither in the sense that the weapons technology was antiquated, nor in the quality of either the leadership or the rank and file. It was a modern battle fought by professionals.