Quotulatiousness: Where did the Battle of Bosworth Field take place?

January 22, 2005

Where did the Battle of Bosworth Field take place?

The Flea brought this Independent article to my attention:

Visitors to one of the most important battle sites in British history, immortalised by William Shakespeare with Richard III's desperate offer of his kingdom for a horse, are almost certainly visiting the wrong spot, expert analysis of the evidence has concluded.

Leicestershire County Council is to embark on a three-year archaeological and topographical research project to identify where the Battle of Bosworth was really fought in 1485, marking the end of the Wars of the Roses and the beginning of Tudor England. The battle was the last time a British king was killed on the battlefield.

I've always been a bit of a Ricardian at heart (my wife was active in the Richard III Society for many years), so this is of interest to me. I took part in the 500th anniversary re-enactment of Richard's coronation, playing the part of the Earl of Northumberland (in the dress rehearsal which was videotaped for local cable) and the Earl of Lincoln (in the public performance). The recording showed up on Toronto area cable several times over the last twenty-odd years.

One question raised by the linked article:

The studies could even shed light on whether, as is commonly held, Richard was betrayed by his supporters or whether Henry, subsequently crowned Henry VII, was a superior commander.

I don't know whether there's any real chance of Henry being shown to be the better commander: Richard had spent most of his adult life fighting battles with notable success, while Henry had not had anything like the same fighting experience. Henry won the battle because Sir William Stanley's forces came in on the side of Tudor (and literally on the side of Richard's forces, outflanking his right wing). Richard's attempt to cut through the Tudor centre was repulsed after he reached the Tudor standard-bearer and Richard himself was killed. He died in a risky attack that, had it succeeded, would probably have won the battle in spite of the flank attack by the Stanley forces.

Posted by Nicholas at January 22, 2005 01:51 PM

Comments

I've read a fair bit about Bosworth and one thing comes to mind about his generalship. Especially with regards to how he fared vis a vis Henry The Tudor...It fundamentally doesn't matter. Richard may have been an excellent field commander, but his political skills had failed him. And the one thing that a monarch of questionable legitimacy can never do is have a bad day when it counts. Henry only had to win once, Richard had to win every time. The Stanleys were trumps at Bosworth, but if Richard had won, it wouldn't have changed that much..even if Henry had died, since there would have been others. Perhaps even Elizabeth of York. Posted by: Dr_Funk at January 24, 2005 10:35 PM

Well, Doc, I can't really disagree with you there: Richard wasn't half the politico his brother Edward IV had been (England's Sun King). Richard had the misfortune of being more popular with the middle and lower classes than with the nobility (and while political power had started to shift down the economic ladder, the nobs still held almost all the trump cards). I don't think Henry (or the Lancastrian inheritors) held an unbeatable position: England had burned through two complete generations of the nobility and this was bound to be the last round of the war regardless of who won. Had Henry been killed at Bosworth, I don't think the Lancastrians could have recovered until a new generation grew up, by which time Richard's grip on the throne might be unchallengeable. Instead, the Yorkists lost and could not muster a serious challenge to Henry (Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel just don't count). Posted by: Nicholas at January 25, 2005 12:28 AM