Battle of Bosworth Field

Coordinates: 52°35′28″N 1°24′37″W / 52.59111°N 1.41028°W / 52.59111; -1.41028
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jappalang (talk | contribs) at 05:55, 19 June 2009 (→‎Commanders: Fix ref). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:FixBunching

Battle of Bosworth Field
Part of the Wars of the Roses

Battle of Bosworth Field, as depicted by Philip James de Loutherbourg (1740–1812)
Date22 August 1485
Location
Near Ambion Hill, south of Market Bosworth, England
Result Decisive Lancastrian victory
Belligerents
House of York House of Lancaster Stanley family
Commanders and leaders
Richard III of England † Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond Thomas Stanley, 2nd Baron Stanley
Strength
10,000 5,000 6,000
Casualties and losses
1,000 100 Unknown

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

Battle of Bosworth Field is located in England
Bosworth
Bosworth
Blore Heath
Blore Heath
Barnet
Barnet
Stoke
Stoke
Tewkesbury
Tewkesbury
Berwick
Berwick
London
London
York
York
Plymouth
Plymouth
Poole
Poole
Wem
Wem
Northumberland
Northumberland
Shrewsbury
Shrewsbury
Milford Haven
Milford Haven
class=notpageimage|
Locations:
– Battle of Bosworth Field; – other battles; – other places

Template:FixBunching

The Battle of Bosworth Field was the penultimate battle in the Wars of the Roses, a civil war between the House of Lancaster and the House of York that raged across England in the 15th century. Fought on 22 August 1485, the battle was won by Lancastrian Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who by his victory and subsequent marriage to a Yorkist princess became the first English monarch of the Tudor dynasty. His opponent Richard III, the last King of England from the House of York, was killed during the battle. Historians consider the battle to mark the end of the Plantagenet dynasty, making it one of the defining moments of English history. Literature, from the 15th to 18th centuries, glamorised the conflict as a victory of good over evil—it forms the finale of William Shakespeare's play about Richard's rise and fall.

Richard's reign over England began in 1483 when he seized the throne from his twelve-year-old nephew Edward V. The boy and his younger brother, Richard of Shrewsbury, soon disappeared, and the people of southern and western England suspected Richard III had murdered his nephews. In the north, support for Richard was eroded by rumours of his involvement in the death of his wife, Anne Neville. Across the English Channel, Henry, a descendant of the greatly diminished House of Lancaster, used his tenuous link to English royalty to lay claim on the throne. Several hundred Englishmen left their country to join Henry in exile, and revive the fortunes of the House of Lancaster. Henry's first invasion of England (1484) floundered in a storm, and he launched his next attempt on 1 August 1485. Landing unopposed on the southwest shores of Wales, his army marched inland, growing in strength as it gathered followers. Richard hurriedly mustered his troops and intercepted Henry's army near Ambion Hill, south of the town of Market Bosworth in Leicestershire. Lord Stanley and Sir William Stanley were at the battlefield, considering which side would be more advantageous for them to support.

Richard's forces outnumbered Henry's, however Richard divided his army into three groups, each smaller than Henry's total force. Henry concentrated most of his army into one group and handed its command to the experienced John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford. Richard's vanguard struggled against Oxford's group, and on seeing the inaction of his other group's commander, Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland, the Yorkist king decided to risk a charge across the battlefield to kill Henry and end the fight. At this point, the Stanleys intervened and Sir William led his men to Henry's aid, surrounding and killing Richard. After the battle, Henry was crowned king on Crown Hill.

Henry hired chroniclers to portray his reign in a good light; the Battle of Bosworth Field was popularised to represent his Tudor dynasty as the start of a new age, marking the end of the Middle Ages for England. Plays, stories, and schoolbook texts were based on the Tudor historians' version of events, focusing on the death of Richard, who was portrayed as the embodiment of evil. This theme was most evident in the Shakespearian play Richard III and, as the finale of the play, the battle has become a focal point for critics in later film adaptations. The exact location of the battlefield is disputed because of the lack of conclusive data, and memorials have been erected at questionable locations. The Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre was built, in 1974, on a site that was chosen based on a theory that was later challenged on the battle's quincentenary.

Background

Further information: [[:Wars of the Roses]] and [[:Princes in the Tower]]

During the 15th century, civil war raged across England, as the Houses of York and Lancaster fought each other for the English throne. In 1471, the Yorkists defeated their rivals in the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. Lancastrian King Henry VI and his only son, Edward of Lancaster, died in the aftermath of the Battle of Tewkesbury. Their deaths left the House of Lancaster with no direct claimants to the throne. The Yorkist king, Edward IV, was in complete control of England.[1] He attainted those who refused to submit to his rule, such as Jasper Tudor and his nephew Henry, naming them traitors and confiscating their lands. The Tudors fled for France, but strong winds forced them to beach at Brittany, where they were taken into custody by Francis II, Duke of Brittany.[2] Henry's mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, was a distant descendant of John of Gaunt, brother of King Richard II and father of King Henry IV.[3] The Beauforts were originally bastards, but Henry IV legitimatised them on the condition that their descendants would not contest for the throne.[4] Henry Tudor, the only remaining Lancastrian noble with a trace of the royal bloodline, had an extremely weak claim to the throne,[1] and Edward regarded him as "a nobody".[5] Francis, however, viewed Henry as a valuable tool to bargain for England's aid and kept the Tudors under his protection.[5]

Edward IV died twelve years later on 9 April 1483.[6] His twelve-year-old elder son succeeded him as King Edward V, and the younger son, nine-year-old Richard of Shrewsbury, was next in line to the throne. The royal court was worried, as Edward V was too young to rule and the Woodvilles, relatives of the Queen Mother Elizabeth, were plotting to seize control of the Royal Council who planned to rule the country until the king's coming of age.[7] Having offended many in their quest for wealth and power, the Woodville family was not popular.[8] To frustrate the Woodvilles' ambitions, Lord William Hastings and other members of the council turned to the new king's uncle—Richard, Duke of Gloucester, brother of Edward IV. The courtiers urged Gloucester to assume the role of Protector quickly, as had been previously requested by his now dead brother.[9] On 29 April, Gloucester, accompanied by a contingent of guards and Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, secured Edward V, and arrested several prominent members of the Woodville family.[10] After bringing the young king to London, Gloucester had the Woodvilles executed, without trial, on charges of treason.[11]

On 13 June, Gloucester accused Hastings of plotting with the Woodvilles and had him beheaded.[12] Nine days later, Gloucester convinced Parliament to declare the marriage between Edward IV and Elizabeth illegal, rendering their children illegitimate and disqualifying them from the throne.[13] With his nephews out of the way, he was next in the line of succession and was proclaimed King Richard III on 26 June.[14] The timing and extra judicial nature of the deeds done to obtain the throne for Richard won him no popularity, and rumours that spoke ill of the new king spread throughout England.[15] After they were declared bastards, the two princes were confined in the Tower of London and never seen in public again.[16] Except for those in the north, the people of England firmly believed that Richard, the "tyrant",[17] had murdered his nephews .[18]

Discontent for Richard's actions manifested in the summer after he took control of the country, as a conspiracy emerged to displace him from the throne. The rebels were mostly loyalists to Edward IV, who saw Richard as a usurper.[19] Their plans were co-ordinated by a Lancastrian, Henry's mother Lady Margaret, who was promoting her son as a candidate for the throne. The highest-ranking conspirator was Buckingham. No chronicles tell of the duke's motive in joining the plot. Historian Charles Ross proposes that Buckingham was trying to distance himself from a king who was becoming increasingly unpopular with the people.[20] Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood suggest that Margaret deceived Buckingham into thinking the rebels supported him to be king.[21]

Elizabeth of York: rumours of her marriage launched Henry's invasion.

The plan was to stage uprisings within a short time in southern and western England, overwhelming Richard's forces. Buckingham would support the rebels by invading from Wales, while Henry came in by sea.[22] Bad timing and weather wrecked the plot. An uprising in Kent started prematurely by 10 days, alerting Richard to muster the royal army and take steps to put down the insurrections. Richard's spies informed him of Buckingham's activities, and the king's men captured and destroyed the bridges across the River Severn. When Buckingham and his army reached the river, they found it swollen and impossible to cross due to a violent storm that broke on 15 October.[23] Buckingham was trapped and had no safe place to retreat; his Welsh enemies seized his home castle after he had set forth with his 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.[24] Henry had attempted a landing on 10 October (or 19 October), but his fleet was scattered by a storm. He reached the coast of England (at either Plymouth or Poole), and a group of soldiers hailed him to come ashore. They were, in truth, Richard's men, prepared to capture Henry once he set foot on English soil. Henry was not deceived and returned to Brittany, abandoning the invasion.[25] Without Buckingham or Henry, the rebellion was easily crushed by Richard.[24]

The rebels of the failed uprisings fled to Brittany, where they openly supported Henry's claim to the throne.[26] At Christmas, Henry Tudor swore an oath to marry Edward IV's daughter, Elizabeth of York, to unite the warring houses of York and Lancaster.[27] Henry's rising prominence made him a great threat to Richard, and the Yorkist king made several overtures to the Duke of Brittany to surrender the young Lancastrian. Francis refused, holding out for the possibility of better terms from Richard.[28] In mid-1484, Francis was incapacitated by illness and while recuperating, his treasurer, Peter Landois, took over the reins of government. Landois reached an agreement with Richard to send back Henry and his uncle in exchange for military and financial aid. John Morton, a bishop of Flanders, learned of the scheme and warned the Tudors, who fled to France.[29] The French court allowed them to stay; the Tudors were useful pawns to ensure that Richard's England did not interfere with French plans to annex Brittany.[30] On 16 March 1485, Richard's queen, Anne Neville, died,[31] and rumours spread across the country that she was murdered to pave the way for Richard to marry his niece, Elizabeth. The gossip alienated Richard from some of his northern supporters,[32] and upset Henry across the English Channel.[33] The loss of Elizabeth's hand in marriage could unravel the alliance between Henry's supporters who were Lancastrians and those who were loyalists to Edward IV.[34] Anxious to secure his bride, Henry assembled approximately 2,000 men and set sail from France on 1 August.[35]

Commanders

King and challenger
The fates of Richard III (left) and Henry Tudor (right) would come to depend on the actions of the Stanley brothers.

By the 15th century, English chivalric ideas of selfless service to the king had been corrupted.[36] Armed forces were mostly raised through musters in individual estates; every able-bodied man had to respond to their lord's call to arms, and each noble had exclusive authority over his militia. Although a king could raise personal militia from his lands, he could only muster a significantly large army through the support of his nobles. Richard, like his predecessors, had to win over these men by granting gifts and maintaining cordial relationships.[37] Powerful nobles could demand greater incentives to remain on the liege's side or else they might turn against him.[38] In a sense, three groups, each with their own agenda, stood on Bosworth Field: Richard III and his Yorkist army; his challenger, Henry Tudor, who championed the Lancastrian cause; and the fence-sitting Stanleys.[39]

Yorkist

Small and slender, Richard III did not have the tall muscular build associated with many of his Plantagenet predecessors.[40] However, he enjoyed rough sports and activities that were considered manly.[41] His performance on the battlefields impressed his brother greatly, and he became Edward's right hand man.[42] During the 1480s, Richard defended the northern borders of England. In 1482, Edward charged him to lead an army to invade Scotland and help to supplant King James III with the Duke of Albany.[43] Richard's army broke through the Scottish defences and occupied the capital, Edinburgh, but Albany decided to give up his claim to the throne in return for the post of lieutenant general. As well as obtaining a guarantee that the Scottish government would concede territories and diplomatic benefits to the English crown, Richard's campaign retook the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, which the Scots had conquered in 1460.[44] Edward was not satisfied by these gains,[17] which, according to Ross, could be greater if Richard was resolute enough to capitalise on the situation while his forces controlled Edinburgh.[45] In her analysis of Richard's character, Christine Carpenter sees him as a soldier who was more used to taking commands than making decisions on his own.[46] When Richard became king, he wanted to expand England's empire, and "drive away not only the Turks, but all [his] foes".[41]

Richard's most loyal subject was John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk.[47] Howard served Richard's brother for many years and was one of Edward IV's closer confidantes.[48] However, he might have borne a grudge against Edward for depriving him of a fortune. Howard was about to inherit a share of the wealthy Mowbray estate on the death of eight-year-old Anne de Mowbray, the last of her family. However, Edward convinced Parliament to circumvent the law of inheritance and transfer the estate to his younger son, who was married to Anne. Hence, Howard supported Richard III in deposing Edward's sons. In return, he received the dukedom of Norfolk and his original share of the Mowbray estate.[49] Norfolk was a military veteran, having fought in the Battle of Towton in 1461 and served as Hastings' deputy at Calais in 1471.[50]

Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland, also supported Richard's seizing of the throne. The Percys were loyal Lancastrians, but Edward IV eventually won the earl's allegiance. Northumberland had been captured and imprisoned by the Yorkists in 1461, losing his titles and estates; however, Edward released him eight years later and restored his earldom.[51] Since then, Northumberland served the Yorkist crown, helping to defend northern England and maintain its peace.[52] Initially the earl had issues with Richard III as Edward groomed his brother to be the leading power of the north. Northumberland was mollified when he was guaranteed to be the Warden of the East March, a position that was formerly hereditary for the Percys,[53] and served under Richard during the 1482 invasion of Scotland. The earl likely supported Richard's bid for the throne due to the allure of dominating the north if Richard went south to assume the crown.[54] However, after becoming king, Richard began moulding his nephew, John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln, to manage the north, ignoring Northumberland for the position. According to Carpenter, although the earl was amply compensated, he despaired of any possibility of advancement under Richard.[55]

Lancastrian

Henry Tudor was unfamiliar with the arts of war and the land he was trying to conquer. He spent the first fourteen years of his life in Wales, and his next fourteen in Brittany and France.[3][56] Slender but strong, Henry was not much of a warrior, lacking a penchant for battle; chroniclers, such as Polydore Vergil and Pedro de Ayala, find him a decisive man who was more interested in commerce.[57] Having not fought in any battles,[58] Henry recruited several war veterans, whom he could rely on for military advice and command of his armies.[59]

John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford was Henry's principal military commander.[60] He was a veteran and adept in the arts of war. At the Battle of Barnet, he commanded the Lancastrian right wing and routed Hastings' group who was opposing him. However, due to a confusion of identities, Oxford's group came under friendly fire from the Lancastrian main force and retreated from the field. The earl fled abroad and continued his fight against the Yorkists, pirating their ships and eventually capturing the island fort of St Michael's Mount in 1473. He surrendered after receiving no aid or reinforcement, but in 1484, he escaped from prison, bringing along the captain of his prison, Sir James Blount, to join Henry's court in France.[61] The addition of Oxford raised morale in Henry's camp and troubled Richard III.[62]

Stanleys

In the early stages of the Wars of the Roses the Stanleys of Cheshire were predominantly Lancastrians.[63] Sir William Stanley, however, was a staunch Yorkist supporter, fighting in the Battle of Blore Heath in 1459 and helping Hastings to put down uprisings against Edward IV in 1471.[64] When Richard took the crown, Sir William showed no inclination to turn against the new king, refraining from joining Buckingham's rebellion, for which he was amply rewarded.[65] Sir William's elder brother, Thomas Stanley, 2nd Baron Stanley, was not as steadfast. By 1485, he had served three kings, namely Henry VI, Edward IV, and Richard III. Lord Stanley's skilled political manoeuvrings—vacillating between opposing sides until it was clear who would be the winner—gained him high positions;[66] he was Henry's chamberlain and Edward's steward.[67] His non-committal stance, until the crucial point of a battle, earned him the loyalty of his men, who felt he would not send them to their deaths needlessly.[62]

Even though Lord Stanley had served as Edward IV's steward, his relations with the king's brother, the eventual Richard III, were not cordial. The two had conflicts with each other that erupted in bouts of violence around March 1470.[68] Stanley's position as Henry Tudor's stepfather, having taken Lady Margaret as his second wife in June 1472,[69] did him no favours with Richard either.[65] Despite these differences, Stanley did not join Buckingham's revolt in 1483.[65] When Richard executed the conspirators who were unable to flee England,[24] he spared Lady Margaret. However, he forfeited her titles and transferred her estates to Stanley's name to be held in trust for the Yorkist crown. Richard's act of mercy was a calculated plan to reconcile with Stanley,[21] but it might have been to no avail. Stanley could be upset with Richard's intention to reopen a land dispute that involved the baron and the Harrington family.[70] Edward IV ruled the case in favour of Stanley in 1473;[71] however, Richard planned to overturn his brother's ruling and give the wealthy estate to the Harringtons.[70] Wary of the baron, Richard took his son as hostage to discourage him from joining Henry.[72]

Prelude

Early battle: from Ambion Hill, Richard's army overlooked Henry's forces on the plain. At the south, the Stanleys observed the situation as Henry's main force, under Oxford, engaged Richard's and Norfolk's men.

Unlike his first invasion, Henry's crossing of the English Channel in 1485 was without incident. He sailed from Harfleur on 1 August and, with fair winds, landed at Mill Bay, on the north side of Milford Haven, on 7 August, easily capturing nearby Dale Castle.[73] Although hailed by contemporary Welsh bards as the native prince to bring their country back to glory,[74] Henry received a muted response from the natives. No joyous welcome awaited him on shore, and few individual Welshmen joined his army as it marched inland.[75] Sir Geoffrey Elton suggests only Henry's idolaters felt pride over his Welsh blood.[76] However, when Henry moved to Haverfordwest, the county town of Pembrokeshire, Richard's lieutenant in South Wales, Sir Walter Herbert, failed to move against him, and two of his officers, Richard Griffith and Evan Morgan, deserted to Henry with their men.[77]

Henry also won over, or had already suborned, Rhys ap Thomas, who was the leading figure in West Wales.[77] Another prominent local figure, Rhys Fawr ap Maredudd, also joined Henry.[78] Rhys ap Thomas's defection, in particular, was a coup for Henry. Richard had appointed him Lieutenant in West Wales, and had also demanded that he surrender his son Gruffydd ap Rhys ap Thomas as surety, although by some accounts, Rhys had managed to evade this condition. However, Henry successfully courted Rhys, offering the Lieutenancy of Wales in exchange for his fealty. Henry marched via Aberystwyth, while Rhys followed a separate, more southerly route, recruiting 500 Welshmen en route to swell Henry's army when he rejoined him at Welshpool.[79] By 15 or 16 August, Henry and his men had crossed the English border, heading to the town of Shrewsbury.[78]

Richard had been aware of Henry's landing since 11 August, but the mustering of his forces took several days. Although he had ordered his lords to maintain a high level of readiness, it took three to four days for his messengers to notify them to mobilise their forces. On 16 August, the Yorkist army started to muster; Norfolk set off for Leicester, the assembly point, in the night. The city of York, a traditional stronghold of Richard's family, asked the king for instructions, and receiving a reply three days later, sent 80 men to join Richard. Northumberland, whose northern territory was the most distant from the capital, took the same time to gather his men and ride to Leicester.[80]

Henry did not move straight towards London. After resting in Shrewsbury, his forces moved eastwards and picked up Gilbert Talbot and other English allies, including deserters from Richard's forces. Although its size had increased substantially since the landing, Henry's army was not yet large enough to be on par with the numbers Richard could muster. Henry's pace through Staffordshire was slow, delaying the confrontation with Richard so that he could gather more recruits to his cause.[81] Before Henry set foot in England, he had been communicating on friendly terms with the Stanleys for some time.[34] The Stanleys had mobilised their forces on hearing of Henry's landing and they constantly ranged themselves ahead of Henry's march through the English countryside.[82] As Henry moved through Staffordshire he met the Stanleys twice in secret.[83] On 21 August, the Stanleys were making camp on the slopes of a hill north of Dadlington, while Henry encamped his army at White Moors to the northwest of their camp.[84]

On 20 August, Richard reached Leicester, joining Norfolk who had arrived earlier. Northumberland joined them the next day. The royal army proceeded westwards to intercept Henry's march on London. Passing Sutton Cheney, Richard moved his army towards Ambion Hill—which he thought would be of tactical value—and made camp on it.[84] Richard's sleep was not peaceful and, according to the Croyland Chronicle, in the morning his face was "more livid and ghastly than usual."[85]

Engagement

Late battle: Richard, leading a small group of men, charged past the main battle and bore down on Henry, who was riding to meet the Stanleys. William Stanley rode to Henry's rescue and engaged Richard while he was embroiled in hand-to-hand combat.

The Yorkist army, numbering 10,000 men, deployed on the hilltop[86][87] along the ridgeline from west to east. Norfolk's group of spearmen stood on the right flank, protecting cannon and about 1,200 archers. Richard's group, comprising 3,000 infantry, formed the centre. Northumberland's men guarded the left flank; he had approximately 4,000 men, many of them mounted on horses.[88] Standing on the hill top, Richard had an unobstructed and wide view of the area. He could see the Stanleys and their 6,000 men, as they remained stationary at Dadlington Hill. To the southwest, he could observe Henry's army.[89] Henry sent messengers to Stanley, asking him to declare his allegiance. The reply was evasive— the Stanleys would "naturally" come after Henry had given orders to his army and arranged them for battle. Henry had no choice but to advance his army across the plain and confront Richard's forces on their own.[39]

Henry had very few English men—less than a thousand—in his army. Between three and five hundred of them were exiles who had fled from Richard's rule,[90] and the remainder were Talbot's men, and 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.[91] Scottish legend has it that Scottish mercenaries also served Henry in this invasion.[92] Mackie dismisses these stories, reasoning that if there were any Scottish troops among Henry's men, they were but a few competent captains. The French generally looked down on the military skills of the Scots, disdaining to employ them in large numbers.[91] In total, Henry's army numbered 5,000,[86][87] a substantial portion of it made up by the recruits picked up through his trek through Wales; Rhys ap Thomas's Welsh force was described to be large enough to "annihilate" Henry's starting army.[93] Henry was well aware of his military inexperience and after handing command of his army to Oxford, stood to the rear with his bodyguards. Oxford, seeing the vast line of Richard's army strung along the ridgeline, decided to keep his men together instead of splitting them into the traditional three groups: vanguard, centre, and rearguard. He expressly ordered them to stray no further than 3.05 metres (10.0 ft) from their banners, fearing that they might be enveloped and attacked on all sides by their opponents' greater numbers. Individual groups clumped together, forming a single large force flanked by horsemen on its wings.[94]

Richard's fatal charge (bottom) as depicted by Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre

Oxford's troops were harassed by Richard's cannon as they manoeuvred around a marsh at the southwestern foot of the hill, seeking firm ground to stage their stand.[95] Once Oxford and his men rounded the marsh, Norfolk's group and several contingents of Richard's group started to advance. Hails of arrows showered both sides as they closed in on each other. Oxford's men proved to be steadfast in the ensuing hand-to-hand combat; they held their ground, and several of Norfolk's men, recruits from southern England, fled from the battle.[96] Recognising that his force was at a disadvantage, Richard signalled for Northumberland to move in; however, Northumberland's group showed no signs of movement. Historians, such as Horrox and Pugh, believe Northumberland chose not to aid his king for personal reasons.[97] Ross doubts the aspersions cast on Northumberland's loyalty and suggests that Ambion Hill's narrow ridge hindered Northumberland from joining the battle; the earl would have to go through their allies or execute a wide flanking move—near impossible to perform in those days—to engage Oxford's men.[98]

At this juncture, Henry rode off towards the Stanleys. Richard, on seeing Henry's movement, decided to end the fight quickly by killing the enemy commander. He led a charge of 800 mounted men, rounding the main fight between his vanguard and Oxford's men, and tore into Henry's group.[99] Richard killed Henry's standard-bearer, Sir William Brandon, on his charge, and unhorsed burly John Cheyne, Edward IV's former standard-bearer,[100] with a blow to the head from his broken lance.[101] Richard killed more of Henry's bodyguards, but they surrounded their master and kept him away from the Yorkist king. On seeing Richard mired in combat with Henry's men, separated from the main battle, William Stanley made his move. He led his men into the fight, coming in on Henry's side. Richard's group was surrounded and outnumbered.[101] Gradually, they were pressed back against a marsh. Richard's banner man—Sir Percival Thirwell—lost his legs, but held the Yorkist banner aloft until he was hacked to death.[102] Richard's horse got stuck in the soft ground and he had to continue the fight on foot.[103] His followers offered him their horses to escape, but Richard refused.[104] All chroniclers agree that Richard fought bravely to the end;[101][105] overwhelmed by the masses of Welshmen around him, the last Yorkist king died on the battlefield.[74][102] Richard's forces disintegrated as news of his death spread across the field. Norfolk was killed, and Northumberland and his men had already fled north on seeing the king's fate.[101]

Post-battle

Finding Richard's circlet after the battle, Lord Stanley hands it to Henry.

After the battle, Richard's circlet was found and brought to Henry, who was crowned king on top of Crown Hill, near the village of Stoke Golding. According to Vergil, Henry's official historian, Lord Stanley found the circlet. Historian Stanley Chrimes and Professor Sydney Anglo dismiss the legend of the crown's finding in a hawthorn bush; none of the contemporary sources reported such an event.[101] Ross, however, does not ignore the legend. He opines that the hawthorn bush would not be part of Henry's coat of arms if it did not have a strong relationship to his ascendance.[106] In Vergil's chronicle, 100 of his king's men, compared to 1,000 of Richard's, died in this battle—a ratio Chrimes finds as a likely exaggeration.[101] The bodies were brought to St James Church at Dadlington for burial.[107] Henry, however, denied such an immediate state of rest for Richard; instead the last Yorkist king's corpse was stripped naked and strapped across a horse. His body was brought to Leicester and openly exhibited in a church to show his death. After two days, the corpse was interred in a plain unmarked tomb.[108]

Henry dismissed the mercenaries in his force, retaining only a small core of local soldiers that formed the "Yeomen of his Garde",[109] and proceeded to establish his rule of England. He convinced Parliament to reverse his attainder and record Richard's kingship as illegal, although the Yorkist king's reign remained officially in the annals of England history. The proclamation of Edward IV's children as illegitimate was also reversed, restoring Elizabeth's status to a royal princess.[110] The marriage of the heiress to the House of York, Elizabeth, to the master of the House of Lancaster, Henry, marked the end of the feud between the two houses and the start of the Tudor dynasty. The royal matrimony, however, was delayed until Henry was crowned king and had established his claim on the throne, strong enough to precede those of Elizabeth and her kin.[111] Aside from reversing his attainder, Henry also convinced Parliament to backdate his reign to the day before the battle,[102] effectively declaring those who fought against him at Bosworth Field to be traitors.[112] Northumberland, who had done nothing in the battle, was imprisoned, but later released and reinstated to pacify the north in Henry's name.[113] The purge of those who fought for Richard occupied Henry's first two years of rule. Afterwards, Henry was prepared to accept those who submitted to him, regardless of their former allegiances.[114]

Of his supporters, Henry rewarded the Stanleys the most.[60] Aside from making William his chamberlain, he bestowed the earldom of Derby upon Lord Stanley, along with grants and offices in other estates.[115] Henry rewarded Oxford by restoring the lands and titles confiscated by the Yorkists to him, and appointing him as Constable of the Tower and admiral of England, Ireland, and Aquitaine. For his kin, Henry created Jasper Tudor the Duke of Bedford.[116] He returned to his mother the lands and grants stripped from her by Richard. He proved to be a filial son, installing her as Queen Mother in the palace and faithfully attending to her throughout his reign. Parliament's declaration of Margaret as femme sole effectively empowered her; she no longer needed to attend to matters of her estates through Stanley.[117] Elton points out that Henry's supporters were in his favour for the short term; in later years, Henry promoted those who served his interests best over those who had supported him at Bosworth.[118]

Like the kings before him, Henry faced dissidents to his reign. The first open revolt against his rule occurred two years later. Lambert Simnel claimed to be Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick, who was Edward IV's nephew. The Earl of Lincoln backed him for the throne and led rebel forces in the name of the House of York.[113] The rebel army fended off several attacks by Northumberland's forces before engaging Henry's army at the Battle of Stoke Field on 16 June 1487.[115] Oxford and Bedford led Henry's men,[119] including several former supporters of Richard III, on that day.[120] Henry won this battle easily, although he had to contend with a few other malcontents and conspiracies in his reign.[121] A rebellion in 1489 started with Northumberland's murder; military historian Michael C. C. Adams says that the author of a note, which was left next to Northumberland's body, blamed the earl for Richard's death.[102]

Legacy

Contemporary accounts of the Battle of Bosworth Field can be found in four primary sources, one of which is the English Croyland Chronicle, written by a senior Yorkist chronicler who relied on second-hand information from nobles and soldiers.[122] The other sources were written by foreigners; Vergil, Jean Molinet, and Diego de Valera.[123][124] Whereas Molinet was sympathetic to Richard,[124] Vergil was in Henry's service, drawing information from the king and his subjects to portray them in a good light.[123] Diego de Valera, whose information Ross regards as unreliable,[125] compiled his information from letters of Spanish merchants.[124] However, other historians have used Valera's work to deduce possibly valuable information not readily evident in other sources.[126] Ross finds the poem, The Ballad of Bosworth Field, a useful source to ascertain certain details of the battle.[125] The multitude of different accounts, mostly based on second- or third-hand information, has proved to be an obstacle to historians as they try to reconstruct the battle.[125] Their common complaint is that except for the outcome, very little details of the battle are found in the chronicles. According to historian Michael Hicks, the Battle of Bosworth Field is one of the worst chronicled clashes of the Wars of the Roses.[127]

Newport History Society re-enacts Henry's march through Wales to Bosworth Field during the battle's quincentenary.

Henry tried to establish his victory as a new beginning for the country;[128] he hired chroniclers to portray his reign as a "modern age" that started from 1485.[129] Hicks points out that the works of Vergil and the blind historian Bernard André, promoted by the Tudor governments, have become authoritative sources for writers of the next four hundred years.[130] As such, Tudor literature paints a flattering picture of Henry's reign, presenting the Battle of Bosworth Field as the final clash of the civil war and downplaying the subsequent uprisings.[127] For England, the Middle Ages ended in 1485. Other than 1066, in which William the Conqueror conquered England in the Battle of Hastings, no other year holds more significance for the country in its history. By portraying Richard as a hunchbacked tyrant who usurped the throne by killing his nephews, the Tudor historians attached a sense of myth to the battle: it became an epic clash between good and evil, an outcome of moral victory to be expected by the people.[131] According to Reader Colin Burrow, André was so overwhelmed by the historic significance of the Battle of Bosworth Field that he represented it with a blank page in his Henry VII (1502).[132] For Professor Peter Saccio, the battle was a unique clash in the annals of English history: "the victory was determined, not by those who fought, but by those who delayed fighting until they were sure of being on the winning side."[58]

Other historians, such as Adams and Horrox, believe that Richard lost the battle because of morale and loyalty issues; most of the common soldiers found it difficult to fight for a liege whom they distrusted, and some lords believed that their situation might improve if Richard was dethroned.[96][120] Against such duplicities, Richard's desperate charge against Henry was the only knightly behaviour on the field, according to Adams. As fellow historian Michael Bennet puts it, the attack was "the swan-song of [mediaeval] English chivalry."[102] Adams believes this view is reflected at that time by the actions of printer William Caxton, who enjoyed sponsorship by Edward IV and Richard III. Nine days after the battle, Caxton published Sir Thomas Malory's story about chivalry and death by betrayal—Le Morte d'Arthur—seemingly as a response to the circumstances of Richard's death.[102]

Elton does not believe Bosworth Field has any true significance. He points out that 20th century English public largely ignored the battle until its quincentennial celebration. In his view, the dearth of specific information—no one truly knows where the battle took place—demonstrates the battle's insignificance to English society. Elton considers the battle as a normal part of Henry's struggles to establish his reign; that the young king had to spend ten more years, pacifying factions and rebellions to secure his throne, underscores the historian's point.[133] Mackie agrees to an extent. As he points out, contemporary historians, wary of the three successions of kings during the long Wars of the Roses, considered Bosworth Field inconsequential; to them it was just another battle. It was through the works and efforts of Francis Bacon and his successors that the public started to believe the battle had decided their lives, bringing about "the fall of a tyrant".[134] Mackie concludes that, in hindsight, Bosworth Field is notable as a decisive battle that established a dynasty, which ruled unchallenged over England for more than a hundred years.[135]

Shakespearian dramatisation

William Shakespeare gives prominence to the Battle of Bosworth Field in his play, Richard III. It is the "one big battle"; no other fighting scene distracts the audience from this action,[136] represented by a one-on-one swordfight between Henry Tudor and Richard III.[137] Shakespeare uses their duel to bring a climactic end to the play and the Wars of the Roses; he also uses it to champion morality, portraying the "unequivocal triumph of good over evil".[138] Richard, the villainous lead character, has been built up in the battles of Shakespeare's earlier play, Henry VI, Part 3, as a "formidable swordsman and a courageous military leader"—in contrast to the dastardly means by which he becomes king in Richard III.[139] Although the Battle of Bosworth Field has only five sentences to direct it on stage, three scenes and more than four hundred lines precede the action, developing the background and motivations for the characters in anticipation of the battle.[138]

Richard III, Act 5, scene 3: Richard, played by David Garrick, awakens after a nightmare visit by the ghosts of his victims.

Shakespeare's account of the battle was mostly based on chroniclers Edward Hall's and Raphael Holinshed's dramatic versions of history, which were sourced from Vergil's chronicle. However, Shakespeare's attitude towards Richard was shaped by scholar Thomas More, whose writings displayed extreme bias against the Yorkist king.[140] The result of these influences is a script that vilifies the king, and Shakespeare had little qualms about departing from history to incite drama.[141] Margaret of Anjou died in 1482, but Shakespeare had her speak to Richard's mother before the battle to foreshadow Richard's fate and fulfil the prophecy she had cast in Henry VI.[142] Shakespeare exaggerated the cause of Richard's restless night before the battle, elaborating it as a haunting by the ghosts of those whom the king had murdered, including Buckingham.[143] Richard is portrayed as suffering a pang of conscience, but as he speaks, he regains his confidence and asserts that he will be evil if that is what is needed to retain his crown.[144]

The fight between the two armies is simulated by rowdy noises made off-stage (alarums or alarms) as actors walk on the stage, deliver their lines, and exit. To build the anticipation for the duel, Shakespeare requests for more alarums after Richard's councillor, William Catesby, announces that the king is "[enacting] more wonders than a man". Richard is instructed to punctuate his entrance with the classic line, "A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!"[137] Here, Richard refuses to withdraw, continuing to seek for a new horse to continue his slaying of Henry's doubles until he has killed his nemesis. There is no documentary evidence that Henry had five decoys at Bosworth Field; the idea was Shakespeare's invention. He drew inspiration from Henry IV's use of them at the Battle of Shrewsbury (1403) to amplify the perception of Richard's courage on the battlefield.[145] Similarly, the single combat between Henry and Richard is Shakespeare's creation. The True Tragedy of Richard III, a play earlier than Shakespeare's version, exhibited no signs of staging such an encounter: its stage directions gave not a hint of visible combat.[146]

The Battle of Bosworth Field, a Scene in the Great Drama of History, illustrating Beckett's mocking of Victorian attitude towards history

Despite the dramatic licences taken, Shakespeare's version of the Battle of Bosworth Field was taken as the model of the event by English textbooks for many years during the 18th and 19th centuries.[147] The glamorized version of national history, published in books and paintings and played out on stages across the country, perturbed humorist Gilbert Abbott à Beckett.[148] He voiced his criticism in the form of a poem, equating the romantic view of national history to watching a "fifth-rate production of Richard III": shabbily costumed actors fight the Battle of Bosworth Field on-stage while those with lesser roles lounge at the back of the stage, showing no interest in the proceedings.[149]

In Laurence Olivier's 1955 film adaptation of Richard III, the Battle of Bosworth Field is represented not by a single duel, but an open conflict that became the film's most recognised scene and a regular show at Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre.[150] The movie portrays the clash between the Yorkist and Lancastrian armies on an open field. The camera focused on individual characters amidst the depicted savagery of hand-to-hand fighting, and the film received accolades for the realistic fight.[151] A reviewer for The Manchester Guardian paper, however, was not as impressed, finding the number of combatants too sparse for the wide plains and a lack of subtlety in Richard's death scene.[152] The method in which Richard is shown to prepare his army for the battle also earned acclaim. As Richard speaks to his men and draws his plans in the sand—using his sword as a pen—his units appear on-screen, arraying themselves in the lines that Richard had drawn. Intimately woven together, the combination of pictorial and narrative elements effectively turns Richard into a storyteller, who acts out the plot he has construed.[153] Shakespearian critic Herbert Coursen extends that idea of the scene: Richard sets himself up as a creator of men but dies amongst the savagery of his creations' killing of each other. Coursen finds the depiction a contrast to that of Henry V and his "band of brothers".[154]

The adaptation of the settings for Richard III to a 1930s fascist England in Ian McKellen's 1995 film, however, did not sit well with historians. Adams posits that the original Shakespearian setting for Richard's fate at Bosworth teaches the moral of facing one's fate, no matter how unjust it is, "nobly and with dignity."[155] By overshadowing the dramatic teaching with special effects, McKellen's film reduces its version of the battle to a pyrotechnic spectacle about the death of a one-dimensional villain.[156] Coursen agrees that the battle and Richard's end in this version are trite and underwhelming.[157]

Battlefield

Richard's Field
The memorial and its plaque

Officially the site of the battle is deemed by Leicestershire County Council to be in the vicinity of Market Bosworth.[158] The council engaged historian Daniel Williams to research the battle, and his findings were used in 1974 to build Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre and the presentation it houses.[159] His version of history, however, has come under dispute. Sparked by the quincentenary celebration in 1985,[158] historians argue over the exact location of battle,[160] and suspect the authenticity of Williams' version.[161] In particular, geological surveys conducted by Battlefields Trust, a charity organisation to protect and study old English battlefields, show that the southern and eastern flanks of Ambion Hill were solid ground in the 15th century, contrary to William's claim of it as a large area of marshland.[162]

The battle, they argue, was named after Market Bosworth because that was the most notable town nearest to the battlefield in the 15th century.[123] As suggested by Professor Philip Morgan, a battle might be treated by society as a normal event, deeming it of no memorable quality and therefore not requiring a name. As time passes, writers of administrative and historical records find it necessary to identify the battle, ascribing it a name that is usually toponymical in nature and sourced from combatants or observers. This official name gets accepted by society and future generations without question.[163] Early records associated the Battle of Bosworth Field with "Brownehethe", "bellum Miravallenses", "Sandeford" and "Dadlyngton field".[164] The earliest record, a municipal memorandum of 23 August 1485 from York,[165] locates the battle "on the field of Redemore".[166] It is corroborated by a 1485–86 letter that mentions "Redesmore" as the location of the action.[159] According to historian Peter Foss, records did not associate the battle with "Bosworth" until 1510.[164]

English Heritage names Foss as the principal advocate for "Redemore" as the location of the battle. Foss suggests the name is derived from "Hreod Mor", an Anglo-Saxon phrase that means "reedy marshland". Basing his opinion on 13th- and 16th-century church records, he believes "Redemore" was an area of wetland that lay between Ambion Hill and the village of Dadlington, and was close to the Fenn Lanes, a Roman road running east to west across the region.[159] Glenn Foard, Project Officer for Battlefields Trust, believes this road to be the most probable route that both armies took to reach the battlefield.[167] Williams dismisses the notion of "Redmore" as a specific location, calling the word a general term used to describe a large area of reddish soil. Foss argues that Williams' sources are local stories and flawed interpretations of records.[168] Moreover, he proposes that Williams was influenced by William Hutton's 1788 The Battle of Bosworth-Field, which Foss blames for introducing the notion that the battle was fought west of Ambion Hill on the north side of the River Sence.[159] Hutton, as Foss suggests, misinterpreted a passage from his source, Raphael Holinshed's 1577 Chronicle. Holinshed wrote, "King Richard pitched his field on a hill called Anne Beame, refreshed his soldiers and took his rest." Foss says Hutton mistook "field" for "field of battle", seeding the idea that the fight took place on Anne Beame (Ambion Hill). To "[pitch] his field", as Foss clarifies, is to set up a camp.[168]

St James the Greater, Dadlington: the dead of Bosworth Fields were buried here.

Foss brings further evidence for his "Redemore" theory by quoting Edward Hall's 1550 Chronicle. Hall stated that Richard's army stepped onto a plain after breaking camp the next day. Furthermore, historian William Burton, author of Description of Leicestershire (1622),[159] wrote that the battle was "fought in a large, flat, plaine, and spacious ground, three miles [4.82 km] distant from [Bosworth], between the Towne of Shenton, Sutton [Cheney], Dadlington and Stoke [Golding]".[168] The information from the two sources fits the flat ground north of Dadlington in Foss' opinion.[123]

English Heritage, responsible for managing England's historic sites, used both theories to designate the site for Bosworth Field. Without preference for either theory, they constructed a single continuous battlefield boundary that encompasses locations of the battle mentioned by Williams and Foss.[169] The region has experienced extensive changes over the years, starting after the battle. Holinshed stated in his chronicle that he found firm ground where he expected the marsh to be. Burton confirmed that by the end of the 16th century, areas of the battlefield were enclosed and improved to make them agriculturally productive. Trees were planted on the south side of Ambion Hill, forming Ambion Wood. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Ashby Canal carved through the land west and south-west of Ambion Hill. Winding alongside the canal at a distance, the Ashby and Nuneaton Railway crossed the area on an embankment.[123][170] The changes to the land were so extensive that when Hutton revisited the region in 1807, after visiting in 1788, he could not readily find his way around.[123]

Richard's Well, where the last Yorkist king supposedly took his last drink of water

Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre was built on Ambion Hill, near where Richard's Well is located. According to legend, Richard III, supposedly drank from a spring on the day of the battle. There are several springs in the region.[171] In 1788, a local pointed out one of the springs to Hutton, claiming it was the one mentioned in the legend.[107] A stone structure was later built over the location. The inscription on the well reads:

"Near this spot, on August 22nd 1485, at the age of 32, King Richard III fell fighting gallantly in defence of his realm & his crown against the usurper Henry Tudor.

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

It is maintained by the Fellowship of the White Boar."[172]

Northwest of Ambion Hill, just across the northern tributary of the Sence in the area, a flag and a memorial stone mark Richard's Field. Erected in 1973, the site was selected on the basis of William's version of history.[173] St James's Church at Dadlington is the only structure in the area that is reliably associated with the Battle of Bosworth Field; the bodies of those who died in the battle were buried there.[107]

References

  1. ^ a b Ross (1997), pp. 172–173.
  2. ^ Chrimes (1999), p. 17.
  3. ^ a b Chrimes (1999), p. 3.
  4. ^ Chrimes (1999), p. 21.
  5. ^ a b Ross (1999), p. 192.
  6. ^ Ross (1999), p. 21.
  7. ^ Ross (1999), p. 65.
  8. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 35–43.
  9. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 40–41.
  10. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 71–72.
  11. ^ Ross (1999), p. 63.
  12. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 83–85.
  13. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 88–91.
  14. ^ Ross (1999), p. 93.
  15. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 94–95.
  16. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 99–100.
  17. ^ a b Lander (1981), p. 327.
  18. ^ Ross (1999), p. 104.
  19. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 105–111.
  20. ^ Ross (1999), p. 116.
  21. ^ a b Jones (1993), p. 64.
  22. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 112–115.
  23. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 115–116.
  24. ^ a b c Ross (1999), p. 117.
  25. ^ Chrimes (1999), pp. 26–27.
  26. ^ Ross (1999), p. 118.
  27. ^ Ross (1999), p. 196.
  28. ^ Chrimes (1999), p. 19.
  29. ^ Lander (1981), p. 324.
  30. ^ Chrimes (1999), p. 31.
  31. ^ Ross (1999), p. 144.
  32. ^ Ross (1999), p. 145–146.
  33. ^ Chrimes (1999), p. 38.
  34. ^ a b Chrimes (1999), p. 39.
  35. ^ Lander (1981), p. 325.
  36. ^ Harriss (2007), pp. 184–185.
  37. ^ Downing (1992), p. 159–160.
  38. ^ Downing (1992), p. 59.
  39. ^ a b Chrimes (1999), p. 47.
  40. ^ Ross (1999), p. 138.
  41. ^ a b Ross (1999), p. 142.
  42. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 21–22.
  43. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 44–45.
  44. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 45–47.
  45. ^ Ross (1997), pp. 289–290.
  46. ^ Carpenter (2002), p. 210.
  47. ^ Ross (1999), p. 168.
  48. ^ Ross (1997), p. 226.
  49. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 35–38, 175.
  50. ^ Ross (1997), pp. 36, 181.
  51. ^ Hicks (2002), p. 280.
  52. ^ Carpenter (2002), p. 180.
  53. ^ Carpenter (2002), p. 185.
  54. ^ Ross (1999), p. 78.
  55. ^ Carpenter (2002), p. 215.
  56. ^ Chrimes (1999), pp. 15–17.
  57. ^ Chrimes (1999), pp. 299, 301, 318.
  58. ^ a b Saccio (2000), p. 183.
  59. ^ Ross (1999), p. 211.
  60. ^ a b Chrimes (1999), p. 54.
  61. ^ Britnell (1997), p. 101.
  62. ^ a b Gravett (1999), p. 15.
  63. ^ Carpenter (2002), p. 159.
  64. ^ Hicks (2002), p. 163; Ross (1997), p. 164.
  65. ^ a b c Carpenter (2002), p. 212.
  66. ^ Coward (1983), pp. 2, 9–10.
  67. ^ Ross (1997), p. 334.
  68. ^ Ross (1997), p. 134.
  69. ^ Jones (1993), p. 59.
  70. ^ a b Carpenter (2002), p. 216.
  71. ^ Ross (1997), p. 409.
  72. ^ Horrox (1991), p. 323.
  73. ^ Chrimes (1999), pp.40–41, 342.
  74. ^ a b Elton (2003), p.89.
  75. ^ Ross (1999), pp.211–212.
  76. ^ Elton (2003), pp.88–89.
  77. ^ a b Rowse (1998), p. 215.
  78. ^ a b Gravett (1999), p.40.
  79. ^ Chrimes (1999), pp.42–43.
  80. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 212–215.
  81. ^ Ross (1999), p. 212.
  82. ^ Gravett (1999), pp. 44–45.
  83. ^ Carpenter (2002), p. 217.
  84. ^ a b Gravett (1999), p. 45.
  85. ^ Gravett (1999), p. 46.
  86. ^ a b Ross (1999), p. 215.
  87. ^ a b Mackie (1983), p. 52.
  88. ^ Gravett (1999), pp. 54–55; Ross (1999), pp. 217–218.
  89. ^ Ross (1999), p. 217.
  90. ^ Chrimes (1999), p. 40.
  91. ^ a b Mackie (1983), p. 51.
  92. ^ Gravett (1999), pp. 34–36.
  93. ^ Ross (1999), p. 213.
  94. ^ Chrimes (1999), p. 48.
  95. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 220–221.
  96. ^ a b Adams (2002), p. 19.
  97. ^ Horrox (1991), pp. 319–320; Pugh (1992), p. 49.
  98. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 221–223.
  99. ^ Gravett (1999), p. 69; Ross (1999), p. 222.
  100. ^ Horrox (1991), p. 325.
  101. ^ a b c d e f Chrimes (1999), p. 49.
  102. ^ a b c d e f Adams (2002), p. 20.
  103. ^ Gravett (1999), p. 73.
  104. ^ Ross (1999), p. 224.
  105. ^ Ross (1999), p. 225.
  106. ^ Ross (1999), p. 52.
  107. ^ a b c Battlefields Trust (2004), "Battlefield Monuments"
  108. ^ Ross (1999), pp. 225–226.
  109. ^ Mackie (1983), p. 58.
  110. ^ Baker (2003), pp. 58–59.
  111. ^ Laynesmith (2005), p. 81.
  112. ^ Baker (2003), p. 59.
  113. ^ a b Carpenter (2002), p. 222.
  114. ^ Carpenter (2002), pp. 224–225.
  115. ^ a b Carpenter (2002), p. 223.
  116. ^ Chrimes (1999), pp. 54–55.
  117. ^ Jones (1993), pp. 98–99.
  118. ^ Elton (2003), pp. 78–80.
  119. ^ Mackie (1983), p. 73.
  120. ^ a b Horrox (1991), p. 318.
  121. ^ Pugh (1992), pp. 52–56
  122. ^ English Heritage (1995), p. 6.
  123. ^ a b c d e f English Heritage (1995), p. 4.
  124. ^ a b c English Heritage (1995), p. 7.
  125. ^ a b c Ross (1999), p. 216.
  126. ^ English Heritage (1995), p. 8.
  127. ^ a b Hicks (1995), p. 23.
  128. ^ Burrow (2000), p. 11.
  129. ^ Carpenter (2002), p. 219.
  130. ^ Hicks (1995), pp. 28, 39.
  131. ^ English Heritage (1995), p. 11.
  132. ^ Burrow (2000), p. 12.
  133. ^ Elton (2003), p. 78.
  134. ^ Mackie (1983), p. 7.
  135. ^ Mackie (1983), p. 8
  136. ^ Grene (2001), p. 92.
  137. ^ a b Edelman (1992), p. 80.
  138. ^ a b Grene (2001), p. 93.
  139. ^ Edelman (1992), p. 79.
  140. ^ Lull (1999), p. 1.
  141. ^ Saccio (2000), p. 14.
  142. ^ Lull (1999), p. 48.
  143. ^ Grene (2001), p. 154.
  144. ^ Lull (1999), p. 18.
  145. ^ Edelman (1999), p. 81.
  146. ^ Edelman (1999), pp. 16–17.
  147. ^ Mitchell (2000), p. 209.
  148. ^ Mitchell (2000), p. 208.
  149. ^ Mitchell (2000), pp. 209–210.
  150. ^ Davies (1990), p. 74; English Heritage (1995), p. 10.
  151. ^ Davies (1990), pp. 74–75, 135.
  152. ^ Davies (2000), p. 176.
  153. ^ Davies (1990), p. 75.
  154. ^ Coursen (2000), pp. 100–101.
  155. ^ Adams (2002), p. 28.
  156. ^ Adams (2002), pp. 28–29.
  157. ^ Coursen (2000), pp. 102–103.
  158. ^ a b English Heritage (1995), p. 1.
  159. ^ a b c d e English Heritage (1995), p. 2.
  160. ^ Dunn (2000), p. 2.
  161. ^ Battlefields Trust (2004), "Visiting the Battlefield".
  162. ^ Foard (2004) p. 21
  163. ^ Morgan (2000), p. 42.
  164. ^ a b Morgan (2000), p. 44.
  165. ^ Foard (2004), p. 17
  166. ^ English Heritage (1995), pp. 1–2.
  167. ^ Foard (2004), p. 51
  168. ^ a b c English Heritage (1995), p. 3.
  169. ^ English Heritage (1995), pp. 12–13.
  170. ^ Gravett (1999), p. 83.
  171. ^ Gravett (1999), p. 72.
  172. ^ Battlefields Trust (2004), "The Plaque on Richard's Well".
  173. ^ English Heritage (1995), p. 12.

Bibliography

Books

Reports

Online source

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Battle of Bosworth Field.

52°35′28″N 1°24′37″W / 52.59111°N 1.41028°W / 52.59111; -1.41028

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Bosworth_Field&oldid=297308928"