What
do we really know
about Bosworth Field?
Margaret
Gurowitz
Bosworth
reenactment.
|
Every Ricardian
knows these familiar facts: On August 21, 1485, Richard III left
Leicester to intercept Henry Tudor's invading army. Their forces
met and clashed at Redemore Plain -- somewhere south of Market Bosworth
-- early the following day. Betrayed by the Stanleys and Northumberland,
Richard was killed along with much of his Household during his fateful
charge at Henry Tudor's ranks. If we take a closer look at the Battle
of Bosworth, however, it becomes apparent that our assumptions about
the clash by no means rest on solid ground. Bosworth is fully as
controversial and mysterious as other Ricardian subjects.
Contrary
to the vivid descriptions by Paul Murray Kendall and other modern
writers, Bosworth was one of the worst-documented medieval battles,
lacking even a single surviving eyewitness account. The resulting
confusion about who actually fought in the battle, what actually
happened, and where it took place has led to a variety of interpretations.
First, who
fought in Richard III's army? One of the main sources available
to us, The Ballad of Bosworth Field,
provides a general idea of who was present at the battle. Charles
Ross, citing the writer of the ballad as well informed, says Richard
had a high turnout of nobles (Ross, p. 235). The ballad's author
listed the names of 90 supporters of Richard at the battle --
23 of whom were nobles, and the rest gentry (Ross, p. 236). Colin
Richmond, however, quotes the same ballad as showing that hardly
anyone fought for Richard. Richmond estimated that only six peers
turned out for Richard, several for Henry, and the rest stayed
home (Richmond, in Hammond, p. 173). Richmond points out that
many of those present at the battle did not fight, and many of
Richard's northerners may have been in the Earl of Northumberland's
inactive ranks. In his opinion, "[w]hat, therefore, principally
happened at Bosworth was the desertion of king Richard."
(ibid). A. J. Pollard, on the other hand, thinks Richard had the
support but lost the battle because he charged Henry Tudor's ranks
too soon (Pollard, p. 172).
Did the
Earl of Northumberland really betray Richard? As the story goes,
Northumberland -- perhaps motivated by jealousy stemming from
Richard's northern power and popularity -- failed to muster loyal
troops and waited on the sidelines during the battle. Four years
after Bosworth, the earl was murdered during a tax revolt, killed
by northerners who "'bore a deadly malice against him for
the disappointing of King Richard at Bosworth Field.'" (Pollard,
p. 171) But was Northumberland's inaction deliberate or accidental?
Charles Ross raises the intriguing possibility that Northumberland
was unable to engage Henry Tudor's troops due to the terrain (Ross,
pp. 221-223). Thus, Richard III may have charged Henry Tudor's
position before Northumberland was ready to help. Henry VII's
treatment of the earl after the battle certainly does not suggest
any special favors or gratitude: Northumberland, along with the
earls of Westmoreland and Surrey, was taken into custody and kept
in prison for several months, being released only under strict
conditions of good behavior (Pollard, p. 172). This is in marked
contrast to the lavish treatment given to Lord Stanley for his
betrayal of Richard.
If all of
this controversy were not enough, it is possible that the Battle
of Bosworth was not even fought at Bosworth. Dadlington, a town
about one and a half miles to the south, is a strong candidate
for the actual battle site. The earliest sources call the battle's
location "Redemore," which is derived from an Old English
phrase meaning "reedy marshland" (Ricardian
No. 96, p. 352), and a document from 1209--now lost--refers to
Redemore as being in the fields of Dadlington (ibid). Furthermore,
the greatest number of human skeletons, arrowheads, and pieces
of weapons and armor from the battle have been dug up in the area
of Dadlington/Stoke Golding rather than Ambien [or Ambion
-- not even the spelling of the name of this site is undisputed]
Hill, the traditional site of the struggle. In 1511, the Chapel
of St. James in Dadlington petitioned for a chantry foundation,
since the bodies of the men who died in the conflict were buried
there. According to William Burton, a local 17th century historian,
the battle was christened "Bosworth" after the most
notable town in its vicinity (ibid.), much in the same way the
Battle of Agincourt got its name from a nearby castle. This issue
still divides traditionalists (those who think the battle was
fought at Ambien Hill) and revisionists (the Dadlington crew).
Some historians have accepted a compromise scenario in which the
battle starts out at Ambien Hill and moves into Dadlington when
the Yorkists are routed (ibid, pp. 353-4). [Ed. Note: See also
The Battle of Bosworth: The Continuing
Fight.]
As the above
summary shows, a deeper look at the Battle of Bosworth, which
we Ricardians commemorate every year, calls into question many
of the traditions about Richard III's last fight. Upon re-examination
of the battle, we realize how much we still do not know about
this last crucial event in Richard III's life. Bosworth, like
many of the Ricardian subjects we probably take for granted, bears
further examination.
(Finally,
of course, there is that tradition in Leicester that Richard III's
bones were not thrown into the River Soar after Henry VIII dissolved
the monasteries, but were moved and reburied somewhere in the
town...) [Ed. note: for other traditions, see excerpt from
William Hutton's eighteenth century account, The
Battle of Bosworth Field.]
Bibliography
- Harris,
O.D., "'...even here in Bosworth Field'; a Disputed Site
of Battle," The Ricardian, Vol. VII, No. 92, March
1986.
- Phillips,
M.J., "The Battle of Bosworth: Further Reflections On the
Battlefield Site," The Ricardian, Vol. VII, No.
96, March 1987.
- Pollard,
A.J., Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. St.
Martin's Press, New York, 1991.
- Richmond,
Colin, "1485 And All That, or what was going on at the
Battle of Bosworth," in Richard III: Loyalty, Lordship
and Law, ed. by P.W. Hammond, Richard III and Yorkist History
Trust, London, 1986.
- Ross,
Charles, Richard III, University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1981.
About the
Author: Margaret Gurowitz served as Research Officer and Publicity
Director of the American Branch from 1993 to 1996. She holds a master's
degree in medieval studies from Rutgers University and is employed
in the public relations department of a Fortune 500 company.
. |