eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780752494968 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | The History Press |
| Publication date: | 02/17/2000 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 320 |
| File size: | 687 KB |
| Age Range: | 18 Years |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
The Battle of Bosworth
By Michael Bennett
The History Press
Copyright © 2013 Michael BennettAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-7524-9496-8
CHAPTER 1
News from the Field
It was harvest time. Before the full heat of the late summer day the battle was over. King Richard III was slain, and the mightiest army assembled in England within memory was shattered. Many lay dead, their bodies mangled in the press, but many more had thrown down their arms without a fight, and either taken to their heels or fallen in with the rebels. Whole battalions had held aloof on the side-lines, and their commanders now set out to ingratiate themselves with the victors. The obscure adventurer Henry Tudor, flushed with a remarkable triumph in his first military engagement, moved with his captains to a hill south of the battlefield which might serve as a vantage-point from which to direct the mopping up operations. It was on this elevation, later called Crown hill by the local populace, that the jubilant soldiers acclaimed their young leader as king, and one of the captains placed on his brow a coronet found among the debris in the field.
It was probably still afternoon on 22 August 1485 that Henry VII led his triumphant cavalcade, bringing in tow many noble captives from the royal army and the naked corpse of his rival, through the gates of Leicester. The townsmen would already have received reports of the upset, and would have prepared an appropriate reception. Already reports of the battle would have spread to other neighbouring towns, as men fleeing from the field and messengers specially deputed for the task relayed the intelligence. Before nightfall the city of Coventry buzzed with the tidings, and in the course of the following day the news could have reached most of the major population centres of England. On the vigil of St Bartholomew, the evening of the day after the battle, the mayor and aldermen of York assembled in the council chamber in considerable agitation to hear 'that King Richard late mercifully reigning upon us was through great treason ... piteously slain and murdered to the great heaviness of this city'. This intelligence was owed to John Sponer, whom they had sent to Leicester for this purpose, but who in all likelihood had gained his information actually on the road. Presumably the city fathers of London were as well organised, and also had reports of the defeat of Richard III by 23 August.
Hard on the heels of the first messages, winged by fear or self-interest, there would have come to London and all the county towns of the kingdom what amounted to an official communiqué from Henry VII. In addition to ordering firm measures for the cessation of fighting and feuding, it informed the general public that Richard III and his more prominent noble supporters, the duke of Norfolk, the earls of Lincoln and Surrey, Viscount Lovell, and Lords Ferrers and Zouche, had been slain. Apart from the later act of attainder which named two dozen more of the men who had fought against him, the new king was to provide no more information about the battle. In view of the widely held assumption that the first Tudor actively promoted the rewriting of history for propagandist purposes, the reticence in official circles as to what happened in the battle needs to be stressed, and indeed is one of the many mysteries of this time. Even as late as 1500 Bernard André, poet laureate and official biographer of the king, had no coherent account to give of the battle, leaving a blank space for the episode which for some reason he was unable to fill.
As rumour and report spread outwards from the epicentre at Bosworth in ever widening circles, and as the thousands of men from the various armies returned to their homes, there can have been no shortage of accounts of the battle. Unfortunately even participants might have found difficulty in making sense of the manœuvres, and there can have been precious few observations which were not garbled, partial and partisan. Judging from the few extant accounts, it is painfully apparent that from its very source the flow of news was broken and muddied on the banks of ignorance and fear, and deflected by streams of self-interest and propaganda. The official communiqué, for a start, either wilfully or unwittingly misled the public. At least three of the nobles whom it claimed to be dead were in fact alive. Similarly the report which reached York contained the bizarre information that the duke of Norfolk, who in fact had laid down his life in the Ricardian cause, had betrayed the king.
It is small wonder that even the basic items of report, that King Richard was slain and that Henry Tudor had taken the crown, were for some time in doubt in many quarters of the realm. Quite deliberately the late king's corpse was kept on public view, and it is perhaps significant that, contrary to the pattern in such affairs, no one ever claimed that he survived. Presumably the slow progress of the new king to London and his triumphal entry into the capital served to bring home the reality of the new regime to individuals and communities across southern England. On the other hand, despite the regular flow of news across the Channel, doubts persisted for quite a long time on the continent. According to a letter written from Rome by Cardinal Sforza on 30 September, the English ambassador had received news that evening that King Richard had been 'cut in pieces' by his people. Yet as late as 20 October the bishop of Imola could write to the pope from Mayence that 'according to common report which I heard on my way here, the king of England has been killed in battle. Here, some people tell me he is alive, but others deny it'. Meanwhile, on 5 November in writing to the king of England about a piracy problem Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain wisely left a blank for the king's name, presumably to be hurriedly filled in by the emissary on arrival in England.
In a relatively short while, however, the rulers of Christendom had access to better information. It is a remarkable fact that three of the earliest and fullest accounts of the battle, and indeed the only account which names an eye-witness informant, come from the continent. The most curious is the memorandum on English affairs prepared for the Spanish monarchs by Diego de Valera early in 1486. While there are some obvious errors, it contains much independently verifiable information on events from 1483 to the time of writing, and it includes an account of the battle of Bosworth derived from Juan de Salazar, a Spanish soldier-of-fortune who had actually fought on the side of Richard III. The actors and actions described have presented problems for historians: it refers to the 'grand chamberlain' who commanded the king's vanguard, and to a mysterious 'Lord Tamerlant' who with the king's left wing wheeled round to join the rebels in their attack on the royal host. For the most part historians have dismissed this testimony as irremediably muddled. Yet Salazar was a seasoned soldier who actually participated in the battle, and the information provided in this account, when read right, is far less idiosyncratic than has been supposed.
Two other European men of letters who wrote up an account of the battle in the following years were Philippe de Commines and Jean Molinet. Though both men were engaged in works which were not to be completed for another decade or so, there is every reason to suppose that their accounts of the defeat of Richard III were written before 1490. Neither can be dismissed as partisan. Based at the French court, Commines had met Henry Tudor, and was interested in following through the success of what was after all a French backed expedition. Yet he was no one's fool, and firmly expressed his scepticism of the pretender's claims. Molinet, a historian in the service of the duke of Burgundy, is even less vulnerable to the charge of anti-Ricardian prejudice. Both men were shrewd political analysts. Commines provides valuable information on the mounting of the expedition and stresses the importance of the support provided by Lord Stanley. Sadly he has next to nothing to say on the fighting itself. It is in the military arena that Molinet, an undeservedly neglected source, comes into his own, dedicating several hundred words to the battlefield manœuvres. His description of Richard III's battle formation, with its vanguard and rearguard, and his discussion of Henry Tudor's tactics, deserve to be taken at least as seriously as the later accounts of Polydore Vergil and his English translators. He also provides much interesting circumstantial detail, including the most authentic report on the death of King Richard. Despite some confusions, he was clearly well-informed. He is the earliest source for many items of information which subsequently appear in oral traditions as well as in the standard histories.
For all their problems, the continental sources compare most favourably with what has survived from English pens from before around 1490. There is the eccentric antiquarian John Rous of Warwick, whose writings, which span the change of dynasty, reveal first flattery of and then a vitriolic attack on Richard III. Though scatter-brained and malicious, he does include a few useful snippets of information about the battle, noting that the king bravely went down fighting and crying out against the treason of his subjects. More sober but scarcely more informative are a number of town chronicles, which though preserved in later copies, might well have been composed on a year to year basis. The recently discovered London annals in a College of Arms manuscript include a notice of the battle at 'Redesmore', which might well have been written in November 1485, at the end of the mayoral year. For the most part such entries are terse statements of fact, often merely summarising the official report. In most towns Henry Tudor's proclamation would have been entered into the mayor's book, and at York its factual errors were corrected by a conscientious clerk. Some annalists had access to a wider range of sources, and tried to provide a more expansive narrative. Robert Fabian is the best known of a group of London citizens who were concerned to draw together the annals of their city into a fuller national history, and whose compositions included the so-called Great Chronicle of London as well as Fabian's Chronicle. Both works locate the battle at Bosworth, and provide some valuable insights on the motives of the combatants. Their knowledge of what went on in the company of Sir Robert Brackenbury, keeper of the Tower of London, presumably derived from citizens who had been in his service. Unfortunately such works only assumed final form in the early sixteenth century. The most that can be claimed for the information on Richard III and Bosworth is that it had the authority of respectable citizens who were alive at the time and who were able to draw on eye-witnesses for at least some of their matter.
The only English writer to rival in time and style the writings of Valera, Commines and Molinet is the so-called 'second continuator' of the Crowland abbey chronicle. Curiously tacked on to a 'first continuation' of 'Ingulph's' chronicle, and then reworked by a third party with exclusively local interests, his composition is a remarkable political history of the civil wars from 1459 to 1485. From internal evidence it was written within a year of the death of Richard III, and though the composition of a churchman it reveals a shrewd understanding of human nature and a personal experience of affairs of state. Perhaps the author was no less a person than John Russell, bishop of Lincoln, and for a time chancellor of England. Certainly he was a man with similar qualities and experience. Not unnaturally his account of many key episodes of the Yorkist age commands wide respect, and indeed his comments on the general political scene in 1485 are most instructive. Its report of disaffection among the king's northern affinity, and its detailing the predicament of the Stanleys, provide vital clues as to the behaviour of key participants at Bosworth. On the other hand, the author is neither well-informed about, nor particularly interested in what actually happened in the battle. An unfortunate error in Fulman's original edition, repeated in Riley's translation, has even given the impression that he was unreliable on the basic facts of the battle, but a line missed from the manuscript clearly reveals that he knew who was slain and who had fled.
For over a generation, indeed, there seems to have been no reasonably full and coherent account of the battle of Bosworth committed to writing, still less a version with any pretensions to literary quality. It might in part have been the virtual impossibility of composing a narrative which would preserve the honour of all the participants, particularly those still alive or whose families were still powerful, and a deep reluctance to open up old wounds by probing too deeply into their motives and manœuvres. Bernard André almost certainly felt this sort of constraint, and preferred to say nothing about the battle at all, except that it was fought on a Saturday, on which point he was in any case in error. At the same time the lack of any adequate history of the events around 1485 was of a piece with the generally lamentable state of historical scholarship in England. In his History of Richard III, Thomas More set new literary standards for his fellow countrymen, but his enterprise was more to produce a Renaissance morality play than to write accurate and balanced history. For the present purposes, however, it is still disappointing that More concluded his account with the usurpation, and his English translator only carried it forward to the end of 1483.
It was left to an Italian, a native of Urbino who first came to England in 1502, to provide his adopted countrymen with a well-written, thoughtful and coherent version of their recent past. In his Anglica Historia Polydore Vergil offered his readers a narrative of the battle of Bosworth, which almost by default has become the standard account for subsequent historians. A fluent and elegant Latinist, and steeped in classical learning, he was a careful historian by the standards of time, and he was not afraid to challenge many of the cherished myths of early British history. Like all good historians, however, he was the victim of his sources, and for most of the fifteenth century he had precious little to go on besides vernacular continuations of Polychronicon and The Brut, and the better London chronicles. For more recent events, he turned to what might now be termed 'oral history', and it must be assumed that most of his information about Bosworth was provided by his patrons at the Tudor court, some of whom were eye-witnesses. For want of any better information, most historians have taken his words on trust, and used them as the starting point for attempted reconstructions of the encounter. His words on the general lie of the land and the siting of the camps, the disposition of the armies and their division into battalions, the tactics of the commanders, and the progress of the battle have been plagiarised and fleshed out countless times over the centuries. Unfortunately he has been more often read in a late Tudor translation than in the original Latin, and in one vital respect this practice might have led to misconstruction: what Vergil referred to as 'battle-lines' the first translator and all subsequent historians have transformed into 'vanguards'.
Polydore Vergil is the last historian who can usefully be regarded as a primary source for the events of 1485. For all their indignation at the Italian's debunking of aspects of their national history, Edward Hall and a new generation of British historians slavishly followed his narrative of the Bosworth campaign, as for most of the fifteenth century. Their few interpolations are of dubious value. The anecdote that the duke of Norfolk was warned of the treachery that was to take place in the battle might reflect a well-founded tradition. At least it does not seem to have been an authorial invention. The long set-speeches that Hall attributed to the two chief protagonists are another matter. There are authentic touches to them, but the most that can be said is that there was a strong oral tradition which guided his imagination and kept it within bounds. At times Hall's freewheeling translation and imaginative amplification of Vergil have proved curiously influential. In his speech to the troops Henry Tudor is presented as referring to the enemy ahead and uncertain allies on each side, which statement seems to be the basis for the popular assumption that the Stanleys had armies both to the north and south of the field. Then at the point when the rebels are described by Vergil as having the sun at their backs, Hall amplifies the description by adding that their enemies had it on their faces. If based on evidence other than Vergil, both statements provide important clues as to troop dispositions. Yet if the former is nothing more than a glib turn of phrase and the latter a mindless elaboration then obviously there is nothing to commend them.
In the course of the second half of the sixteenth century the account of the battle of Bosworth first offered by Vergil, then translated and amplified by Hall, became the standard version. It was the basic source for almost all Elizabethan and Jacobean writers, and through the influence of the histories of Holinshed, the drama of Shakespeare, and the verse of Beaumont, it gained even wider currency. Of course it must be stressed that Vergil was the sole source of this tradition. Apart from his own authority as a historian, the most that can be said is that this vision made sense to Englishmen who might well have remembered hearing eye-witness accounts or had access to local reports. The problem is that this version, to which repetition, amplification and the power of print lent a spurious authority, might well have driven other accounts from the field. The chance survival of the Crowland chronicle must give pause for thought on what might not have withstood the ravages of time. Certainly valuable information contained in foreign sources was either overlooked or ignored as is well illustrated by the Scots writers. In his Latin history of Scotland John Major provided new details on Bosworth, and in his later vernacular history Robert Lindsay of Pittscottie added a great deal more material. Both record the presence in Henry Tudor's army of a Scots contingent under such captains as Alexander Bruce. It is perhaps easy to understand why English writers chose not to register such information in Tudor times, and why equally it reappeared in the English literary tradition under James I. On the other hand there are other elements in Lindsay's account which cannot be so readily inserted into the standard version. In addition to some decidedly apocryphal material, he offered an account of troop deployments and battlefield manœuvres that is reminiscent of Valera's report, which he could scarcely have seen.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from The Battle of Bosworth by Michael Bennett. Copyright © 2013 Michael Bennett. Excerpted by permission of The History Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contents
Preface,One News From The Field,
Two Civil War and Common Weal,
Three The Year of Three Kings,
Four Kings, Pretenders and Powerbrokers,
Five The Road to Bosworth,
Six Ordeal by Battle,
Seven The Tudor Triumph,
Eight 1485 in English History,
Appendices,
Postscript,
Notes,