Bosworth 1485 - The Downfall of Richard III by Christopher Gravett, published by Osprey Publishing
There is now a watershed for the telling of the Bosworth story.
Prior to 2009, the account was centred on the battle taking place at Ambion Hill, very much reinforced by the Local Authority deciding to build their visitor centre there, together with an associated battlefield walk.
In 2009 two archeologists, Glenn Foarde and Ann Curry, funded to the tune of one million pounds, discovered that the battlefield was actually 2 miles away from Ambion Hill. The new site was complete with finds of artillery shot and some artifacts, though notably no arrowheads have been found. It is broadly accepted that this is the site of the battle.
Christopher Gravett had already written about Bosworth for Osprey before 2009, so this new book was a re-evaluation based around the new location and evidence.
We get the usual style and format of the Osprey ‘Campaign’ series, so it is an easy read with plenty of illustration and good maps that support the account.
It begins with a bit of background to the Wars of the Roses and then moves on to the reputations and personalities of King Richard III and Henry Tudor.
Henry, part funded by France, lands in Wales with his invasion force and then we have the important indications as to how popular his grab for the crown might be, by those on his journey who fall in behind him and those who are less certain bedfellows.
Once we get to the battlefield, the intrigue of who will remain loyal, switch sides or just not participate in the fight becomes key to developing the battle story, but it is all somewhat tamed by the simple fact that despite this being a pivotal late medieval battle and occurring just over 500 years ago, we are still unsure about many things, including how armies actually fought, where they deployed and the true actions / intentions of some key commanders.
The battle is described in some detail, with Gravett taking the view that the king’s army was deployed in a very long line, which would have put Northumberland on Richards left flank and by implication, on the other side of the marsh, with Northumberland and Lord Stanley perhaps holding each other in check.
The text concludes with a summary of Henry’s later years as king.
I have been wanting to do a wargame scenario on this battle, so I deliberately bought this title as a post 2009 guide to the latest thinking on the battle location, the line of march, the dispositions and the conduct of the battle and it does a good job in imparting the necessary information and taken alone, I would have accepted all of that.
However, I also bought Richard III and The Battle of Bosworth by Mike Ingham, published by Hellion, which is also a post 2009 book, so that I would get the broadest picture possible of events.
Both books are very good ……. But, rather than help the scenario build, they disagree on battlefield deployment, with Ingram having the armies located parallel to the Roman road, fighting across it, while Gravett has the armies positioned as though they had deployed directly from road march, fanning out, so that the road ran through both armies.
The difference between the two accounts gives a 90˚ tilt of the battlefield. From a scenario design perspective that is not as significant as it might seem as both accounts maintain that a marsh covered Oxfords right flank and we can use that as a central pivot.
Where there are important differences, it is on the actual deployment of troops. As stated, Gravett has Northumberland in extended line beyond the marsh, which in effect isolates his influence from the fighting between the vanguards of Oxford and Norfolk, though does put him closer to the Stanleys.
By contrast Ingram has the royal army deployed in depth, with Norfolk in front, followed by Richard, followed by Northumberland. This puts the entire royal army in front of Oxford and the impact of the marsh is one of simply shrinking the available frontage of both armies to fit that gap, though again making it harder for the royal army to bring their full numbers to bear at once.
Ingram takes us a step further by showing the French contingent suddenly appearing on the left of Oxford, in effect becoming an independent flanking force arriving against Norfolk and Ingram goes as far as to describe the French as being Henry’s vanguard. [the sentiment being that though the French presence was important to the outcome, it has been deliberately diminished by subsequent Tudor accounts].
So having found a new battle site (not Ambion Hill) the narrative of deployment is still open to interpretation, which I find frustrating from a scenario design point of view, but very satisfying from the intrigue of an evidential analysis perspective.
Rather than choosing which text I prefer, it leads me instead to conclude that each book enhances the other. Both reach their conclusions by evidence / source based reckoning. I’m not sure how Ingrams version of the meeting forces wheeling from road movement, to moving either side of the road in such a clean and tidy way works.
The Gravett solution deals with the approach of the armies by road, with the forces fanning out from march formation into position, with the road ending up running through the positions of both armies.
I do like that Gravett opens his account with the advice that ‘What follows is one view of events on that summer day in 1485’, Ingrams account might as well say the same thing and so both books sit easily on my shelf to be enjoyed.
From the Book;
‘The retainer recruited men from his own household and obtained lesser men such as archers or billmen, from his tenantry, paying for their services.’
‘The Song of Lady Bessy says Lord Stanley, Sir William Stanley and Gilbert Talbot met together 3rd May and pledged support for Henry’s bid for the crown.’
‘Even Lord Stanley was granted permission to return to his seat at Lathom in Lancashire to organise his troops.’
‘The rebel division manoeuvred left, keeping the marsh to their
right side.’
‘… no arrowheads have been found, but a brisk exchange must have taken place as the distance between the two sides closed. It would also be at this stage that any hand-gunners present would have opened fire.’
‘During this struggle between the vanguards, Norfolk’s troops began to lose cohesion and the line was slowly pushed back.’
‘Perhaps at this juncture Lord Stanley’s persistent refusal to join the royal army spurred Richard to demand his son’s death, something that would have been performed in full view of everyone.’ [blog note - Richard held Stanley’s son, Lord Strange, as hostage and he was present on the battlefield].
‘Salazar is also said to have advised Richard to escape the field, but he refused.’
‘At full gallop, perhaps some 200 fully armoured cavalry closed on the troops surrounding Henry.’
Resource Section.
My sister webspace ‘COMMANDERS’ showcases the various figure and boardgame systems that I am enjoying and gives a flavour of where current projects are up to. Link.
https://commanders.simdif.com/dear_diary.html
