Civil War, Aristocratic Rivalry, and the Battle of Bosworth Field

Brian Flint

History 115P
May 17, 2005
Professor Debra Blumenthal
1. The Bosworth Question

In the early morning of August 22, 1485 the armies of King Richard III and Henry

Tudor met in the fields outside of Sutton Cheney, just south of Market Bosworth. By

mid-morning after only two hours of battle, King Richard III was slain and Henry Tudor

was named King Henry VII. This conflict is commonly known as the Battle of Bosworth

Field. Modern historians mark this date as the transition of England from the medieval

period into the early modern era. However, historians in England did not begin to refer to

this date as a significant mark of transformation until the mid-sixteenth century. Why

this is true begs several questions about the significance of the Battle of Bosworth Field.

Considered one of the most poorly documented battles in the medieval period, the Battle

of Bosworth Field is a point of controversy amongst many scholars. The sources are

problematic because, as one historian has said, they “are meager, frequently muddled,

inconsistent, often distant in time from the events described and subject to partisan

distortion.”1 Some questions surrounding this battle include reasons why it was almost a

century before it was considered a turning point in English history, why the sources are in

some cases conflicted, and how the governing institutions changed due to the battle. In

other words, is the Battle of Bosworth Field truly more significant than the other sixteen

battles fought during the War of the Roses? The evidence suggests that the Battle of

Bosworth Field coincidentally emerged as a convenient turning point in the history of

England. However, the aftermath of the battle did not produce a strong secure monarch

devoid of legitimate challengers. Henry VII had to work very quickly in the following

years to secure his monarchy. Therefore, the Battle of Bosworth Field is a significant

1
Bennett, Michael, The Battle of Bosworth Field (Alan Sutton Publishing, Gloucester,
1985) 13.
event in a larger process which brought England into the early modern era. Furthermore,

the importance of the Battle of Bosworth is in its ability to clearly exemplify the unstable,

treacherous, and violent nature of the nobility in the fifteenth century. It is important to

examine the consequences of the Battle of Bosworth Field on the monarchy, yet it is

equally important to study how the loyalty of the nobles towards a particular claimant

fueled the events of August 22, 1485 and undoubtedly shaped the outcome of the war.

Sources for the Battle of Bosworth Field are numerous yet problematic. The most

descriptive source is the Ballad of Bosworth Field, written by an anonymous member of

Lord Stanley’s entourage over two decades after the battle. Since it is a poetic source

written by someone sympathetic to Henry VII’s regime, it has the problem of being both

dramatically exaggerated and biased in favor of the king. Another source, the Crowland

Chronicle, written by a member of Richard III’s entourage, possibly John Russell in

1486, also has the problem of bias but offers some insight into who were present as well

as the course of the battle itself. There are other fairly useful reports and chronicles that

can help refute or support these two larger accounts. There is a brief report by the

Castilian courtier Diego de Valera who was purportedly present with Richard III’s army.

Jean Molinet, a Burgundian court historian, wrote an account in 1490. There is an

account from the late sixteenth century drawing on oral tradition written by Robert

Lindsay of Pittscottie. John Rous of Warwick wrote a short account in Historia Johannis

Rossi Warwicensis de Regibus Anglie dated 1490. These accounts have many conflicting

details but are of some use, however, in reconstructing the battle as the sources include

several similarities that help gain an understanding of the Battle of Bosworth Field.

Polydore Vergil was not at the battle and wrote his account at the behest of Henry VII in

2
the early sixteenth century. Edward Hall, writing around 1540, clearly follows Vergil’s

account. Hollingshed’s History of Richard III draws most of his account from Hall’s

which is also believed to be the basis for William Shakespeare’s Tragedy of Richard III.

To complicate matters, most of the sources were written by people who were in service to

Henry VII and therefore have a bias which can not be ignored. Most accounts describe

the battle as a complete failure on Richard III’s part. However, the same sources suggest

that it was the actions of prominent men such as Lord Stanley and the Earl of

Northumberland that truly determined the outcome of the battle. With the understanding

that these sources need to be examined carefully with their limitations in mind, a

description of the battle can be effectively conducted.

Additionally, three official documents help describe the final outcome of the

battle. The Proclamation of Henry Tudor, written the day after the battle, provides a list

of the prominent nobles who were killed. Parliament’s Act of Attainder of 1485 lists

those men who were deemed traitorous against Henry VII. Finally, there is the York

Memoranda that briefly describes the battle.

There are many secondary sources available regarding the Battle of Bosworth

Field. However, most recent studies follow the opinions expressed either in Michael

Bennett’s Battle of Bosworth Field in which he gives his argument over the significance

of the battle in terms of what prior historians have presented. The Wars of the Roses, by

A.J. Pollard, gives a similar argument as Bennett but differs in some of the details. Both

historians seem to cover the current ideas regarding the Battle of Bosworth Field.

Interestingly, secondary sources on the broader topic of the War of the Roses do not put a

great deal of weight on the Battle of Bosworth Field. For instance, Alison Weir simply

3
states that Richard III was “overthrown by Henry Tudor, who became King Henry VII

after winning the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.”2 It appears that historians are more

interested in analyzing the life of Richard III when writing about the War of the Roses.

Before examining how the Battle of Bosworth Field played out, it is important to

reiterate why the sources regarding the battle itself are problematic. In almost every case,

the sources are written years after the battle. Moreover, as the years progress, sources

seem to use earlier sources as a model. Furthermore, like most sources, they contain

inherent biases.

2. Getting to Bosworth Field

In the fifteenth century England saw her darkest years as civil war raged between

the House of Lancaster and the House of York. Aptly named the War of the Roses due to

the badges each house wore, a red rose for the Lancasters and white for the Yorks, the

war raged from 1455 until Henry Tudor’s victory in 1485. Two main issues fueled the

civil war. Both Henry VI of the Lancastrian family and Edward IV of the House of York

claimed a direct lineage from the late King Edward III. Furthermore, neither family had

a distinct advantage as they were both supported by powerful “over-mighty subjects,”

nobles with large, powerful armies. The final outcome of the War of the Roses was never

certain as Henry VI and Edward IV were recognized as king a total of two times each

between 1455 and 1483. After Henry VI died in 1471, Edward IV ruled until his death in

1483. In 1483, Edward V, being a child, had the Duke of Gloucester, Edward IV’s

brother Richard, as protector. During this protectorate, the Duke of Gloucester placed

2
Weir, Alison. Lancaster and York, The War of the Roses. Random House, London, 1995. p. 420.

4
Edward V and his younger brother in the Tower of London where they mysteriously

disappeared later that year. The Duke of Gloucester claimed himself as King Richard III

until his death at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. This background sets the stage for

the events of August 22, 1485.

The only facts about the Battle of Bosworth in which historians can be certain are

the date, main combatants, and the result. Archaeologists have determined that a battle

took place in the area described by most of the primary sources. Even the names of the

location have varied such as Redesmore, Sandeford, and Brownheath and have been used

to describe where the battle took place. Michael Bennett attributes this to descriptions of

the locality as it was equidistant to three villages.3 However, a battle was fought on the

same field during the civil war in the seventeenth century thus making archaeological

efforts much more problematic. It is generally accepted that the battle was fought in the

general area around Ambion Hill, the traditional starting point of Richard III’s final

charge, but there is scant evidence to pin point the exact location. With these limitations

in mind, the primary sources can help reconstruct the details of the Battle of Bosworth

Field.

3. Dissecting the Battle of Bosworth Field

The first question before examining the details of the battle itself is who the

combatants were and on which side they fought. The Crowland Chronicle provides a list

of those who fought on Henry VII’s side. They include “John Vere, earl of Oxford; John,

Lord Welles, of Welles, uncle to Henry VII; Thomas Lord Stanley and William his

3
Bennett, 13.

5
brother” along with many others.4 The main players on Henry VII’s side were the Earl of

Oxford and Lord Stanley. Oxford was the most experienced military leader and

commanded the front line, or vanguard as it is referred to in the sources. Lord Stanley is

significant because his participation in the battle was uncertain. Furthermore, neither

Henry VII nor Richard III was certain on which side Stanley would fight. Richard III

tried to ensure Lord Stanley’s aid by holding his son hostage. Most sources describe a

moment where Richard III ordered Stanley’s son to be executed. For whatever reason,

the execution was not carried out. There is some confusion amongst the sources over Sir

Robert Brackenbury, the captain of the Tower. The Ballad of Bosworth Field states that

he fought for Richard III while the other sources do not state what side he was on.

William Shakespeare’s Tragedy of Richard III places him with the army of Henry VII. It

is safe to assume that he fought on the side of Richard III because most accounts state

that the only significant death on Henry VII’s side was his standard bearer as well as

being listed amongst the dead on Richard III’s side.

The Earl of Northumberland and the Duke of Norfolk were among the most

notable in Richard III’s ranks. Not unlike Lord Stanley, Northumberland’s role in the

battle was both crucial and controversial. Norfolk commanded the vanguard while

Northumberland led the rear guard.

Charles Ross wrote that the Ballad of Bosworth Field clearly states that many

nobles came to fight on Richard III’s side.5 Colin Richmond, using the same source,

contends that few nobles came to Richard III’s aid. A.J. Pollard believes that many did

arrive at the battle but were unable to be of any assistance because of Richard III’s rash

4
Pronay, et al., 504
5
Ross, Charles. The Wars of the Roses: (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976). 158.

6
and early engagement. In each case, the historian is assuming the Ballad of Bosworth

Field is a reliable source. Unfortunately, like most of the available sources, it was written

years after the battle. The Ballad of Bosworth Field does list over one hundred nobles

and gentry by name. However, the description of the battle only details the fate of six of

Richard III’s men. It is impossible to make a conclusion about the actions of the

remaining ninety or more men. These historians make assumptions based on the

exclusion of information in the ballad. Ross is clearly more accurate in his examination

of this source as he simply states that the ballad suggests many nobles and gentry came to

the side of Richard III. The ballad states just that, and only that. Pollard’s conclusion

may be true but it can not be confirmed by the sources. Richmond, on the other hand, is

clearly making a baseless assumption. The Ballad of Bosworth Field offers no clues as to

the behavior of all of these men.

With the sources available, it can be concluded that the Earl of Northumberland,

the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Oxford, Lord Stanley, and his brother William were all

present at the Battle of Bosworth Field. It is obvious that many more were present but

contemporary sources are suspect at best. In the end, the identity of the other combatants

is not essential. The significant actions of those mentioned above shaped the course of

the battle and an investigation into what those actions were will help clarify why Richard

III, with a larger, more experienced force, was defeated and slain.

The accounts of the battle vary from one source to another but most seem to agree

on a few main points. The Earl of Oxford held the vanguard on Henry VII’s side while

the Duke of Norfolk led Richard III’s front line. These two units began the battle by first

sending numerous volleys of arrows at each other and then fighting hand to hand.

7
According to the Crowland Chronicle Oxford “drew up his forces, consisting of a large

body of French and English troops, opposite the wing in which the duke of Norfolk had

taken up his position.”6 The Ballad of Bosworth Field describes the initial fighting

briefly:

then the parties countred together egerlye,

when the vawards began to ffight,

King Henery ffought soe manfullye,

Soe did Oxford, that Erle soe wight;7

The Earl of Northumberland, present to support Richard III, did not engage his

troops. The Crowland Chronicle states simply that “in the place where the earl of

Northumberland was posted, with a large company of reasonably good men, no

engagement could be discerned, and no battle blows given or received.”8 Diego de

Valera, a Castilian courtier present on Richard III’s side, states that Northumberland

“with King Richard’s left wing left his position and passed in front of the king’s

vanguard . . .then turning his back on Earl Henry, he began to fight fiercely against the

king’s van.”9 Jean Molinet, historiographer to the Burgundian court, wrote in 1490 that

Northumberland “ought to have charged the French,” who were commanded by Oxford,

“but did nothing except to flee.”10 While Valera was allegedly present at the battle, his

6
Pronay, et al., 504
7
Hales, J.W. and Furnivall, F.j., ed. Bishop Percy's Folio Manuscript. Ballads and Romances, 3 vols.
(London, 1868), III, 258.
8
Pronay, et al., 504
9
Nokes, E.M. and Wheeler, G. ‘A Spanish account of the battle of Bosworth’, The Ricardian, 2, no. 36
(1972), 2.
10
Molinet, Jean. Chroniques de Jean Molinet (1474-1506), ed. G. Doutrepont and O. Jodogne, 3 vols.
(Academie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques. Collection des
Anciens Auteurs Belges, Brussels, 1935-7). , I, 435.
pp. 434-6. (Translated by Michael Bennett).

8
account of Northumberland’s actions seems unlikely. Most accounts state that

Northumberland did not fight or even fled from the battle. If Northumberland had

actually turned his troops on Richard III’s army, it is doubtful that Henry VII would have

arrested him and put him in the Tower of London afterwards. Moreover, such a shocking

tactic would certainly have been recorded in more than one source. Bennett concludes

that Northumberland simply did nothing. He states that “both sides must have been

perplexed to observe it (Northumberland’s battalion) sitting out the battle.”11 Bennett’s

conclusion is supported by Henry VII’s treatment of Northumberland. After a period of

confinement, he was eventually released and served in the king’s court. Pollard takes the

safe approach by saying Northumberland’s lack of engagement was either deliberate or

out of his control.12 The assumption can be made that both Henry VII and Richard III

solicited aid from Northumberland. Northumberland might have then decided to simply

wait out the battle to determine the victor. He might have realized that such a passive

tactic might be received with some punishment from the victor, whereas fighting on the

wrong side might earn an execution. There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case,

all that is certain is that Northumberland’s inactivity was one major element in Richard

III’s demise.

Without Northumberland’s aid, Norfolk’s army was routed. All of the sources

agree that it was at this point that Richard III decided to charge Henry VII’s forces. The

Ballad of Bosworth Field describes this final charge in heroic terms. When a knight

approached with his horse urging him to flee Richard III says:

‘Give me my battle-axe in my hand,

11
Bennett, 118.
12
Pollard, A.J., The Wars of the Roses, (Palgrave, Hampshire, England, 2001). 35

9
 Set the crown of England on my head so high!

For by Him that shope both sea and land,

King of England this day will I die!13

Valera states that it was an individual named Salazar, a Castilian vassal, which

urged the king to flee. Valera states that Richard III’s response was “God forbid I yield

one step. This day I will die as King or win.”14 The Crowland Chronicle simply states

that “King Richard fell in the field, struck by mortal wounds, as a bold and most valiant

prince.”15 Regardless of the differences amongst the sources, it is clear that Richard III,

with Norfolk’s army on the run and Northumberland standing idle, entered the fray and

lost his life.

While Richard III’s army charged Henry VII’s outnumbered force, Lord Stanley

finally committed his troops. Lord Stanley penetrated Richard III’s left flank all but

decimating it. The sources that do comment on Lord Stanley’s engagement agree on the

timing and nature of it. His motive however can only be speculated on. It would seem

however, that Lord Stanley had already made an alliance with Henry VII due to the fact

that he was given large estates and powerful positions within Henry VII’s court. This is

compared to the imprisonment and eventual release under strict conditions that

Northumberland experienced. Bennett makes a sensible point that “However it might

have been, there is no doubt that the intervention of the younger Stanley proved fatal for

Richard III.”16 With Richard III slain, the remnants of his army in flight, and

Northumberland idle, the battle ended.

13
Hales, Et al., 258.
14
Nokes, Et al., 2.
15
Pronay, Et al,. 504.
16
Bennett, 116

10
 Most sources state that Richard III was simply killed in battle. Molinet states that

he was killed by a Welsh soldier.17 This assumption is probably due to the fact that

Stanley’s contingent, comprised mostly of Welsh soldiers, over powered Richard III’s

forces. William Shakespeare states in a dramatic, but most likely incorrect, fashion that

he was killed personally by Henry VII.18 There is some speculation that after Richard III

was thrown off his horse, he knew his fate and cursed all around him. This was the

inspiration for Shakespeare’s famous line “A Horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse.”19

Rous said he was unhorsed and then slaughtered by numerous injuries.20 All of these

sources, excluding Shakespeare’s, may have some truth in them, but it is impossible to

determine with certainty.

Bennett’s treatment of the battle, only one small chapter, takes an excessive

amount of speculation. Even if the descriptive Ballad of Bosworth Field is accepted as

accurate, Bennett’s description of the battle is too detailed. He states assumptions such as

“The king fell in the mud, and his assailants continued to hack and jab at the writhing

body.”21 There is no evidence to suggest Richard III’s life ended in such a manner.

Furthermore, he describes in detail the behavior of the victors. “Shouts of jubilation

echoed round the field, where only the most desultory skirmishing continued.”22 Again,

this is pure speculation. While Bennett does offer some believable insight based on the

sources, he also uses the sources irresponsibly. His narrative reads as if the battle was

recorded with twentieth century technology.

17
Molinet, 435.
18
Shakespeare, 731.
19
Shakespeare, 731.
20
Rous, John, Historia Johannis Rossi Warwicensis de Regibus Anglie, ed. T. Hearne (London, 1716).
(Translated by Michael Bennet).
21
Bennett, 118.
22
Bennett, 118.

11
 Philip Edwards also contradicts himself by first stating that “the sources are

meager in the extreme” containing no eyewitness accounts.23 If any of the sources are to

be given any value whatsoever, then it follows that it should be accepted that there is at

least one eyewitness account and possibly as many as three. Edwards then goes on to

describe details of the battle by making assumptions just as Bennett did. Edwards states

that “Richard III decided to leave the main body of the royal army and attack Henry and

his immediate followers directly as they moved toward the Stanley contingent in an effort

to persuade them to desert Richard.”24 Again, there is no evidence in the sources to

support his claim. In the case of each historian, they have rightfully stated that earlier

historians have mishandled the Battle of Bosworth Field. However, they then proceed to

create their own unsubstantiated claims about what really occurred.

4. King Henry VII

After the battle was over, sources say that Henry VII was crowned as king and the

army moved into Leicester where Richard III’s body was stripped and displayed for

several days before being buried in the chapel. The Crowland Chronicle reports that

“King Richard’s body was found among the other slain. Many other insults were heaped

on it, and not very humanely, a halter was thrown around the neck, and was carried to

Leicester.”25 Valera states that Henry VII “ordered the dead king to be placed in a little

hermitage near the place of battle, and had him covered from the waist downward with a

black rag of poor quality, ordering him to be exposed there for three days to the universal

23
Edwards, Philip, The Making of the Modern English State, 1460-1660, (Palgrave, NY, 2001). 80.
24
Edwards, 80.
25
Pronay, Et al., 504.
gaze.”26 Molinet wrote that Richard III “was displayed to the people naked and without

any clothing, and without any royal solemnity was buried at the entrance to a village

church.”27 Finally, the account from The Ballad of Bosworth Field describes the event in

these terms:

Then they rode to Leister that night

With our nobile prince King

They brought King Richard thither with might

As naked as he borne might bee

& in Newarke Laid was hee,

that many a one might looke on him.

Thus ffortunes raignes most maruelouslye

both with Emperour & with king.28

It is probable that Richard III was displayed for the public as the two sources

purportedly present at the battle and Henry VII’s own proclamation refer to it. Why the

deceased king’s body was treated in this matter is a point of interest. Previous kings

killed in battle were afforded honorable burials. Perhaps the answer is in the manner in

which Richard III rose to power and conducted himself during his reign. He was ruthless

in eliminating those that blocked his assent. He is known to have murdered certain

nobles whose loyalty were with the opposing faction. He is thought to be responsible for

26
Nokes, Et al., 2.
27
Molinet, 435.
28
Hales, Et al., 258.
other deaths including Henry VI. The deaths of the young heir Edward V and his brother

Richard, who were imprisoned in the tower in 1483, were blamed on Richard III.

According to a London chronicle, the people believed in his guilt and his support began

to wane. The hatred brewing in Henry VII would have been exacerbated by reports of

these murders. From exile in France, he had witnessed many family members murdered

with all indications that Richard III was responsible. It seems likely to follow then, that

Richard III’s treatment after his death was the result of Henry VII and his followers belief

that he deserved no honor or respect.

Henry VII’s proclamation dated August 22-23, 1485 states that “King Richard,

was slain at a place called Sandeford, within the shire of Leicester, and brought off dead

unto the town of Leicester.”29 It also states that among the dead were Norfolk, Earl of

Lincoln, Earl of Surrey, Francis Viscount Lovell, Sir Walter Devereux, Lord Ferrers,

Richard Radcliffe, and Robert Brackenbury. The York Memoranda reports the death of

Richard III occurred because of a “great treason of the duke of Norfolk and many others

that turned against him.”30 The reason for this kind of language will be examined below.

The parliamentary Act of Attainder of November 1485 places the first day of King Henry

VII’s reign on the day before the battle enabling Henry VII to have the option of severely

punishing the surviving combatants. The record also names the important nobles that

were present at the battle31. Of those named as traitors in the Act of Attainder only three

29
Hughes, P.L. and Larkin, J.P., ed. Tudor Royal Proclamations, Vol. I. The Early Tudors (1485-1553).
(New Haven, 1964). (English; spelling modernized.) 3.

30
R. Davies, ed. York City Archives, House Book, B2-4, f.169v. (Also printed in Extracts from the
Municipal Records of the City of York during the Reigns of Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III,
(London, 1843). (English; spelling modernized.) 218, 217.

31
Strachey, J. ed., Rotuli Parliamentarium, 6 volumes. London, 1767-83. VI. p. 176.
were executed. These three were not prominent figures in the feud between the

Lancasters and the Yorks. The paucity of those attainted seems to suggest a leniency in

Henry VII’s royal demeanor. However, in light of the situation he faced after the Battle

of Bosworth Field, it seems more probable that he was playing politics.

The England that Henry VII inherited on August, 22, 1485 was that of political

crisis. After many years of civil war there was no certainty that the Battle of Bosworth

Field was the end of conflict. The houses of Lancaster and York were still at odds.

While Henry VII was of Lancastrian descent, he was relatively unknown. The Battle of

Bosworth Field was his first military engagement. Clearly, the military experience of

Oxford and the intervention later by Stanley resulted in the victory. Henry VII’s military

leadership was still undetermined. Therefore, Henry VII had to quickly gain the support

of the powerful nobility and attempt to consolidate his power. With this task in mind, it

seems sensible that Henry VII did not deal with the surviving combatants with an iron

fist. He weakened them both socially and financially and in the end gained the loyalty of

many. Henry VII also quickly married Elizabeth of York in 1486. The marriage united

the families of Lancaster and York and proved to be effective as only a few capable

people who opposed Henry VII remained.

In 1487, the remaining Yorkist opposition concocted a plan with the help of

Richard Simmons, a priest. Lambert Simnel, a commoner, was to impersonate the Earl of

Warwick, who was purportedly imprisoned in the Tower of London. Simmons brought

Simnel to Ireland where he was named King Edward VI. There he raised an army with

the remaining York supporters and invaded England. Henry VII personally led his army
and defeated the last of the York resistance. This effectively ended the War of the Roses.

The remaining Yorks had united with Henry VII after his marriage to Elizabeth.

The Battle of Bosworth Field undoubtedly changed the course of English history.

Although Henry VII had to quickly consolidate his power in the first few years of his

reign, the fact that the most powerful York in Richard III and his most powerful ally in

Richmond were killed severely weakened the York faction. Northumberland, although in

command of a powerful army, was not a threat and eventually became a strong ally of the

king. The remaining York opposition was unable to mount another significant effort

against the king. Lastly, the York moderates were happy to support Henry VII after his

marriage to Elizabeth of York. It is clear, that the Battle of Bosworth Field ended a long

and bloody civil war and united the English nobility under the Tudor banner. However, it

is irresponsible to say that this battle marks the change from medieval England into early

modern England. Life remained relatively unchanged on the island. The end of the civil

war did bring a recovery to England’s economic situation. France immediately

recognized Henry VII and restored trade. England began to recover. However, Henry

VII did not seek to drastically change the government. There were no major changes to

the system of law or the constitution. In fact, the constitution that had been used for

many years prior to the War of the Roses remained intact until Henry VII’s son, Henry

VIII, began his massive reformation in the sixteenth century. Therefore, it is safe to

assume that the Battle of Bosworth Field is significant in terms of its more immediate

results. There was a change in regime and an end to a civil war. The results consolidated

the English nobility which enabled them to develop a strong and effective central

authority. This took time and was not necessarily because of the Battle of Bosworth
Field. At the very least, the Battle of Bosworth Field marks the end of a civil war. At

best, it marks the beginning of a dynasty that would strengthen England and eventually

make her a major contributor in world affairs. Either way, it will remain a significant

event in English history.

5. Violence and the War of the Roses

So ended the War of the Roses, a civil conflict and power struggle whose origins

can be traced back almost ninety years. Both the Lancasters and the Yorks claimed to

have a more legitimate claim to the throne. These two families, closely related by

marriage, would eventually fight for the throne in a most bloody way. The amount of

people killed during the War of the Roses varies from historian to historian. About

100,000 deaths is the most cited number. However, Terence Wise states that the Tudor

Historians exaggerated the death toll.32 The Crowland Chronicle describes the bloodshed

of one battle as particularly violent. “In the meantime, however, the slaughter of men

was immense; for besides the dukes, earls, barons, and distinguished warriors who were

cruelly slain, multitudes almost innumerable of common people died of their wounds.”33

The Crowland Chronicle sites most of the battles of the War of the Roses in a similar

brutality. Regarding another battle, the chronicle states “they, accordingly, engaged in a

most severe conflict, and fighting hand to hand with sword and spear, there was no small

slaughter on either side.”34

Bennett does not describe the other battles of the war in much detail, mostly

because his only concern is the Battle of Bosworth. Instead, he describes the polity of

32
Wise, Terrence, The War of the Roses, Osprey Publishing, England, 1983. 146.
33
Pronay, 505.
34
Pronay, 505
fifteenth century England in a way to clarify the motives of the various nobles during the

civil war. Bennett states the “drama of personal ambition, dynastic aggrandizement and

sheer warlordism has dazzled many observers of the fifteenth-century scene.”35 He goes

on to state that contemporary chroniclers described a period of “posturing kings and

magnates,” whose “ambitions and anxieties, their feuds and friendships were crucial

factors in politics.”36

The nature of warfare during the War of the Roses was very disorganized and

violent. Most of the knights and militiamen fought with a variety of weapons ranging

from daggers to broad swords, spears, and lances. Artillery in the form of small cannons

and longbow archers were especially effective in causing destruction from a distance.

Single shot hand guns even made their debut during this period. This vast array of

weaponry, aside from the artillery, was not placed in any strategic alignment. Regardless

of the weapon carried, the combatants created traditional medieval formations. When the

fighting was hand to hand, it became especially violent as spears, swords, axes, halberds,

and daggers inflicted serious wounds upon the participants. Into this scenario enter the

thousands of mounted knights and gentry who would charge each other and those on foot.

The foot soldiers were then subject to being trampled. The battlefield was a scene of

chaos and gruesome brutality.

There is another aspect of these battles that can not be ignored. Based on the

Crowland Chronicle, England was not an overly violent land during the War of the

Roses. There was not wide scale chaos and violence. Some of the battles, Bosworth

Field being a possible candidate, were even subject to an audience from the local area.

35
Bennett, 25.
36
Bennet, 25.
While the sources suggest very bloody and violent battles, they were isolated and

confined to the field itself. Pollard concludes that the financial impact to the English

people was more devastating than any physical threat from warfare.37

Another phenomenon was an increase in local patriotism at the expense of some

larger national unity. Anthony Goodman cites London chroniclers as describing “the

malice of the Northmen.”38 This north versus south rivalry exists in many sources.

However, the common people as a whole had no vested interest in one side or the other.

Life was difficult as trade all but disappeared with a French blockade in the channel and

most manufacturers were employed to build arms and other supplies. If anything, the

common Englishman wanted an end to the ongoing conflict regardless of who was

crowned king. The Cely Papers, letters written between wealthy merchants,

businessmen, and property owners between 1475 and 1488, rarely discuss loyalty

towards a certain faction on violence in the countryside. On the contrary, they mainly

deal with ongoing business transactions. Throughout this tumultuous period, these

people conducted everyday business as if there was no civil war happening at all.

Throughout the 150 letters, the King is mentioned only a handful of times and only

regarding matters of trade and law. While these sources may not be emblematic of the

general populace, it does show that, at least for these people, there war did not have a

direct, violent impact on their lives.

37
Pollard, 84.
38
Goodman, Anthony, The War of the Roses: Military Activity and English Society, 1452-97, (Rutledge
and Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1981). 225.
6. The Men of the Fifteenth Century

Fifteenth century England was not exceptionally literate. While this is not an

attempt to study literacy in England, David Cressy states in Literacy and the Social

Order that ninety percent of males and ninety-nine percent of females were illiterate

during Henry VII’s reign.39 Assuming these figures are somewhat accurate, who were the

authors of all these sources writing for? Obviously the intended audience, given that they

were literate, would be the educated.

The Crowland Chronicle is a massive work describing the history of the War of

the Roses. The tone of this document suggests he supported the York faction yet

accepted the results. This might be because it was written after Henry VII had

consolidated the house and stabilized the nobility. It would appear that the author of the

Crowland Chronicle looked at the events of the previous thirty years and determined that

they needed to be recorded for historical purposes.

The Ballad of Bosworth Field is vastly different in terms of tone and purpose.

This source almost reads as propaganda in favor of Henry VII and the Tudor regime.

While ballads were a popular form of literature during this time, they were written for

entertainment. One can imagine a court performer dramatically reciting the words of the

Battle of Bosworth Field to the delight of Henry VII and his courtiers.

The York Memoranda is an interesting document. York was obviously on the

side of Richard III and the text suggest that the combatants, and non-combatants in

Northumberland’s case, were cowards and treasonous. There is nothing to suggest that

the people of York had any respect for the actions of the Nobility. How widespread this

feeling was can not be determined, but the heart of the Yorkist faction definitely felt
39
Cressy, David. Literacy and the Social Order. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980. p. 10.
contempt. On the other hand, Henry VII’s proclamation was matter of fact, devoid of any

outward opinion towards his enemies. This is probably due to the fact that he realized he

needed to quickly win over their support. In any case, these sources, when read carefully,

provide some insight not only into what actually happened, but what the principle

players, including the authors themselves, were thinking during this turbulent time.

7. Conclusion

The Battle of Bosworth Field did indeed effectively mark the end of the War of

the Roses. But it is important to note that it was Henry VII’s swift and decisive actions

after the battle that assured the end to the war. On August 23, 1485, the whole of the

English populace would not have been convinced that the reign of Henry VII would be

any more tenacious than that of the previous four monarchs. Furthermore, to call the

Battle of Bosworth Field a turning point or watershed moment in English history is an

over-exaggeration as well. Surely, English politics did not effectively change until the

late 1520s. Furthermore, it was Henry VII’s consolidation of power, long reign, and two

male heirs that allowed the stability for England to emerge from the middle ages into

early modernism. While all this is true, the Battle of Bosworth Field is an important

event in the history of England. It is there that the seeds of early modern England are

sowed. It also exemplifies the intense and bitter rivalry of the gentry experienced

throughout the War of the Roses. Lastly, it is emblematic of the nature of violence

during the War of the Roses.

Michael Bennett and A.J. Pollard have tried to show that the Battle of Bosworth

Field is a significant event in history worth further investigation. However, their

overzealousness in this attempt has ultimately done more harm than good. Bennett and

Pollard ultimately fill in the blanks where facts are missing or unclear. This does the

study of the Battle of Bosworth Field and English history itself an injustice.

The Battle of Bosworth Field requires greater investigation. Recent

archaeological efforts will hopefully yield answers to the questions raised by the scant

sources and poor historiography. In the end however, the Battle of Bosworth Field is an

important aspect of English history. The study of Bosworth Field in context with the

other battles of the War of the Roses provides insight into the nature of the factional

conflict and weak monarchy of the fifteenth century. An event that was so subtle to

contemporary scholars amidst decades of conflict, it is no wonder it was not considered

very noteworthy until the following century.

 Bibliography

Secondary Sources:

Bennett, Michael. The Battle of Bosworth Field. Alan Sutton Publishing, Gloucester,
1985.

Cressy, David. Literacy and the Social Order. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
1980.

Edwards, Philip. The Making of the Modern English State, 1460-1660. Palgrave, NY,
2001.

Goodman, Anthony. The War of the Roses: Military Activity and English Society, 1452-
97. Rutledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1981.

Pollard, A.J., The Wars of the Roses. Palgrave, Hampshire, England, 2001.

Pronay, Nicholas, Cox John (edited by). The Crowland Chronicle Continuations: 1459-
1486. Alan Sutton Publishing, 1986.

Ross, Charles. The Wars of the Roses. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976.

Weir, Alison. Lancaster and York, The War of the Roses. Random House, London, 1995.

Wise, Terrence. The War of the Roses. Osprey Publishing, England, 1983.

Primary Sources:

Reproduced with the kind permission from the Richard III Society, American Branch.

Nokes, E.M. and Wheeler G., 'A Spanish account of the battle of Bosworth', The
Ricardian, 2, no. 36, 1972.

Hughes, P.L. and Larkin, J.P., ed. Tudor Royal Proclamations, Vol. I. The Early Tudors
(1485-1553).New Haven, 1964. (English; spelling modernized.)

Davies R., ed. York City Archives, House Book, B2-4, f.169v. (Also printed in Extracts
from the Municipal Records of the City of York during the Reigns of Edward IV, Edward
V, and Richard III, London, 1843. (English; spelling modernized.)

Strachey, J. ed., Rotuli Parliamentarium, 6 volumes. London, 1767-83. (English

spelling modernized).

1
Hales J.W. and Furnivall F.J., Bishop Percy's Folio Manuscript. Ballads and Romances,
ed., 3 vols. London, 1868. III.

Shakespeare, William, The Tragedy of Richard III, edited by William George Clark and
William Aldis Wright, Running Press, US, 1989.

Rous, John, Historia Johannis Rossi Warwicensis de Regibus Anglie, ed. T. Hearne
London, 1716. (Translated by Michael Bennet).

Fabian, Robert. The Chronicle of Fabian, which he nameth the Concordance of Histories
newly perused and continued from the beginnyng of Kyng Henry the Seventh to th' End of
Queene Mary. London, 1559.

Vergil, Polydore. Polydori Vergilii Urbinatis Anglicæ Historiæ Libri Vigintiseptem.

Basel, 1555.