u

The Battle of Bosworth: Further Reflections on the Battlefield Site

M. J. PHILLIPS

As ALL readers of The Ricardian know, the Bosworth quincentenary was marked by a splendidly healthy, if at times acerbic, debatp over where the clash of arms actually occurred.l Not unexpectedly the controversy has been reflected in the pages of The Ricardian and it culminated in an admirable and excellent summary and assessment by O. D. Harris. Harris concluded his paper by arguing that the precise location of the battle was not really as significant as the political consequences of Richard’ 5 death and Henry’s succession. Yet, at the risk of perpetuating what may seem to the uninitiated to be a highly esoteric debate, surely what we all want is to get it right, as students of fifteenth century history, and, if we are unable to do that at least to acknowledge with due humility that there are certain doubts aboutrsome features of the battle which will never be resolved. That is inevitable given the paucity of accurate first-hand' information. , As well as getting it right — if we can — there is the further small matter of Leicestershire County Council’s lavish expenditure on a site which may not be correct, the professional reputations of certain historians in suggesting one location rather than another and last, but not least, the annual visit of Ricardians to a battle site which may not be a battle site after all. For all these reasons it should be a salutary exercise for all concerned in the debate to read, reread and reassesss all the sources and finally to draw what conclusions can be drawn avoiding the Scylla of innovation, by too readily adopting a novel theory just because it is new, and the Charybdis of adhering unstintingly to outworn ideas in the face of considerable evidence. (Having immersed ourselves in both primary and secondary sources it is also imperative to re-examine the results of archaeological investigation as well as what we can deduce, if anything, of the topography of the late fifteenth century Bosworth area.

350 SANDEFORDL? ’ Li? L Amomflsn Osue 'ou - . OSU‘IToN CHENEY.

— ' _

:IDEFolI-bfl) REwsuomST] KEY

I IRANTIONALIS 2 s": or M , \ Momma Rewsmomsr ‘\\ sneorurna ‘_ 1:: MARSH [vacuum - ' Commas un $31!" Osman: comma « / HEIGHT m rs: scALE ' u I V. "I ' "O ‘ ‘

1 MILE

Map contrasting the main' actioh of the battle from the traditionalist and from the moderate revisionist viewpoint. The chase has not been included on this map, (see text, and n.29). Traditionalists claim the battle was fought to the west of Ambion Hill, the moderate revisionists to the north-west of Dadlington. I have followed 0. D. Harris in naming the Sence‘Brook and Tweed River as only the latter. '

We know that there are three distinct historical scho'ols, at the time of writing, each contending with its own interpretation of Bosworth. Perhaps it would be useful' to categorise, these‘ as the traditionalists, the moderaté revisionists and the extreme revisionists. Thé succeeding paragraphs are not intended as a commentary on, or a critique of, O. D. Harris’ commendable contribution to the battlefield controversy, neither are they designed as a point by point criticism of any individual historian‘s case. Much will be familiar, but some items it is hoped will be new; at the risk bf some tedious re-working of older material, however, it is hoped that a case will emerge for accepting a néw consensus on the battle, and, incidentally, clarifying, embellishing or opening up new lines of discussion on various issues. 351 The starting point of any discussion about Bosworth Field must be always the very aftermath of Henry’s victory. How was the battle described to contemporaries? What name did they ascribe to the event? Apart from Henry' 5 proclamation, stating that Richard‘ was sleyne at a place called Sandeford, within the shyre of Leicestre,’ we know that the earliest recorded name of the battle site was Redmore or Redesmore.8 Both Polydore Vergil and the Continuator of the Croyland Chronicle offer limited help in this r e9spect, Polydore describing Richard' s encampment as being near Bosworth and Croyland invoking Merevale, the nearest monastic building. '0 Redmore or Redesmore are independently reported within a short_time of each other after Richard’s death. Much recent work has been conducted on the name Redmore and thanks to Foss,” in particular, we know now that it derives etymologically from 'Hreod Mar, meaning ‘reedy marshla a’, and that much of the surrounding land must once have been marshy. At the same time according to a now lost document of 120 ?, copied in 1289, ‘6 roads of meadow m Redemore in the fields of Dadelinton’ were to be given to the vicar of Hinckley as part of his endowment by the Abbot of Lyra, Hinckley’ s then pa_tron. Whilst it would a be dangerous to claim that Dadlington fields were coterminous with Red Moor (or Redmore) it is clear that there was considerable overlap between the two. If the importance of the earliest recorded name of the battle cannot be overstated, neither can the valua aPle contributions from the pen of that notable local historian William Burton.I All parties to the debate agree that Burton's credentials for pronouncing on the battle are impeccable. 6 His comments, first made in 1622, are worth extensive quotation — Not thét this battle was fought at this place [i.e. Bosworth], (it being fought in a large, flat, plain and spacious ground, three miles distant from this town, between the towne of Shenton, Sutton, Dadlington and Stoke), but for that this town was the most worthy town of note near adjacent, and was therefore called Bosworth field. That this battle was fought in this place appeareth by many remarkable places . . . by divers pieces of armour, weapons and other warlike accoutrements, and by many arrowheads here found, whereof about. 20 years since at the inclosure of the lordship of Stoke, great store were digged up . . . as also by the relation of the inhabitants, who have many occurrences and passages yet fresh in memory; by reason that some persons thereabout, which saw the battle fought, were living within less than 40 years; of which persons myself have sqfn some, and have heard of their discourses, though related by the second hand. These statements are revealing. Three miles from Bosworth 15 just north of Dadlington (not Ambion Hill), and although he later changed his measurement of distance this may have been due to the influence of Holinshed and contrary to much of the firsthand evidence of which he speaks. Armour and weapons are discovered around Stoke Golding, arrowheads come from the vicinity, and although we know other debris from the fighting is discovered outside the Dadlington area '8 the bulk, witness Burton, comes from that small piece of land around the Stoke Golding/Dadlington matrix. John Nichols draws our nlgtice to burials near Dadlington, outside consecrated ground, at Crown Hill.I comments, whence gravel xs sometimes fetched to repair the highways, Mr. Robinson informs me, there have been dugoup many skeletons, which are said to be very common on breaking fresh ground.

352 Later, he writes of Dadlington, indented spaces of ground, probably the graves of the victims in this bloody battle, are visible in several spots about this village. Later on in the century we hear echoes of Nichols’ comments. In 1868 we learn, while a grave was being prepared in the churchyard [Dadlington] a number of human bones were found about two feet below the surface, amongst them would be as many as twenty skull;2 They are supposed to be the remains of those who fell at the Battle of Boswonh. The preponderant weight of archaeological evidence does seem to point to, Dadlington and its environs as the location of certainly the majority of deaths due to battle.2 So have the moderate revisionists got it right? Traditionalists claim that bodies have been found to the north of Sutton Cheney and we do know that in 1812 human and horse bones were discovered near Sutton Brook.24 Nonetheless, the bulk of the evidence from Burton, through Nichols and down to our own day proves that a far greater proportion of bodies from the battle finished up in and around the Dadlington area than anywhere else. If the traditionalists are correct in their assessment of the battlefield location why do we not hear of not just some but considerable numbers of bodies buried in and around Shenton or Sutton Cheney? Why, most tellingly, do not the parish officials 0; these two districts not try their luck in obtaining extra funds for their churches? 5 If the battle took place in and around Ambion Hill why go to the trouble of transporting all those bodies across a possibly treacherous and marshy area, up a hill to Dadlington when the churches of Shenton and Sutton Cheney are nearby? It would have been no small matter to carry all those bodies such a distance, together with armour, arrowheads and other material. Taken on its own the archaeological evidence, together with the comments of Burton and Nichols, might not overthrow the traditionalists’ position. But what of the sigma! warrant of 1511, and the later letter of confratemity proposing a chantry foundation on ‘the grounde where Bosworth’ feld, otherwise called Dadlyngton’ feld . . . was clone"?26 The letter refers to the Chapel of St. James in Dadlyngton as the place where ‘ye bodyes or bones of the men sleyne in ye scyde feelde beth broght & beryed’.” It is worth taking note of those qualifications to ‘bodyes’ and ‘bones’. They are described not as ‘divers’ or ‘sundry’ bones, as contemporary usage would warrant, but as ‘ye bones' and ‘ye bodyes’. It seems that more than just ‘some’ of the dead were buried at Dadlington; The dead there found a final resting place. Additionally, what are we to make of the name ‘Dadlyngton' feld'?; it is surely not enough to dismiss this as simply an gxpedient by the Dadlyngton church to obtain their revenues for a new chapel. 8 Unless the name carried some local, and probably some regional credibility the parochial officials would risk making themselves look ridiculous at such presumption and that would have been counterproductive in their attempts to obtain the funds. Moreover they could just simply use the name Bosworth on its own and still have a good case 'for the erection of a chapel granted that ‘ye bodyes’ were interred there. Traditionalist opponents have counterattacked this position by arguing that the chase, which followed the death of Richard and the collapse of his army, takes place in a southerly direction, leads to heavy losses on the Yorkists

353 side, and hence subsequent burials in and around Dédlington. Not 'only are there heavy casualties Mr Henry, swept‘ along in the pursuit completes a successful day by being crowned on Crown Hill, immediately adjacent to Stbke Golding. As the chase bccupies a-central part in this. counterargument his as well to recollect that nowhere does any source indicate the direction of the pursuit. . It is constantly assumed that it goes southwards, but surely this is a tautology;- Hgnry is crowned on Crown Hill, and .as this is so far south of Ambion Hill it is argped that the chase must have extended to here for Henry to move so far. There 1s no need for this, quite obviously, if we can show that Henry starts his battle much further to the South of Ambion than traditionalists would accept. A chase to .the south also conveniently.explains why so many bodies‘.are buried in Dadlington. Not: only is the direction of ' the chase unknown, but we cannot assume that casualties are heaviest at this point. Why should there be more casualtiesrat this- stage of operations, with Richard defeated and no further possible reason for his defeated soldiery to carry on the fight? The initial bloody and bitter. clash between Norfolk and Oxford was probably witness to the heaviest loss of life and limb.0 For all we know the chase might have taken a northerly direction, or even back westwards along the roads to Atherstone and Mancetter. ' Interestingly without invoking the curse of all who oppose, .r‘ightly, ideas of ‘inherent military probability’, it might be worthwhile speculating that the last place the defeated forces of Richard would wish to go would be southerly, as this would have entailed headlong flight into Henry Tudor’ s van. ' . ' As for Henry, we can not be entirely sure where he was on that August day: Later m his military career he tended to remain somewhat to the rear of his strike force during-hostilities thus ensuring an adequate escape route in case events turned sour. 32 However, we do know that under Oxford; s influence_ he stayed behind at Stoke m 1487, and later at Blackheath m 1497.33 -Henry’ 5 years in exile, 'and his fraught youth made him legendary for his caution and prudence. He also tended to listen and take advice readily. 3‘ Is it too much to believe that at this crucial time, untried, innocent of war, he would have been _thrust into the thick of things (especially as he had only narrowly avoided death at Richard’ 5 hand)? It 15 possible, that he might have rashly rushed forward to join hot-foot 1n the pursuit. Possible, but most unlikely. In all likelihood he stayed put, and then made for the‘ next hill’. 51f he had been impelled to shift ground slightly to the north west of Dadlington by Richard’s jmpetuous but suicidal dash, he Would, in this context repair to the hill at Stoke Golding, later known as Crown Hill, there to take stock, address his troops and receive the crown. We surely do not need to labour this point but if the‘ next hill’ were to conform to the traditionalist theory it would be either Ambion Hill itself, or the hill on which Dadlington Church stands. Henry may very well have not moved far from the Fenn Lanes at all during the battle, relying on the experienced Oxford to carry the fight to Richard, and ensuring easy retreat back along the road he had travelled from Atherstone. ' One final point. It IS true that the‘ anonymous’ Leicestershire map of 1602, pr’oduced with Burton’s assistance, shows that King Richard’s field straddles land both north and south of the Tweed‘, sqeminglx supporting therefore both the traditionalist and the modérate revisiomst case. On the other hand in the

354 same place' that we are told the battlefield' 1s three miles from Boswonth, we are also informed that the battle site lies between the towns of -,Shcnton Sutton, Dadlington and Stoke.E In other words, in that spot preczsely to th'e-‘north west of Dadlington favoured by the moderate revisionists. . . -- We have already touched on oral tradition in this discussion. It can never be discounted, neither should undue reliance be placed upon it. If we cannot discount it we should- indubitably reflect on the tradition, held .at least in Holinshed' s day,“0 that Richard camped on Ambion Hill the night-before the battle.- Burton did not mention Ambion in-his first edition of the Description of Leicester Shire, but he later believed that RicHard had camped there,- '.and Harris has concluded that Burton's statement together with the later discovery of the cannonballs necessitates a place for 'Ambion somewhere in. the account of the' battle.42 One oral tradition can often be matched with- another making the first tradition invalid,"3 nevertheless in the matter of Ambion Hill it would appear that there is a.reasonable case for saying that possibly Richard was encamped there for a time, presumably for the last night before.the battle, before he moved off early in the morning on to. Red .Moor to meet the opposition. It. really is not a strong counterargument to claim- that those cannonballs found on Ambion are the result of the Civil War cavalry skirmish. . We know that Henry received ordnance from Charles VIII when he left France. That Richard carried guns on his side 18 confirmed by Henry’s first parliament when Richard and his followers are accused of waging war with all manner of weapons including ‘gunnes, bowes and arrowes’. ‘5 If we do accept that cannonballs were fired during the Red Moor battle In 1485, when they. were fired and how far they travelled 15 still open to dispute. It 1s possible they were random. shots fired early in the morning of 22 August to soften up either , Richard’s position or the Earl of Northumberlarid’ 5. Perhaps they wet; sim’ply dumped after the battle. Whatever the occasion for their firing there is good reason for stating that Richard moved ve_ry early on the morning of 22 August from Ambion Hill. The precipitate advance of Oxford saw to that, as would the King’s awareness of the hill’ sdefensive limitations. He might have enjoyed the cover of the marsh, but in daylight would be a good target for Henry’s guns.‘ . Any new consensus about the siting of the battle should probably therefore include Ambion Hill in a preliminary capacity, as it were, but overall the moderate revisionists have established a very powerful case which has yet to be answered. . -. At the same time, exhorted as we have been to read our sources again, it is only just to reflect that Ambion Hill does not appear as a feature of the battle until the sixteenth century. The ballads, for so long unduly and unfortunately neglected, do not speak of Richard fighting on any hill. Quite the reverse; he' 1s said to be 1n the dale, looking up towards the Stanleys perched on their bills.“ Perhaps we ought to see Richard, following his sleepless night (and m this he would obviously not have been alone); fairly speedily gathering his host on Red Moor and alongside‘the Duke of Norfolk, or slightly to his rear, giving battle to Oxford,-who has rapidly approached ahead of Henry’s ‘battle’. The. rest is familiar. Following the initial hard fought exchanges and with the all too apparent treachery of the Stanleys, and most likely Northumberland, Richard attempts his all-or-nothingcharge on the stationary Henry Tudorfs position,

355 'possibly somewhere around the Fenn Lanes. Following the intervention of Sir William Stanley, Richard is pushed back towards the marsh,possibly even into it, and then killed. The chase, in an unknown direction follows, leaving the vast majority of Richard’s men to surrender. They in any case undoubtedly played little part in this confused struggle and are happy to get away with their lives. Henry repairs to the nearest hill, Crown Hill, having moved, it is contended here, only a short distance from the start of the fight. Such is the bald outline of what may have happened on that August day in 1485. It is fought on Red Moor; not the Red Moor around the southern slopes of Ambion Hill, but the Red Moor of ‘Dadlyngton’ feld’, of the fields around Dadlington. It is in these fields that today we should commemorate the death of the last Plantagenet King, in these fields that we should remember Richard attempting a last despairing effort to defeat his Welsh opponent and in these fields that Henry survived to fight him off and take the crown.4 One reason for the continuing fascination which Bosworth exerts are the number of contentious issues surrounding it, many of which we have noted, will probably never be resolved. We can hopefully illuminate some of the gloom a little by a thorough re-reading of our sources. It is to these issues that we will now turn. One statement by Polydore Vergil which has puzzled historians and at the same time initiated some really ingenious explanations, is when he describes Henry marching for a time with the sun at his back.4 Current orthodoxy seems to be moving to the position where it is proposed that Henry marches for much of the morning, on the day of battle, to join with Richard just before midday, or early in the afternoon. By this time the sun is at Henry’s back. However, what need is there to argue for a midday meeting? The action must have happened sometime early in the morning. Polydore Vergil says, of Henry. (I translate), meanwhile early in the morning [Henry] commangoed his soldiers to set to arms, and at the same time sent to Thomas Stanley . . . There follows Stanley’s prevarication and less than helpful reply. At this Henry, ‘without delay arranged his men.’ Battle ensues. We know that at this date in August, effectively 3] August by the Gregorian Calendar, the sunrise occurs at a quarter past five,52so that ‘early in the morning' would be around 5.30 am. to 6.00 am. If we allow for the tradition that Richard did not sleep well and was awake early enough not to receive divine service, there seems little doubt that the two hosts were approaching battle sometime between, say, 8.00 am. to 9.00 am. In any case Polydore does not speak of Henry having his back to the sun all the time, the kernel of his account being that Henry has his back to the sun only in the process of skirting the marsh and leaving it on his right hand side.54 Although it is impossible to say categorically where the marsh was, or to know its extent we do know that marshland extended perhaps as far as the Fenn Lanes from the south of Amsbion Hill, both from our topographical knowledge and from place- name study. 6 Polydore, nevertheless, may have had other reasons than pure historical accuracy in attributing such a manoeuvre to his King (writing as he was around 1506). In performing a movement whereby the sun and wind were in his favour Henry was conforming to good fifteenth century military practice, so

356 . that m his comment Polydore might simply be praising his master’ 5 sagacity and seeming knowledge of such matters. 5 All the same the actual manoeuvre could well have been followed, and it could have been accomplished by Henry’s marching along the Penn Lanes and then wheeling suddenly to the north and west,skirting the probable fiosition of the marshland. 5 An area of agreement between moderate revisionists and traditignaligts' has been that Richard was not served by chaplains on the battlefield. This 15 a belief based on the statement by the Continuator of the Croyland Chronicle that there were no chaplains present on Richard‘ s side to celebrate mass. 6°At first sight this seems an extraordinary state of affairs. We know of Richard’s piety 'and mystical devotion. How could he' possibly not have brought chaplains along with him to the battle? Why progress with a magnificent processional cross, reputedly dug up somewhere on the battlefield (although it must have been hidden very well to escape Sir William Stanley’s eagle eyes-as spoil after the contest), and have no clerics to attend the spiritual needs of men about to face mortal danger? The situation seems absurd. In fact there is good reason for saying that chaplains were present in the camp. It is just'that they were not ready to pronounce divine service when the time came so to do. It appears that one Bigod, who served as carver for Richard, and fought with him at Bosworth, used to tell the story of how the King, ‘ ‘called 1n the morning for to have mass said before him, but when his chaplain had ‘one thing ready, evermore they wanted another, when they had wine they lacked bread.’ Eventually, as the enemy were advancing, so we understand, Richard had to leave his breakfast, which would only have been taken after mass was said. Bigod’s story was taken down in the middle of the sixteenth century; the account of the Continuator of the Croyland Chronicle would not at that time have been known to either Bigod or whoever wrote down his tale. 62 Many historians n_ow believe that Thomas, Lord Stanley, played little, or no part, in proceedings on Red Moor. ‘3 There' 15 further evidence to confirm this viewpoint in the _grants and awards made to Henry’s followers 1n the immediate aftermath of victory. Some, like Sir John Rysley, were rewarded ‘in consideration of the true hert and service“ that our humble servant and true liegeman. .hath borne and doone unto us in soundry wise herebefore, as wele: beyonde' the see as at our late victorious felde. ’64 0n 7 March 1486 a ‘grant in tail is made, to John Savage. .in consideration of his having largely exposqd himself, with a crowd of his kinsmen. .as volunteers m the King’s service, in the battle against the King’s great adversary, Ric. III.’6sBut, compare these two rewards to what Thomas, Lord Stanley receives; on 7 October 1485 bounty lS lavished on the ‘King’s right entirely beloved father. .in consideration of the good and praiseworthy services performed by him. .now lately m the king’s conflict within the realm of England.’6 6'It ls clear that rewards for help m the ‘conflict’ are to be compared with rewards for those helping 1n the ‘battle against the king’ s great adversary’, and those ‘at our late victorious felde’. The distinction is chillingly pointed. Admittedly Thomas, Lord Stanley had good grounds for not intervening directly given the hold Richard had over him, with his son Lord Strange in the royal camp, but with Thomas Stanley’s track record.

357 we must conclude that he probably exploited to the full his inability to offer aid to Henry 1n these circumstances. Finally, what can we make of that tantalising reference to SagIdeford; the place in Henry’s proclamation associated with Richard’s death? ThereB are really only two references m the sources, and one derives from the other.6 8As Harris surely correctly proposes, the name Sandeford must be referring to the area 'of the battle; and not to a precise location unknown outside Leicestershire.69 Possibly. Sandeford is' just a straightforward confusion of names. Red Mqor may have derived from ‘reedy marsh’, but in the confusion following the battle a straightforward corruption of Red-Moor into Sandy-ford might have occurred. The document which contains the reference to Sandeford also erroneously includes the statement that the Earls of Lincoln, Lovell and Surrey‘have all been killed. There may be another explanation; more tantalising but perhaps not as likely as the theory that it was just a simple mistake. It may be that [the name Sandeford was taken upvas part of a programme of deliberate misinformation. According to Nichols the village of Sharnford, .situated just six miles from Dadlington, derives its name from Sandyford. ,It is just possible that a deliberate confusion of names was perpetrated simply to confuse in turn the multitude of many dangerous enemies still to be overcome by Henry. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we do know that Sharnford, whatever its or_iginal name, was not known as Sandeford in the sixteenth century. At the end we do not have to concern oursélves with a ‘ potential battle site six miles east of Dadlington, thirteen east of Atherstone. Perish the thought that we might have yet another revision with which to contend, before any new consensus about Bosworth Field has been attained!”

What, can we then conclude about the battle fought on Red Moor m 1485? It Would be presumptuous and foolish to suggest that any historian can fully recreate a battle as poorly documented as Bosworth. What 18 being argued here is simply that the evidence for locating the battle around Dadlington and not Ambion Hill seems to be the most persuasive, and the traditionalists have still t6 seriously address themselves to explaining away that evidence. However, the moderate revisionist case is important for more than just helping us reach a moré accurate account of what really did happen and where on 22 August 1485. In overthrowing what has for so long seemed sacrosanct, even if they have not yet convinced the opposition Dr. Richmond and his fellows have at least encouraged all interested in the matter to look again at the sources. Only through careful interpretation of these can we understand more of such matters as the rifle played by leading protagonists such as Lord Stanley, whether or not chaplains were present on. Richard’s side, where Sandeford could be, and at what time of the day battle occurred. From now on all Ricardians must consider whether or not the Bosworth visit should not at least incorporate a visit to the Fenn Lanes and to the chapel at Dadlington. Around these spots is surely where “the gnlounde where Bosworth’ feld, otherwise called Dadlyngton' feld. .‘was done’.

358 P

NOTES AND REFERENCES

I owe a debt to all the scholars whose names appear below and in the text, but I am particularly grateful to Dr. Colin Richmond for many kindnesses. My deb: to him is evidem in lhe lext although, naturally, I differ from him on a number of points.

Colin Richmond, The Battle of Bosworth. History Toflay. vol. 35 (August l985), pp.l7-22; see also his piece in Research Notes and Queries, The Ricardian. no. 92 (March I986), pp.226—7: Daniel Williams. ‘A place mete for lwoo banayles to encounlrc: the siting of the battle of Boswonh. I485‘. The Ricardian. no. 90 (September I985). pp.86-96; Peter J. Foss. The Battle of Bosworlh: where was ilfoughl? (Stoke Golding 1985); Timothy Parry. A Church for Boxwarlh Field (Dadlington I985); Daniel Williams. Boswonh slill . . . History Today. vol. 35 (October I985). p.62; David Starkey. Or Mercvale'L History Today (Octobcr I985), p.62. 2. 0. D. Harris, . . . Even_hcrc, in Boswonh Field: a disputed site of battle. The Ricardian. no. 92 (March I986). pp. I‘M-7.07. One has great sympathy foi- Michael Bcnneu whose fine monograph was published before he was able to take account of the Boswonh debate. It is, nevertheless, an admirable survey: Michael Bennett. 1712 Bank: of Boswanh (Gloucester I985). Harris. p.204. Richmond. The Ricardian, p.l7; John Gillingham. The War: of the Roses (London l98l), p.242; Williams. History Today. p.62 is not agreed on this. None of the sources are wholly reliable. however, Polydore Vergil‘s account being written over twenty years after the event. The Croyland Continuator may not have witnessed the fight at all. For comments on this see Richmond. History Today. p.17. For Vergil see Polydore Vergil, Anglicae l-lismriae Libri Vigimiseplem, (Basel ISSS), pp.562-4. For an English translation see Sir Henry Ellis (ed.). Three books of Palydare Vergilis English HisIary (Camden Society. vol. 29. IBM). pp.22I-6. See also Alison Hanham. Richard III and his Early Hixtarians (Oxford I975) for emendalions. For the Croyland Continualor see Historiae Croylundensi: in W. Fulman (ed), Rerum Anglicamm Scriplorum Velerum, vol. 1 (Oxford I684). pp.S7J-5. The best translation is now. Nicholas Pronay and John Cox (eds.), 7112 Crawland Chronicle Continuation. [459-1486 (London I986). For a full summary and comment on sources see especially Bennett. pp.l55-1$. 5. Within each of the schools, as we would expect. there are divergences of opinion. Richmond, for example, excludes Ambion completely from his analysis. Foss would position the star! of the battle further to the north than Parry or Richmond. Richmond, 1112 Ricardian. p.227; Foss. 13.9. See also below n.6, and n.44. 6. Harris and Williams may be designated lraditionalisls. Richmond. Foss and Parry the leading moderate revisionists. Starkey and Margaret Condon. whose views are commented on by Harris, op. (.17.. p. I95 are the extreme revisionisls. See the accompanying map of the battlefield area contrasting the traditionalist and the moderate revisionist positions. '7. Francis Drake. Ebaracum (London I736), p.122; P. L. Hughes and J. P. Lnrkin (eds.), Tudor Royal Proclamations (New Haven I964). vol. I. p.3. The York Memoranda is in York City Archives, House Book. B 24. f. I69 v. ll records Richard‘s death as being at Sandeford. and has been dated to 23 August I485. The proclamation is dated to 22-23 August. Bennett. p.l55. The Memoranda is also primed in R. Davies (ed.). Extracts of lhe Municipal Records of Ih: Cily of York during the reigns of Edward I V, Edward V and Richard III (London l843). pp.2l7-8. R. F. Green. Historical notes of a London citizen. l483-l488, English Historical Review. vol. 96 (l98l). p.589; R. Davies. pp.2l7-8. Polydorc Vergil, p.562. This and an subsequent references are from the Basic edition of ISSS. l0. Fulman. vol. I, p.574. ll. Foss. p.8. Red Moor cannot be located either entirely to the north of the Tweed River, or to the south. There are references to ‘Rcdclondes‘ and 'le Redehull‘. as being north of the Tweed in both the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: cf. 6. F. Farnham, lgiteslershire Medieval Village Notes. vol. 6 (Lgicester I933). pp.l78. I80. Quoted in Harris, p.206 n.31. Apart from (he Fenn Lanes and Red Moor. While Moors meaning While Marsh obviously indicates extensive marshland. See also the interesting paper by Margaret Gelling. Some thoughts on Staffordshire Place-names. North Slafl'ardshire Journal of Field Studies. vol. 2l (l98l). ppJ-Zl when it is pointed on! that mor could be used for uplands as well as low-lying marshland. It could also be dryland or wetland.

359 Hinckley Parish Magazine. N.S., no. 246 (J um: 19] l); H. J. Francis. A History of Hinckley (Hinckley I930), p.33. Foss, p.8. William Bundn. The Description of Minster Shire (London l622). Harris. p.l99. Bunon, p.47. Williams, 111: Ricardinn, p.93 refers to human and horse bonus being discovered in the Rough Meadow; it is really located close to Sutton Brook. and not on Ambion Hill and should also be compared with the wealth of evidence of burials in and around Dadlington. Perhaps these bodies were some casualties from the chase? See below. and n.29. I9. John Nichols. Hmbry and Antiquitie: of the County of leicesler(London l795-l8l4), vol. 4. pt. 2, p.555. 20. John Nichols, 1712 History and Antiquities of Hinckley . . . (London I782). ppJOO-l. 2l. Nichols. llixlary and Antiquities of the County . . . .vol. 4, pt. 2. p.557. Hinckley Parish Magazine. Village Advertiser and local Church Register (l868)I p. IOS. 23. Funhcr archaeological work ought :6 b: undertaken, if possible. around Dadlington and on Ambion Hill. 24. See above. n.l8. 25. Richmond. The Ricardian. op. ciI.. p.227. 26. J. S. Bgewer (ed.). Letters and Papers . . . of the reign of Henry VIII. vol. I. pt. 2 (London l862), no. B48. For a full transcription of this together with the letter of confratemity see 0. D. Harris, The Boswonh Commemoration a! Dadlington, 1119 Ricardiun, no. 90 (September I985). pp.l24-5. 27. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave. Short Title Catalogue of Book: printed in England. Scotland and Ireland. [4754640. rev. Jackson. Ferguson and Panlur. vol. 2 (Bibliographical Society I976), nos. l4077. c. 23C — BAA. 28. Harris. The Ricardian. no. 92, pp.200-l. 29. Harris, 1112 Ricardian. no. 92. p.194. ‘il had in any case always been understood that the battle ended with the flight of the Yorkisl forces past Dadlington and on to Stoke Golding‘. Williams. The Ricardian. p.92 writes ‘Polydore records that Crown Hill was the furthest extent of the rout‘. But see Richmond, The Ricardinn, p.226. Nowhere does any contemporary source describe the direction of the chase. Cf. Polydore Vergil, pp.563-4: ‘lnlerea Oxoniensis post breve unnmen caeleros ctiam. qui in prima acie pugnabam, in fugam quamprirnum coniecil, quorum bene magnus numerus in ipsa fuga oecidil‘. This may be translated, ‘In the meantime the Earl of Oxford after some fighting put to flight those who were fighting in the forefront. a great number were killed in the chase'. However Polydorc significantly goes on to record that many more abstained from fighting, and there were many captives. [Translating]. he writes ‘for when King Richard was killed. all immediately threw away their weapons and freely submitted to Henry'. Polydore Vergil, p.564. Harris, 1719 Ricardian. no. 92. p.20l, suggests that the pear shape of King Richard's field on seventeenth century maps might refer to the shape of ‘he chase. This seems a slightly odd way to read a map; surely the pear shape only indicates the shape of the battlefield, with the north-west indentation present because of the (presumed) am! of marshland? 30. See above, n.29. Cf. also Gillingham. p.245. ‘Only in the vanguard where, by a sensible soldier‘s convention. the best men were normally placed in the from rank. and where the battle had indeed been keenly contested. were the casualties heavy‘. 3l. A chase towards Manceuer and Attenon may yet answer the extreme revisionist case. explaining the damages awarded the villages because of ‘us and our company: at oure late victorious feld'. William Campbell (ed.). Material: for a history of the reign of Henry VII. vol. 1 (Rolls Series l873), p.l88. 32. Conventional strategy was to draw up one‘s forces into ‘baltles' or columns. See Anthony Goodman, 1112 War: of the Rose: (London I981), p.l63. Often a host was divided into three forces. ibid, pp.l67-8. 33. Goodman, p.l68. For a valuable discussion of Henry‘s prudenec. born out of early experiences in exile. see Ralph A. Griffiths and Roger S. Thomas. The Making of the Tudor Dynasty (Gloucester I985) pp.l68-78. 35. Polydore Vergil. p.564: ‘in proximu collem‘. translated. ‘to the next hill‘. 36. Stoke Golding was once known as Stoke Woulden. Later it became distinguished by the designation ‘Golding‘. For this and more on the origin of the derivation see Foss, op. cit. There are few serious historians who now doubt that Crown Hill did not witness Henry's final triumph. in receiving the crown. Nichols.

360 History and Antiquities aflhe County . . .. vol. 4. pl. 2, p.557 refers to Crown Hill or King Harry's Hill in Stoke Golding. 37. Quoted by Harris. The Ricardian. no. 92, p.199. 38. Burton, p.47. 39. Cf. Gillingham, p.242. ‘Local tradition has its uses but in mailers such as this [siting of the battle] it is totally unreliable‘. Raphael Holinshed. Chronicles of England. Scotland and Ireland. vol. 3 (London 1808). p.443. 4l. Bunon‘s manuscript addition to his revised edition of The Description . . . The manuscript is in Slaffordshire Record Office, SRO D 649/4l2. Burton may be following chronicle tradition rather than what he has learned through oral tradition, of course. ‘AI this place [that is Ambien] King Rich: 3 . . . the night before the bannile pitched here his lemes . . .‘ 42. Harris. The Ricardian. no. 92, p.l98. 43. Parry, p.4. quotes the tradition that watchers saw the battle from St. Margaret‘s parapet. Stoke Golding. They must have had wonderful eyesight if the fighting was just south of Ambion Hill as traditionalists believe. The latter, amongst other riches, have Dickon‘s Nook and King Richard's Well. 44. Harris, The Ricardian. no. 92, p. I98. Harris convincingly shows that thus: cannonballs could not have been pan of the Civil War skirmish. Foss disagrees with Richmond and allows Ambion Hill a pan in the initial stages of the battle. For details on the cannonballs found on Ambion Hill see P. Tudor-Craig. Richard II! (National Portrait Gallery Exhibition Catalogue, London, 2nd ed. I977). 45. Ramli parliamenlamm. ed. J. Slrachey (6 vols. London ”67-83), vol. 6, p.276. 46. Ballad of Bus-worth Field. in J. W. Hales and F. J. Furnivall (cds.), Bishop Percy's Folio Manuscript: Ballads and Romance: (London l868), vol. 3. p.233 pam'm, p.39] passim. Bishop Percy‘s manuscript is now BL. Additional Ms. 27879. For a reminder of the dangers of over-reliance on the “Ballad of Boswonh Field‘ in particular, and the Ballads in general, see C. Richmond. ‘l485 and all that‘. in Richard III. Loyalty, Lordship and Law. ed. P. W. Hammond (London I986). ' 47. On a recent excursion to Stoke Golding there appeared to be a general ignorance of Crown Hill's historic significance among many of the local inhabitants. Even its whereabouts was difficult to discover. 1: is possible to see Ambion Hill from Crown Hill. 48. Polydore Vergil, p.563: ‘de industria . . . simul etiam id faciendo solem a (ergo rcliquit'. Translated, ‘inlentionally . . . in leaving the marsh on his right-hand side [Henry] put the sun behind him‘. 49. Richmond, The Ricardian, p.226; Harris, 11:: Ricardian. no. 92. p.202. 50. Polydore Vergil. p.563: ‘bene autem mane‘. Translated. ‘early in the morning‘. Harris, 7712 Ricardian. no. 92, p.207. n.54 says that no source describes a morning battle. Surely this is wrong? (See discussion in text). SI. Polydore Vergil. p.563: 'lamcn nihil cunclalus‘. Sec Gairdncr, p.l62. 53. See below. n.62. See above, n.48. 55. The only topographical features we can be sure of are the hills mentioned in the Ballads (above, n.46). ‘the next hill‘. ‘proximu collcm‘, of Polydore Vergil. and the marsh. 56. See above, n.l2. 57. Vegetius, Epilomn Rei Militaris. Ill, 20. I4. quoted in Goodman. p.93. There is a partial translation of Vegelius in T. R. Phillips (ed.). Root: of Strategy (London I943). 58. The sort of movemem endorsed by Bennett, p.l09 and Harris. The Ricardian. no. 92, p.202. 59. Richmond. The Ricardian, no. 92. p.226; Williams. The Ricardian. no. 90, p.89. W. Fulman. p.574. 6l. See especially P. W. Hammond and Anne F. Sutton. Richard III: the Road to Baswanh Field (London 1985). pp.l9l-3 on Richard‘s prayer in his Book of Hours. 62. BL. Add. Ms. l2060. ff l9-20. See H. G. Wright (ed.), Forty-six lives lranslaledfram Botcaccio': De Clan's Mulieribux by Henry Parker. Lord Morley (Early English Text Society. O.S. 2l4. I943 for I940). See also Bennen, p.9. Henry Parker was the son of Sir William Parker, Richard lll's counsellor and standard-bearer. Bennett. and Pronay and Cox. think chaplains were present, but unprepared. Bennett translates the Croyland Continuator. 'at daybreak on Monday morning there were no chaplains on King Richard's side

361 ready to celebrate mass‘. Bennett. p. ISB. Pronay and Cox. p.18]. ‘al dawn on Monday morning the chaplains were not ready to celebrate mass‘. (My italics) 63. Hanham, pp.58. I334; Harris, The Ricardian. no. 92. p.203. The possibility that Lord Stanley did not participate at Boswonh was initially noted in a review by K. B. McFarlane. English Historical Review. vol. 78 (I963), pp.77l-2. McFarlane recounts the sworn statement by Lord Stanley that he did not meet Henry until 24 August, two days after Boswonh. 64. Campbell, Materials. . .-vol. I, p.33. 65. ibid.. p.365. - as. . ibid., p.77. Sir William Stanley gains many honours. Immediately) in the wake of the battle itself he is awarded the spoils from the field. Later Lord Stanley is more than generously rewarded. This is as the King‘s step-father and not, however. as a direct consequence of his pan at Bosworlh Field. 67. P. L. Hughes and J. P. Larkin (eds.), vol. 1. p.3. Both traditionalists and moderate revisionisls have idgntified spots as Sandeford. See map. 6_8.See above.n.7, ' 69. Harris, The Ricardian. no. 92. p.204. 70. As no. Q7 above. 7l. Nichols. History and Antiquilies of the Caunly . . . vol. 4. pl. 2. p.9l5. ‘From the division of Sharnford into two equal pans, newly, by theARiver Soar, and from the carriages of all descriptions having lo pass in a very oblique direction through the water by a ford of a sandy bottom. there is little doubt bui that (he presenl name of the place is derived from Sandford. or Sandeford‘. V 72. Calendar of lnquixilians post Manem Henry VII. (3 vols. London [8984956) vol. 3. p.l22 'Shernefford'; p. l29 ‘Sharnford‘. The only two references to Sharnford. 73. I! [5 worth reminding ourselves at the close that both the traditional and moderate revisionist accounts are arguing about two locations no more than ’l. - [1. miles apart. See map. 74. See above n. 26.

362