‘. ..even here,in Bosworth Field’: a Disputed Site of Battle

0. D. HARRIS

‘THERE HAVE been almost as many accounts of the Battle of Bosworth as there have been historians‘, wrote Charles Ross, before launching into his own version of events.‘ Predictably, the recent quincentenary added to the numbers of both.’ The familiar facts have been dusted down, some neglected pieces of evidence brought to light, and new theories propounded for the movements of the various armies on 22 August I485: all this without significantly altering what we really know about the battle. Less predictable, however, have been a series of rival suggestions that would seek to render all previous accounts largely redundant, by arguing that the battle was fought somewhere quite other than the accepted site of Ambion Hill. This line of thought was introduced by Colin Richmond in an article in History Today, which drew attention to the sparsity of detailed contemporary accounts of the battle, to the fact that the Ambion Hill identification was largely the product of eighteenth century tradition, and finally to the evidence for a battlefield commemoration at , ‘two miles’ south of Ambion Hill.’ It was in Dadling‘on, he argued, that the battle had taken place. On the eve of the quincentenary, this suggestion excited considerable media interest. ‘Was the Battle of Bosworth at Bosworth?‘, demanded The Times in a front page headline, referring to the theory elsewhere as a ‘bombshell’. It also pointed out that the question was not entirely academic: County Council had just spent a considerable amount of money on upgrading the tourist facilities at the traditional site. An edition of BBC TV ‘Newsnight' publicised the debate; and even Punch found something to say.‘ In fact, Dr. Richmond was being rather less revolutionary than this coverage.might suggest: the two miles was really little over one, and it had in any case always been understood that the battle ended with the flight of the Yorkist forces past Dadlington and on to Stoke Golding. Refutations by Daniel Williams were published a week later on The Times correspondence page, and two months later in History Today, arguing strongly the case for Ambion Hill.’ Dr. Williams, as author of one

I94 of the standard accounts of Bosworth (originally commissioned by the County Council prior to the opening of the field to the public in 1974) is an acknowledged expert on the battle, and much in evidence during 'quincentenary year: he could also, however, be regarded as having something of a vested interest in the traditional site. He dismissed Dr. Richmond’s arguments altogether, and pointed out the inaccuracy of Richmond’s claim (reported in The Times, but not in fact included in the History Today article) that he was ‘putting the battlefield back to where it was understood to be in the early seventeenth century’: there is actually evidence from the sixteenth- century onwards for the identification of Ambion Hill with the battle. Following this exchange, local historian Peter Foss produced a ‘provisional reassessment’ of the battle in time for the actual quincentenary celebrations.o This might be seen as a compromise solution; or perhaps simply as yet one more possibility. Foss argued that the fighting took place in the flat marshland halfway between Ambion Hill and Dadlington Hill; and suggested that ‘Sandeford’, the spot where Richard is alleged to have met his death, lay in this area, most probably at the crossing of the Tweed River by Fenn Lanes, the old Roman road.’ Finally, and most iconoclastic of all, have come two complementary suggestions made by David Starkey and Margaret Condon. They both draw attention to a series of pieces of evidence indicating military activity in the vicinity of Merevale Abbey and Atherstone, six miles or so from Ambion and Dadlington. Miss Condon would suggest some kind of running battle along the Roman road between these two general areas; Dr. Starkey seems to be proposing that the entire battlefield should be relocated. In neither case has the thesis been fully explored, but the possibilitigs have clearly been extended still further.‘ We therefore enter the second half-millenium after Bosworth in a state . of confusion and bemusement; and it will probably be some time before historians are able to come to any kind of consensus. All we can say at present — and this was, perhap's, Richmond’s real point -—— is that hard facts are remarkably thin on the ground, and that much of what we may think we know about the battle is founded on the speculations of earlier generations of historians. Even so, I would propose that in an these contradictory versions of Bosworth, there remain a few pieces of reasonably well-proven fact and uncontroversial theory to establish (if only in very broad terms) the topography of the battlefield. In the summer of 1485, Richard 111 had positior'led himself in‘ Nottingham, at the centre of England, prepared for an assault on the realm from any direction. When Henry Tudor did land, on 7 August, it was in Pembrokeshire, the county of his birth. He might have been expected to head east, direct for the centre of power in London: instead he marched north-east, to Cardigan and along the coast around Cardigan Bay, so avoiding the large bloc of south Wales territory held by staunch Yorkists, and making his way in the general direction of the Stanley heartlands of north-east Wales, Cheshire, and Lancashire. His primary objective at this point was to attract manpower to his side; and the same can be said of

195 Richard from the moment that he learned of the invasion. More than in any other campaign of the period, this need to rally support remained one of the central concerns of both pretender and King right 'up ('0, and indeed actually during, the battle itself. By the time Henry reached Shrewsbury, however, with a growing. army at his back and further promises of support ahead, he was obviously reaching the conclusion that it would be to his advantage to bring Richard to battle quickly, before the King had a chance to assemble all the troops on whom he could call. He therefore directed his march along minor roads, aiming straight for Nottingham. He passed through Newport, and reached Stafford probably on 19 August. It was at this point, possibly as a result of negotiations with Sir William Stanley, or intelligence about Richard’s activities, that he changed his plans:° he started marching south-east, to Lichfield and'on towards Watling Street, perhaps intending to meet the King somewhere on the London road. Richard, meanwhile, had also decided that matters should be brought to a head. On the evening of 19 August, or early the next morning, he set off for Leicester, which seems to haVe been determined as thq final muster point for the royal army. Henry marched on through Tamworth, and reached the outskirts-of ,Atherstone on 21 August. Atherstone, according to Polydore Vergil and others, was his place of rendezvous with the forces of his somewhat uncertain allies, the Stanley brothers. Lord Thomas,.for the past few days, had been appearing to withdraw before Henry’s advance, about three days ‘ahead of him: Sir William had been shadowing his march more closely. It was probably this use of Atherstone and its environs as a military assembly area, and the need for the various parties to maintain separate camps, which was the cause of the damage to crops and other references noted by Condon ‘ and Starkey. Alternatively, it is feasible that there was some kind of skirmish here between some of the rebels and an advance party of Yorkists, prior to the main engagement: the ballads tell how Lord Stanley sent news to his brother that he was on the point of battle.” It should also be remembered that, despite the later stories of chroniclers and balladeers, neither of the Stanleys was certainly committed to the Tudor cause until the battle itself: it is just conceivable that one or both of the brothers, perhaps in a token gesture, actually resisted Henry’s advance at this point. A full discussion of the possibilities must clearly await the development of a Condon/ Starkey hypothesis: for the moment, however, it seems likely that whatever happened at Merevale and Atherstone was quite distinct from the battle itself the following day. Late on 21 August, then, Henry found himself at one end of the Roman road which branched off Watling Street to run from Mancetter (just east of Atherstone) to Leicester. Somewhere along it was Richard, preparing . for battle. One of the few topographical details of the battlefield of which we can be absolutely certain — indeed, perhaps the only one — is the presence of a marsh. The prose version of the Ballad of Bosworth Field says that Richard’s army was stationed in it;" Vergil describes Henry’s manoeuvres around it;” and Molinet and independent local traditions report Richard or

196 um/ con-on “”3“

Han in8 85114,.

0 mean. ' '-

0 "700545.

’°.

r . .I' 9 409 ‘l summon 5 g - ‘-‘ 55° ' I I‘ t g. 1- I. x ‘ Ii _"‘ ,' RED-'MOOR : z .1. s ‘_ x ‘ 3 J:: I. _‘ J: , z 11’ - JG ‘_- l ’ ’II

I " r 1”: f 1 7L ,:‘I’ ’ .i r ’ ! I’l ’.< I ."-

.- .’ ' -. l

S .’.¥ ‘. op

\ ofl*fl_ '.~" nAac-rou ' . .I _ .7 ‘ . '. ( '-"." -I-..-II'..._.. j ...... I ~ 1' I 0 ...... ‘

& Crggm . — ..... ParishBoundaries 111 - Chapelry Boundaries 5mg}: I —wo— contours (height in feet) ‘5 I‘D HG) R '? Sandeford (Hollings) 3 ‘? Sandeford (Foss) N "”‘x

197 his horse trapped in it." Unfortunately, this is of limited help in pinpointing the site, not least because by the 15705, as recorded by Holinshed, ‘by reason of diches cast, it is growne to be firm ground'." In fact, much of the battlefield area appears to have been substantially marshy. The earliest local place-name used at all consistently for the battle was Redemore (otherwise Rodemore or Redesmore), which is found in the official record in the York City House Books, the near-contemporary notes of a London citizen, and was in print by the seventeenth century, no doubt helped by its overtones of a ‘bloody field’." One late fifteenth century reference, in the notes to a genealogical table, calls the battle ‘Brownehethe’:" this seems likely to be the result of a translation and re-translation of ‘red moor’ (possibly by way of Welsh, rhos goch). Foss argues convincingly, hoWever, that the name in fact derives from Old English hreod mor, marshland with reeds: that it is describing the locality as a fen." Certainly there are a number of minor place-names in the general area of the battlefield to indicate marshland; and this section of the Roman was! is itself, of course, Fenn Lanes. The medieval concept of a road was not a precisely defined carriageway, but more a right of way between two points, the exact course of which might vary according to seasonal circumstances. Across a marshy tract of land there are likely to have been several routes, tending to follow the high ground. It is fairly evident that it was Richard, with a shorter distance to march, and more detailed local intelligence, who had the choice of battleground. Travelling from Leicester along the approximate line of the Roman road, it is very likely that he would have swung to his right, away from the marshy valley of the Tweed, and ont'o the firm ground occupied by the settlements of Sutton Cheney and its abandoned hamlet of Ambion. Here, on Ambion Hill, was a fine defensive position in full accord, Williams would suggest, with late medieval military theory.” To argue on these grounds alone would be to come dangerously close to Burne’s unreliable precept of ‘inherent military probability’; but in fact there is sound evidence to link Ambion Hill with the battle. As early as 1577 Raphael Holinshed — who, as we have seen, knew about the draining of the marsh, and who obviously had some local knowledge —— reported that Richard had ‘pitched his field on a hill called Anne Beame [the normal form of Ambion at this date], refreshed his souldiers, and tooke his rest’.” In the seventeenth century William Burton, the eminent local antiquary, suggested (admittedly in a curious passage recounting the fulfillment of prophecies) that Richard’s lodging the night before the battle was at ‘Anbian’."’ Less convincing, but a strong local tradition in the eighteenth century and not to be ignored, is the location of King Richard’s Well on Ambion Hill. Finally, it is on Ambion Hill that have been found, from the eighteenth century until the 1940s, a succession of cannonballs, the most plausible ‘of the alleged battlefield relics." Richmond claims that they ‘are probably from the Civil War battle fought across these fields’.22 This argument cannot be upheld: the 1644 engagement was a minor cavalry skirmish, with no evidence for the use of field pieces; moreover, although it is said to have happened ‘in the very place where King Richard was slain’, it also included ‘a hot pursuit for three miles’, making its site even more uncertain than that of the [485 battle."

I98 We can therefore assert reasonably confidently that Richard spent the night of 2! August camped on Ambion Hill; that he drew up his forces the next morning on its brow; and that the initial phases of the battle included a ‘softening up’ of the Yorkist ranks by rebel fire-power. Equally clearly, however, the main engagement took place on lower ground: perhaps one of Richard’s military errors of the day was to allow his troops (in an echo of the Saxon army at Hastings) to be drawn down from their strong position. It is only by making this assumption that we can satisfy the evidence noted above for fighting in proximity to the marshes: and it is also in accord with William Burton’s description of the battlefield. Although Burton was writing well over a century after the battle, his credentials are good. As a county historian he was meticulous; he was lord of the manor of Dadlington, and studied its history in detail; and, having been born in 1575, he claimed to have seen (as a child) eye-witnesses of Bosworth, and to have heard their accounts at second hand. The fact that he actually supplies few details of the battle probably means that what he does tell us can largely be relied on. He asserts that it was ‘fought in a large, flat, plain, and spacious ground, three miles distant from this Towne [], between the Towne of , Sutton, Dadlington, and Stoke’.“ This must refer to the relatively level area — until the coming of the railway — to the west and south of Ambion Hill. Elsewhere he describes the deserted settlement of Ambion without mentioning the battle.” Burton’s words are those of a man using a map: to be precise, one of the early seventeenth century printed county maps and most probably the I602 ‘Anonymous’ map of Leicestershire and Rutland, which was in fact produced with his assistance, and so can be regarded as having some authority.“ The map shows a clearly defined pear-shaped ‘K. Ric: feild’ — the name used by Burton for the battle is ‘King Richards feild’ — in the exact location he describes. These maps are all largely revisions of Christopher Saxton’s 1576 depiction of Leicestershire and Warwickshire, which includes the same general view of the battlefield in a somewhat cruder form. One refinement made by the 1602 map is to show the field bisected by a tributary of the , which can be clearly identified with that branch of the Tweed River that has its source near Stapleton. This addition is significant because, according to Williams and other traditionalists, the battle was fought to the north (or north-east) of the Tweed. When Hutton produced his plan of ‘Bosworth Field‘ in 1788 — described by Williams with justification as ‘a veritable minefield of misinformation and misorientation’“ — although he seems to have taken its general pear shape from the earlier county maps, he sites the field in its entirety north-east of the river. Elsewhere he describes the field in precise terms, consistent with this map: in particular, he says that it belonged to Sutton Cheney, which definitely implies a location only to the north of the Tweed, because the river is the parish boundary.“ He also says that the field was enclosed by a ring fence: and it may be that he is accurately describing what was understood locally by Redmoor Plain, the ‘real name’ of Bosworth Field, in the late eighteenth century. An indication that something like this was understood in the early seventeenth century comes from John

199 Speed’s 1610 county map, the first to name ‘Red More'. The name appears in addition to that of ‘Kinge Richards fcild’, but in a different and smaller typeface, and on a different orientation. Subsequent cartographers and others assumed that the two were synonymousz” but I'would suggest that Speed shows Redmoor as occupying part of the field only, to the north-east of the river. This argument cannot be pursued too far: a thirteenth century document refers to ‘6 roads of Meadow in Redemore in the Fields of Dadelinton’, which shows that a part of Redmoor lay south of the parish boundary.” Nevertheless, it seems very probable that the Redmoor mentioned by the early sources for the battle was an amorphous marshy area, at the foot of Ambion Hill and largely on the northern side' of the Tweed." Support for a battlefield location here also comes from the name by which the battle is most familiar to us: Bosworth. This was introduced into the mainstream chronicle tradition by the Great Chronicle of London, which recounts how Richard ‘cam unto a vyllage callyd Bosworth where In the ffyeldys adjoynaunt bothe hostys mett’." A few years later, in 1516, the Newe Cronycles of Robert Fabyan (who was probably responsible for the Great Chronicle) were published, stating that the battle had occurred ‘nere unto a Vyllage in Leycetershyre named Bosworth':” with this appearance in print, the name was fixed for posterity. Another London chronicle (Cotton Vitellius A.,XVI) probably of late fifteenth century date, speaks of ‘the ffeeld of Bosworth’.” The Chronicle of Calais, a little later, similarly refers to ‘the filde at Bosworthe hethe’.’s The two documents relating to the projected chantry foundation at Dadlington, the signet warrant of 1511 and the printed appeal for funds which followed, both use the name ‘bosworth feelde'.’° A late fifteenth or early sixteenth century medical text includes a reference to ‘a gentyllman that was schot at Barnard or Bosarde felde’.” In other words, within thirty years of the battle, there was a firmly established local and national identification of the name of Bosworth with it. And as the parish of Market Bosworth lay to the north of the Tweed, it follows that it was here, in the chapelries of Shenton and Sutton Cheney, that the main battle was fought. To the south lay the parish of , of a comparable size and with a comparable population to Market Bosworth:’“ but the name of Hinckley has not once been associated with the events of August 1485. Nevertheless, there remains strong evidence for something happening in the parish of Hincklcy. As we have seen, this is indicated by the seventeenth century maps, which place at least half the area of King Richard’s Field south of the Tweed. They are supported by Burton’s description of the battlefield, quoted above, as lying ‘three miles distant’ from Market Bosworth. Three miles from Market Bosworth is Dadlington: Ambion Hill is less than two. The conclusive piece of evidence for Richmond that the battle was fought around Dadlington is the 1511 signet warrant, which refers to ‘the grounde where Bosworth' feld, otherwise called Dadlyngton’ feld was done’.” However, it is evident that this proposal for a chantry foundation for the battle dead arose out of the cold-blooded desire of the

200 churchwardens of Dadlington to raise funds for their impoverished chapelry.“ In the circumstances, they would naturally have emphasised as far as they were able to link between the chapelry and the battle; and it is therefore unreasonable to place too much weight on this single use of Dadlington as a secondary name for the battle. The actual printed appeal refers only to ‘bosworth feelde’. It may also be noted that the county maps from Saxton onwards place Dadlington, like all other villages, quite definitely outside the boundaries of King Richard’s Field. This is not to remove Dadlington altogether from the picture. The printed appeal refers to St. James’ chapel in Dadlington as the place where ‘ye bodyes or bones of the men sleyne in ye seyde feelde beth broght & beryed’; and Burton too says that many of the dead were buried in the churchyard here." John Nichols claimed that the indented remains of grave pits were still visible in the late eighteenth century; and an accumulation of human bones was discovered in the churchyard. in the nineteenth." It is unlikely that significant numbers of the slain would have been brought to the chapel for burial unless they had actually died within the chapelry. There have of course been numerous finds of bones, and of other less grisly supposed relics of Bosworth, all around the general battlefield area — and indeed further afield, including the Splendid and famous Yorkist processional cross, which actually seems to have been discovered at Husbands Bosworth, eighteen miles away." Unfortunately, none (with the limited exception of the cannonballs on Ambion Hill) have been adequately recorded, so that we cannot point to a single item of probable late fifteenth century origin and say exactly where in the locality it was found.“ Nevertheless, the general pattern of these relics conforms with the picture that emerges from other sources: a conflict that moved from Ambion Hill, down into the fens, and then over the Tweed into the chapelry of Dadlington, where much of the slaughter occurred. This move across the parish boundary can reasonably be ascribed to the rout of the Yorkist army, the end of a classic medieval battle, which followed the treachery of Sir William Stanley and the death of the King: most commentators would still agree with Hutton, that ‘the greatest carnage must have been in the pursuit’." The pear shape of the battlefield on the seventeenth century maps, its bulbous portion to the south-west, may perhaps indicate the spreading out of an army in flight. The final scenes in the drama seem to have been played out to the south again, in the chapelry of Stoke, where further finds of bones and weapons are recorded.“ Vergil says that Henry ‘got himself unto the next hill’, to thank his troops, and to receive the crown:" and eighteenth century tradition-locates this impromptu coronation on the hillock called Crown Hill, near the village of Stoke Golding." Certainly, as Williams emphasises, Stoke — and also Dadlington — stand on the first high ground on the southern side of the battlefield. Saxton’s map marks a hill in the southern part of King Richard‘s Field: by the time of Morden (1695) it has become a jagged mountain. It does not represent any obvious landmark, and may conceivably be intended for Crown Hill.” _ _ Having'détermined the general movement of the battle, it is possible to

201 say a little more about the disposition of the individual armies. Traditionally, there are four to be accounted for — those of Richard, Henry and the two Stanleys — and although there has been considerable disagreement as to where they were stationed, the lack of firm evidence has tended to introduce a remarkable degree of neatness and regularity to the arrangements. Gairdner described them in their relative positions as ‘not unlike whist players'; Burne likened them to ‘two rival [football] teams lining up, while on the two touchlines stood the two spectators'; and Williams describes Hutton’s suggestions as ‘an extraordinary square dance’.” Richard began the battle on the summit of Ambion Hill: we have already noted the evidence for this. The position of Henry is more problematic, and theories have been proposed for his assault on the hill from almost every point of the compass." To put the problem at its simplest: Henry approached the field marching in an easterly direction; but Vergil says that in his manoeuvres he had the sun at his back, which (on an August morning) implies that he was facing west. Certainly Henry seems to have carried out a fairly sophisticated tactical movement as he wheeled around a marsh, keeping it between his troops and those of the Yorkists: and Burton recalled how his own ancestor, John de Hardwick, had acted as Henry’s guide to get him the advantage of ground, wind and sun." Unfortunately, in this area of fens, we can only speculate as to precisely where the marsh in question was: and theories about Henry’s movements based on such speculations become increasingly hazardous. The problem may recently have been resolved by Griffiths and Thomas' re-analysis of the chronology of the Tudor march to Bosworth. Henry was in Machynlleth on 14 August, a fact unknown to most previous commentators on the battle.” This means that the earlier stages of his march were somewhat more relaxed, and the latter stages brisker, than has traditionally been assumed: in particular, it suggests that there was never a rebel camp at Whitemoors, but that Henry and his troops spent the morning of 22 August marching to battle from the outskirts of Atherstone. The battle itself may therefore not have taken place until around noon or early afternoon, and Henry’s men could have had the sun behind them without having to double back on their tracks or perform other convoluted manoeuvres." There is good evidence for a large marshy area somewhere on the southern slopes of Ambion Hill (where Ambion Wood was later planted), spreading down into the dip of the Tweed, and probably some way east.” It seems likely that the rebel army approached the field along the Roman road, and executed a fairly straightforward turn to the north, to skirt the marsh while taking advantage of its protection, followed by a wheel back to the east to face the Yorkists in their position on the hill. The dispositions of the armies of the Stanley brothers have been still more open to debate, as there are virtually no clues in the early sources. It is now generally agreed that the crucial intervention which turned the battle was made by Sir William Stanley: but whether this unexpe'cted attack came from the north or the south, or from another direction altogether, has never been resolved. One local informant in the early nineteenth century apparently believed that Sir William was encamped in Ambion Wood, on

202 Richard’s flank and in the middle of what we now consider to have been marsh." However, given the evidence that a pitched battle to the south-west of Ambion Hill turned into a rout southwards towards Dadlington and Stoke, and that this was occasioned by Sir William’s assault, it seems highly probable that he came from the north. We may even accept as plausible the eighteenth century tradition reported by Nichols (and followed by Gairdner and, in a modified form, by Williams) that Sir William viewed the opening stages of the battle from the next high ground to the north of Ambion Hill, conceivably ‘Hanging Hill’, near the hamlet of Near Coton.” As for Lord Thomas Stanley, we simply do not know. He may, as Williams argues, also have been stationed on Hanging Hill, and chose to remain there. He may, as other theories hold, have been somewhere to the north-east or to the south-east of the battlefield." Or he may_ have been off the map altogether. What is clear is that he played no active part in the battle. Alison Hanham and others have argued that later references to his role in the chronicles — and perhaps even more so in the ballads — can largely be ascribed to political or partisan manipulation of the texts. He was under the severe disadvantage of having his son a hostage in Richard’s hands; and he was later to claim that he first met Henry on 24 August, two days after the battle.” He can be ignored. This study has concentrated on the topographical aspects of the battle; but what we are left with is a suggested sequence of events that does not seriously differ from many of the traditional accounts, and conforms closely to that of Williams. The various radical theories have brought out some valid points, but there is no need to re-site the battlefield. 0n the morning of 22 August, then, informed by scouts that the rebel army was close enough to be brought to battle, Richard drew up his ranks on the brow of Ambion Hill. By mid-day, or shortly afterwards, Henry had arrived, managing to approach the hill across Redmoor behind the shelter of the marsh. Henry’s advance from Atherstone had been shadowed by Sir William Stanley, probably marching across country to the north: it was, at any rate, on that side of the field that he took up his position. Henry opened the battle with an assault on the hill, and Richard’s vanguard, under Norfolk’s command, descended onto Redmoor to engage Henry’s centre (under Oxford) in a fiercely fought set battle. Richard now decided to bring his centre down from the hill in support; and led his famous charge, spurred on by the opportunity of a personal assault on Henry which could have won him the day. Unfortunately, it was at this point that Stanley chose to commit himself, and launch his forces into Richard’s right flank. The battle, on a new orientation, was now effectively decided. After a brief but bloody struggle on Redmoor, the Yorkists were driven south, over the Tweed River; and as the word spread that the King was killed, they began to flee. The open fields of Dadlington became a slaughter-ground, and the rout continued as far as Stoke. Only here did the exhausted victors give up their pursuit. Meanwhile, Richard’s rearguard was still safely on the summit of Ambion Hill: the Earl of Northumberland had decided to opt out of the battle altogether. Only in one particular would I seriously disagree with Williams, and

203 that is in his identification' of the spot where Richard allegedly fell. I have deliberately ignored Henry’s proclamation of the death of the King because, while it is potentially one of the most useful pieces of evidence we have for the topography of the battlefield, no- one has yet succeeded in interpreting it adequately. It asserts that Richard‘ was slayne at a place called Sandeford, within the Shyre of Leicestre’.” Williams follows the identification of Sandeford made by James Hollings in 1858, situating it at the point where the road leading from Sutton Ch_eney to Shenton, at one time used for carrying sand, crosses a stream: it is here, in what is now called ‘King Richard’ s Field’, that the County Council has erected its memorial stone to Richard III.“ H_ollings’ case is slick and quperficially persuasive; but on closer examination not altogether convincing. More plausible are Foss’ arguments for the somewhat more substantial crossing of Fenn Lanes and the Tweed River, north of Dadlington.“ However, both these speculations are seriously flawed by the assumption that Sandeford is the spot where Richard was killed. This 1s what the proclamation says. but the context is of a document addressed to the population at large, who could not be expected to take an interest in the minor place-names of a remote corner of Leicestershire. Sandeford is clearly meant to refer to the locality where the battle was fought and the King killed, not to a precise landmark where one particular event occurred: theories about the course of the battle cannot be built around it. °’ This still does not help us to identify it, even as an alternative name for the battle. Condon and Starkey would of course assert that we have been looking in the wrong place; and if a convincing Sandeford can be found in the vicinity of Merevale and Atherstone, our views of the battle will indeed need serious revision. It does seem strange that what was apparently intended to be a widely recognisable place-name should have so completely vanished from other records. In the circumstancés it might be emphasised that we only actually Have the text of the proclamation at third hand: the early eighteenth century printed edition of a lost entry in the York City House Books that recorded the actual c’opyof the proclamation received 'in the city. Also in the House Books is a summary 'report in Latin of the outcome of the battle, which is obviously based- in part on the proclamation: this refers to the death of the King ‘apud Sandeforth juxta Leicestre'.“ The slight variatioxi is probably meaningless — it would be consistent with a northern mutation of the name — but it does suggest the possibility that we may have a mdre familiar name distorted out of recognition. Another arguable (if unlikely) source of confusion is the name of Sir Brian Sandford, who was among Henry’s ranks, having defected from the Yorkist forces the day before the battle.“ Finally, it is worth remembering that, in many ways, the precise topography of the battlefield is not impor_tant. In dynastic and political terms, what mattered about the day's activities was the undisputed fact that the King had been killed. Even as a military event, Bosworth scarcely deserves the designation ‘battle’: it was 2i fierce skirmish followed by a rout. The real conflict between Richard and Henry, which merely reached its climax on Redmoor, was a psychological struggle to win and retain

204 LII DJ loyalties. In what Hutton called ‘one of the most dreary spots in his whole dominions’, Richard lost this struggle: and with it his crown and his life.‘m NOTES AND REFERENCES I am greatly indebted to Anne Sutton for drawing my attention to a number of the recent developments in the debate over the site of the battlefield. ' The title quotation is taken from Shakespeare's Richard III, Act V Scene Ill.

. Charles Ross, Richard III (London I981), p.2l6. Ross uses almost the same words in The War: of the Roses (London I976), p.l3l: his two accounts of the battle are themselves slightly variant. 2. Most notably, with the first full-length book on the subject [or nearly two centuries. Michael Bennelt, The Baule of Boswarlh (Gloucesler I985). which is at its best when marshalling the various documentary sources for the battle. . Colin Richmond, The Battle of Bosworlh, His'lory Today, vol. 35 (August 1985). pp.l7-22. 4. The Times. 27 July I985. pp); 9. Basil Boothroyd. Errors and Omissions Excepted, Punch (7 August I985), pp.22-3. ' . The Times. 3 August 1985, p.l I. History Today. vol. 35 (October I985), p.62., 6. Peter .I. Foss, The Battle of Basworlh: Where was i! fought? (Stoke Golding, August I985): reproduced from typescripl; ‘wriuen for Dadlingzon Church'. 7. There is some confusion in modern accounts of the battle as to whether the rivulel which runs to the south of Ambion Hill should be termed the Sence Brook (its name downstream. once it has joined other watercourses), or the Tweed River (one of its tributaries upstream). In this paper I have followed Foss in calling it the Tweed. 8. Dr. Slarkey's suggestion appeared in a note in History Today, vol. 35 (October 1985), p.62. I am most grateful to Miss Condon for discussing her views with me. The Croyland Chronicle states that the battle occurred near Merevale (Rerum Anglicarum Scriplarum Velerum, vol. I, ed. W. Fulman (Oxford l684). pp.574-5); and John Rous says it was on the borders of Warwickshire and Leicestershire (Alison Hanham. Richard III and his Early Historians (Oxford I975), p.123). Henry VI] was later to pay compensation to the Abbot of Merevale, and to the representatives of Atherslone and a group of villages to the east of it (Wilherley. Atlerton, Fenny Draylon and Mancener) for loss of corn: in the case of Merevale, caused by 'oure people commyng toward our late feld'; but in the case of the villages. 'by us and our company: at oure late victorious feld' (William Campbell (ed.), Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII. vol. I (Rolls Series. 1873), pp.188; 20l; 233). There are also some suggestive local place-names, including ‘King Dick's Hole' (Ordnance Survey grid ref. SP3I599I). 9. R. A. Griffiths and R. S. Thomas, The Making of the Tudor Dynasty (Gloucester I985), ppJSI-Z. l0. W. Hutton, 77w Baule of Boswonh Field, 2nd ed. with additions by J. Nichols (London 18l3; reprinted Gloucester I974), p.2l3. Bennett, pp.95; I72. ll. Hutton, p.216. 12. Three Books of Palydore Vergl‘l's English History, ed. Sir H. Ellis (Camden Society, vol. 29: IBM), p.223. l3. Chroniques de Jean Molina]. ed. G. Doulrepoinl and O. Jordogne. vol. I (Brussels I935). p.435. Hutton. pp.l26; 232; 24!: 245. I4. Raphael Holinshcd. Chronicles of England Scotland and Ireland. vol. 3 (London 1808), p.443. l5. York Civic Records. ed. A. Raine, vol. l(Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series, vol. 98: 1939). pp.l l8-9; l2]. R. F. Green, Historical notes of a London citizen, 1483-1488, English Historical Review. vol. 96 (l98l), p.589. John Speed, map of Leicestershire ([6l0): in addition to marking the site of Red More, this includes a marginal illustration of the battle fought ‘nere Bosworth upon Redemore'. Sir Richard Baker, A Chronicle oflhe Kings of England (London I643), p.136. I6. Bodleian Library MS. Ashmole I448, {215; cited in Hnnham. p.l07. The manuscript at one time belonged to Humphrey Llwyd. the late sixteenth century Welsh antiquarian. I am indebted to Albinia de la Mare of the Bodleian for confirming details of this reference. l7. Foss. p.8. _ l8. Daniel Williams, ‘A place mete for twoo banayles lo encounlre‘: the siting of the Battle of Bosworlh, I485, The Ricurtlian. no. 90 (I985), pp.86-7.

205 I9. Holinshed, p.438. 20. Hutton, p.183. Williams. p.89. 21. Hutton, p.82. J. Throsby, Select View: in Leicestershire (Leicester 1789), p.340. J. Gairdner. The Battle of Basworlh (Upminsler I975), pp.l4; 19-20. A. H. Burne, The Battlefield: of England (London I950), p.lSl. Pamela Tudor-Craig. Richard III (National Portrait Gallery, I973), p.73. 22. Richmond, p.18. 23. Huuon, pp.268-7l. 24. William Burton, The Description of Micesler Shire (London I622), p.47. See also Daniel Williams, William Burton's I642 Revised Edition of the ‘Description of Leicestershire’, Transaclion: of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society. vol. 50 0974-5), pp.30-36; and O. D. Harris, The Bosworth Commemoration at Dadlington. 77m Ritardian. no. 90 (I985), p.l27 n.8, 25. Burton, p.l l. 26. B. L. Gimson and P. Russell, leiceslershire Maps: 0 Brief Survey (Leicester I947). pp.l-6. 27. Daniel Williams, William Hutton and the Eighteenth Century Rediscovery of Bosworlh Field. The Leicestershire Historian. vol. 3 no. 3 (1984/5). p.7. 28. Hutton, plan opposile p.l; pp.66—70. Hullon‘s dimensions for the field are 2 miles by 1 mile, and an area of 1500 acres: these figures would seem to be mutunlly contradictory, but are far closer to the area shown on Hutton‘s plan than to the large field of the county maps. 29. Morden‘s I695 map shows both names, but in a similar style to one another. Bowen‘s I756 map gives the name Radmore Plain to the whole field, marking the site of battle on its northern part. 30. Him‘kley Parish Church Magazine. N.S. no. 246 (June I9ll). Summarised in H. J. Francis, A History of Hinckley (Hinckley I930), p.33. 3l. There are thirteenth and fourteenth century references to ‘Redelondes‘ and ‘le Redehull' III the parish of Market Boswonh, i.e. north of the Tweed. G. F. Farnham, Leicestershire Medieval Village Nales. vol. 6 (Leicester I933). pp.l78; 180. . The Great Chronicle of London. ed. A. H. Thomas and l. D. Thornley (London I938), pp.237-8. . [Robert Fabyan], The Newe Cranycles of Englande and of Fraum‘e (London l5l6), £230. . C. L. Kingsford (ed.). Chronicles of London (Oxford I905). p.193. . The Chronicle of Calais. ed. J. G. Nichols (Camden Society, vol. 35: l846), p.l. . Harris, pp.124-5. The printer of this appeal was Richard Pynson, who also primed Fnbyan‘s Newe Cranycles. 37. W. H. Black. A Deu-riplive Catalogue of Manuscripts. . . Bequealhed unto the University of Oxford by Elias Ashmole (Oxford I845). p.l400. The reference is presuman to flame! or Bosworlh. 38. For raw population data, see the Victoria Hismry of the Coumy of Leicesler. vol. 3 (London I955), pp.l6l-74. 39. Richmond. pp.l9-20. 40. For the Dadlinglon foundation in general, see Harris. op. oil; and Timmhy Parry, A Church for Baswarlh Field (Dadlinglon I985): reproduced from lypescripl. 41. Harris, p.125. Burton. p.82. 42. Harris. p.l27 n.8. Parry. pp.3-4. 43. Tudor-Craig. pp.77-8. . Burton, p.47. Hutton. pp.l28: l36—8; 246; 26l-8. Richard Brooke, Visits to Fields of Ban/e in England of the fifteenth Cenlury (London 1857), pp.l72-3. Gairdner. p.l4. Tudor-Craig. pp.70—8. Harris, p.l27 n.7. 45. Hutton, p.l29. 46. Burton, p.47. Bibliolheca Topographica Britannica. ed. J. Nichols, vol. 7 (London I790; reprinted New York I968), pp.lOO—l. Hutton, p.128. John Nichols. The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester. vol. 4.2 (London I!“ I). p.7l6. 47. Polydore Vergl'l (op. cit), p.226. 48. Hulton. pp.247-8. 49. It should be noted, however, that Saxton's depiction of hills is very inconsistent: A. H. W. Robinson, Christopher Saxton and the Mapping of the Leicestershire Landscape. in Leicestershire Geographical Essayx (Leicester Universily Geography Department. Occasional Paper I: l98l). p.68. 50. James Gairdner. Richard the Third. 2nd ed. (Cambridge 1898), p.235. Burnc. p.l40. Williams, William Hutton . . .. p.10.

206 SI. To take two extremes: Sir J. H. Ramsay (Lancaster and York. vol. 2 (Oxford l892), pp.546-50) suggests an attack from the north: and Albert Makinson (The Road to Bosworth Field, August I485, History Today. vol. l3 (I963). pp.239-49) one from the south-east. 52. Palydore Vergil (op. cit.), p.223. Burton, pp.l73-4. See also Anthony Goodman, The Wars of Ihe Roses (London 1983!), pp.92—3; and Bennett, pp.108-9. 53. Griffiths and Thomas, pp.l46-7 and Chapters IO and II passim. R. Horrox, Henry Tudor‘s Letters to England during Richard lll's Reign, The Ricardiln. no. 80 (I983). pp.lSS-8. 54. l! is interesting, if possibly misleading, to note that John Robinson. the local luminary of the late eighteenth century. believed that it was on record that the battle was fought at two o‘clock in the afternoon: Hutton, p.242; Williams. William Hutton . . ., p.l0. The suggestion that the battle occurred in the afternoon is fairly radical, and so it is worth stressing that none of the early sources say that it was in the morning; while several imply that Richard's forces were prepared for battle before the rebels appeared on the scene. 55. D. T. Williams. The Baltic of Boxwanh (Leicester I973), p.23 and map. See also Foss, pp.8-9. S6. British Library Map Library, Ordnance Survey Drawings, drawing no. 259: surveyed 18M. Stanley‘s camp was omitted from the First Edition lin. map based on this drawing (Sheet 63: I835), although other better known traditional sites were shown. 57. Hutton, pp.245-6. Gairdner, Battle of Bosworlh, pp.23—4. Williams. Battle of Boswonh. p.l5; ‘A place mete. . .‘, p.9l. 58. Ramsay, lac. cit. Hutton, p.247. Bennett, pp.98; 105; l09. 59. Hanham, pp.58; Ill-4. See also 0. D. Harris. Tudor Heraldry at Bosworlh. in J. Pain: (ed.), Richard III: Crown and People (forthcoming) n.6l. K. B. McFarlane, review in English Historical Review.‘vol. 78 (I963). pp.77I-2. In support of a position for Lord Stanley on the southern side of the field. and of some participation in the battle. is Molinet‘s statement (lac. cit. p.435) that Stanley attacked Richard‘s troops when they were already in flight. 60. Francis Drake, Eboracum (London I736), p.l22. 6 I. J. F. Hollings, Scene of the Death of Richard I", News and Queries, 2nd series vol. 6 (l858), pp.39l-2. 62. Foss. pp.6-7. 63. WiIIiams argues that [here is early evidence that Richard had died in a stream or a ditch in Molinet (op. cit.. p.435). and in a Welsh prophetic ode (Tudor-Craig, p.95): but the former actually refers to his death in a mire (‘en fange‘); and the latter is simply a poetic reference to a miserable end as a ‘dog in a dilch‘, and cannot be taken literally. 64. York Civic Records (op. cit.). pp.l18; III. II should also be noted that a number of the more accessible versions of this proclamation (e. g. S. B. Chrimes. Henry VII (London I972). p.5l). are derived from the edition in J. O. Halliwell (ed. ), Letters of the King: of England. vol. I (London l848), p.169, which incorporates a misleading omission. 65. Palydare Vergil (op. cit), p.22l. 66. Hutton. p.87.

207