Ton Robinson's battle of Bosworth

I was very disappointed with this program.No reasons were given for the battle,
in fact very little about the battle at all.Lots about cannon balls if that
interests you and dramatic revelations about the site of the battle which people
know already

Um, I only know (already) the battle site has shifted. Any specific info would
be most appreciated!

Cheers!
Judy



________________________________
From: carole jenkins <carolejenkins57@...>
To:
Sent: Thu, March 17, 2011 1:00:00 PM
Subject: Re:Ton Robinson's battle of Bosworth


I was very disappointed with this program.No reasons were given for the battle,
in fact very little about the battle at all.Lots about cannon balls if that
interests you and dramatic revelations about the site of the battle which people

know already

I was disappointed too Carole. I had been warned beforehand that it would concentrate on the weaponary but I would have liked a bit more input from someone who knew a bit more about the battle and its location.Peter Foss,Michael Jones and Peter Hammond spring to mind. I just feel that Glenn Foard is trying to claim that he is the first person to find the real site of the Battle. I believe that Peter Foss gave him pointers as to where to look. On the day that the find was disclosed to the media a friend from the Worcestershire branch of the Society and I did a Google maps search and the site that Foard has found appears to be very close to the sites suggested by Foss and Jones.

Also Glenn Foard's assertion that where the silver Boar was found was nwhere Richard died seems to me to be a bit niave as it appears that the Battle was fought over a large area and lots of people from Richard's household would have been present and wearing a silver Boar badge and it could have been dropped at anytime during the Battle. It needs a lot more investigation than has been done so far.

Worcestershire Branch have walked the site twice once with someone associated with Dadlington Church and once with Michael Jones. I just wish I could remember exactly where we were when Michael showed us where he thought the actual battle took place.

Also I feel the impression was given in the Time Team programme that Henry Tudor had a credible claim to the throne which is definitely not true. I am also puzzled that they haven't found any bones at all. Isn't there some evidence that there were burials at Dadlington and I believe that Michael Jones has identified a mound which could possibly be a burial ground.

The story coming from Foard also appears to be that this is the first time that we know of guns being used in battle. After the programme I carried on where I had left off reading Sharon K Penman's "Sunne in Splendour" and lo and behold it was the night before Barnett and Richard and his Squires were kept awake by Warwick's guns going off all night. As I am sure that you are aware Sharon Penman always thoroughly researches all her books and would not have included that just for the sake of it. So there is probably proof out there that they were using guns in 1471.
Sorry to rant on but I really feel strongly that there should be a very thorough investigation into this.

Regards

Mary

--- In , carole jenkins <carolejenkins57@...> wrote:
>
> I was very disappointed with this program.No reasons were given for the battle,
> in fact very little about the battle at all.Lots about cannon balls if that
> interests you and dramatic revelations about the site of the battle which people
> know already
>

I, for one, appreciate your rant, Ricardian.



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Fri, March 18, 2011 8:45:31 AM
Subject: Re:Ton Robinson's battle of Bosworth


I was disappointed too Carole. I had been warned beforehand that it would
concentrate on the weaponary but I would have liked a bit more input from
someone who knew a bit more about the battle and its location.Peter
Foss,Michael Jones and Peter Hammond spring to mind. I just feel that Glenn
Foard is trying to claim that he is the first person to find the real site of
the Battle. I believe that Peter Foss gave him pointers as to where to look. On
the day that the find was disclosed to the media a friend from the
Worcestershire branch of the Society and I did a Google maps search and the site
that Foard has found appears to be very close to the sites suggested by Foss and
Jones.


Also Glenn Foard's assertion that where the silver Boar was found was nwhere
Richard died seems to me to be a bit niave as it appears that the Battle was
fought over a large area and lots of people from Richard's household would have
been present and wearing a silver Boar badge and it could have been dropped at
anytime during the Battle. It needs a lot more investigation than has been done
so far.

Worcestershire Branch have walked the site twice once with someone associated
with Dadlington Church and once with Michael Jones. I just wish I could remember
exactly where we were when Michael showed us where he thought the actual battle
took place.


Also I feel the impression was given in the Time Team programme that Henry
Tudor had a credible claim to the throne which is definitely not true. I am also
puzzled that they haven't found any bones at all. Isn't there some evidence that
there were burials at Dadlington and I believe that Michael Jones has identified
a mound which could possibly be a burial ground.

The story coming from Foard also appears to be that this is the first time that
we know of guns being used in battle. After the programme I carried on where I
had left off reading Sharon K Penman's "Sunne in Splendour" and lo and behold it
was the night before Barnett and Richard and his Squires were kept awake by
Warwick's guns going off all night. As I am sure that you are aware Sharon
Penman always thoroughly researches all her books and would not have included
that just for the sake of it. So there is probably proof out there that they
were using guns in 1471.

Sorry to rant on but I really feel strongly that there should be a very thorough
investigation into this.

Regards

Mary

--- In , carole jenkins
<carolejenkins57@...> wrote:
>
> I was very disappointed with this program.No reasons were given for the battle,
>
> in fact very little about the battle at all.Lots about cannon balls if that
> interests you and dramatic revelations about the site of the battle which
>people
>
> know already
>

Yes, absolutely correct. Edward had his troops move up closer to Warwick under cover of a fog bank and Warwick's guns overshot their target by a long way.
Guns at Barnet, most definitely.
Paul

On 18 Mar 2011, at 13:45, ricard1an wrote:

> o and behold it was the night before Barnett and Richard and his Squires were kept awake by Warwick's guns going off all night.

I'm not denying guns, but weren't those mostly cannons?

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, absolutely correct. Edward had his troops move up closer to
Warwick under cover of a fog bank and Warwick's guns overshot their
target by a long way.
> Guns at Barnet, most definitely.
> Paul
>
> On 18 Mar 2011, at 13:45, ricard1an wrote:
>
> > o and behold it was the night before Barnett and Richard and his
Squires were kept awake by Warwick's guns going off all night.
>

Meant to add, I doubt the guns at that time would have had the range to
shoot over Edward's army. For the longer range shots I believe the
opposing army would have had to rely on arrows and cannon.

--- In , "joanszechtman"
<u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not denying guns, but weren't those mostly cannons?
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> paul.bale@ wrote:
> >
> > Yes, absolutely correct. Edward had his troops move up closer to
> Warwick under cover of a fog bank and Warwick's guns overshot their
> target by a long way.
> > Guns at Barnet, most definitely.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 18 Mar 2011, at 13:45, ricard1an wrote:
> >
> > > o and behold it was the night before Barnett and Richard and his
> Squires were kept awake by Warwick's guns going off all night.
> >
>

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Meant to add, I doubt the guns at that time would have had the range to
> shoot over Edward's army. For the longer range shots I believe the
> opposing army would have had to rely on arrows and cannon.
>

Important to define terms here. In military use 'gun' usually means artillery piece; rifle, carbine or musket personal firearms carried by soldiers. Though those latter three terms are perhaps better replaced by 'handgun' for the 15th C.

Artillery pieces were in use by English armies in the 14th century. Richard II (for example) took a whole artillery train to Ireland in 1399. It's the personal weapons that come in later, though I'm pretty confident they were used prior to Bosworth. Edward IV arrived in London in 1471 with a company of Flemish hand-gunners at the head of his forces. I don't think that was the first time they were seen in England either.

Brian W

Thank you muchly, Brian.

All this info is "crucial" to some of my writing.

Cheers!
Judy



________________________________
From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
To:
Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 9:20:11 AM
Subject: Re:Ton Robinson's battle of Bosworth




--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...>
wrote:
>
> Meant to add, I doubt the guns at that time would have had the range to
> shoot over Edward's army. For the longer range shots I believe the
> opposing army would have had to rely on arrows and cannon.
>

Important to define terms here. In military use 'gun' usually means artillery
piece; rifle, carbine or musket personal firearms carried by soldiers. Though
those latter three terms are perhaps better replaced by 'handgun' for the 15th
C.

Artillery pieces were in use by English armies in the 14th century. Richard II
(for example) took a whole artillery train to Ireland in 1399. It's the personal
weapons that come in later, though I'm pretty confident they were used prior to
Bosworth. Edward IV arrived in London in 1471 with a company of Flemish
hand-gunners at the head of his forces. I don't think that was the first time
they were seen in England either.

Brian W

according to all the experts this is exactly what they did. Edward's army was so close they could hear the chatter.
Paul

On 18 Mar 2011, at 20:28, joanszechtman wrote:

> Meant to add, I doubt the guns at that time would have had the range to
> shoot over Edward's army. For the longer range shots I believe the
> opposing army would have had to rely on arrows and cannon.
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman"
> <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not denying guns, but weren't those mostly cannons?
>>
>> Joan
>> ---
>> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
>> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
>> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
>> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
>> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>>
>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>> paul.bale@ wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, absolutely correct. Edward had his troops move up closer to
>> Warwick under cover of a fog bank and Warwick's guns overshot their
>> target by a long way.
>>> Guns at Barnet, most definitely.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 13:45, ricard1an wrote:
>>>
>>>> o and behold it was the night before Barnett and Richard and his
>> Squires were kept awake by Warwick's guns going off all night.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>