Was Richard stabbed in the back?

It's Polydore Virgil – sound like something out of geometry – who reckons that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but Polydore was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've been a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier with Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the back by the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.

There's quite a difference between Richard fighting like Rambo and him trying to save his skin; someone has an axe to grind here I suspect.

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's Polydore Virgil – sound like something out of geometry – who reckons that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but Polydore was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've been a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier with Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the back by the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.
>

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> There's quite a difference between Richard fighting like Rambo and him trying to save his skin; someone has an axe to grind here I suspect.


Perpetually. Probably looking for free research via the old, old trick of throwing out a controversial statement into a group of people knowledgeable on the subject, then snarfling up the fruits of their research when they cite chapter and verse to refute whatever verbal bomb was thrown.

The best course may be "don't feed the trolls."

Kay



> --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > It's Polydore Virgil – sound like something out of geometry – who reckons that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but Polydore was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've been a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier with Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the back by the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.
> >
>

Three words in this comment makes me question if this is where the truth is to be found. French-Mercenary-Tudor

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 9:47 AM
Subject: Was Richard stabbed in the back?


 


It's Polydore Virgil  sound like something out of geometry  who reckons that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but Polydore was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've been a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier with Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the back by the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.

Agreed.  I think he was fought into the swamp--it is most certainly not a plan to flee through a fen.  He might have been many things, but he was not stupid.




>________________________________
>From: HI <hi.dung@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:01 AM
>Subject: Re: Was Richard stabbed in the back?
>
>
> 
>There's quite a difference between Richard fighting like Rambo and him trying to save his skin; someone has an axe to grind here I suspect.
>
>--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> It's Polydore Virgil  sound like something out of geometry  who reckons that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but Polydore was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've been a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier with Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the back by the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Here's what Croyland's third continuation
<http://www.r3.org/bookcase/croyland/croy9.html> has:
"...At length a glorious victory was granted by heaven to the said
earl of Richmond, now sole king, together with the crown, of
exceeding value, which king Richard had previously worn on his head. For
while fighting, and not in the act of flight, the said king Richard was
pierced with numerous deadly wounds, and fell in the field like a
brave and most valiant prince..."
I think this report is reliable. It's contemporary, and the third
continuator was no friend of Richard, from what we understand.

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...>
wrote:
>
> Agreed. I think he was fought into the swamp--it is most
certainly not a plan to flee through a fen. He might have been many
things, but he was not stupid.
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> >From: HI hi.dung@...
> >To:
> >Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:01 AM
> >Subject: Re: Was Richard stabbed in the
back?
> >
> >
> >Â
> >There's quite a difference between Richard fighting like Rambo and
him trying to save his skin; someone has an axe to grind here I suspect.
> >
> >--- In , "vermeertwo" hi.dung@
wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It's Polydore Virgil â€" sound like something out of geometry
â€" who reckons that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of
his enemies, but Polydore was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the
battle. Molinet, who may've been a French mercenary in the employ of
Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in the back while trying to flee
the field, which of course he'd done earlier with Brother Edward in 1470
following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and Clarence
resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the back by
the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

what makes you think molinet was a possible mercenary? can you cite the source of this inspiration?
 
roslyn

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 7:47:07 AM
Subject: Was Richard stabbed in the back?


 



It's Polydore Virgil  sound like something out of geometry  who reckons that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but Polydore was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've been a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier with Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the back by the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.

Neither Richard nor Edward EVER fled a field.
off mud slinging again vermeer.
Paul

On 19 Aug 2011, at 15:47, vermeertwo wrote:

>
>
> It's Polydore Virgil  sound like something out of geometry  who reckons that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but Polydore was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've been a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier with Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the back by the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Ditto. Thank you, Paul, for your chivalric service. 

I'm glad you popped in, after all, and rid us of the rubbish. 

Clearly it's that faux Vermeer (i.e., Vermeen, of the sort that breeds Y. pestis).

Judy 
My husband usually gives me whyte roses, this time of year; here's a Virtual Rose {*} plus Rue and Rosemary for Remembrance. 


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: Was Richard stabbed in the back?

Neither Richard nor Edward EVER fled a field.
off mud slinging again vermeer.
Paul

On 19 Aug 2011, at 15:47, vermeertwo wrote:

>
>
> It's Polydore Virgil  sound like something out of geometry  who reckons that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but Polydore was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle.  Molinet, who may've been a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier with Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and Clarence resurgence.  What is the truth?  That Richard was stabbed in the back by the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

I guess I'm not immensely popular on this website.

This is from the website below:

`His father's conflict with Henry VI was a major cause of the Wars of the Roses, which dominated Richard's early life. His father and older brother died at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460. In 1461, Richard's brother, Edward, became Edward IV and created him duke of Gloucester. In 1470, Edward and Richard were exiled when Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne. The following year, they returned to England and Richard contributed to the Yorkist victories at Barnet and Tewkesbury which restored Edward to the throne.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/richard_iii_king.shtml

If Richard and Edward were exiled, that means neither stood and fought!

And this from, DATE: c. 1490. AUTHOR: Jean Molinet, historiographer to Burgundian court.

http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html

"`The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the crown on his head; but when he saw this discomfiture and found himself alone on the field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a marsh from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.
And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously and filthily in the dirt and mire,"
Molinet was in a better position to comment about Bosworth than Polydore who didn't arrive in England until 1504. Tudor was exiled in France and had many French mercenaries in his band, who could've informed Molinet if he wasn't there himself.


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Neither Richard nor Edward EVER fled a field.
> off mud slinging again vermeer.
> Paul
>
> On 19 Aug 2011, at 15:47, vermeertwo wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > It's Polydore Virgil – sound like something out of geometry – who reckons that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but Polydore was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've been a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier with Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the back by the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

You're right about the first part.

The fact is that most historians praised Richard's courage, but that doesn't mean that he was an idiot, beyond a strategic retreat as in 1470.

I suggest you form a Henry VII Society: membership would remain slim I suspect.


--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> I guess I'm not immensely popular on this website.
>
> This is from the website below:
>
> `His father's conflict with Henry VI was a major cause of the Wars of the Roses, which dominated Richard's early life. His father and older brother died at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460. In 1461, Richard's brother, Edward, became Edward IV and created him duke of Gloucester. In 1470, Edward and Richard were exiled when Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne. The following year, they returned to England and Richard contributed to the Yorkist victories at Barnet and Tewkesbury which restored Edward to the throne.'
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/richard_iii_king.shtml
>
> If Richard and Edward were exiled, that means neither stood and fought!
>
> And this from, DATE: c. 1490. AUTHOR: Jean Molinet, historiographer to Burgundian court.
>
> http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html
>
> "`The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the crown on his head; but when he saw this discomfiture and found himself alone on the field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a marsh from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.
> And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously and filthily in the dirt and mire,"
> Molinet was in a better position to comment about Bosworth than Polydore who didn't arrive in England until 1504. Tudor was exiled in France and had many French mercenaries in his band, who could've informed Molinet if he wasn't there himself.
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Neither Richard nor Edward EVER fled a field.
> > off mud slinging again vermeer.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 19 Aug 2011, at 15:47, vermeertwo wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's Polydore Virgil – sound like something out of geometry – who reckons that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but Polydore was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've been a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier with Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the back by the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

'   "And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously
and filthily in the dirt and mire,"

Molinet was in a better position to comment about Bosworth than Polydore who
didn't arrive in England until 1504.'

Unfortunately he also has swallowed the Tudor version  whole,  judging by the
top sentence, since Richard was responsible for less deaths (I'm not referring
to those on the battlefield obviously) than the Tudors were, that's for sure! 
   


________________________________
From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 20 August, 2011 14:17:14
Subject: Re: Was Richard stabbed in the back?

 
I guess I'm not immensely popular on this website.

This is from the website below:

`His father's conflict with Henry VI was a major cause of the Wars of the Roses,
which dominated Richard's early life. His father and older brother died at the
Battle of Wakefield in 1460. In 1461, Richard's brother, Edward, became Edward
IV and created him duke of Gloucester. In 1470, Edward and Richard were exiled
when Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne. The following year, they
returned to England and Richard contributed to the Yorkist victories at Barnet
and Tewkesbury which restored Edward to the throne.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/richard_iii_king.shtml

If Richard and Edward were exiled, that means neither stood and fought!

And this from, DATE: c. 1490. AUTHOR: Jean Molinet, historiographer to
Burgundian court.


http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html

"`The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the crown
on his head; but when he saw this discomfiture and found himself alone on the
field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a marsh from
which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and
struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him
on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.

And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously and
filthily in the dirt and mire,"
Molinet was in a better position to comment about Bosworth than Polydore who
didn't arrive in England until 1504. Tudor was exiled in France and had many
French mercenaries in his band, who could've informed Molinet if he wasn't there
himself.


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
wrote:
>
> Neither Richard nor Edward EVER fled a field.
> off mud slinging again vermeer.
> Paul
>
> On 19 Aug 2011, at 15:47, vermeertwo wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > It's Polydore Virgil  sound like something out of geometry  who reckons
>that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but Polydore
>was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've been
>a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in
>the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier with
>Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and
>Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the back by
>the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Agree about strategic retreat. It was the right thing to do, live to fight another day and take back the throne from the Lancastrian usurper. Once John Neville went over to Warwick, Edward and Richard had no choice.

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> You're right about the first part.
>
> The fact is that most historians praised Richard's courage, but that doesn't mean that he was an idiot, beyond a strategic retreat as in 1470.
>
> I suggest you form a Henry VII Society: membership would remain slim I suspect.
>
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > I guess I'm not immensely popular on this website.
> >
> > This is from the website below:
> >
> > `His father's conflict with Henry VI was a major cause of the Wars of the Roses, which dominated Richard's early life. His father and older brother died at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460. In 1461, Richard's brother, Edward, became Edward IV and created him duke of Gloucester. In 1470, Edward and Richard were exiled when Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne. The following year, they returned to England and Richard contributed to the Yorkist victories at Barnet and Tewkesbury which restored Edward to the throne.'
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/richard_iii_king.shtml
> >
> > If Richard and Edward were exiled, that means neither stood and fought!
> >
> > And this from, DATE: c. 1490. AUTHOR: Jean Molinet, historiographer to Burgundian court.
> >
> > http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html
> >
> > "`The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the crown on his head; but when he saw this discomfiture and found himself alone on the field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a marsh from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.
> > And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously and filthily in the dirt and mire,"
> > Molinet was in a better position to comment about Bosworth than Polydore who didn't arrive in England until 1504. Tudor was exiled in France and had many French mercenaries in his band, who could've informed Molinet if he wasn't there himself.
> >
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Neither Richard nor Edward EVER fled a field.
> > > off mud slinging again vermeer.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 19 Aug 2011, at 15:47, vermeertwo wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's Polydore Virgil – sound like something out of geometry – who reckons that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but Polydore was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've been a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier with Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the back by the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

For an even closer report on the battle, here's an excerpt from a 1486
letter from Diego de Valera to the Catholic Kings. He's reporting a
description of Bosworth as told to him by Castillian taking part and
apparently physically close to Richard. Note that though de Valera prefaces
his letter with very negative views of Richard, when it comes to the point
of discussion, this is what he says Salazar told him:

"'When King Richard was certified of the near approach of Earl Henry in
battle array, he ordered his lines and entrusted the van to his grand
chamberlain with 7,000 fighting men. My Lord "Tamerlant" with King Richard's
left wing left his position and passed in front of the king's vanguard with
10,000 men, then, turning his back on Earl Henry, he began to fight fiercely
against the king's van, and so did all the others who had plighted their
faith to Earl Henry. Now when Salazar, your little vassal, who was there in
King Richard's service, saw the treason of the king's people, he went up to
him and said: "Sire, take steps to put your person in safety, without
expecting to have the victory in today's battle, owing to the manifest
treason in your following". But the king replied: "Salazar, God forbid I
yield one step. This day I will die as king or win". Then he placed over his
head-armour the crown royal, which they declare be worth 120,000 crowns, and
having donned his coat-of-arms began to fight with much vigour, putting
heart into those that remained loyal, so that by his sole effort he upheld
the battle for a long time. But in the end the king's army was beaten and he
himself was killed, and in this battle above 10,000 are said to have
perished, on both sides. Salazar fought bravely, but for all this was able
to escape. There died most of those who loyally served the king, and there
was lost all the king's treasure, which he brought with him into the field.
After winning this victory Earl Henry was at once acclaimed king by all
parties. He ordered the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage near
the place of battle, and had him covered from the waist downward with a
black rag of poor quality, ordering him to be exposed there for three days
to the universal gaze."

http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html

Molinet's report on Northumberland is also at odds with most other reports.
Most say he was there but did nothing (there's a theory that he was in a bad
position to do anything); Molinet says he retreated.

Maria
ejbronte@...






On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 1:54 PM, liz williams <
ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> ' "And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days
> iniquitously
> and filthily in the dirt and mire,"
>
> Molinet was in a better position to comment about Bosworth than Polydore
> who
> didn't arrive in England until 1504.'
>
> Unfortunately he also has swallowed the Tudor version whole, judging by
> the
> top sentence, since Richard was responsible for less deaths (I'm not
> referring
> to those on the battlefield obviously) than the Tudors were, that's for
> sure!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 20 August, 2011 14:17:14
>
> Subject: Re: Was Richard stabbed in the back?
>
>
> I guess I'm not immensely popular on this website.
>
> This is from the website below:
>
> `His father's conflict with Henry VI was a major cause of the Wars of the
> Roses,
> which dominated Richard's early life. His father and older brother died at
> the
> Battle of Wakefield in 1460. In 1461, Richard's brother, Edward, became
> Edward
> IV and created him duke of Gloucester. In 1470, Edward and Richard were
> exiled
> when Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne. The following year, they
> returned to England and Richard contributed to the Yorkist victories at
> Barnet
> and Tewkesbury which restored Edward to the throne.'
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/richard_iii_king.shtml
>
> If Richard and Edward were exiled, that means neither stood and fought!
>
> And this from, DATE: c. 1490. AUTHOR: Jean Molinet, historiographer to
> Burgundian court.
>
> http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html
>
> "`The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the
> crown
> on his head; but when he saw this discomfiture and found himself alone on
> the
> field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a marsh from
>
> which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after
> him, and
> struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before
> him
> on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.
>
> And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously
> and
> filthily in the dirt and mire,"
> Molinet was in a better position to comment about Bosworth than Polydore
> who
> didn't arrive in England until 1504. Tudor was exiled in France and had
> many
> French mercenaries in his band, who could've informed Molinet if he wasn't
> there
> himself.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Neither Richard nor Edward EVER fled a field.
> > off mud slinging again vermeer.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 19 Aug 2011, at 15:47, vermeertwo wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's Polydore Virgil ý sound like something out of geometry ý who
> reckons
> >that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but
> Polydore
> >was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've
> been
> >a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike
> in
> >the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier
> with
> >Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick
> and
> >Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the
> back by
> >the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

well..the info is sort of correct. however, e4 and r3 did not flee the battlefield to go into exile. they just "got outta town" when this aspect of the WoR 's tide turned against them. their cousin john neville had switched loyalty to the lancasterians.
 
btw..you haven't answered my question.
what caused you to think molinet was a possible mercenary for h7?
 
roslyn

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 6:17:14 AM
Subject: Re: Was Richard stabbed in the back?


 

I guess I'm not immensely popular on this website.

This is from the website below:

`His father's conflict with Henry VI was a major cause of the Wars of the Roses, which dominated Richard's early life. His father and older brother died at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460. In 1461, Richard's brother, Edward, became Edward IV and created him duke of Gloucester. In 1470, Edward and Richard were exiled when Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne. The following year, they returned to England and Richard contributed to the Yorkist victories at Barnet and Tewkesbury which restored Edward to the throne.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/richard_iii_king.shtml

If Richard and Edward were exiled, that means neither stood and fought!

And this from, DATE: c. 1490. AUTHOR: Jean Molinet, historiographer to Burgundian court.

http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html

"`The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the crown on his head; but when he saw this discomfiture and found himself alone on the field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a marsh from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.
And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously and filthily in the dirt and mire,"
Molinet was in a better position to comment about Bosworth than Polydore who didn't arrive in England until 1504. Tudor was exiled in France and had many French mercenaries in his band, who could've informed Molinet if he wasn't there himself.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Neither Richard nor Edward EVER fled a field.
> off mud slinging again vermeer.
> Paul
>
> On 19 Aug 2011, at 15:47, vermeertwo wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > It's Polydore Virgil  sound like something out of geometry  who reckons that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but Polydore was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've been a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike in the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier with Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick and Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the back by the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

I guess that if Richard III fought hard and, then, when he saw the day wasn't going his way, he made some attempt to retreat (who can blame him?) this was no shame and fits in with all accounts.

The trouble is that we weren't there and are the accounts really reliable? About as reliable as Laurence Olivier depicting Richard attempting to take on the entire Tudor army by himself.


--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> For an even closer report on the battle, here's an excerpt from a 1486
> letter from Diego de Valera to the Catholic Kings. He's reporting a
> description of Bosworth as told to him by Castillian taking part and
> apparently physically close to Richard. Note that though de Valera prefaces
> his letter with very negative views of Richard, when it comes to the point
> of discussion, this is what he says Salazar told him:
>
> "'When King Richard was certified of the near approach of Earl Henry in
> battle array, he ordered his lines and entrusted the van to his grand
> chamberlain with 7,000 fighting men. My Lord "Tamerlant" with King Richard's
> left wing left his position and passed in front of the king's vanguard with
> 10,000 men, then, turning his back on Earl Henry, he began to fight fiercely
> against the king's van, and so did all the others who had plighted their
> faith to Earl Henry. Now when Salazar, your little vassal, who was there in
> King Richard's service, saw the treason of the king's people, he went up to
> him and said: "Sire, take steps to put your person in safety, without
> expecting to have the victory in today's battle, owing to the manifest
> treason in your following". But the king replied: "Salazar, God forbid I
> yield one step. This day I will die as king or win". Then he placed over his
> head-armour the crown royal, which they declare be worth 120,000 crowns, and
> having donned his coat-of-arms began to fight with much vigour, putting
> heart into those that remained loyal, so that by his sole effort he upheld
> the battle for a long time. But in the end the king's army was beaten and he
> himself was killed, and in this battle above 10,000 are said to have
> perished, on both sides. Salazar fought bravely, but for all this was able
> to escape. There died most of those who loyally served the king, and there
> was lost all the king's treasure, which he brought with him into the field.
> After winning this victory Earl Henry was at once acclaimed king by all
> parties. He ordered the dead king to be placed in a little hermitage near
> the place of battle, and had him covered from the waist downward with a
> black rag of poor quality, ordering him to be exposed there for three days
> to the universal gaze."
>
> http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html
>
> Molinet's report on Northumberland is also at odds with most other reports.
> Most say he was there but did nothing (there's a theory that he was in a bad
> position to do anything); Molinet says he retreated.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 1:54 PM, liz williams <
> ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > ' "And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days
> > iniquitously
> > and filthily in the dirt and mire,"
> >
> > Molinet was in a better position to comment about Bosworth than Polydore
> > who
> > didn't arrive in England until 1504.'
> >
> > Unfortunately he also has swallowed the Tudor version whole, judging by
> > the
> > top sentence, since Richard was responsible for less deaths (I'm not
> > referring
> > to those on the battlefield obviously) than the Tudors were, that's for
> > sure!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 20 August, 2011 14:17:14
> >
> > Subject: Re: Was Richard stabbed in the back?
> >
> >
> > I guess I'm not immensely popular on this website.
> >
> > This is from the website below:
> >
> > `His father's conflict with Henry VI was a major cause of the Wars of the
> > Roses,
> > which dominated Richard's early life. His father and older brother died at
> > the
> > Battle of Wakefield in 1460. In 1461, Richard's brother, Edward, became
> > Edward
> > IV and created him duke of Gloucester. In 1470, Edward and Richard were
> > exiled
> > when Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne. The following year, they
> > returned to England and Richard contributed to the Yorkist victories at
> > Barnet
> > and Tewkesbury which restored Edward to the throne.'
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/richard_iii_king.shtml
> >
> > If Richard and Edward were exiled, that means neither stood and fought!
> >
> > And this from, DATE: c. 1490. AUTHOR: Jean Molinet, historiographer to
> > Burgundian court.
> >
> > http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html
> >
> > "`The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the
> > crown
> > on his head; but when he saw this discomfiture and found himself alone on
> > the
> > field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a marsh from
> >
> > which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after
> > him, and
> > struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before
> > him
> > on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.
> >
> > And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously
> > and
> > filthily in the dirt and mire,"
> > Molinet was in a better position to comment about Bosworth than Polydore
> > who
> > didn't arrive in England until 1504. Tudor was exiled in France and had
> > many
> > French mercenaries in his band, who could've informed Molinet if he wasn't
> > there
> > himself.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Neither Richard nor Edward EVER fled a field.
> > > off mud slinging again vermeer.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 19 Aug 2011, at 15:47, vermeertwo wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's Polydore Virgil – sound like something out of geometry – who
> > reckons
> > >that Richard died fighting manfully in the midst of his enemies, but
> > Polydore
> > >was more like Polygon in that he wasn't at the battle. Molinet, who may've
> > been
> > >a French mercenary in the employ of Tudor, reckons Richard received a pike
> > in
> > >the back while trying to flee the field, which of course he'd done earlier
> > with
> > >Brother Edward in 1470 following the Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, Warwick
> > and
> > >Clarence resurgence. What is the truth? That Richard was stabbed in the
> > back by
> > >the brutal Stanley brothers there can be no doubt.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>