Armor
Armor
2012-10-17 16:21:24
A few posts ago I asked if anything remains from R3s armor or the battle of Bosworth
What would be the tactics at that time (welsh archers?) if the discovered skeleton is that of R3 how did he manage to be surrounded if he had both knights and a royal guard, I cannot believe that such a high profile target could be left in the open without serious errors of judgment ( I mentioned the battle of Wakefield as a example of incompetence by the Yorkist faction some years prior to Bosworth)
I would love to know what members think
Thanks
George
What would be the tactics at that time (welsh archers?) if the discovered skeleton is that of R3 how did he manage to be surrounded if he had both knights and a royal guard, I cannot believe that such a high profile target could be left in the open without serious errors of judgment ( I mentioned the battle of Wakefield as a example of incompetence by the Yorkist faction some years prior to Bosworth)
I would love to know what members think
Thanks
George
Re: Armor
2012-10-17 21:51:52
All men of the rank of esquire and above would have worn full steel plate armour - virtually impenetrable to arrows shot from longbows.
Richard was leading a charge at the enemy commanders in an attempt to end the battle quickly, he and his retinue were surrounded when the Stanleys changed sides and attacked them. Richard reputedly refused the opportunity to escape from the fight, preferring to have the issue decided there and then.
http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
http://www.richardiii.net/bosworth_battle.htm
Richard's apparently rash decision to charge may have been caused by his frustration at the lack of progress his army was making against the pike blocks used by Henry's French mercenaries - something the English were not used to facing.
________________________________
From: gbutterf1 <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2012, 16:21
Subject: Armor
A few posts ago I asked if anything remains from R3s armor or the battle of Bosworth
What would be the tactics at that time (welsh archers?) if the discovered skeleton is that of R3 how did he manage to be surrounded if he had both knights and a royal guard, I cannot believe that such a high profile target could be left in the open without serious errors of judgment ( I mentioned the battle of Wakefield as a example of incompetence by the Yorkist faction some years prior to Bosworth)
I would love to know what members think
Thanks
George
Richard was leading a charge at the enemy commanders in an attempt to end the battle quickly, he and his retinue were surrounded when the Stanleys changed sides and attacked them. Richard reputedly refused the opportunity to escape from the fight, preferring to have the issue decided there and then.
http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
http://www.richardiii.net/bosworth_battle.htm
Richard's apparently rash decision to charge may have been caused by his frustration at the lack of progress his army was making against the pike blocks used by Henry's French mercenaries - something the English were not used to facing.
________________________________
From: gbutterf1 <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2012, 16:21
Subject: Armor
A few posts ago I asked if anything remains from R3s armor or the battle of Bosworth
What would be the tactics at that time (welsh archers?) if the discovered skeleton is that of R3 how did he manage to be surrounded if he had both knights and a royal guard, I cannot believe that such a high profile target could be left in the open without serious errors of judgment ( I mentioned the battle of Wakefield as a example of incompetence by the Yorkist faction some years prior to Bosworth)
I would love to know what members think
Thanks
George
Re: Armor
2012-10-17 22:20:04
Thank you David
Both your reply and the attached links were very interesting.
I still have the feeling that R3 put a lot more trust in his army's capabilities than I would with 20/20 hindsight
On the second part of my question if anything remains of R3s armor when he was stripped or has it long gone placed on a victorious Tudor mantelpiece.
Have any recent digs at the new (Bosworth battleground) site unearthed anything
Regards
George
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 17, 2012, at 4:51 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> All men of the rank of esquire and above would have worn full steel plate armour - virtually impenetrable to arrows shot from longbows.
>
> Richard was leading a charge at the enemy commanders in an attempt to end the battle quickly, he and his retinue were surrounded when the Stanleys changed sides and attacked them. Richard reputedly refused the opportunity to escape from the fight, preferring to have the issue decided there and then.
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/bosworth_battle.htm
>
> Richard's apparently rash decision to charge may have been caused by his frustration at the lack of progress his army was making against the pike blocks used by Henry's French mercenaries - something the English were not used to facing.
>
> ________________________________
> From: gbutterf1 <gbutterf1@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2012, 16:21
> Subject: Armor
>
>
>
> A few posts ago I asked if anything remains from R3s armor or the battle of Bosworth
> What would be the tactics at that time (welsh archers?) if the discovered skeleton is that of R3 how did he manage to be surrounded if he had both knights and a royal guard, I cannot believe that such a high profile target could be left in the open without serious errors of judgment ( I mentioned the battle of Wakefield as a example of incompetence by the Yorkist faction some years prior to Bosworth)
> I would love to know what members think
> Thanks
> George
>
>
>
>
Both your reply and the attached links were very interesting.
I still have the feeling that R3 put a lot more trust in his army's capabilities than I would with 20/20 hindsight
On the second part of my question if anything remains of R3s armor when he was stripped or has it long gone placed on a victorious Tudor mantelpiece.
Have any recent digs at the new (Bosworth battleground) site unearthed anything
Regards
George
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 17, 2012, at 4:51 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> All men of the rank of esquire and above would have worn full steel plate armour - virtually impenetrable to arrows shot from longbows.
>
> Richard was leading a charge at the enemy commanders in an attempt to end the battle quickly, he and his retinue were surrounded when the Stanleys changed sides and attacked them. Richard reputedly refused the opportunity to escape from the fight, preferring to have the issue decided there and then.
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/bosworth_battle.htm
>
> Richard's apparently rash decision to charge may have been caused by his frustration at the lack of progress his army was making against the pike blocks used by Henry's French mercenaries - something the English were not used to facing.
>
> ________________________________
> From: gbutterf1 <gbutterf1@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2012, 16:21
> Subject: Armor
>
>
>
> A few posts ago I asked if anything remains from R3s armor or the battle of Bosworth
> What would be the tactics at that time (welsh archers?) if the discovered skeleton is that of R3 how did he manage to be surrounded if he had both knights and a royal guard, I cannot believe that such a high profile target could be left in the open without serious errors of judgment ( I mentioned the battle of Wakefield as a example of incompetence by the Yorkist faction some years prior to Bosworth)
> I would love to know what members think
> Thanks
> George
>
>
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 10:36:25
Considering the state Richard's body was in when displayed it is likely he was found like that and that scavengers, possibly locals, had been across the battlefield and stripped all the bodies of their valuables. Regarding the treatment of Richard's body see John Ashdown-Hill's 'Last Days of Richard III' for some interesting and enlightening ideas.
Paul
On 17 Oct 2012, at 16:21, gbutterf1 wrote:
> A few posts ago I asked if anything remains from R3s armor or the battle of Bosworth
> What would be the tactics at that time (welsh archers?) if the discovered skeleton is that of R3 how did he manage to be surrounded if he had both knights and a royal guard, I cannot believe that such a high profile target could be left in the open without serious errors of judgment ( I mentioned the battle of Wakefield as a example of incompetence by the Yorkist faction some years prior to Bosworth)
> I would love to know what members think
> Thanks
> George
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 17 Oct 2012, at 16:21, gbutterf1 wrote:
> A few posts ago I asked if anything remains from R3s armor or the battle of Bosworth
> What would be the tactics at that time (welsh archers?) if the discovered skeleton is that of R3 how did he manage to be surrounded if he had both knights and a royal guard, I cannot believe that such a high profile target could be left in the open without serious errors of judgment ( I mentioned the battle of Wakefield as a example of incompetence by the Yorkist faction some years prior to Bosworth)
> I would love to know what members think
> Thanks
> George
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 10:41:23
The latest theort George, based on the findings at the correct sight of the fighting, think that Henry had a platoon of French Pikemen with him, armed with 8 metre pikes similar to the Greek phalanx, and they were used to attack the side of Norfolk's vanguard and split that force in two. Richard would not have seen anything like this before, maybe only read about it from ancient times, and with Norfolk dead, and his army being decimated by these men he took is chance to try and finish the day without more unnecessary bloodshed and charged across to attempt to take out Henry himself and finish the day. In a way this was similar to his father leaving the safety of Sandal Castle to save some of his men. Both humane gestures sadly ended in the deaths of son and father.
Paul
On 17 Oct 2012, at 16:21, gbutterf1 wrote:
> A few posts ago I asked if anything remains from R3s armor or the battle of Bosworth
> What would be the tactics at that time (welsh archers?) if the discovered skeleton is that of R3 how did he manage to be surrounded if he had both knights and a royal guard, I cannot believe that such a high profile target could be left in the open without serious errors of judgment ( I mentioned the battle of Wakefield as a example of incompetence by the Yorkist faction some years prior to Bosworth)
> I would love to know what members think
> Thanks
> George
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 17 Oct 2012, at 16:21, gbutterf1 wrote:
> A few posts ago I asked if anything remains from R3s armor or the battle of Bosworth
> What would be the tactics at that time (welsh archers?) if the discovered skeleton is that of R3 how did he manage to be surrounded if he had both knights and a royal guard, I cannot believe that such a high profile target could be left in the open without serious errors of judgment ( I mentioned the battle of Wakefield as a example of incompetence by the Yorkist faction some years prior to Bosworth)
> I would love to know what members think
> Thanks
> George
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 17:21:58
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Considering the state Richard's body was in when displayed it is likely he was found like that and that scavengers, possibly locals, had been across the battlefield and stripped all the bodies of their valuables. Regarding the treatment of Richard's body see John Ashdown-Hill's 'Last Days of Richard III' for some interesting and enlightening ideas.
> Paul
Carol responds:
I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry. At any rate, it was customary to display bodies naked to the waist to insure recognition (as Edward IV did with the Nevilles). Henry Tudor et al. overdid it by slinging Richard's body naked over the back of a horse, but I doubt that they found him that way. I suspect that Henry himself had parts of Richard's armor and distributed the rest among his supporters, but we'll probably never know.
Carol, open to correction from anyone who has more information
>
> Considering the state Richard's body was in when displayed it is likely he was found like that and that scavengers, possibly locals, had been across the battlefield and stripped all the bodies of their valuables. Regarding the treatment of Richard's body see John Ashdown-Hill's 'Last Days of Richard III' for some interesting and enlightening ideas.
> Paul
Carol responds:
I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry. At any rate, it was customary to display bodies naked to the waist to insure recognition (as Edward IV did with the Nevilles). Henry Tudor et al. overdid it by slinging Richard's body naked over the back of a horse, but I doubt that they found him that way. I suspect that Henry himself had parts of Richard's armor and distributed the rest among his supporters, but we'll probably never know.
Carol, open to correction from anyone who has more information
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 20:46:28
--- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
>
> I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
From Marie:
I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
Cheers, Marie
>
> I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
From Marie:
I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
Cheers, Marie
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 20:48:51
He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
Subject: Re: Armor
--- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
>
> I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
From Marie:
I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
Cheers, Marie
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
Subject: Re: Armor
--- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
>
> I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
From Marie:
I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
Cheers, Marie
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 20:51:00
--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
But what about those head wounds?
Marie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> >
> > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
>
> From Marie:
> I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> Cheers, Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
But what about those head wounds?
Marie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> >
> > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
>
> From Marie:
> I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> Cheers, Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 21:46:48
Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
>
> But what about those head wounds?
> Marie
>
>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > Subject: Re: Armor
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> >
> > From Marie:
> > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > Cheers, Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
>
> But what about those head wounds?
> Marie
>
>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > Subject: Re: Armor
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> >
> > From Marie:
> > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > Cheers, Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 22:23:41
That's very likely - a knight overpowered by numbers was still difficult to kill. Pulling off the helm and striking the head would be the quickest way to dispatch. Also explains why the circlet may have been dislodged and lost in the melee.
Still doesn't explain that damned arrow, though.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 21:46
Subject: Re: Armor
Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
>
> But what about those head wounds?
> Marie
>
>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > Subject: Re: Armor
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> >
> > From Marie:
> > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > Cheers, Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Still doesn't explain that damned arrow, though.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 21:46
Subject: Re: Armor
Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
>
> But what about those head wounds?
> Marie
>
>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > Subject: Re: Armor
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> >
> > From Marie:
> > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > Cheers, Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 22:32:51
You can only imagine that an arrow to the back may have dislodged him from his saddle and numerous blows to his armor prior to losing his helm while surrounded by pikemen
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 18, 2012, at 4:46 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
> >
> > But what about those head wounds?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > From Marie:
> > > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > > Cheers, Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 18, 2012, at 4:46 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
> >
> > But what about those head wounds?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > From Marie:
> > > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > > Cheers, Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 23:04:17
If he was wearing his full crest and had his banner with him he was hardly a stealthy target
Any archer worth his salt would aim at him perhaps as he and his retinue passed across the line of battle this would present a shot to his back a less covered area.
It has been written that an arrow from a longbow was capable of penitrating armor perhaps the barbed point is a turned point that went on through his armor remember also that plunging fire was used extensively
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:23 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> That's very likely - a knight overpowered by numbers was still difficult to kill. Pulling off the helm and striking the head would be the quickest way to dispatch. Also explains why the circlet may have been dislodged and lost in the melee.
>
> Still doesn't explain that damned arrow, though.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
> Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
> >
> > But what about those head wounds?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > From Marie:
> > > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > > Cheers, Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
Any archer worth his salt would aim at him perhaps as he and his retinue passed across the line of battle this would present a shot to his back a less covered area.
It has been written that an arrow from a longbow was capable of penitrating armor perhaps the barbed point is a turned point that went on through his armor remember also that plunging fire was used extensively
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:23 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> That's very likely - a knight overpowered by numbers was still difficult to kill. Pulling off the helm and striking the head would be the quickest way to dispatch. Also explains why the circlet may have been dislodged and lost in the melee.
>
> Still doesn't explain that damned arrow, though.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
> Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
> >
> > But what about those head wounds?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > From Marie:
> > > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > > Cheers, Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 23:08:07
I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:04
Subject: Re: Armor
If he was wearing his full crest and had his banner with him he was hardly a stealthy target
Any archer worth his salt would aim at him perhaps as he and his retinue passed across the line of battle this would present a shot to his back a less covered area.
It has been written that an arrow from a longbow was capable of penitrating armor perhaps the barbed point is a turned point that went on through his armor remember also that plunging fire was used extensively
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:23 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> That's very likely - a knight overpowered by numbers was still difficult to kill. Pulling off the helm and striking the head would be the quickest way to dispatch. Also explains why the circlet may have been dislodged and lost in the melee.
>
> Still doesn't explain that damned arrow, though.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
> Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
> >
> > But what about those head wounds?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > From Marie:
> > > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > > Cheers, Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:04
Subject: Re: Armor
If he was wearing his full crest and had his banner with him he was hardly a stealthy target
Any archer worth his salt would aim at him perhaps as he and his retinue passed across the line of battle this would present a shot to his back a less covered area.
It has been written that an arrow from a longbow was capable of penitrating armor perhaps the barbed point is a turned point that went on through his armor remember also that plunging fire was used extensively
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:23 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> That's very likely - a knight overpowered by numbers was still difficult to kill. Pulling off the helm and striking the head would be the quickest way to dispatch. Also explains why the circlet may have been dislodged and lost in the melee.
>
> Still doesn't explain that damned arrow, though.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
> Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
> >
> > But what about those head wounds?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > From Marie:
> > > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > > Cheers, Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 23:27:04
Someone nailed through in a chink between plates? Someone shot through a hole already made with a more formidable weapon? If he's surrounded on land by weapon-wielding persons hacking away, a shot-in arrow could get lucky.
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 5:23 PM
>Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
>That's very likely - a knight overpowered by numbers was still difficult to kill. Pulling off the helm and striking the head would be the quickest way to dispatch. Also explains why the circlet may have been dislodged and lost in the melee.
>
>Still doesn't explain that damned arrow, though.
>
>________________________________
>From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 21:46
>Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
>Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
>
>--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>> >
>> > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
>>
>> But what about those head wounds?
>> Marie
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
>> > Subject: Re: Armor
>> >
>> >
>> > Â
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
>> > >
>> > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
>> >
>> > From Marie:
>> > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
>> > Cheers, Marie
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 5:23 PM
>Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
>That's very likely - a knight overpowered by numbers was still difficult to kill. Pulling off the helm and striking the head would be the quickest way to dispatch. Also explains why the circlet may have been dislodged and lost in the melee.
>
>Still doesn't explain that damned arrow, though.
>
>________________________________
>From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 21:46
>Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
>Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
>
>--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>> >
>> > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
>>
>> But what about those head wounds?
>> Marie
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
>> > Subject: Re: Armor
>> >
>> >
>> > Â
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
>> > >
>> > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
>> >
>> > From Marie:
>> > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
>> > Cheers, Marie
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 23:42:29
david rayner wrote:
>
> I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
Carol responds:
I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
Carol
>
> I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
Carol responds:
I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
Carol
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 23:43:19
Hi all,
I agree that Richard being overpowered and having his helmet wrenched off seems plausible. There is an interesting question, though, about the likely distance from him of the archer who fired the arrow that penetrated his armour. He may have been very close indeed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Range_and_penetration
--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> If he was wearing his full crest and had his banner with him he was hardly a stealthy target
> Any archer worth his salt would aim at him perhaps as he and his retinue passed across the line of battle this would present a shot to his back a less covered area.
> It has been written that an arrow from a longbow was capable of penitrating armor perhaps the barbed point is a turned point that went on through his armor remember also that plunging fire was used extensively
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:23 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> > That's very likely - a knight overpowered by numbers was still difficult to kill. Pulling off the helm and striking the head would be the quickest way to dispatch. Also explains why the circlet may have been dislodged and lost in the melee.
> >
> > Still doesn't explain that damned arrow, though.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 21:46
> > Subject: Re: Armor
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
> > >
> > > But what about those head wounds?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> > > >
> > > > From Marie:
> > > > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > > > Cheers, Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
I agree that Richard being overpowered and having his helmet wrenched off seems plausible. There is an interesting question, though, about the likely distance from him of the archer who fired the arrow that penetrated his armour. He may have been very close indeed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Range_and_penetration
--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> If he was wearing his full crest and had his banner with him he was hardly a stealthy target
> Any archer worth his salt would aim at him perhaps as he and his retinue passed across the line of battle this would present a shot to his back a less covered area.
> It has been written that an arrow from a longbow was capable of penitrating armor perhaps the barbed point is a turned point that went on through his armor remember also that plunging fire was used extensively
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:23 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> > That's very likely - a knight overpowered by numbers was still difficult to kill. Pulling off the helm and striking the head would be the quickest way to dispatch. Also explains why the circlet may have been dislodged and lost in the melee.
> >
> > Still doesn't explain that damned arrow, though.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 21:46
> > Subject: Re: Armor
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
> > >
> > > But what about those head wounds?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> > > >
> > > > From Marie:
> > > > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > > > Cheers, Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-18 23:58:21
That Azincourt vid again, about 20 minutes in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0
Poitiers and Crecy yes, iron armour loses to longbows. Not in the 15th C.
The problem with the "hunting arrow" theory is that by all accounts Richard and his party were surrounded and attacked, I find it difficult to picture his enemies creating enough space for anyone to get in an arrow shot, even at close range. However this does seem more credible than him being shot off his horse.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
Subject: Re: Armor
david rayner wrote:
>
> I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
Carol responds:
I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
Carol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0
Poitiers and Crecy yes, iron armour loses to longbows. Not in the 15th C.
The problem with the "hunting arrow" theory is that by all accounts Richard and his party were surrounded and attacked, I find it difficult to picture his enemies creating enough space for anyone to get in an arrow shot, even at close range. However this does seem more credible than him being shot off his horse.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
Subject: Re: Armor
david rayner wrote:
>
> I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
Carol responds:
I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
Carol
Re: Armor
2012-10-19 00:20:46
... [I]n the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal.[25]
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:42 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> david rayner wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
>
> http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
>
> The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
>
> Carol
>
>
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:42 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> david rayner wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
>
> http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
>
> The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-19 00:22:36
Why not just kill the horse ?
It was less armored and a bigger target
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:58 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> That Azincourt vid again, about 20 minutes in:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0
>
> Poitiers and Crecy yes, iron armour loses to longbows. Not in the 15th C.
>
> The problem with the "hunting arrow" theory is that by all accounts Richard and his party were surrounded and attacked, I find it difficult to picture his enemies creating enough space for anyone to get in an arrow shot, even at close range. However this does seem more credible than him being shot off his horse.
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
> david rayner wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
>
> http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
>
> The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
It was less armored and a bigger target
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:58 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> That Azincourt vid again, about 20 minutes in:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0
>
> Poitiers and Crecy yes, iron armour loses to longbows. Not in the 15th C.
>
> The problem with the "hunting arrow" theory is that by all accounts Richard and his party were surrounded and attacked, I find it difficult to picture his enemies creating enough space for anyone to get in an arrow shot, even at close range. However this does seem more credible than him being shot off his horse.
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
> david rayner wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
>
> http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
>
> The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-19 00:32:15
One story is that the King's horse got stuck in the swamp. It was only when they saw this that the Stanleys decided to attack.
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012, 0:22
Subject: Re: Armor
Why not just kill the horse ?
It was less armored and a bigger target
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:58 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> That Azincourt vid again, about 20 minutes in:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0
>
> Poitiers and Crecy yes, iron armour loses to longbows. Not in the 15th C.
>
> The problem with the "hunting arrow" theory is that by all accounts Richard and his party were surrounded and attacked, I find it difficult to picture his enemies creating enough space for anyone to get in an arrow shot, even at close range. However this does seem more credible than him being shot off his horse.
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
> david rayner wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
>
> http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
>
> The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012, 0:22
Subject: Re: Armor
Why not just kill the horse ?
It was less armored and a bigger target
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:58 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> That Azincourt vid again, about 20 minutes in:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0
>
> Poitiers and Crecy yes, iron armour loses to longbows. Not in the 15th C.
>
> The problem with the "hunting arrow" theory is that by all accounts Richard and his party were surrounded and attacked, I find it difficult to picture his enemies creating enough space for anyone to get in an arrow shot, even at close range. However this does seem more credible than him being shot off his horse.
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
> david rayner wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
>
> http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
>
> The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-19 01:43:59
There's always the possibility that it was done after he was stripped.
I wouldn't put it pass them that his body would be misused.
Gilda
On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:58 PM, david rayner wrote:
> That Azincourt vid again, about 20 minutes in:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0
>
>
> Poitiers and Crecy yes, iron armour loses to longbows. Not in the
> 15th C.
>
> The problem with the "hunting arrow" theory is that by all accounts
> Richard and his party were surrounded and attacked, I find it
> difficult to picture his enemies creating enough space for anyone to
> get in an arrow shot, even at close range. However this does seem
> more credible than him being shot off his horse.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
> david rayner wrote:
>>
>> I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour;
>> certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery
>> that even the dig may not be able to solve.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before
> (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of
> you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
>
> http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
>
> The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
I wouldn't put it pass them that his body would be misused.
Gilda
On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:58 PM, david rayner wrote:
> That Azincourt vid again, about 20 minutes in:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0
>
>
> Poitiers and Crecy yes, iron armour loses to longbows. Not in the
> 15th C.
>
> The problem with the "hunting arrow" theory is that by all accounts
> Richard and his party were surrounded and attacked, I find it
> difficult to picture his enemies creating enough space for anyone to
> get in an arrow shot, even at close range. However this does seem
> more credible than him being shot off his horse.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
>
> david rayner wrote:
>>
>> I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour;
>> certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery
>> that even the dig may not be able to solve.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before
> (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of
> you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
>
> http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
>
> The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-19 01:50:49
Did archers get involved in sudden rapid charges, or was their role simply to stand their ground and shoot? I'm trying to work out whose archer is likely to have shot Richard in the back. He was between Richard and Henry. But he was maybe no more than 10 yards away from him. One of Sir William Stanley's men, or one of Henry's Welsh archers?
Marie
--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> One story is that the King's horse got stuck in the swamp. It was only when they saw this that the Stanleys decided to attack.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012, 0:22
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
> Â
> Why not just kill the horse ?
> It was less armored and a bigger target
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:58 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> > That Azincourt vid again, about 20 minutes in:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0
> >
> > Poitiers and Crecy yes, iron armour loses to longbows. Not in the 15th C.
> >
> > The problem with the "hunting arrow" theory is that by all accounts Richard and his party were surrounded and attacked, I find it difficult to picture his enemies creating enough space for anyone to get in an arrow shot, even at close range. However this does seem more credible than him being shot off his horse.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
> > Subject: Re: Armor
> >
> >
> >
> > david rayner wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
> >
> > http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
> >
> > The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
> >
> > http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> One story is that the King's horse got stuck in the swamp. It was only when they saw this that the Stanleys decided to attack.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012, 0:22
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
> Â
> Why not just kill the horse ?
> It was less armored and a bigger target
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:58 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> > That Azincourt vid again, about 20 minutes in:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0
> >
> > Poitiers and Crecy yes, iron armour loses to longbows. Not in the 15th C.
> >
> > The problem with the "hunting arrow" theory is that by all accounts Richard and his party were surrounded and attacked, I find it difficult to picture his enemies creating enough space for anyone to get in an arrow shot, even at close range. However this does seem more credible than him being shot off his horse.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
> > Subject: Re: Armor
> >
> >
> >
> > david rayner wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
> >
> > http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
> >
> > The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
> >
> > http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-19 02:14:06
Archers typically would carry a stave sharpened post or spear once in position then they would stick the deterrant {anti cavelry} and fire from a fixed position during the battle the may have been ordered to advance with whatever impliment they had and attack specific targets, it is possible that a skirmish line was sent out to select targets of opportunity using cavelry as support.
On Oct 18, 2012, at 8:50 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Did archers get involved in sudden rapid charges, or was their role simply to stand their ground and shoot? I'm trying to work out whose archer is likely to have shot Richard in the back. He was between Richard and Henry. But he was maybe no more than 10 yards away from him. One of Sir William Stanley's men, or one of Henry's Welsh archers?
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> >
> > One story is that the King's horse got stuck in the swamp. It was only when they saw this that the Stanleys decided to attack.ý
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012, 0:22
> > Subject: Re: Armor
> >
> >
> > ý
> > Why not just kill the horse ?
> > It was less armored and a bigger target
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:58 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> >
> > > That Azincourt vid again, about 20 minutes in:
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0
> > >
> > > Poitiers and Crecy yes, iron armour loses to longbows. Not in the 15th C.
> > >
> > > The problem with the "hunting arrow" theory is that by all accounts Richard and his party were surrounded and attacked, I find it difficult to picture his enemies creating enough space for anyone to get in an arrow shot, even at close range. However this does seem more credible than him being shot off his horse.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
> > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > david rayner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
> > >
> > > http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
> > >
> > > The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
> > >
> > > http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
On Oct 18, 2012, at 8:50 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Did archers get involved in sudden rapid charges, or was their role simply to stand their ground and shoot? I'm trying to work out whose archer is likely to have shot Richard in the back. He was between Richard and Henry. But he was maybe no more than 10 yards away from him. One of Sir William Stanley's men, or one of Henry's Welsh archers?
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> >
> > One story is that the King's horse got stuck in the swamp. It was only when they saw this that the Stanleys decided to attack.ý
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012, 0:22
> > Subject: Re: Armor
> >
> >
> > ý
> > Why not just kill the horse ?
> > It was less armored and a bigger target
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:58 PM, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> >
> > > That Azincourt vid again, about 20 minutes in:
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0
> > >
> > > Poitiers and Crecy yes, iron armour loses to longbows. Not in the 15th C.
> > >
> > > The problem with the "hunting arrow" theory is that by all accounts Richard and his party were surrounded and attacked, I find it difficult to picture his enemies creating enough space for anyone to get in an arrow shot, even at close range. However this does seem more credible than him being shot off his horse.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
> > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > david rayner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe that a longbow arrow could penetrate 15th C armour; certainly it couldn't knock a knight from his horse. Its a mystery that even the dig may not be able to solve.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I don't know if anyone has posted links to these two articles before (posts tend to get lost around here), but they may interest some of you, especially the first one, which is fairly recent:
> > >
> > > http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
> > >
> > > The other is from the Ricardian, 1974:
> > >
> > > http://www.richardiii.net/PDFS/scan_yeoman_armour.pdf
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-19 10:42:24
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
Subject: Re: Armor
> http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
Very plausible article. To quote 'Hamlet', "There's such divinity doth hedge a king" that I could quite imagine Richard being encircled by soldiers hesitant to strike the first blow until the archer's intervention. And if the shot came from behind, that makes it easier to get past the aura possessed by an anointed monarch.
This from a friend of mine of who uses the longbow in re-enactments and archery demonstrations, and whose period spans Agincourt to Tewkesbury:
"They would penetrate plate @ around 100m. Imagine a bag of sugar hitting you at around 40mph with a sharp point."
Jonathan
________________________________
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 23:42
Subject: Re: Armor
> http://www.lostincastles.com/lost-in-castles/2012/9/15/if-this-is-richard-why-is-there-an-arrow-in-his-back.html#.UICEfSyf-So
Very plausible article. To quote 'Hamlet', "There's such divinity doth hedge a king" that I could quite imagine Richard being encircled by soldiers hesitant to strike the first blow until the archer's intervention. And if the shot came from behind, that makes it easier to get past the aura possessed by an anointed monarch.
This from a friend of mine of who uses the longbow in re-enactments and archery demonstrations, and whose period spans Agincourt to Tewkesbury:
"They would penetrate plate @ around 100m. Imagine a bag of sugar hitting you at around 40mph with a sharp point."
Jonathan
________________________________
Re: Armor
2012-10-19 11:27:56
I don't think his helmet was removed, a strike from behind with a pole axe would possibly come upwards first and inflict a mortal wound immedietely and a further strike to the top with the spike of the pole axe would enter the brain again, another mortal blow. Richard would have died immediately.
It is worth looking at the Blood Red Rose battle of Towton injuries to show what wounds could be inflicted. Rather nasty.
God Bless Richard
Christine
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 22:32
Subject: Re: Armor
You can only imagine that an arrow to the back may have dislodged him from his saddle and numerous blows to his armor prior to losing his helm while surrounded by pikemen
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 18, 2012, at 4:46 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> wrote:
> Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
> >
> > But what about those head wounds?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > From Marie:
> > > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > > Cheers, Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
It is worth looking at the Blood Red Rose battle of Towton injuries to show what wounds could be inflicted. Rather nasty.
God Bless Richard
Christine
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 22:32
Subject: Re: Armor
You can only imagine that an arrow to the back may have dislodged him from his saddle and numerous blows to his armor prior to losing his helm while surrounded by pikemen
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 18, 2012, at 4:46 PM, "EileenB" <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> wrote:
> Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
> >
> > But what about those head wounds?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > From Marie:
> > > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > > Cheers, Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: Armor
2012-10-19 13:52:44
Probably on his knees at that moment....I should imagine this will all be made clear in the near future as they will be able to tell what angle the blow came from....Eileen
--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> That's very likely - a knight overpowered by numbers was still difficult to kill. Pulling off the helm and striking the head would be the quickest way to dispatch. Also explains why the circlet may have been dislodged and lost in the melee.
>
> Still doesn't explain that damned arrow, though.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
> Â
> Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
> >
> > But what about those head wounds?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > From Marie:
> > > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > > Cheers, Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> That's very likely - a knight overpowered by numbers was still difficult to kill. Pulling off the helm and striking the head would be the quickest way to dispatch. Also explains why the circlet may have been dislodged and lost in the melee.
>
> Still doesn't explain that damned arrow, though.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 21:46
> Subject: Re: Armor
>
>
> Â
> Richard's helmet may have been wrenched off his head to enable them to deal a death blow...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > He wore a helmet with a golden circlet mounted on it - the Royal crown would have been too unwieldy to wear in battle.
> >
> > But what about those head wounds?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 20:46
> > > Subject: Re: Armor
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <> Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I'm no authority on Bosworth or battles in general, but since William Stanley's and/or Rhys ap Thomas's men knew quite well whom they were killing, I rather doubt that the captains allowed looters to strip his body. They probably did it themselves (with Henry's leave). I suspect that the coronet on a thornbush story is apocryphal and that it was still attached to his helmet when Stanley removed it to present it to Henry.
> > >
> > > From Marie:
> > > I've been wondering about the helmet. Assuming the Greyfriars Warrior is Richard, Will we get an expert opinion on whether the head wounds would have been inflicted with or without helmet in place? I am starting to wonder, perhaps insanely, whether the clue to Richard's being said to have gone into battle wearing the crown of England may even have been that he wore the real crown INSTEAD OF a helmet. What does everyoen think?
> > > Cheers, Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.