Re: Where was Northumberland? (was Re: Battle weapons)

Ishita Bandyo wrote:

"Even if the charge was not a premeditated suicidal mission, it was a not
one that a battle commander of Richard's calibre should have made. Did he
truly believe the Stanley's were going to have his back? After they refused
to budge after so many requests? Again, I am NOT an expert by any stretch of
imagination. But even in my limited knowledge I would venture to guess that
R did not really expect any help from the Stanleys.....
And yes, Richard was too brave for his own good:"

I'm with Carol in this. I don't see any fault in Richard's decision to
personally enter the battle - unless one assumes he knew Northmberland was
going to betray him. Even then, I can't see Richard making any suicidal
charges; having Northumberland executed on the spot, yes.
At any rate, I base my conclusions on the following:
1) Tudor's troops are drawn up for battle under the command of Oxford.
2) Richard sends Norfolk down, or into, battle.
3) The fighting is basically a draw UNTIL Norfolk is killed. It is then, and
only then, that the Yorkist troops began to fall back.
4) Richard enters the battle with an undetermined number of followers, while
Northumberland remains in reserve; whether on Ambion Hill or some other
spot.
5) Richard and his followers apparently re-animate the Yorkists to the
extent that Richard nearly reaches Tudor before being cut down himself. His
death occurs because:
6) Once Richard has separated himself and his immediate followers from
Northumberland and his troops, Stanley enters the battle - on Tudor's side.
7) It is Stanley's men attacking the Yorkists from the flank (always the
most sensitive sector in any battle) that throws the Yorkists into disarray
and allows the now combined followers of Tudor and Stanley to overwhelm
Richard and those defending him.
Notice who's missing in almost all of this - the The Earl of Northumberland!
Why did Stanley attack AFTER Richard and Northumberland separated? Why did
he wait? The only answer I can come up with is that Stanley waited until
Richard and Northumberland were separated because Stanley didn't have enough
men to defeat the combined forces available to Richard and Northumberland
and if he tried to attack Richard while the King was with Northumberland,
Northumberland's troops would fight - on Richard's side. In other words,
Stanley had enough men to turn the battle in Tudor's favor, but only if
Richard was separated from Northumberland and the latter remained on the
sidelines AFTER Stanley entered the battle.
Which means, to me anyway, that Northumberland deliberately betrayed
Richard.
I hope I haven't been too long-winded and please feel free to make any
corrections if I've gotten something wrong!
Doug

Hi,
 I think it is also forgottten that the Percy's were origionally Lancastrians, so maybe thats one reason for Northumberlands actions, also that his power in the north had to some extent been curtailed by Richard. Richard's nephew John was head of the Council of the North.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2013, 7:40
Subject: Re: Where was Northumberland? (was Re: Battle weapons)


 


Ishita Bandyo wrote:

"Even if the charge was not a premeditated suicidal mission, it was a not
one that a battle commander of Richard's calibre should have made. Did he
truly believe the Stanley's were going to have his back? After they refused
to budge after so many requests? Again, I am NOT an expert by any stretch of
imagination. But even in my limited knowledge I would venture to guess that
R did not really expect any help from the Stanleys.....
And yes, Richard was too brave for his own good:"

I'm with Carol in this. I don't see any fault in Richard's decision to
personally enter the battle - unless one assumes he knew Northmberland was
going to betray him. Even then, I can't see Richard making any suicidal
charges; having Northumberland executed on the spot, yes.
At any rate, I base my conclusions on the following:
1) Tudor's troops are drawn up for battle under the command of Oxford.
2) Richard sends Norfolk down, or into, battle.
3) The fighting is basically a draw UNTIL Norfolk is killed. It is then, and
only then, that the Yorkist troops began to fall back.
4) Richard enters the battle with an undetermined number of followers, while
Northumberland remains in reserve; whether on Ambion Hill or some other
spot.
5) Richard and his followers apparently re-animate the Yorkists to the
extent that Richard nearly reaches Tudor before being cut down himself. His
death occurs because:
6) Once Richard has separated himself and his immediate followers from
Northumberland and his troops, Stanley enters the battle - on Tudor's side.
7) It is Stanley's men attacking the Yorkists from the flank (always the
most sensitive sector in any battle) that throws the Yorkists into disarray
and allows the now combined followers of Tudor and Stanley to overwhelm
Richard and those defending him.
Notice who's missing in almost all of this - the The Earl of Northumberland!
Why did Stanley attack AFTER Richard and Northumberland separated? Why did
he wait? The only answer I can come up with is that Stanley waited until
Richard and Northumberland were separated because Stanley didn't have enough
men to defeat the combined forces available to Richard and Northumberland
and if he tried to attack Richard while the King was with Northumberland,
Northumberland's troops would fight - on Richard's side. In other words,
Stanley had enough men to turn the battle in Tudor's favor, but only if
Richard was separated from Northumberland and the latter remained on the
sidelines AFTER Stanley entered the battle.
Which means, to me anyway, that Northumberland deliberately betrayed
Richard.
I hope I haven't been too long-winded and please feel free to make any
corrections if I've gotten something wrong!
Doug

Douglas...an excellent post.

And a pox on Northumberland....treacherous swine if there ever was one...Am so glad he got his comeuppance later on...No wonder it is said that Richard's last shouts were 'Treason, treason, treason!"

Eileen
On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:40, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:

>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> "Even if the charge was not a premeditated suicidal mission, it was a not
> one that a battle commander of Richard's calibre should have made. Did he
> truly believe the Stanley's were going to have his back? After they refused
> to budge after so many requests? Again, I am NOT an expert by any stretch of
> imagination. But even in my limited knowledge I would venture to guess that
> R did not really expect any help from the Stanleys.....
> And yes, Richard was too brave for his own good:"
>
> I'm with Carol in this. I don't see any fault in Richard's decision to
> personally enter the battle - unless one assumes he knew Northmberland was
> going to betray him. Even then, I can't see Richard making any suicidal
> charges; having Northumberland executed on the spot, yes.
> At any rate, I base my conclusions on the following:
> 1) Tudor's troops are drawn up for battle under the command of Oxford.
> 2) Richard sends Norfolk down, or into, battle.
> 3) The fighting is basically a draw UNTIL Norfolk is killed. It is then, and
> only then, that the Yorkist troops began to fall back.
> 4) Richard enters the battle with an undetermined number of followers, while
> Northumberland remains in reserve; whether on Ambion Hill or some other
> spot.
> 5) Richard and his followers apparently re-animate the Yorkists to the
> extent that Richard nearly reaches Tudor before being cut down himself. His
> death occurs because:
> 6) Once Richard has separated himself and his immediate followers from
> Northumberland and his troops, Stanley enters the battle - on Tudor's side.
> 7) It is Stanley's men attacking the Yorkists from the flank (always the
> most sensitive sector in any battle) that throws the Yorkists into disarray
> and allows the now combined followers of Tudor and Stanley to overwhelm
> Richard and those defending him.
> Notice who's missing in almost all of this - the The Earl of Northumberland!
> Why did Stanley attack AFTER Richard and Northumberland separated? Why did
> he wait? The only answer I can come up with is that Stanley waited until
> Richard and Northumberland were separated because Stanley didn't have enough
> men to defeat the combined forces available to Richard and Northumberland
> and if he tried to attack Richard while the King was with Northumberland,
> Northumberland's troops would fight - on Richard's side. In other words,
> Stanley had enough men to turn the battle in Tudor's favor, but only if
> Richard was separated from Northumberland and the latter remained on the
> sidelines AFTER Stanley entered the battle.
> Which means, to me anyway, that Northumberland deliberately betrayed
> Richard.
> I hope I haven't been too long-winded and please feel free to make any
> corrections if I've gotten something wrong!
> Doug
>
>

Not long winded at all! Very good post, Doug.
One question that still bothers me is did R truly think Stanley brothers were trustworthy enough to have his flank exposed?
Percy was a Lancastrian and probably that's a reason for him to not aid Richard? How horrible must Richard have felt with all these betrayals!

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Jan 13, 2013, at 2:40 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> "Even if the charge was not a premeditated suicidal mission, it was a not
> one that a battle commander of Richard's calibre should have made. Did he
> truly believe the Stanley's were going to have his back? After they refused
> to budge after so many requests? Again, I am NOT an expert by any stretch of
> imagination. But even in my limited knowledge I would venture to guess that
> R did not really expect any help from the Stanleys.....
> And yes, Richard was too brave for his own good:"
>
> I'm with Carol in this. I don't see any fault in Richard's decision to
> personally enter the battle - unless one assumes he knew Northmberland was
> going to betray him. Even then, I can't see Richard making any suicidal
> charges; having Northumberland executed on the spot, yes.
> At any rate, I base my conclusions on the following:
> 1) Tudor's troops are drawn up for battle under the command of Oxford.
> 2) Richard sends Norfolk down, or into, battle.
> 3) The fighting is basically a draw UNTIL Norfolk is killed. It is then, and
> only then, that the Yorkist troops began to fall back.
> 4) Richard enters the battle with an undetermined number of followers, while
> Northumberland remains in reserve; whether on Ambion Hill or some other
> spot.
> 5) Richard and his followers apparently re-animate the Yorkists to the
> extent that Richard nearly reaches Tudor before being cut down himself. His
> death occurs because:
> 6) Once Richard has separated himself and his immediate followers from
> Northumberland and his troops, Stanley enters the battle - on Tudor's side.
> 7) It is Stanley's men attacking the Yorkists from the flank (always the
> most sensitive sector in any battle) that throws the Yorkists into disarray
> and allows the now combined followers of Tudor and Stanley to overwhelm
> Richard and those defending him.
> Notice who's missing in almost all of this - the The Earl of Northumberland!
> Why did Stanley attack AFTER Richard and Northumberland separated? Why did
> he wait? The only answer I can come up with is that Stanley waited until
> Richard and Northumberland were separated because Stanley didn't have enough
> men to defeat the combined forces available to Richard and Northumberland
> and if he tried to attack Richard while the King was with Northumberland,
> Northumberland's troops would fight - on Richard's side. In other words,
> Stanley had enough men to turn the battle in Tudor's favor, but only if
> Richard was separated from Northumberland and the latter remained on the
> sidelines AFTER Stanley entered the battle.
> Which means, to me anyway, that Northumberland deliberately betrayed
> Richard.
> I hope I haven't been too long-winded and please feel free to make any
> corrections if I've gotten something wrong!
> Doug
>
>

Richard Yahoo wrote:
" Not long winded at all! Very good post, Doug.
One question that still bothers me is did R truly think Stanley brothers
were trustworthy enough to have his flank exposed?
Percy was a Lancastrian and probably that's a reason for him to not aid
Richard? How horrible must Richard have felt with all these betrayals!"

Oh good! One of my biggest problems when I was in the Navy was being
long-winded when I had to write reports/evaluations. Apparently I've made
progress!
As for trusting the Stanleys, my point is that Richard believed he had that
problem covered by the reserves that remained under the command of
Northumberland. IF Stanley made any move towards the battle, THEN
Northumberland was supposed to act as a counter by moving against Stanley.
Which Northumberland refused to do.
I'd forgotten Percy supported the Lancastrian side and, as Christine
mentioned, that Richard's nephew led the Council of the North, a position
Northumberland may have felt belonged to him. Those facts might explain
Northumbeland's actions, but they certainly don't excuse them.
What I find especially irritating is that in all the writing there has been
about Richard, both fictional and non-fictional, there is little or no
mention of Northumberland's inaction. One can easily imagine the reasons for
that while the Tudors were on the throne, but why since? After all,
Elizabeth I died in 1603!
Doug

With the (hopefully) impending revelation that Richard has been found, will that lead to new editions of some of the books which are currently out of print? Whilst I would love to have the book about Richard's Book of Hours, or his coronation proceedings, the current cost of even second hand copies is extremely expensive.  

Very dubious about this vilification of Northumberland.  He may have been a "treacherous swine", as Eileen calls him.  But he may, equally, have been tardy, vacillating or simply caught cold be rapidly changing events.  The fact that he wasn't over-eager to submit to Tudor suggests, at the very least, that whatever happened wasn't pre-planned.


Doug writes:

"IF Stanley made any move towards the battle, THEN
Northumberland was supposed to act as a counter by moving against Stanley.
Which Northumberland refused to do."

We don't really know this.  We can't say with certainty where Northumberland was positioned and, given how hard it was to manoeuvre medieval armies, we don't know whether he would have been able to employ his troops in time to counter Sir William Stanley.  This is especially the case given that (a) the marsh that protected Tudor's right was likely to have been a severe hindrance to the royal army, (b) Stanley's intervention was last minute and opportunistic and (c) Northumberland's troops are unlikely to have been of the highest quality and their morale may already have been damaged by the inability of Norfolk's contingent to make progress.

I'm not trying to exonerate Northumberland, but we need to be cautious about letting supposition harden into fact. 


Jonathan


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2013, 15:12
Subject: Re: Where was Northumberland? (was Re: Battle weapons)


 

Richard Yahoo wrote:
" Not long winded at all! Very good post, Doug.
One question that still bothers me is did R truly think Stanley brothers
were trustworthy enough to have his flank exposed?
Percy was a Lancastrian and probably that's a reason for him to not aid
Richard? How horrible must Richard have felt with all these betrayals!"

Oh good! One of my biggest problems when I was in the Navy was being
long-winded when I had to write reports/evaluations. Apparently I've made
progress!
As for trusting the Stanleys, my point is that Richard believed he had that
problem covered by the reserves that remained under the command of
Northumberland. IF Stanley made any move towards the battle, THEN
Northumberland was supposed to act as a counter by moving against Stanley.
Which Northumberland refused to do.
I'd forgotten Percy supported the Lancastrian side and, as Christine
mentioned, that Richard's nephew led the Council of the North, a position
Northumberland may have felt belonged to him. Those facts might explain
Northumbeland's actions, but they certainly don't excuse them.
What I find especially irritating is that in all the writing there has been
about Richard, both fictional and non-fictional, there is little or no
mention of Northumberland's inaction. One can easily imagine the reasons for
that while the Tudors were on the throne, but why since? After all,
Elizabeth I died in 1603!
Doug

Hi,

Good post Doug. Three things:

1. Some have Northumberland 'guarding the road' and too far away (just as some have Lovell down south and not anywhere near the battle) and say R should have waited till he got nearer when summoned.

2. Michael Jones has R doing a 'heroic charge' as in the chivalric books - fighting man to man with the instigator (except H7 was too cowardly (or too wise) to fight). That ties in, I think, with part of what you're saying.

3. In the York meeting on 23 Aug where 'that news' is received they also send a message to Northumberland asking him to 'advise how to dispose them at this woefull season'. If he'd obviously done wrong John Sponer had yet to hear of it and Northumberland is looked upon as someone they can turn to. BUT Northumberland is not listed amongst those (like Harrington and Ratcliffe)who are not pardoned by H7 when he toadies to the City in Oct 1485. Reading the York books R and Northumberland did seem to act together quite a lot but N doesn't get the continual procession of 'gifts' that R got; just the odd one to keep him sweet.

Don't know whether any of this helps at all, just my twopenneth? Hilary

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> Richard Yahoo wrote:
> " Not long winded at all! Very good post, Doug.
> One question that still bothers me is did R truly think Stanley brothers
> were trustworthy enough to have his flank exposed?
> Percy was a Lancastrian and probably that's a reason for him to not aid
> Richard? How horrible must Richard have felt with all these betrayals!"
>
> Oh good! One of my biggest problems when I was in the Navy was being
> long-winded when I had to write reports/evaluations. Apparently I've made
> progress!
> As for trusting the Stanleys, my point is that Richard believed he had that
> problem covered by the reserves that remained under the command of
> Northumberland. IF Stanley made any move towards the battle, THEN
> Northumberland was supposed to act as a counter by moving against Stanley.
> Which Northumberland refused to do.
> I'd forgotten Percy supported the Lancastrian side and, as Christine
> mentioned, that Richard's nephew led the Council of the North, a position
> Northumberland may have felt belonged to him. Those facts might explain
> Northumbeland's actions, but they certainly don't excuse them.
> What I find especially irritating is that in all the writing there has been
> about Richard, both fictional and non-fictional, there is little or no
> mention of Northumberland's inaction. One can easily imagine the reasons for
> that while the Tudors were on the throne, but why since? After all,
> Elizabeth I died in 1603!
> Doug
>

We were both writing the same! There's little I've found in the York books that suggests that R and Northumberland didn't get on. I can understand he had a grudge against the Nevilles in the 1460s/70s but by 1480s I'd have thought he was actually better off than those in Lancs whose land was always beholden to the Crown because of the Duchy. Hilary

--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Very dubious about this vilification of Northumberland.  He may have been a "treacherous swine", as Eileen calls him.  But he may, equally, have been tardy, vacillating or simply caught cold be rapidly changing events.  The fact that he wasn't over-eager to submit to Tudor suggests, at the very least, that whatever happened wasn't pre-planned.
>
>
> Doug writes:
>
> "IF Stanley made any move towards the battle, THEN
> Northumberland was supposed to act as a counter by moving against Stanley.
> Which Northumberland refused to do."
>
> We don't really know this.  We can't say with certainty where Northumberland was positioned and, given how hard it was to manoeuvre medieval armies, we don't know whether he would have been able to employ his troops in time to counter Sir William Stanley.  This is especially the case given that (a) the marsh that protected Tudor's right was likely to have been a severe hindrance to the royal army, (b) Stanley's intervention was last minute and opportunistic and (c) Northumberland's troops are unlikely to have been of the highest quality and their morale may already have been damaged by the inability of Norfolk's contingent to make progress.
>
> I'm not trying to exonerate Northumberland, but we need to be cautious about letting supposition harden into fact. 
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2013, 15:12
> Subject: Re: Where was Northumberland? (was Re: Battle weapons)
>
>
>  
>
> Richard Yahoo wrote:
> " Not long winded at all! Very good post, Doug.
> One question that still bothers me is did R truly think Stanley brothers
> were trustworthy enough to have his flank exposed?
> Percy was a Lancastrian and probably that's a reason for him to not aid
> Richard? How horrible must Richard have felt with all these betrayals!"
>
> Oh good! One of my biggest problems when I was in the Navy was being
> long-winded when I had to write reports/evaluations. Apparently I've made
> progress!
> As for trusting the Stanleys, my point is that Richard believed he had that
> problem covered by the reserves that remained under the command of
> Northumberland. IF Stanley made any move towards the battle, THEN
> Northumberland was supposed to act as a counter by moving against Stanley.
> Which Northumberland refused to do.
> I'd forgotten Percy supported the Lancastrian side and, as Christine
> mentioned, that Richard's nephew led the Council of the North, a position
> Northumberland may have felt belonged to him. Those facts might explain
> Northumbeland's actions, but they certainly don't excuse them.
> What I find especially irritating is that in all the writing there has been
> about Richard, both fictional and non-fictional, there is little or no
> mention of Northumberland's inaction. One can easily imagine the reasons for
> that while the Tudors were on the throne, but why since? After all,
> Elizabeth I died in 1603!
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>

Recently a post mentioned that R3 may have faced a new weapon at Bosworth, Swiss pikemen.
I did a little research on countermeasures and found a couple of things that may not be widely known
The pikes were up to 20 ft long made from wood with either a single steel point or a splayed point
In use they were not directly held but stuck in the ground, the pikeman would keep the point toward the enemy. Pikemen were anti cavalry and placed in areas of potential weakness to deter pincer attacks, however they had many vulnerabilities, archers being the main problem also if a charging knight parried the point the ranks now had cavalry in their midst while they were holding up a 20ft pole which if dropped would let in more knights.
Eventually the pike evolved to the halbert that can still be seen with the Yeomen Warders.
I do not know the numbers of archers that R3 had, but I would suspect that he was unable to break the lines either with cavalry or archers.
George

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 14, 2013, at 9:56 AM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> We were both writing the same! There's little I've found in the York books that suggests that R and Northumberland didn't get on. I can understand he had a grudge against the Nevilles in the 1460s/70s but by 1480s I'd have thought he was actually better off than those in Lancs whose land was always beholden to the Crown because of the Duchy. Hilary
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
> >
> > Very dubious about this vilification of Northumberland. He may have been a "treacherous swine", as Eileen calls him. But he may, equally, have been tardy, vacillating or simply caught cold be rapidly changing events. The fact that he wasn't over-eager to submit to Tudor suggests, at the very least, that whatever happened wasn't pre-planned.
> >
> >
> > Doug writes:
> >
> > "IF Stanley made any move towards the battle, THEN
> > Northumberland was supposed to act as a counter by moving against Stanley.
> > Which Northumberland refused to do."
> >
> > We don't really know this. We can't say with certainty where Northumberland was positioned and, given how hard it was to manoeuvre medieval armies, we don't know whether he would have been able to employ his troops in time to counter Sir William Stanley. This is especially the case given that (a) the marsh that protected Tudor's right was likely to have been a severe hindrance to the royal army, (b) Stanley's intervention was last minute and opportunistic and (c) Northumberland's troops are unlikely to have been of the highest quality and their morale may already have been damaged by the inability of Norfolk's contingent to make progress.
> >
> > I'm not trying to exonerate Northumberland, but we need to be cautious about letting supposition harden into fact.
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2013, 15:12
> > Subject: Re: Where was Northumberland? (was Re: Battle weapons)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard Yahoo wrote:
> > " Not long winded at all! Very good post, Doug.
> > One question that still bothers me is did R truly think Stanley brothers
> > were trustworthy enough to have his flank exposed?
> > Percy was a Lancastrian and probably that's a reason for him to not aid
> > Richard? How horrible must Richard have felt with all these betrayals!"
> >
> > Oh good! One of my biggest problems when I was in the Navy was being
> > long-winded when I had to write reports/evaluations. Apparently I've made
> > progress!
> > As for trusting the Stanleys, my point is that Richard believed he had that
> > problem covered by the reserves that remained under the command of
> > Northumberland. IF Stanley made any move towards the battle, THEN
> > Northumberland was supposed to act as a counter by moving against Stanley.
> > Which Northumberland refused to do.
> > I'd forgotten Percy supported the Lancastrian side and, as Christine
> > mentioned, that Richard's nephew led the Council of the North, a position
> > Northumberland may have felt belonged to him. Those facts might explain
> > Northumbeland's actions, but they certainly don't excuse them.
> > What I find especially irritating is that in all the writing there has been
> > about Richard, both fictional and non-fictional, there is little or no
> > mention of Northumberland's inaction. One can easily imagine the reasons for
> > that while the Tudors were on the throne, but why since? After all,
> > Elizabeth I died in 1603!
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

As these two books were published by the Richard lll Society I wonder if they would reconsider reprinting them....As you say Pamela the cost of some of these books is horrendous. I think we should email the Society and ask them about the possibilities..Eileen

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> With the (hopefully) impending revelation that Richard has been found, will that lead to new editions of some of the books which are currently out of print? Whilst I would love to have the book about Richard's Book of Hours, or his coronation proceedings, the current cost of even second hand copies is extremely expensive.  
>
>
>

Pamela...I sent an email to Lynda Pidgeon at the Society and I got an email back saying that there is a EC (?) meeting in a couple of weeks time and she will put the idea forward...

Fingers crossed...Eileen

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> With the (hopefully) impending revelation that Richard has been found, will that lead to new editions of some of the books which are currently out of print? Whilst I would love to have the book about Richard's Book of Hours, or his coronation proceedings, the current cost of even second hand copies is extremely expensive.  
>
>
>

That's good news Eileen. I've the Book of hours but would * really* like
the Coronation one.

EC = Executive Committee:)

cheers

Jac


In message <kd1knk+4sk5@...>, EileenB
<cherryripe.eileenb@...> writes
>Pamela...I sent an email to Lynda Pidgeon at the Society and I got an
>email back saying that there is a EC (?) meeting in a couple of weeks
>time and she will put the idea forward...
>
>Fingers crossed...Eileen
>
>--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>>
>> With the (hopefully) impending revelation that Richard has been
>>found, will that lead to new editions of some of the books which are
>>currently out of print? Whilst I would love to have the book about
>>Richard's Book of Hours, or his coronation proceedings, the current
>>cost of even second hand copies is extremely expensive.  
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--

Hi Jac....I wonder if we've got a chance....Do you think there is anything we could do to add weight to our appeal :0)
i.e. ask more forum members to email?

Hope your keeping warm......Eileen
On 14 Jan 2013, at 19:17, jacqui wrote:

>
> That's good news Eileen. I've the Book of hours but would * really* like
> the Coronation one.
>
> EC = Executive Committee:)
>
> cheers
>
> Jac
>
> In message kd1knk+4sk5@...>, EileenB
> cherryripe.eileenb@...> writes
> >Pamela...I sent an email to Lynda Pidgeon at the Society and I got an
> >email back saying that there is a EC (?) meeting in a couple of weeks
> >time and she will put the idea forward...
> >
> >Fingers crossed...Eileen
> >
> >--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >>
> >> With the (hopefully) impending revelation that Richard has been
> >>found, will that lead to new editions of some of the books which are
> >>currently out of print? Whilst I would love to have the book about
> >>Richard's Book of Hours, or his coronation proceedings, the current
> >>cost of even second hand copies is extremely expensive.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
>

You can certainly add my name to the appeal. I want all those out-of-date books! Maire.
--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> Hi Jac....I wonder if we've got a chance....Do you think there is anything we could do to add weight to our appeal :0)
> i.e. ask more forum members to email?
>
> Hope your keeping warm......Eileen
> On 14 Jan 2013, at 19:17, jacqui wrote:
>
> >
> > That's good news Eileen. I've the Book of hours but would * really* like
> > the Coronation one.
> >
> > EC = Executive Committee:)
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Jac
> >
> > In message kd1knk+4sk5@...>, EileenB
> > cherryripe.eileenb@...> writes
> > >Pamela...I sent an email to Lynda Pidgeon at the Society and I got an
> > >email back saying that there is a EC (?) meeting in a couple of weeks
> > >time and she will put the idea forward...
> > >
> > >Fingers crossed...Eileen
> > >
> > >--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > >>
> > >> With the (hopefully) impending revelation that Richard has been
> > >>found, will that lead to new editions of some of the books which are
> > >>currently out of print? Whilst I would love to have the book about
> > >>Richard's Book of Hours, or his coronation proceedings, the current
> > >>cost of even second hand copies is extremely expensive.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Maire...would it be possible for you to go to the Society site and leave a message via Feedback maybe...I think the more of us that ask might stand more of a chance of a reprint...Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
>
> You can certainly add my name to the appeal. I want all those out-of-date books! Maire.
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jac....I wonder if we've got a chance....Do you think there is anything we could do to add weight to our appeal :0)
> > i.e. ask more forum members to email?
> >
> > Hope your keeping warm......Eileen
> > On 14 Jan 2013, at 19:17, jacqui wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > That's good news Eileen. I've the Book of hours but would * really* like
> > > the Coronation one.
> > >
> > > EC = Executive Committee:)
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > Jac
> > >
> > > In message kd1knk+4sk5@>, EileenB
> > > cherryripe.eileenb@> writes
> > > >Pamela...I sent an email to Lynda Pidgeon at the Society and I got an
> > > >email back saying that there is a EC (?) meeting in a couple of weeks
> > > >time and she will put the idea forward...
> > > >
> > > >Fingers crossed...Eileen
> > > >
> > > >--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> With the (hopefully) impending revelation that Richard has been
> > > >>found, will that lead to new editions of some of the books which are
> > > >>currently out of print? Whilst I would love to have the book about
> > > >>Richard's Book of Hours, or his coronation proceedings, the current
> > > >>cost of even second hand copies is extremely expensive.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

You could always try Eileen but I think it might be the publisher who
needs the nudging not the Society.
The Hours were published by Alan Sutton for the R3 & Yorkist Trust -
don't know if the publisher still exists. After googling it looks as if
Alan Sutton Publishing has morphed into either Amberley Publishing or
Tempus? I'm not sure if the Society has any influence with either.
Wait & see what the EC meeting has to say.

cheers

Jac

In message <C7584A0F-843A-450F-B350-8F08A74C9F5F@...>, eileen
bates <eileenbates147@...> writes
>Hi Jac....I wonder if we've got a chance....Do you think there is
>anything we could do to add weight to our appeal :0)
>i.e. ask more forum members to email?
>
>Hope your keeping warm......Eileen
>On 14 Jan 2013, at 19:17, jacqui wrote:
>
>>
>> That's good news Eileen. I've the Book of hours but would * really* like
>> the Coronation one.
>>
>> EC = Executive Committee:)
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Jac
>>
>> In message kd1knk+4sk5@...>, EileenB
>> cherryripe.eileenb@...> writes
>> >Pamela...I sent an email to Lynda Pidgeon at the Society and I got an
>> >email back saying that there is a EC (?) meeting in a couple of weeks
>> >time and she will put the idea forward...
>> >
>> >Fingers crossed...Eileen
>> >
>> >--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>> >>
>> >> With the (hopefully) impending revelation that Richard has been
>> >>found, will that lead to new editions of some of the books which are
>> >>currently out of print? Whilst I would love to have the book about
>> >>Richard's Book of Hours, or his coronation proceedings, the current
>> >>cost of even second hand copies is extremely expensive.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >------------------------------------
>> >
>> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--

Same here!  Managed to get the Book of Hours, but the Coronation one would be lovely.

Dorothea



________________________________
From: jacqui <jacqui@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2013 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Reprinting out of print books


 

That's good news Eileen. I've the Book of hours but would * really* like
the Coronation one.

EC = Executive Committee:)

cheers

Jac

In message kd1knk+4sk5@...>, EileenB
cherryripe.eileenb@...> writes
>Pamela...I sent an email to Lynda Pidgeon at the Society and I got an
>email back saying that there is a EC (?) meeting in a couple of weeks
>time and she will put the idea forward...
>
>Fingers crossed...Eileen
>
>--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>>
>> With the (hopefully) impending revelation that Richard has been
>>found, will that lead to new editions of some of the books which are
>>currently out of print? Whilst I would love to have the book about
>>Richard's Book of Hours, or his coronation proceedings, the current
>>cost of even second hand copies is extremely expensive.  
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--

Hi

I feel it is also forgotten that Northumberland lost his wife shortly
before Bosworth.

From what little we know it appears to have been a successful marriage for
persons of their status at that time.

This was probably part of the reason for his delay in arriving at Bosworth.

Gillian

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:42 PM, C HOLMES <
christineholmes651@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi,
> I think it is also forgottten that the Percy's were origionally
> Lancastrians, so maybe thats one reason for Northumberlands actions, also
> that his power in the north had to some extent been curtailed by Richard.
> Richard's nephew John was head of the Council of the North.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2013, 7:40
> Subject: Re: Where was Northumberland? (was
> Re: Battle weapons)
>
>
>
>
>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> "Even if the charge was not a premeditated suicidal mission, it was a not
> one that a battle commander of Richard's calibre should have made. Did he
> truly believe the Stanley's were going to have his back? After they
> refused
> to budge after so many requests? Again, I am NOT an expert by any stretch
> of
> imagination. But even in my limited knowledge I would venture to guess
> that
> R did not really expect any help from the Stanleys.....
> And yes, Richard was too brave for his own good:"
>
> I'm with Carol in this. I don't see any fault in Richard's decision to
> personally enter the battle - unless one assumes he knew Northmberland was
> going to betray him. Even then, I can't see Richard making any suicidal
> charges; having Northumberland executed on the spot, yes.
> At any rate, I base my conclusions on the following:
> 1) Tudor's troops are drawn up for battle under the command of Oxford.
> 2) Richard sends Norfolk down, or into, battle.
> 3) The fighting is basically a draw UNTIL Norfolk is killed. It is then,
> and
> only then, that the Yorkist troops began to fall back.
> 4) Richard enters the battle with an undetermined number of followers,
> while
> Northumberland remains in reserve; whether on Ambion Hill or some other
> spot.
> 5) Richard and his followers apparently re-animate the Yorkists to the
> extent that Richard nearly reaches Tudor before being cut down himself.
> His
> death occurs because:
> 6) Once Richard has separated himself and his immediate followers from
> Northumberland and his troops, Stanley enters the battle - on Tudor's side.
> 7) It is Stanley's men attacking the Yorkists from the flank (always the
> most sensitive sector in any battle) that throws the Yorkists into
> disarray
> and allows the now combined followers of Tudor and Stanley to overwhelm
> Richard and those defending him.
> Notice who's missing in almost all of this - the The Earl of
> Northumberland!
> Why did Stanley attack AFTER Richard and Northumberland separated? Why did
> he wait? The only answer I can come up with is that Stanley waited until
> Richard and Northumberland were separated because Stanley didn't have
> enough
> men to defeat the combined forces available to Richard and Northumberland
> and if he tried to attack Richard while the King was with Northumberland,
> Northumberland's troops would fight - on Richard's side. In other words,
> Stanley had enough men to turn the battle in Tudor's favor, but only if
> Richard was separated from Northumberland and the latter remained on the
> sidelines AFTER Stanley entered the battle.
> Which means, to me anyway, that Northumberland deliberately betrayed
> Richard.
> I hope I haven't been too long-winded and please feel free to make any
> corrections if I've gotten something wrong!
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>

Interesting.  I didn't know that.

I really wonder what on earth Northumberland *could* have done once Richard had committed to the charge.  If Stanley caught him in the flank once the cavalry had broken on the pikes, there's surely no way infantry quite some distance away would have been able to intervene.

Maybe Northumberland could have been more active earlier, but that really is getting into the realm of rampant speculation.  Rather than scapegoating him on little or no evidence, it's probably more appropriate to say that, based on the new siting of the battle, the terrain was against Richard, he was arguably outgeneralled on the day and yet, despite all that, he attempted a manoeuvre that came within an ace of being a brilliant success.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: gillian.laughton1 <gillian.laughton1@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2013, 8:11
Subject: Re: Where was Northumberland? (was Re: Battle weapons)

Hi

I feel it is also forgotten that Northumberland lost his wife shortly
before Bosworth.

From what little we know it appears to have been a successful marriage for
persons of their status at that time.

This was probably part of the reason for his delay in arriving at Bosworth.

Gillian

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:42 PM, C HOLMES <
christineholmes651@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi,
>  I think it is also forgottten that the Percy's were origionally
> Lancastrians, so maybe thats one reason for Northumberlands actions, also
> that his power in the north had to some extent been curtailed by Richard.
> Richard's nephew John was head of the Council of the North.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2013, 7:40
> Subject: Re: Where was Northumberland? (was
> Re: Battle weapons)
>
>
>
>
>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> "Even if the charge was not a premeditated suicidal mission, it was a not
> one that a battle commander of Richard's calibre should have made. Did he
> truly believe the Stanley's were going to have his back? After they
> refused
> to budge after so many requests? Again, I am NOT an expert by any stretch
> of
> imagination. But even in my limited knowledge I would venture to guess
> that
> R did not really expect any help from the Stanleys.....
> And yes, Richard was too brave for his own good:"
>
> I'm with Carol in this. I don't see any fault in Richard's decision to
> personally enter the battle - unless one assumes he knew Northmberland was
> going to betray him. Even then, I can't see Richard making any suicidal
> charges; having Northumberland executed on the spot, yes.
> At any rate, I base my conclusions on the following:
> 1) Tudor's troops are drawn up for battle under the command of Oxford.
> 2) Richard sends Norfolk down, or into, battle.
> 3) The fighting is basically a draw UNTIL Norfolk is killed. It is then,
> and
> only then, that the Yorkist troops began to fall back.
> 4) Richard enters the battle with an undetermined number of followers,
> while
> Northumberland remains in reserve; whether on Ambion Hill or some other
> spot.
> 5) Richard and his followers apparently re-animate the Yorkists to the
> extent that Richard nearly reaches Tudor before being cut down himself.
> His
> death occurs because:
> 6) Once Richard has separated himself and his immediate followers from
> Northumberland and his troops, Stanley enters the battle - on Tudor's side.
> 7) It is Stanley's men attacking the Yorkists from the flank (always the
> most sensitive sector in any battle) that throws the Yorkists into
> disarray
> and allows the now combined followers of Tudor and Stanley to overwhelm
> Richard and those defending him.
> Notice who's missing in almost all of this - the The Earl of
> Northumberland!
> Why did Stanley attack AFTER Richard and Northumberland separated? Why did
> he wait? The only answer I can come up with is that Stanley waited until
> Richard and Northumberland were separated because Stanley didn't have
> enough
> men to defeat the combined forces available to Richard and Northumberland
> and if he tried to attack Richard while the King was with Northumberland,
> Northumberland's troops would fight - on Richard's side. In other words,
> Stanley had enough men to turn the battle in Tudor's favor, but only if
> Richard was separated from Northumberland and the latter remained on the
> sidelines AFTER Stanley entered the battle.
> Which means, to me anyway, that Northumberland deliberately betrayed
> Richard.
> I hope I haven't been too long-winded and please feel free to make any
> corrections if I've gotten something wrong!
> Doug
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

OK Jac....thank you..sensible advice.Eileen
On 14 Jan 2013, at 21:50, jacqui wrote:

>
> You could always try Eileen but I think it might be the publisher who
> needs the nudging not the Society.
> The Hours were published by Alan Sutton for the R3 & Yorkist Trust -
> don't know if the publisher still exists. After googling it looks as if
> Alan Sutton Publishing has morphed into either Amberley Publishing or
> Tempus? I'm not sure if the Society has any influence with either.
> Wait & see what the EC meeting has to say.
>
> cheers
>
> Jac
>
> In message C7584A0F-843A-450F-B350-8F08A74C9F5F@...>, eileen
> bates eileenbates147@...> writes
> >Hi Jac....I wonder if we've got a chance....Do you think there is
> >anything we could do to add weight to our appeal :0)
> >i.e. ask more forum members to email?
> >
> >Hope your keeping warm......Eileen
> >On 14 Jan 2013, at 19:17, jacqui wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> That's good news Eileen. I've the Book of hours but would * really* like
> >> the Coronation one.
> >>
> >> EC = Executive Committee:)
> >>
> >> cheers
> >>
> >> Jac
> >>
> >> In message kd1knk+4sk5@...>, EileenB
> >> cherryripe.eileenb@...> writes
> >> >Pamela...I sent an email to Lynda Pidgeon at the Society and I got an
> >> >email back saying that there is a EC (?) meeting in a couple of weeks
> >> >time and she will put the idea forward...
> >> >
> >> >Fingers crossed...Eileen
> >> >
> >> >--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> With the (hopefully) impending revelation that Richard has been
> >> >>found, will that lead to new editions of some of the books which are
> >> >>currently out of print? Whilst I would love to have the book about
> >> >>Richard's Book of Hours, or his coronation proceedings, the current
> >> >>cost of even second hand copies is extremely expensive.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
>

Ah...these little human incidents...well not little for Northumberland...but could all have played their part in the way history has panned out...thank you Gillian. I would like to know more about this....Eileen
On 15 Jan 2013, at 08:11, gillian.laughton1 wrote:

> Hi
>
> I feel it is also forgotten that Northumberland lost his wife shortly
> before Bosworth.
>
> From what little we know it appears to have been a successful marriage for
> persons of their status at that time.
>
> This was probably part of the reason for his delay in arriving at Bosworth.
>
> Gillian
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:42 PM, C HOLMES <
> christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> I think it is also forgottten that the Percy's were origionally
>> Lancastrians, so maybe thats one reason for Northumberlands actions, also
>> that his power in the north had to some extent been curtailed by Richard.
>> Richard's nephew John was head of the Council of the North.
>> Christine
>> Loyaulte me Lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2013, 7:40
>> Subject: Re: Where was Northumberland? (was
>> Re: Battle weapons)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>>
>> "Even if the charge was not a premeditated suicidal mission, it was a not
>> one that a battle commander of Richard's calibre should have made. Did he
>> truly believe the Stanley's were going to have his back? After they
>> refused
>> to budge after so many requests? Again, I am NOT an expert by any stretch
>> of
>> imagination. But even in my limited knowledge I would venture to guess
>> that
>> R did not really expect any help from the Stanleys.....
>> And yes, Richard was too brave for his own good:"
>>
>> I'm with Carol in this. I don't see any fault in Richard's decision to
>> personally enter the battle - unless one assumes he knew Northmberland was
>> going to betray him. Even then, I can't see Richard making any suicidal
>> charges; having Northumberland executed on the spot, yes.
>> At any rate, I base my conclusions on the following:
>> 1) Tudor's troops are drawn up for battle under the command of Oxford.
>> 2) Richard sends Norfolk down, or into, battle.
>> 3) The fighting is basically a draw UNTIL Norfolk is killed. It is then,
>> and
>> only then, that the Yorkist troops began to fall back.
>> 4) Richard enters the battle with an undetermined number of followers,
>> while
>> Northumberland remains in reserve; whether on Ambion Hill or some other
>> spot.
>> 5) Richard and his followers apparently re-animate the Yorkists to the
>> extent that Richard nearly reaches Tudor before being cut down himself.
>> His
>> death occurs because:
>> 6) Once Richard has separated himself and his immediate followers from
>> Northumberland and his troops, Stanley enters the battle - on Tudor's side.
>> 7) It is Stanley's men attacking the Yorkists from the flank (always the
>> most sensitive sector in any battle) that throws the Yorkists into
>> disarray
>> and allows the now combined followers of Tudor and Stanley to overwhelm
>> Richard and those defending him.
>> Notice who's missing in almost all of this - the The Earl of
>> Northumberland!
>> Why did Stanley attack AFTER Richard and Northumberland separated? Why did
>> he wait? The only answer I can come up with is that Stanley waited until
>> Richard and Northumberland were separated because Stanley didn't have
>> enough
>> men to defeat the combined forces available to Richard and Northumberland
>> and if he tried to attack Richard while the King was with Northumberland,
>> Northumberland's troops would fight - on Richard's side. In other words,
>> Stanley had enough men to turn the battle in Tudor's favor, but only if
>> Richard was separated from Northumberland and the latter remained on the
>> sidelines AFTER Stanley entered the battle.
>> Which means, to me anyway, that Northumberland deliberately betrayed
>> Richard.
>> I hope I haven't been too long-winded and please feel free to make any
>> corrections if I've gotten something wrong!
>> Doug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Jonathan...a good and a fair post. Now...I wonder if HT knew full well that he was sending Northumberland into a very dangerous and as it turned out fatal situation when he sent him up north....Its the kind of crafty thinking I believe HT was capable of....Eileen
On 15 Jan 2013, at 10:58, Jonathan Evans wrote:

> Interesting. I didn't know that.
>
> I really wonder what on earth Northumberland *could* have done once Richard had committed to the charge. If Stanley caught him in the flank once the cavalry had broken on the pikes, there's surely no way infantry quite some distance away would have been able to intervene.
>
> Maybe Northumberland could have been more active earlier, but that really is getting into the realm of rampant speculation. Rather than scapegoating him on little or no evidence, it's probably more appropriate to say that, based on the new siting of the battle, the terrain was against Richard, he was arguably outgeneralled on the day and yet, despite all that, he attempted a manoeuvre that came within an ace of being a brilliant success.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: gillian.laughton1 gillian.laughton1@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2013, 8:11
> Subject: Re: Where was Northumberland? (was Re: Battle weapons)
>
> Hi
>
> I feel it is also forgotten that Northumberland lost his wife shortly
> before Bosworth.
>
> From what little we know it appears to have been a successful marriage for
> persons of their status at that time.
>
> This was probably part of the reason for his delay in arriving at Bosworth.
>
> Gillian
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:42 PM, C HOLMES <
> christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > I think it is also forgottten that the Percy's were origionally
> > Lancastrians, so maybe thats one reason for Northumberlands actions, also
> > that his power in the north had to some extent been curtailed by Richard.
> > Richard's nephew John was head of the Council of the North.
> > Christine
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2013, 7:40
> > Subject: Re: Where was Northumberland? (was
> > Re: Battle weapons)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > "Even if the charge was not a premeditated suicidal mission, it was a not
> > one that a battle commander of Richard's calibre should have made. Did he
> > truly believe the Stanley's were going to have his back? After they
> > refused
> > to budge after so many requests? Again, I am NOT an expert by any stretch
> > of
> > imagination. But even in my limited knowledge I would venture to guess
> > that
> > R did not really expect any help from the Stanleys.....
> > And yes, Richard was too brave for his own good:"
> >
> > I'm with Carol in this. I don't see any fault in Richard's decision to
> > personally enter the battle - unless one assumes he knew Northmberland was
> > going to betray him. Even then, I can't see Richard making any suicidal
> > charges; having Northumberland executed on the spot, yes.
> > At any rate, I base my conclusions on the following:
> > 1) Tudor's troops are drawn up for battle under the command of Oxford.
> > 2) Richard sends Norfolk down, or into, battle.
> > 3) The fighting is basically a draw UNTIL Norfolk is killed. It is then,
> > and
> > only then, that the Yorkist troops began to fall back.
> > 4) Richard enters the battle with an undetermined number of followers,
> > while
> > Northumberland remains in reserve; whether on Ambion Hill or some other
> > spot.
> > 5) Richard and his followers apparently re-animate the Yorkists to the
> > extent that Richard nearly reaches Tudor before being cut down himself.
> > His
> > death occurs because:
> > 6) Once Richard has separated himself and his immediate followers from
> > Northumberland and his troops, Stanley enters the battle - on Tudor's side.
> > 7) It is Stanley's men attacking the Yorkists from the flank (always the
> > most sensitive sector in any battle) that throws the Yorkists into
> > disarray
> > and allows the now combined followers of Tudor and Stanley to overwhelm
> > Richard and those defending him.
> > Notice who's missing in almost all of this - the The Earl of
> > Northumberland!
> > Why did Stanley attack AFTER Richard and Northumberland separated? Why did
> > he wait? The only answer I can come up with is that Stanley waited until
> > Richard and Northumberland were separated because Stanley didn't have
> > enough
> > men to defeat the combined forces available to Richard and Northumberland
> > and if he tried to attack Richard while the King was with Northumberland,
> > Northumberland's troops would fight - on Richard's side. In other words,
> > Stanley had enough men to turn the battle in Tudor's favor, but only if
> > Richard was separated from Northumberland and the latter remained on the
> > sidelines AFTER Stanley entered the battle.
> > Which means, to me anyway, that Northumberland deliberately betrayed
> > Richard.
> > I hope I haven't been too long-winded and please feel free to make any
> > corrections if I've gotten something wrong!
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Eileen: I will go to the site today and plead for more books! Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Maire...would it be possible for you to go to the Society site and leave a message via Feedback maybe...I think the more of us that ask might stand more of a chance of a reprint...Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> >
> > You can certainly add my name to the appeal. I want all those out-of-date books! Maire.
> > --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jac....I wonder if we've got a chance....Do you think there is anything we could do to add weight to our appeal :0)
> > > i.e. ask more forum members to email?
> > >
> > > Hope your keeping warm......Eileen
> > > On 14 Jan 2013, at 19:17, jacqui wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > That's good news Eileen. I've the Book of hours but would * really* like
> > > > the Coronation one.
> > > >
> > > > EC = Executive Committee:)
> > > >
> > > > cheers
> > > >
> > > > Jac
> > > >
> > > > In message kd1knk+4sk5@>, EileenB
> > > > cherryripe.eileenb@> writes
> > > > >Pamela...I sent an email to Lynda Pidgeon at the Society and I got an
> > > > >email back saying that there is a EC (?) meeting in a couple of weeks
> > > > >time and she will put the idea forward...
> > > > >
> > > > >Fingers crossed...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> With the (hopefully) impending revelation that Richard has been
> > > > >>found, will that lead to new editions of some of the books which are
> > > > >>currently out of print? Whilst I would love to have the book about
> > > > >>Richard's Book of Hours, or his coronation proceedings, the current
> > > > >>cost of even second hand copies is extremely expensive.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Thanks Maire....Did you read Jac's post on this subject...Of course it will probably do no harm but we may be barking up the wrong tree....:0) Eileen
On 15 Jan 2013, at 12:48, mairemulholland wrote:

> Eileen: I will go to the site today and plead for more books! Maire.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Maire...would it be possible for you to go to the Society site and leave a message via Feedback maybe...I think the more of us that ask might stand more of a chance of a reprint...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > You can certainly add my name to the appeal. I want all those out-of-date books! Maire.
> > > --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jac....I wonder if we've got a chance....Do you think there is anything we could do to add weight to our appeal :0)
> > > > i.e. ask more forum members to email?
> > > >
> > > > Hope your keeping warm......Eileen
> > > > On 14 Jan 2013, at 19:17, jacqui wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's good news Eileen. I've the Book of hours but would * really* like
> > > > > the Coronation one.
> > > > >
> > > > > EC = Executive Committee:)
> > > > >
> > > > > cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > Jac
> > > > >
> > > > > In message kd1knk+4sk5@>, EileenB
> > > > > cherryripe.eileenb@> writes
> > > > > >Pamela...I sent an email to Lynda Pidgeon at the Society and I got an
> > > > > >email back saying that there is a EC (?) meeting in a couple of weeks
> > > > > >time and she will put the idea forward...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Fingers crossed...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> With the (hopefully) impending revelation that Richard has been
> > > > > >>found, will that lead to new editions of some of the books which are
> > > > > >>currently out of print? Whilst I would love to have the book about
> > > > > >>Richard's Book of Hours, or his coronation proceedings, the current
> > > > > >>cost of even second hand copies is extremely expensive.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

I'll certainly buy copies too

Pat B

2nd hand copies of some of these books for sale at ý150.....with the best will in the world this is way too much...Eileen
On 15 Jan 2013, at 12:58, P BARRETT wrote:

> I'll certainly buy copies too
>
> Pat B
>
>
>
>

Yes, I did read her post. So I'll ask the Society to ask the publisher for more copies. They'll certainly sell some since the Leicester find. Maire.

--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> Thanks Maire....Did you read Jac's post on this subject...Of course it will probably do no harm but we may be barking up the wrong tree....:0) Eileen
> On 15 Jan 2013, at 12:48, mairemulholland wrote:
>
> > Eileen: I will go to the site today and plead for more books! Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Maire...would it be possible for you to go to the Society site and leave a message via Feedback maybe...I think the more of us that ask might stand more of a chance of a reprint...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You can certainly add my name to the appeal. I want all those out-of-date books! Maire.
> > > > --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Jac....I wonder if we've got a chance....Do you think there is anything we could do to add weight to our appeal :0)
> > > > > i.e. ask more forum members to email?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope your keeping warm......Eileen
> > > > > On 14 Jan 2013, at 19:17, jacqui wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's good news Eileen. I've the Book of hours but would * really* like
> > > > > > the Coronation one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > EC = Executive Committee:)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > cheers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jac
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In message kd1knk+4sk5@>, EileenB
> > > > > > cherryripe.eileenb@> writes
> > > > > > >Pamela...I sent an email to Lynda Pidgeon at the Society and I got an
> > > > > > >email back saying that there is a EC (?) meeting in a couple of weeks
> > > > > > >time and she will put the idea forward...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Fingers crossed...Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> With the (hopefully) impending revelation that Richard has been
> > > > > > >>found, will that lead to new editions of some of the books which are
> > > > > > >>currently out of print? Whilst I would love to have the book about
> > > > > > >>Richard's Book of Hours, or his coronation proceedings, the current
> > > > > > >>cost of even second hand copies is extremely expensive.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Well, R's wife died a few months ago too......All these mourning men!

Okay, to demonstrate my ignorance once more, I wanted to ask about the battle formations  at both Barnet and Teweksbury. Rather, how the van, center and rear set up. Were they behind each other like domino or side by side? If they were side by side, how does that make the van so important, since they were all engaging in the battle at the same time?

I just watched the Towton doc on youtube and is traumatized! I hope Richard died instantly and did not have to go through what those (vanquished?)men had to go through at Towton....Why didn't Edward and his captains not stop such brutality?!




________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: Where was Northumberland? (was Re: Battle weapons)


 
Ah...these little human incidents...well not little for Northumberland...but could all have played their part in the way history has panned out...thank you Gillian. I would like to know more about this....Eileen
On 15 Jan 2013, at 08:11, gillian.laughton1 wrote:

> Hi
>
> I feel it is also forgotten that Northumberland lost his wife shortly
> before Bosworth.
>
> From what little we know it appears to have been a successful marriage for
> persons of their status at that time.
>
> This was probably part of the reason for his delay in arriving at Bosworth.
>
> Gillian
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:42 PM, C HOLMES <
> christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> I think it is also forgottten that the Percy's were origionally
>> Lancastrians, so maybe thats one reason for Northumberlands actions, also
>> that his power in the north had to some extent been curtailed by Richard.
>> Richard's nephew John was head of the Council of the North.
>> Christine
>> Loyaulte me Lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2013, 7:40
>> Subject: Re: Where was Northumberland? (was
>> Re: Battle weapons)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>>
>> "Even if the charge was not a premeditated suicidal mission, it was a not
>> one that a battle commander of Richard's calibre should have made. Did he
>> truly believe the Stanley's were going to have his back? After they
>> refused
>> to budge after so many requests? Again, I am NOT an expert by any stretch
>> of
>> imagination. But even in my limited knowledge I would venture to guess
>> that
>> R did not really expect any help from the Stanleys.....
>> And yes, Richard was too brave for his own good:"
>>
>> I'm with Carol in this. I don't see any fault in Richard's decision to
>> personally enter the battle - unless one assumes he knew Northmberland was
>> going to betray him. Even then, I can't see Richard making any suicidal
>> charges; having Northumberland executed on the spot, yes.
>> At any rate, I base my conclusions on the following:
>> 1) Tudor's troops are drawn up for battle under the command of Oxford.
>> 2) Richard sends Norfolk down, or into, battle.
>> 3) The fighting is basically a draw UNTIL Norfolk is killed. It is then,
>> and
>> only then, that the Yorkist troops began to fall back.
>> 4) Richard enters the battle with an undetermined number of followers,
>> while
>> Northumberland remains in reserve; whether on Ambion Hill or some other
>> spot.
>> 5) Richard and his followers apparently re-animate the Yorkists to the
>> extent that Richard nearly reaches Tudor before being cut down himself.
>> His
>> death occurs because:
>> 6) Once Richard has separated himself and his immediate followers from
>> Northumberland and his troops, Stanley enters the battle - on Tudor's side.
>> 7) It is Stanley's men attacking the Yorkists from the flank (always the
>> most sensitive sector in any battle) that throws the Yorkists into
>> disarray
>> and allows the now combined followers of Tudor and Stanley to overwhelm
>> Richard and those defending him.
>> Notice who's missing in almost all of this - the The Earl of
>> Northumberland!
>> Why did Stanley attack AFTER Richard and Northumberland separated? Why did
>> he wait? The only answer I can come up with is that Stanley waited until
>> Richard and Northumberland were separated because Stanley didn't have
>> enough
>> men to defeat the combined forces available to Richard and Northumberland
>> and if he tried to attack Richard while the King was with Northumberland,
>> Northumberland's troops would fight - on Richard's side. In other words,
>> Stanley had enough men to turn the battle in Tudor's favor, but only if
>> Richard was separated from Northumberland and the latter remained on the
>> sidelines AFTER Stanley entered the battle.
>> Which means, to me anyway, that Northumberland deliberately betrayed
>> Richard.
>> I hope I haven't been too long-winded and please feel free to make any
>> corrections if I've gotten something wrong!
>> Doug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Interesting.  I didn't know that.
>
> I really wonder what on earth Northumberland *could* have done once Richard had committed to the charge.  If Stanley caught him in the flank once the cavalry had broken on the pikes, there's surely no way infantry quite some distance away would have been able to intervene.
>
> Maybe Northumberland could have been more active earlier, but that really is getting into the realm of rampant speculation.  Rather than scapegoating him on little or no evidence, it's probably more appropriate to say that, based on the new siting of the battle, the terrain was against Richard, he was arguably outgeneralled on the day and yet, despite all that, he attempted a manoeuvre that came within an ace of being a brilliant success.
>
> Jonathan

Carol responds:

Wasn't it Norfolk who was outgeneraled (by the Earl of Oxford)? Richard was apparently commanding the reserves and had no direct opponent except the forces ostensibly commanded by the Tydder (who certainly was no general). Circumstances were against him, certainly--and so was that devil, William Stanley. Was Thomas Stanley even present? He certainly didn't play any active role. As for Northumberland, I wish we could know what was in his mind and what exactly he did or didn't do. I really can't see Richard having a general and thousands of men hold the road. A few hundred men under a lesser commander would have served the purpose.

Too bad Edward didn't execute the Earl of Oxford when he had the chance. (I will never forgive James Blount for betraying Richard by releasing Oxford from prison. If Edward had executed him, Tudor would have had no general in his army worthy of the name.) And if Edward hadn't restored Henry Percy as Earl of Northumberland, John Neville would never have rebelled against Edward and been killed at Barnet. Richard would have had an unquestionably loyal and highly experienced Earl of Northumberland (his cousin John Neville) to fight on his side instead of the ever-wavering Henry Percy.

If only!

Carol

Was Northumberland at all involved in York's delay of getting troops there? I seem to recall something, somewhere, about his possibly having something to do with the message or messenger being delayed, but I thought Richard sent the messenger directly? Am I misremembering?

~Weds

--- In , "gillian.laughton1" wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I feel it is also forgotten that Northumberland lost his wife shortly
> before Bosworth.
>
> From what little we know it appears to have been a successful marriage for
> persons of their status at that time.
>
> This was probably part of the reason for his delay in arriving at Bosworth.

Both sides ordered no quarter before the battle began.

As for why didn't Edward and his captains stop such brutality, I don't think Edward was feeling very charitable toward Margaret Anjou or her army. He surely remembered what they did to his father and brother at the Battle of Wakefield, and also the raping, plundering, and pillaging they did after the battle.

I seem to recall she couldn't afford to pay them, and so they took what they wanted through the spoils of war as they marched through the towns and countryside.

Or do I remember wrong again.

~Weds

--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
.
.
.

> I just watched the Towton doc on youtube and is traumatized! I hope Richard died instantly and did not have to go through what those (vanquished?)men had to go through at Towton....Why didn't Edward and his captains not stop such brutality?!

With Northumberland, it could have been a case of treachery, a case of incompetence, a case of failed communication or even a case of his not realising what was going on. We don't have the data to be sure. It's true that many blamed Northumberland for Richard's defeat, but whether this is justified or not is less sure.

I think it took the English Civil War to demonstrate conclusively that just because a man is born an aristocrat,it doesn't automatically make him a good general. To be blunt, the guy may just have messed up on the day.

Carol responds:

"Wasn't it Norfolk who was outgeneraled (by the Earl of Oxford)?"

Possibly tactically, but strategically Richard would surely have had ultimate authority with regard to troop dispositions etc (just as Tudor would have, albeit that he would almost certainly have delegated all aspects of the campaign).  And the implication of the revised site is that Tudor's forces held the better ground (whether by luck or judgement) because of the marsh and a slight slope that reduced the effectiveness of Richard's artillery.

Carol:

"I really can't see Richard having a general and thousands of men hold
the road. A few hundred men under a lesser commander would have served
the purpose."

Probably impossible at this remove to say where Northumberland was, but even if he was initially drawn up alongside Richard, I doubt his infantry could have advanced fast enough to rescue a cavalry charge that broke on the opposition line - not least because its momentum carried it - no matter how fragmented it may have been by this stage - to within touching distance of Tudor's bodyguard.  And it's unlikely he was to be found anywhere near the forefront.

It's also possible that Northumberland's levies, seeing the charge falter, were reluctant to move.  Lastly, I doubt Stanley would have intervened unless the distances involved rendered the outcome a fait accompli.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2013, 16:49
Subject: Where was Northumberland? (was Re: Battle weapons)


 


--- In , Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> Interesting.  I didn't know that.
>
> I really wonder what on earth Northumberland *could* have done once Richard had committed to the charge.  If Stanley caught him in the flank once the cavalry had broken on the pikes, there's surely no way infantry quite some distance away would have been able to intervene.
>
> Maybe Northumberland could have been more active earlier, but that really is getting into the realm of rampant speculation.  Rather than scapegoating him on little or no evidence, it's probably more appropriate to say that, based on the new siting of the battle, the terrain was against Richard, he was arguably outgeneralled on the day and yet, despite all that, he attempted a manoeuvre that came within an ace of being a brilliant success.
>
> Jonathan

Carol responds:

Wasn't it Norfolk who was outgeneraled (by the Earl of Oxford)? Richard was apparently commanding the reserves and had no direct opponent except the forces ostensibly commanded by the Tydder (who certainly was no general). Circumstances were against him, certainly--and so was that devil, William Stanley. Was Thomas Stanley even present? He certainly didn't play any active role. As for Northumberland, I wish we could know what was in his mind and what exactly he did or didn't do. I really can't see Richard having a general and thousands of men hold the road. A few hundred men under a lesser commander would have served the purpose.

Too bad Edward didn't execute the Earl of Oxford when he had the chance. (I will never forgive James Blount for betraying Richard by releasing Oxford from prison. If Edward had executed him, Tudor would have had no general in his army worthy of the name.) And if Edward hadn't restored Henry Percy as Earl of Northumberland, John Neville would never have rebelled against Edward and been killed at Barnet. Richard would have had an unquestionably loyal and highly experienced Earl of Northumberland (his cousin John Neville) to fight on his side instead of the ever-wavering Henry Percy.

If only!

Carol

The reason we stick up two fingers as an insult, comes directly from history and the fact that captured archers would have there two draw fingers chopped off. So showing two fingers lets people know you still have them (I believe this predates the "modern" perceived meaning.)
Battles are not the gentlemanly thing that Hollywood would have us believe,


George

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> Both sides ordered no quarter before the battle began.
>
> As for why didn't Edward and his captains stop such brutality, I don't think Edward was feeling very charitable toward Margaret Anjou or her army. He surely remembered what they did to his father and brother at the Battle of Wakefield, and also the raping, plundering, and pillaging they did after the battle.
>
> I seem to recall she couldn't afford to pay them, and so they took what they wanted through the spoils of war as they marched through the towns and countryside.
>
> Or do I remember wrong again.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> .
> .
> .
>
> > I just watched the Towton doc on youtube and is traumatized! I hope Richard died instantly and did not have to go through what those (vanquished?)men had to go through at Towton....Why didn't Edward and his captains not stop such brutality?!
>
>

For those that are interested in further information.

Maud (nee Herbert) Countess of Northumberland died around the 27th of July
1485.

Another aspect that Alexander Rose brings out in his book *Kings in the
north* is that Bosworth was actually this Northumberland's first major
battle.
"He was too young for St Albans, Towton and Hedgeley Moor, and had missed
Barnet and Tewkesbury" p.580
Hard to believe given the reputation and history of the earlier Percy's.
Rose thinks that given this inexperience he froze, thinking that neutrality
once the battle was started the safest option.

Regards, Gillian


On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:35 AM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> The reason we stick up two fingers as an insult, comes directly from
> history and the fact that captured archers would have there two draw
> fingers chopped off. So showing two fingers lets people know you still have
> them (I believe this predates the "modern" perceived meaning.)
> Battles are not the gentlemanly thing that Hollywood would have us believe,
>
>
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Both sides ordered no quarter before the battle began.
> >
> > As for why didn't Edward and his captains stop such brutality, I don't
> think Edward was feeling very charitable toward Margaret Anjou or her army.
> He surely remembered what they did to his father and brother at the Battle
> of Wakefield, and also the raping, plundering, and pillaging they did after
> the battle.
> >
> > I seem to recall she couldn't afford to pay them, and so they took what
> they wanted through the spoils of war as they marched through the towns and
> countryside.
> >
> > Or do I remember wrong again.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > .
> > .
> > .
> >
> > > I just watched the Towton doc on youtube and is traumatized! I hope
> Richard died instantly and did not have to go through what those
> (vanquished?)men had to go through at Towton....Why didn't Edward and his
> captains not stop such brutality?!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Gillian....a further little search and I see that Maud died in childbirth as her daughter Anne was born in 1485....

This must have, surely, had some impact on Northumberland's mindset at that time....unless he was totally heartless. Possibly would have been best if he had stayed away from Bosworth altogether....assuming he was not up to it because of the trauma of his wife's very recent death. Richard then would have known where he stood instead of perhaps relying on help from Northumberland. It may have made a difference...Eileen

--- In , "gillian.laughton1" wrote:
>
> For those that are interested in further information.
>
> Maud (nee Herbert) Countess of Northumberland died around the 27th of July
> 1485.
>
> Another aspect that Alexander Rose brings out in his book *Kings in the
> north* is that Bosworth was actually this Northumberland's first major
> battle.
> "He was too young for St Albans, Towton and Hedgeley Moor, and had missed
> Barnet and Tewkesbury" p.580
> Hard to believe given the reputation and history of the earlier Percy's.
> Rose thinks that given this inexperience he froze, thinking that neutrality
> once the battle was started the safest option.
>
> Regards, Gillian
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:35 AM, George Butterfield wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > The reason we stick up two fingers as an insult, comes directly from
> > history and the fact that captured archers would have there two draw
> > fingers chopped off. So showing two fingers lets people know you still have
> > them (I believe this predates the "modern" perceived meaning.)
> > Battles are not the gentlemanly thing that Hollywood would have us believe,
> >
> >
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 15, 2013, at 12:05 PM, "wednesday_mc" wednesday.mac@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Both sides ordered no quarter before the battle began.
> > >
> > > As for why didn't Edward and his captains stop such brutality, I don't
> > think Edward was feeling very charitable toward Margaret Anjou or her army.
> > He surely remembered what they did to his father and brother at the Battle
> > of Wakefield, and also the raping, plundering, and pillaging they did after
> > the battle.
> > >
> > > I seem to recall she couldn't afford to pay them, and so they took what
> > they wanted through the spoils of war as they marched through the towns and
> > countryside.
> > >
> > > Or do I remember wrong again.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > >
> > > > I just watched the Towton doc on youtube and is traumatized! I hope
> > Richard died instantly and did not have to go through what those
> > (vanquished?)men had to go through at Towton....Why didn't Edward and his
> > captains not stop such brutality?!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I remember watching the credits to Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, where a British vampire named Spike gives the two-fingered salute to the Scoobies. I thought at the time the American censor couldn't have known what that meant, else it wouldn't have made it through.

Also in the immortal words of Spike, "...you don't see [the winner] saying, 'I came, I saw, I conquered, I feel really bad about it.'"


--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> The reason we stick up two fingers as an insult, comes directly from history and the fact that captured archers would have there two draw fingers chopped off. So showing two fingers lets people know you still have them (I believe this predates the "modern" perceived meaning.)
> Battles are not the gentlemanly thing that Hollywood would have us believe,

Jonathan Evans wrote"


"Very dubious about this vilification of Northumberland. He may have been a
"treacherous swine", as Eileen calls him. But he may, equally, have been
tardy, vacillating or simply caught cold be rapidly changing events. The
fact that he wasn't over-eager to submit to Tudor suggests, at the very
least, that whatever happened wasn't pre-planned."

To be honest, I'd not considered the possibility that Northumberland was
incompetent and it was that, rather than outright treachery, as the reason
for his failure to act. As Brian mentioned in his post, it wasn't until at
least the Civil War that it was recognized that just because one was a noble
didn't necessarily mean one was also a competent, let alone gifted, military
leader.

In reply to my:

"IF Stanley made any move towards the battle, THEN
Northumberland was supposed to act as a counter by moving against Stanley.
Which Northumberland refused to do.",

you replied:
"We don't really know this. We can't say with certainty where Northumberland
was positioned and, given how hard it was to manoeuvre medieval armies, we
don't know whether he would have been able to employ his troops in time to
counter Sir William Stanley. This is especially the case given that (a) the
marsh that protected Tudor's right was likely to have been a severe
hindrance to the royal army, (b) Stanley's intervention was last minute and
opportunistic and (c) Northumberland's troops are unlikely to have been of
the highest quality and their morale may already have been damaged by the
inability of Norfolk's contingent to make progress."

My point about Northumberland's inaction, for whatever reason, is based on
the presumption that Richard had taken the problems you mentioned in your
first sentence into account prior to entering the battle. Stanley had
already refused to join forces with Richard, so I can't see Richard treating
Stanley as anything other than potentially an opponent. Which leads me to my
belief that Richard entered the battle believing that he would win,
something that would be impossible IF Richard hadn't already made plans to
counter any intervention by Stanley.
(In the following, I've placed letters in parenthesis as references to your
corresponding points.)
(a) Flank attacks, as I think we both agree, were extremely dangerous, but
didn't the marsh protecting Tudor's right flank also prevent Tudor's forces
from operating in that area, as well as Richard's? Which would only have
accentuated the importance of guarding against an attack on the flank where
it could have taken place?
(b) Whether Stanley's actions were opportunistic or not, I cannot conceive
of any competent commander NOT taking the possibility of his intervening on
Tudor's side into account and taken measures to counter such a move should
it occur. For Richard not to have done so, one has to believe that Richard
thought he, with the aid of as few as 100-150 men, could ride to where the
fighting was, dismount and defeat Tudor's forces BEFORE Stanley could
intervene, regardless of what Northumberland did. Or didn't do.
Perhaps Richard WAS that incompetent, but I don't find anything to support
such a conclusion.
(c) Were Northumberland's troops any less qualified than Norfolk's? Their
morale, or lack of it, would only have mattered if Northumberland had given
an order to enter the battle, the troops refused (or Northumberland knew
they would refuse) and THAT was the reason for their inactivity. If that's
the case, it certainly doesn't say much for their loyalty to Northumberland
as compared to, say, Norfolk's troops who entered battle against opponents
who, according to later historians, not only outnumbered them, but hadn't
spent an undetermined amount of time already fighting.

"I'm not trying to exonerate Northumberland, but we need to be cautious
about letting supposition harden into fact."

I certainly hope I haven't given the impression that my posts contain what
DID happen, as opposed to what I THINK happened and my reasons for those
beliefs! These are just the conclusions I've come to, based on my studying
what IS known and are definitely subject to change if, or when, new facts
are discovered.

Doug
(My apologies for the lateness of this reply. I wrote it Tuesday morning,
planning on sending it that afternoon/night and forgot to do so.)