Fatal Blow Identification??
Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 18:54:06
Hi,
I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
Any takers??
Matt B
I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
Any takers??
Matt B
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 19:00:22
My thought was the o
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 10, 2013, at 12:54 PM, "buckboy7219" <buckboy7219@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
>
>
> The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
>
> Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
>
> My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
>
> Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
>
> Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
>
> Any takers??
>
> Matt B
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 10, 2013, at 12:54 PM, "buckboy7219" <buckboy7219@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
>
>
> The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
>
> Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
>
> My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
>
> Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
>
> Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
>
> Any takers??
>
> Matt B
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 19:01:30
I hit send not delete sorry
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 10, 2013, at 1:00 PM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain@...>> wrote:
My thought was the o
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 10, 2013, at 12:54 PM, "buckboy7219" buckboy7219@...<mailto:buckboy7219%40yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
>
>
> The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
>
> Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
>
> My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
>
> Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
>
> Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
>
> Any takers??
>
> Matt B
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 10, 2013, at 1:00 PM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain@...>> wrote:
My thought was the o
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 10, 2013, at 12:54 PM, "buckboy7219" buckboy7219@...<mailto:buckboy7219%40yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
>
>
> The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
>
> Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
>
> My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
>
> Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
>
> Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
>
> Any takers??
>
> Matt B
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 19:18:10
My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is released.
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
To:
Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
Hi,
I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
Any takers??
Matt B
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
To:
Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
Hi,
I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
Any takers??
Matt B
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 19:30:26
Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
Great research, extraordinary find and riveting viewing!!
Cheers,
Matt
--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is released.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
> Hi,
>
> I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
>
>
> The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
>
> Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
>
> My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
>
> Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
>
> Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
>
> Any takers??
>
> Matt B
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
Great research, extraordinary find and riveting viewing!!
Cheers,
Matt
--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is released.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
> Hi,
>
> I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
>
>
> The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
>
> Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
>
> My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
>
> Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
>
> Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
>
> Any takers??
>
> Matt B
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 19:46:39
Hi, Pamela & Matt!
Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
"peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
(I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
released.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJka21laW5iBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
"peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
(I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
released.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJka21laW5iBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
Yahoo! Groups
Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 20:00:20
The only way that I believe an investigator can be certain of pre and peri
mortem, is if the bone showed signs of healing In Richards case the blow
to the buttocks was an area that was known to be defended by armor, from the
angle, depth and area of the wound one can surmise that he would only
receive these wounds when not wearing armor. Knights do not take armor
off in the middle of a battle....... Assumption is then that this wound was
caused peri mortem. As for soft flesh or deep organ wounds that would be
difficult to find unless there was some sort of mark or scrape on his
vertebra or ribs, showing possible trauma through, say a stab to the lower
abdomen. As far as I know nothing has been revealed in any of the statements
that I have either seen or read to this effect, however they are conducting
more tests and I am sure that we can expect to hear more on the subject.
George
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 2:30 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt
either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post
mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to
another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit
of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a
little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
Great research, extraordinary find and riveting viewing!!
Cheers,
Matt
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
released.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
> Hi,
>
> I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a
medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but
a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
>
>
> The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo
Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's
fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
>
> Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
>
> My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when,
to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound,
perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver
through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one
definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could
have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted
attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
>
> Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources
Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there
is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
>
> Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is
that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a
sound osteological justification her conclusion.
>
> Any takers??
>
> Matt B
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
mortem, is if the bone showed signs of healing In Richards case the blow
to the buttocks was an area that was known to be defended by armor, from the
angle, depth and area of the wound one can surmise that he would only
receive these wounds when not wearing armor. Knights do not take armor
off in the middle of a battle....... Assumption is then that this wound was
caused peri mortem. As for soft flesh or deep organ wounds that would be
difficult to find unless there was some sort of mark or scrape on his
vertebra or ribs, showing possible trauma through, say a stab to the lower
abdomen. As far as I know nothing has been revealed in any of the statements
that I have either seen or read to this effect, however they are conducting
more tests and I am sure that we can expect to hear more on the subject.
George
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 2:30 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt
either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post
mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to
another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit
of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a
little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
Great research, extraordinary find and riveting viewing!!
Cheers,
Matt
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
released.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
> Hi,
>
> I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a
medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but
a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
>
>
> The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo
Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's
fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
>
> Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
>
> My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when,
to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound,
perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver
through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one
definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could
have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted
attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
>
> Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources
Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there
is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
>
> Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is
that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a
sound osteological justification her conclusion.
>
> Any takers??
>
> Matt B
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 20:46:38
Well yes, and In Dr. Appleby's press conference she mentioned that the scoliosis could have caused heart and breathing problems. One can imagine, fighting for you very life, and wound upon would, any number of things could have killed him. I hope he was virtually unconscious, and did not suffer too much.
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:30 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
Great research, extraordinary find and riveting viewing!!
Cheers,
Matt
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is released.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
> Hi,
>
> I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
>
>
> The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
>
> Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
>
> My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
>
> Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
>
> Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
>
> Any takers??
>
> Matt B
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:30 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
Great research, extraordinary find and riveting viewing!!
Cheers,
Matt
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is released.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
> Hi,
>
> I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
>
>
> The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
>
> Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
>
> My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
>
> Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
>
> Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
>
> Any takers??
>
> Matt B
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 21:10:38
Hi--
I just viewed the video, and I wondered the same thing. However, the one thing she said about it makes sense: Richard would have been wearing armor while he was alive. It wasn't until he died that he was stripped of his armor. The buttocks wouldn't have been an easy target until that happened. Probably the same with the rib blade cut. Richard could have been injured on his face/cheek if he had lost his helmet before his death, but just as easily or logical for a post-death injury--a humiliation injury, they called it.
How they determine the injuries, and what caused them is what is so facinating. Especially when it applies to Richard...between the archeology, the genetics etc, I don't which to search out first! I can't wait for more information to come out!
loyaulte me lie,
Maggie
--- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
>
>
> Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
>
> I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
>
> My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
>
> Great research, extraordinary find and riveting viewing!!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is released.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
> > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
> >
> >
> > The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
> >
> > Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
> >
> > My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
> >
> > Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
> >
> > Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
> >
> > Any takers??
> >
> > Matt B
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
I just viewed the video, and I wondered the same thing. However, the one thing she said about it makes sense: Richard would have been wearing armor while he was alive. It wasn't until he died that he was stripped of his armor. The buttocks wouldn't have been an easy target until that happened. Probably the same with the rib blade cut. Richard could have been injured on his face/cheek if he had lost his helmet before his death, but just as easily or logical for a post-death injury--a humiliation injury, they called it.
How they determine the injuries, and what caused them is what is so facinating. Especially when it applies to Richard...between the archeology, the genetics etc, I don't which to search out first! I can't wait for more information to come out!
loyaulte me lie,
Maggie
--- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
>
>
> Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
>
> I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
>
> My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
>
> Great research, extraordinary find and riveting viewing!!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is released.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
> > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
> >
> >
> > The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
> >
> > Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
> >
> > My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
> >
> > Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
> >
> > Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
> >
> > Any takers??
> >
> > Matt B
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 21:23:26
You know, thinking about the post mortem injuries I don't think they could have been caused by a bunch of, for example, French troops just haphazardly abusing his corpse in the heat of the post-battle moment, because it seems pretty obvious they deliberately avoided his face - so he could be recognised.
To me, that suggests a more deliberate and calm humiliation of the corpse, whether ordered by Tudor or Stanley who knows?
P.S. A certain car park in Leicester just got a mention on the BAFTAs!
________________________________
From: thorne.maggie1485 <thorne.maggie1485@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 21:10
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Hi--
I just viewed the video, and I wondered the same thing. However, the one thing she said about it makes sense: Richard would have been wearing armor while he was alive. It wasn't until he died that he was stripped of his armor. The buttocks wouldn't have been an easy target until that happened. Probably the same with the rib blade cut. Richard could have been injured on his face/cheek if he had lost his helmet before his death, but just as easily or logical for a post-death injury--a humiliation injury, they called it.
How they determine the injuries, and what caused them is what is so facinating. Especially when it applies to Richard...between the archeology, the genetics etc, I don't which to search out first! I can't wait for more information to come out!
loyaulte me lie,
Maggie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "buckboy7219" wrote:
>
>
> Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
>
> I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
>
> My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
>
> Great research, extraordinary find and riveting viewing!!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is released.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
> > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
> >
> >
> > The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
> >
> > Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
> >
> > My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
> >
> > Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
> >
> > Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
> >
> > Any takers??
> >
> > Matt B
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
To me, that suggests a more deliberate and calm humiliation of the corpse, whether ordered by Tudor or Stanley who knows?
P.S. A certain car park in Leicester just got a mention on the BAFTAs!
________________________________
From: thorne.maggie1485 <thorne.maggie1485@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 21:10
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Hi--
I just viewed the video, and I wondered the same thing. However, the one thing she said about it makes sense: Richard would have been wearing armor while he was alive. It wasn't until he died that he was stripped of his armor. The buttocks wouldn't have been an easy target until that happened. Probably the same with the rib blade cut. Richard could have been injured on his face/cheek if he had lost his helmet before his death, but just as easily or logical for a post-death injury--a humiliation injury, they called it.
How they determine the injuries, and what caused them is what is so facinating. Especially when it applies to Richard...between the archeology, the genetics etc, I don't which to search out first! I can't wait for more information to come out!
loyaulte me lie,
Maggie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "buckboy7219" wrote:
>
>
> Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
>
> I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
>
> My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
>
> Great research, extraordinary find and riveting viewing!!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is released.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
> > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
> >
> >
> > The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
> >
> > Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
> >
> > My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
> >
> > Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
> >
> > Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
> >
> > Any takers??
> >
> > Matt B
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 21:46:58
Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
All the best
'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Pamela & Matt!
>
>
>
> Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
>
>
>
> I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
>
>
>
> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> released.
>
>
>
>
>
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to:
>
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
>
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
>
be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
>
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
>
>
=25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
All the best
'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Pamela & Matt!
>
>
>
> Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
>
>
>
> I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
>
>
>
> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> released.
>
>
>
>
>
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to:
>
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
>
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
>
be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
>
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
>
>
=25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 21:50:56
I would have thought that someone stuck the sword into Richard's right buttock when he had been slung on the horse...Eileen
--- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
>
> Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
>
>
>
> I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
>
> The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
>
> Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
>
> All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
>
> Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
>
> My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
>
> Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
>
> All the best
>
> 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
>
> The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
>
> A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
>
> Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
>
> A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
>
> In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
>
> Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
>
> It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
>
> The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
>
> The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> >
> >
> >
> > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > released.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > Yahoo! Groups
> >
> > Switch to:
> >
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> >
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> >
> be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> >
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
>
> Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
>
>
>
> I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
>
> The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
>
> Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
>
> All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
>
> Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
>
> My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
>
> Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
>
> All the best
>
> 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
>
> The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
>
> A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
>
> Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
>
> A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
>
> In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
>
> Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
>
> It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
>
> The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
>
> The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> >
> >
> >
> > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > released.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > Yahoo! Groups
> >
> > Switch to:
> >
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> >
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> >
> be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> >
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 22:04:57
Hey, Matt. You might want to check out the ULeic's video series on the dig. Dr. Appleby is able to expand on some of her briefly-handled comments in the CH4 doc. She says, as you have pointed out, that it's possible that a different fatal injury to the soft tissues might have been the active agent of the king's death, in which case they'd never know. I think they may have edited out the part in the CH4 doc where the participants said something along the lines of, "If one of the injuries still visible on the skeleton was the fatal blow, then..."
--- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
>
>
> The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
>
> Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
>
> My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
>
> Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
>
> Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
>
> Any takers??
>
> Matt B
>
--- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
>
>
> The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
>
> Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
>
> My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
>
> Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
>
> Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
>
> Any takers??
>
> Matt B
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-10 22:14:34
I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" <buckboy7219@...> wrote:
> Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
>
> I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
>
> The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
>
> Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
>
> All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
>
> Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
>
> My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
>
> Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
>
> All the best
>
> 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
>
> The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
>
> A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
>
> Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
>
> A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
>
> In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
>
> Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
>
> It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
>
> The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
>
> The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> >
> >
> >
> > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > released.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > Yahoo! Groups
> >
> > Switch to:
> >
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> >
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> >
> be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> >
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" <buckboy7219@...> wrote:
> Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
>
> I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
>
> The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
>
> Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
>
> All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
>
> Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
>
> My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
>
> Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
>
> All the best
>
> 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
>
> The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
>
> A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
>
> Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
>
> A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
>
> In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
>
> Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
>
> It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
>
> The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
>
> The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> >
> >
> >
> > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > released.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > Yahoo! Groups
> >
> > Switch to:
> >
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> >
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> >
> be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> >
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 00:16:50
Thanks mcjohn, good suggestion, i certainly will check out her more in depth comments. cheers!!
--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> Hey, Matt. You might want to check out the ULeic's video series on the dig. Dr. Appleby is able to expand on some of her briefly-handled comments in the CH4 doc. She says, as you have pointed out, that it's possible that a different fatal injury to the soft tissues might have been the active agent of the king's death, in which case they'd never know. I think they may have edited out the part in the CH4 doc where the participants said something along the lines of, "If one of the injuries still visible on the skeleton was the fatal blow, then..."
>
> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
> >
> >
> > The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
> >
> > Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
> >
> > My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
> >
> > Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
> >
> > Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
> >
> > Any takers??
> >
> > Matt B
> >
>
--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> Hey, Matt. You might want to check out the ULeic's video series on the dig. Dr. Appleby is able to expand on some of her briefly-handled comments in the CH4 doc. She says, as you have pointed out, that it's possible that a different fatal injury to the soft tissues might have been the active agent of the king's death, in which case they'd never know. I think they may have edited out the part in the CH4 doc where the participants said something along the lines of, "If one of the injuries still visible on the skeleton was the fatal blow, then..."
>
> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
> >
> >
> > The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
> >
> > Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
> >
> > My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
> >
> > Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
> >
> > Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
> >
> > Any takers??
> >
> > Matt B
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 00:46:28
Fabulous Maggie!! I agree a reasonable surmise for the pelvic wound would be post mortem due to the reasons you stste. I just thought that they may have been some obscure osteological tissue evidence that may be instructive on timing of wound with respect todeath. I will be glued to any more research conclusions too. The y chromosome testing may reveal some interesting patrilineal conclusions. Watch this space!!
--- In , "thorne.maggie1485" wrote:
>
> Hi--
>
> I just viewed the video, and I wondered the same thing. However, the one thing she said about it makes sense: Richard would have been wearing armor while he was alive. It wasn't until he died that he was stripped of his armor. The buttocks wouldn't have been an easy target until that happened. Probably the same with the rib blade cut. Richard could have been injured on his face/cheek if he had lost his helmet before his death, but just as easily or logical for a post-death injury--a humiliation injury, they called it.
>
> How they determine the injuries, and what caused them is what is so facinating. Especially when it applies to Richard...between the archeology, the genetics etc, I don't which to search out first! I can't wait for more information to come out!
>
> loyaulte me lie,
>
> Maggie
> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> >
> > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> >
> > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> >
> > Great research, extraordinary find and riveting viewing!!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Matt
> > --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is released.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
> > >
> > >
> > > The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
> > >
> > > Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
> > >
> > > My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
> > >
> > > Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
> > >
> > > Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
> > >
> > > Any takers??
> > >
> > > Matt B
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
>
--- In , "thorne.maggie1485" wrote:
>
> Hi--
>
> I just viewed the video, and I wondered the same thing. However, the one thing she said about it makes sense: Richard would have been wearing armor while he was alive. It wasn't until he died that he was stripped of his armor. The buttocks wouldn't have been an easy target until that happened. Probably the same with the rib blade cut. Richard could have been injured on his face/cheek if he had lost his helmet before his death, but just as easily or logical for a post-death injury--a humiliation injury, they called it.
>
> How they determine the injuries, and what caused them is what is so facinating. Especially when it applies to Richard...between the archeology, the genetics etc, I don't which to search out first! I can't wait for more information to come out!
>
> loyaulte me lie,
>
> Maggie
> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> >
> > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> >
> > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> >
> > Great research, extraordinary find and riveting viewing!!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Matt
> > --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is released.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of buckboy7219
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:54 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I must firstly say I am no Osteologist or Ricardian expert, just a medieval history enthusiast, and perhaps this has been discussed already but a cursory search didn't reveal a similar thread.
> > >
> > >
> > > The bone and wound analysis in the documentary, with the armourer, Jo Appleby and the forensic pathologist, presented the deduction that Richard's fatal battlefield blow was the large excision to the lower occipital zone.
> > >
> > > Fine, there were two potentially fatal wounds to this area.
> > >
> > > My query is how can they definitely assert that was the fatal wound when, to my logic, it may have been possible for Richard to have a stabbing wound, perhaps lance or pole-axe, that pierced the heart, lungs or even liver through the ribs or up under and left no bony pathology? How can one definitively conclude the skull wounds were the fatal blows when they could have been post mortem humiliation mutilations? Perhaps a half hearted attempt at decapitation in the me-lee.
> > >
> > > Starkey asserts a pike was the fatal blow, uncertain of his sources Croyland, Vergil perhaps. Even the documentary mentioned this. Surely there is a degree of uncertainty to the aetiology of the fatal pathology?
> > >
> > > Also Jo Appleby said the laceration to the pelvis was post mortem, how is that determined whether it's peri, pre or post mortem. There's probably a sound osteological justification her conclusion.
> > >
> > > Any takers??
> > >
> > > Matt B
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 00:49:45
I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
>
> > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> >
> > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> >
> > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> >
> > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> >
> > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> >
> > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> >
> > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> >
> > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> >
> > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> >
> > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> >
> > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> >
> > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> >
> > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> >
> > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> >
> > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> >
> > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> >
> > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > released.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > Yahoo! Groups
> > >
> > > Switch to:
> > >
> > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > >
> > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > >
> > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > >
> > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
>
> > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> >
> > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> >
> > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> >
> > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> >
> > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> >
> > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> >
> > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> >
> > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> >
> > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> >
> > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> >
> > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> >
> > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> >
> > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> >
> > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> >
> > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> >
> > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> >
> > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > released.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > Yahoo! Groups
> > >
> > > Switch to:
> > >
> > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > >
> > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > >
> > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > >
> > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 05:35:51
Matt wrote:
>
>
> Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
>
> I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
>
> My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
Carol responds:
I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
Carol
>
>
> Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
>
> I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
>
> My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
Carol responds:
I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 11:35:43
We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> >
> > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> >
> > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
>
> By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
>
> At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
>
> Carol
>
I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> >
> > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> >
> > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
>
> By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
>
> At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
>
> Carol
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 11:57:33
But was the hawthorn bush emblem a result of this or did it predate the battle?
What would Richard most likely have been wearing:
Breeches and tunic, Probably a gambieson on top of that (armour rubs ), then a coat of mail (which covered the body parts that cannot be covered by plate like under the arms and had a hood), then the best and most advanced plate armour money could buy. His battle helm with gold circlet.
Which was why the weaponry of the time was so heavy and why most skeletons of the time show significant damage mainly to the head (faces battered in etc).
They did point out the cut in the breast-bone would likely have been after the armour was removed and they had good reason to suppose that. Along with the accounts we have
this does reinforce the likelihood that the wounds on the body were post-mortem and unlikely that any wounds were inflicted on the body during the struggle.
I can imagine being an opponent of Richard trying to get at him, as long as he was armoured and swinging his axe with expertise, I am sure I would not have wanted to get too close from the front, so I am thinking that a blow from the rear removed his helmet and the others then inflicted which finally brought him down were also from behind.
Aidan
________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> >
> > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> >
> > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
>
> By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
>
> At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
>
> Carol
>
What would Richard most likely have been wearing:
Breeches and tunic, Probably a gambieson on top of that (armour rubs ), then a coat of mail (which covered the body parts that cannot be covered by plate like under the arms and had a hood), then the best and most advanced plate armour money could buy. His battle helm with gold circlet.
Which was why the weaponry of the time was so heavy and why most skeletons of the time show significant damage mainly to the head (faces battered in etc).
They did point out the cut in the breast-bone would likely have been after the armour was removed and they had good reason to suppose that. Along with the accounts we have
this does reinforce the likelihood that the wounds on the body were post-mortem and unlikely that any wounds were inflicted on the body during the struggle.
I can imagine being an opponent of Richard trying to get at him, as long as he was armoured and swinging his axe with expertise, I am sure I would not have wanted to get too close from the front, so I am thinking that a blow from the rear removed his helmet and the others then inflicted which finally brought him down were also from behind.
Aidan
________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> >
> > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> >
> > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
>
> By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
>
> At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
>
> Carol
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 12:12:12
I'd been wondering the same thing. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult to uncover it's a Lancastrian emblem, or perhaps more properly a Tudor emblem, i.e. post-dating Bosworth.
In either case, the story may be an example of myth-making. On the other hand, as someone (J A-H or Annette Carson?) has suggested, perhaps one of the looters had squirreled the circlet under a bush hoping to come back and retrieve it later. And it certainly makes a good story for the Tudors.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Aidan Donnelly
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:58 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
But was the hawthorn bush emblem a result of this or did it predate the battle?
What would Richard most likely have been wearing:
Breeches and tunic, Probably a gambieson on top of that (armour rubs ), then a coat of mail (which covered the body parts that cannot be covered by plate like under the arms and had a hood), then the best and most advanced plate armour money could buy. His battle helm with gold circlet.
Which was why the weaponry of the time was so heavy and why most skeletons of the time show significant damage mainly to the head (faces battered in etc).
They did point out the cut in the breast-bone would likely have been after the armour was removed and they had good reason to suppose that. Along with the accounts we have
this does reinforce the likelihood that the wounds on the body were post-mortem and unlikely that any wounds were inflicted on the body during the struggle.
I can imagine being an opponent of Richard trying to get at him, as long as he was armoured and swinging his axe with expertise, I am sure I would not have wanted to get too close from the front, so I am thinking that a blow from the rear removed his helmet and the others then inflicted which finally brought him down were also from behind.
Aidan
________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@... <mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> >
> > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> >
> > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
>
> By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
>
> At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
>
> Carol
>
In either case, the story may be an example of myth-making. On the other hand, as someone (J A-H or Annette Carson?) has suggested, perhaps one of the looters had squirreled the circlet under a bush hoping to come back and retrieve it later. And it certainly makes a good story for the Tudors.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Aidan Donnelly
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:58 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
But was the hawthorn bush emblem a result of this or did it predate the battle?
What would Richard most likely have been wearing:
Breeches and tunic, Probably a gambieson on top of that (armour rubs ), then a coat of mail (which covered the body parts that cannot be covered by plate like under the arms and had a hood), then the best and most advanced plate armour money could buy. His battle helm with gold circlet.
Which was why the weaponry of the time was so heavy and why most skeletons of the time show significant damage mainly to the head (faces battered in etc).
They did point out the cut in the breast-bone would likely have been after the armour was removed and they had good reason to suppose that. Along with the accounts we have
this does reinforce the likelihood that the wounds on the body were post-mortem and unlikely that any wounds were inflicted on the body during the struggle.
I can imagine being an opponent of Richard trying to get at him, as long as he was armoured and swinging his axe with expertise, I am sure I would not have wanted to get too close from the front, so I am thinking that a blow from the rear removed his helmet and the others then inflicted which finally brought him down were also from behind.
Aidan
________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@... <mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> >
> > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> >
> > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
>
> By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
>
> At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
>
> Carol
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 15:12:05
Absolutely....two down and many to go!
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:33 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Matt wrote:
>
>
> Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
>
> I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
>
> My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
Carol responds:
I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
Carol
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:33 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Matt wrote:
>
>
> Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
>
> I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
>
> My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
Carol responds:
I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 16:25:42
Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
Marie
--- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
>
> I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > >
> > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > >
> > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > >
> > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > >
> > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > >
> > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > >
> > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > >
> > > All the best
> > >
> > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > >
> > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > >
> > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > >
> > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > >
> > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > >
> > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > >
> > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > >
> > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > >
> > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > >
> > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > >
> > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Johanne
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > >
> > > > or jltournier@
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > >
> > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From:
> > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > released.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > >
> > > > Switch to:
> > > >
> > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > >
> > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > >
> > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > >
> > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Marie
--- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
>
> I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > >
> > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > >
> > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > >
> > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > >
> > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > >
> > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > >
> > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > >
> > > All the best
> > >
> > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > >
> > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > >
> > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > >
> > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > >
> > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > >
> > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > >
> > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > >
> > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > >
> > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > >
> > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > >
> > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Johanne
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > >
> > > > or jltournier@
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > >
> > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From:
> > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > released.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > >
> > > > Switch to:
> > > >
> > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > >
> > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > >
> > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > >
> > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 17:13:56
The story of the crown just says Richard wore a crown - it is modern historians who have told us this would have been a circlet worn on a helmet. I would like to go through the early sources again and see precisely what they tell us.
Marie
--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
>
> I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Matt wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> > >
> > > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> > >
> > > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
> >
> > By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
> >
> > At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Marie
--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
>
> I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Matt wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> > >
> > > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> > >
> > > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
> >
> > By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
> >
> > At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 17:28:46
I read in the Bulletin Extra that it was a 'sword thrust through the right buttock'...would the lower ranks have owned swords? Just wondering...I should have imagined they were expensive....Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >
> > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> >
> > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > >
> > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > >
> > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > >
> > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > >
> > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > > >
> > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > >
> > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > >
> > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > >
> > > > All the best
> > > >
> > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > > >
> > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > > >
> > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > >
> > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > >
> > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > > >
> > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > >
> > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > >
> > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > > >
> > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > >
> > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Johanne
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > >
> > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > >
> > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From:
> > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > > released.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > >
> > > > > Switch to:
> > > > >
> > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > >
> > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > >
> > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > >
> > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >
> > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> >
> > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > >
> > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > >
> > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > >
> > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > >
> > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > > >
> > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > >
> > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > >
> > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > >
> > > > All the best
> > > >
> > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > > >
> > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > > >
> > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > >
> > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > >
> > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > > >
> > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > >
> > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > >
> > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > > >
> > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > >
> > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Johanne
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > >
> > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > >
> > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From:
> > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > > released.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > >
> > > > > Switch to:
> > > > >
> > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > >
> > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > >
> > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > >
> > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 17:41:48
Marie, the only circlet likely to have been with him was exactly that, intended to be worn on a battle helmet.
Really it stretches credibility beyond reason to suggest ANY man would go into battle without a helmet unless he had no choice in that era, he would have been a target for every enemy longbowman for a start - and they were very accurate shooters at quite long ranges.
The archery competition said to have been won by Robin Hood in King John's day shows an example (yes I know the story may be apocryphal, but the kind of marksmanship shown by it wasn't), and that was well before the Longbow came into it's own as a battle-winner, I think that was under Edward I.
Sorry but thinking Richard went helmetless into action is a non-starter and I have never seen any authoritative suggestion that it could be otherwise.
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
The story of the crown just says Richard wore a crown - it is modern historians who have told us this would have been a circlet worn on a helmet. I would like to go through the early sources again and see precisely what they tell us.
Marie
--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
>
> I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Matt wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> > >
> > > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> > >
> > > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
> >
> > By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
> >
> > At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Really it stretches credibility beyond reason to suggest ANY man would go into battle without a helmet unless he had no choice in that era, he would have been a target for every enemy longbowman for a start - and they were very accurate shooters at quite long ranges.
The archery competition said to have been won by Robin Hood in King John's day shows an example (yes I know the story may be apocryphal, but the kind of marksmanship shown by it wasn't), and that was well before the Longbow came into it's own as a battle-winner, I think that was under Edward I.
Sorry but thinking Richard went helmetless into action is a non-starter and I have never seen any authoritative suggestion that it could be otherwise.
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
The story of the crown just says Richard wore a crown - it is modern historians who have told us this would have been a circlet worn on a helmet. I would like to go through the early sources again and see precisely what they tell us.
Marie
--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
>
> I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Matt wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> > >
> > > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> > >
> > > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
> >
> > By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
> >
> > At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 17:59:41
Marie
I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >
> > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> >
> > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > >
> > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > >
> > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > >
> > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > >
> > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > > >
> > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > >
> > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > >
> > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > >
> > > > All the best
> > > >
> > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > > >
> > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > > >
> > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > >
> > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > >
> > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > > >
> > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > >
> > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > >
> > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > > >
> > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > >
> > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Johanne
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > >
> > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > >
> > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From:
> > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > > released.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > >
> > > > > Switch to:
> > > > >
> > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > >
> > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > >
> > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > >
> > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >
> > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> >
> > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > >
> > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > George
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > >
> > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > >
> > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > >
> > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > > >
> > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > >
> > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > >
> > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > >
> > > > All the best
> > > >
> > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > > >
> > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > > >
> > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > >
> > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > >
> > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > > >
> > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > >
> > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > >
> > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > > >
> > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > >
> > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Johanne
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > >
> > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > >
> > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From:
> > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > > released.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > >
> > > > > Switch to:
> > > > >
> > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > >
> > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > >
> > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > >
> > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 18:16:49
Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> I’d been wondering the same thing. Surely it wouldn’t be too difficult to uncover it’s a Lancastrian emblem, or perhaps more properly a “Tudor†emblem, i.e. post-dating Bosworth.
>
> In either case, the story may be an example of myth-making. On the other hand, as someone (J A-H or Annette Carson?) has suggested, perhaps one of the looters had squirreled the circlet under a bush hoping to come back and retrieve it later. And it certainly makes a good story â€" for the Tudors.
Carol responds:
Although looting was common after medieval battles, I very much doubt that Henry would have let anyone but himself and his most trusted men strip Richard of his armor. I suspect that he gave William Stanley that dubious honor. He--or Stanley--would certainly have set a guard around Richard's body the moment it fell.
Regarding the hawthorn emblem, I notice that it made its way into the story of Richard of York (discussed in another thread), but I'm not sure of its origins. Does anyone know whether the emblem predates Bosworth? Does the story itself come from Croyland (not reliable on Bosworth; it has Henry gallantly charging Richard!) or "The Ballad of Lady Bessy" (Tudor propaganda by one of Stanley's soldiers) or is it later? Don't have time to check, so I'm hoping that someone knows.
I don't often disagree with Annette, but in this case, I'm sure that the only looting authorized by Henry, just as the humiliation wounds were. I wonder what happened to Richard's armor, which was probably the same suit specially made for him after Barnet.
Carol, begging people to stay on topic so we can all catch up on posting
>
> I’d been wondering the same thing. Surely it wouldn’t be too difficult to uncover it’s a Lancastrian emblem, or perhaps more properly a “Tudor†emblem, i.e. post-dating Bosworth.
>
> In either case, the story may be an example of myth-making. On the other hand, as someone (J A-H or Annette Carson?) has suggested, perhaps one of the looters had squirreled the circlet under a bush hoping to come back and retrieve it later. And it certainly makes a good story â€" for the Tudors.
Carol responds:
Although looting was common after medieval battles, I very much doubt that Henry would have let anyone but himself and his most trusted men strip Richard of his armor. I suspect that he gave William Stanley that dubious honor. He--or Stanley--would certainly have set a guard around Richard's body the moment it fell.
Regarding the hawthorn emblem, I notice that it made its way into the story of Richard of York (discussed in another thread), but I'm not sure of its origins. Does anyone know whether the emblem predates Bosworth? Does the story itself come from Croyland (not reliable on Bosworth; it has Henry gallantly charging Richard!) or "The Ballad of Lady Bessy" (Tudor propaganda by one of Stanley's soldiers) or is it later? Don't have time to check, so I'm hoping that someone knows.
I don't often disagree with Annette, but in this case, I'm sure that the only looting authorized by Henry, just as the humiliation wounds were. I wonder what happened to Richard's armor, which was probably the same suit specially made for him after Barnet.
Carol, begging people to stay on topic so we can all catch up on posting
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 18:22:22
May I respectfully request you cease talking about this?
It is bad enough knowing how Richard died without having to go over and
over it again and again.
It is as if you are making him relive it.
And it upsets me deeply.
Paul
On 11/02/2013 17:59, George Butterfield wrote:
> Marie
> I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
> George
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
>> Marie
>>
>> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
>>> I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
>>>
>>> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>>>> I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
>>>> I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
>>>>>
>>>>> I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
>>>>>
>>>>> The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
>>>>>
>>>>> All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best
>>>>>
>>>>> 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
>>>>>
>>>>> A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
>>>>>
>>>>> A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
>>>>>
>>>>> The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, Pamela & Matt!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
>>>>>> the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
>>>>>> regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
>>>>>> inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
>>>>>> interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
>>>>>> Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
>>>>>> the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
>>>>>> descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
>>>>>> with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
>>>>>> the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
>>>>>> charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
>>>>>> sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
>>>>>> a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
>>>>>> off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
>>>>>> attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
>>>>>> try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
>>>>>> the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
>>>>>> happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
>>>>>> which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
>>>>>> "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
>>>>>> that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
>>>>>> likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
>>>>>> (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
>>>>>> because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
>>>>>> And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
>>>>>> that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
>>>>>> sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
>>>>>> though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Loyaulte me lie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Johanne
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Johanne L. Tournier
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Email - jltournier60@
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or jltournier@
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "With God, all things are possible."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Jesus of Nazareth
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From:
>>>>>> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
>>>>>> To:
>>>>>> Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
>>>>>> top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
>>>>>> brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
>>>>>> administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
>>>>>> myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
>>>>>> damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
>>>>>> released.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Switch to:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
>>>>> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
>>>>> be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
>>>>> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
It is bad enough knowing how Richard died without having to go over and
over it again and again.
It is as if you are making him relive it.
And it upsets me deeply.
Paul
On 11/02/2013 17:59, George Butterfield wrote:
> Marie
> I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
> George
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
>> Marie
>>
>> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
>>> I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
>>>
>>> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>>>> I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
>>>> I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
>>>>>
>>>>> I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
>>>>>
>>>>> The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
>>>>>
>>>>> All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best
>>>>>
>>>>> 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
>>>>>
>>>>> A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
>>>>>
>>>>> A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
>>>>>
>>>>> The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, Pamela & Matt!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
>>>>>> the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
>>>>>> regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
>>>>>> inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
>>>>>> interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
>>>>>> Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
>>>>>> the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
>>>>>> descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
>>>>>> with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
>>>>>> the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
>>>>>> charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
>>>>>> sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
>>>>>> a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
>>>>>> off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
>>>>>> attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
>>>>>> try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
>>>>>> the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
>>>>>> happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
>>>>>> which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
>>>>>> "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
>>>>>> that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
>>>>>> likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
>>>>>> (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
>>>>>> because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
>>>>>> And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
>>>>>> that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
>>>>>> sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
>>>>>> though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Loyaulte me lie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Johanne
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Johanne L. Tournier
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Email - jltournier60@
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or jltournier@
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "With God, all things are possible."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Jesus of Nazareth
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From:
>>>>>> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
>>>>>> To:
>>>>>> Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
>>>>>> top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
>>>>>> brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
>>>>>> administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
>>>>>> myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
>>>>>> damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
>>>>>> released.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Switch to:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
>>>>> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
>>>>> be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
>>>>> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 18:27:12
Paul
Apologies I have spent my entire life surrounded by Dr.s of one sort or another and I am ex military to boot so I don't even think of the visual side perhaps Marie can use my email and we could discuss off forum
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 11, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> May I respectfully request you cease talking about this?
> It is bad enough knowing how Richard died without having to go over and
> over it again and again.
> It is as if you are making him relive it.
> And it upsets me deeply.
> Paul
>
> On 11/02/2013 17:59, George Butterfield wrote:
> > Marie
> > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> >> Marie
> >>
> >> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >>> I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> >>>
> >>> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>> I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> >>>> I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All the best
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> >>>>>> the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> >>>>>> regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> >>>>>> inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> >>>>>> interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> >>>>>> Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> >>>>>> the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> >>>>>> descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> >>>>>> with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> >>>>>> the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> >>>>>> charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> >>>>>> sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> >>>>>> a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> >>>>>> off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> >>>>>> attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> >>>>>> try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> >>>>>> the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> >>>>>> happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> >>>>>> which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> >>>>>> "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> >>>>>> that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> >>>>>> likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> >>>>>> (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> >>>>>> because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> >>>>>> And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> >>>>>> that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> >>>>>> sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> >>>>>> though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Loyaulte me lie,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Johanne
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Johanne L. Tournier
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Email - jltournier60@
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> or jltournier@
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "With God, all things are possible."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Jesus of Nazareth
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From:
> >>>>>> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> >>>>>> To:
> >>>>>> Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> >>>>>> top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> >>>>>> brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> >>>>>> administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> >>>>>> myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> >>>>>> damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> >>>>>> released.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> >>>>>> Yahoo! Groups
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Switch to:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> >>>>> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> >>>>> be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> >>>>> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
Apologies I have spent my entire life surrounded by Dr.s of one sort or another and I am ex military to boot so I don't even think of the visual side perhaps Marie can use my email and we could discuss off forum
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 11, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> May I respectfully request you cease talking about this?
> It is bad enough knowing how Richard died without having to go over and
> over it again and again.
> It is as if you are making him relive it.
> And it upsets me deeply.
> Paul
>
> On 11/02/2013 17:59, George Butterfield wrote:
> > Marie
> > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> >> Marie
> >>
> >> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >>> I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> >>>
> >>> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>> I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> >>>> I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All the best
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> >>>>>> the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> >>>>>> regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> >>>>>> inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> >>>>>> interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> >>>>>> Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> >>>>>> the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> >>>>>> descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> >>>>>> with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> >>>>>> the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> >>>>>> charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> >>>>>> sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> >>>>>> a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> >>>>>> off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> >>>>>> attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> >>>>>> try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> >>>>>> the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> >>>>>> happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> >>>>>> which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> >>>>>> "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> >>>>>> that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> >>>>>> likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> >>>>>> (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> >>>>>> because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> >>>>>> And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> >>>>>> that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> >>>>>> sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> >>>>>> though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Loyaulte me lie,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Johanne
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Johanne L. Tournier
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Email - jltournier60@
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> or jltournier@
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "With God, all things are possible."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Jesus of Nazareth
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From:
> >>>>>> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> >>>>>> To:
> >>>>>> Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> >>>>>> top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> >>>>>> brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> >>>>>> administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> >>>>>> myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> >>>>>> damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> >>>>>> released.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> >>>>>> Yahoo! Groups
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Switch to:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> >>>>> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> >>>>> be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> >>>>> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 18:36:44
George - being ex-mil myself and stunned my foot over this, maybe you could email me too? (dunno how to find yr email)
Aidan
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Paul
Apologies I have spent my entire life surrounded by Dr.s of one sort or another and I am ex military to boot so I don't even think of the visual side perhaps Marie can use my email and we could discuss off forum
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 11, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
> May I respectfully request you cease talking about this?
> It is bad enough knowing how Richard died without having to go over and
> over it again and again.
> It is as if you are making him relive it.
> And it upsets me deeply.
> Paul
>
> On 11/02/2013 17:59, George Butterfield wrote:
> > Marie
> > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> >> Marie
> >>
> >> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >>> I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> >>>
> >>> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>> I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> >>>> I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All the best
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> >>>>>> the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> >>>>>> regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> >>>>>> inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> >>>>>> interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> >>>>>> Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> >>>>>> the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> >>>>>> descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> >>>>>> with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> >>>>>> the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> >>>>>> charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> >>>>>> sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> >>>>>> a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> >>>>>> off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> >>>>>> attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> >>>>>> try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> >>>>>> the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> >>>>>> happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> >>>>>> which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> >>>>>> "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> >>>>>> that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> >>>>>> likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> >>>>>> (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> >>>>>> because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> >>>>>> And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> >>>>>> that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> >>>>>> sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> >>>>>> though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Loyaulte me lie,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Johanne
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Johanne L. Tournier
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Email - jltournier60@
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> or jltournier@
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "With God, all things are possible."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Jesus of Nazareth
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From:
> >>>>>> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> >>>>>> To:
> >>>>>> Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> >>>>>> top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> >>>>>> brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> >>>>>> administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> >>>>>> myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> >>>>>> damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> >>>>>> released.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> >>>>>> Yahoo! Groups
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Switch to:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> >>>>> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> >>>>> be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> >>>>> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
Aidan
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Paul
Apologies I have spent my entire life surrounded by Dr.s of one sort or another and I am ex military to boot so I don't even think of the visual side perhaps Marie can use my email and we could discuss off forum
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 11, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...> wrote:
> May I respectfully request you cease talking about this?
> It is bad enough knowing how Richard died without having to go over and
> over it again and again.
> It is as if you are making him relive it.
> And it upsets me deeply.
> Paul
>
> On 11/02/2013 17:59, George Butterfield wrote:
> > Marie
> > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> >> Marie
> >>
> >> --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >>> I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> >>>
> >>> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >>>> I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> >>>> I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> >>>> George
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All the best
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> >>>>>> the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> >>>>>> regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> >>>>>> inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> >>>>>> interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> >>>>>> Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> >>>>>> the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> >>>>>> descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> >>>>>> with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> >>>>>> the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> >>>>>> charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> >>>>>> sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> >>>>>> a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> >>>>>> off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> >>>>>> attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> >>>>>> try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> >>>>>> the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> >>>>>> happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> >>>>>> which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> >>>>>> "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> >>>>>> that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> >>>>>> likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> >>>>>> (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> >>>>>> because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> >>>>>> And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> >>>>>> that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> >>>>>> sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> >>>>>> though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Loyaulte me lie,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Johanne
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Johanne L. Tournier
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Email - jltournier60@
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> or jltournier@
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "With God, all things are possible."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Jesus of Nazareth
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From:
> >>>>>> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> >>>>>> To:
> >>>>>> Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> >>>>>> top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> >>>>>> brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> >>>>>> administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> >>>>>> myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> >>>>>> damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> >>>>>> released.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> >>>>>> Yahoo! Groups
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Switch to:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> >>>>> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> >>>>> be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> >>>>> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
The Hawthorne Bush (was RE: Fatal Blow Identification??)
2013-02-11 19:32:35
Dear Carol & Everyone
Here is what *The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty* by G.J. Meyer (Random House kindle edition) says:
It fell to the ever-resourceful Lord Stanley, who had played no part in the battle even after his brother went in, to focus the moment. Someone retrieved the crown that Richard had lost in the moment before his death. The legends say it was found in a hawthorn bush. Sober historia In ns have dismissed this as a romantic fabrication but fail to explain why, not many years after the battle, a crown in a thornbush became a royal emblem. In any case, Stanley arrived on the scene while everything was still in confusion and took possession of the crown. Putting himself at the center of a great occasion that he had done nothing to bring about, he placed the crown on his stepson's head and led the assembled company in a hearty round of cheers.
That's what G.J. Meyer says, though how reliable a book it is, I can't say. I'm certainly no expert on the Tudors, and I did notice that a couple pages earlier he refers to Richard's emblem as the blue boar.
If Richard's helmet was knocked off in the melee, or perhaps the circlet detached before he lost the helmet, it may have rolled free and ended up under a bush somewhere, only being found after the battle. I don't see why that should be inherently implausible. It does seem to fit with the hawthorne bush only becoming a Tudor symbol after the battle, just as the Tudor Rose only became a symbol later on, and, I understand, it is even questionable if the Lancastrians actually used the Red Rose as a symbol during the WotR, which of course was called The Cousins' War at the time.
BTW, I found an excellent Wikipedia page on badges, emblems and devices here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldic_badge
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 2:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Iâ¬"d been wondering the same thing. Surely it wouldnâ¬"t be too difficult to uncover itâ¬"s a Lancastrian emblem, or perhaps more properly a â¬STudor⬠emblem, i.e. post-dating Bosworth.
>
> In either case, the story may be an example of myth-making. On the other hand, as someone (J A-H or Annette Carson?) has suggested, perhaps one of the looters had squirreled the circlet under a bush hoping to come back and retrieve it later. And it certainly makes a good story â¬" for the Tudors.
Carol responds:
Although looting was common after medieval battles, I very much doubt that Henry would have let anyone but himself and his most trusted men strip Richard of his armor. I suspect that he gave William Stanley that dubious honor. He--or Stanley--would certainly have set a guard around Richard's body the moment it fell.
Regarding the hawthorn emblem, I notice that it made its way into the story of Richard of York (discussed in another thread), but I'm not sure of its origins. Does anyone know whether the emblem predates Bosworth? Does the story itself come from Croyland (not reliable on Bosworth; it has Henry gallantly charging Richard!) or "The Ballad of Lady Bessy" (Tudor propaganda by one of Stanley's soldiers) or is it later? Don't have time to check, so I'm hoping that someone knows.
I don't often disagree with Annette, but in this case, I'm sure that the only looting authorized by Henry, just as the humiliation wounds were. I wonder what happened to Richard's armor, which was probably the same suit specially made for him after Barnet.
Carol, begging people to stay on topic so we can all catch up on posting
Here is what *The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty* by G.J. Meyer (Random House kindle edition) says:
It fell to the ever-resourceful Lord Stanley, who had played no part in the battle even after his brother went in, to focus the moment. Someone retrieved the crown that Richard had lost in the moment before his death. The legends say it was found in a hawthorn bush. Sober historia In ns have dismissed this as a romantic fabrication but fail to explain why, not many years after the battle, a crown in a thornbush became a royal emblem. In any case, Stanley arrived on the scene while everything was still in confusion and took possession of the crown. Putting himself at the center of a great occasion that he had done nothing to bring about, he placed the crown on his stepson's head and led the assembled company in a hearty round of cheers.
That's what G.J. Meyer says, though how reliable a book it is, I can't say. I'm certainly no expert on the Tudors, and I did notice that a couple pages earlier he refers to Richard's emblem as the blue boar.
If Richard's helmet was knocked off in the melee, or perhaps the circlet detached before he lost the helmet, it may have rolled free and ended up under a bush somewhere, only being found after the battle. I don't see why that should be inherently implausible. It does seem to fit with the hawthorne bush only becoming a Tudor symbol after the battle, just as the Tudor Rose only became a symbol later on, and, I understand, it is even questionable if the Lancastrians actually used the Red Rose as a symbol during the WotR, which of course was called The Cousins' War at the time.
BTW, I found an excellent Wikipedia page on badges, emblems and devices here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldic_badge
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 2:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Iâ¬"d been wondering the same thing. Surely it wouldnâ¬"t be too difficult to uncover itâ¬"s a Lancastrian emblem, or perhaps more properly a â¬STudor⬠emblem, i.e. post-dating Bosworth.
>
> In either case, the story may be an example of myth-making. On the other hand, as someone (J A-H or Annette Carson?) has suggested, perhaps one of the looters had squirreled the circlet under a bush hoping to come back and retrieve it later. And it certainly makes a good story â¬" for the Tudors.
Carol responds:
Although looting was common after medieval battles, I very much doubt that Henry would have let anyone but himself and his most trusted men strip Richard of his armor. I suspect that he gave William Stanley that dubious honor. He--or Stanley--would certainly have set a guard around Richard's body the moment it fell.
Regarding the hawthorn emblem, I notice that it made its way into the story of Richard of York (discussed in another thread), but I'm not sure of its origins. Does anyone know whether the emblem predates Bosworth? Does the story itself come from Croyland (not reliable on Bosworth; it has Henry gallantly charging Richard!) or "The Ballad of Lady Bessy" (Tudor propaganda by one of Stanley's soldiers) or is it later? Don't have time to check, so I'm hoping that someone knows.
I don't often disagree with Annette, but in this case, I'm sure that the only looting authorized by Henry, just as the humiliation wounds were. I wonder what happened to Richard's armor, which was probably the same suit specially made for him after Barnet.
Carol, begging people to stay on topic so we can all catch up on posting
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 20:40:18
There were expensive swords and there were cheap swords, apparently.
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I read in the Bulletin Extra that it was a 'sword thrust through the right buttock'...would the lower ranks have owned swords? Just wondering...I should have imagined they were expensive....Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > >
> > > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > >
> > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > >
> > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > >
> > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best
> > > > >
> > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > > > >
> > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > >
> > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > > > >
> > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From:
> > > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > > > released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > >
> > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > >
> > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > >
> > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I read in the Bulletin Extra that it was a 'sword thrust through the right buttock'...would the lower ranks have owned swords? Just wondering...I should have imagined they were expensive....Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > >
> > > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > >
> > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > >
> > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > >
> > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best
> > > > >
> > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > > > >
> > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > >
> > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > > > >
> > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From:
> > > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > > > released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > >
> > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > >
> > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > >
> > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 20:55:49
Actually, I believe arrows were not accurate at long range, but there you go. I'm just puzzled as to how you pull off the sort of helmet Richard would have worn. I always think everything should be laid out on the table and considered, and I've already admitted it would have been "crazy behaviour". Also, I was specifically responding to McJohn who said that we have a reference to a helmet in the hawthorn bush story. We don't. The other theory, aka MK Jones, is that it was a proper crown but that Richard didn't wear it during the charge but before the battle when reviewing his troops.
Marie
--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Marie, the only circlet likely to have been with him was exactly that, intended to be worn on a battle helmet.
>
> Really it stretches credibility beyond reason to suggest ANY man would go into battle without a helmet unless he had no choice in that era, he would have been a target for every enemy longbowman for a start - and they were very accurate shooters at quite long ranges.
>
> The archery competition said to have been won by Robin Hood in King John's day shows an example (yes I know the story may be apocryphal, but the kind of marksmanship shown by it wasn't), and that was well before the Longbow came into it's own as a battle-winner, I think that was under Edward I.
>
> Sorry but thinking Richard went helmetless into action is a non-starter and I have never seen any authoritative suggestion that it could be otherwise.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
> Â
> The story of the crown just says Richard wore a crown - it is modern historians who have told us this would have been a circlet worn on a helmet. I would like to go through the early sources again and see precisely what they tell us.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
> >
> > I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Matt wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> > > >
> > > > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> > > >
> > > > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
> > >
> > > By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
> > >
> > > At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> Marie, the only circlet likely to have been with him was exactly that, intended to be worn on a battle helmet.
>
> Really it stretches credibility beyond reason to suggest ANY man would go into battle without a helmet unless he had no choice in that era, he would have been a target for every enemy longbowman for a start - and they were very accurate shooters at quite long ranges.
>
> The archery competition said to have been won by Robin Hood in King John's day shows an example (yes I know the story may be apocryphal, but the kind of marksmanship shown by it wasn't), and that was well before the Longbow came into it's own as a battle-winner, I think that was under Edward I.
>
> Sorry but thinking Richard went helmetless into action is a non-starter and I have never seen any authoritative suggestion that it could be otherwise.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
> Â
> The story of the crown just says Richard wore a crown - it is modern historians who have told us this would have been a circlet worn on a helmet. I would like to go through the early sources again and see precisely what they tell us.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
> >
> > I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Matt wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> > > >
> > > > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> > > >
> > > > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
> > >
> > > By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
> > >
> > > At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 21:09:27
How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
Marie
--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Marie
> I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
> George
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > >
> > > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > >
> > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > >
> > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > >
> > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best
> > > > >
> > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > > > >
> > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > >
> > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > > > >
> > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From:
> > > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > > > released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > >
> > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > >
> > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > >
> > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Marie
> I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
> George
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > >
> > > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > >
> > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > >
> > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > >
> > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best
> > > > >
> > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > > > >
> > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > >
> > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > > > >
> > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From:
> > > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > > > released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > >
> > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > >
> > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > >
> > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 21:10:57
Can I catch up with this tomorrow, Carole? There is an article on the origin of Henry's badges in the Scoiety library.
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > I’d been wondering the same thing. Surely it wouldn’t be too difficult to uncover it’s a Lancastrian emblem, or perhaps more properly a “Tudor†emblem, i.e. post-dating Bosworth.
> >
> > In either case, the story may be an example of myth-making. On the other hand, as someone (J A-H or Annette Carson?) has suggested, perhaps one of the looters had squirreled the circlet under a bush hoping to come back and retrieve it later. And it certainly makes a good story â€" for the Tudors.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Although looting was common after medieval battles, I very much doubt that Henry would have let anyone but himself and his most trusted men strip Richard of his armor. I suspect that he gave William Stanley that dubious honor. He--or Stanley--would certainly have set a guard around Richard's body the moment it fell.
>
> Regarding the hawthorn emblem, I notice that it made its way into the story of Richard of York (discussed in another thread), but I'm not sure of its origins. Does anyone know whether the emblem predates Bosworth? Does the story itself come from Croyland (not reliable on Bosworth; it has Henry gallantly charging Richard!) or "The Ballad of Lady Bessy" (Tudor propaganda by one of Stanley's soldiers) or is it later? Don't have time to check, so I'm hoping that someone knows.
>
> I don't often disagree with Annette, but in this case, I'm sure that the only looting authorized by Henry, just as the humiliation wounds were. I wonder what happened to Richard's armor, which was probably the same suit specially made for him after Barnet.
>
> Carol, begging people to stay on topic so we can all catch up on posting
>
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > I’d been wondering the same thing. Surely it wouldn’t be too difficult to uncover it’s a Lancastrian emblem, or perhaps more properly a “Tudor†emblem, i.e. post-dating Bosworth.
> >
> > In either case, the story may be an example of myth-making. On the other hand, as someone (J A-H or Annette Carson?) has suggested, perhaps one of the looters had squirreled the circlet under a bush hoping to come back and retrieve it later. And it certainly makes a good story â€" for the Tudors.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Although looting was common after medieval battles, I very much doubt that Henry would have let anyone but himself and his most trusted men strip Richard of his armor. I suspect that he gave William Stanley that dubious honor. He--or Stanley--would certainly have set a guard around Richard's body the moment it fell.
>
> Regarding the hawthorn emblem, I notice that it made its way into the story of Richard of York (discussed in another thread), but I'm not sure of its origins. Does anyone know whether the emblem predates Bosworth? Does the story itself come from Croyland (not reliable on Bosworth; it has Henry gallantly charging Richard!) or "The Ballad of Lady Bessy" (Tudor propaganda by one of Stanley's soldiers) or is it later? Don't have time to check, so I'm hoping that someone knows.
>
> I don't often disagree with Annette, but in this case, I'm sure that the only looting authorized by Henry, just as the humiliation wounds were. I wonder what happened to Richard's armor, which was probably the same suit specially made for him after Barnet.
>
> Carol, begging people to stay on topic so we can all catch up on posting
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 21:12:33
Dear George, Marie et al -
BTW, if there is going to be any offlist discussion of these matters, would
you please add me to your group?
I would suggest for Paul that we clearly label the subject lines here, as I
think this message is, so that Paul can delete them without reading.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
There were expensive swords and there were cheap swords, apparently.
Marie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I read in the Bulletin Extra that it was a 'sword thrust through the right
buttock'...would the lower ranks have owned swords? Just wondering...I
should have imagined they were expensive....Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing
the horse as well.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , George Butterfield
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that
much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
carrying his body.
> > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > >
> > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood
of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > >
> > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > >
> > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official;
press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were
the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However,
in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin
region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best
> > > > >
> > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating
wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct
blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound
to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
`slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
halberd.
> > > > >
> > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case
of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which
we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > >
> > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with
where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but
could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
period of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused
by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been
caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore
speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries
to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This
has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of
such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic
literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
mistreated after the battle.
> > > > >
> > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have
been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to
speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a
backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife
or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as
this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be
inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com)
is actually
> > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
But,
> > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible
but
> > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
area of
> > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
point that
> > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
evidence of the
> > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
great extent,
> > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the
reports at
> > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in
armor is
> > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
to do is make
> > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely
and killing
> > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
that helmet
> > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
since his
> > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
behind. I would
> > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
rear, between
> > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's
what
> > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell
for sure
> > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them
all
> > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it
appears
> > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
been most
> > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
the right rear
> > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
at an angle,
> > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
entry point.
> > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
was thinking
> > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace"
to make
> > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point
is that
> > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been
merciful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
Identification??
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
indentation on the
> > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
damage to the
> > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds
were
> > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
expert
> > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
dings and
> > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
information is
> > > > > > released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > >
> > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > >
> > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > >
> > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
BTW, if there is going to be any offlist discussion of these matters, would
you please add me to your group?
I would suggest for Paul that we clearly label the subject lines here, as I
think this message is, so that Paul can delete them without reading.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
There were expensive swords and there were cheap swords, apparently.
Marie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I read in the Bulletin Extra that it was a 'sword thrust through the right
buttock'...would the lower ranks have owned swords? Just wondering...I
should have imagined they were expensive....Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing
the horse as well.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , George Butterfield
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that
much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
carrying his body.
> > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > >
> > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood
of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > >
> > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > >
> > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official;
press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were
the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However,
in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin
region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best
> > > > >
> > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating
wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct
blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound
to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
`slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
halberd.
> > > > >
> > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case
of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which
we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > >
> > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with
where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but
could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
period of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused
by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been
caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore
speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries
to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This
has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of
such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic
literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
mistreated after the battle.
> > > > >
> > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have
been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to
speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a
backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife
or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as
this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be
inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com)
is actually
> > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
But,
> > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible
but
> > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
area of
> > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
point that
> > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
evidence of the
> > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
great extent,
> > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the
reports at
> > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in
armor is
> > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
to do is make
> > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely
and killing
> > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
that helmet
> > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
since his
> > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
behind. I would
> > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
rear, between
> > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's
what
> > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell
for sure
> > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them
all
> > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it
appears
> > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
been most
> > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
the right rear
> > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
at an angle,
> > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
entry point.
> > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
was thinking
> > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace"
to make
> > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point
is that
> > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been
merciful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
Identification??
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
indentation on the
> > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
damage to the
> > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds
were
> > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
expert
> > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
dings and
> > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
information is
> > > > > > released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > >
> > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > >
> > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > >
> > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 21:24:30
Enough to make a horse flinch if it hit bone the force was transmitted.
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
Marie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , George Butterfield
wrote:
>
> Marie
> I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look
at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound
but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it
still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened"
times.
> George
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing
the horse as well.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , George Butterfield
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that
much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
carrying his body.
> > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > >
> > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood
of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > >
> > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > >
> > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official;
press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were
the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However,
in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin
region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best
> > > > >
> > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating
wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct
blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound
to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
`slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
halberd.
> > > > >
> > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case
of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which
we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > >
> > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with
where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but
could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
period of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused
by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been
caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore
speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries
to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This
has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of
such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic
literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
mistreated after the battle.
> > > > >
> > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have
been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to
speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a
backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife
or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as
this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be
inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com)
is actually
> > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
But,
> > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible
but
> > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
area of
> > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
point that
> > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
evidence of the
> > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
great extent,
> > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the
reports at
> > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in
armor is
> > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
to do is make
> > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely
and killing
> > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
that helmet
> > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
since his
> > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
behind. I would
> > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
rear, between
> > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's
what
> > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell
for sure
> > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them
all
> > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it
appears
> > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
been most
> > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
the right rear
> > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
at an angle,
> > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
entry point.
> > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
was thinking
> > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace"
to make
> > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point
is that
> > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been
merciful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
Identification??
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
indentation on the
> > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
damage to the
> > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds
were
> > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
expert
> > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
dings and
> > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
information is
> > > > > > released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > >
> > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > >
> > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > >
> > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
Marie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , George Butterfield
wrote:
>
> Marie
> I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look
at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound
but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it
still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened"
times.
> George
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing
the horse as well.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , George Butterfield
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that
much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
carrying his body.
> > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > >
> > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood
of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > >
> > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > >
> > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official;
press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were
the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However,
in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin
region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best
> > > > >
> > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating
wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct
blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound
to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
`slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
halberd.
> > > > >
> > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case
of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which
we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > >
> > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with
where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but
could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
period of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused
by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been
caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore
speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries
to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This
has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of
such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic
literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
mistreated after the battle.
> > > > >
> > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have
been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to
speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a
backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife
or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as
this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be
inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com)
is actually
> > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
But,
> > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible
but
> > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
area of
> > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
point that
> > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
evidence of the
> > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
great extent,
> > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the
reports at
> > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in
armor is
> > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
to do is make
> > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely
and killing
> > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
that helmet
> > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
since his
> > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
behind. I would
> > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
rear, between
> > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's
what
> > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell
for sure
> > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them
all
> > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it
appears
> > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
been most
> > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
the right rear
> > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
at an angle,
> > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
entry point.
> > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
was thinking
> > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace"
to make
> > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point
is that
> > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been
merciful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
Identification??
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
indentation on the
> > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
damage to the
> > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds
were
> > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
expert
> > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
dings and
> > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
information is
> > > > > > released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > >
> > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > >
> > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > >
> > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 21:26:27
Johanne:
That is a very good suggestion and I will try to do this...... sometimes my
brain and fingers don't match.
George
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:12 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Dear George, Marie et al -
BTW, if there is going to be any offlist discussion of these matters, would
you please add me to your group?
I would suggest for Paul that we clearly label the subject lines here, as I
think this message is, so that Paul can delete them without reading.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:40 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
There were expensive swords and there were cheap swords, apparently.
Marie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I read in the Bulletin Extra that it was a 'sword thrust through the right
buttock'...would the lower ranks have owned swords? Just wondering...I
should have imagined they were expensive....Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing
the horse as well.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, George Butterfield
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that
much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
carrying his body.
> > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > >
> > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood
of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > >
> > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > >
> > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official;
press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were
the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However,
in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin
region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best
> > > > >
> > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating
wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct
blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound
to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
`slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
halberd.
> > > > >
> > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case
of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which
we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > >
> > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with
where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but
could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
period of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused
by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been
caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore
speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries
to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This
has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of
such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic
literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
mistreated after the battle.
> > > > >
> > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have
been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to
speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a
backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife
or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as
this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be
inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com)
is actually
> > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
But,
> > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible
but
> > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
area of
> > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
point that
> > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
evidence of the
> > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
great extent,
> > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the
reports at
> > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in
armor is
> > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
to do is make
> > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely
and killing
> > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
that helmet
> > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
since his
> > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
behind. I would
> > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
rear, between
> > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's
what
> > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell
for sure
> > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them
all
> > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it
appears
> > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
been most
> > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
the right rear
> > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
at an angle,
> > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
entry point.
> > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
was thinking
> > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace"
to make
> > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point
is that
> > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been
merciful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
Identification??
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
indentation on the
> > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
damage to the
> > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds
were
> > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
expert
> > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
dings and
> > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
information is
> > > > > > released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > >
> > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > >
> > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > >
> > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
That is a very good suggestion and I will try to do this...... sometimes my
brain and fingers don't match.
George
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:12 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Dear George, Marie et al -
BTW, if there is going to be any offlist discussion of these matters, would
you please add me to your group?
I would suggest for Paul that we clearly label the subject lines here, as I
think this message is, so that Paul can delete them without reading.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:40 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
There were expensive swords and there were cheap swords, apparently.
Marie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I read in the Bulletin Extra that it was a 'sword thrust through the right
buttock'...would the lower ranks have owned swords? Just wondering...I
should have imagined they were expensive....Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing
the horse as well.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, George Butterfield
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that
much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
carrying his body.
> > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > >
> > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood
of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > >
> > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > >
> > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official;
press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were
the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However,
in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin
region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best
> > > > >
> > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating
wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct
blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound
to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
`slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
halberd.
> > > > >
> > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case
of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which
we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > >
> > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with
where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but
could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
period of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused
by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been
caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore
speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries
to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This
has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of
such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic
literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
mistreated after the battle.
> > > > >
> > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have
been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to
speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a
backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife
or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as
this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be
inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com)
is actually
> > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
But,
> > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible
but
> > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
area of
> > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
point that
> > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
evidence of the
> > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
great extent,
> > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the
reports at
> > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in
armor is
> > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
to do is make
> > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely
and killing
> > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
that helmet
> > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
since his
> > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
behind. I would
> > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
rear, between
> > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's
what
> > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell
for sure
> > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them
all
> > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it
appears
> > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
been most
> > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
the right rear
> > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
at an angle,
> > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
entry point.
> > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
was thinking
> > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace"
to make
> > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point
is that
> > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been
merciful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
Identification??
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
indentation on the
> > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
damage to the
> > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds
were
> > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
expert
> > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
dings and
> > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
information is
> > > > > > released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > >
> > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > >
> > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > >
> > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 21:40:09
A warhorse wouldn't flinch that easily, surely, or it would not be able to do its job.
Marie
--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Enough to make a horse flinch if it hit bone the force was transmitted.
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:09 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
> Marie
>
> --- In
> , George Butterfield
> wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look
> at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound
> but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it
> still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened"
> times.
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
> stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing
> the horse as well.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In
> , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
> startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
> Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> , George Butterfield
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
> was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that
> much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
> carrying his body.
> > > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
> potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood
> of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
> skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
> well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official;
> press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
> likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were
> the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However,
> in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
> the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
> humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
> press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin
> region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
> documentary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
> warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
> happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
> one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
> mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
> Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
> who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
> there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
> about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
> bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating
> wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct
> blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
> injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound
> to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
> `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
> this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
> caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
> halberd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
> bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
> opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
> consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case
> of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which
> we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
> of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with
> where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
> small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but
> could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
> period of time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
> cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
> consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
> cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
> this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused
> by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
> during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been
> caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore
> speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries
> to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
> severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This
> has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
> death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of
> such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic
> literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
> mistreated after the battle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have
> been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to
> speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
> inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
> on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
> ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a
> backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
> Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
> battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
> is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife
> or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
> three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
> injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
> midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
> protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as
> this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
> was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
> back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
> this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be
> inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com)
> is actually
> > > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
> But,
> > > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible
> but
> > > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
> area of
> > > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
> point that
> > > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
> fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
> evidence of the
> > > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
> great extent,
> > > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the
> reports at
> > > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in
> armor is
> > > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
> to do is make
> > > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely
> and killing
> > > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
> that helmet
> > > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
> since his
> > > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
> behind. I would
> > > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
> rear, between
> > > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's
> what
> > > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell
> for sure
> > > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them
> all
> > > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it
> appears
> > > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
> been most
> > > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
> the right rear
> > > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
> at an angle,
> > > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
> entry point.
> > > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
> was thinking
> > > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace"
> to make
> > > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point
> is that
> > > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been
> merciful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From:
>
> > > > > > > [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > To:
>
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
> Identification??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
> indentation on the
> > > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
> damage to the
> > > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds
> were
> > > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
> expert
> > > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
> dings and
> > > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
> information is
> > > > > > > released.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Enough to make a horse flinch if it hit bone the force was transmitted.
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:09 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
> Marie
>
> --- In
> , George Butterfield
> wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look
> at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound
> but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it
> still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened"
> times.
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
> stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing
> the horse as well.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In
> , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
> startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
> Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> , George Butterfield
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
> was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that
> much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
> carrying his body.
> > > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
> potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood
> of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
> skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
> well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official;
> press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
> likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were
> the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However,
> in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
> the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
> humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
> press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin
> region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
> documentary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
> warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
> happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
> one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
> mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
> Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
> who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
> there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
> about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
> bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating
> wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct
> blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
> injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound
> to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
> `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
> this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
> caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
> halberd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
> bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
> opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
> consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case
> of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which
> we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
> of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with
> where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
> small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but
> could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
> period of time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
> cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
> consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
> cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
> this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused
> by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
> during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been
> caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore
> speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries
> to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
> severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This
> has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
> death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of
> such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic
> literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
> mistreated after the battle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have
> been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to
> speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
> inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
> on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
> ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a
> backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
> Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
> battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
> is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife
> or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
> three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
> injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
> midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
> protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as
> this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
> was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
> back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
> this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be
> inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com)
> is actually
> > > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
> But,
> > > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible
> but
> > > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
> area of
> > > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
> point that
> > > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
> fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
> evidence of the
> > > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
> great extent,
> > > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the
> reports at
> > > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in
> armor is
> > > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
> to do is make
> > > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely
> and killing
> > > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
> that helmet
> > > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
> since his
> > > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
> behind. I would
> > > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
> rear, between
> > > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's
> what
> > > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell
> for sure
> > > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them
> all
> > > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it
> appears
> > > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
> been most
> > > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
> the right rear
> > > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
> at an angle,
> > > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
> entry point.
> > > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
> was thinking
> > > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace"
> to make
> > > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point
> is that
> > > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been
> merciful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From:
>
> > > > > > > [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > To:
>
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
> Identification??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
> indentation on the
> > > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
> damage to the
> > > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds
> were
> > > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
> expert
> > > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
> dings and
> > > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
> information is
> > > > > > > released.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 21:56:35
You do realise that the post death injuries inflicted upon Richard's body would constitute a war crime today. This is what I find so disturbing about some of the articles written in the last week by historians/writers who dismiss the inhumanity of these acts, as if they can be condoned because of whom they were inflicted upon. It says far more about the instigators of these crimes than it does about the victim.
Lack of respect for huminity is in itself what leads to such acts of violence and the lack of respect towards a human being who was treated in such a way an inhuman way. In addition, lack of respect towards the office of kingship by both the perpetrators of the crimes and those who have written in their defence. Shame on them all. I am not a monarchist by the way.
Elaine
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From:
> > > > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > > > > released.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Lack of respect for huminity is in itself what leads to such acts of violence and the lack of respect towards a human being who was treated in such a way an inhuman way. In addition, lack of respect towards the office of kingship by both the perpetrators of the crimes and those who have written in their defence. Shame on them all. I am not a monarchist by the way.
Elaine
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From:
> > > > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > > > > released.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 22:04:31
Marie wrote:
>
> Can I catch up with this tomorrow, Carole? There is an article on the origin of Henry's badges in the Scoiety library.
> Marie
Carol responds:
Thanks, please do. I appreciate your willingness and ability to produce sources not available to me. Only it's Carol. Carole is a different person (which you probably already knew--I occasionally mistype my own name).
Carol
>
> Can I catch up with this tomorrow, Carole? There is an article on the origin of Henry's badges in the Scoiety library.
> Marie
Carol responds:
Thanks, please do. I appreciate your willingness and ability to produce sources not available to me. Only it's Carol. Carole is a different person (which you probably already knew--I occasionally mistype my own name).
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 22:05:09
Why would you use a war horse? Bit like driving a Ferrari to go shopping
incredible acceleration turns on a dime, costs a small fortune
Marie I know that you have seen this but for the newer members who have
not…..
During the European Middle Ages, there were three primary types of war
horses: The destrier, the courser, and the rouncey, which differed in size
and usage. A generic word used to describe medieval war horses was charger,
which appears interchangeable with the other terms.[125] The medieval war
horse was of moderate size, rarely exceeding 15.2 hands (62 inches, 157 cm).
Heavy horses were logistically difficult to maintain and less adaptable to
varied terrains.[126] The destrier of the early Middle Ages was moderately
larger than the courser or rouncey, in part to accommodate heavier armoured
knights.[127] However, destriers were not as large as draught horses,
averaging between 14.2 hands (58 inches, 147 cm) and 15 hands (60 inches,
152 cm).[26] On the European continent, the need to carry more armour
against mounted enemies such as the Lombards and Frisians led to the Franks
developing heavier, bigger horses.[128] As the amount of armour and
equipment increased in the later Middle Ages, the height of the horses
increased; some late medieval horse skeletons were of horses over 15
hands.[127]
Stallions were often used as destriers due to their natural aggression.[129]
However, there may have been some use of mares by European warriors,[129]
and mares, who were quieter and less likely to call out and betray their
position to the enemy, were the preferred war horse of the Moors, who
invaded various parts of Southern Europe from 700 AD through the 15th
century.[130] Geldings were used in war by the Teutonic Knights, and known
as "monk horses" (German Mönchpferde or Mönchhengste). One advantage was if
captured by the enemy, they could not be used to improve local bloodstock,
thus maintaining the Knights' superiority in horseflesh.[131
I would suggest a pack animal however they are still very prone to
skittishness the ones they use in the highlands for deer always have to
wear blinkers as they would bolt. Horses ( though people would argue) are
basically very stupid herd animals the slightest thing can set them off
however I still maintain my theory of when this wound happened.
George
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
A warhorse wouldn't flinch that easily, surely, or it would not be able to
do its job.
Marie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "George Butterfield"
wrote:
>
> Enough to make a horse flinch if it hit bone the force was transmitted.
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:09 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
> Marie
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , George Butterfield
> wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you
look
> at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic
wound
> but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it
> still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened"
> times.
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
> stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of
stabbing
> the horse as well.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
> startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
> Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , George Butterfield
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
> was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with
that
> much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
> carrying his body.
> > > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
> potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the
likelihood
> of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
> skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
> well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the
official;
> press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
> likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they
were
> the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness.
However,
> in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
> the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
> humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
> press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the
groin
> region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
> documentary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
> warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
> happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
> one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
> mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
> Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
> who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
> there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
> about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
> bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small
penetrating
> wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a
direct
> blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
> injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large
wound
> to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
> `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
> this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
> caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
> halberd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
> bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
> opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
> consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the
case
> of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain
(which
> we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
> of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent
with
> where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
> small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal,
but
> could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
> period of time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
> cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
> consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
> cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
> this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw,
caused
> by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
> during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have
been
> caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We
therefore
> speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The
injuries
> to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
> severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims.
This
> has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
> death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples
of
> such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and
forensic
> literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
> mistreated after the battle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to
have
> been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us
to
> speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
> inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
> on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
> ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour
(a
> backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
> Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
> battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
> is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a
knife
> or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
> three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
> injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
> midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
> protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such
as
> this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
> was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
> back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
> this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to
be
> inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @
btinternet.com)
> is actually
> > > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
> But,
> > > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the
terrible
> but
> > > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
> area of
> > > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
> point that
> > > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
> fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
> evidence of the
> > > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
> great extent,
> > > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting
the
> reports at
> > > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy
in
> armor is
> > > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
> to do is make
> > > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away
fiercely
> and killing
> > > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
> that helmet
> > > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
> since his
> > > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
> behind. I would
> > > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
> rear, between
> > > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like
that's
> what
> > > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't
tell
> for sure
> > > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called
them
> all
> > > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But
it
> appears
> > > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
> been most
> > > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
> the right rear
> > > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
> at an angle,
> > > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
> entry point.
> > > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
> was thinking
> > > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de
grace"
> to make
> > > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My
point
> is that
> > > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have
been
> merciful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > > > > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
> Identification??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
> indentation on the
> > > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
> damage to the
> > > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other
wounds
> were
> > > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
> expert
> > > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
> dings and
> > > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
> information is
> > > > > > > released.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
incredible acceleration turns on a dime, costs a small fortune
Marie I know that you have seen this but for the newer members who have
not…..
During the European Middle Ages, there were three primary types of war
horses: The destrier, the courser, and the rouncey, which differed in size
and usage. A generic word used to describe medieval war horses was charger,
which appears interchangeable with the other terms.[125] The medieval war
horse was of moderate size, rarely exceeding 15.2 hands (62 inches, 157 cm).
Heavy horses were logistically difficult to maintain and less adaptable to
varied terrains.[126] The destrier of the early Middle Ages was moderately
larger than the courser or rouncey, in part to accommodate heavier armoured
knights.[127] However, destriers were not as large as draught horses,
averaging between 14.2 hands (58 inches, 147 cm) and 15 hands (60 inches,
152 cm).[26] On the European continent, the need to carry more armour
against mounted enemies such as the Lombards and Frisians led to the Franks
developing heavier, bigger horses.[128] As the amount of armour and
equipment increased in the later Middle Ages, the height of the horses
increased; some late medieval horse skeletons were of horses over 15
hands.[127]
Stallions were often used as destriers due to their natural aggression.[129]
However, there may have been some use of mares by European warriors,[129]
and mares, who were quieter and less likely to call out and betray their
position to the enemy, were the preferred war horse of the Moors, who
invaded various parts of Southern Europe from 700 AD through the 15th
century.[130] Geldings were used in war by the Teutonic Knights, and known
as "monk horses" (German Mönchpferde or Mönchhengste). One advantage was if
captured by the enemy, they could not be used to improve local bloodstock,
thus maintaining the Knights' superiority in horseflesh.[131
I would suggest a pack animal however they are still very prone to
skittishness the ones they use in the highlands for deer always have to
wear blinkers as they would bolt. Horses ( though people would argue) are
basically very stupid herd animals the slightest thing can set them off
however I still maintain my theory of when this wound happened.
George
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
A warhorse wouldn't flinch that easily, surely, or it would not be able to
do its job.
Marie
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "George Butterfield"
wrote:
>
> Enough to make a horse flinch if it hit bone the force was transmitted.
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:09 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
> Marie
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , George Butterfield
> wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you
look
> at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic
wound
> but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it
> still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened"
> times.
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
> stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of
stabbing
> the horse as well.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
> startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
> Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , George Butterfield
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
> was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with
that
> much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
> carrying his body.
> > > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
> potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the
likelihood
> of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
> skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
> well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the
official;
> press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
> likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they
were
> the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness.
However,
> in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
> the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
> humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
> press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the
groin
> region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
> documentary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
> warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
> happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
> one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
> mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
> Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
> who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
> there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
> about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
> bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small
penetrating
> wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a
direct
> blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
> injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large
wound
> to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
> `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
> this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
> caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
> halberd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
> bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
> opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
> consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the
case
> of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain
(which
> we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
> of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent
with
> where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
> small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal,
but
> could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
> period of time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
> cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
> consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
> cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
> this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw,
caused
> by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
> during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have
been
> caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We
therefore
> speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The
injuries
> to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
> severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims.
This
> has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
> death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples
of
> such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and
forensic
> literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
> mistreated after the battle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to
have
> been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us
to
> speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
> inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
> on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
> ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour
(a
> backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
> Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
> battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
> is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a
knife
> or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
> three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
> injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
> midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
> protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such
as
> this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
> was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
> back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
> this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to
be
> inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @
btinternet.com)
> is actually
> > > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
> But,
> > > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the
terrible
> but
> > > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
> area of
> > > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
> point that
> > > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
> fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
> evidence of the
> > > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
> great extent,
> > > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting
the
> reports at
> > > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy
in
> armor is
> > > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
> to do is make
> > > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away
fiercely
> and killing
> > > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
> that helmet
> > > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
> since his
> > > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
> behind. I would
> > > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
> rear, between
> > > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like
that's
> what
> > > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't
tell
> for sure
> > > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called
them
> all
> > > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But
it
> appears
> > > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
> been most
> > > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
> the right rear
> > > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
> at an angle,
> > > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
> entry point.
> > > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
> was thinking
> > > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de
grace"
> to make
> > > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My
point
> is that
> > > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have
been
> merciful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > > > > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
> Identification??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
> indentation on the
> > > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
> damage to the
> > > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other
wounds
> were
> > > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
> expert
> > > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
> dings and
> > > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
> information is
> > > > > > > released.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 22:12:22
Elaine, well said!
________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
You do realise that the post death injuries inflicted upon Richard's body would constitute a war crime today. This is what I find so disturbing about some of the articles written in the last week by historians/writers who dismiss the inhumanity of these acts, as if they can be condoned because of whom they were inflicted upon. It says far more about the instigators of these crimes than it does about the victim.
Lack of respect for huminity is in itself what leads to such acts of violence and the lack of respect towards a human being who was treated in such a way an inhuman way. In addition, lack of respect towards the office of kingship by both the perpetrators of the crimes and those who have written in their defence. Shame on them all. I am not a monarchist by the way.
Elaine
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From:
> > > > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > > > > released.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
You do realise that the post death injuries inflicted upon Richard's body would constitute a war crime today. This is what I find so disturbing about some of the articles written in the last week by historians/writers who dismiss the inhumanity of these acts, as if they can be condoned because of whom they were inflicted upon. It says far more about the instigators of these crimes than it does about the victim.
Lack of respect for huminity is in itself what leads to such acts of violence and the lack of respect towards a human being who was treated in such a way an inhuman way. In addition, lack of respect towards the office of kingship by both the perpetrators of the crimes and those who have written in their defence. Shame on them all. I am not a monarchist by the way.
Elaine
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you look at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic wound but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened" times.
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of stabbing the horse as well.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with that much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been carrying his body.
> > > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > > George
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the likelihood of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the official; press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they were the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness. However, in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the groin region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the documentary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think. Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows, who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All the best
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small penetrating wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a direct blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large wound to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a halberd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the case of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain (which we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent with where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal, but could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long period of time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw, caused by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have been caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We therefore speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The injuries to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims. This has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples of such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and forensic literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was mistreated after the battle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to have been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us to speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour (a backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this. Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a knife or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such as this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to be inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @ btinternet.com) is actually
> > > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant. But,
> > > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the terrible but
> > > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one area of
> > > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious point that
> > > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some evidence of the
> > > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a great extent,
> > > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting the reports at
> > > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy in armor is
> > > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want to do is make
> > > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away fiercely and killing
> > > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get that helmet
> > > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And since his
> > > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from behind. I would
> > > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the rear, between
> > > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like that's what
> > > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't tell for sure
> > > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called them all
> > > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But it appears
> > > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have been most
> > > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to the right rear
> > > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain at an angle,
> > > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the entry point.
> > > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I was thinking
> > > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de grace" to make
> > > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My point is that
> > > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have been merciful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From:
> > > > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the indentation on the
> > > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal damage to the
> > > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other wounds were
> > > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no expert
> > > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various dings and
> > > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more information is
> > > > > > > released.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 22:24:57
Sorry Carol,
I've been mistyping everything - as I'm sure you've all noticed - since I got my new keyboard.
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> >
> > Can I catch up with this tomorrow, Carole? There is an article on the origin of Henry's badges in the Scoiety library.
> > Marie
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, please do. I appreciate your willingness and ability to produce sources not available to me. Only it's Carol. Carole is a different person (which you probably already knew--I occasionally mistype my own name).
>
> Carol
>
I've been mistyping everything - as I'm sure you've all noticed - since I got my new keyboard.
Marie
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> >
> > Can I catch up with this tomorrow, Carole? There is an article on the origin of Henry's badges in the Scoiety library.
> > Marie
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, please do. I appreciate your willingness and ability to produce sources not available to me. Only it's Carol. Carole is a different person (which you probably already knew--I occasionally mistype my own name).
>
> Carol
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 22:29:47
Well, the warhorses had to be moved from A to B like everything else, and after the battle there was no longer a need to keep them fresh. There is also a tradition that this horse was ridden into Leicester by Blanc Sanglier herald.
Anyway, that blow seems to have been given whilst Richard was naked with his rear exposed as a target, and as the team said it is hard to see what other circumstances would fit that bill. He would have been laid out to public view on his back, surely.
Marie
--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Why would you use a war horse? Bit like driving a Ferrari to go shopping
> incredible acceleration turns on a dime, costs a small fortune
>
> Marie I know that you have seen this but for the newer members who have
> not…..
>
> During the European Middle Ages, there were three primary types of war
> horses: The destrier, the courser, and the rouncey, which differed in size
> and usage. A generic word used to describe medieval war horses was charger,
> which appears interchangeable with the other terms.[125] The medieval war
> horse was of moderate size, rarely exceeding 15.2 hands (62 inches, 157 cm).
> Heavy horses were logistically difficult to maintain and less adaptable to
> varied terrains.[126] The destrier of the early Middle Ages was moderately
> larger than the courser or rouncey, in part to accommodate heavier armoured
> knights.[127] However, destriers were not as large as draught horses,
> averaging between 14.2 hands (58 inches, 147 cm) and 15 hands (60 inches,
> 152 cm).[26] On the European continent, the need to carry more armour
> against mounted enemies such as the Lombards and Frisians led to the Franks
> developing heavier, bigger horses.[128] As the amount of armour and
> equipment increased in the later Middle Ages, the height of the horses
> increased; some late medieval horse skeletons were of horses over 15
> hands.[127]
>
>
>
> Stallions were often used as destriers due to their natural aggression.[129]
> However, there may have been some use of mares by European warriors,[129]
> and mares, who were quieter and less likely to call out and betray their
> position to the enemy, were the preferred war horse of the Moors, who
> invaded various parts of Southern Europe from 700 AD through the 15th
> century.[130] Geldings were used in war by the Teutonic Knights, and known
> as "monk horses" (German Mönchpferde or Mönchhengste). One advantage was if
> captured by the enemy, they could not be used to improve local bloodstock,
> thus maintaining the Knights' superiority in horseflesh.[131
>
>
>
> I would suggest a pack animal however they are still very prone to
> skittishness the ones they use in the highlands for deer always have to
> wear blinkers as they would bolt. Horses ( though people would argue) are
> basically very stupid herd animals the slightest thing can set them off
> however I still maintain my theory of when this wound happened.
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
>
>
>
> A warhorse wouldn't flinch that easily, surely, or it would not be able to
> do its job.
> Marie
>
> --- In
> , "George Butterfield"
> wrote:
> >
> > Enough to make a horse flinch if it hit bone the force was transmitted.
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
>
> > [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of
> mariewalsh2003
> > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:09 PM
> > To:
>
> > Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
>
> > , George Butterfield
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie
> > > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you
> look
> > at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic
> wound
> > but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it
> > still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened"
> > times.
> > > George
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
> > stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of
> stabbing
> > the horse as well.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
> > , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
> > startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
> > Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
>
> > , George Butterfield
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
> > was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with
> that
> > much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
> > carrying his body.
> > > > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
> > potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > > > George
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the
> likelihood
> > of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
> > skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
> > well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the
> official;
> > press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
> > likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they
> were
> > the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness.
> However,
> > in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
> > the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
> > humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
> > press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the
> groin
> > region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
> > documentary.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
> > warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
> > happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
> > one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
> > mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
> > Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
> > who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
> > there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
> > about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
> > bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All the best
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small
> penetrating
> > wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a
> direct
> > blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
> > injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large
> wound
> > to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
> > `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
> > this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
> > caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
> > halberd.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
> > bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
> > opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
> > consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the
> case
> > of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain
> (which
> > we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
> > of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent
> with
> > where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
> > small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal,
> but
> > could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
> > period of time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
> > cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
> > consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
> > cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
> > this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw,
> caused
> > by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
> > during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have
> been
> > caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We
> therefore
> > speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The
> injuries
> > to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
> > severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims.
> This
> > has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
> > death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples
> of
> > such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and
> forensic
> > literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
> > mistreated after the battle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to
> have
> > been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us
> to
> > speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
> > inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
> > on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
> > ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour
> (a
> > backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
> > Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
> > battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
> > is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a
> knife
> > or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
> > three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
> > injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
> > midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
> > protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such
> as
> > this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
> > was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
> > back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
> > this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to
> be
> > inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
>
> > , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @
> btinternet.com)
> > is actually
> > > > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
> > But,
> > > > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the
> terrible
> > but
> > > > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
> > area of
> > > > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
> > point that
> > > > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
> > fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
> > evidence of the
> > > > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
> > great extent,
> > > > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting
> the
> > reports at
> > > > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy
> in
> > armor is
> > > > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
> > to do is make
> > > > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away
> fiercely
> > and killing
> > > > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
> > that helmet
> > > > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
> > since his
> > > > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
> > behind. I would
> > > > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
> > rear, between
> > > > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like
> that's
> > what
> > > > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't
> tell
> > for sure
> > > > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called
> them
> > all
> > > > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But
> it
> > appears
> > > > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
> > been most
> > > > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
> > the right rear
> > > > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
> > at an angle,
> > > > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
> > entry point.
> > > > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
> > was thinking
> > > > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de
> grace"
> > to make
> > > > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My
> point
> > is that
> > > > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have
> been
> > merciful.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From:
>
> >
> > > > > > > > [mailto:
>
> > ] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > > To:
>
> >
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
> > Identification??
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
> > indentation on the
> > > > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
> > damage to the
> > > > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other
> wounds
> > were
> > > > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
> > expert
> > > > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
> > dings and
> > > > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
> > information is
> > > > > > > > released.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> >
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anyway, that blow seems to have been given whilst Richard was naked with his rear exposed as a target, and as the team said it is hard to see what other circumstances would fit that bill. He would have been laid out to public view on his back, surely.
Marie
--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Why would you use a war horse? Bit like driving a Ferrari to go shopping
> incredible acceleration turns on a dime, costs a small fortune
>
> Marie I know that you have seen this but for the newer members who have
> not…..
>
> During the European Middle Ages, there were three primary types of war
> horses: The destrier, the courser, and the rouncey, which differed in size
> and usage. A generic word used to describe medieval war horses was charger,
> which appears interchangeable with the other terms.[125] The medieval war
> horse was of moderate size, rarely exceeding 15.2 hands (62 inches, 157 cm).
> Heavy horses were logistically difficult to maintain and less adaptable to
> varied terrains.[126] The destrier of the early Middle Ages was moderately
> larger than the courser or rouncey, in part to accommodate heavier armoured
> knights.[127] However, destriers were not as large as draught horses,
> averaging between 14.2 hands (58 inches, 147 cm) and 15 hands (60 inches,
> 152 cm).[26] On the European continent, the need to carry more armour
> against mounted enemies such as the Lombards and Frisians led to the Franks
> developing heavier, bigger horses.[128] As the amount of armour and
> equipment increased in the later Middle Ages, the height of the horses
> increased; some late medieval horse skeletons were of horses over 15
> hands.[127]
>
>
>
> Stallions were often used as destriers due to their natural aggression.[129]
> However, there may have been some use of mares by European warriors,[129]
> and mares, who were quieter and less likely to call out and betray their
> position to the enemy, were the preferred war horse of the Moors, who
> invaded various parts of Southern Europe from 700 AD through the 15th
> century.[130] Geldings were used in war by the Teutonic Knights, and known
> as "monk horses" (German Mönchpferde or Mönchhengste). One advantage was if
> captured by the enemy, they could not be used to improve local bloodstock,
> thus maintaining the Knights' superiority in horseflesh.[131
>
>
>
> I would suggest a pack animal however they are still very prone to
> skittishness the ones they use in the highlands for deer always have to
> wear blinkers as they would bolt. Horses ( though people would argue) are
> basically very stupid herd animals the slightest thing can set them off
> however I still maintain my theory of when this wound happened.
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
>
>
>
> A warhorse wouldn't flinch that easily, surely, or it would not be able to
> do its job.
> Marie
>
> --- In
> , "George Butterfield"
> wrote:
> >
> > Enough to make a horse flinch if it hit bone the force was transmitted.
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
>
> > [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of
> mariewalsh2003
> > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:09 PM
> > To:
>
> > Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
>
> > , George Butterfield
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie
> > > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you
> look
> > at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic
> wound
> > but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it
> > still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened"
> > times.
> > > George
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
> > stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of
> stabbing
> > the horse as well.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
> > , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
> > startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
> > Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
>
> > , George Butterfield
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
> > was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with
> that
> > much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
> > carrying his body.
> > > > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
> > potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > > > George
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the
> likelihood
> > of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
> > skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
> > well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the
> official;
> > press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
> > likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they
> were
> > the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness.
> However,
> > in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
> > the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
> > humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
> > press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the
> groin
> > region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
> > documentary.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
> > warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
> > happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
> > one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
> > mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
> > Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
> > who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
> > there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
> > about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
> > bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All the best
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small
> penetrating
> > wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a
> direct
> > blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
> > injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large
> wound
> > to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
> > `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
> > this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
> > caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
> > halberd.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
> > bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
> > opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
> > consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the
> case
> > of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain
> (which
> > we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
> > of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent
> with
> > where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
> > small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal,
> but
> > could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
> > period of time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
> > cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
> > consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
> > cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
> > this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw,
> caused
> > by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
> > during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have
> been
> > caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We
> therefore
> > speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The
> injuries
> > to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
> > severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims.
> This
> > has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
> > death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples
> of
> > such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and
> forensic
> > literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
> > mistreated after the battle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to
> have
> > been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us
> to
> > speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
> > inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
> > on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
> > ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour
> (a
> > backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
> > Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
> > battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
> > is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a
> knife
> > or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
> > three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
> > injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
> > midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
> > protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such
> as
> > this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
> > was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
> > back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
> > this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to
> be
> > inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
>
> > , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @
> btinternet.com)
> > is actually
> > > > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
> > But,
> > > > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the
> terrible
> > but
> > > > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
> > area of
> > > > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
> > point that
> > > > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
> > fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
> > evidence of the
> > > > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
> > great extent,
> > > > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting
> the
> > reports at
> > > > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy
> in
> > armor is
> > > > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
> > to do is make
> > > > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away
> fiercely
> > and killing
> > > > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
> > that helmet
> > > > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
> > since his
> > > > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
> > behind. I would
> > > > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
> > rear, between
> > > > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like
> that's
> > what
> > > > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't
> tell
> > for sure
> > > > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called
> them
> > all
> > > > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But
> it
> > appears
> > > > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
> > been most
> > > > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
> > the right rear
> > > > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
> > at an angle,
> > > > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
> > entry point.
> > > > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
> > was thinking
> > > > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de
> grace"
> > to make
> > > > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My
> point
> > is that
> > > > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have
> been
> > merciful.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From:
>
> >
> > > > > > > > [mailto:
>
> > ] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > > To:
>
> >
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
> > Identification??
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
> > indentation on the
> > > > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
> > damage to the
> > > > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other
> wounds
> > were
> > > > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
> > expert
> > > > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
> > dings and
> > > > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
> > information is
> > > > > > > > released.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> >
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 22:48:08
George is right about the Ferrari and other things.
I would also not advise anyone to go poking a warhorse or any other horse in the flank. Mainly because the aids used to ride a horse involves touching said flank(s) in any number of ways. Flanks are sensitive. And warhorses were known for biting off people's faces...among other things.
It's also not a great idea to wave your knife around, jump up and down, or make triumphant, "Yeah! Gotcha!" noises unless you want a horse to react. Said reaction can be anything from swinging its butt away, swinging its head and looking at you like you're crazy, bolting, or rearing. And anything else in between.
Whatever sword or dagger damage was done to Richard's body, I would think it was done while he was lying naked on the ground. But what do I know.
George rules. I have learned this. But if some idiot took a knife to the body while it lay across the horse, I hope at the very least the idiot got kicked by the irate horse.
~Weds
--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Why would you use a war horse? Bit like driving a Ferrari to go shopping
> incredible acceleration turns on a dime, costs a small fortune
>
> Marie I know that you have seen this but for the newer members who have
> not…..
>
> During the European Middle Ages, there were three primary types of war
> horses: The destrier, the courser, and the rouncey, which differed in size
> and usage. A generic word used to describe medieval war horses was charger,
> which appears interchangeable with the other terms.[125] The medieval war
> horse was of moderate size, rarely exceeding 15.2 hands (62 inches, 157 cm).
> Heavy horses were logistically difficult to maintain and less adaptable to
> varied terrains.[126] The destrier of the early Middle Ages was moderately
> larger than the courser or rouncey, in part to accommodate heavier armoured
> knights.[127] However, destriers were not as large as draught horses,
> averaging between 14.2 hands (58 inches, 147 cm) and 15 hands (60 inches,
> 152 cm).[26] On the European continent, the need to carry more armour
> against mounted enemies such as the Lombards and Frisians led to the Franks
> developing heavier, bigger horses.[128] As the amount of armour and
> equipment increased in the later Middle Ages, the height of the horses
> increased; some late medieval horse skeletons were of horses over 15
> hands.[127]
>
>
>
> Stallions were often used as destriers due to their natural aggression.[129]
> However, there may have been some use of mares by European warriors,[129]
> and mares, who were quieter and less likely to call out and betray their
> position to the enemy, were the preferred war horse of the Moors, who
> invaded various parts of Southern Europe from 700 AD through the 15th
> century.[130] Geldings were used in war by the Teutonic Knights, and known
> as "monk horses" (German Mönchpferde or Mönchhengste). One advantage was if
> captured by the enemy, they could not be used to improve local bloodstock,
> thus maintaining the Knights' superiority in horseflesh.[131
>
>
>
> I would suggest a pack animal however they are still very prone to
> skittishness the ones they use in the highlands for deer always have to
> wear blinkers as they would bolt. Horses ( though people would argue) are
> basically very stupid herd animals the slightest thing can set them off
> however I still maintain my theory of when this wound happened.
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
>
>
>
> A warhorse wouldn't flinch that easily, surely, or it would not be able to
> do its job.
> Marie
>
> --- In
> , "George Butterfield"
> wrote:
> >
> > Enough to make a horse flinch if it hit bone the force was transmitted.
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
>
> > [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of
> mariewalsh2003
> > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:09 PM
> > To:
>
> > Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
>
> > , George Butterfield
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie
> > > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you
> look
> > at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic
> wound
> > but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it
> > still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened"
> > times.
> > > George
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
> > stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of
> stabbing
> > the horse as well.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
> > , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
> > startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
> > Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
>
> > , George Butterfield
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
> > was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with
> that
> > much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
> > carrying his body.
> > > > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
> > potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > > > George
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the
> likelihood
> > of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
> > skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
> > well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the
> official;
> > press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
> > likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they
> were
> > the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness.
> However,
> > in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
> > the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
> > humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
> > press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the
> groin
> > region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
> > documentary.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
> > warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
> > happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
> > one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
> > mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
> > Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
> > who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
> > there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
> > about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
> > bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All the best
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small
> penetrating
> > wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a
> direct
> > blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
> > injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large
> wound
> > to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
> > `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
> > this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
> > caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
> > halberd.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
> > bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
> > opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
> > consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the
> case
> > of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain
> (which
> > we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
> > of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent
> with
> > where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
> > small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal,
> but
> > could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
> > period of time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
> > cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
> > consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
> > cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
> > this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw,
> caused
> > by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
> > during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have
> been
> > caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We
> therefore
> > speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The
> injuries
> > to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
> > severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims.
> This
> > has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
> > death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples
> of
> > such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and
> forensic
> > literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
> > mistreated after the battle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to
> have
> > been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us
> to
> > speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
> > inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
> > on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
> > ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour
> (a
> > backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
> > Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
> > battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
> > is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a
> knife
> > or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
> > three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
> > injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
> > midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
> > protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such
> as
> > this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
> > was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
> > back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
> > this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to
> be
> > inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
>
> > , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @
> btinternet.com)
> > is actually
> > > > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
> > But,
> > > > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the
> terrible
> > but
> > > > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
> > area of
> > > > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
> > point that
> > > > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
> > fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
> > evidence of the
> > > > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
> > great extent,
> > > > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting
> the
> > reports at
> > > > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy
> in
> > armor is
> > > > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
> > to do is make
> > > > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away
> fiercely
> > and killing
> > > > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
> > that helmet
> > > > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
> > since his
> > > > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
> > behind. I would
> > > > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
> > rear, between
> > > > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like
> that's
> > what
> > > > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't
> tell
> > for sure
> > > > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called
> them
> > all
> > > > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But
> it
> > appears
> > > > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
> > been most
> > > > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
> > the right rear
> > > > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
> > at an angle,
> > > > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
> > entry point.
> > > > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
> > was thinking
> > > > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de
> grace"
> > to make
> > > > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My
> point
> > is that
> > > > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have
> been
> > merciful.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From:
>
> >
> > > > > > > > [mailto:
>
> > ] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > > To:
>
> >
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
> > Identification??
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
> > indentation on the
> > > > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
> > damage to the
> > > > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other
> wounds
> > were
> > > > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
> > expert
> > > > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
> > dings and
> > > > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
> > information is
> > > > > > > > released.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> >
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I would also not advise anyone to go poking a warhorse or any other horse in the flank. Mainly because the aids used to ride a horse involves touching said flank(s) in any number of ways. Flanks are sensitive. And warhorses were known for biting off people's faces...among other things.
It's also not a great idea to wave your knife around, jump up and down, or make triumphant, "Yeah! Gotcha!" noises unless you want a horse to react. Said reaction can be anything from swinging its butt away, swinging its head and looking at you like you're crazy, bolting, or rearing. And anything else in between.
Whatever sword or dagger damage was done to Richard's body, I would think it was done while he was lying naked on the ground. But what do I know.
George rules. I have learned this. But if some idiot took a knife to the body while it lay across the horse, I hope at the very least the idiot got kicked by the irate horse.
~Weds
--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> Why would you use a war horse? Bit like driving a Ferrari to go shopping
> incredible acceleration turns on a dime, costs a small fortune
>
> Marie I know that you have seen this but for the newer members who have
> not…..
>
> During the European Middle Ages, there were three primary types of war
> horses: The destrier, the courser, and the rouncey, which differed in size
> and usage. A generic word used to describe medieval war horses was charger,
> which appears interchangeable with the other terms.[125] The medieval war
> horse was of moderate size, rarely exceeding 15.2 hands (62 inches, 157 cm).
> Heavy horses were logistically difficult to maintain and less adaptable to
> varied terrains.[126] The destrier of the early Middle Ages was moderately
> larger than the courser or rouncey, in part to accommodate heavier armoured
> knights.[127] However, destriers were not as large as draught horses,
> averaging between 14.2 hands (58 inches, 147 cm) and 15 hands (60 inches,
> 152 cm).[26] On the European continent, the need to carry more armour
> against mounted enemies such as the Lombards and Frisians led to the Franks
> developing heavier, bigger horses.[128] As the amount of armour and
> equipment increased in the later Middle Ages, the height of the horses
> increased; some late medieval horse skeletons were of horses over 15
> hands.[127]
>
>
>
> Stallions were often used as destriers due to their natural aggression.[129]
> However, there may have been some use of mares by European warriors,[129]
> and mares, who were quieter and less likely to call out and betray their
> position to the enemy, were the preferred war horse of the Moors, who
> invaded various parts of Southern Europe from 700 AD through the 15th
> century.[130] Geldings were used in war by the Teutonic Knights, and known
> as "monk horses" (German Mönchpferde or Mönchhengste). One advantage was if
> captured by the enemy, they could not be used to improve local bloodstock,
> thus maintaining the Knights' superiority in horseflesh.[131
>
>
>
> I would suggest a pack animal however they are still very prone to
> skittishness the ones they use in the highlands for deer always have to
> wear blinkers as they would bolt. Horses ( though people would argue) are
> basically very stupid herd animals the slightest thing can set them off
> however I still maintain my theory of when this wound happened.
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:40 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
>
>
>
> A warhorse wouldn't flinch that easily, surely, or it would not be able to
> do its job.
> Marie
>
> --- In
> , "George Butterfield"
> wrote:
> >
> > Enough to make a horse flinch if it hit bone the force was transmitted.
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
>
> > [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of
> mariewalsh2003
> > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:09 PM
> > To:
>
> > Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > How much force does it need if your blade is really sharp?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
>
> > , George Butterfield
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie
> > > I don't think any report gives any angles, however whichever way you
> look
> > at it if you hit a body/ horse with that much force it is going to move.
> > > Have you thought that this may have occurred not only as a sadistic
> wound
> > but one that would have presented a imasculinated image for viewing, it
> > still is quite common for this to happen, even in modern "enlightened"
> > times.
> > > George
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:25 AM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do we know the angle of thrust (sorry for the image)? If Richard was
> > stabbed inwards and upwards there would have been little danger of
> stabbing
> > the horse as well.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In
>
> > , "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with that hypothesis George. the horse would surely be
> > startled with that amount of force. probably some yokel on the road to
> > Leicester or Henry's troops on the battlefield prior to trussing him up.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
>
> > , George Butterfield
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not too sure about the buttock stab wound being done while he
> > was strapped across a horse, it would appear to me that doing this with
> that
> > much force could likely stab or injure the horse that would have been
> > carrying his body.
> > > > > > I think it occurred while he was on public display because of
> > potential damage to a expensive pack horse?
> > > > > > George
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "buckboy7219" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Johanne!!! Thanks for the warm welcome, ditto to you too!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QygreAVJBo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I completely understand that your suggestion about the
> likelihood
> > of the fatal blow may have been supported by the profusion of blows to the
> > skull and an attack from the rear when Richard was minus his helmet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The smaller penetrating wound to the left occipital region could
> > well have been a merciful 'coup de grace'as you say.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Below is some of the text from the osteologist from the
> official;
> > press conference on the 4th feb. As you can see she somewhat qualified the
> > likelihood of the wounds being the fatal ones, still implying that they
> were
> > the fatal ones by mentioning the speed of death or unconsciousness.
> However,
> > in the documentary she did say without ambiguity the large skull wound was
> > the fatal blow ,in the case of the pelvic pathology a post mortem
> > humiliation wound. The instructive evidence for this is discussed, in the
> > press conference, as the likelihood of effective armour protecting the
> groin
> > region. That's a fair deduction I'd say but she didn't mention this in the
> > documentary.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All these assertions, in conjunction with knowledge of medieval
> > warfare, probably have a high probability of conveying what actually
> > happened. I certainly don't dispute that, as I don't know either!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Speculative evidence to support a stabbing wound being the fatal
> > one, either maybe an arrow in soft tissue no bone wounds or lance etc are
> > mentioned in several sources, as David Starkey and Simon Schama I think.
> > Perhaps a lucky shot through gaps in armour or armour penetrating arrows,
> > who knows!! I thought that this cannot be definitively dismissed unless
> > there was a sound osteological reason for it that wasn't mentioned.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My point is that in the documentary they seemed to be certain
> > about the timing of these wounds without a scientific explanation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't get me wrong I think they did a great job and I'm being a
> > bit analytical but was just wondering about the science behind it!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All the best
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'In September, we said that we had identified a small
> penetrating
> > wound on the top of the head. Analysis suggests this was caused by a
> direct
> > blow from a weapon rather than by a projectile such as an arrowhead. This
> > injury would not have been fatal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The second wound that we discussed in September was a large
> wound
> > to the base of the skull at the back. We said that this might represent a
> > `slice' cut off the skull by a bladed weapon. Our work has now shown that
> > this was indeed the case. We cannot say for certain exactly what weapon
> > caused this injury, but it is consistent with something similar to a
> > halberd.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A smaller injury, also on the base of the skull, was caused by a
> > bladed weapon which penetrated through to the inner surface of the skull
> > opposite the entry point, a distance of 10.5 cm.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both of these injuries would have caused almost instant loss of
> > consciousness, and death would have followed quickly afterwards. In the
> case
> > of the larger wound, if the blade had penetrated 7 cm into the brain
> (which
> > we cannot determine from the bones), death would have been instantaneous.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A further three wounds have been identified on the outer surface
> > of the vault of the skull. These are shallow wounds, highly consistent
> with
> > where the blade of a weapon such as a sword or halberd has shaved off a
> > small area of bone. These wounds would not have been immediately fatal,
> but
> > could have caused death through blood loss if left untreated for a long
> > period of time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In addition to these, there is a small rectangular injury on the
> > cheekbone. Again, we cannot be certain what caused it, but it would be
> > consistent with a dagger. The weapon that caused this injury pierced the
> > cheek and came out the on the side of the face. If inflicted during life,
> > this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Finally on the skull, there is a cut mark on the lower jaw,
> caused
> > by a bladed weapon, consistent with a knife or dagger. Again, if inflicted
> > during life, this wound would not have been fatal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is hard to understand how any of these injuries could have
> been
> > caused if this individual had been wearing a protective helmet. We
> therefore
> > speculate that this had been lost by this stage in the battle. The
> injuries
> > to the jaw and cheek are particularly interesting in that they are less
> > severe than injuries to the face seen in other medieval battle victims.
> This
> > has led us to speculate that they may reflect attacks on the body after
> > death, although we cannot confirm this directly from the bones. Examples
> of
> > such `humiliation injuries' are well known from the historical and
> forensic
> > literature and historical sources have suggested that Richard's body was
> > mistreated after the battle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The two wounds on the postcranial skeleton are also likely to
> have
> > been inflicted after armour had been removed from the body. This leads us
> to
> > speculate that they may also represent post-mortem humiliation injuries
> > inflicted on this individual after death. The first of these is a cut mark
> > on a rib. This blow did not penetrate the ribcage. During the battle the
> > ribcage would have been very likely protected by elements of plate armour
> (a
> > backplate) which could not have been pierced by a blow such as this.
> > Historical sources tell us that Richard's body was stripped after the
> > battle. This would have left his back exposed to attacks such as this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The second postcranial injury is located on the right pelvis and
> > is highly consistent with being a blade wound from a weapon, perhaps a
> knife
> > or dagger, which came from behind in an upward movement. Detailed
> > three-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvis has indicated that this
> > injury was caused by a thrust throughthe right buttock, not far from the
> > midline of the body. Again, during the battle this area would have been
> > protected by armour which would have made it difficult for an injury such
> as
> > this to be inflicted. Historical sources suggest that Richard's naked body
> > was flung over a horse after the Battle of Bosworth before being carried
> > back to Leicester. Whilst we can never be certain of what happened, if so
> > this would have provided an ideal opportunity for a wound such as this to
> be
> > inflicted as a symbolic act of humiliation to the body.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
>
> > , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, Pamela & Matt!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Informal welcome - (btw, Neil Trump neil.trump @
> btinternet.com)
> > is actually
> > > > > > > > the listowner-moderator; I'm only an interested participant.
> > But,
> > > > > > > > regardless, welcome to the RIII Society Forum.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am interested in everything surrounding Richard, the
> terrible
> > but
> > > > > > > > inspiring circumstances surrounding his death being only one
> > area of
> > > > > > > > interest, not to say obsession. Matt, it seems like an obvious
> > point that
> > > > > > > > Richard may have suffered other blows that would have been
> > fatal. Perhaps
> > > > > > > > the likelihood (and I'm no expert) is that there is some
> > evidence of the
> > > > > > > > descriptions of the battle and they seem to be followed to a
> > great extent,
> > > > > > > > with the wounds to the head being interpreted as supporting
> the
> > reports at
> > > > > > > > the time of the way Richard died. I also think that if a guy
> in
> > armor is
> > > > > > > > charging at me on a rampaging warhorse, the first thing I want
> > to do is make
> > > > > > > > sure he is unhorsed - check. Then if he's swinging away
> fiercely
> > and killing
> > > > > > > > a bunch of my fellows, which Richard was, I would want to get
> > that helmet
> > > > > > > > off him, because otherwise he's pretty well invulnerable. And
> > since his
> > > > > > > > attack is toward the front, I would probably come up from
> > behind. I would
> > > > > > > > try to knock the helmet off, or strike at a weak spot - the
> > rear, between
> > > > > > > > the bottom of the helmet and his shoulder. It looks like
> that's
> > what
> > > > > > > > happened. They were very careful to note that they couldn't
> tell
> > for sure
> > > > > > > > which ones happened before, at, or after death. They called
> them
> > all
> > > > > > > > "peri-mortem" wounds, meaning "around the time of death." But
> it
> > appears
> > > > > > > > that the two head wounds to the bottom of the skull would have
> > been most
> > > > > > > > likely fatal, and quickly fatal. The dagger or sword wound to
> > the right rear
> > > > > > > > (I think it was) occipital region went right through the brain
> > at an angle,
> > > > > > > > because the blade nicked the inside of the skull opposite the
> > entry point.
> > > > > > > > And both may have happened at almost the same time. In fact, I
> > was thinking
> > > > > > > > that the dagger wound could have actually been a "coup de
> grace"
> > to make
> > > > > > > > sure that the King died quickly - and was really dead. My
> point
> > is that
> > > > > > > > though the thought of the blows is awful, that one may have
> been
> > merciful.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Johanne
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From:
>
> >
> > > > > > > > [mailto:
>
> > ] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:18 PM
> > > > > > > > To:
>
> >
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Fatal Blow
> > Identification??
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My thought, when the skull was being examined was the
> > indentation on the
> > > > > > > > top. That alone would have probably caused massive internal
> > damage to the
> > > > > > > > brain. He may not have been fully conscious as the other
> wounds
> > were
> > > > > > > > administered, making death pretty much instantaneous. Being no
> > expert
> > > > > > > > myself, I cannot understand how they know whether the various
> > dings and
> > > > > > > > damages were made before, or after death. I hope a lot more
> > information is
> > > > > > > > released.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> >
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwNTIzODkx>
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Switch to:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > be> Unsubscribe . Terms of Use .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > =25751/stime=1360523891/nc1=5008816/nc2=5191955/nc3=5898816>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Typos
2013-02-11 23:37:22
Marie, on my best days, I have typos. When I am tired, or excited about something, and my brain goes faster than my fingers, it really gets bad. No apologies necessary. I think we can follow along, and also know that the spell checking imps do some of the works for us!
On Feb 11, 2013, at 4:25 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Sorry Carol,
I've been mistyping everything - as I'm sure you've all noticed - since I got my new keyboard.
Marie
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> >
> > Can I catch up with this tomorrow, Carole? There is an article on the origin of Henry's badges in the Scoiety library.
> > Marie
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, please do. I appreciate your willingness and ability to produce sources not available to me. Only it's Carol. Carole is a different person (which you probably already knew--I occasionally mistype my own name).
>
> Carol
>
On Feb 11, 2013, at 4:25 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Sorry Carol,
I've been mistyping everything - as I'm sure you've all noticed - since I got my new keyboard.
Marie
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> >
> > Can I catch up with this tomorrow, Carole? There is an article on the origin of Henry's badges in the Scoiety library.
> > Marie
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, please do. I appreciate your willingness and ability to produce sources not available to me. Only it's Carol. Carole is a different person (which you probably already knew--I occasionally mistype my own name).
>
> Carol
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-11 23:38:51
Though arrows shot from the long bow tended to be inaccurate at distance, the main thing that the longbow had going for it, were the amount of arrows that could be placed in the air at any time.
It has been reported that a good archer could have as many as 6 arrows in the air at one time multiply that by 6000 archers and that's some firepower, landing in a designated area.
I for one would hate to have been on the receiving end even with a shield and helmet, reports at Crecy say that the sky went dark.
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:55 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually, I believe arrows were not accurate at long range, but there you go. I'm just puzzled as to how you pull off the sort of helmet Richard would have worn. I always think everything should be laid out on the table and considered, and I've already admitted it would have been "crazy behaviour". Also, I was specifically responding to McJohn who said that we have a reference to a helmet in the hawthorn bush story. We don't. The other theory, aka MK Jones, is that it was a proper crown but that Richard didn't wear it during the charge but before the battle when reviewing his troops.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > Marie, the only circlet likely to have been with him was exactly that, intended to be worn on a battle helmet.
> >
> > Really it stretches credibility beyond reason to suggest ANY man would go into battle without a helmet unless he had no choice in that era, he would have been a target for every enemy longbowman for a start - and they were very accurate shooters at quite long ranges.
> >
> > The archery competition said to have been won by Robin Hood in King John's day shows an example (yes I know the story may be apocryphal, but the kind of marksmanship shown by it wasn't), and that was well before the Longbow came into it's own as a battle-winner, I think that was under Edward I.
> >
> > Sorry but thinking Richard went helmetless into action is a non-starter and I have never seen any authoritative suggestion that it could be otherwise.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> >
> >
> > The story of the crown just says Richard wore a crown - it is modern historians who have told us this would have been a circlet worn on a helmet. I would like to go through the early sources again and see precisely what they tell us.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> > >
> > > We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
> > >
> > > I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Matt wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> > > > >
> > > > > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
It has been reported that a good archer could have as many as 6 arrows in the air at one time multiply that by 6000 archers and that's some firepower, landing in a designated area.
I for one would hate to have been on the receiving end even with a shield and helmet, reports at Crecy say that the sky went dark.
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:55 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually, I believe arrows were not accurate at long range, but there you go. I'm just puzzled as to how you pull off the sort of helmet Richard would have worn. I always think everything should be laid out on the table and considered, and I've already admitted it would have been "crazy behaviour". Also, I was specifically responding to McJohn who said that we have a reference to a helmet in the hawthorn bush story. We don't. The other theory, aka MK Jones, is that it was a proper crown but that Richard didn't wear it during the charge but before the battle when reviewing his troops.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >
> > Marie, the only circlet likely to have been with him was exactly that, intended to be worn on a battle helmet.
> >
> > Really it stretches credibility beyond reason to suggest ANY man would go into battle without a helmet unless he had no choice in that era, he would have been a target for every enemy longbowman for a start - and they were very accurate shooters at quite long ranges.
> >
> > The archery competition said to have been won by Robin Hood in King John's day shows an example (yes I know the story may be apocryphal, but the kind of marksmanship shown by it wasn't), and that was well before the Longbow came into it's own as a battle-winner, I think that was under Edward I.
> >
> > Sorry but thinking Richard went helmetless into action is a non-starter and I have never seen any authoritative suggestion that it could be otherwise.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
> >
> >
> >
> > The story of the crown just says Richard wore a crown - it is modern historians who have told us this would have been a circlet worn on a helmet. I would like to go through the early sources again and see precisely what they tell us.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> > >
> > > We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
> > >
> > > I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Matt wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> > > > >
> > > > > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 00:27:26
George, I don't disagree. Didn't I start my orginal post on this subject by saying Richard would have been crazy to do it? But we are now in a place where we definitively know he incurred horrific head wounds so I thought we could go back and discuss the sources, which so far we've not done at all.
Marie
--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Though arrows shot from the long bow tended to be inaccurate at distance, the main thing that the longbow had going for it, were the amount of arrows that could be placed in the air at any time.
> It has been reported that a good archer could have as many as 6 arrows in the air at one time multiply that by 6000 archers and that's some firepower, landing in a designated area.
> I for one would hate to have been on the receiving end even with a shield and helmet, reports at Crecy say that the sky went dark.
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:55 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > Actually, I believe arrows were not accurate at long range, but there you go. I'm just puzzled as to how you pull off the sort of helmet Richard would have worn. I always think everything should be laid out on the table and considered, and I've already admitted it would have been "crazy behaviour". Also, I was specifically responding to McJohn who said that we have a reference to a helmet in the hawthorn bush story. We don't. The other theory, aka MK Jones, is that it was a proper crown but that Richard didn't wear it during the charge but before the battle when reviewing his troops.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie, the only circlet likely to have been with him was exactly that, intended to be worn on a battle helmet.
> > >
> > > Really it stretches credibility beyond reason to suggest ANY man would go into battle without a helmet unless he had no choice in that era, he would have been a target for every enemy longbowman for a start - and they were very accurate shooters at quite long ranges.
> > >
> > > The archery competition said to have been won by Robin Hood in King John's day shows an example (yes I know the story may be apocryphal, but the kind of marksmanship shown by it wasn't), and that was well before the Longbow came into it's own as a battle-winner, I think that was under Edward I.
> > >
> > > Sorry but thinking Richard went helmetless into action is a non-starter and I have never seen any authoritative suggestion that it could be otherwise.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:13 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The story of the crown just says Richard wore a crown - it is modern historians who have told us this would have been a circlet worn on a helmet. I would like to go through the early sources again and see precisely what they tell us.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Matt wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Though arrows shot from the long bow tended to be inaccurate at distance, the main thing that the longbow had going for it, were the amount of arrows that could be placed in the air at any time.
> It has been reported that a good archer could have as many as 6 arrows in the air at one time multiply that by 6000 archers and that's some firepower, landing in a designated area.
> I for one would hate to have been on the receiving end even with a shield and helmet, reports at Crecy say that the sky went dark.
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:55 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > Actually, I believe arrows were not accurate at long range, but there you go. I'm just puzzled as to how you pull off the sort of helmet Richard would have worn. I always think everything should be laid out on the table and considered, and I've already admitted it would have been "crazy behaviour". Also, I was specifically responding to McJohn who said that we have a reference to a helmet in the hawthorn bush story. We don't. The other theory, aka MK Jones, is that it was a proper crown but that Richard didn't wear it during the charge but before the battle when reviewing his troops.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie, the only circlet likely to have been with him was exactly that, intended to be worn on a battle helmet.
> > >
> > > Really it stretches credibility beyond reason to suggest ANY man would go into battle without a helmet unless he had no choice in that era, he would have been a target for every enemy longbowman for a start - and they were very accurate shooters at quite long ranges.
> > >
> > > The archery competition said to have been won by Robin Hood in King John's day shows an example (yes I know the story may be apocryphal, but the kind of marksmanship shown by it wasn't), and that was well before the Longbow came into it's own as a battle-winner, I think that was under Edward I.
> > >
> > > Sorry but thinking Richard went helmetless into action is a non-starter and I have never seen any authoritative suggestion that it could be otherwise.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:13 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The story of the crown just says Richard wore a crown - it is modern historians who have told us this would have been a circlet worn on a helmet. I would like to go through the early sources again and see precisely what they tell us.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Matt wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
> > > > >
> > > > > At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 01:02:06
I did a little research to find out how a helm was held in place.
This is what I have come up with.
1 the helm was not singular that is it was part of the head-ware
2 a leather hood or felt was worn directly on the head
3 chain mail then covered the head and shoulders meeting a second doublet or jerkin also covered in chain mail covering gaps left by armor that was worn over
4 everything was held together with leather laces or metal clips depending if it had to be fitted or clipped together.
As leather or clips can be cut I would suggest that while he was surrounded the rear fastening to his helm was cut/broken open and as we know the rest is history. It is unlikely that he would have been attacked directly but from several feet away safely out of swords reach.
My question would be where we're his standard bearer and supporting knights if this melee as I have only seen accounts of his death and I am sure that he was not alone.
George
http://www.gemstone.net/etimes/et9/armory.htm
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 11, 2013, at 7:27 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> George, I don't disagree. Didn't I start my orginal post on this subject by saying Richard would have been crazy to do it? But we are now in a place where we definitively know he incurred horrific head wounds so I thought we could go back and discuss the sources, which so far we've not done at all.
> Marie
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > Though arrows shot from the long bow tended to be inaccurate at distance, the main thing that the longbow had going for it, were the amount of arrows that could be placed in the air at any time.
> > It has been reported that a good archer could have as many as 6 arrows in the air at one time multiply that by 6000 archers and that's some firepower, landing in a designated area.
> > I for one would hate to have been on the receiving end even with a shield and helmet, reports at Crecy say that the sky went dark.
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:55 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, I believe arrows were not accurate at long range, but there you go. I'm just puzzled as to how you pull off the sort of helmet Richard would have worn. I always think everything should be laid out on the table and considered, and I've already admitted it would have been "crazy behaviour". Also, I was specifically responding to McJohn who said that we have a reference to a helmet in the hawthorn bush story. We don't. The other theory, aka MK Jones, is that it was a proper crown but that Richard didn't wear it during the charge but before the battle when reviewing his troops.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marie, the only circlet likely to have been with him was exactly that, intended to be worn on a battle helmet.
> > > >
> > > > Really it stretches credibility beyond reason to suggest ANY man would go into battle without a helmet unless he had no choice in that era, he would have been a target for every enemy longbowman for a start - and they were very accurate shooters at quite long ranges.
> > > >
> > > > The archery competition said to have been won by Robin Hood in King John's day shows an example (yes I know the story may be apocryphal, but the kind of marksmanship shown by it wasn't), and that was well before the Longbow came into it's own as a battle-winner, I think that was under Edward I.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry but thinking Richard went helmetless into action is a non-starter and I have never seen any authoritative suggestion that it could be otherwise.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The story of the crown just says Richard wore a crown - it is modern historians who have told us this would have been a circlet worn on a helmet. I would like to go through the early sources again and see precisely what they tell us.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matt wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
This is what I have come up with.
1 the helm was not singular that is it was part of the head-ware
2 a leather hood or felt was worn directly on the head
3 chain mail then covered the head and shoulders meeting a second doublet or jerkin also covered in chain mail covering gaps left by armor that was worn over
4 everything was held together with leather laces or metal clips depending if it had to be fitted or clipped together.
As leather or clips can be cut I would suggest that while he was surrounded the rear fastening to his helm was cut/broken open and as we know the rest is history. It is unlikely that he would have been attacked directly but from several feet away safely out of swords reach.
My question would be where we're his standard bearer and supporting knights if this melee as I have only seen accounts of his death and I am sure that he was not alone.
George
http://www.gemstone.net/etimes/et9/armory.htm
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 11, 2013, at 7:27 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> George, I don't disagree. Didn't I start my orginal post on this subject by saying Richard would have been crazy to do it? But we are now in a place where we definitively know he incurred horrific head wounds so I thought we could go back and discuss the sources, which so far we've not done at all.
> Marie
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > Though arrows shot from the long bow tended to be inaccurate at distance, the main thing that the longbow had going for it, were the amount of arrows that could be placed in the air at any time.
> > It has been reported that a good archer could have as many as 6 arrows in the air at one time multiply that by 6000 archers and that's some firepower, landing in a designated area.
> > I for one would hate to have been on the receiving end even with a shield and helmet, reports at Crecy say that the sky went dark.
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:55 PM, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, I believe arrows were not accurate at long range, but there you go. I'm just puzzled as to how you pull off the sort of helmet Richard would have worn. I always think everything should be laid out on the table and considered, and I've already admitted it would have been "crazy behaviour". Also, I was specifically responding to McJohn who said that we have a reference to a helmet in the hawthorn bush story. We don't. The other theory, aka MK Jones, is that it was a proper crown but that Richard didn't wear it during the charge but before the battle when reviewing his troops.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marie, the only circlet likely to have been with him was exactly that, intended to be worn on a battle helmet.
> > > >
> > > > Really it stretches credibility beyond reason to suggest ANY man would go into battle without a helmet unless he had no choice in that era, he would have been a target for every enemy longbowman for a start - and they were very accurate shooters at quite long ranges.
> > > >
> > > > The archery competition said to have been won by Robin Hood in King John's day shows an example (yes I know the story may be apocryphal, but the kind of marksmanship shown by it wasn't), and that was well before the Longbow came into it's own as a battle-winner, I think that was under Edward I.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry but thinking Richard went helmetless into action is a non-starter and I have never seen any authoritative suggestion that it could be otherwise.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The story of the crown just says Richard wore a crown - it is modern historians who have told us this would have been a circlet worn on a helmet. I would like to go through the early sources again and see precisely what they tell us.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We do have a reference to Richard wearing a helmet into the battle because of the story of the circlet crown Stanley retrieved from a hawthorn bush (grain of salt warning, hawthorn being a Lancastrian symbol) and crowned Henry with on the battlefield.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know that there's ever going to be a way to distinguish exactly which injury or injuries was or were fatal; there's just too much material missing (like all the soft tissues) to be able to say. The forensics team was very careful to use the term "perimortem", and to explain what it meant.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matt wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes Pamela I agree, any number of those brutal head wounds would no doubt either induce death or unconsciousness in quick order.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was just speculating how they distinguish between pre, peri and post mortem wounds and ascribe an apparent degree of certainty on the fatal blow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My primary query was, as I mentioned, what's to say that an injury to another vital organ killed him and left no osteological imprint. It's a bit of minutiae perhaps but I thought they should have qualified their remarks a little. But hey I'm being hyper critical!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think their reasoning was that Richard was wearing full armor. The wounds to the buttock and rib would have been inflicted after he was stripped and, in the case of the second one, probably after he had been slung on the horse. The armor also would have prevented any deadly wounds of the sort you describe. The wounds to the head required that he had already lost his helmet. The wound to the back of the head would have been instantly fatal. It appears that he lost first his horse and then his helmet--unless he went into battle so confident that he would win that he didn't wear a helmet and that seems unlikely.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way, you're not being hypercritical. Some of us have questioned other conclusions, such as the lack of a shroud. We're hoping that the peer review and responses will help to clear up gaps in our knowledge but I expect that there will still be gaps in our knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At least the River Soar myth and the withered arm are out the window!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 03:37:23
Marie wrote:
> Well, the warhorses had to be moved from A to B like everything else, and after the battle there was no longer a need to keep them fresh. There is also a tradition that this horse was ridden into Leicester by Blanc Sanglier herald.
> Anyway, that blow seems to have been given whilst Richard was naked with his rear exposed as a target, and as the team said it is hard to see what other circumstances would fit that bill. He would have been laid out to public view on his back, surely.
Carol responds:
I thought that the herald (not sure which one it was) was forced to lead the packhorse Richard had been slung across. I agree that he would have been laid out on his back, and I would certainly hope that no one would stab a body displayed in a church.
The idea, suggested by someone on this list, that ordinary people watching the sad procession of a dead and mutilated king who had just the day been ruling over them would reach out with a dagger to stab him in the buttock is to me very unlikely. I think that all the humiliation wounds were inflicted by soldiers, either Stanley's men or French mercenaries. I can't see the ordinary citizens of Leicester desecrating the body of an anointed king. I expect that they felt sadness and shock, much as we would feel if we saw the body of a modern political leader, even one we had disliked intensely, treated in that way. And, Vergil to the contrary, the people in general were not revolted by Richard and probably had not even heard the rumors that he had killed his nephews. Some few may have come to him with petitions that he had granted only days before.
Carol
> Well, the warhorses had to be moved from A to B like everything else, and after the battle there was no longer a need to keep them fresh. There is also a tradition that this horse was ridden into Leicester by Blanc Sanglier herald.
> Anyway, that blow seems to have been given whilst Richard was naked with his rear exposed as a target, and as the team said it is hard to see what other circumstances would fit that bill. He would have been laid out to public view on his back, surely.
Carol responds:
I thought that the herald (not sure which one it was) was forced to lead the packhorse Richard had been slung across. I agree that he would have been laid out on his back, and I would certainly hope that no one would stab a body displayed in a church.
The idea, suggested by someone on this list, that ordinary people watching the sad procession of a dead and mutilated king who had just the day been ruling over them would reach out with a dagger to stab him in the buttock is to me very unlikely. I think that all the humiliation wounds were inflicted by soldiers, either Stanley's men or French mercenaries. I can't see the ordinary citizens of Leicester desecrating the body of an anointed king. I expect that they felt sadness and shock, much as we would feel if we saw the body of a modern political leader, even one we had disliked intensely, treated in that way. And, Vergil to the contrary, the people in general were not revolted by Richard and probably had not even heard the rumors that he had killed his nephews. Some few may have come to him with petitions that he had granted only days before.
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 04:42:27
George Butterfield wrote:
[snip]
> My question would be where we're his standard bearer and supporting knights if this melee as I have only seen accounts of his death and I am sure that he was not alone.
Carol responds:
I've read that his standard bearer, whose name I've sadly forgotten, had his legs cut from under him but still held onto the standard. We know that most of his household knights were killed, so they must have been trying valiantly but futilely to protect their king. Francis Lovell was apparently on duty elsewhere; same with Sir James Tyrell and Sir Edward Brampton. John, Earl of Lincoln also was not there, probably because Richard didn't want him to be. His son-in-law (the name escapes me), was holding northern Wales. Tudor came in through Milford Haven in South Wales.
The only man close to Richard who was at Bosworth but didn't die with him was Catesby, a lawyer, not a soldier. Ratcliffe and Brackenbury died fighting for Richard.
But it's odd, isn't it, that accounts such as Vergil's make it sound as if Richard died fighting alone? I suspect that he rode out too far ahead of his men and Stanley's forces charged out in between them and cut them off. His men would have fought to the death, but once Richard was down, they were doomed. I also suspect that the chroniclers wanted it to look as if he really was alone and everyone on the field turned against him. Obviously, given Tudor's attainders, that wasn't true.
Carol
[snip]
> My question would be where we're his standard bearer and supporting knights if this melee as I have only seen accounts of his death and I am sure that he was not alone.
Carol responds:
I've read that his standard bearer, whose name I've sadly forgotten, had his legs cut from under him but still held onto the standard. We know that most of his household knights were killed, so they must have been trying valiantly but futilely to protect their king. Francis Lovell was apparently on duty elsewhere; same with Sir James Tyrell and Sir Edward Brampton. John, Earl of Lincoln also was not there, probably because Richard didn't want him to be. His son-in-law (the name escapes me), was holding northern Wales. Tudor came in through Milford Haven in South Wales.
The only man close to Richard who was at Bosworth but didn't die with him was Catesby, a lawyer, not a soldier. Ratcliffe and Brackenbury died fighting for Richard.
But it's odd, isn't it, that accounts such as Vergil's make it sound as if Richard died fighting alone? I suspect that he rode out too far ahead of his men and Stanley's forces charged out in between them and cut them off. His men would have fought to the death, but once Richard was down, they were doomed. I also suspect that the chroniclers wanted it to look as if he really was alone and everyone on the field turned against him. Obviously, given Tudor's attainders, that wasn't true.
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 13:23:03
Carol said : <his standard bearer, whose name I've sadly forgotten
Liz: Percy Thirlwell?
Carol: <His son-in-law (the name escapes me)
Liz: Whose son in law?
Carol: <the chroniclers wanted it to look as if he really was alone and everyone on the field turned against him. Obviously, given Tudor's attainders, that wasn't true.
Liz: I'm fed up with reading about all the Yorkists who went over to Tudor during or before the battle. Just how many real "Yorkists" did so? I hardly count the Stanleys as Yorkists since they turned with the wind and as for Northumberlad dI'm not entirely sure what to think. I know that there were people who didn't turn up for the battle at all but are there any numbers of Yorkists who actually went over to Tudor's side before Bosworth/fled the country when Richard became King, or whatever?
Liz
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 4:42
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
George Butterfield wrote:
[snip]
> My question would be where we're his standard bearer and supporting knights if this melee as I have only seen accounts of his death and I am sure that he was not alone.
Carol responds:
I've read that his standard bearer, whose name I've sadly forgotten, had his legs cut from under him but still held onto the standard. We know that most of his household knights were killed, so they must have been trying valiantly but futilely to protect their king. Francis Lovell was apparently on duty elsewhere; same with Sir James Tyrell and Sir Edward Brampton. John, Earl of Lincoln also was not there, probably because Richard didn't want him to be. His son-in-law (the name escapes me), was holding northern Wales. Tudor came in through Milford Haven in South Wales.
The only man close to Richard who was at Bosworth but didn't die with him was Catesby, a lawyer, not a soldier. Ratcliffe and Brackenbury died fighting for Richard.
But it's odd, isn't it, that accounts such as Vergil's make it sound as if Richard died fighting alone? I suspect that he rode out too far ahead of his men and Stanley's forces charged out in between them and cut them off. His men would have fought to the death, but once Richard was down, they were doomed. I also suspect that the chroniclers wanted it to look as if he really was alone and everyone on the field turned against him. Obviously, given Tudor's attainders, that wasn't true.
Carol
Liz: Percy Thirlwell?
Carol: <His son-in-law (the name escapes me)
Liz: Whose son in law?
Carol: <the chroniclers wanted it to look as if he really was alone and everyone on the field turned against him. Obviously, given Tudor's attainders, that wasn't true.
Liz: I'm fed up with reading about all the Yorkists who went over to Tudor during or before the battle. Just how many real "Yorkists" did so? I hardly count the Stanleys as Yorkists since they turned with the wind and as for Northumberlad dI'm not entirely sure what to think. I know that there were people who didn't turn up for the battle at all but are there any numbers of Yorkists who actually went over to Tudor's side before Bosworth/fled the country when Richard became King, or whatever?
Liz
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 4:42
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
George Butterfield wrote:
[snip]
> My question would be where we're his standard bearer and supporting knights if this melee as I have only seen accounts of his death and I am sure that he was not alone.
Carol responds:
I've read that his standard bearer, whose name I've sadly forgotten, had his legs cut from under him but still held onto the standard. We know that most of his household knights were killed, so they must have been trying valiantly but futilely to protect their king. Francis Lovell was apparently on duty elsewhere; same with Sir James Tyrell and Sir Edward Brampton. John, Earl of Lincoln also was not there, probably because Richard didn't want him to be. His son-in-law (the name escapes me), was holding northern Wales. Tudor came in through Milford Haven in South Wales.
The only man close to Richard who was at Bosworth but didn't die with him was Catesby, a lawyer, not a soldier. Ratcliffe and Brackenbury died fighting for Richard.
But it's odd, isn't it, that accounts such as Vergil's make it sound as if Richard died fighting alone? I suspect that he rode out too far ahead of his men and Stanley's forces charged out in between them and cut them off. His men would have fought to the death, but once Richard was down, they were doomed. I also suspect that the chroniclers wanted it to look as if he really was alone and everyone on the field turned against him. Obviously, given Tudor's attainders, that wasn't true.
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 13:25:40
Carol said : <his standard bearer, whose name I've sadly forgotten
Liz: Percy Thirlwell?
Carol: <His son-in-law (the name escapes me)
Liz: Whose son in law?
Carol: <the chroniclers wanted it to look as if he really was alone and everyone on the field turned against him. Obviously, given Tudor's attainders, that wasn't true.
Liz: I'm fed up with reading about all the Yorkists who went over to Tudor during or before the battle. Just how many real "Yorkists" did so? I hardly count the Stanleys as Yorkists since they turned with the wind and as for Northumberlad dI'm not entirely sure what to think. I know that there were people who didn't turn up for the battle at all but are there any numbers of Yorkists who actually went over to Tudor's side before Bosworth/fled the country when Richard became King, or whatever?
Liz
justcarol67@...>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 4:42
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
George Butterfield wrote:
[snip]
> My question would be where we're his standard bearer and supporting knights if this melee as I have only seen accounts of his death and I am sure that he was not alone.
Carol responds:
I've read that his standard bearer, whose name I've sadly forgotten, had his legs cut from under him but still held onto the standard. We know that most of his household knights were killed, so they must have been trying valiantly but futilely to protect their king. Francis Lovell was apparently on duty elsewhere; same with Sir James Tyrell and Sir Edward Brampton. John, Earl of Lincoln also was not there, probably because Richard didn't want him to be. His son-in-law (the name escapes me), was holding northern Wales. Tudor came in through Milford Haven in South Wales.
The only man close to Richard who was at Bosworth but didn't die with him was Catesby, a lawyer, not a soldier. Ratcliffe and Brackenbury died fighting for Richard.
But it's odd, isn't it, that accounts such as Vergil's make it sound as if Richard died fighting alone? I suspect that he rode out too far ahead of his men and Stanley's forces charged out in between them and cut them off. His men would have fought to the death, but once Richard was down, they were doomed. I also suspect that the chroniclers wanted it to look as if he really was alone and everyone on the field turned against him. Obviously, given Tudor's attainders, that wasn't true.
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 13:26:37
I give up - I've tried twice to send this and all I can see is "Carol said"
Liz
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 13:25
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Carol said :
mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 4:42
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
George Butterfield wrote:
[snip]
> My question would be where we're his standard bearer and supporting knights if this melee as I have only seen accounts of his death and I am sure that he was not alone.
Carol responds:
I've read that his standard bearer, whose name I've sadly forgotten, had his legs cut from under him but still held onto the standard. We know that most of his household knights were killed, so they must have been trying valiantly but futilely to protect their king. Francis Lovell was apparently on duty elsewhere; same with Sir James Tyrell and Sir Edward Brampton. John, Earl of Lincoln also was not there, probably because Richard didn't want him to be. His son-in-law (the name escapes me), was holding northern Wales. Tudor came in through Milford Haven in South Wales.
The only man close to Richard who was at Bosworth but didn't die with him was Catesby, a lawyer, not a soldier. Ratcliffe and Brackenbury died fighting for Richard.
But it's odd, isn't it, that accounts such as Vergil's make it sound as if Richard died fighting alone? I suspect that he rode out too far ahead of his men and Stanley's forces charged out in between them and cut them off. His men would have fought to the death, but once Richard was down, they were doomed. I also suspect that the chroniclers wanted it to look as if he really was alone and everyone on the field turned against him. Obviously, given Tudor's attainders, that wasn't true.
Carol
Liz
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 13:25
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Carol said :
mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 4:42
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
George Butterfield wrote:
[snip]
> My question would be where we're his standard bearer and supporting knights if this melee as I have only seen accounts of his death and I am sure that he was not alone.
Carol responds:
I've read that his standard bearer, whose name I've sadly forgotten, had his legs cut from under him but still held onto the standard. We know that most of his household knights were killed, so they must have been trying valiantly but futilely to protect their king. Francis Lovell was apparently on duty elsewhere; same with Sir James Tyrell and Sir Edward Brampton. John, Earl of Lincoln also was not there, probably because Richard didn't want him to be. His son-in-law (the name escapes me), was holding northern Wales. Tudor came in through Milford Haven in South Wales.
The only man close to Richard who was at Bosworth but didn't die with him was Catesby, a lawyer, not a soldier. Ratcliffe and Brackenbury died fighting for Richard.
But it's odd, isn't it, that accounts such as Vergil's make it sound as if Richard died fighting alone? I suspect that he rode out too far ahead of his men and Stanley's forces charged out in between them and cut them off. His men would have fought to the death, but once Richard was down, they were doomed. I also suspect that the chroniclers wanted it to look as if he really was alone and everyone on the field turned against him. Obviously, given Tudor's attainders, that wasn't true.
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 16:04:49
liz williams wrote:
>
> I give up - I've tried twice to send this and all I can see is "Carol said"
Carol responds:
What were you trying to say, Liz?
Carol
>
> I give up - I've tried twice to send this and all I can see is "Carol said"
Carol responds:
What were you trying to say, Liz?
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 18:55:08
If it doesn't work this time (I'm on the home computer now) I am definitely giving up.
This is a cut and paste of my original e mail
Carol said : <his standard bearer, whose name I've sadly forgotten
Liz: Percy Thirlwell?
Carol: <His son-in-law (the name escapes me)
Liz: Whose son in law?
Carol: <the chroniclers wanted it to look as if he really was alone and everyone on the field turned against him. Obviously, given Tudor's attainders, that wasn't true.
Liz: I'm fed up with reading about all the Yorkists who went over to Tudor during or before the battle. Just how many real "Yorkists" did so? I hardly count the Stanleys as Yorkists since they turned with the wind and as for Northumberlad I'm not entirely sure what to think. I know that there were people who didn't turn up for the battle at all but are there any numbers of Yorkists who actually went over to Tudor's side before Bosworth/fled the country when Richard became King, or whatever?
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 16:04
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
liz williams wrote:
>
> I give up - I've tried twice to send this and all I can see is "Carol said"
Carol responds:
What were you trying to say, Liz?
Carol
This is a cut and paste of my original e mail
Carol said : <his standard bearer, whose name I've sadly forgotten
Liz: Percy Thirlwell?
Carol: <His son-in-law (the name escapes me)
Liz: Whose son in law?
Carol: <the chroniclers wanted it to look as if he really was alone and everyone on the field turned against him. Obviously, given Tudor's attainders, that wasn't true.
Liz: I'm fed up with reading about all the Yorkists who went over to Tudor during or before the battle. Just how many real "Yorkists" did so? I hardly count the Stanleys as Yorkists since they turned with the wind and as for Northumberlad I'm not entirely sure what to think. I know that there were people who didn't turn up for the battle at all but are there any numbers of Yorkists who actually went over to Tudor's side before Bosworth/fled the country when Richard became King, or whatever?
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 16:04
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
liz williams wrote:
>
> I give up - I've tried twice to send this and all I can see is "Carol said"
Carol responds:
What were you trying to say, Liz?
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 19:38:39
Dear God! Okay I give up totally and completely. It wasn't really that important anyway
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 18:55
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
If it doesn't work this time (I'm on the home computer now) I am definitely giving up.
This is a cut and paste of my original e mail
Carol said :
mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 16:04
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
liz williams wrote:
>
> I give up - I've tried twice to send this and all I can see is "Carol said"
Carol responds:
What were you trying to say, Liz?
Carol
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 18:55
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
If it doesn't work this time (I'm on the home computer now) I am definitely giving up.
This is a cut and paste of my original e mail
Carol said :
mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 16:04
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
liz williams wrote:
>
> I give up - I've tried twice to send this and all I can see is "Carol said"
Carol responds:
What were you trying to say, Liz?
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 19:52:22
Carol:
Liz, this is how your mesage appears when I click Reply on Yahoo:
> If it doesn't work this time (I'm on the home computer now) I am definitely giving up.
> Â
> This is a cut and paste of my original e mail
> Â
> Carol said :
Â
> Liz: Percy Thirlwell?
> Â
> Carol:
Â
> Liz: Whose son in law?
> Â
> Carol:
Â
> Liz: I'm fed up with reading about all the Yorkists who went over to Tudor during or before the battle. Just how many real "Yorkists" did so? I hardly count the Stanleys as Yorkists since they turned with the wind and as for Northumberlad I'm not entirely sure what to think. I know that there were people who didn't turn up for the battle at all but are there any numbers of Yorkists who actually went over to Tudor's side before Bosworth/fled the country when Richard became King, or whatever?
Carol again:
Apparently either your program or your computer doesn't like me! Any chance you can post from the website rather than from your e-mail? Or is the "I'm fed up with" paragraph the main point you were trying to make?
In response to that paragraph, the disaffected Yorkists were mostly, AFAIK, either Woodville supporters or people who had served under Edward and feared that they would lose their jobs to Northerners when Richard came to power. Some, like Sir John Cheney, had already been displaced; others brought about the very thing they feared by joining Buckingham's Rebellion. I know of only two Yorkists (no time to look up their names) who ostensibly left Richard's army to join Tudors, but the actual number of Englishmen who fought for Tudor (which included his own little band of diehard Lancastrians) was quite small. I don't know the exact number, but I think that including Welshmen following Rhys Ap Thomas, whom Henry had bribed to follow him) and French mercenaries, I think his whole army (not counting William Stanley's men, who should have fought for Richard and probably didn't care one way or the other) was about 5,000 men. (Aidan or Paul will correct me if I'm wrong.)
I don't know what to think about Northumberland, either, and it's still unclear whether Thomas Stanley really showed up. We have only two important known traitors, Sir William Stanley (who clearly was some sort of Yorkist based on the remarks that caused him to lose his head and might have joined the battle against Tudor if it looked like Richard was going to win) and Rhys ap Thomas, a Welshman who apparently thought his chances for advancement were better under the quarter-Welsh Tudor than under Richard. I doubt that he really believed the propaganda that Tudor was a descendant of Cadwallader come to save Wales from the English. If so, he must have soon lost all his delusions. (Not all of Wales was pro-Tudor, by the way, but most historians lose sight of that fact.)
About the only people I can think of who fled the country when Richard came to power were Sir Edward Woodville, who fled with the treasure and certainly didn't intend at that time to put Tudor on the throne (his nephew Edward V was still king at the time) and the Earl of Oxford, a diehard Lancastrian whose real enemy had been Edward IV, released from prison by another traitor, James Blount, who has to count as a disaffected Yorkist (one who for whatever reason evidently would have preferred Edward's son as king to Edward's brother). Whether Blount fought at Bosworth, I don't know.
But the idea that the whole country was up in arms against Richard or wringing its hands in sorrow over the supposed murder of his nephews is a myth for which Vergil is largely to blame. (I quoted his passage on Sir James Tyrrell earlier. It's hard to believe that historians have taken it as fact.)
Admittedly, there were a few John Pastons who were so sick of fighting that they just stayed home. But the number of men that Northumberland and Norfolk brought with them (other posters can supply the figures) showed that plenty of men were still willing to fight for Richard. It's unfortunate in the extreme that Northumberland's men, for whatever reason, never got the chance. Nor did those eighty men from plague-ridden York who were belatedly notified that Richard needed them and instead had to return with the news that he was dead.
Carol
Liz, this is how your mesage appears when I click Reply on Yahoo:
> If it doesn't work this time (I'm on the home computer now) I am definitely giving up.
> Â
> This is a cut and paste of my original e mail
> Â
> Carol said :
Â
> Liz: Percy Thirlwell?
> Â
> Carol:
Â
> Liz: Whose son in law?
> Â
> Carol:
Â
> Liz: I'm fed up with reading about all the Yorkists who went over to Tudor during or before the battle. Just how many real "Yorkists" did so? I hardly count the Stanleys as Yorkists since they turned with the wind and as for Northumberlad I'm not entirely sure what to think. I know that there were people who didn't turn up for the battle at all but are there any numbers of Yorkists who actually went over to Tudor's side before Bosworth/fled the country when Richard became King, or whatever?
Carol again:
Apparently either your program or your computer doesn't like me! Any chance you can post from the website rather than from your e-mail? Or is the "I'm fed up with" paragraph the main point you were trying to make?
In response to that paragraph, the disaffected Yorkists were mostly, AFAIK, either Woodville supporters or people who had served under Edward and feared that they would lose their jobs to Northerners when Richard came to power. Some, like Sir John Cheney, had already been displaced; others brought about the very thing they feared by joining Buckingham's Rebellion. I know of only two Yorkists (no time to look up their names) who ostensibly left Richard's army to join Tudors, but the actual number of Englishmen who fought for Tudor (which included his own little band of diehard Lancastrians) was quite small. I don't know the exact number, but I think that including Welshmen following Rhys Ap Thomas, whom Henry had bribed to follow him) and French mercenaries, I think his whole army (not counting William Stanley's men, who should have fought for Richard and probably didn't care one way or the other) was about 5,000 men. (Aidan or Paul will correct me if I'm wrong.)
I don't know what to think about Northumberland, either, and it's still unclear whether Thomas Stanley really showed up. We have only two important known traitors, Sir William Stanley (who clearly was some sort of Yorkist based on the remarks that caused him to lose his head and might have joined the battle against Tudor if it looked like Richard was going to win) and Rhys ap Thomas, a Welshman who apparently thought his chances for advancement were better under the quarter-Welsh Tudor than under Richard. I doubt that he really believed the propaganda that Tudor was a descendant of Cadwallader come to save Wales from the English. If so, he must have soon lost all his delusions. (Not all of Wales was pro-Tudor, by the way, but most historians lose sight of that fact.)
About the only people I can think of who fled the country when Richard came to power were Sir Edward Woodville, who fled with the treasure and certainly didn't intend at that time to put Tudor on the throne (his nephew Edward V was still king at the time) and the Earl of Oxford, a diehard Lancastrian whose real enemy had been Edward IV, released from prison by another traitor, James Blount, who has to count as a disaffected Yorkist (one who for whatever reason evidently would have preferred Edward's son as king to Edward's brother). Whether Blount fought at Bosworth, I don't know.
But the idea that the whole country was up in arms against Richard or wringing its hands in sorrow over the supposed murder of his nephews is a myth for which Vergil is largely to blame. (I quoted his passage on Sir James Tyrrell earlier. It's hard to believe that historians have taken it as fact.)
Admittedly, there were a few John Pastons who were so sick of fighting that they just stayed home. But the number of men that Northumberland and Norfolk brought with them (other posters can supply the figures) showed that plenty of men were still willing to fight for Richard. It's unfortunate in the extreme that Northumberland's men, for whatever reason, never got the chance. Nor did those eighty men from plague-ridden York who were belatedly notified that Richard needed them and instead had to return with the news that he was dead.
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 20:17:28
Carol, thanks for that. I have no idea why it wouldn't show up when my other posts do.
Thank you for your comprehensive reply. It pretty much confirms what I thought but I didn't have names.
Liz
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 19:52
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Carol:
Liz, this is how your mesage appears when I click Reply on Yahoo:
> If it doesn't work this time (I'm on the home computer now) I am definitely giving up.
> Â
> This is a cut and paste of my original e mail
> Â
> Carol said :
Â
> Liz: Percy Thirlwell?
> Â
> Carol:
Â
> Liz: Whose son in law?
> Â
> Carol:
Â
> Liz: I'm fed up with reading about all the Yorkists who went over to Tudor during or before the battle. Just how many real "Yorkists" did so? I hardly count the Stanleys as Yorkists since they turned with the wind and as for Northumberlad I'm not entirely sure what to think. I know that there were people who didn't turn up for the battle at all but are there any numbers of Yorkists who actually went over to Tudor's side before Bosworth/fled the country when Richard became King, or whatever?
Carol again:
Apparently either your program or your computer doesn't like me! Any chance you can post from the website rather than from your e-mail? Or is the "I'm fed up with" paragraph the main point you were trying to make?
In response to that paragraph, the disaffected Yorkists were mostly, AFAIK, either Woodville supporters or people who had served under Edward and feared that they would lose their jobs to Northerners when Richard came to power. Some, like Sir John Cheney, had already been displaced; others brought about the very thing they feared by joining Buckingham's Rebellion. I know of only two Yorkists (no time to look up their names) who ostensibly left Richard's army to join Tudors, but the actual number of Englishmen who fought for Tudor (which included his own little band of diehard Lancastrians) was quite small. I don't know the exact number, but I think that including Welshmen following Rhys Ap Thomas, whom Henry had bribed to follow him) and French mercenaries, I think his whole army (not counting William Stanley's men, who should have fought for Richard and probably didn't care one way or the other) was about 5,000 men. (Aidan or Paul will correct me if I'm
wrong.)
I don't know what to think about Northumberland, either, and it's still unclear whether Thomas Stanley really showed up. We have only two important known traitors, Sir William Stanley (who clearly was some sort of Yorkist based on the remarks that caused him to lose his head and might have joined the battle against Tudor if it looked like Richard was going to win) and Rhys ap Thomas, a Welshman who apparently thought his chances for advancement were better under the quarter-Welsh Tudor than under Richard. I doubt that he really believed the propaganda that Tudor was a descendant of Cadwallader come to save Wales from the English. If so, he must have soon lost all his delusions. (Not all of Wales was pro-Tudor, by the way, but most historians lose sight of that fact.)
About the only people I can think of who fled the country when Richard came to power were Sir Edward Woodville, who fled with the treasure and certainly didn't intend at that time to put Tudor on the throne (his nephew Edward V was still king at the time) and the Earl of Oxford, a diehard Lancastrian whose real enemy had been Edward IV, released from prison by another traitor, James Blount, who has to count as a disaffected Yorkist (one who for whatever reason evidently would have preferred Edward's son as king to Edward's brother). Whether Blount fought at Bosworth, I don't know.
But the idea that the whole country was up in arms against Richard or wringing its hands in sorrow over the supposed murder of his nephews is a myth for which Vergil is largely to blame. (I quoted his passage on Sir James Tyrrell earlier. It's hard to believe that historians have taken it as fact.)
Admittedly, there were a few John Pastons who were so sick of fighting that they just stayed home. But the number of men that Northumberland and Norfolk brought with them (other posters can supply the figures) showed that plenty of men were still willing to fight for Richard. It's unfortunate in the extreme that Northumberland's men, for whatever reason, never got the chance. Nor did those eighty men from plague-ridden York who were belatedly notified that Richard needed them and instead had to return with the news that he was dead.
Carol
Thank you for your comprehensive reply. It pretty much confirms what I thought but I didn't have names.
Liz
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 19:52
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
Carol:
Liz, this is how your mesage appears when I click Reply on Yahoo:
> If it doesn't work this time (I'm on the home computer now) I am definitely giving up.
> Â
> This is a cut and paste of my original e mail
> Â
> Carol said :
Â
> Liz: Percy Thirlwell?
> Â
> Carol:
Â
> Liz: Whose son in law?
> Â
> Carol:
Â
> Liz: I'm fed up with reading about all the Yorkists who went over to Tudor during or before the battle. Just how many real "Yorkists" did so? I hardly count the Stanleys as Yorkists since they turned with the wind and as for Northumberlad I'm not entirely sure what to think. I know that there were people who didn't turn up for the battle at all but are there any numbers of Yorkists who actually went over to Tudor's side before Bosworth/fled the country when Richard became King, or whatever?
Carol again:
Apparently either your program or your computer doesn't like me! Any chance you can post from the website rather than from your e-mail? Or is the "I'm fed up with" paragraph the main point you were trying to make?
In response to that paragraph, the disaffected Yorkists were mostly, AFAIK, either Woodville supporters or people who had served under Edward and feared that they would lose their jobs to Northerners when Richard came to power. Some, like Sir John Cheney, had already been displaced; others brought about the very thing they feared by joining Buckingham's Rebellion. I know of only two Yorkists (no time to look up their names) who ostensibly left Richard's army to join Tudors, but the actual number of Englishmen who fought for Tudor (which included his own little band of diehard Lancastrians) was quite small. I don't know the exact number, but I think that including Welshmen following Rhys Ap Thomas, whom Henry had bribed to follow him) and French mercenaries, I think his whole army (not counting William Stanley's men, who should have fought for Richard and probably didn't care one way or the other) was about 5,000 men. (Aidan or Paul will correct me if I'm
wrong.)
I don't know what to think about Northumberland, either, and it's still unclear whether Thomas Stanley really showed up. We have only two important known traitors, Sir William Stanley (who clearly was some sort of Yorkist based on the remarks that caused him to lose his head and might have joined the battle against Tudor if it looked like Richard was going to win) and Rhys ap Thomas, a Welshman who apparently thought his chances for advancement were better under the quarter-Welsh Tudor than under Richard. I doubt that he really believed the propaganda that Tudor was a descendant of Cadwallader come to save Wales from the English. If so, he must have soon lost all his delusions. (Not all of Wales was pro-Tudor, by the way, but most historians lose sight of that fact.)
About the only people I can think of who fled the country when Richard came to power were Sir Edward Woodville, who fled with the treasure and certainly didn't intend at that time to put Tudor on the throne (his nephew Edward V was still king at the time) and the Earl of Oxford, a diehard Lancastrian whose real enemy had been Edward IV, released from prison by another traitor, James Blount, who has to count as a disaffected Yorkist (one who for whatever reason evidently would have preferred Edward's son as king to Edward's brother). Whether Blount fought at Bosworth, I don't know.
But the idea that the whole country was up in arms against Richard or wringing its hands in sorrow over the supposed murder of his nephews is a myth for which Vergil is largely to blame. (I quoted his passage on Sir James Tyrrell earlier. It's hard to believe that historians have taken it as fact.)
Admittedly, there were a few John Pastons who were so sick of fighting that they just stayed home. But the number of men that Northumberland and Norfolk brought with them (other posters can supply the figures) showed that plenty of men were still willing to fight for Richard. It's unfortunate in the extreme that Northumberland's men, for whatever reason, never got the chance. Nor did those eighty men from plague-ridden York who were belatedly notified that Richard needed them and instead had to return with the news that he was dead.
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 20:29:56
liz williams wrote:
>
> Carol, thanks for that. I have no idea why it wouldn't show up when my other posts do.
> Â
> Thank you for your comprehensive reply. It pretty much confirms what I thought but I didn't have names.
Carol responds:
You're welcome on both counts. It was a surprise to me when the hidden words showed up after I clicked Reply. Good old Yahoo! I still don't understand what the part where I said nothing and you were talking about Percy Thirwell was about, though. Who was Percy Thirwell and how does he relate to the paragraph that did show up?
Carol
>
> Carol, thanks for that. I have no idea why it wouldn't show up when my other posts do.
> Â
> Thank you for your comprehensive reply. It pretty much confirms what I thought but I didn't have names.
Carol responds:
You're welcome on both counts. It was a surprise to me when the hidden words showed up after I clicked Reply. Good old Yahoo! I still don't understand what the part where I said nothing and you were talking about Percy Thirwell was about, though. Who was Percy Thirwell and how does he relate to the paragraph that did show up?
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 20:43:01
You said something about Richard's standard bearer and not remembering his name - it was Sir Percy Thirwell I think.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 20:29
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
liz williams wrote:
>
> Carol, thanks for that. I have no idea why it wouldn't show up when my other posts do.
> Â
> Thank you for your comprehensive reply. It pretty much confirms what I thought but I didn't have names.
Carol responds:
You're welcome on both counts. It was a surprise to me when the hidden words showed up after I clicked Reply. Good old Yahoo! I still don't understand what the part where I said nothing and you were talking about Percy Thirwell was about, though. Who was Percy Thirwell and how does he relate to the paragraph that did show up?
Carol
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 20:29
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
liz williams wrote:
>
> Carol, thanks for that. I have no idea why it wouldn't show up when my other posts do.
> Â
> Thank you for your comprehensive reply. It pretty much confirms what I thought but I didn't have names.
Carol responds:
You're welcome on both counts. It was a surprise to me when the hidden words showed up after I clicked Reply. Good old Yahoo! I still don't understand what the part where I said nothing and you were talking about Percy Thirwell was about, though. Who was Percy Thirwell and how does he relate to the paragraph that did show up?
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 20:54:47
There may be some Tudor imps embedded in some of our posts. Those dastardly Tudors.....
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:30 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
liz williams wrote:
>
> Carol, thanks for that. I have no idea why it wouldn't show up when my other posts do.
> Â
> Thank you for your comprehensive reply. It pretty much confirms what I thought but I didn't have names.
Carol responds:
You're welcome on both counts. It was a surprise to me when the hidden words showed up after I clicked Reply. Good old Yahoo! I still don't understand what the part where I said nothing and you were talking about Percy Thirwell was about, though. Who was Percy Thirwell and how does he relate to the paragraph that did show up?
Carol
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:30 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
liz williams wrote:
>
> Carol, thanks for that. I have no idea why it wouldn't show up when my other posts do.
> Â
> Thank you for your comprehensive reply. It pretty much confirms what I thought but I didn't have names.
Carol responds:
You're welcome on both counts. It was a surprise to me when the hidden words showed up after I clicked Reply. Good old Yahoo! I still don't understand what the part where I said nothing and you were talking about Percy Thirwell was about, though. Who was Percy Thirwell and how does he relate to the paragraph that did show up?
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 21:02:31
liz williams wrote:
>
> You said something about Richard's standard bearer and not remembering his name - it was Sir Percy Thirwell I think.
Carol responds:
Thank you. By no means a disaffected Yorkist, then! Hats off to Sir Percy, and may I never forget his name again.
Carol
>
> You said something about Richard's standard bearer and not remembering his name - it was Sir Percy Thirwell I think.
Carol responds:
Thank you. By no means a disaffected Yorkist, then! Hats off to Sir Percy, and may I never forget his name again.
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 21:17:21
Well POOP!
Check to see that you are not trying to put a graphic on the site as an attachment I don't think it appreciates anything other than Quill pen!
George K Butterfield
(GIP JPG PDF etc)
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:55 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
If it doesn't work this time (I'm on the home computer now) I am definitely giving up.
This is a cut and paste of my original e mail
Carol said :
justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 16:04
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
liz williams wrote:
>
> I give up - I've tried twice to send this and all I can see is "Carol said"
Carol responds:
What were you trying to say, Liz?
Carol
Check to see that you are not trying to put a graphic on the site as an attachment I don't think it appreciates anything other than Quill pen!
George K Butterfield
(GIP JPG PDF etc)
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:55 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
If it doesn't work this time (I'm on the home computer now) I am definitely giving up.
This is a cut and paste of my original e mail
Carol said :
justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 16:04
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
liz williams wrote:
>
> I give up - I've tried twice to send this and all I can see is "Carol said"
Carol responds:
What were you trying to say, Liz?
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-12 23:33:25
Percival Thirlwall of Thirlwall, Northumberland, and William Parker of North Moulton, Devon are each described as Richard's Standard Bearers at Bosworth.
It could be that one bore Richard's personal standard, the other that of the Kingdom.
Parker survived the battle, and was married to Alice Lovel, heiress of Lord Morley and a cousin of Francis.
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 20:42
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
You said something about Richard's standard bearer and not remembering his name - it was Sir Percy Thirwell I think.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 20:29
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
liz williams wrote:
>
> Carol, thanks for that. I have no idea why it wouldn't show up when my other posts do.
> Â
> Thank you for your comprehensive reply. It pretty much confirms what I thought but I didn't have names.
Carol responds:
You're welcome on both counts. It was a surprise to me when the hidden words showed up after I clicked Reply. Good old Yahoo! I still don't understand what the part where I said nothing and you were talking about Percy Thirwell was about, though. Who was Percy Thirwell and how does he relate to the paragraph that did show up?
Carol
It could be that one bore Richard's personal standard, the other that of the Kingdom.
Parker survived the battle, and was married to Alice Lovel, heiress of Lord Morley and a cousin of Francis.
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 20:42
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
You said something about Richard's standard bearer and not remembering his name - it was Sir Percy Thirwell I think.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 20:29
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
liz williams wrote:
>
> Carol, thanks for that. I have no idea why it wouldn't show up when my other posts do.
> Â
> Thank you for your comprehensive reply. It pretty much confirms what I thought but I didn't have names.
Carol responds:
You're welcome on both counts. It was a surprise to me when the hidden words showed up after I clicked Reply. Good old Yahoo! I still don't understand what the part where I said nothing and you were talking about Percy Thirwell was about, though. Who was Percy Thirwell and how does he relate to the paragraph that did show up?
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-13 00:05:02
david rayner wrote:
>
> Percival Thirlwall of Thirlwall, Northumberland, and William Parker of North Moulton, Devon are each described as Richard's Standard Bearers at Bosworth.
>
> It could be that one bore Richard's personal standard, the other that of the Kingdom.Â
>
> Parker survived the battle, and was married to Alice Lovel, heiress of Lord Morley and a cousin of Francis.
Carol responds:
Thanks, David. Can you tell me your sources so I won't need to look them up? I can't recall where I read the sad story of Sir Percival. It can't be Croyland, whose account is cursory and inaccurate.
Carol
>
> Percival Thirlwall of Thirlwall, Northumberland, and William Parker of North Moulton, Devon are each described as Richard's Standard Bearers at Bosworth.
>
> It could be that one bore Richard's personal standard, the other that of the Kingdom.Â
>
> Parker survived the battle, and was married to Alice Lovel, heiress of Lord Morley and a cousin of Francis.
Carol responds:
Thanks, David. Can you tell me your sources so I won't need to look them up? I can't recall where I read the sad story of Sir Percival. It can't be Croyland, whose account is cursory and inaccurate.
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-13 20:26:16
Few bits about the standard bearers, apparently Parker was injured and may have been imprisoned.
http://www.studio88.co.uk/acatalog/Richard_III_Standard_Bearer_at_Bosworth.html
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CD0QFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.girders.net%2FParker%2FParker%2C%2520Sir%2520William%2C%2520(d.1510).doc&ei=yvUbUe2kFouIhQf7nIB4&usg=AFQjCNHYAqPEeA0280lA6wV8nBd8J8FW5Q&sig2=kUFmgWtbqVGYYk6ZWgR59w
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:05
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
david rayner wrote:
>
> Percival Thirlwall of Thirlwall, Northumberland, and William Parker of North Moulton, Devon are each described as Richard's Standard Bearers at Bosworth.
>
> It could be that one bore Richard's personal standard, the other that of the Kingdom.Â
>
> Parker survived the battle, and was married to Alice Lovel, heiress of Lord Morley and a cousin of Francis.
Carol responds:
Thanks, David. Can you tell me your sources so I won't need to look them up? I can't recall where I read the sad story of Sir Percival. It can't be Croyland, whose account is cursory and inaccurate.
Carol
http://www.studio88.co.uk/acatalog/Richard_III_Standard_Bearer_at_Bosworth.html
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CD0QFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.girders.net%2FParker%2FParker%2C%2520Sir%2520William%2C%2520(d.1510).doc&ei=yvUbUe2kFouIhQf7nIB4&usg=AFQjCNHYAqPEeA0280lA6wV8nBd8J8FW5Q&sig2=kUFmgWtbqVGYYk6ZWgR59w
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:05
Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
david rayner wrote:
>
> Percival Thirlwall of Thirlwall, Northumberland, and William Parker of North Moulton, Devon are each described as Richard's Standard Bearers at Bosworth.
>
> It could be that one bore Richard's personal standard, the other that of the Kingdom.Â
>
> Parker survived the battle, and was married to Alice Lovel, heiress of Lord Morley and a cousin of Francis.
Carol responds:
Thanks, David. Can you tell me your sources so I won't need to look them up? I can't recall where I read the sad story of Sir Percival. It can't be Croyland, whose account is cursory and inaccurate.
Carol
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-13 21:31:43
I think the names of Parker and Thirwall come from one of the Bosworth ballads. At the moment we don't know how much credence to give these. We learned at the Bosworth conference that the language of them has been studied by linguists, who say it is early 17th century. But they could have been revisions of earlier songs or some sort of secret Bosworth Roll of Honour, so the next job would be to research the names in them to see if they all tie up with the families in question in 1485.
Marie
--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> Few bits about the standard bearers, apparently Parker was injured and may have been imprisoned.
>
> http://www.studio88.co.uk/acatalog/Richard_III_Standard_Bearer_at_Bosworth.html
>
>
> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CD0QFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.girders.net%2FParker%2FParker%2C%2520Sir%2520William%2C%2520(d.1510).doc&ei=yvUbUe2kFouIhQf7nIB4&usg=AFQjCNHYAqPEeA0280lA6wV8nBd8J8FW5Q&sig2=kUFmgWtbqVGYYk6ZWgR59w
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:05
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
> Â
>
> david rayner wrote:
> >
> > Percival Thirlwall of Thirlwall, Northumberland, and William Parker of North Moulton, Devon are each described as Richard's Standard Bearers at Bosworth.
> >
> > It could be that one bore Richard's personal standard, the other that of the Kingdom.ÂÂ
> >
> > Parker survived the battle, and was married to Alice Lovel, heiress of Lord Morley and a cousin of Francis.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, David. Can you tell me your sources so I won't need to look them up? I can't recall where I read the sad story of Sir Percival. It can't be Croyland, whose account is cursory and inaccurate.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> Few bits about the standard bearers, apparently Parker was injured and may have been imprisoned.
>
> http://www.studio88.co.uk/acatalog/Richard_III_Standard_Bearer_at_Bosworth.html
>
>
> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CD0QFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.girders.net%2FParker%2FParker%2C%2520Sir%2520William%2C%2520(d.1510).doc&ei=yvUbUe2kFouIhQf7nIB4&usg=AFQjCNHYAqPEeA0280lA6wV8nBd8J8FW5Q&sig2=kUFmgWtbqVGYYk6ZWgR59w
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:05
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
> Â
>
> david rayner wrote:
> >
> > Percival Thirlwall of Thirlwall, Northumberland, and William Parker of North Moulton, Devon are each described as Richard's Standard Bearers at Bosworth.
> >
> > It could be that one bore Richard's personal standard, the other that of the Kingdom.ÂÂ
> >
> > Parker survived the battle, and was married to Alice Lovel, heiress of Lord Morley and a cousin of Francis.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, David. Can you tell me your sources so I won't need to look them up? I can't recall where I read the sad story of Sir Percival. It can't be Croyland, whose account is cursory and inaccurate.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
2013-02-13 21:35:22
There's no contemporary back-up for the roles of Thirwall and Parker as per the ballads. The language in the ballads has been recently studied by linguists, so I have been told, who have dated it to early 17th century. What is now needed is a comparison of the names in the ballads with contemporary records of the families in question to see whether they tie up.
Marie
--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> Few bits about the standard bearers, apparently Parker was injured and may have been imprisoned.
>
> http://www.studio88.co.uk/acatalog/Richard_III_Standard_Bearer_at_Bosworth.html
>
>
> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CD0QFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.girders.net%2FParker%2FParker%2C%2520Sir%2520William%2C%2520(d.1510).doc&ei=yvUbUe2kFouIhQf7nIB4&usg=AFQjCNHYAqPEeA0280lA6wV8nBd8J8FW5Q&sig2=kUFmgWtbqVGYYk6ZWgR59w
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:05
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
> Â
>
> david rayner wrote:
> >
> > Percival Thirlwall of Thirlwall, Northumberland, and William Parker of North Moulton, Devon are each described as Richard's Standard Bearers at Bosworth.
> >
> > It could be that one bore Richard's personal standard, the other that of the Kingdom.ÂÂ
> >
> > Parker survived the battle, and was married to Alice Lovel, heiress of Lord Morley and a cousin of Francis.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, David. Can you tell me your sources so I won't need to look them up? I can't recall where I read the sad story of Sir Percival. It can't be Croyland, whose account is cursory and inaccurate.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> Few bits about the standard bearers, apparently Parker was injured and may have been imprisoned.
>
> http://www.studio88.co.uk/acatalog/Richard_III_Standard_Bearer_at_Bosworth.html
>
>
> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CD0QFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.girders.net%2FParker%2FParker%2C%2520Sir%2520William%2C%2520(d.1510).doc&ei=yvUbUe2kFouIhQf7nIB4&usg=AFQjCNHYAqPEeA0280lA6wV8nBd8J8FW5Q&sig2=kUFmgWtbqVGYYk6ZWgR59w
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 0:05
> Subject: Re: Fatal Blow Identification??
>
>
> Â
>
> david rayner wrote:
> >
> > Percival Thirlwall of Thirlwall, Northumberland, and William Parker of North Moulton, Devon are each described as Richard's Standard Bearers at Bosworth.
> >
> > It could be that one bore Richard's personal standard, the other that of the Kingdom.ÂÂ
> >
> > Parker survived the battle, and was married to Alice Lovel, heiress of Lord Morley and a cousin of Francis.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, David. Can you tell me your sources so I won't need to look them up? I can't recall where I read the sad story of Sir Percival. It can't be Croyland, whose account is cursory and inaccurate.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.