Source of Bosworth Marsh Account

Maybe this is it?

Source: Chronicles of Jean Molinet as quoted on R3 Society here:
http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html

..."His horse leapt into a march (sic) from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep."

Chronicles of Jean Molinet
DATE: c. 1490. AUTHOR: Jean Molinet, historiographer to Burgundian court. TEXT: Chroniques de Jean Molinet (1474-1506), ed. G. Doutrepont and O. Jodogne, 3 vols. (Academie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques. Collection des Anciens Auteurs Belges, Brussels, 1935-7), I, pp. 434-6. (French; own translation, with assistance from Professor I.H. Smith, Department of Modern Languages, University of Tasmania).

Wednesday wrote:
>
> Maybe this is it?
>
> Source: Chronicles of Jean Molinet as quoted on R3 Society here:
> http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html
>
> ..."His horse leapt into a march (sic) from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Weds. It looks as if you've found the source for the "march." But the report is five years after the fact and from a hostile source, so plenty of inaccuracies have crept in. Here's the whole thing as quoted on the website:

"When the armies came together, 'King Richard prepared his "battles", where there was a vanguard and a rearguard; he had around 60,000 combatants and a great number of cannons. The leader of the vanguard was Lord John Howard, whom King Richard had made duke of Norfolk, granting him lands and lordships confiscated from the earl of Oxford. Another lord, Brackenbury, captain of the Tower of London, was also in command of the van, which had 11,000 or 12,000 men altogether. The place was chosen and the day assigned for the eighth day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to battle power against power. The French also made their preparations marching against the English, being in the field a quarter league away.

"The king had the artillery of his army fire on the earl of Richmond, and so the French, knowing by the king's shot the lie of the land and the order of his battle, resolved, in order to avoid the fire, to mass their troops against the flank rather than the front of the king's battle. Thus they obtained the mastery of his vanguard, which after several feats of arms on both sides was dispersed. In this conflict was taken the duke of Norfolk with his son. The former was taken to the earl of Richmond, who sent him on to the earl of Oxford, who had him dispatched.

"The vanguard of King Richard, which was put to flight, was picked off by Lord Stanley who with all of 20,000 combatants came at a good place to the aid of the earl. The earl of Northumberland, who was on the king's side with 10,000 men, ought to have charged the French, but did nothing except to flee, both he and his company, to abandon his King RIchard, for he had an undertaking with the earl of Richmond, as had some others who deserted him in his need. The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the crown on his head; but when he saw this discomforture and found himself alone on the field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a march from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.

"And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously and filthily in the dirt and mire, and he who had despoiled churches was displayed to the people naked and without any clothing, and without any royal solemnity was buried at the entrance to a village church."

Setting aside the nasty propaganda in the last paragraph, which oddly resembles Vergil's account and could have been one of his sources(?), note the size of Richard's army (60,000), which is surely exaggerated to make his defeat look like an act of God or the extent of the treachery greater than it really was. He has the Earl of Northumberland and his men flee the battle rather than (for whatever reason) not joining it, possibly confusing him with the Stanleys, who did apparently have "an undertaking with [Henry Tudor]."

Note the pro-Tudor viewpoint: Norfolk is Lord Howard, whom Richard made Duke of Norfolk; Tudor is the Earl of Richmond, a title that was never his (since it was held by the crown, it was technically Richard's). note also that he credits the French, not the Earl of Oxford, with the flank move that apparently destroyed Norfolk's vanguard and led to his death. It also has Richard himself trying to run away, clearly a bit of French propaganda present in no English source.

So if one lie makes an account unreliable, this one certainly bears some scrutiny. Can we find the marsh in some better source?

Carol

Poor Richard! When did he ever despoil charge?! Hmm, a prophesy about H7's son, it seems!

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

On Feb 17, 2013, at 4:08 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Wednesday wrote:
> >
> > Maybe this is it?
> >
> > Source: Chronicles of Jean Molinet as quoted on R3 Society here:
> > http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html
> >
> > ..."His horse leapt into a march (sic) from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Weds. It looks as if you've found the source for the "march." But the report is five years after the fact and from a hostile source, so plenty of inaccuracies have crept in. Here's the whole thing as quoted on the website:
>
> "When the armies came together, 'King Richard prepared his "battles", where there was a vanguard and a rearguard; he had around 60,000 combatants and a great number of cannons. The leader of the vanguard was Lord John Howard, whom King Richard had made duke of Norfolk, granting him lands and lordships confiscated from the earl of Oxford. Another lord, Brackenbury, captain of the Tower of London, was also in command of the van, which had 11,000 or 12,000 men altogether. The place was chosen and the day assigned for the eighth day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to battle power against power. The French also made their preparations marching against the English, being in the field a quarter league away.
>
> "The king had the artillery of his army fire on the earl of Richmond, and so the French, knowing by the king's shot the lie of the land and the order of his battle, resolved, in order to avoid the fire, to mass their troops against the flank rather than the front of the king's battle. Thus they obtained the mastery of his vanguard, which after several feats of arms on both sides was dispersed. In this conflict was taken the duke of Norfolk with his son. The former was taken to the earl of Richmond, who sent him on to the earl of Oxford, who had him dispatched.
>
> "The vanguard of King Richard, which was put to flight, was picked off by Lord Stanley who with all of 20,000 combatants came at a good place to the aid of the earl. The earl of Northumberland, who was on the king's side with 10,000 men, ought to have charged the French, but did nothing except to flee, both he and his company, to abandon his King RIchard, for he had an undertaking with the earl of Richmond, as had some others who deserted him in his need. The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the crown on his head; but when he saw this discomforture and found himself alone on the field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a march from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.
>
> "And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously and filthily in the dirt and mire, and he who had despoiled churches was displayed to the people naked and without any clothing, and without any royal solemnity was buried at the entrance to a village church."
>
> Setting aside the nasty propaganda in the last paragraph, which oddly resembles Vergil's account and could have been one of his sources(?), note the size of Richard's army (60,000), which is surely exaggerated to make his defeat look like an act of God or the extent of the treachery greater than it really was. He has the Earl of Northumberland and his men flee the battle rather than (for whatever reason) not joining it, possibly confusing him with the Stanleys, who did apparently have "an undertaking with [Henry Tudor]."
>
> Note the pro-Tudor viewpoint: Norfolk is Lord Howard, whom Richard made Duke of Norfolk; Tudor is the Earl of Richmond, a title that was never his (since it was held by the crown, it was technically Richard's). note also that he credits the French, not the Earl of Oxford, with the flank move that apparently destroyed Norfolk's vanguard and led to his death. It also has Richard himself trying to run away, clearly a bit of French propaganda present in no English source.
>
> So if one lie makes an account unreliable, this one certainly bears some scrutiny. Can we find the marsh in some better source?
>
> Carol
>
>

On the Battlefield trust website describing how they located the true site of the battlefield : http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/warsoftheroses/battlepageview.asp?pageid=824
it states they used Vergil's account of Oxford/Henry aligning his right flank on the marsh to protect that flank:

Between the armies was a marsh which Henry purposely kept on his
right, so it would serve as a fortress to protect his men. At the same
time, also by doing this he left the sun behind.'

So making his line face westerly with the marsh to the north

Aidan


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account


 
Wednesday wrote:
>
> Maybe this is it?
>
> Source: Chronicles of Jean Molinet as quoted on R3 Society here:
> http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html
>
> ..."His horse leapt into a march (sic) from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Weds. It looks as if you've found the source for the "march." But the report is five years after the fact and from a hostile source, so plenty of inaccuracies have crept in. Here's the whole thing as quoted on the website:

"When the armies came together, 'King Richard prepared his "battles", where there was a vanguard and a rearguard; he had around 60,000 combatants and a great number of cannons. The leader of the vanguard was Lord John Howard, whom King Richard had made duke of Norfolk, granting him lands and lordships confiscated from the earl of Oxford. Another lord, Brackenbury, captain of the Tower of London, was also in command of the van, which had 11,000 or 12,000 men altogether. The place was chosen and the day assigned for the eighth day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to battle power against power. The French also made their preparations marching against the English, being in the field a quarter league away.

"The king had the artillery of his army fire on the earl of Richmond, and so the French, knowing by the king's shot the lie of the land and the order of his battle, resolved, in order to avoid the fire, to mass their troops against the flank rather than the front of the king's battle. Thus they obtained the mastery of his vanguard, which after several feats of arms on both sides was dispersed. In this conflict was taken the duke of Norfolk with his son. The former was taken to the earl of Richmond, who sent him on to the earl of Oxford, who had him dispatched.

"The vanguard of King Richard, which was put to flight, was picked off by Lord Stanley who with all of 20,000 combatants came at a good place to the aid of the earl. The earl of Northumberland, who was on the king's side with 10,000 men, ought to have charged the French, but did nothing except to flee, both he and his company, to abandon his King RIchard, for he had an undertaking with the earl of Richmond, as had some others who deserted him in his need. The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the crown on his head; but when he saw this discomforture and found himself alone on the field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a march from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.

"And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously and filthily in the dirt and mire, and he who had despoiled churches was displayed to the people naked and without any clothing, and without any royal solemnity was buried at the entrance to a village church."

Setting aside the nasty propaganda in the last paragraph, which oddly resembles Vergil's account and could have been one of his sources(?), note the size of Richard's army (60,000), which is surely exaggerated to make his defeat look like an act of God or the extent of the treachery greater than it really was. He has the Earl of Northumberland and his men flee the battle rather than (for whatever reason) not joining it, possibly confusing him with the Stanleys, who did apparently have "an undertaking with [Henry Tudor]."

Note the pro-Tudor viewpoint: Norfolk is Lord Howard, whom Richard made Duke of Norfolk; Tudor is the Earl of Richmond, a title that was never his (since it was held by the crown, it was technically Richard's). note also that he credits the French, not the Earl of Oxford, with the flank move that apparently destroyed Norfolk's vanguard and led to his death. It also has Richard himself trying to run away, clearly a bit of French propaganda present in no English source.

So if one lie makes an account unreliable, this one certainly bears some scrutiny. Can we find the marsh in some better source?

Carol

Once again it is biased, as Carol says, but it does include the French
attacking Norfolk's flank which is the current thinking. Though Lord
Stanley picking off the fleeing vanguard, and Northumberland having a
pact with Henry are unsupported by any other source. This is where we
all have to take care in that what one source says may be unsupported by
another. As this is a French one I think we can take it as being more
truthful regarding the French than not.
Paul

On 17/02/2013 21:08, justcarol67 wrote:
> Wednesday wrote:
>> Maybe this is it?
>>
>> Source: Chronicles of Jean Molinet as quoted on R3 Society here:
>> http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html
>>
>> ..."His horse leapt into a march (sic) from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep."
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Weds. It looks as if you've found the source for the "march." But the report is five years after the fact and from a hostile source, so plenty of inaccuracies have crept in. Here's the whole thing as quoted on the website:
>
> "When the armies came together, 'King Richard prepared his "battles", where there was a vanguard and a rearguard; he had around 60,000 combatants and a great number of cannons. The leader of the vanguard was Lord John Howard, whom King Richard had made duke of Norfolk, granting him lands and lordships confiscated from the earl of Oxford. Another lord, Brackenbury, captain of the Tower of London, was also in command of the van, which had 11,000 or 12,000 men altogether. The place was chosen and the day assigned for the eighth day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to battle power against power. The French also made their preparations marching against the English, being in the field a quarter league away.
>
> "The king had the artillery of his army fire on the earl of Richmond, and so the French, knowing by the king's shot the lie of the land and the order of his battle, resolved, in order to avoid the fire, to mass their troops against the flank rather than the front of the king's battle. Thus they obtained the mastery of his vanguard, which after several feats of arms on both sides was dispersed. In this conflict was taken the duke of Norfolk with his son. The former was taken to the earl of Richmond, who sent him on to the earl of Oxford, who had him dispatched.
>
> "The vanguard of King Richard, which was put to flight, was picked off by Lord Stanley who with all of 20,000 combatants came at a good place to the aid of the earl. The earl of Northumberland, who was on the king's side with 10,000 men, ought to have charged the French, but did nothing except to flee, both he and his company, to abandon his King RIchard, for he had an undertaking with the earl of Richmond, as had some others who deserted him in his need. The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the crown on his head; but when he saw this discomforture and found himself alone on the field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a march from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.
>
> "And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously and filthily in the dirt and mire, and he who had despoiled churches was displayed to the people naked and without any clothing, and without any royal solemnity was buried at the entrance to a village church."
>
> Setting aside the nasty propaganda in the last paragraph, which oddly resembles Vergil's account and could have been one of his sources(?), note the size of Richard's army (60,000), which is surely exaggerated to make his defeat look like an act of God or the extent of the treachery greater than it really was. He has the Earl of Northumberland and his men flee the battle rather than (for whatever reason) not joining it, possibly confusing him with the Stanleys, who did apparently have "an undertaking with [Henry Tudor]."
>
> Note the pro-Tudor viewpoint: Norfolk is Lord Howard, whom Richard made Duke of Norfolk; Tudor is the Earl of Richmond, a title that was never his (since it was held by the crown, it was technically Richard's). note also that he credits the French, not the Earl of Oxford, with the flank move that apparently destroyed Norfolk's vanguard and led to his death. It also has Richard himself trying to run away, clearly a bit of French propaganda present in no English source.
>
> So if one lie makes an account unreliable, this one certainly bears some scrutiny. Can we find the marsh in some better source?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

This is already out of date.
Paul

On 18/02/2013 07:07, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> On the Battlefield trust website describing how they located the true site of the battlefield : http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/warsoftheroses/battlepageview.asp?pageid=824
> it states they used Vergil's account of Oxford/Henry aligning his right flank on the marsh to protect that flank:
>
> Between the armies was a marsh which Henry purposely kept on his
> right, so it would serve as a fortress to protect his men. At the same
> time, also by doing this he left the sun behind.'
>
> So making his line face westerly with the marsh to the north
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 5:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account
>
>
>
> Wednesday wrote:
>> Maybe this is it?
>>
>> Source: Chronicles of Jean Molinet as quoted on R3 Society here:
>> http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html
>>
>> ..."His horse leapt into a march (sic) from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep."
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Weds. It looks as if you've found the source for the "march." But the report is five years after the fact and from a hostile source, so plenty of inaccuracies have crept in. Here's the whole thing as quoted on the website:
>
> "When the armies came together, 'King Richard prepared his "battles", where there was a vanguard and a rearguard; he had around 60,000 combatants and a great number of cannons. The leader of the vanguard was Lord John Howard, whom King Richard had made duke of Norfolk, granting him lands and lordships confiscated from the earl of Oxford. Another lord, Brackenbury, captain of the Tower of London, was also in command of the van, which had 11,000 or 12,000 men altogether. The place was chosen and the day assigned for the eighth day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to battle power against power. The French also made their preparations marching against the English, being in the field a quarter league away.
>
> "The king had the artillery of his army fire on the earl of Richmond, and so the French, knowing by the king's shot the lie of the land and the order of his battle, resolved, in order to avoid the fire, to mass their troops against the flank rather than the front of the king's battle. Thus they obtained the mastery of his vanguard, which after several feats of arms on both sides was dispersed. In this conflict was taken the duke of Norfolk with his son. The former was taken to the earl of Richmond, who sent him on to the earl of Oxford, who had him dispatched.
>
> "The vanguard of King Richard, which was put to flight, was picked off by Lord Stanley who with all of 20,000 combatants came at a good place to the aid of the earl. The earl of Northumberland, who was on the king's side with 10,000 men, ought to have charged the French, but did nothing except to flee, both he and his company, to abandon his King RIchard, for he had an undertaking with the earl of Richmond, as had some others who deserted him in his need. The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the crown on his head; but when he saw this discomforture and found himself alone on the field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a march from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.
>
> "And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously and filthily in the dirt and mire, and he who had despoiled churches was displayed to the people naked and without any clothing, and without any royal solemnity was buried at the entrance to a village church."
>
> Setting aside the nasty propaganda in the last paragraph, which oddly resembles Vergil's account and could have been one of his sources(?), note the size of Richard's army (60,000), which is surely exaggerated to make his defeat look like an act of God or the extent of the treachery greater than it really was. He has the Earl of Northumberland and his men flee the battle rather than (for whatever reason) not joining it, possibly confusing him with the Stanleys, who did apparently have "an undertaking with [Henry Tudor]."
>
> Note the pro-Tudor viewpoint: Norfolk is Lord Howard, whom Richard made Duke of Norfolk; Tudor is the Earl of Richmond, a title that was never his (since it was held by the crown, it was technically Richard's). note also that he credits the French, not the Earl of Oxford, with the flank move that apparently destroyed Norfolk's vanguard and led to his death. It also has Richard himself trying to run away, clearly a bit of French propaganda present in no English source.
>
> So if one lie makes an account unreliable, this one certainly bears some scrutiny. Can we find the marsh in some better source?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Bit odd, as the maps you sent me, (not the dadington ones), show just that orientation...

Regards

Aidan




________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account

This is already out of date.
Paul

On 18/02/2013 07:07, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> On the Battlefield trust website describing how they located the true site of the battlefield : http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/warsoftheroses/battlepageview.asp?pageid=824
> it states they used Vergil's account of Oxford/Henry aligning his right flank on the marsh to protect that flank:
>
> Between the armies was a marsh which Henry purposely kept on his
> right, so it would serve as a fortress to protect his men. At the same
> time, also by doing this he left the sun behind.'
>
> So making his line face westerly with the marsh to the north
>
> Aidan
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 5:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account
> 
>
>   
> Wednesday wrote:
>> Maybe this is it?
>>
>> Source: Chronicles of Jean Molinet as quoted on R3 Society here:
>> http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html
>>
>> ..."His horse leapt into a march (sic) from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep."
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Weds. It looks as if you've found the source for the "march." But the report is five years after the fact and from a hostile source, so plenty of inaccuracies have crept in. Here's the whole thing as quoted on the website:
>
> "When the armies came together, 'King Richard prepared his "battles", where there was a vanguard and a rearguard; he had around 60,000 combatants and a great number of cannons. The leader of the vanguard was Lord John Howard, whom King Richard had made duke of Norfolk, granting him lands and lordships confiscated from the earl of Oxford. Another lord, Brackenbury, captain of the Tower of London, was also in command of the van, which had 11,000 or 12,000 men altogether. The place was chosen and the day assigned for the eighth day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to battle power against power. The French also made their preparations marching against the English, being in the field a quarter league away.
>
> "The king had the artillery of his army fire on the earl of Richmond, and so the French, knowing by the king's shot the lie of the land and the order of his battle, resolved, in order to avoid the fire, to mass their troops against the flank rather than the front of the king's battle. Thus they obtained the mastery of his vanguard, which after several feats of arms on both sides was dispersed. In this conflict was taken the duke of Norfolk with his son. The former was taken to the earl of Richmond, who sent him on to the earl of Oxford, who had him dispatched.
>
> "The vanguard of King Richard, which was put to flight, was picked off by Lord Stanley who with all of 20,000 combatants came at a good place to the aid of the earl. The earl of Northumberland, who was on the king's side with 10,000 men, ought to have charged the French, but did nothing except to flee, both he and his company, to abandon his King RIchard, for he had an undertaking with the earl of Richmond, as had some others who deserted him in his need. The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the crown on his head; but when he saw this discomforture and found himself alone on the field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a march from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.
>
> "And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously and filthily in the dirt and mire, and he who had despoiled churches was displayed to the people naked and without any clothing, and without any royal solemnity was buried at the entrance to a village church."
>
> Setting aside the nasty propaganda in the last paragraph, which oddly resembles Vergil's account and could have been one of his sources(?), note the size of Richard's army (60,000), which is surely exaggerated to make his defeat look like an act of God or the extent of the treachery greater than it really was. He has the Earl of Northumberland and his men flee the battle rather than (for whatever reason) not joining it, possibly confusing him with the Stanleys, who did apparently have "an undertaking with [Henry Tudor]."
>
> Note the pro-Tudor viewpoint: Norfolk is Lord Howard, whom Richard made Duke of Norfolk; Tudor is the Earl of Richmond, a title that was never his (since it was held by the crown, it was technically Richard's). note also that he credits the French, not the Earl of Oxford, with the flank move that apparently destroyed Norfolk's vanguard and led to his death. It also has Richard himself trying to run away, clearly a bit of French propaganda present in no English source.
>
> So if one lie makes an account unreliable, this one certainly bears some scrutiny. Can we find the marsh in some better source?
>
> Carol
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Aidan, that is amazing&and very cool! Thanks

Pamela Bain | President
Bain Medina Bain, Inc.
Engineers & Surveyors
HUB, SBE, WBE, TxDOT Pre-Certified Firm
www.bmbi.com

7073 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio, TX 78216
210.494.7223 ext. 223
pbain@...

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Aidan Donnelly
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:08 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account




On the Battlefield trust website describing how they located the true site of the battlefield : http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/warsoftheroses/battlepageview.asp?pageid=824
it states they used Vergil's account of Oxford/Henry aligning his right flank on the marsh to protect that flank:

Between the armies was a marsh which Henry purposely kept on his
right, so it would serve as a fortress to protect his men. At the same
time, also by doing this he left the sun behind.'

So making his line face westerly with the marsh to the north

Aidan

________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account



Wednesday wrote:
>
> Maybe this is it?
>
> Source: Chronicles of Jean Molinet as quoted on R3 Society here:
> http://www.r3.org/bosworth/chron3.html
>
> ..."His horse leapt into a march (sic) from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Weds. It looks as if you've found the source for the "march." But the report is five years after the fact and from a hostile source, so plenty of inaccuracies have crept in. Here's the whole thing as quoted on the website:

"When the armies came together, 'King Richard prepared his "battles", where there was a vanguard and a rearguard; he had around 60,000 combatants and a great number of cannons. The leader of the vanguard was Lord John Howard, whom King Richard had made duke of Norfolk, granting him lands and lordships confiscated from the earl of Oxford. Another lord, Brackenbury, captain of the Tower of London, was also in command of the van, which had 11,000 or 12,000 men altogether. The place was chosen and the day assigned for the eighth day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to battle power against power. The French also made their preparations marching against the English, being in the field a quarter league away.

"The king had the artillery of his army fire on the earl of Richmond, and so the French, knowing by the king's shot the lie of the land and the order of his battle, resolved, in order to avoid the fire, to mass their troops against the flank rather than the front of the king's battle. Thus they obtained the mastery of his vanguard, which after several feats of arms on both sides was dispersed. In this conflict was taken the duke of Norfolk with his son. The former was taken to the earl of Richmond, who sent him on to the earl of Oxford, who had him dispatched.

"The vanguard of King Richard, which was put to flight, was picked off by Lord Stanley who with all of 20,000 combatants came at a good place to the aid of the earl. The earl of Northumberland, who was on the king's side with 10,000 men, ought to have charged the French, but did nothing except to flee, both he and his company, to abandon his King RIchard, for he had an undertaking with the earl of Richmond, as had some others who deserted him in his need. The king bore himself valiantly according to his destiny, and wore the crown on his head; but when he saw this discomforture and found himself alone on the field he thought to run after the others. His horse leapt into a march from which it could not retrieve itself. One of the Welshmen then came after him, and struck him dead with a halberd, and another took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep.

"And so he who miserably killed numerous people, ended his days iniquitously and filthily in the dirt and mire, and he who had despoiled churches was displayed to the people naked and without any clothing, and without any royal solemnity was buried at the entrance to a village church."

Setting aside the nasty propaganda in the last paragraph, which oddly resembles Vergil's account and could have been one of his sources(?), note the size of Richard's army (60,000), which is surely exaggerated to make his defeat look like an act of God or the extent of the treachery greater than it really was. He has the Earl of Northumberland and his men flee the battle rather than (for whatever reason) not joining it, possibly confusing him with the Stanleys, who did apparently have "an undertaking with [Henry Tudor]."

Note the pro-Tudor viewpoint: Norfolk is Lord Howard, whom Richard made Duke of Norfolk; Tudor is the Earl of Richmond, a title that was never his (since it was held by the crown, it was technically Richard's). note also that he credits the French, not the Earl of Oxford, with the flank move that apparently destroyed Norfolk's vanguard and led to his death. It also has Richard himself trying to run away, clearly a bit of French propaganda present in no English source.

So if one lie makes an account unreliable, this one certainly bears some scrutiny. Can we find the marsh in some better source?

Carol

Aidan Donnelly wrote:

> On the Battlefield trust website describing how they located the true site of the battlefield : http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/warsoftheroses/battlepageview.asp?pageid=824
> it states they used Vergil's account of Oxford/Henry aligning his right flank on the marsh to protect that flank:
>
> ˜Between the armies was a marsh which Henry purposely kept on his
> right, so it would serve as a fortress to protect his men. At the same time, also by doing this he left the sun behind. So making his line face westerly with the marsh to the north"

Carol responds:

Thanks, Aidan. I was thrown off by the archaic spelling ("marishe") in my version of Vergil's account which my search for "marsh" didn't find. Here's the whole passage:

"Ther was a marishe betwixt both hostes, which Henry of purpose left on the right hand, that yt might serve his men instede of a fortresse, by the doing therof also he left the soon upon his bak; but whan the king saw thenemyes passyd the marishe, he commandyd his soldiers to geave charge uppon them. They making suddanely great showtes assaultyd thennemy first with arrowes, who wer nothing faynt unto the fyght but began also to shoote fearcely; but whan they cam to hand strokes the matter than was delt with blades. In the meane tyme therle of Oxfoord, fearing lest hys men in fyghting might be envyronyd of the multitude, commandyd in every rang that no soldiers should go above tenfoote from the standerds; which charge being knowen, whan all men had throng thik togethers, and stayd a whyle from fighting, thadversaryes wer therwith aferd, supposing soome fraude, and so they all forbore the fight a certane space, and that veryly dyd many with right goodwill, who rather covetyd the king dead than alyve, and therfor fowght fayntly. Than therle of Oxforth in one part, and others in an other part, with the bandes of men closse one to an other, gave freshe charge uppon thenemy, and in array tryangle vehemently renewyd the conflict. Whyle the battayll contynewyd thus hote on both sydes betwixt the vanwardes, king Richard understood, first by espyalls wher erle Henry was a farre of with smaule force of soldiers abowt him; than after drawing nerer he knew yt perfytely by evydent signes and tokens that yt was Henry; wherfor, all inflamyd with ire, he strick his horse with the spurres, and runneth owt of thone syde withowt the vanwardes agaynst him. Henry perceavyd king Richerd coome uppon him, and because all his hope was than in valyancy of armes, he receavyd him with great corage. King Richerd at the first brunt killyd certane, overthrew Henryes standerd, toygther with William Brandon the standerd bearer, and matchyd also with John Cheney a man of muche fortytude, far exceeding the common sort, who encountered with him as he cam, but the king with great force drove him to the ground, making way with weapon on every syde. But yeat Henry abode the brunt longer than ever his owne soldiers wold have wenyd, who wer now almost owt of hope of victory, whan as loe William Stanley with thre thowsand men came to the reskew: than trewly in a very moment the resydew all fled, and king Richerd alone was killyd fyghting manfully in the thickkest presse of his enemyes. In the mean time also the erle of Oxfoord after a lyttle bickering put to flight them that fowght in the forward, wherof a great company wer killed in the chase. But many mo forbare to fyght, who came to the fielde with king Richerd for aw, and for no goodwill, and departyd withowt any daunger, as men who desyryd not the safety but destruction of that prince whom they hatyd. Ther wer killyd about a M. men, and emongest them of noblemen of warre John duke of Norfolk, Gwalter L. Ferryse, Robert Brakkenbury, Rycherd Ratclyff and many moe."

I'll leave it to the battle experts to analyze this passage, which does appear to be the first reference to a marsh. What I notice is that it makes Henry appear to be an experienced battle commander, intentionally leaving a marsh (which would have brought about *His* death had he been driven into it) on his right and the sun on his back (surely, Richard, an experienced battle commander, would not have fought facing into the sun?). He also has some or Richard's men stop fighting "with right goodwill" because they wanted Richard dead rather than alive, which is, of course, propaganda, as is Henry's "corage" as Richard approaches him and the flight of those who left the field after Richard was killed attributed to hatred of Richard instead of having no reason to fight after their king was killed and their cause lost. I also notice that he has "Loe" (Lord) Stanley coming to the rescue instead of Sir William, which does make it look as it he's getting credit for the treachery (oh, sorry, *heroism*!) of his executed and disgraced brother.

Tear apart my analysis, please, as I'm not battle expert. And I've tried to make the sarcasm in the line about the Stanleys' heroism obvious given all the problems we've had misunderstanding each other's intentions.

Carol

I am sure others will comment, but I think it was probably Oxford, a good battle commander, rather than Henry that determined the battle line.
 
As it was August the sun would have been quite high by the time the battle started - I think that was somewhere around 8am - but hopefully someone will know the right time  as I can't the reference to it right now.

However it may have been low enough as the opposing lines formed up that Richard and Norfolk may have missed seeing those French Pikemen in the glare. Which in turn might help explain how their appearance on Norfolk's right flank came as such a nasty surprise.

Regards

Aidan





________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account


 


Aidan Donnelly wrote:

> On the Battlefield trust website describing how they located the true site of the battlefield : http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/warsoftheroses/battlepageview.asp?pageid=824
> it states they used Vergil's account of Oxford/Henry aligning his right flank on the marsh to protect that flank:
>
> ÜBetween the armies was a marsh which Henry purposely kept on his
> right, so it would serve as a fortress to protect his men. At the same time, also by doing this he left the sun behind. So making his line face westerly with the marsh to the north"

Carol responds:

Thanks, Aidan. I was thrown off by the archaic spelling ("marishe") in my version of Vergil's account which my search for "marsh" didn't find. Here's the whole passage:

"Ther was a marishe betwixt both hostes, which Henry of purpose left on the right hand, that yt might serve his men instede of a fortresse, by the doing therof also he left the soon upon his bak; but whan the king saw thenemyes passyd the marishe, he commandyd his soldiers to geave charge uppon them. They making suddanely great showtes assaultyd thennemy first with arrowes, who wer nothing faynt unto the fyght but began also to shoote fearcely; but whan they cam to hand strokes the matter than was delt with blades. In the meane tyme therle of Oxfoord, fearing lest hys men in fyghting might be envyronyd of the multitude, commandyd in every rang that no soldiers should go above tenfoote from the standerds; which charge being knowen, whan all men had throng thik togethers, and stayd a whyle from fighting, thadversaryes wer therwith aferd, supposing soome fraude, and so they all forbore the fight a certane space, and that veryly dyd many with right goodwill,
who rather covetyd the king dead than alyve, and therfor fowght fayntly. Than therle of Oxforth in one part, and others in an other part, with the bandes of men closse one to an other, gave freshe charge uppon thenemy, and in array tryangle vehemently renewyd the conflict. Whyle the battayll contynewyd thus hote on both sydes betwixt the vanwardes, king Richard understood, first by espyalls wher erle Henry was a farre of with smaule force of soldiers abowt him; than after drawing nerer he knew yt perfytely by evydent signes and tokens that yt was Henry; wherfor, all inflamyd with ire, he strick his horse with the spurres, and runneth owt of thone syde withowt the vanwardes agaynst him. Henry perceavyd king Richerd coome uppon him, and because all his hope was than in valyancy of armes, he receavyd him with great corage. King Richerd at the first brunt killyd certane, overthrew Henryes standerd, toygther with William Brandon the standerd bearer, and
matchyd also with John Cheney a man of muche fortytude, far exceeding the common sort, who encountered with him as he cam, but the king with great force drove him to the ground, making way with weapon on every syde. But yeat Henry abode the brunt longer than ever his owne soldiers wold have wenyd, who wer now almost owt of hope of victory, whan as loe William Stanley with thre thowsand men came to the reskew: than trewly in a very moment the resydew all fled, and king Richerd alone was killyd fyghting manfully in the thickkest presse of his enemyes. In the mean time also the erle of Oxfoord after a lyttle bickering put to flight them that fowght in the forward, wherof a great company wer killed in the chase. But many mo forbare to fyght, who came to the fielde with king Richerd for aw, and for no goodwill, and departyd withowt any daunger, as men who desyryd not the safety but destruction of that prince whom they hatyd. Ther wer killyd about a M. men,
and emongest them of noblemen of warre John duke of Norfolk, Gwalter L. Ferryse, Robert Brakkenbury, Rycherd Ratclyff and many moe."

I'll leave it to the battle experts to analyze this passage, which does appear to be the first reference to a marsh. What I notice is that it makes Henry appear to be an experienced battle commander, intentionally leaving a marsh (which would have brought about *His* death had he been driven into it) on his right and the sun on his back (surely, Richard, an experienced battle commander, would not have fought facing into the sun?). He also has some or Richard's men stop fighting "with right goodwill" because they wanted Richard dead rather than alive, which is, of course, propaganda, as is Henry's "corage" as Richard approaches him and the flight of those who left the field after Richard was killed attributed to hatred of Richard instead of having no reason to fight after their king was killed and their cause lost. I also notice that he has "Loe" (Lord) Stanley coming to the rescue instead of Sir William, which does make it look as it he's getting credit
for the treachery (oh, sorry, *heroism*!) of his executed and disgraced brother.

Tear apart my analysis, please, as I'm not battle expert. And I've tried to make the sarcasm in the line about the Stanleys' heroism obvious given all the problems we've had misunderstanding each other's intentions.

Carol

You can say that again! What the Weasle knew about battle lines etc., you could write on the back of a postage stamp...

--- In , Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...> wrote:
>
> I am sure others will comment, but I think it was probably Oxford, a good battle commander, rather than Henry that determined the battle line.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 11:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account
>
>
>  
>
>
> Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> > On the Battlefield trust website describing how they located the true site of the battlefield : http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/warsoftheroses/battlepageview.asp?pageid=824
> > it states they used Vergil's account of Oxford/Henry aligning his right flank on the marsh to protect that flank:
> >
> > ËœBetween the armies was a marsh which Henry purposely kept on his
> > right, so it would serve as a fortress to protect his men. At the same time, also by doing this he left the sun behind. So making his line face westerly with the marsh to the north"
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Aidan. I was thrown off by the archaic spelling ("marishe") in my version of Vergil's account which my search for "marsh" didn't find. Here's the whole passage:
>
> "Ther was a marishe betwixt both hostes, which Henry of purpose left on the right hand, that yt might serve his men instede of a fortresse, by the doing therof also he left the soon upon his bak; but whan the king saw thenemyes passyd the marishe, he commandyd his soldiers to geave charge uppon them. They making suddanely great showtes assaultyd thennemy first with arrowes, who wer nothing faynt unto the fyght but began also to shoote fearcely; but whan they cam to hand strokes the matter than was delt with blades. In the meane tyme therle of Oxfoord, fearing lest hys men in fyghting might be envyronyd of the multitude, commandyd in every rang that no soldiers should go above tenfoote from the standerds; which charge being knowen, whan all men had throng thik togethers, and stayd a whyle from fighting, thadversaryes wer therwith aferd, supposing soome fraude, and so they all forbore the fight a certane space, and that veryly dyd many with right goodwill,
> who rather covetyd the king dead than alyve, and therfor fowght fayntly. Than therle of Oxforth in one part, and others in an other part, with the bandes of men closse one to an other, gave freshe charge uppon thenemy, and in array tryangle vehemently renewyd the conflict. Whyle the battayll contynewyd thus hote on both sydes betwixt the vanwardes, king Richard understood, first by espyalls wher erle Henry was a farre of with smaule force of soldiers abowt him; than after drawing nerer he knew yt perfytely by evydent signes and tokens that yt was Henry; wherfor, all inflamyd with ire, he strick his horse with the spurres, and runneth owt of thone syde withowt the vanwardes agaynst him. Henry perceavyd king Richerd coome uppon him, and because all his hope was than in valyancy of armes, he receavyd him with great corage. King Richerd at the first brunt killyd certane, overthrew Henryes standerd, toygther with William Brandon the standerd bearer, and
> matchyd also with John Cheney a man of muche fortytude, far exceeding the common sort, who encountered with him as he cam, but the king with great force drove him to the ground, making way with weapon on every syde. But yeat Henry abode the brunt longer than ever his owne soldiers wold have wenyd, who wer now almost owt of hope of victory, whan as loe William Stanley with thre thowsand men came to the reskew: than trewly in a very moment the resydew all fled, and king Richerd alone was killyd fyghting manfully in the thickkest presse of his enemyes. In the mean time also the erle of Oxfoord after a lyttle bickering put to flight them that fowght in the forward, wherof a great company wer killed in the chase. But many mo forbare to fyght, who came to the fielde with king Richerd for aw, and for no goodwill, and departyd withowt any daunger, as men who desyryd not the safety but destruction of that prince whom they hatyd. Ther wer killyd about a M. men,
> and emongest them of noblemen of warre John duke of Norfolk, Gwalter L. Ferryse, Robert Brakkenbury, Rycherd Ratclyff and many moe."
>
> I'll leave it to the battle experts to analyze this passage, which does appear to be the first reference to a marsh. What I notice is that it makes Henry appear to be an experienced battle commander, intentionally leaving a marsh (which would have brought about *His* death had he been driven into it) on his right and the sun on his back (surely, Richard, an experienced battle commander, would not have fought facing into the sun?). He also has some or Richard's men stop fighting "with right goodwill" because they wanted Richard dead rather than alive, which is, of course, propaganda, as is Henry's "corage" as Richard approaches him and the flight of those who left the field after Richard was killed attributed to hatred of Richard instead of having no reason to fight after their king was killed and their cause lost. I also notice that he has "Loe" (Lord) Stanley coming to the rescue instead of Sir William, which does make it look as it he's getting credit
> for the treachery (oh, sorry, *heroism*!) of his executed and disgraced brother.
>
> Tear apart my analysis, please, as I'm not battle expert. And I've tried to make the sarcasm in the line about the Stanleys' heroism obvious given all the problems we've had misunderstanding each other's intentions.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Once again it is biased, as Carol says, but it does include the French attacking Norfolk's flank which is the current thinking. Though Lord Stanley picking off the fleeing vanguard, and Northumberland having a pact with Henry are unsupported by any other source. This is where we all have to take care in that what one source says may be unsupported by another. As this is a French one I think we can take it as being more truthful regarding the French than not.

Carol responds:

I'm not so sure. Molinet may simply be trying to exaggerate the French role, just as English sources tend to ignore it (or call them "the sweepings of French jails." I suspect that the flank movement was Oxford's idea. That aside, I noticed another error. This source has the Duke of Norfolk and his son captured, apparently during the fighting, and Norfok executed:

"Thus they obtained the mastery of his vanguard, which after several feats of arms on both sides was dispersed. In this conflict was taken the duke of Norfolk with his son. The former was taken to the earl of Richmond, who sent him on to the earl of Oxford, who had him dispatched."

No wonder the historians differ in their accounts of Bosworth. The sources are as conflicting as they are regarding any other aspect of Richard's life and reign.

Carol

Carol wrote:

"Thanks, Aidan. I was thrown off by the archaic spelling ("marishe") in my
version of Vergil's account which my search for "marsh" didn't find. Here's
the whole passage:

"Ther was a marishe betwixt both hostes, which Henry of purpose left on the
right hand, that yt might serve his men instede of a fortresse, by the doing
therof also he left the soon upon his bak; but whan the king saw thenemyes
passyd the marishe, he commandyd his soldiers to geave charge uppon them.
They making suddanely great showtes assaultyd thennemy first with arrowes,
who wer nothing faynt unto the fyght but began also to shoote fearcely; but
whan they cam to hand strokes the matter than was delt with blades. In the
meane tyme therle of Oxfoord, fearing lest hys men in fyghting might be
envyronyd of the multitude, commandyd in every rang that no soldiers should
go above tenfoote from the standerds; which charge being knowen, whan all
men had throng thik togethers, and stayd a whyle from fighting,
thadversaryes wer therwith aferd, supposing soome fraude, and so they all
forbore the fight a certane space, and that veryly dyd many with right
goodwill, who rather covetyd the king dead than alyve, and therfor fowght
fayntly. Than therle of Oxforth in one part, and others in an other part,
with the bandes of men closse one to an other, gave freshe charge uppon
thenemy, and in array tryangle vehemently renewyd the conflict. Whyle the
battayll contynewyd thus hote on both sydes betwixt the vanwardes, king
Richard understood, first by espyalls wher erle Henry was a farre of with
smaule force of soldiers abowt him; than after drawing nerer he knew yt
perfytely by evydent signes and tokens that yt was Henry; wherfor, all
inflamyd with ire, he strick his horse with the spurres, and runneth owt of
thone syde withowt the vanwardes agaynst him. Henry perceavyd king Richerd
coome uppon him, and because all his hope was than in valyancy of armes, he
receavyd him with great corage. King Richerd at the first brunt killyd
certane, overthrew Henryes standerd, toygther with William Brandon the
standerd bearer, and matchyd also with John Cheney a man of muche fortytude,
far exceeding the common sort, who encountered with him as he cam, but the
king with great force drove him to the ground, making way with weapon on
every syde. But yeat Henry abode the brunt longer than ever his owne
soldiers wold have wenyd, who wer now almost owt of hope of victory, whan as
loe William Stanley with thre thowsand men came to the reskew: than trewly
in a very moment the resydew all fled, and king Richerd alone was killyd
fyghting manfully in the thickkest presse of his enemyes. In the mean time
also the erle of Oxfoord after a lyttle bickering put to flight them that
fowght in the forward, wherof a great company wer killed in the chase. But
many mo forbare to fyght, who came to the fielde with king Richerd for aw,
and for no goodwill, and departyd withowt any daunger, as men who desyryd
not the safety but destruction of that prince whom they hatyd. Ther wer
killyd about a M. men, and emongest them of noblemen of warre John duke of
Norfolk, Gwalter L. Ferryse, Robert Brakkenbury, Rycherd Ratclyff and many
moe."

I'll leave it to the battle experts to analyze this passage, which does
appear to be the first reference to a marsh. What I notice is that it makes
Henry appear to be an experienced battle commander, intentionally leaving a
marsh (which would have brought about *His* death had he been driven into
it) on his right and the sun on his back (surely, Richard, an experienced
battle commander, would not have fought facing into the sun?). He also has
some or Richard's men stop fighting "with right goodwill" because they
wanted Richard dead rather than alive, which is, of course, propaganda, as
is Henry's "corage" as Richard approaches him and the flight of those who
left the field after Richard was killed attributed to hatred of Richard
instead of having no reason to fight after their king was killed and their
cause lost. I also notice that he has "Loe" (Lord) Stanley coming to the
rescue instead of Sir William, which does make it look as it he's getting
credit for the treachery (oh, sorry, *heroism*!) of his executed and
disgraced brother.

Tear apart my analysis, please, as I'm not battle expert. And I've tried to
make the sarcasm in the line about the Stanleys' heroism obvious given all
the problems we've had misunderstanding each other's intentions."

Doug here:

I'm not too certain about the sun having all that much effect. It would
depend, wouldn't it, on when the fighting commenced? The point I DO find
interesting is that, if the sun is behind Henry in the morning, then Henry
and his forces were facing west. I'm using as a guide the fact that a late
August dawn here in Indiana would place a rising sun still past being
directly overhead or behind one if facing west. Wouldn't the same apply to
that area of England? If the sun was behind him, and the battle started
during the morning hours, how did Henry manage to get between Richard and
London?
Conversely, only if the battle was after noon, and Henry was facing east or
in an easterly direction, do the various plans, maps and sketches of
Bosworth make sense!
"It is a puzzlement!"
Oh, and that reference is (direct quote) "loe William Stanley", not simply
"Lord Stanley". How well versed in English titles WAS Vergil? Also, was the
"Sir" in William Stanley's title inheiritable(?) and that's the reason
Vergil thought William was a "Lord"? I think the term that applies when
"Sir" is passed from father to son is "baronet", but I could be wrong. Did
Vergil simply "assume" that a title that was passed down HAD to be "Lord"?
Another "perhaps": Could this be where the idea of both Stanleys being at
the battle originated? "Sir" William WAS there, but if a "Lord" Stanley was
ALSO there then, ipso facto, that means his brother Thomas was there! I
think there's another Latin phrase that applies to that sort of reasoning,
but I can't recall it at the moment. Faulty logic and bad translations seem
to be everywhere!
Doug

Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> I am sure others will comment, but I think it was probably Oxford, a good battle commander, rather than Henry that determined the battle line.
 
> As it was August the sun would have been quite high by the time the battle started - I think that was somewhere around 8am - but hopefully someone will know the right time  as I can't the reference to it right now.
>
> However it may have been low enough as the opposing lines formed up that Richard and Norfolk may have missed seeing those French Pikemen in the glare. Which in turn might help explain how their appearance on Norfolk's right flank came as such a nasty surprise.

Carol responds:

I'm sure you're right that any decisions involving the line of battle or anything of that nature were determined by Oxford, the only general available to Henry and, unfortunately for Richard and Norfolk, a good one. You may be right about the sun, or it could be an invented detail. I can't at any rate imagine Richard having his soldiers and archers facing into the sun.

Regarding the pikemen, unless I missed it, Vergil doesn't mention them. They seem to be a modern conjecture to figure out how Richard could have been defeated. I still think it's sufficiently explained by *a* Stanley coming in to "reskew" Henry. We still need to figure out, if possible, which Stanley it was and why modern historians have Lord Stanley sitting out the battle and Sir William charging. I don't have that kind of time right now, so I hope that someone else will look into it, bearing in mind that no wholly reliable source exists.

Carol

Philip de Chaunde may well have been the most important of Henry's commanders, since he was in charge of the French mercenaries that probably made up the majority of the force.

The fact that a couple of mere knights, John Savage and Gilbert Talbot, commanded the other "battles" suggests that they too may have been considered military experts; on the other hand there were no other peers in the invading army to take thes epositions, which traditionally went to men of the highest rank. 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 18:38
Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account


 
Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> I am sure others will comment, but I think it was probably Oxford, a good battle commander, rather than Henry that determined the battle line.
 
> As it was August the sun would have been quite high by the time the battle started - I think that was somewhere around 8am - but hopefully someone will know the right time  as I can't the reference to it right now.
>
> However it may have been low enough as the opposing lines formed up that Richard and Norfolk may have missed seeing those French Pikemen in the glare. Which in turn might help explain how their appearance on Norfolk's right flank came as such a nasty surprise.

Carol responds:

I'm sure you're right that any decisions involving the line of battle or anything of that nature were determined by Oxford, the only general available to Henry and, unfortunately for Richard and Norfolk, a good one. You may be right about the sun, or it could be an invented detail. I can't at any rate imagine Richard having his soldiers and archers facing into the sun.

Regarding the pikemen, unless I missed it, Vergil doesn't mention them. They seem to be a modern conjecture to figure out how Richard could have been defeated. I still think it's sufficiently explained by *a* Stanley coming in to "reskew" Henry. We still need to figure out, if possible, which Stanley it was and why modern historians have Lord Stanley sitting out the battle and Sir William charging. I don't have that kind of time right now, so I hope that someone else will look into it, bearing in mind that no wholly reliable source exists.

Carol

Just to confuse things Aiden latest thinking is still confused, but
theories have been voiced stating that the battle may have happened
later in the day when the sun was in a different position and in
Richard's eyes, not behind him and n Henry's. As to knowing the right
time, I think if I remember correctly it was around 10.a.m, but it was
in a different lifetime....:-)
Paul

On 18/02/2013 15:32, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> I am sure others will comment, but I think it was probably Oxford, a good battle commander, rather than Henry that determined the battle line.
>
> As it was August the sun would have been quite high by the time the battle started - I think that was somewhere around 8am - but hopefully someone will know the right time as I can't the reference to it right now.
>
> However it may have been low enough as the opposing lines formed up that Richard and Norfolk may have missed seeing those French Pikemen in the glare. Which in turn might help explain how their appearance on Norfolk's right flank came as such a nasty surprise.
>
> Regards
>
> Aidan
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 11:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account
>
>
>
>
>
> Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
>> On the Battlefield trust website describing how they located the true site of the battlefield : http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/warsoftheroses/battlepageview.asp?pageid=824
>> it states they used Vergil's account of Oxford/Henry aligning his right flank on the marsh to protect that flank:
>>
>> ÜBetween the armies was a marsh which Henry purposely kept on his
>> right, so it would serve as a fortress to protect his men. At the same time, also by doing this he left the sun behind. So making his line face westerly with the marsh to the north"
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Aidan. I was thrown off by the archaic spelling ("marishe") in my version of Vergil's account which my search for "marsh" didn't find. Here's the whole passage:
>
> "Ther was a marishe betwixt both hostes, which Henry of purpose left on the right hand, that yt might serve his men instede of a fortresse, by the doing therof also he left the soon upon his bak; but whan the king saw thenemyes passyd the marishe, he commandyd his soldiers to geave charge uppon them. They making suddanely great showtes assaultyd thennemy first with arrowes, who wer nothing faynt unto the fyght but began also to shoote fearcely; but whan they cam to hand strokes the matter than was delt with blades. In the meane tyme therle of Oxfoord, fearing lest hys men in fyghting might be envyronyd of the multitude, commandyd in every rang that no soldiers should go above tenfoote from the standerds; which charge being knowen, whan all men had throng thik togethers, and stayd a whyle from fighting, thadversaryes wer therwith aferd, supposing soome fraude, and so they all forbore the fight a certane space, and that veryly dyd many with right goodwill,
> who rather covetyd the king dead than alyve, and therfor fowght fayntly. Than therle of Oxforth in one part, and others in an other part, with the bandes of men closse one to an other, gave freshe charge uppon thenemy, and in array tryangle vehemently renewyd the conflict. Whyle the battayll contynewyd thus hote on both sydes betwixt the vanwardes, king Richard understood, first by espyalls wher erle Henry was a farre of with smaule force of soldiers abowt him; than after drawing nerer he knew yt perfytely by evydent signes and tokens that yt was Henry; wherfor, all inflamyd with ire, he strick his horse with the spurres, and runneth owt of thone syde withowt the vanwardes agaynst him. Henry perceavyd king Richerd coome uppon him, and because all his hope was than in valyancy of armes, he receavyd him with great corage. King Richerd at the first brunt killyd certane, overthrew Henryes standerd, toygther with William Brandon the standerd bearer, and
> matchyd also with John Cheney a man of muche fortytude, far exceeding the common sort, who encountered with him as he cam, but the king with great force drove him to the ground, making way with weapon on every syde. But yeat Henry abode the brunt longer than ever his owne soldiers wold have wenyd, who wer now almost owt of hope of victory, whan as loe William Stanley with thre thowsand men came to the reskew: than trewly in a very moment the resydew all fled, and king Richerd alone was killyd fyghting manfully in the thickkest presse of his enemyes. In the mean time also the erle of Oxfoord after a lyttle bickering put to flight them that fowght in the forward, wherof a great company wer killed in the chase. But many mo forbare to fyght, who came to the fielde with king Richerd for aw, and for no goodwill, and departyd withowt any daunger, as men who desyryd not the safety but destruction of that prince whom they hatyd. Ther wer killyd about a M. men,
> and emongest them of noblemen of warre John duke of Norfolk, Gwalter L. Ferryse, Robert Brakkenbury, Rycherd Ratclyff and many moe."
>
> I'll leave it to the battle experts to analyze this passage, which does appear to be the first reference to a marsh. What I notice is that it makes Henry appear to be an experienced battle commander, intentionally leaving a marsh (which would have brought about *His* death had he been driven into it) on his right and the sun on his back (surely, Richard, an experienced battle commander, would not have fought facing into the sun?). He also has some or Richard's men stop fighting "with right goodwill" because they wanted Richard dead rather than alive, which is, of course, propaganda, as is Henry's "corage" as Richard approaches him and the flight of those who left the field after Richard was killed attributed to hatred of Richard instead of having no reason to fight after their king was killed and their cause lost. I also notice that he has "Loe" (Lord) Stanley coming to the rescue instead of Sir William, which does make it look as it he's getting credit
> for the treachery (oh, sorry, *heroism*!) of his executed and disgraced brother.
>
> Tear apart my analysis, please, as I'm not battle expert. And I've tried to make the sarcasm in the line about the Stanleys' heroism obvious given all the problems we've had misunderstanding each other's intentions.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Doug wrote:
[snip]
> Oh, and that reference is (direct quote) "loe William Stanley", not simply "Lord Stanley". How well versed in English titles WAS Vergil? Also, was the "Sir" in William Stanley's title inheiritable(?) and that's the reason Vergil thought William was a "Lord"? I think the term that applies when "Sir" is passed from father to son is "baronet", but I could be wrong. Did Vergil simply "assume" that a title that was passed down HAD to be "Lord"?
> Another "perhaps": Could this be where the idea of both Stanleys being at the battle originated? "Sir" William WAS there, but if a "Lord" Stanley was ALSO there then, ipso facto, that means his brother Thomas was there! I think there's another Latin phrase that applies to that sort of reasoning, but I can't recall it at the moment. Faulty logic and bad translations seem to be everywhere!

Carol responds:

Thanks for catching that. In the version I'm citing, Vergil twice refers to "loe William Stanley," at other times giving him no title at all but never referring to him as "Sir." Thomas Stanley is always referred to in that way, with no title. So first we need to find another transcription to see if "loe" is elsewhere transcribed as "lord." If so, other sources could have picked up "Lord Stanley" without the first name, making it appear that Lord Stanley played his younger brother's role. The Latin would be useful, too.

Thomas Stanley, the elder son, was a baron (not a baronet), a title inherited from his father. Sir William was knighted, I think by Edward IV, in 1461.

You may be thinking of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) which is more applicable to, say, Richard's being at the Tower of London before Henry VI's death or Tyrrell being in London before the supposed disappearance of the "Princes." Of course, I could have the wrong Latin expression.

But, yes, faulty logic and bad translations everywhere (not to mention misinformation since Vergil's primary source for the battle, Henry, is untrustworthy). In this case, "loe" could also be a bad transcription. Can someone with a modern translation help us out here?

Carol

david rayner wrote:
>
> Philip de Chaunde may well have been the most important of Henry's commanders, since he was in charge of the French mercenaries that probably made up the majority of the force.
>
> The fact that a couple of mere knights, John Savage and Gilbert Talbot, commanded the other "battles" suggests that they too may have been considered military experts; on the other hand there were no other peers in the invading army to take thes epositions, which traditionally went to men of the highest rank. 

Carol responds:

Except Oxford, unfortunately. But you're certainly right that very few men of high rank were attracted to Henry's cause. Do you know offhand the number of Englishmen, Lancastrians and disaffected Yorkists, that he managed to attract? Hardly the whole of England up in arms against Richard, that much I know.

I've always wondered whether Sir Gilbert Talbot was unhappy about his kinswoman being mentioned by name in Titulus Regius.

Carol

Baronets were a title invented in the 19th century I understand.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur W.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 21:31
>Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account
>
>
> 
>Doug wrote:
>[snip]
>> Oh, and that reference is (direct quote) "loe William Stanley", not simply "Lord Stanley". How well versed in English titles WAS Vergil? Also, was the "Sir" in William Stanley's title inheiritable(?) and that's the reason Vergil thought William was a "Lord"? I think the term that applies when "Sir" is passed from father to son is "baronet", but I could be wrong. Did Vergil simply "assume" that a title that was passed down HAD to be "Lord"?
>> Another "perhaps": Could this be where the idea of both Stanleys being at the battle originated? "Sir" William WAS there, but if a "Lord" Stanley was ALSO there then, ipso facto, that means his brother Thomas was there! I think there's another Latin phrase that applies to that sort of reasoning, but I can't recall it at the moment. Faulty logic and bad translations seem to be everywhere!
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Thanks for catching that. In the version I'm citing, Vergil twice refers to "loe William Stanley," at other times giving him no title at all but never referring to him as "Sir." Thomas Stanley is always referred to in that way, with no title. So first we need to find another transcription to see if "loe" is elsewhere transcribed as "lord." If so, other sources could have picked up "Lord Stanley" without the first name, making it appear that Lord Stanley played his younger brother's role. The Latin would be useful, too.
>
>Thomas Stanley, the elder son, was a baron (not a baronet), a title inherited from his father. Sir William was knighted, I think by Edward IV, in 1461.
>
>You may be thinking of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) which is more applicable to, say, Richard's being at the Tower of London before Henry VI's death or Tyrrell being in London before the supposed disappearance of the "Princes." Of course, I could have the wrong Latin expression.
>
>But, yes, faulty logic and bad translations everywhere (not to mention misinformation since Vergil's primary source for the battle, Henry, is untrustworthy). In this case, "loe" could also be a bad transcription. Can someone with a modern translation help us out here?
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Carol wrote:

"Thanks for catching that. In the version I'm citing, Vergil twice refers to
"loe William Stanley," at other times giving him no title at all but never
referring to him as "Sir." Thomas Stanley is always referred to in that way,
with no title. So first we need to find another transcription to see if
"loe" is elsewhere transcribed as "lord." If so, other sources could have
picked up "Lord Stanley" without the first name, making it appear that Lord
Stanley played his younger brother's role. The Latin would be useful, too."

Doug here:
That's what I was wondering about - the possibility of confusion between the
brothers based on a misuse of "Lord". Would a knight be addressed as "my
Lord"? Perhpas THAT'S where the confusion started?

"Thomas Stanley, the elder son, was a baron (not a baronet), a title
inherited from his father. Sir William was knighted, I think by Edward IV,
in 1461."

Doug again:
Was Sir William a baronet or "just" a knight? I have to admit, my knowledge
of baronets is scanty. It started with Conan Doyle's "The Hound of the
Baskervilles" and hasn't really progressed much beyond.

"You may be thinking of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore
because of this) which is more applicable to, say, Richard's being at the
Tower of London before Henry VI's death or Tyrrell being in London before
the supposed disappearance of the "Princes." Of course, I could have the
wrong Latin expression."

That's the one!

"But, yes, faulty logic and bad translations everywhere (not to mention
misinformation since Vergil's primary source for the battle, Henry, is
untrustworthy). In this case, "loe" could also be a bad transcription. Can
someone with a modern translation help us out here?"

Faulty logic, bad translations and misinformation. That does rather sum up
'way too much of the "historical" research on Richard, doesn't it?
Doug

Baronetcies were invented by James I.

----- Original Message -----
From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account



Baronets were a title invented in the 19th century I understand.

Kind Regards,

Arthur W.

>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 21:31
>Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account
>
>
>
>Doug wrote:
>[snip]
>> Oh, and that reference is (direct quote) "loe William Stanley", not simply "Lord Stanley". How well versed in English titles WAS Vergil? Also, was the "Sir" in William Stanley's title inheiritable(?) and that's the reason Vergil thought William was a "Lord"? I think the term that applies when "Sir" is passed from father to son is "baronet", but I could be wrong. Did Vergil simply "assume" that a title that was passed down HAD to be "Lord"?
>> Another "perhaps": Could this be where the idea of both Stanleys being at the battle originated? "Sir" William WAS there, but if a "Lord" Stanley was ALSO there then, ipso facto, that means his brother Thomas was there! I think there's another Latin phrase that applies to that sort of reasoning, but I can't recall it at the moment. Faulty logic and bad translations seem to be everywhere!
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Thanks for catching that. In the version I'm citing, Vergil twice refers to "loe William Stanley," at other times giving him no title at all but never referring to him as "Sir." Thomas Stanley is always referred to in that way, with no title. So first we need to find another transcription to see if "loe" is elsewhere transcribed as "lord." If so, other sources could have picked up "Lord Stanley" without the first name, making it appear that Lord Stanley played his younger brother's role. The Latin would be useful, too.
>
>Thomas Stanley, the elder son, was a baron (not a baronet), a title inherited from his father. Sir William was knighted, I think by Edward IV, in 1461.
>
>You may be thinking of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) which is more applicable to, say, Richard's being at the Tower of London before Henry VI's death or Tyrrell being in London before the supposed disappearance of the "Princes." Of course, I could have the wrong Latin expression.
>
>But, yes, faulty logic and bad translations everywhere (not to mention misinformation since Vergil's primary source for the battle, Henry, is untrustworthy). In this case, "loe" could also be a bad transcription. Can someone with a modern translation help us out here?
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:

> That's what I was wondering about - the possibility of confusion between the brothers based on a misuse of "Lord". Would a knight be addressed as "my Lord"? Perhpas THAT'S where the confusion started?
>
> Was Sir William a baronet or "just" a knight? I have to admit, my knowledge of baronets is scanty.

Carol responds:

Hi, Doug. A knight would only be addressed as "my lord" if he was a lord by birth or inheritance, which Sir William wasn't. As Arthur noted, there were no fifteenth-century baronets (that's a nineteenth-century title). If I recall correctly, baron was the lowest rank of the nobility in England in Richard's time, with duke, marquis, earl, and viscount ahead of it in that order. A knight was not necessarily a noble (Edward Brampton is an example).

Vergil must have been just as confused as you are, assuming that "loe" in the version I quoted does appear as "Lord" in other editions, which I haven't yet had a chance to check.

Does anyone have a link to Vergil in modern English?

Carol

Carol earlier:

> [snip] As Arthur noted, there were no fifteenth-century baronets (that's a nineteenth-century title). [snip]

Carol again: I stand corrected: it dates to 1611 (but still not fifteenth century). I should have remembered that Percy Shelley's grandfather was made a baronet in the eighteenth century, so nineteenth could not be right.

But, anyway, Doug, barons were lords and knights weren't (unless they had a heredity title). So Richard was a Knight of the Bath and a Knight of the Garter, but he was probably never addressed as Sir Richard, having been by courtesy as a duke's son "Lord Richard" before he was knighted and soon afterward His Grace, the Duke of Gloucester.

Thomas Stanley would have been addressed as "my lord" and Sir William as "Sir William" by anyone of lower rank or not an intimate. Sir William was never addressed as "my lord"--at least not correctly.

Carol

That is correct - and James I introduced baronetcies in the early C17.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account



Carol earlier:

> [snip] As Arthur noted, there were no fifteenth-century baronets (that's a nineteenth-century title). [snip]

Carol again: I stand corrected: it dates to 1611 (but still not fifteenth century). I should have remembered that Percy Shelley's grandfather was made a baronet in the eighteenth century, so nineteenth could not be right.

But, anyway, Doug, barons were lords and knights weren't (unless they had a heredity title). So Richard was a Knight of the Bath and a Knight of the Garter, but he was probably never addressed as Sir Richard, having been by courtesy as a duke's son "Lord Richard" before he was knighted and soon afterward His Grace, the Duke of Gloucester.

Thomas Stanley would have been addressed as "my lord" and Sir William as "Sir William" by anyone of lower rank or not an intimate. Sir William was never addressed as "my lord"--at least not correctly.

Carol

Maybe it would help those living outside of Britain to know that in this century the sunrise in England in August is around 5:00 - 5:30 a.m., while sunset is around 9:00 p.m.?

Is there any site online that will let you calculate sunrise for 1485? I can't find one that goes back that far.

~Weds


--- In , Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...> wrote:
>
> I am sure others will comment, but I think it was probably Oxford, a good battle commander, rather than Henry that determined the battle line.
>  
> As it was August the sun would have been quite high by the time the battle started - I think that was somewhere around 8am - but hopefully someone will know the right time  as I can't the reference to it right now.
>
> However it may have been low enough as the opposing lines formed up that Richard and Norfolk may have missed seeing those French Pikemen in the glare. Which in turn might help explain how their appearance on Norfolk's right flank came as such a nasty surprise.

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account


> Is there any site online that will let you calculate sunrise for 1485? I
> can't find one that goes back that far.

Don't forget that not long afterwards the calendar jumped forwards, um, 11
days, wasn't it? So Richard's 22nd August was our 2nd September?

There should be an Epheremis going back that far. I will look.

On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:26 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:



Maybe it would help those living outside of Britain to know that in this century the sunrise in England in August is around 5:00 - 5:30 a.m., while sunset is around 9:00 p.m.?

Is there any site online that will let you calculate sunrise for 1485? I can't find one that goes back that far.

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>
> I am sure others will comment, but I think it was probably Oxford, a good battle commander, rather than Henry that determined the battle line.
> ý
> As it was August the sun would have been quite high by the time the battle started - I think that was somewhere around 8am - but hopefully someone will know the right timeý as I can't the reference to it right now.
>
> However it may have been low enough as the opposing lines formed up that Richard and Norfolk may have missed seeing those French Pikemen in the glare. Which in turn might help explain how their appearance on Norfolk's right flank came as such a nasty surprise.

Hereditary Titles: [Royalty aside] 
Virtually ALL these have disappeared, 'Life Peerages' are the norm.

William Whitelaw [I think] was the last, as it was known his peerage would die with him as he ONLY had daughters. The idea was to acknowledge a 'Special Contribution' to the state. [Over & above a life peerage]

Denis Thatcher received a 'Baronetcy' [Hereditary Knighthood] 
This of course passed to 'Sir Mark Thatcher' on the death of his father. 
Baronetcies do NOT give access to the house of lords.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 22:06
>Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account
>
>
> 
>Carol earlier:
>
>> [snip] As Arthur noted, there were no fifteenth-century baronets (that's a nineteenth-century title). [snip]
>
>Carol again: I stand corrected: it dates to 1611 (but still not fifteenth century). I should have remembered that Percy Shelley's grandfather was made a baronet in the eighteenth century, so nineteenth could not be right.
>
>But, anyway, Doug, barons were lords and knights weren't (unless they had a heredity title). So Richard was a Knight of the Bath and a Knight of the Garter, but he was probably never addressed as Sir Richard, having been by courtesy as a duke's son "Lord Richard" before he was knighted and soon afterward His Grace, the Duke of Gloucester.
>
>Thomas Stanley would have been addressed as "my lord" and Sir William as "Sir William" by anyone of lower rank or not an intimate. Sir William was never addressed as "my lord"--at least not correctly.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh
Account


> Hereditary Titles: [Royalty aside]
Virtually ALL these have disappeared,

In England, maybe. Up here in Scotland, the clan chieftainships are going
strong.

Wednesday wrote:
>
> Maybe it would help those living outside of Britain to know that in this century the sunrise in England in August is around 5:00 - 5:30 a.m., while sunset is around 9:00 p.m.? [snip]

Carol responds:

That might be Daylight Saving Time (or Summer Time, as I believe it's called in Britain). If so, the "real" time would be an hour later. Still, though, that's an early sunrise, and I suspect that Richard was up before dawn to hear Mass and prepare for battle. So the battle could easily have ended before noon. (I just can't see Richard, an experienced battle commander, placing his troops so that they faced into the sun.)

Carol

Try this



http://www.rodurago.net/en/index.php?site=details
<http://www.rodurago.net/en/index.php?site=details&link=calendar&rck=a0403b4
ccc2f18f7720062016485c235>
&link=calendar&rck=a0403b4ccc2f18f7720062016485c235



George



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account





Wednesday wrote:
>
> Maybe it would help those living outside of Britain to know that in this
century the sunrise in England in August is around 5:00 - 5:30 a.m., while
sunset is around 9:00 p.m.? [snip]

Carol responds:

That might be Daylight Saving Time (or Summer Time, as I believe it's called
in Britain). If so, the "real" time would be an hour later. Still, though,
that's an early sunrise, and I suspect that Richard was up before dawn to
hear Mass and prepare for battle. So the battle could easily have ended
before noon. (I just can't see Richard, an experienced battle commander,
placing his troops so that they faced into the sun.)

Carol

It looks like 5:08 a.m. sunrise for Battle of Bosworth.


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:01 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account



Try this

http://www.rodurago.net/en/index.php?site=details
http://www.rodurago.net/en/index.php?site=details&link=calendar&rck=a0403b4
ccc2f18f7720062016485c235>
&link=calendar&rck=a0403b4ccc2f18f7720062016485c235

George

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:45 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account

Wednesday wrote:
>
> Maybe it would help those living outside of Britain to know that in this
century the sunrise in England in August is around 5:00 - 5:30 a.m., while
sunset is around 9:00 p.m.? [snip]

Carol responds:

That might be Daylight Saving Time (or Summer Time, as I believe it's called
in Britain). If so, the "real" time would be an hour later. Still, though,
that's an early sunrise, and I suspect that Richard was up before dawn to
hear Mass and prepare for battle. So the battle could easily have ended
before noon. (I just can't see Richard, an experienced battle commander,
placing his troops so that they faced into the sun.)

Carol

I thought it would be fairly easy to find - wrong. I will keep digging. I suppose since "the time" was not quite so important, and clocks were not so common, the information is not so easy to find.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:01 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account



Try this

http://www.rodurago.net/en/index.php?site=details
http://www.rodurago.net/en/index.php?site=details&link=calendar&rck=a0403b4
ccc2f18f7720062016485c235>
&link=calendar&rck=a0403b4ccc2f18f7720062016485c235

George

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:45 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account

Wednesday wrote:
>
> Maybe it would help those living outside of Britain to know that in this
century the sunrise in England in August is around 5:00 - 5:30 a.m., while
sunset is around 9:00 p.m.? [snip]

Carol responds:

That might be Daylight Saving Time (or Summer Time, as I believe it's called
in Britain). If so, the "real" time would be an hour later. Still, though,
that's an early sunrise, and I suspect that Richard was up before dawn to
hear Mass and prepare for battle. So the battle could easily have ended
before noon. (I just can't see Richard, an experienced battle commander,
placing his troops so that they faced into the sun.)

Carol

From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh
Account



> It looks like 5:08 a.m. sunrise for Battle of Bosworth.

Did you allow for the 11 or 12-day calendar shift?

I didn't do anything but put in August 1452 and closest geographic option, which was York. The site George gave us did the calculations. So, I have no idea what it did, or how it calculated. I would assume it took into mind the latitude/longitude and particular calendar used at the time.


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:51 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account



From: Pamela Bain
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh
Account

> It looks like 5:08 a.m. sunrise for Battle of Bosworth.

Did you allow for the 11 or 12-day calendar shift?

I put in 3rd sept and Nottingham as that's closer latitudinally, which makes Sunrise 05:33am




________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013 11:43 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account


 
I didn't do anything but put in August 1452 and closest geographic option, which was York. The site George gave us did the calculations. So, I have no idea what it did, or how it calculated. I would assume it took into mind the latitude/longitude and particular calendar used at the time.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:51 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account

From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh
Account

> It looks like 5:08 a.m. sunrise for Battle of Bosworth.

Did you allow for the 11 or 12-day calendar shift?

Which is dumb of me as it's longitude that counts, still Nott'm is almost on a line with Leicester that way :)




________________________________
From: Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account


 
I put in 3rd sept and Nottingham as that's closer latitudinally, which makes Sunrise 05:33am

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013 11:43 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account


 
I didn't do anything but put in August 1452 and closest geographic option, which was York. The site George gave us did the calculations. So, I have no idea what it did, or how it calculated. I would assume it took into mind the latitude/longitude and particular calendar used at the time.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:51 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account

From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh
Account

> It looks like 5:08 a.m. sunrise for Battle of Bosworth.

Did you allow for the 11 or 12-day calendar shift?

From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:43 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh
Account


> I didn't do anything but put in August 1452 and closest geographic option,
> which was York. The site George gave us did the calculations. So, I have
> no idea what it did, or how it calculated. I would assume it took into
> mind the latitude/longitude and particular calendar used at the time.

It's not far out, anyway. I used the exact location as far as I can make it
out - about 52°35 north and 01°05" west - and the US navy site, which only
goes back to 1700. For 2nd September in 1700 - equivalent to 22nd August in
1485 - I got 05:16am.

if you put in 1452 you were only 32 years out!
Paul

On 20/02/2013 16:19, Claire M Jordan wrote:
> From: Pamela Bain
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:43 PM
> Subject: RE: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh
> Account
>
>
>> I didn't do anything but put in August 1452 and closest geographic option,
>> which was York. The site George gave us did the calculations. So, I have
>> no idea what it did, or how it calculated. I would assume it took into
>> mind the latitude/longitude and particular calendar used at the time.
> It's not far out, anyway. I used the exact location as far as I can make it
> out - about 52°35 north and 01°05" west - and the US navy site, which only
> goes back to 1700. For 2nd September in 1700 - equivalent to 22nd August in
> 1485 - I got 05:16am.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Oh well there you go.....


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 12:44 PM
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Subject: Re: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account



if you put in 1452 you were only 32 years out!
Paul

On 20/02/2013 16:19, Claire M Jordan wrote:
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:43 PM
> Subject: RE: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh
> Account
>
>
>> I didn't do anything but put in August 1452 and closest geographic option,
>> which was York. The site George gave us did the calculations. So, I have
>> no idea what it did, or how it calculated. I would assume it took into
>> mind the latitude/longitude and particular calendar used at the time.
> It's not far out, anyway. I used the exact location as far as I can make it
> out - about 52°35 north and 01°05" west - and the US navy site, which only
> goes back to 1700. For 2nd September in 1700 - equivalent to 22nd August in
> 1485 - I got 05:16am.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Even if so, you wouldn't be talking more than, like, twenty or thirty minutes, if that.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:21 PM
> Subject: RE: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh
> Account
>
>
>
> > It looks like 5:08 a.m. sunrise for Battle of Bosworth.
>
> Did you allow for the 11 or 12-day calendar shift?
>

I guess the main differences between then and now are:-
a) 22nd August in 1485 is equivalent to a date of 31st August in today's calendar.
b) There would have been no changing the clocks back then, no "British Summer Time" - modern times of day in the summer half of the year are an hour forward of the real solar time that would have been used in Richard's day.
c) All times were calculated locally according to the movements of the sun, so a small adjustment would need to be made for the distance of the battlefield from the Greenwich meridian.
Marie

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe it would help those living outside of Britain to know that in this century the sunrise in England in August is around 5:00 - 5:30 a.m., while sunset is around 9:00 p.m.?
>
> Is there any site online that will let you calculate sunrise for 1485? I can't find one that goes back that far.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@> wrote:
> >
> > I am sure others will comment, but I think it was probably Oxford, a good battle commander, rather than Henry that determined the battle line.
> >  
> > As it was August the sun would have been quite high by the time the battle started - I think that was somewhere around 8am - but hopefully someone will know the right time  as I can't the reference to it right now.
> >
> > However it may have been low enough as the opposing lines formed up that Richard and Norfolk may have missed seeing those French Pikemen in the glare. Which in turn might help explain how their appearance on Norfolk's right flank came as such a nasty surprise.
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account



> I guess the main differences between then and now are:-
a) 22nd August in 1485 is equivalent to a date of 31st August in today's
calendar.
b) There would have been no changing the clocks back then, no "British
Summer Time" - modern times of day in the summer half of the year are an
hour forward of the real solar time that would have been used in Richard's
day.
c) All times were calculated locally according to the movements of the sun,
so a small adjustment would need to be made for the distance of the
battlefield from the Greenwich meridian.
Marie

There's another factor, which is that in areas surrounded by high and close
hills or mountains, sunrise will be later and sunrise earlier, and in
exposed areas which are very high up sunrise is earlier and sunset later.
But I don't think either applies to Bosworth, which I recall as fairly open.

Of Course Greenwich Meridian did NOT exist.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 0:03
>Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account
>
>
> 
>I guess the main differences between then and now are:-
>a) 22nd August in 1485 is equivalent to a date of 31st August in today's calendar.
>b) There would have been no changing the clocks back then, no "British Summer Time" - modern times of day in the summer half of the year are an hour forward of the real solar time that would have been used in Richard's day.
>c) All times were calculated locally according to the movements of the sun, so a small adjustment would need to be made for the distance of the battlefield from the Greenwich meridian.
>Marie
>
>--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it would help those living outside of Britain to know that in this century the sunrise in England in August is around 5:00 - 5:30 a.m., while sunset is around 9:00 p.m.?
>>
>> Is there any site online that will let you calculate sunrise for 1485? I can't find one that goes back that far.
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>>
>> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>> >
>> > I am sure others will comment, but I think it was probably Oxford, a good battle commander, rather than Henry that determined the battle line.
>> >  
>> > As it was August the sun would have been quite high by the time the battle started - I think that was somewhere around 8am - but hopefully someone will know the right time  as I can't the reference to it right now.
>> >
>> > However it may have been low enough as the opposing lines formed up that Richard and Norfolk may have missed seeing those French Pikemen in the glare. Which in turn might help explain how their appearance on Norfolk's right flank came as such a nasty surprise.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Good point. In fact I don't think we got regularised time in England until 'railway time' did we?



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 12:39
Subject: Re: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account

 

Of Course Greenwich Meridian did NOT exist.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 0:03
>Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account
>
>
> 
>I guess the main differences between then and now are:-
>a) 22nd August in 1485 is equivalent to a date of 31st August in today's calendar.
>b) There would have been no changing the clocks back then, no "British Summer Time" - modern times of day in the summer half of the year are an hour forward of the real solar time that would have been used in Richard's day.
>c) All times were calculated locally according to the movements of the sun, so a small adjustment would need to be made for the distance of the battlefield from the Greenwich meridian.
>Marie
>
>--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it would help those living outside of Britain to know that in this century the sunrise in England in August is around 5:00 - 5:30 a.m., while sunset is around 9:00 p.m.?
>>
>> Is there any site online that will let you calculate sunrise for 1485? I can't find one that goes back that far.
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>>
>> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
>> >
>> > I am sure others will comment, but I think it was probably Oxford, a good battle commander, rather than Henry that determined the battle line.
>> >  
>> > As it was August the sun would have been quite high by the time the battle started - I think that was somewhere around 8am - but hopefully someone will know the right time  as I can't the reference to it right now.
>> >
>> > However it may have been low enough as the opposing lines formed up that Richard and Norfolk may have missed seeing those French Pikemen in the glare. Which in turn might help explain how their appearance on Norfolk's right flank came as such a nasty surprise.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh
Account


> Of Course Greenwich Meridian did NOT exist.

Yo, but that just means that they would call the time something slightly
different from what we would call it, so e.g, they would call it 12 noon in
Cornwall when the sun was directly overhead, even if by GMT we'd call it
12:09. Iirc the difference in real-time from side to side of the UK is only
about 15 minutes anyway.

Did they actually use the 12/12 hour clock then anyway? Would they actually
understand "quarter past five in the morning" or would they just say dawn in
August and have done with it?

In the Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England time is mentioned. Is discusses the 12/12, and taking readings from vertical objects such as trees. It sites Chaucer as using a stick as a sun dial. Of course, if it is raining or cloudy, you are SOL!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:06 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account



----- Original Message -----
From: Arthurian
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh
Account

> Of Course Greenwich Meridian did NOT exist.

Yo, but that just means that they would call the time something slightly
different from what we would call it, so e.g, they would call it 12 noon in
Cornwall when the sun was directly overhead, even if by GMT we'd call it
12:09. Iirc the difference in real-time from side to side of the UK is only
about 15 minutes anyway.

Did they actually use the 12/12 hour clock then anyway? Would they actually
understand "quarter past five in the morning" or would they just say dawn in
August and have done with it?

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:


>
> Yo, but that just means that they would call the time something slightly different from what we would call it, so e.g, they would call it 12 noon in Cornwall when the sun was directly overhead, even if by GMT we'd call it 12:09. Iirc the difference in real-time from side to side of the UK is only about 15 minutes anyway.
>
> Did they actually use the 12/12 hour clock then anyway? Would they actually understand "quarter past five in the morning" or would they just say dawn in August and have done with it?

Carol responds:

First, GMT and "Summer Time" or whatever Brits call Daylight Savings Time would make a difference (as would the calendar) if we want to establish the exact time that the sun would have risen at Bosworth on August 22, 1485. It's less important if we just want an approximation to see which army would have been facing into the sun, which was the original question. Still, applying Daylight Time or Summer Time or whatever you call it would cause the time to be off by a full hour. It would be theoretically possible for the sun to rise at 5;30 on, say, August 22, 1985, but 6:30 on August 22, 1485, because the real time in 1985 (and 2013) is off by an hour.

But if the question is who was facing into the sun between dawn and noon (by which time the battle was certainly over), my guess is that it was Henry's army. Unless Richard had lost all the military capabilities he had acquired over half his short lifetime, he would not have had his soldiers facing into the sun.

Carol

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> In the Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England time is mentioned. Is discusses the 12/12, and taking readings from vertical objects such as trees. It sites Chaucer as using a stick as a sun dial. Of course, if it is raining or cloudy, you are SOL!

Carol responds:

They had to have other ways of measuring the hour, such as candles with alternating layers of white and red. Otherwise, the church bells would have rung at random and a Book of Hours would have been pointless.

Carol

We didn't have uniform time in the UK until the nineteenth century with railway time. Believe me on this; it was one of the benefits of the railways which Soc historians know well..
 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 17:37
Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account

 

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> In the Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval Englandý time is mentioned. Is discusses the 12/12, and taking readings from vertical objects such as trees. It sites Chaucer as using a stick as a sun dial. Of course, if it is raining or cloudy, you are SOL!

Carol responds:

They had to have other ways of measuring the hour, such as candles with alternating layers of white and red. Otherwise, the church bells would have rung at random and a Book of Hours would have been pointless.

Carol

Oh course it didn't, Arthur, but our standard time in modern Britain is based on real time at the Greenwich meridian, so in estimating time of sunrise at any locality at same of year you can't just take the GMT time of sunrise at same point of year, you also have to adjust for distance from the Greenwich meridian BECAUSE the Greenwich meridian hadn't been invented....
Marie

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> Of Course Greenwich Meridian did NOT exist.
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> >To:
> >Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 0:03
> >Subject: Re: Source of Bosworth Marsh Account
> >
> >
> > 
> >I guess the main differences between then and now are:-
> >a) 22nd August in 1485 is equivalent to a date of 31st August in today's calendar.
> >b) There would have been no changing the clocks back then, no "British Summer Time" - modern times of day in the summer half of the year are an hour forward of the real solar time that would have been used in Richard's day.
> >c) All times were calculated locally according to the movements of the sun, so a small adjustment would need to be made for the distance of the battlefield from the Greenwich meridian.
> >Marie
> >
> >--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe it would help those living outside of Britain to know that in this century the sunrise in England in August is around 5:00 - 5:30 a.m., while sunset is around 9:00 p.m.?
> >>
> >> Is there any site online that will let you calculate sunrise for 1485? I can't find one that goes back that far.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In , Aidan Donnelly wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I am sure others will comment, but I think it was probably Oxford, a good battle commander, rather than Henry that determined the battle line.
> >> >  
> >> > As it was August the sun would have been quite high by the time the battle started - I think that was somewhere around 8am - but hopefully someone will know the right time  as I can't the reference to it right now.
> >> >
> >> > However it may have been low enough as the opposing lines formed up that Richard and Norfolk may have missed seeing those French Pikemen in the glare. Which in turn might help explain how their appearance on Norfolk's right flank came as such a nasty surprise.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>