The Taking of Edinburgh 1-2-3

So. I was reading Kendall about Richard's advancing to Edinburgh and taking the city without the loss of a single life, and it occurred to me that if Richard had any hunger to rule, wouldn't that have been the time for him to have pounced, captured James III, and claimed all of Scotland for his own by right of conquest?

Richard had an army of 20,000 at the time (less the men he'd left with Stanley at Berwick). James III wasn't popular, and hadn't Edward told Richard previous to this that anything he could claim above the Scottish border would belong to him? (Sort of like the cat's philosophy of "Everything below the doorknobs belongs to me"?)

I guess what I'm ultimately asking is this: could Richard's reluctance to conquer and rule Scotland be held up as an argument against the ruthless thirst for power traditionalists claim he *must* have let fly after his brother's death?

Surely the ruthless warlord Richard was supposed to have been, with an army that vast, wouldn't have marched away with a couple of diplomatic promises from James III if he could have conquered and set up a true Kingdom in the North for himself?

Or was conquering Scotland and informing the clans they were now ruled by the Sassanach not worth the ongoing bother it would have been for any medieval warlord? Or?...

~Weds

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> So. I was reading Kendall about Richard's advancing to Edinburgh and taking the city without the loss of a single life, and it occurred to me that if Richard had any hunger to rule, wouldn't that have been the time for him to have pounced, captured James III, and claimed all of Scotland for his own by right of conquest?
>
> Richard had an army of 20,000 at the time (less the men he'd left with Stanley at Berwick). James III wasn't popular, and hadn't Edward told Richard previous to this that anything he could claim above the Scottish border would belong to him? (Sort of like the cat's philosophy of "Everything below the doorknobs belongs to me"?)
>
> I guess what I'm ultimately asking is this: could Richard's reluctance to conquer and rule Scotland be held up as an argument against the ruthless thirst for power traditionalists claim he *must* have let fly after his brother's death?
>
> Surely the ruthless warlord Richard was supposed to have been, with an army that vast, wouldn't have marched away with a couple of diplomatic promises from James III if he could have conquered and set up a true Kingdom in the North for himself?
>
> Or was conquering Scotland and informing the clans they were now ruled by the Sassanach not worth the ongoing bother it would have been for any medieval warlord? Or?...
>
> ~Weds
>

Marie replies:
Not worth the ongoing bother. Whenever the English invaded, the Scots forces did the usual thing of melting into the distance so there was no way the English could actually conquer the country without being there for the long haul (think of Afghanistan today). Difficult to keep the army fed, apart from anything else. Richard had, in any case, been sent to put James' brother Albany on the throne if need be, not himself; but despite James' unpopularity the Scots didn't want to depose him, and Albany didn't want to destroy his country trying to force his way on to the throne.
The really impressive thing, I think, is that according to the established rules of warfare, once Richard's army had taken Edinburgh they could quite legitimately have been allowed three days (I think it was three days) to sack and pillage, which would have enabled Richard to recoup much of the cost of the campaign. But he went along with Albany's wishes and prevented the army going in. This, as we know from Crowland, made him unpopular in some quarters at home.
In his letter to the Pope, King Edward paints an affecting picture of the leaders or his army having "spared the supplicant and prostrate citizen, the churches, and not only the widows, orphans and minors, but all persons found there unarmed."

Ross in EIV is very hard on Richard about this campaign. I can't recall why as I'm away and don't have it with me.
 
Was it because he didn't carry on, or because Ross reckons he did lay waste the land during the campaign? Has anyone got or read that book. I recall he also says that by this time Edward had lost interest(if he'd ever really had any). So Albany pulling out was a marvellous excuse to abandon it all.  

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013, 23:06
Subject: Re: The Taking of Edinburgh 1-2-3

 


--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> So. I was reading Kendall about Richard's advancing to Edinburgh and taking the city without the loss of a single life, and it occurred to me that if Richard had any hunger to rule, wouldn't that have been the time for him to have pounced, captured James III, and claimed all of Scotland for his own by right of conquest?
>
> Richard had an army of 20,000 at the time (less the men he'd left with Stanley at Berwick). James III wasn't popular, and hadn't Edward told Richard previous to this that anything he could claim above the Scottish border would belong to him? (Sort of like the cat's philosophy of "Everything below the doorknobs belongs to me"?)
>
> I guess what I'm ultimately asking is this: could Richard's reluctance to conquer and rule Scotland be held up as an argument against the ruthless thirst for power traditionalists claim he *must* have let fly after his brother's death?
>
> Surely the ruthless warlord Richard was supposed to have been, with an army that vast, wouldn't have marched away with a couple of diplomatic promises from James III if he could have conquered and set up a true Kingdom in the North for himself?
>
> Or was conquering Scotland and informing the clans they were now ruled by the Sassanach not worth the ongoing bother it would have been for any medieval warlord? Or?...
>
> ~Weds
>

Marie replies:
Not worth the ongoing bother. Whenever the English invaded, the Scots forces did the usual thing of melting into the distance so there was no way the English could actually conquer the country without being there for the long haul (think of Afghanistan today). Difficult to keep the army fed, apart from anything else. Richard had, in any case, been sent to put James' brother Albany on the throne if need be, not himself; but despite James' unpopularity the Scots didn't want to depose him, and Albany didn't want to destroy his country trying to force his way on to the throne.
The really impressive thing, I think, is that according to the established rules of warfare, once Richard's army had taken Edinburgh they could quite legitimately have been allowed three days (I think it was three days) to sack and pillage, which would have enabled Richard to recoup much of the cost of the campaign. But he went along with Albany's wishes and prevented the army going in. This, as we know from Crowland, made him unpopular in some quarters at home.
In his letter to the Pope, King Edward paints an affecting picture of the leaders or his army having "spared the supplicant and prostrate citizen, the churches, and not only the widows, orphans and minors, but all persons found there unarmed."

I've just checked what he has to say about the campaign in his 'Richard III'. Basically, the same as the Crowland Chronicler, whom he quotes approvingly, ie the campaign cost a lot of money and achieved nothing except the recapture of Berwick. "In no sense can the invasion of Scotland be cited in evidence to support the oft-repeated claims by Richard's defenders that he was possessed of outstanding military qualities."
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Ross in EIV is very hard on Richard about this campaign. I can't recall why as I'm away and don't have it with me.
>  
> Was it because he didn't carry on, or because Ross reckons he did lay waste the land during the campaign? Has anyone got or read that book. I recall he also says that by this time Edward had lost interest(if he'd ever really had any). So Albany pulling out was a marvellous excuse to abandon it all.  
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013, 23:06
> Subject: Re: The Taking of Edinburgh 1-2-3
>
>  
>
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > So. I was reading Kendall about Richard's advancing to Edinburgh and taking the city without the loss of a single life, and it occurred to me that if Richard had any hunger to rule, wouldn't that have been the time for him to have pounced, captured James III, and claimed all of Scotland for his own by right of conquest?
> >
> > Richard had an army of 20,000 at the time (less the men he'd left with Stanley at Berwick). James III wasn't popular, and hadn't Edward told Richard previous to this that anything he could claim above the Scottish border would belong to him? (Sort of like the cat's philosophy of "Everything below the doorknobs belongs to me"?)
> >
> > I guess what I'm ultimately asking is this: could Richard's reluctance to conquer and rule Scotland be held up as an argument against the ruthless thirst for power traditionalists claim he *must* have let fly after his brother's death?
> >
> > Surely the ruthless warlord Richard was supposed to have been, with an army that vast, wouldn't have marched away with a couple of diplomatic promises from James III if he could have conquered and set up a true Kingdom in the North for himself?
> >
> > Or was conquering Scotland and informing the clans they were now ruled by the Sassanach not worth the ongoing bother it would have been for any medieval warlord? Or?...
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
>
> Marie replies:
> Not worth the ongoing bother. Whenever the English invaded, the Scots forces did the usual thing of melting into the distance so there was no way the English could actually conquer the country without being there for the long haul (think of Afghanistan today). Difficult to keep the army fed, apart from anything else. Richard had, in any case, been sent to put James' brother Albany on the throne if need be, not himself; but despite James' unpopularity the Scots didn't want to depose him, and Albany didn't want to destroy his country trying to force his way on to the throne.
> The really impressive thing, I think, is that according to the established rules of warfare, once Richard's army had taken Edinburgh they could quite legitimately have been allowed three days (I think it was three days) to sack and pillage, which would have enabled Richard to recoup much of the cost of the campaign. But he went along with Albany's wishes and prevented the army going in. This, as we know from Crowland, made him unpopular in some quarters at home.
> In his letter to the Pope, King Edward paints an affecting picture of the leaders or his army having "spared the supplicant and prostrate citizen, the churches, and not only the widows, orphans and minors, but all persons found there unarmed."
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yep. I think he must have extended this in EIV, which is generally the more moderate of the two books and quite condemning of Edward. It's the Scotland bit in which he really 'has a go' at Richard (without much cause I thought). I remember it because I looked at it a couple of times about the 'post' system which people had asked about.   


From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 17:28
Subject: Re: The Taking of Edinburgh 1-2-3

 
I've just checked what he has to say about the campaign in his 'Richard III'. Basically, the same as the Crowland Chronicler, whom he quotes approvingly, ie the campaign cost a lot of money and achieved nothing except the recapture of Berwick. "In no sense can the invasion of Scotland be cited in evidence to support the oft-repeated claims by Richard's defenders that he was possessed of outstanding military qualities."
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Ross in EIV is very hard on Richard about this campaign. I can't recall why as I'm away and don't have it with me.
>  
> Was it because he didn't carry on, or because Ross reckons he did lay waste the land during the campaign? Has anyone got or read that book. I recall he also says that by this time Edward had lost interest(if he'd ever really had any). So Albany pulling out was a marvellous excuse to abandon it all.  
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 4 August 2013, 23:06
> Subject: Re: The Taking of Edinburgh 1-2-3
>
>  
>
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > So. I was reading Kendall about Richard's advancing to Edinburgh and taking the city without the loss of a single life, and it occurred to me that if Richard had any hunger to rule, wouldn't that have been the time for him to have pounced, captured James III, and claimed all of Scotland for his own by right of conquest?
> >
> > Richard had an army of 20,000 at the time (less the men he'd left with Stanley at Berwick). James III wasn't popular, and hadn't Edward told Richard previous to this that anything he could claim above the Scottish border would belong to him? (Sort of like the cat's philosophy of "Everything below the doorknobs belongs to me"?)
> >
> > I guess what I'm ultimately asking is this: could Richard's reluctance to conquer and rule Scotland be held up as an argument against the ruthless thirst for power traditionalists claim he *must* have let fly after his brother's death?
> >
> > Surely the ruthless warlord Richard was supposed to have been, with an army that vast, wouldn't have marched away with a couple of diplomatic promises from James III if he could have conquered and set up a true Kingdom in the North for himself?
> >
> > Or was conquering Scotland and informing the clans they were now ruled by the Sassanach not worth the ongoing bother it would have been for any medieval warlord? Or?...
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
>
> Marie replies:
> Not worth the ongoing bother. Whenever the English invaded, the Scots forces did the usual thing of melting into the distance so there was no way the English could actually conquer the country without being there for the long haul (think of Afghanistan today). Difficult to keep the army fed, apart from anything else. Richard had, in any case, been sent to put James' brother Albany on the throne if need be, not himself; but despite James' unpopularity the Scots didn't want to depose him, and Albany didn't want to destroy his country trying to force his way on to the throne.
> The really impressive thing, I think, is that according to the established rules of warfare, once Richard's army had taken Edinburgh they could quite legitimately have been allowed three days (I think it was three days) to sack and pillage, which would have enabled Richard to recoup much of the cost of the campaign. But he went along with Albany's wishes and prevented the army going in. This, as we know from Crowland, made him unpopular in some quarters at home.
> In his letter to the Pope, King Edward paints an affecting picture of the leaders or his army having "spared the supplicant and prostrate citizen, the churches, and not only the widows, orphans and minors, but all persons found there unarmed."
>
>
>
>
>
>