The Guns of Bosworth

This is an interesting article discussing how the finding of various sizes of lead shot (used in both hand cannon and wheeled cannon) led to the finding of the battlefield:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/the-guns-of-the-battle-of-bosworth-1485.htm

Tamara

Thanks, Tamara.

That is very interesting, but I'm going to be picky about a couple of the statements.

First, the shot hasn't enabled us to locate the battlefield in its entirety, and the extent of the battle site and the course of the battle are still up for grabs..

Second, I'm surprised the archaeologist says handguns were only used at 2nd St during WotR. A bit of an early handgun has been found at Towton, which under the microscope was shown to have blown apart, so they think it was used in the battle and blew up in the owner's hands. Also, the 1472 indictments of people who had fought for Henry VI at Barnet list "handgonnes" amongst the weapons that were used against the Yorkists there. According to the Great Chronicle (which I admit is not a reliable source) Edward also had with him at Barnet a 'black and smoky sort of Flemish gunners to the number of 500'; seems a reasonable supposition, though, that Charles would have lent him some gunners and that some of these might have been hand gunners.

I think one of the problems is that the Bosworth archaeologist, Glenn Foard, who had previously specialised in Civil War period, was convinced that even cannon weren't used in battle in 15th century England, and when the lead shot turned up at Bosworth believed he had discovered the earliest use of cannon in an English battle.

Marie

Thanks for the comments, Marie. I was wondering why, if they truly had found the exact site, that this hadn't been given wider media attention.
Tamara

Hi Paul,

They found *part* of the site. The area covered by the cannon shot is too small to be the *entire* battlefield. This means there is still a lot of controversy about exactly who was where and when, where Richard camped the night before, etc.

I do agree that Fen Hole looks like a very important part of the site, particularly with the other little finds, but not everybody is yet convinced. There was even an article by Paul Foss in last year's 'Ricardian' still arguing for Dadlington.

And it still doesn't tell us the extent of the battlefield because, apparently, there is no point in searching for the likes of arrowheads and sword blades because there is just so much ferrous material in fields that metal detectors set to iron just bleep incessantly at everything.

Marie

Hi Paul,

They found *part* of the site. The area covered by the cannon shot is too small to be the *entire* battlefield. This means there is still a lot of controversy about exactly who was where and when, where Richard camped the night before, etc.

I do agree that Fen Hole looks like a very important part of the site, particularly with the other little finds, but not everybody is yet convinced. There was even an article by Paul Foss in last year's 'Ricardian' still  arguing for Dadlington.

And it still doesn't tell us the extent of the battlefield because, apparently, there is no point in searching for the likes of arrowheads and sword blades because there is just so much ferrous material in fields that metal detectors set to iron just bleep incessantly at everything.

Marie

Paul,

I started writing this before but lost the post.

Yes, I've visited the site too and I've heard Glenn Foard speak.

Where did you get the idea that I was agreeing with Paul Foss? I didn't even buy his theory before the dig.

To quote my last post: "I do agree that Fen Hole looks like a very important part of the site, particularly with the other little finds."

Evidently we now know roughly where the guns were placed, and probably have the marsh in which Richard came to grief, therefore also Tudor's position.

But that isn't the whole battle, or the whole extent of the battlefield. Where did Norfolk engage with Oxford? Was it up by that windmill mound, or not? Where were the Stanleys placed? Or Northumberland? Where was Richard at *start* of the charge? We have suggestions coming now, of course, but that is all they are.

Did the battle extend any further west, into the area not covered by the archaeological survey (given that the finds were made in a corner of the area that was studied)?

I am not seeking to be controversial (I don't know about you), simply to have us keep in mind what we do know and what we don't know about the battlefield.

It's a slight personal gripe, but I was disappointed that Glenn Foard didn't seek to continue studying the area to discover more, but moved on to pastures new (contrast his approach with that of Tim Sutherland at Towton). He himself quite openly admits the limits of what have been found, but he said he was really only interested in having uncovered this striking early use of and that the way the entire battle was fought didn't really interest him. Unfortunately, without some evidence of that nature there will remain the possibility for Peter Foss and others (and there are others) to harbour doubts about the significance of the cannon shot.

Marie

I wrote:

"he was really only interested in having uncovered this striking early use of"

I meant to write

"he was really only interested in having uncovered this striking early use of cannon"

Marie

Well I've walked the entire area on more than one occasion as the archaeologists have laid it out according to the evidence they have found, and I can tell you that it is exactly right, and the area they have now mapped out is totally feasible.
I have known Peter Foss for some years, and while his ideas were very good when he first posited them, the numerous finds since have convinced me that he was wrong.
Canon shot can be used to work out where the guns were positioned, and as a result of that where the armies were positioned, and how the battle took place.
But I guess like a lot of people you'd rather carry on with a controversy than accept the theories of those who know so much better, who know the land like the backs of their hands, and have studied to arts of medieval warfare and tactics, along with the numerous brief accounts of what happened.
There has been a large number of publications since the discoveries, including one huge and detailed one by Glenn Foard and Anne Curry, which I suggest you read.
As far as I'm concerned I know now where the battle was, how it rolled out, and where Richard died.
As for Jess' comments about the farmer inviting them in and therefore by implication that my comments about farmers not wanting tourists traipsing over their fields was incorrect, thanks Jess, but asking someone to investigate your fields is a far stretch from wanting coachloads of people tramping about, hence the discreet new maps and observation points, and repeated requests to respect the boundaries.

Perhaps the fact that Tudor trampled the harvest on his way to the battle site is still imprinted on the minds of the locals.
Paul



On 06/11/2014 19:03, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

Hi Paul,

They found *part* of the site. The area covered by the cannon shot is too small to be the *entire* battlefield. This means there is still a lot of controversy about exactly who was where and when, where Richard camped the night before, etc.

I do agree that Fen Hole looks like a very important part of the site, particularly with the other little finds, but not everybody is yet convinced. There was even an article by Paul Foss in last year's 'Ricardian' still arguing for Dadlington.

And it still doesn't tell us the extent of the battlefield because, apparently, there is no point in searching for the likes of arrowheads and sword blades because there is just so much ferrous material in fields that metal detectors set to iron just bleep incessantly at everything.

Marie