Some dramatic news on the Clarence line front

First, MKJ's Agincourt book is out on 30 August so he will be able to
concentrate on "Britain's Real Monarch" from then onwards.

Second, the Today programme mentioned the explorer Bartholomew
Gosnold and a DNA test to identify remains in Jamestown from two of
his sisters. This is such an unusual surname.

According to Castelli, one of Sir Geoffrey Pole's descendants married
a Gosnold. It could be that Bartholomew (1571-1607) is just a marital
relative like Oliver Cromwell (whose aunt married Winifred Pole's
son) and not a descendant.

Winifred Windsor (d. after 1640) married John Gosnold of Otley (1568-
1628) who sounds like an elder brother. She was the daughter of Hon.
Walter Windsor (b.c. 1540) and Margaret Pole, daughter of Sir
Geoffrey.

Bartholomew Gosnold definitely came from Otley Hall, 8 miles outside
of Ipswich!

--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> First, MKJ's Agincourt book is out on 30 August
>

Oh dear, I wonder if is he going to relocate Agincourt to Belgium or
Bordeaux? Perhaps Henry V was actually illegitimate? I hope he has
not got Tony Robinson to write a foreword! Actually there are some
grounds for believing that Agincourt was not fought where we think it
was, based on a lack of any archaeology (even medieval domestic) on
the site.

Having seen MKJ speak at the Bosworth conference it rather
crystallised my doubts about his arguments concerning the Atherstone
alternative, although maybe it should be the Witherley wobble. I was,
however, impressed by Ken Smith's presentation, although his version
of the battle site lies a little closer in towards Ambion than the
Foss/Foard site, but it is still anchored on Fenn Lane. I hope to
hear Glen Foard's ideas when he presents them at the Battlefield
Archaeology conference in the summer.

Witherley is actually in Leicestershire so does fall within the remit
of the county council. I suspect the reason that the archaeological
investigation is not being split between the Foss/Foard locale and
Witherley is that the latter, as outlined in Bosworth: Psychology of
a Battle is not regarded as being a credible possiblity. Sorry Marie,
but it was not even ideal cavalry country being covered with ridge &
furrow typical of common/open fields. Inimical to cavalry charges I
am afraid:-)

--- In , "billbraham1957"
<bill@w...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "stephenmlark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> >
> > First, MKJ's Agincourt book is out on 30 August
> >
>
> Oh dear, I wonder if is he going to relocate Agincourt to Belgium
or
> Bordeaux? Perhaps Henry V was actually illegitimate? I hope he has
> not got Tony Robinson to write a foreword! Actually there are some
> grounds for believing that Agincourt was not fought where we think
it
> was, based on a lack of any archaeology (even medieval domestic) on
> the site.
>
> Having seen MKJ speak at the Bosworth conference it rather
> crystallised my doubts about his arguments concerning the
Atherstone
> alternative, although maybe it should be the Witherley wobble. I
was,
> however, impressed by Ken Smith's presentation,

Sorry, was that Ken Wright? Or did I fail to take notes on Ken Smith?
(I have a feeling there was one short presentation I have no notes
on, and it may well have been Ken Smith.) As regards Ken Wright, then
I was very unimpressed, (his rather disrespectful attitude, and utter
conviction that anyone uttering the word 'Bosworth' is admitting to a
belief in the traditional site, did more than anything else to put me
off the traditional/Dadlington sites), the only valid evidence in his
whole presentation being that 13th century documentary reference
to "six roods of meadow in Redemor in the fields of Dadlington"
(which I'm surprised no one's mentioned yet in this discussion).

I think the "Redmor" evidence is valid, incredibly interesting but
not conclusive. Firstly, placenames that are mere topographical
descriptions have, for obvious reasons, an annoying habit of
repeating themselves within an area. But, more likely still, Redemore
did not perhaps respect parish boundaries. Indeed, that tag "in the
fields of Dadlington" may have been intended to distinguish these
particular roods of meadow from other parts of Redemore which lay
outside "the fields of Dadlington". Derby Spinney, where Jones has
the battle terminate, is less than 3 1/2 miles from Dadlington
village as the crow flies - I don't know the distance from the
boundary of Dadlington parish, but I presume it would be considerably
less than this. So the possibility that Redemore actully extended
along Fenn Lanes from the parish of Dadlington to Fenny Drayton can't
be ruled out.
Surely someone must be able to come up with some other documentation
of this placename?


although his version
> of the battle site lies a little closer in towards Ambion than the
> Foss/Foard site, but it is still anchored on Fenn Lane. I hope to
> hear Glen Foard's ideas when he presents them at the Battlefield
> Archaeology conference in the summer.
>
> Witherley is actually in Leicestershire so does fall within the
remit
> of the county council.

They are NOT investigating up to the county boundary, though, are
they? Not the Fenny Drayton and Whitherley areas. Not unless they've
changed their plans since last year. Perhaps now they've more money
they will do this, but I'm not holding my breath.


I suspect the reason that the archaeological
> investigation is not being split between the Foss/Foard locale and
> Witherley is that the latter, as outlined in Bosworth: Psychology
of
> a Battle is not regarded as being a credible possiblity. Sorry
Marie,
> but it was not even ideal cavalry country being covered with ridge
&
> furrow typical of common/open fields. Inimical to cavalry charges I
> am afraid:-)

We can't have too small a hill to start on. We can't have generally
boggy terrain. Or woodland. We can't have ridge and furrow (do we
know for sure it was ridge and furrow then? Has any study been
carried out?). What would be suitable: solid unboggy heath? nice
sheepwolds? pastureland? I'm not an expert on military tactics and I
don't ride, please tell me what - and where we might find it in the
right locale.
What did you think of the Dadlington "dry corridor" scenario?

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "billbraham1957"
> <bill@w...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "stephenmlark"
> > <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > >
> > > First, MKJ's Agincourt book is out on 30 August
> > >
> >
> > Oh dear, I wonder if is he going to relocate Agincourt to Belgium
> or
> > Bordeaux? Perhaps Henry V was actually illegitimate? I hope he
has
> > not got Tony Robinson to write a foreword! Actually there are
some
> > grounds for believing that Agincourt was not fought where we
think
> it
> > was, based on a lack of any archaeology (even medieval domestic)
on
> > the site.
> >
> > Having seen MKJ speak at the Bosworth conference it rather
> > crystallised my doubts about his arguments concerning the
> Atherstone
> > alternative, although maybe it should be the Witherley wobble. I
> was,
> > however, impressed by Ken Smith's presentation,
>
> Sorry, was that Ken Wright? Or did I fail to take notes on Ken
Smith?
> (I have a feeling there was one short presentation I have no notes
> on, and it may well have been Ken Smith.) As regards Ken Wright,
then
> I was very unimpressed, (his rather disrespectful attitude, and
utter
> conviction that anyone uttering the word 'Bosworth' is admitting to
a
> belief in the traditional site, did more than anything else to put
me
> off the traditional/Dadlington sites), the only valid evidence in
his
> whole presentation being that 13th century documentary reference
> to "six roods of meadow in Redemor in the fields of Dadlington"
> (which I'm surprised no one's mentioned yet in this discussion).
>
> I think the "Redmor" evidence is valid, incredibly interesting but
> not conclusive. Firstly, placenames that are mere topographical
> descriptions have, for obvious reasons, an annoying habit of
> repeating themselves within an area. But, more likely still,
Redemore
> did not perhaps respect parish boundaries. Indeed, that tag "in
the
> fields of Dadlington" may have been intended to distinguish these
> particular roods of meadow from other parts of Redemore which lay
> outside "the fields of Dadlington". Derby Spinney, where Jones has
> the battle terminate, is less than 3 1/2 miles from Dadlington
> village as the crow flies - I don't know the distance from the
> boundary of Dadlington parish,

Sorry, just correcting myself - Hickley parish as it would have been
then

Hinkley I think you mean!
Paul

On Feb 1, 2005, at 16:47, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

> Sorry, just correcting myself - Hickley parish as it would have been
> then
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Hinkley I think you mean!
> Paul
>
> On Feb 1, 2005, at 16:47, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > Sorry, just correcting myself - Hickley parish as it would have
been
> > then
> >
..... or even Hinckley?

Stephen

--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > Hinkley I think you mean!
> > Paul
> >
> > On Feb 1, 2005, at 16:47, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, just correcting myself - Hickley parish as it would have
> been
> > > then
> > >
> ..... or even Hinckley?
>
> Stephen

Or even so - just imagine an omission mark. . .

> > however, impressed by Ken Smith's presentation,
>
> Sorry, was that Ken Wright? Or did I fail to take notes on Ken
Smith?


Marie, yes it was Ken S Wright.


> (I have a feeling there was one short presentation I have no notes
> on, and it may well have been Ken Smith.) As regards Ken Wright,
then
> I was very unimpressed, (his rather disrespectful attitude, and
utter
> conviction that anyone uttering the word 'Bosworth' is admitting to
a
> belief in the traditional site, did more than anything else to put
me
> off the traditional/Dadlington sites), the only valid evidence in
his
> whole presentation being that 13th century documentary reference
> to "six roods of meadow in Redemor in the fields of Dadlington"
> (which I'm surprised no one's mentioned yet in this discussion).


Marie

I did not find Ken Wright's attitude disrespectful, assertive
perhaps. I was intrigued enough by his presentation to by a copy of
his book, I also bought John D Austin's book as well. I actually
found MKJ's presentation somewhat evasive although he is an
entertaining speaker. To my mind he was well presented, but short on
substance. To be honest that is why, since then, I have been looking
at his interpretation again because I was disappointed in his
arguments (and I had read his book beforehand!). I have to say that I
am far from convinced about his scenario as will become clear.

For now, one example of my unesiness about MKJ's stance. He makes
assertions about the presence of pikemen. Yet his evidence is the
extracts in the appendix from Spon's paper on the Franc Archers. The
Franc Archers as I have pointed out before were a trained militia
comprising bow, crossbow, halberd pike and even handgunners! There
may have been pike at Bosworth BUT it cannot be proven and the
probablity is low.The Merevale window is not evidence as per previous
posts on the topic some months back. The French were not 'natural'
pikemen unlike the Flemings, the Scots, Germans or the Swiss. Indeed
the latter at Morat in 1476 were mainly halberdiers with a thin crust
of pike. At this point the Swiss were wiping the floor with anyone
who dare satnd against them! Thus the balance of probablities is that
the majority of the French contingent if drawn from the Francs
Archers were almost certainly a mixture of missile troops and
halberdiers.

Why all this fuss about pikemen? Well MKJ makes it a key part of his
reason for the defeat of Richrd's charge. Although in the event
Richard seems to have dismounted and cut his way in.


>
> I think the "Redmor" evidence is valid, incredibly interesting but
> not conclusive. Firstly, placenames that are mere topographical
> descriptions have, for obvious reasons, an annoying habit of
> repeating themselves within an area. But, more likely still,
Redemore
> did not perhaps respect parish boundaries. Indeed, that tag "in
the
> fields of Dadlington" may have been intended to distinguish these
> particular roods of meadow from other parts of Redemore which lay
> outside "the fields of Dadlington". Derby Spinney, where Jones has
> the battle terminate, is less than 3 1/2 miles from Dadlington
> village as the crow flies - I don't know the distance from the
> boundary of Dadlington parish, but I presume it would be
considerably
> less than this. So the possibility that Redemore actully extended
> along Fenn Lanes from the parish of Dadlington to Fenny Drayton
can't
> be ruled out.
> Surely someone must be able to come up with some other
documentation
> of this placename?


Foss documents Redemore as does Ken Wright. The Derby Spinney thing
does not make sense if he is winning the battle (which Polydore
Vergil and the rest tell us he is.See comments later for Jones'
intrepretation of the battle.

>
>
> although his version
> > of the battle site lies a little closer in towards Ambion than
the
> > Foss/Foard site, but it is still anchored on Fenn Lane. I hope to
> > hear Glen Foard's ideas when he presents them at the Battlefield
> > Archaeology conference in the summer.
> >
> > Witherley is actually in Leicestershire so does fall within the
> remit
> > of the county council.
>
> They are NOT investigating up to the county boundary, though, are
> they? Not the Fenny Drayton and Whitherley areas. Not unless
they've
> changed their plans since last year. Perhaps now they've more money
> they will do this, but I'm not holding my breath.


No they are not. However there is no reason, objectively, why they
should.


> > furrow typical of common/open fields. Inimical to cavalry charges
I
> > am afraid:-)
>
> We can't have too small a hill to start on. We can't have generally
> boggy terrain. Or woodland. We can't have ridge and furrow (do we
> know for sure it was ridge and furrow then? Has any study been
> carried out?). What would be suitable: solid unboggy heath? nice
> sheepwolds? pastureland? I'm not an expert on military tactics and
I
> don't ride, please tell me what - and where we might find it in the
> right locale.


Here are my reasons for interpreting most of the Jones battlefield as
being 'open field'. It is only an interpretation but it does seek to
make use of the map, air photo and landscape history I have been
attempting to collate.

Ridge & Furrow. Examination of the air photos show areas of ridge and
furrow preserved in the north of Witherley Township between Mythe
Cottage and Ratcliffe Culey. Ther are also occurrences in the eastern
part of Racliffe Culey Township next to the boundary with Atterton
which also preserves ridge and furrow. Much of the area is
intensively farmed so ploughing etc. has removed other traces. There
is a Witherley Fields which shows that is a new farmstead placed
within the midst of the former open fields of Witherley. The township
boundary (from the 1854 County Series map) between Ratcliffe
Culey/Witherley, east Witherley, east Ratcliffe Culey and west
Atterton show an interlocking trace. This is a characteristic pattern
in lowland areas of division of existing field patterns between two
administrative territories, possibly being determined by
headlands/furlongs in an open field. Ratcliffe Culey was enclosed in
1766 but I have been unable to find the enclosure dates for
Witherley, Atterton & Fenny drayton yet.

In summary the evidence suggests that the area around Witherley was
covered by ridge & furrow marks typical of opne field cultivation.
Good basic discussions of this kind of agriculture may be found in
Hoskins Making of the English Landscape and Oliver Rackham's book on
the history of the British countryside. Richard Muir also has written
several books on landscape history. The selions which comprise ridge
& furrow traces would have provided an entsive corrugated surface
(strips up to a furlong in length and at least 3m wide). These would
provide a hindrance to any movement whether on horse or foot.

Here are some of my reasons for doubting MKJ's view of Bosworth:

1. Compensation Grants. Austin, Wright and Fosss in various places
print the details of the grants made to the 'Atherstone towns', yet
Jones for whom this is a key piece of evidence does not. Why? To
prevent argument hear are the values from Austin's book.

Merevale Abbey: 100marks (1 mark = 13/4d IIRC?)

Athertsone: £20 plus £4 13/- 4d
Witherley: £13
Mancetter: £5 19/-
Fenny Drayton: £20
Atterton: £8 10/-

Basically Witherley gets less than Fenny Drayton? But Jones has the
Tudor army moving up on Richards troops through Witherly township!
The data does NOT show that the battle occurred where Jones has
interrpeted it. It is more consistent with the interpretation of
extensive foraging around Atherstone.

2. (None) Burial Mounds

Jones merely theorises about these, Austin discusses them in a little
more detail. With the exception of the Fenny Drayton mound (which is
probably prehistoric) there is no evidence that any of the 'mounds'
are inhumation locales. One the so-called Atterton Lane mound may
actually be a natural feature!

Consider however, that generally most battlefields burials involve
mass graves in burial pits. Basically dig a hole, throw the dead in
and fill it up. With time the grave fill compacts naturally under its
own weight and due to decomposition of the corpses. Thus a mass grave
would tend to be represented by either a silght depression or have no
topographic expression whatsoever.

In order to have burial mounds, one must excavate material from
pits/trenchs adjacent to the site in order to build the mound up.
This usually demotes some kind of ritual (as in prehistoric remains).
It is not something associated with medieval battelfield burials.
Look at Towton and Visby (the only two excavted sites to date) for
the analogies.

3. Scenario

No general worth his salt would turn his army's back on an opponent
once the action has started. Jones points out that Richard had
already started shooting his cannon before Henry strove to move to
Richard's flank. It is so laughable in the context of medieval and
Renaissance military methods as to be laughable, but let us suspend
disbelief for a moment an assume Jones is on the right track.

We have the clash of the vanguards somewhere northish of Witherley.
The sources tells us that Oxfords men held fast and held possibly
even repulsed Norfolk. Thus we have corpses and a stalemate. Richard
then effects his heroic charge on Tudor, who summons back pikemen
from the vanguard, who have to outrun a mounted charge (although
neither can really have been moving particularly quickly over the
selions of ridge & furrow). The pike beat the horse in the race and
arrive at Tudor's position in time to take up a defensive stance.
Richard is folied but dismounts and proceeds to cut his way into to
Tudor's 'phalanx' killing Henry's standard bearer before the Stanleys
save him.

BUT the Stanleys were last heard of on the northern outskirts of
Atherstone, possibly being shelled by Richard's guns. They have now,
as if by magic, appeared to save Henry. Assuming they have not
crossed two water courses and avoided the battle of the vanguards,
then they must have followed the Roman road and Tudor's route.

What this gives us is a strong body of pro-Tudor's troops behind the
vanguards. Yet Jones would have us believe that the fighting
continued and spilled over into Atterton and Fenny Drayton? But it
does not make sense. I could believe that Norfolk's battle was forced
back towards Ratcliffe Bridge. Basically when an army is beaten it
runs directly away from the enemy/threat. This why there are
frequently more casualties in pursuit than in battle. For Jones'
interpretation to be correct then Norfolk would have had to overwhelm
Oxford and be pushing him back towards Fenny Drayton. Not one single
source suggests that Oxford's battle was broken.

Generals such as Marlborough and Wellington would have dreamed of the
tactical manoeuvrability Jones attributes to Tudor's army. His
scenario is just a fable.

4. Place Names

King Dick's Hole cannot be traced any further back than the late
C18th. King Dick's Yard has a similar pedigree. I doubt there is a
village at any point in western Leicestershire without similar
traditions. Ken Wright mentioned some in Sutton Cheney. Traditions of
this kind are of folkloric interest but are of little valuein
battlefield studies.

Enough for one night!-)

Quite right Stephen. It didn't look right as I typed it.
Terrible when you miss the c....
Paul
On Feb 1, 2005, at 20:21, stephenmlark wrote:

>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>> Hinkley I think you mean!
>> Paul
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2005, at 16:47, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, just correcting myself - Hickley parish as it would have
> been
>>> then
>>>
> ..... or even Hinckley?
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> I did not find Ken Wright's attitude disrespectful, assertive
> perhaps. I was intrigued enough by his presentation to by a copy
of
> his book, I also bought John D Austin's book as well. I actually
> found MKJ's presentation somewhat evasive although he is an
> entertaining speaker. To my mind he was well presented, but short
on
> substance. To be honest that is why, since then, I have been
looking
> at his interpretation again because I was disappointed in his
> arguments (and I had read his book beforehand!). I have to say that
I
> am far from convinced about his scenario as will become clear.

I have to agree with you that Michael Jones does not always present
his case(s) in the best way. He does give his core evidence, on the
importance of which I find his critics evasive, but does tend to bury
same under accumulations of secondary evidence which is often of
dubious value, rather dense personal visions of the minutiae of the
action, and new historical interpretations arising from his
hypothesis. Such interpretations (within reason) are valid, of
course, but it is no good giving them to an audience/ readership that
has not first been persuaded of the value of the hypothesis itself.

Ken Wright was not, of course, evasive, but in my view would have
done better to be evasive than to come out with such flat statements
as (here I paraphrase) "David Starkey first mentioned back in the
1980s [as I recall] the possibility of the site now associated with
Michael Jones, but obviously changed his mind [ie saw the light]
later, as in his next book he referred to the battle as 'BOSWORTH'."
This followed by triumphant pause and stare into faces of audience.
Is this the level of reasoning with which I am supposed to be
impressed? On that basis Michael Jones himself believes in the
traditional site. I am sure Ken Wright also knows his stuff, but for
my money he did himself fewer favours with his presentation than did
Michael Jones. You see, the little demon in my head makes me suspect
that when knowledgeable people are reduced to this level of argument
they probably have something to hide.

>
> For now, one example of my unesiness about MKJ's stance. He makes
> assertions about the presence of pikemen. Yet his evidence is the
> extracts in the appendix from Spon's paper on the Franc Archers.
The
> Franc Archers as I have pointed out before were a trained militia
> comprising bow, crossbow, halberd pike and even handgunners! There
> may have been pike at Bosworth BUT it cannot be proven and the
> probablity is low.The Merevale window is not evidence as per
previous
> posts on the topic some months back.

You may recall that I was in agreement with you on that one.

The French were not 'natural'
> pikemen unlike the Flemings, the Scots, Germans or the Swiss.
Indeed
> the latter at Morat in 1476 were mainly halberdiers with a thin
crust
> of pike. At this point the Swiss were wiping the floor with anyone
> who dare satnd against them! Thus the balance of probablities is
that
> the majority of the French contingent if drawn from the Francs
> Archers were almost certainly a mixture of missile troops and
> halberdiers.
>
> Why all this fuss about pikemen? Well MKJ makes it a key part of
his
> reason for the defeat of Richrd's charge. Although in the event
> Richard seems to have dismounted and cut his way in.

I agree that the pikemen are not crucial to Jones' explanation of
Richard's loss of the battle (and, indeed are a completely separate
issue from that of the battlesite). However, I understand that his
idea of pikemen comes from two statements in the above document - one
that these soldiers were ordered to form at a given distance around
the standard, and the other that when Tudor saw Richard's cavalry
bearing down he wanted to dismount and hide in the middle of them. So
if this document is valid we are talking about either a round or a
square formation, and for obvious reasons not missile troops
(certainly not archers, as Livia Visser Fuchs suggested in a past
Ricardian Bulletin).
>
>> Foss documents Redemore as does Ken Wright. The Derby Spinney
thing
> does not make sense if he is winning the battle (which Polydore
> Vergil and the rest tell us he is.See comments later for Jones'
> intrepretation of the battle.

I think possibly you misunderstood me. I know all these folk cite the
Redemore document. My point is that they all cite just this one
document. Surely something significant enough as a topographical
feature and as an element of local nomenclature should appear in
other documents - whether manorial records, local wills or other.
Finding such references would give us a better idea of the extent of
the 'more'. Have all stones really been turned over in the search of
such? If not, why not?
>
>.
> >
> > They are NOT investigating up to the county boundary, though, are
> > they? Not the Fenny Drayton and Whitherley areas. Not unless
> they've
> > changed their plans since last year. Perhaps now they've more
money
> > they will do this, but I'm not holding my breath.
>
>
> No they are not. However there is no reason, objectively, why they
> should.

Objectively there is every reason why they should. Fact is often
stranger than fiction, and the serious people may turn out to be
wrong and the evasive TV star may be right, at least about the site.
And with contemporary documentary statements giving Merevale as the
place Henry slept on the night before the battle (Crowland) and
Jones' site as the battlefield (the compensation grants), however
much one may feel inclined to 'get around' this evidence by dismissal
or a less than literal interpretation, it is not objective to do so
without first investigating the physical evidence.

>
>
> > > furrow typical of common/open fields. Inimical to cavalry
charges
> I
> > > am afraid:-)
> >
> > We can't have too small a hill to start on. We can't have
generally
> > boggy terrain. Or woodland. We can't have ridge and furrow (do we
> > know for sure it was ridge and furrow then? Has any study been
> > carried out?). What would be suitable: solid unboggy heath? nice
> > sheepwolds? pastureland? I'm not an expert on military tactics
and
> I
> > don't ride, please tell me what - and where we might find it in
the
> > right locale.

No answer?

>
>
> Here are my reasons for interpreting most of the Jones battlefield
as
> being 'open field'. It is only an interpretation but it does seek
to
> make use of the map, air photo and landscape history I have been
> attempting to collate.
>
> Ridge & Furrow. Examination of the air photos show areas of ridge
and
> furrow preserved in the north of Witherley Township between Mythe
> Cottage and Ratcliffe Culey. Ther are also occurrences in the
eastern
> part of Racliffe Culey Township next to the boundary with Atterton
> which also preserves ridge and furrow. Much of the area is
> intensively farmed so ploughing etc. has removed other traces.
There
> is a Witherley Fields which shows that is a new farmstead placed
> within the midst of the former open fields of Witherley.

Comparable evidence to "the fields of Dadlington", perhaps?

The township
> boundary (from the 1854 County Series map) between Ratcliffe
> Culey/Witherley, east Witherley, east Ratcliffe Culey and west
> Atterton show an interlocking trace. This is a characteristic
pattern
> in lowland areas of division of existing field patterns between two
> administrative territories, possibly being determined by
> headlands/furlongs in an open field. Ratcliffe Culey was enclosed
in
> 1766 but I have been unable to find the enclosure dates for
> Witherley, Atterton & Fenny drayton yet.

It is difficult to discuss this properly without reference to a map,
but none of these sites, I think, actually crosses Jones' proposed
cavalry charge. Also, I wonder
a) what the state of even arable land would have been on 22nd August.
There were crops damaged, but could these have been harvested crops
drying in small stacks across the fields? Remember, 22nd August is
about 2nd September in today's money. Also (presumably where such
stacks did not exist) animals may have been turned on to the fields
to graze on the stubble and fertilise the ground for the coming year.
Presumably they would have trodden down the ridges considerably.
Again, I am not a rider and I would be interested in a view from any
horseman or -woman on the list, but I would imagine that horses, like
people, adapt to difficult ground if they are weaned on it, and the
state of medieval roads being what it was Richard's post system would
have been impossible if the horses had not been able to gallop over
quite rough ground.


>
> In summary the evidence suggests that the area around Witherley was
> covered by ridge & furrow marks typical of opne field cultivation.
> Good basic discussions of this kind of agriculture may be found in
> Hoskins Making of the English Landscape and Oliver Rackham's book
on
> the history of the British countryside. Richard Muir also has
written
> several books on landscape history. The selions which comprise
ridge
> & furrow traces would have provided an entsive corrugated surface
> (strips up to a furlong in length and at least 3m wide). These
would
> provide a hindrance to any movement whether on horse or foot.
>
> Here are some of my reasons for doubting MKJ's view of Bosworth:
>
> 1. Compensation Grants. Austin, Wright and Fosss in various places
> print the details of the grants made to the 'Atherstone towns', yet
> Jones for whom this is a key piece of evidence does not. Why? To
> prevent argument hear are the values from Austin's book.
>
> Merevale Abbey: 100marks (1 mark = 13/4d IIRC?)
>
> Athertsone: £20 plus £4 13/- 4d
> Witherley: £13
> Mancetter: £5 19/-
> Fenny Drayton: £20
> Atterton: £8 10/-
>
> Basically Witherley gets less than Fenny Drayton? But Jones has the
> Tudor army moving up on Richards troops through Witherly township!
> The data does NOT show that the battle occurred where Jones has
> interrpeted it. It is more consistent with the interpretation of
> extensive foraging around Atherstone.

For listers who have forgotten and don't have a map to hand, the
places listed in the compensation grant form a ring around Michael
Jones' proposed site. If this was compensation for foraging before
the battlesite was reached, then why are there no other grants for
places damaged en route? The only one is for Merevale, and that
clearly describes the money as paying for damage caused "by our
people coming toward our late field". The 5 villages grant, on the
contrary, is for damage caused "at our late victorious field". Also,
if for foraging en route, would the villages compensated have been
more along a line than in a square?
For a period like this, for which the documentary evidence is
slight, we have to be particularly careful not to tweak it. Whatever
it baldly says, no matter how different from our preconceived
notions, we should investigate, and only decide that it meant
something slightly different when we have really proved that the
surface reading cannot have been the reality.
As for why Witherley got less than Fenny Drayton, there are several
possible reasons. Was it a smaller townland, perhaps? Did Fenny
Drayton actually suffer more because this is where the worst of the
battle was fought (at the end)? You appear above to have placed more
of the action close to Witherley than Jones actually does, and Jones'
interpretation of the logistics may anyway be wide of the mark.
>
> 2. (None) Burial Mounds
>
> Jones merely theorises about these, Austin discusses them in a
little
> more detail. With the exception of the Fenny Drayton mound (which
is
> probably prehistoric) there is no evidence that any of the 'mounds'
> are inhumation locales. One the so-called Atterton Lane mound may
> actually be a natural feature!
>
> Consider however, that generally most battlefields burials involve
> mass graves in burial pits. Basically dig a hole, throw the dead in
> and fill it up. With time the grave fill compacts naturally under
its
> own weight and due to decomposition of the corpses. Thus a mass
grave
> would tend to be represented by either a silght depression or have
no
> topographic expression whatsoever.
>
> In order to have burial mounds, one must excavate material from
> pits/trenchs adjacent to the site in order to build the mound up.
> This usually demotes some kind of ritual (as in prehistoric
remains).
> It is not something associated with medieval battelfield burials.
> Look at Towton and Visby (the only two excavted sites to date) for
> the analogies.

I agree that the burial mounds are unlikely to be evidence. Though I
imagine that if ta pit was not dug deep enough (as is likely if the
slaughter was great), then the bodies would have been piled aboue
ground level and then covered. For instance, Leadman's old paper on
Towton (sorry, I don't have a note of the date of it) mentions that
in additon to the pits "A raised mound 2 yd wide, and extending from
the vestry to the tower, still exists on the north side, close by
Lord Dacre's tomb. In digging graves near it from time to time large
quantities of bones of a strong type have been come across."

But that does bring me nicely to another point, and that is that
there must be mass burials somewhere on the true site (the few in the
churchyard do not represent any more than a small sample of the
slain). If these cannot be found in the area under investigation,
then SURELY Jones' site should be studied.

>
> 3. Scenario
>
> No general worth his salt would turn his army's back on an opponent
> once the action has started. Jones points out that Richard had
> already started shooting his cannon before Henry strove to move to
> Richard's flank. It is so laughable in the context of medieval and
> Renaissance military methods as to be laughable, but let us suspend
> disbelief for a moment an assume Jones is on the right track.
>
> We have the clash of the vanguards somewhere northish of Witherley.
> The sources tells us that Oxfords men held fast and held possibly
> even repulsed Norfolk. Thus we have corpses and a stalemate.
Richard
> then effects his heroic charge on Tudor, who summons back pikemen
> from the vanguard, who have to outrun a mounted charge (although
> neither can really have been moving particularly quickly over the
> selions of ridge & furrow). The pike beat the horse in the race and
> arrive at Tudor's position in time to take up a defensive stance.
> Richard is folied but dismounts and proceeds to cut his way into to
> Tudor's 'phalanx' killing Henry's standard bearer before the
Stanleys
> save him.
>
> BUT the Stanleys were last heard of on the northern outskirts of
> Atherstone, possibly being shelled by Richard's guns. They have
now,
> as if by magic, appeared to save Henry. Assuming they have not
> crossed two water courses and avoided the battle of the vanguards,
> then they must have followed the Roman road and Tudor's route.
>
> What this gives us is a strong body of pro-Tudor's troops behind
the
> vanguards. Yet Jones would have us believe that the fighting
> continued and spilled over into Atterton and Fenny Drayton? But it
> does not make sense. I could believe that Norfolk's battle was
forced
> back towards Ratcliffe Bridge. Basically when an army is beaten it
> runs directly away from the enemy/threat. This why there are
> frequently more casualties in pursuit than in battle. For Jones'
> interpretation to be correct then Norfolk would have had to
overwhelm
> Oxford and be pushing him back towards Fenny Drayton. Not one
single
> source suggests that Oxford's battle was broken.
>
> Generals such as Marlborough and Wellington would have dreamed of
the
> tactical manoeuvrability Jones attributes to Tudor's army. His
> scenario is just a fable.

Look, I'm not getting into any of this. I am not studying Bosworth
but something else, and Jones' battle scenario and the site are two
entirely different subjects. The Stanley one could easily be
accounted for by their having tailed Tudor, and even slipped past him
along Fenn Lanes. Anyhow, it seems to me proponents of a site which,
due to its 'interesting' medieval topography, currently relies on the
two armies being drawn up on opposite sides of a very large marsh,
Oxford's men having to turn sideways and charge up a dry corridor no
more than 100m wide at one point to attack Norfolk, and then richard
and his men charging headlong at Tudor apparently wholly unaware this
huge marsh was even there, cannot afford to be too sniffy.
>
> 4. Place Names
>
> King Dick's Hole cannot be traced any further back than the late
> C18th. King Dick's Yard has a similar pedigree. I doubt there is a
> village at any point in western Leicestershire without similar
> traditions. Ken Wright mentioned some in Sutton Cheney. Traditions
of
> this kind are of folkloric interest but are of little valuein
> battlefield studies.

I agree. I might also remind you that Ken Wright's talk relied
heavily on evidence of the same sort, some of it, such as the
attribution of the name Sandeford, having an even worse historical
pedigree.

I would like to make a plea for this whole thing to be argued
honestly, and without diversions such as picking holes in Jones'
hypothetical battle plans, or frankly requiring far higher standards
of the new site than of the Dadlington one. In return, I won't pick
any more holes in Ken Wright's talk. I agree that that too is a
diversion.

The atmosphere, I'm afraid, is now such that one is afraid to admit
to countenancing the possibility of Jones' site for fear of being
labelled 'laughable' along with it. Or of having the pro-Dadlington
people say 'I told you so' if archaeology comes up with genuine proof
that its was indeed where the battle was fought. But I am actually
trying not to take sides, just to plead for minds to be kept open
until after investigations are complete. And for complete
investigations!

Enough for one night,

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I did not find Ken Wright's attitude disrespectful, assertive
> > perhaps. I was intrigued enough by his presentation to by a copy
> of
> > his book, I also bought John D Austin's book as well. I actually
> > found MKJ's presentation somewhat evasive although he is an
> > entertaining speaker. To my mind he was well presented, but short
> on
> > substance. To be honest that is why, since then, I have been
> looking
> > at his interpretation again because I was disappointed in his
> > arguments (and I had read his book beforehand!). I have to say
that
> I
> > am far from convinced about his scenario as will become clear.
>
> I have to agree with you that Michael Jones does not always present
> his case(s) in the best way. He does give his core evidence, on the
> importance of which I find his critics evasive, but does tend to
bury
> same under accumulations of secondary evidence which is often of
> dubious value, rather dense personal visions of the minutiae of the
> action, and new historical interpretations arising from his
> hypothesis. Such interpretations (within reason) are valid, of
> course, but it is no good giving them to an audience/ readership
that
> has not first been persuaded of the value of the hypothesis itself.


Bill: As I said I had read his book beforehand, but I was hoping to
hear some evidence of further development or discussion of his
interpretation. In that I feel I was disappointed.


>
> Ken Wright was not, of course, evasive, but in my view would have
> done better to be evasive than to come out with such flat
statements
> as (here I paraphrase) "David Starkey first mentioned back in the
> 1980s [as I recall] the possibility of the site now associated with
> Michael Jones, but obviously changed his mind [ie saw the light]
> later, as in his next book he referred to the battle
as 'BOSWORTH'."
> This followed by triumphant pause and stare into faces of audience.
> Is this the level of reasoning with which I am supposed to be
> impressed?


Bill: Obviously it did not work if you were unimpressed.


On that basis Michael Jones himself believes in the
> traditional site. I am sure Ken Wright also knows his stuff, but
for
> my money he did himself fewer favours with his presentation than
did
> Michael Jones. You see, the little demon in my head makes me
suspect
> that when knowledgeable people are reduced to this level of
argument
> they probably have something to hide.


Bill: Suspicion is a healthy trait when dealing with matters such as
these. You see that is how I feel about MKJ's approach. For what its
worth I do not buy into Ken Wright's pick for the battle site because
if you look at air photos again then there is a lot of remnant
evidence for ridge and furrow on either side of the tributary of the
Sence that he favours. But in all honesty I have not looked at it in
any depth.


>
> >
> > For now, one example of my unesiness about MKJ's stance. He makes
> > assertions about the presence of pikemen. Yet his evidence is the
> > extracts in the appendix from Spon's paper on the Franc Archers.
> The
> > Franc Archers as I have pointed out before were a trained militia
> > comprising bow, crossbow, halberd pike and even handgunners!
There
> > may have been pike at Bosworth BUT it cannot be proven and the
> > probablity is low.The Merevale window is not evidence as per
> previous
> > posts on the topic some months back.
>
> You may recall that I was in agreement with you on that one.


Bill: True

>
> The French were not 'natural'
> > pikemen unlike the Flemings, the Scots, Germans or the Swiss.
> Indeed
> > the latter at Morat in 1476 were mainly halberdiers with a thin
> crust
> > of pike. At this point the Swiss were wiping the floor with
anyone
> > who dare satnd against them! Thus the balance of probablities is
> that
> > the majority of the French contingent if drawn from the Francs
> > Archers were almost certainly a mixture of missile troops and
> > halberdiers.
> >
> > Why all this fuss about pikemen? Well MKJ makes it a key part of
> his
> > reason for the defeat of Richrd's charge. Although in the event
> > Richard seems to have dismounted and cut his way in.
>
> I agree that the pikemen are not crucial to Jones' explanation of
> Richard's loss of the battle (and, indeed are a completely separate
> issue from that of the battlesite). However, I understand that his
> idea of pikemen comes from two statements in the above document -
one
> that these soldiers were ordered to form at a given distance around
> the standard, and the other that when Tudor saw Richard's cavalry
> bearing down he wanted to dismount and hide in the middle of them.


Bill:But this is a problem with Jones' approach. The document does
not state anything about pikemen. The bit about forming a set
distance from the standard relates to Oxford's men and comes from
Polydore Vergil, it is unrelated to either pikemen or Henry's small
company of horse and foot (as related by Vergil). The reality is that
no evidence is presented to substantiate the presence of pikemen.
There is no evidence one way or another, we just do not know. But MKJ
presents it as a fait accompli which is stretching the truth. I would
have had no problem with him speculating on the presence of pike
provided he distinguished between fact and theory. Alas he all too
often blurs the two.

By the way MKJ is not alone in mentioning pikemen, Michael Bennett
has an unsubstantiated reference to pike in `The Battle of Bosworth'!


So
> if this document is valid we are talking about either a round or a
> square formation, and for obvious reasons not missile troops
> (certainly not archers, as Livia Visser Fuchs suggested in a past
> Ricardian Bulletin).
> >
> >> Foss documents Redemore as does Ken Wright. The Derby Spinney
> thing
> > does not make sense if he is winning the battle (which Polydore
> > Vergil and the rest tell us he is.See comments later for Jones'
> > intrepretation of the battle.


Bill: Polydore Vergil's statement is that Tudor had a small company
of horse and foot. The foot were, I suspect, armed with polearms such
as halberd, glaive, bill, partizan. The Swiss at this time used to
have a colour guard armed with halberds specifically to defend the
flags. It was common practice in the C16th for generals to have
bodyguards (Garde du Corps, Lifeguard) which could be composed of
mounted and dismounted men. The following extract is from the Royal
family website:

`The Queen's Body Guard of the Yeomen of the Guard is the oldest of
the royal bodyguards and the oldest military corps in existence in
Britain. It was created by Henry VII in 1485 at the battle of
Bosworth.'

Whilst being unable to comment in detail on the veracity of this
statement I suspect the foundation of the Yeoman of the Guard in 1485
may not be coincidental.


>
> I think possibly you misunderstood me. I know all these folk cite
the
> Redemore document. My point is that they all cite just this one
> document. Surely something significant enough as a topographical
> feature and as an element of local nomenclature should appear in
> other documents - whether manorial records, local wills or other.
> Finding such references would give us a better idea of the extent
of
> the 'more'. Have all stones really been turned over in the search
of
> such? If not, why not?


Bill: Yes I did misunderstand. There are several reasons why the
documentary record is poor. One is the patchy survival of records and
to be honest in this country we are fortunate in that much does
survive but records are far from complete. Another part of the
problem is the dispersed nature of archives. For example the village
in which I grew up has records deposited in Wakefield, Barnsley,
Sheffield, Doncaster, Leeds, Berkshire and the PRO (and those are the
ones that I have been able to trace via ARCHON). The other aspect of
this is that the folk most likely to turn up odd reference to
support `fields of Dadington', Redemore or Witherley are people
working on genealogy or local history rather than Ricardians. In
order to capitalise on research sensu lato it is necessary that there
is an effective medium for information exchange.


> >
> >.
> > >
> > > They are NOT investigating up to the county boundary, though,
are
> > > they? Not the Fenny Drayton and Whitherley areas. Not unless
> > they've
> > > changed their plans since last year. Perhaps now they've more
> money
> > > they will do this, but I'm not holding my breath.
> >
> >
> > No they are not. However there is no reason, objectively, why
they
> > should.
>
> Objectively there is every reason why they should. Fact is often
> stranger than fiction, and the serious people may turn out to be
> wrong and the evasive TV star may be right, at least about the
site.
> And with contemporary documentary statements giving Merevale as
the
> place Henry slept on the night before the battle (Crowland) and
> Jones' site as the battlefield (the compensation grants), however
> much one may feel inclined to 'get around' this evidence by
dismissal
> or a less than literal interpretation, it is not objective to do so
> without first investigating the physical evidence.


Bill: Crowland is silent on Tudor's location, he says the following
about Richard:

`On departing from the town of Leicester, he was informed by scouts
where the enemy most probably intended to remain the following night;
upon which, he encamped near the abbey of Mirival, at a distance of
about eight miles from that town.'

MKJ emphasises the proximity to Merevale for Richard (in support of
his hypothesis) but the distance 8 miles (from that town, presumably
Leicester) puts it in the vicinity of Ambion not Mythe. This is
another example of how one may make different readings of particular
passages.

My understanding is that MKJ is interpreting that Tudor was at
Merevale on the night 21/22 based on the wording of the document
awarding 100 marks in compensation plus his interpretation of the
chroniclers?

Objectively within the criteria set by Leics CC/Boswroth Battlefield
centre for their investigation there is no need at present to
investigate the MKJ site. If the investigations fail to provide any
archaeological evidence of the battle within the area specified in
the study then objectively it will be necessary to look at
alternatives. At that point it would be appropriate to examine the
MKJ site plus any others. It is poor methodology to attempt
everything all at once. Ideally of course there would be enough money
to test all alternatives but that is not how it works. Test one
hypothesis at a time!

>
> >
> >
> > > > furrow typical of common/open fields. Inimical to cavalry
> charges
> > I
> > > > am afraid:-)
> > >
> > > We can't have too small a hill to start on. We can't have
> generally
> > > boggy terrain. Or woodland. We can't have ridge and furrow (do
we
> > > know for sure it was ridge and furrow then? Has any study been
> > > carried out?). What would be suitable: solid unboggy heath?
nice
> > > sheepwolds? pastureland? I'm not an expert on military tactics
> and
> > I
> > > don't ride, please tell me what - and where we might find it in
> the
> > > right locale.
>
> No answer?

Bill: One of the things about the recognition of ridge & furrow is
that it points to cultivated fields. The mention of Redemore in the
York documents in 1485 is a very early association (as indeed is
Henry Tudor's proclamation mentioning Sandeford). These are
descriptive of the landscape, Redemore/Redesmore has the meaning of
name as a heath or moor next to some reeds. This patently does not
describe a locality in/under cultivation. True the identifiaction
depends upon one document however at least it is one which is
demonstrably earlier than the battle.


>
> >
> >
> > Here are my reasons for interpreting most of the Jones
battlefield
> as
> > being 'open field'. It is only an interpretation but it does seek
> to
> > make use of the map, air photo and landscape history I have been
> > attempting to collate.
> >
> > Ridge & Furrow. Examination of the air photos show areas of ridge
> and
> > furrow preserved in the north of Witherley Township between Mythe
> > Cottage and Ratcliffe Culey. Ther are also occurrences in the
> eastern
> > part of Racliffe Culey Township next to the boundary with
Atterton
> > which also preserves ridge and furrow. Much of the area is
> > intensively farmed so ploughing etc. has removed other traces.
> There
> > is a Witherley Fields which shows that is a new farmstead placed
> > within the midst of the former open fields of Witherley.
>
> Comparable evidence to "the fields of Dadlington", perhaps?


Bill: in campis de Daddington? Probably.

>
> The township
> > boundary (from the 1854 County Series map) between Ratcliffe
> > Culey/Witherley, east Witherley, east Ratcliffe Culey and west
> > Atterton show an interlocking trace. This is a characteristic
> pattern
> > in lowland areas of division of existing field patterns between
two
> > administrative territories, possibly being determined by
> > headlands/furlongs in an open field. Ratcliffe Culey was enclosed
> in
> > 1766 but I have been unable to find the enclosure dates for
> > Witherley, Atterton & Fenny drayton yet.
>
> It is difficult to discuss this properly without reference to a
map,
> but none of these sites, I think, actually crosses Jones' proposed
> cavalry charge.

Bill: On the subject of a map I suggest anyone interested without
access to MKJ's book look at the website of the American branch of
the society where MKJ rehearses his arguments in brief and there is a
copy of his map. There are also a lot of useful pages concerning
sources and other interpreations. For a C19th view of the topography
visit http://www.old-maps.co.uk/ (these are the later 1890s editions
but the boundaries are the same) but you can also access a currrent
1:50,000 OS map and even coarse grid air photos.

Taking Jones' view of the cavalry charge is constrained by where he
thinks Sandeford might be, it would start in Ratcliffe Culey township
and cross into Witherley (approx. due north of the village). There
may be a problem in that there is a hedge that from map evidence may
mark a medieval boundary which would be an additional barrier. To be
honest I have yet to test whether it is of sufficient antiquity to
have been around in 1485 so it is probably not fair to claim it as
a `barrier' to Jones' scenario.


Also, I wonder
> a) what the state of even arable land would have been on 22nd
August.
> There were crops damaged, but could these have been harvested crops
> drying in small stacks across the fields? Remember, 22nd August is
> about 2nd September in today's money. Also (presumably where such
> stacks did not exist) animals may have been turned on to the fields
> to graze on the stubble and fertilise the ground for the coming
year.
> Presumably they would have trodden down the ridges considerably.
> Again, I am not a rider and I would be interested in a view from
any
> horseman or -woman on the list, but I would imagine that horses,
like
> people, adapt to difficult ground if they are weaned on it, and the
> state of medieval roads being what it was Richard's post system
would
> have been impossible if the horses had not been able to gallop over
> quite rough ground.


Bill: The presence/absence of crops is of little significnace, ridge
& furrow is a 3D phenomenon within the topography. It exists as a
corrugated surface to the landscape. The presence or otherwise of
crops is minor when compared to the actual surface. Trampling by
cavalry is hardly an option these things are wave like undulations
220yds long by 11yds wide with an inverted S plan and a rise up the
positive relief to the ridge. I have seen examples that a have relief
6" to 1 foot today and which presumably were higher in the past.

The key thing about a cavalry charge is that it is not one man
charging it is a body of mounted men. The analogy about rapid
movement of a single courier really does not hold true, as he would
travel light, frequently posting/changing horses.

For a cavalry charge to be effective there have to be a number of
mounted men advancing towards the enemy. The whole point of this is
to intimidate and get the enemy to break (whether or not he is
mounted or on foot). If the enemy morale does not fail then one of
two things happen, a melee ensues or the charging cavalry break off
the action. The charging cavalry have to remain together in some sort
of body, as individually they are vulnerable and not particularly
intimidating. This in turn means that the `charge' is not some hell
for leather thing if it is to be effective. A chap called Mark Adkin
has written a book about the Light Brigade that gives a good analysis
of the dynamics of a cavalry charge which provides some interesting
insights that may be applicable to some aspects of C15th warfare. A
good example of undisciplined cavalry charges is provided by the
French at Crecy in 1346.

The key thing that one needs to grasp is that one mounted man may be
able move with some alacrity over ridge & furrow but it becomes more
difficult to move quickly and in a body over such ground. This is why
it is inimical to cavalry charges. Leicestershire as I am sure you
are aware is excellent hunting country, but a hunt is not composed of
a uniform body of horseman attempting to attack a formed body of
troops. Another way to think about it is that race courses in this
country have been placed on flatish ground such heathland or common
pasture (e.g. New Market, Knavesmire at York, Pitchcroft at
Worcester). There was a good reason for doing so.


>
>
> >
> > In summary the evidence suggests that the area around Witherley
was
> > covered by ridge & furrow marks typical of opne field
cultivation.
> > Good basic discussions of this kind of agriculture may be found
in
> > Hoskins Making of the English Landscape and Oliver Rackham's book
> on
> > the history of the British countryside. Richard Muir also has
> written
> > several books on landscape history. The selions which comprise
> ridge
> > & furrow traces would have provided an entsive corrugated surface
> > (strips up to a furlong in length and at least 3m wide). These
> would
> > provide a hindrance to any movement whether on horse or foot.
> >
> > Here are some of my reasons for doubting MKJ's view of Bosworth:
> >
> > 1. Compensation Grants. Austin, Wright and Fosss in various
places
> > print the details of the grants made to the 'Atherstone towns',
yet
> > Jones for whom this is a key piece of evidence does not. Why? To
> > prevent argument hear are the values from Austin's book.
> >
> > Merevale Abbey: 100marks (1 mark = 13/4d IIRC?)
> >
> > Athertsone: £20 plus £4 13/- 4d
> > Witherley: £13
> > Mancetter: £5 19/-
> > Fenny Drayton: £20
> > Atterton: £8 10/-
> >
> > Basically Witherley gets less than Fenny Drayton? But Jones has
the
> > Tudor army moving up on Richards troops through Witherly
township!
> > The data does NOT show that the battle occurred where Jones has
> > interrpeted it. It is more consistent with the interpretation of
> > extensive foraging around Atherstone.
>
> For listers who have forgotten and don't have a map to hand, the
> places listed in the compensation grant form a ring around Michael
> Jones' proposed site. If this was compensation for foraging before
> the battlesite was reached, then why are there no other grants for
> places damaged en route?


Bill: Again we come to the fragmentray nature of the written record.
We know about the grants because they were collated in a book on
materials concerning the reign of Henry VII. To date no others have
come to light it is true but the absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence.


The only one is for Merevale, and that
> clearly describes the money as paying for damage caused "by our
> people coming toward our late field". The 5 villages grant, on the
> contrary, is for damage caused "at our late victorious field".
Also,
> if for foraging en route, would the villages compensated have been
> more along a line than in a square?


Bill: Look at the road pattern and it is possible to justify the
grants in terms of movement along the Roman Road, Fenn Lane/Atterton
Lane. It is also possible to justify it in the context foraging
forward from Atherstone on the 20th and back from Whitemoor on the
21st. Not evidence but an laternative view of "at our late victorious
field".


> For a period like this, for which the documentary evidence is
> slight, we have to be particularly careful not to tweak it.
Whatever
> it baldly says, no matter how different from our preconceived
> notions, we should investigate, and only decide that it meant
> something slightly different when we have really proved that the
> surface reading cannot have been the reality.


Bill: I agree but are we reading it in translation? We are certainly
reading a transcription? Has anyone (MKJ included) actually gone back
to the patent rolls (and checked the original. There has been no end
of problem caused by a line missed from Crowland as discussed by
Michael Bennett. I am not Latin scholar but I would feel happier
about the compensation grant evidence if I could see the original
phrasing alongside the translation/transcription.


> As for why Witherley got less than Fenny Drayton, there are several
> possible reasons. Was it a smaller townland, perhaps?


Bill: No most of the village occurs in the south of the township, its
common field lie to the north where Jones postulates the battle.
Fenny Drayton lies directly behind Witherley part of the boundary is
actually a stream in the northern section of the Witherley-Fenny
Drayton boundary. The contact of the main body by Jones' map would be
in the northern part of Witherley and that would be the location
where one would expect the most damage.


Did Fenny
> Drayton actually suffer more because this is where the worst of the
> battle was fought (at the end)? You appear above to have placed
more
> of the action close to Witherley than Jones actually does, and
Jones'
> interpretation of the logistics may anyway be wide of the mark.


Bill: Not my interpretation Jones'! Look at where he places the
arrow on his map. It is clealry in Withelry township to the north of
the village. Fenny Drayton is to the rear and to the east of this
position. If fighting spilled into Fenny Drayton and even Atterton
then it points to Tudor's army being creamed, yet this was not the
case. The main force under Oxford more than held its own against
Norfolk, those sources who discuss the fight in any detail make this
clear.

If one accepts Jones' account then the fighting in Fenny Drayton
would be overspill and contextually ought to have been more
fragmented than the initial clash.



> >
> > 2. (None) Burial Mounds
> >
> > Jones merely theorises about these, Austin discusses them in a
> little
> > more detail. With the exception of the Fenny Drayton mound (which
> is
> > probably prehistoric) there is no evidence that any of
the 'mounds'
> > are inhumation locales. One the so-called Atterton Lane mound may
> > actually be a natural feature!
> >
> > Consider however, that generally most battlefields burials
involve
> > mass graves in burial pits. Basically dig a hole, throw the dead
in
> > and fill it up. With time the grave fill compacts naturally under
> its
> > own weight and due to decomposition of the corpses. Thus a mass
> grave
> > would tend to be represented by either a silght depression or
have
> no
> > topographic expression whatsoever.
> >
> > In order to have burial mounds, one must excavate material from
> > pits/trenchs adjacent to the site in order to build the mound up.
> > This usually demotes some kind of ritual (as in prehistoric
> remains).
> > It is not something associated with medieval battelfield burials.
> > Look at Towton and Visby (the only two excavted sites to date)
for
> > the analogies.
>
> I agree that the burial mounds are unlikely to be evidence. Though
I
> imagine that if ta pit was not dug deep enough (as is likely if the
> slaughter was great), then the bodies would have been piled aboue
> ground level and then covered. For instance, Leadman's old paper on
> Towton (sorry, I don't have a note of the date of it) mentions that
> in additon to the pits "A raised mound 2 yd wide, and extending
from
> the vestry to the tower, still exists on the north side, close by
> Lord Dacre's tomb. In digging graves near it from time to time
large
> quantities of bones of a strong type have been come across."


Bill: The trouble is if one does not dig out enough earth from the
trench in the first place then there is not enough earth to through
on the mounded of bodies and in due course there will be a most
unsanitary smell. Eventually after decomposition the mound would
collapse, the more so as the skeletal remains would be more than
usually exposed to percolation by meteoric waters and probable
oxidation/degradation. A burial mound does require a lot of effort to
make in contrast to digging a trench.

Ah good old Alex Leadman. A fine Victorian antiquary. He did a paper
in Yorks Arch Journal on Marston Moor in the 1890s as well as
authoring a book `Battles fought in Yorkshire'. Trouble is a lot of
it is legend and folklore. Obviously I cannot answer to the Towton
paper you mention.

Alas I saw no indication of a raised mound in Saxton churchyard when
I was last at Towton (about 5 years ago). Question is did Dacre's
tomb originally stand in the churchyard or inside the church? I am
sure if you dig anywhere in Saxton church yard it would be possible
to turn up bones.

The Towton burials (as excavated) point to burial in a trench. C18th
cartographic data point to grave pits on the field itself, although
there was a report at last year's battlefield arcaheology conference
that a new burial site connected with Towton had just been found. No
details have been forthcoming. The Visby burials were definitely in a
trench.

One problem with Bosworth is that the reports of the dead by the
chroniclers are remarkably modest 1000 – 3000 compared to the
outrageous 28000 for Towton. My point is that I think these numbers
are probably inaccurate but reflect that Bosworth was far less bloody
than Towton. The scale of casualties and thus burials may be actually
quite modest. In general terms for this casualties in combat tend to
be less severe than those inflicted by the victor on a fleeing enemy.
From what some sources say it looks as if Richards troops (the ones
that made it into the fight that is) just gave up when it became
known that Richard had been slain. Again conjecture on my part but
rooted in some of the literary material.



>
> But that does bring me nicely to another point, and that is that
> there must be mass burials somewhere on the true site (the few in
the
> churchyard do not represent any more than a small sample of the
> slain). If these cannot be found in the area under investigation,
> then SURELY Jones' site should be studied.
>
> >
> > 3. Scenario
> >
> > No general worth his salt would turn his army's back on an
opponent
> > once the action has started. Jones points out that Richard had
> > already started shooting his cannon before Henry strove to move
to
> > Richard's flank. It is so laughable in the context of medieval
and
> > Renaissance military methods as to be laughable, but let us
suspend
> > disbelief for a moment an assume Jones is on the right track.
> >
> > We have the clash of the vanguards somewhere northish of
Witherley.
> > The sources tells us that Oxfords men held fast and held possibly
> > even repulsed Norfolk. Thus we have corpses and a stalemate.
> Richard
> > then effects his heroic charge on Tudor, who summons back pikemen
> > from the vanguard, who have to outrun a mounted charge (although
> > neither can really have been moving particularly quickly over the
> > selions of ridge & furrow). The pike beat the horse in the race
and
> > arrive at Tudor's position in time to take up a defensive stance.
> > Richard is folied but dismounts and proceeds to cut his way into
to
> > Tudor's 'phalanx' killing Henry's standard bearer before the
> Stanleys
> > save him.
> >
> > BUT the Stanleys were last heard of on the northern outskirts of
> > Atherstone, possibly being shelled by Richard's guns. They have
> now,
> > as if by magic, appeared to save Henry. Assuming they have not
> > crossed two water courses and avoided the battle of the
vanguards,
> > then they must have followed the Roman road and Tudor's route.
> >
> > What this gives us is a strong body of pro-Tudor's troops behind
> the
> > vanguards. Yet Jones would have us believe that the fighting
> > continued and spilled over into Atterton and Fenny Drayton? But
it
> > does not make sense. I could believe that Norfolk's battle was
> forced
> > back towards Ratcliffe Bridge. Basically when an army is beaten
it
> > runs directly away from the enemy/threat. This why there are
> > frequently more casualties in pursuit than in battle. For Jones'
> > interpretation to be correct then Norfolk would have had to
> overwhelm
> > Oxford and be pushing him back towards Fenny Drayton. Not one
> single
> > source suggests that Oxford's battle was broken.
> >
> > Generals such as Marlborough and Wellington would have dreamed of
> the
> > tactical manoeuvrability Jones attributes to Tudor's army. His
> > scenario is just a fable.
>
> Look, I'm not getting into any of this. I am not studying Bosworth
> but something else, and Jones' battle scenario and the site are two
> entirely different subjects.

Bill: I will respect your decision not to discuss this, but I will
say that the site and the senario cannot be divorced from each other.
One is the canvas for the other. Together the two represent a
significant reworking/revisionism of the evidence, over which you and
I obviously disagree.



The Stanley one could easily be
> accounted for by their having tailed Tudor, and even slipped past
him
> along Fenn Lanes.

Bill: That would be too wide in my opinion but if you look at my
initial post I suggest that the Stanleys might have followed Henry.
As ever the sources can be read in several ways but if the Stanleys
had gone straight ahead across the Anker they would have been in a
position to hit Norfolk in the flank (fits Molinet) but that would
limit their capacity to intervene against Richard.


Anyhow, it seems to me proponents of a site which,
> due to its 'interesting' medieval topography, currently relies on
the
> two armies being drawn up on opposite sides of a very large marsh,
> Oxford's men having to turn sideways and charge up a dry corridor
no
> more than 100m wide at one point to attack Norfolk, and then
richard
> and his men charging headlong at Tudor apparently wholly unaware
this
> huge marsh was even there, cannot afford to be too sniffy.


Bill: I am not attempting to defend the Dadlington scenario because I
have not spent any time looking at either Foss' original or Foard's
version. As far as I understand the Redemore thing it is supposed to
be an area of rough grazing bounded by marsh (or just even reedy
wetland) consequent upon sluggish drainage. If I understand correctly
the arguments for this are geological, at least in part. Foard
seemed, from what I could gleam from the conference, to have a more
restrictive view of the effects of the terrain than does Foss. The
latter seems to place the marsh astride the road about his locality
for Sandeford and views it as being less extensive than if Foard's
interpretation. Some of Foss' discussion hinges around the geology,
it seemed to make sense, there again I am geologist amybe it would!

One problem with 100m wide corridor is as to how strong was Oxford's
battle? If it was relatively weak then it is not impossible he may
have sought to protect his flank with the marsh and 100m may have
been all he needed to manoeuvre in. Equally it is possible that 100m
may not have been enough. Other factors also need to be born in mind
such as how wet was the summer of 1485? How waterlogged were the
margins of the moor/heath.

Another factor is that Medieval armies moved much slower than we are
inclined to think. Richard's capacity to respond is governed by who
he has and where they are on the field. The absence of reliable
numbers for the armies is a serious handicap in modelling the action.
To take an old analogy it is like playing space invaders with a 60
second time delay.




> >
> > 4. Place Names
> >
> > King Dick's Hole cannot be traced any further back than the late
> > C18th. King Dick's Yard has a similar pedigree. I doubt there is
a
> > village at any point in western Leicestershire without similar
> > traditions. Ken Wright mentioned some in Sutton Cheney.
Traditions
> of
> > this kind are of folkloric interest but are of little valuein
> > battlefield studies.
>
> I agree. I might also remind you that Ken Wright's talk relied
> heavily on evidence of the same sort, some of it, such as the
> attribution of the name Sandeford, having an even worse historical
> pedigree.

Bill: I disagree here. The Redemore/Sandeford material is of a
different calibre to the `King Dick's Hole' etc. traditions. Both the
former have impeccable pedigrees in terms of association with the
battle. The latter do not. I actually think that Ken's placing of
Sandeford is not particularly convincing, but in his book he admits
that there are other alternatives.


>
> I would like to make a plea for this whole thing to be argued
> honestly, and without diversions such as picking holes in Jones'
> hypothetical battle plans, or frankly requiring far higher
standards
> of the new site than of the Dadlington one. In return, I won't pick
> any more holes in Ken Wright's talk. I agree that that too is a
> diversion.
>
> The atmosphere, I'm afraid, is now such that one is afraid to admit
> to countenancing the possibility of Jones' site for fear of being
> labelled 'laughable' along with it. Or of having the pro-Dadlington
> people say 'I told you so' if archaeology comes up with genuine
proof
> that its was indeed where the battle was fought. But I am actually
> trying not to take sides, just to plead for minds to be kept open
> until after investigations are complete. And for complete
> investigations!


Marie I think you are being unfair and a tad oversensitive here and I
also resent the implication that I called you 'laughable'. I took
some pains to outline the fruits of my investigations of MKJ's
hypothesis and interpretations (which are by no means complete). My
comments were not aimed at you in a personal way and I took pains to
present some of my reasoning, rather than indulge in mere assertion.
I have absolutely no problem in you criticising either the Dadlington
site nor Ken Wright's site. That is your prerogative in a free
society. Indeed some of the objections you raise to both the latter
(and there are others) will need to be addressed before either could
be accepted as proven. You are surely not advocationg the unqualified
acceptance of any hypothesis without it being put to question and
investigation?

As to analysis of MKJ's interpretations they stand and fall by his
reasoning and the by the evidence marshalled in their support. The
scenario is not mine it is MKJ's. I have only attempted to understand
his interpretation in the context of the evidence he is prepared to
reveal. The frustrating thing about Jones is he presents a new way of
looking at Richard's character and motivation which is appealing and
indeed radical. Yet his tendency to be not entirely open with the
sources means that the "little demon in my head makes me suspect
that when knowledgeable people are reduced to this level of argument
they probably have something to hide." as you so eloquently put it.

I am sorry that you have got upset, and as far anything I have done
has been the cause of it I apologise without reservation. On the
other issues I fear we shall have to agree to differ but I think we
can agree that the wrong man won on the 22nd Augsut 1485?

Regards

Bill

> Bill: As I said I had read his book beforehand, but I was hoping to
> hear some evidence of further development or discussion of his
> interpretation. In that I feel I was disappointed.

Marie: I'll have to make this reply brief. I spent all night on one,
then lost it. Yes, I came away none the wiser. Jones offered some
fascinating asides, but did not really peg his theory down. Paul
Startin's Dadlington map and scenario looked hopeless. But in August
Jones' site looked good on viewing.
>
For what its
> worth I do not buy into Ken Wright's pick for the battle site
because
> if you look at air photos again then there is a lot of remnant
> evidence for ridge and furrow on either side of the tributary of
the
> Sence that he favours. But in all honesty I have not looked at it
in
> any depth.

Marie: Which seems to leave us with three problem sites.
>
>
> >
> > >
>
> > >
> > > Why all this fuss about pikemen? Well MKJ makes it a key part >
> Bill:But this is a problem with Jones' approach. The document does
> not state anything about pikemen. The bit about forming a set
> distance from the standard relates to Oxford's men and comes from
> Polydore Vergil, it is unrelated to either pikemen or Henry's small
> company of horse and foot (as related by Vergil).

Marie: Yes, I see you're right, though he says Molinet also claims
that Oxford and Chandee both used the French arrangements of
centaines. I agree, though, that one cannot leap from square to
square (ie from French squares to pikes squares). The one about Tudor
wanting to hide amongst them does come from Chandee, though, and this
suggests these were not people about to be firing off missiles at the
approaching enemy.

Alas he all too
> often blurs the two.

Marie: But we must still assess the evidence for the Atherstone-Fenny
Drayton site on its own merits, not the merits of some other argument
of Jones', or indeed on the merits of his presentation of the site.
>.
>
>>
> `The Queen's Body Guard of the Yeomen of the Guard is the oldest of
> the royal bodyguards and the oldest military corps in existence in
> Britain. It was created by Henry VII in 1485 at the battle of
> Bosworth.'
>
> Whilst being unable to comment in detail on the veracity of this
> statement I suspect the foundation of the Yeoman of the Guard in
1485
> may not be coincidental.

Marie: I think you're almost certainly right.
>
>>
>
> Bill: Yes I did misunderstand. There are several reasons why the
> documentary record is poor. One is the patchy survival of records
and
> to be honest in this country we are fortunate in that much does
> survive but records are far from complete. Another part of the
> problem is the dispersed nature of archives. For example the
village
> in which I grew up has records deposited in Wakefield, Barnsley,
> Sheffield, Doncaster, Leeds, Berkshire and the PRO (and those are
the
> ones that I have been able to trace via ARCHON). The other aspect
of
> this is that the folk most likely to turn up odd reference to
> support `fields of Dadington', Redemore or Witherley are people
> working on genealogy or local history rather than Ricardians. In
> order to capitalise on research sensu lato it is necessary that
there
> is an effective medium for information exchange.

Marie: I'm only too well aware. But contacting family historians and
genealogists is not so hard. Local history societies. FFHS
(Federation of Family History Socs) branches. Internet genealogy
message boards. Plus old-fashioned slog. The site has been under
dispute of some sort for 20 years, fo heaven's sake.
>
> Bill: Crowland is silent on Tudor's location, he says the following
> about Richard:
>
> `On departing from the town of Leicester, he was informed by scouts
> where the enemy most probably intended to remain the following
night;
> upon which, he encamped near the abbey of Mirival, at a distance of
> about eight miles from that town.'

Marie: I wouldn't call that being "silent on Henry's location": the
inference is clear.
>
> MKJ emphasises the proximity to Merevale for Richard (in support of
> his hypothesis) but the distance 8 miles (from that town,
presumably
> Leicester) puts it in the vicinity of Ambion not Mythe. This is
> another example of how one may make different readings of
particular
> passages.

Marie: My software gives the shortest route from Leicester to Sutton
Cheyney (nearest it can provide to Ambion hill) as 12.3 miles. So 8
miles is wrong for any scenario. Which is Crowland more likely to
have mistaken, his king's intended destination (or perhaps
enacampment place as reported by Tudor's incoming army next day), or
the distance?
>
> My understanding is that MKJ is interpreting that Tudor was at
> Merevale on the night 21/22 based on the wording of the document
> awarding 100 marks in compensation plus his interpretation of the
> chroniclers?

Marie: He uses both. I also feel that they tend to support each other.
>
> Objectively within the criteria set by Leics CC/Boswroth
Battlefield
> centre for their investigation there is no need at present to
> investigate the MKJ site. If the investigations fail to provide
any
> archaeological evidence of the battle within the area specified in
> the study then objectively it will be necessary to look at
> alternatives. At that point it would be appropriate to examine the
> MKJ site plus any others. It is poor methodology to attempt
> everything all at once. Ideally of course there would be enough
money
> to test all alternatives but that is not how it works. Test one
> hypothesis at a time!

Marie: Fine, I wasn't suggesting they should be everywhere at once.
But that won't happen, will it, because LCC will have already rebuilt
the Visitors' Centre. Which was my whole problem. So it seems we're
really in agreement there.
>
> >
> Bill: One of the things about the recognition of ridge & furrow is
> that it points to cultivated fields. The mention of Redemore in the
> York documents in 1485 is a very early association (as indeed is
> Henry Tudor's proclamation mentioning Sandeford). These are
> descriptive of the landscape, Redemore/Redesmore has the meaning of
> name as a heath or moor next to some reeds. This patently does not
> describe a locality in/under cultivation. True the identifiaction
> depends upon one document however at least it is one which is
> demonstrably earlier than the battle.

Marie: And Sheepy means "island of dry land in marsh where sheep are
grazed". Just what the doctor ordered!


> >
> Bill: On the subject of a map I suggest anyone interested without
> access to MKJ's book look at the website of the American branch of
> the society where MKJ rehearses his arguments in brief and there is
a
> copy of his map. There are also a lot of useful pages concerning
> sources and other interpreations. For a C19th view of the
topography
> visit http://www.old-maps.co.uk/ (these are the later 1890s
editions
> but the boundaries are the same) but you can also access a currrent
> 1:50,000 OS map and even coarse grid air photos.
>
> Taking Jones' view of the cavalry charge is constrained by where he
> thinks Sandeford might be, it would start in Ratcliffe Culey
township
> and cross into Witherley (approx. due north of the village). There
> may be a problem in that there is a hedge that from map evidence
may
> mark a medieval boundary which would be an additional barrier. To
be
> honest I have yet to test whether it is of sufficient antiquity to
> have been around in 1485 so it is probably not fair to claim it as
> a `barrier' to Jones' scenario.
>
> > Bill: The presence/absence of crops is of little significnace,
ridge
> & furrow is a 3D phenomenon within the topography. It exists as a
> corrugated surface to the landscape. The presence or otherwise of
> crops is minor when compared to the actual surface. Trampling by
> cavalry is hardly an option these things are wave like undulations
> 220yds long by 11yds wide with an inverted S plan and a rise up the
> positive relief to the ridge. I have seen examples that a have
relief
> 6" to 1 foot today and which presumably were higher in the past.
>
> The key thing about a cavalry charge is that it is not one man
> charging it is a body of mounted men. The analogy about rapid
> movement of a single courier really does not hold true, as he would
> travel light, frequently posting/changing horses.
>
> For a cavalry charge to be effective there have to be a number of
> mounted men advancing towards the enemy. The whole point of this is
> to intimidate and get the enemy to break (whether or not he is
> mounted or on foot). If the enemy morale does not fail then one of
> two things happen, a melee ensues or the charging cavalry break off
> the action. The charging cavalry have to remain together in some
sort
> of body, as individually they are vulnerable and not particularly
> intimidating. This in turn means that the `charge' is not some hell
> for leather thing if it is to be effective. A chap called Mark
Adkin
> has written a book about the Light Brigade that gives a good
analysis
> of the dynamics of a cavalry charge which provides some interesting
> insights that may be applicable to some aspects of C15th warfare. A
> good example of undisciplined cavalry charges is provided by the
> French at Crecy in 1346.
>
> The key thing that one needs to grasp is that one mounted man may
be
> able move with some alacrity over ridge & furrow but it becomes
more
> difficult to move quickly and in a body over such ground. This is
why
> it is inimical to cavalry charges. Leicestershire as I am sure you
> are aware is excellent hunting country, but a hunt is not composed
of
> a uniform body of horseman attempting to attack a formed body of
> troops. Another way to think about it is that race courses in this
> country have been placed on flatish ground such heathland or common
> pasture (e.g. New Market, Knavesmire at York, Pitchcroft at
> Worcester). There was a good reason for doing so.
>
> Marie: Okay, I know nothing about cavalry. I shouldn't have
digressed, but we still don't know whether there was ridge and furrow
over the whole area.
> >
> >
> > >>
> Bill: Again we come to the fragmentray nature of the written
record.
> We know about the grants because they were collated in a book on
> materials concerning the reign of Henry VII. To date no others have
> come to light it is true but the absence of evidence is not
evidence
> of absence.

Marie: If as you say below, the compensation grant, although
reproduced in Campbell's 'Materials', comes originally from the
Patent Rolls, then we should have any other grants made as the Patent
Rolls survive, so far as I know, intact from Henry's reign. Certainly
the published version is two big volumes. It is a very well
documented reign compared with the preceding ones (Campbell, for
inst., is 8 very fat volumes). If you are suggesting there were
grants to places all the way from Dale to Leicester, then a) where
are they? (see above), and b)why are the only surviving ones by
coincidence in the 'hot' area?
>
>
> The only one is for Merevale, and that
> > clearly describes the money as paying for damage caused "by our
> > people coming toward our late field". The 5 villages grant, on
the
> > contrary, is for damage caused "at our late victorious field".
> Also,
> > if for foraging en route, would the villages compensated have
been
> > more along a line than in a square?
>
>
> Bill: Look at the road pattern and it is possible to justify the
> grants in terms of movement along the Roman Road, Fenn
Lane/Atterton
> Lane. It is also possible to justify it in the context foraging
> forward from Atherstone on the 20th and back from Whitemoor on the
> 21st. Not evidence but an laternative view of "at our late
victorious
> field".

Marie: Sorry, Bill, 'at' means 'at' (not for nothing did I used to be
a technical editor).
>
>
> >>
> Bill: I agree but are we reading it in translation? We are
certainly
> reading a transcription? Has anyone (MKJ included) actually gone
back
> to the patent rolls (and checked the original. There has been no
end
> of problem caused by a line missed from Crowland as discussed by
> Michael Bennett. I am not Latin scholar but I would feel happier
> about the compensation grant evidence if I could see the original
> phrasing alongside the translation/transcription.

Marie: The Patent Rolls are usually read in the published
translation. But if this were my subject of study and I had such a
critical doc. I would certainly go and view the original. If this
hasn't been done it should have been: it's a question of the original
Latin preposition, isn't it?
>
>
> > As for why Witherley got less than Fenny Drayton, there are
several
> > possible reasons. Was it a smaller townland, perhaps?
>
>
> Bill: No most of the village occurs in the south of the township,
its
> common field lie to the north where Jones postulates the battle.
> Fenny Drayton lies directly behind Witherley part of the boundary
is
> actually a stream in the northern section of the Witherley-Fenny
> Drayton boundary. The contact of the main body by Jones' map would
be
> in the northern part of Witherley and that would be the location
> where one would expect the most damage.

Marie: Don't take Jones' map too seriously. That the battle happened
at the location covered by these townlands is what the grant says;
Jones then comes up with a map of his idea of one stage of the
battle - you can't dismiss the compensation grant on the basis of
this.
>
>
> Did Fenny
> > Drayton actually suffer more because this is where the worst of
the
> > battle was fought (at the end)? You appear above to have placed
> more
> > of the action close to Witherley than Jones actually does, and
> Jones'
> > interpretation of the logistics may anyway be wide of the mark.
>
>
> Bill: Not my interpretation Jones'! Look at where he places the
> arrow on his map. It is clealry in Withelry township to the north
of
> the village. Fenny Drayton is to the rear and to the east of this
> position. If fighting spilled into Fenny Drayton and even Atterton
> then it points to Tudor's army being creamed, yet this was not the
> case. The main force under Oxford more than held its own against
> Norfolk, those sources who discuss the fight in any detail make
this
> clear.

Marie: Sorry, I was going by what he appeared to be pointing out on
his guided tour. Remember, that map relates to a different phase of
the battle. I don't know how you get from one phase to the other, but
I suspect Jones took the villages names in the grant too literally
and tried to hug the villages, as opposed to making do with their
associated land) in building his scenario. We could all do with map
of parish and townlands boundaries.
>
> > Bill: The trouble is if one does not dig out enough earth from
the
> trench in the first place then there is not enough earth to through
> on the mounded of bodies and in due course there will be a most
> unsanitary smell. Eventually after decomposition the mound would
> collapse, the more so as the skeletal remains would be more than
> usually exposed to percolation by meteoric waters and probable
> oxidation/degradation. A burial mound does require a lot of effort
to
> make in contrast to digging a trench.

Marie: Wouldn't they just dig more topsoil from the surrounding land
and pile it on? Much easier than digging another deep hole.
>
> Ah good old Alex Leadman. A fine Victorian antiquary. He did a
paper
> in Yorks Arch Journal on Marston Moor in the 1890s as well as
> authoring a book `Battles fought in Yorkshire'. Trouble is a lot of
> it is legend and folklore. Obviously I cannot answer to the Towton
> paper you mention.
>
> Alas I saw no indication of a raised mound in Saxton churchyard
when
> I was last at Towton (about 5 years ago). Question is did Dacre's
> tomb originally stand in the churchyard or inside the church? I am
> sure if you dig anywhere in Saxton church yard it would be possible
> to turn up bones.
>
> The Towton burials (as excavated) point to burial in a trench.
C18th
> cartographic data point to grave pits on the field itself, although
> there was a report at last year's battlefield arcaheology
conference
> that a new burial site connected with Towton had just been found.
No
> details have been forthcoming. The Visby burials were definitely in
a
> trench.

Marie: He talked about the pits first. Then he referred to the mound.
>
> One problem with Bosworth is that the reports of the dead by the
> chroniclers are remarkably modest 1000 – 3000 compared to the
> outrageous 28000 for Towton. My point is that I think these numbers
> are probably inaccurate but reflect that Bosworth was far less
bloody
> than Towton. The scale of casualties and thus burials may be
actually
> quite modest. In general terms for this casualties in combat tend
to
> be less severe than those inflicted by the victor on a fleeing
enemy.
> From what some sources say it looks as if Richards troops (the ones
> that made it into the fight that is) just gave up when it became
> known that Richard had been slain. Again conjecture on my part but
> rooted in some of the literary material.

Marie: I don't dispute that this is not Towton, but there should
still have been a significant number of bodies buried.
>
>
>
> > Bill: I will respect your decision not to discuss this, but I
will
> say that the site and the senario cannot be divorced from each
other.
> One is the canvas for the other.

Marie: I've given my reasons above why I do not accept this. I base
my interest not on Jones' scenario, but on the compensation grants
which, taken together with Crowland, have aroused my interest.

>
> Bill: I am not attempting to defend the Dadlington scenario because
I
> have not spent any time looking at either Foss' original or Foard's
> version. As far as I understand the Redemore thing it is supposed
to
> be an area of rough grazing bounded by marsh (or just even reedy
> wetland) consequent upon sluggish drainage. If I understand
correctly
> the arguments for this are geological, at least in part. Foard
> seemed, from what I could gleam from the conference, to have a more
> restrictive view of the effects of the terrain than does Foss. The
> latter seems to place the marsh astride the road about his locality
> for Sandeford and views it as being less extensive than if Foard's
> interpretation. Some of Foss' discussion hinges around the geology,
> it seemed to make sense, there again I am geologist amybe it would!
>
> One problem with 100m wide corridor is as to how strong was
Oxford's
> battle? If it was relatively weak then it is not impossible he may
> have sought to protect his flank with the marsh and 100m may have
> been all he needed to manoeuvre in. Equally it is possible that
100m
> may not have been enough. Other factors also need to be born in
mind
> such as how wet was the summer of 1485? How waterlogged were the
> margins of the moor/heath.

Marie: A very good point that I thought of raising myself. Paul
Startin has recently had this scenario published in the ricardian
Bulletin. But I see that the marshland area depicted is the maximum
extent. Were it considerably dried out at the time, the possibilities
for the site would look a lot healthier.
>>
>
>
> > >
> > > 4. Place Names
> > >
> > > King Dick's Hole cannot be traced any further back than the
late
> > > C18th. King Dick's Yard has a similar pedigree. I doubt there
is
> a
> > > village at any point in western Leicestershire without similar
> > > traditions. Ken Wright mentioned some in Sutton Cheney.
> Traditions
> > of
> > > this kind are of folkloric interest but are of little valuein
> > > battlefield studies.
> >
> > I agree. I might also remind you that Ken Wright's talk relied
> > heavily on evidence of the same sort, some of it, such as the
> > attribution of the name Sandeford, having an even worse
historical
> > pedigree.
>
> Bill: I disagree here. The Redemore/Sandeford material is of a
> different calibre to the `King Dick's Hole' etc. traditions. Both
the
> former have impeccable pedigrees in terms of association with the
> battle. The latter do not. I actually think that Ken's placing of
> Sandeford is not particularly convincing,

Marie: Well, you know I accept the Redemore evidence. And on
Sandeford you have just said exactly what I meant myself.

!
>
>
> Marie I think you are being unfair and a tad oversensitive here and
I
> also resent the implication that I called you 'laughable'. I took
> some pains to outline the fruits of my investigations of MKJ's
> hypothesis and interpretations (which are by no means complete). My
> comments were not aimed at you in a personal way and I took pains
to
> present some of my reasoning, rather than indulge in mere
assertion.

Marie: I am very remiss, as you have indeed, and I meant to
compliment you on your work, and taking the time out to explain your
position. You deserve that, and I apologise. But you did essentially
dismiss the Jones site as laughable, on the grounds that it is tied
(in your view) to his battle plan, which you call laughable. This is
bound to have an effect on anyone tempted to express an interest in
the site, and is therefore not conducive to further debate. I have
not been personally offended, just a bit annoyed, but the silence
from other listers suggest to me that others may have been put off.


> I have absolutely no problem in you criticising either the
Dadlington
> site nor Ken Wright's site. That is your prerogative in a free
> society. Indeed some of the objections you raise to both the latter
> (and there are others) will need to be addressed before either
could
> be accepted as proven. You are surely not advocationg the
unqualified
> acceptance of any hypothesis without it being put to question and
> investigation?

Marie: Pardon? No I am surely not suggesting. I haven't suggested. I
am not partularly proud of myself for the way I wrote about Ken
Wright's and Paul Startin's presentations, but in my defence I was
goaded by your own style of argument into giving as good as I got. If
anything is going to stifle debate it is ridicule of other positions
and I wish I hadn't been drawn into that.
>
> As to analysis of MKJ's interpretations they stand and fall by his
> reasoning and the by the evidence marshalled in their support. The
> scenario is not mine it is MKJ's. I have only attempted to
understand
> his interpretation in the context of the evidence he is prepared to
> reveal. The frustrating thing about Jones is he presents a new way
of
> looking at Richard's character and motivation which is appealing
and
> indeed radical. Yet his tendency to be not entirely open with the
> sources means that the "little demon in my head makes me suspect
> that when knowledgeable people are reduced to this level of
argument
> they probably have something to hide." as you so eloquently put it.
>
> I am sorry that you have got upset, and as far anything I have done
> has been the cause of it I apologise without reservation.

Marie: I'm not upset, Bill, don't worry. And I apologise unreservedly
if I gave you the impression I was rubbishing all your hard work. But
I am, I have to say, more than a little worried about the negative
aspects of this debate.

On the
> other issues I fear we shall have to agree to differ

Marie: I don't think we do differ so much. You portray me as sold on
Jones' hypothesis and so make this discussion more polemical than it
needs to be. We actually seem to have wide areas of agreement.

but I think we
> can agree that the wrong man won on the 22nd Augsut 1485?

Yes, of course, Bill.
>
> Regards

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:




> >
> > Bill: Crowland is silent on Tudor's location, he says the
following
> > about Richard:
> >
> > `On departing from the town of Leicester, he was informed by
scouts
> > where the enemy most probably intended to remain the following
> night;
> > upon which, he encamped near the abbey of Mirival, at a distance
of
> > about eight miles from that town.'
>
> Marie: I wouldn't call that being "silent on Henry's location": the
> inference is clear.
> >
> > MKJ emphasises the proximity to Merevale for Richard (in support
of
> > his hypothesis) but the distance 8 miles (from that town,
> presumably
> > Leicester) puts it in the vicinity of Ambion not Mythe. This is
> > another example of how one may make different readings of
> particular
> > passages.

I am in awe of the depth of knowledge, both of geography and of
Medieval warfare, that has been presented in posts on this subject.
Admitting that I am woefully ignorant on both subjects except in a
pretty superficial sense, I would like to ask if it is possible
that "that town" is Mereval itself...ie, that the Abbey of Mereval
was eight miles from Mereval?

Secondly, are the various discussions of the areas involved taking
into account changes of climate that may have occurred over the past
500 years, and of the effect of weather, not just at the time of the
battle itself, but of, say, the previous few seasons or years?

Katy

--- In , "billbraham1957"
<bill@w...> wrote:
>



>
> Bill: One of the things about the recognition of ridge & furrow is
> that it points to cultivated fields. The mention of Redemore in the
> York documents in 1485 is a very early association (as indeed is
> Henry Tudor's proclamation mentioning Sandeford). These are
> descriptive of the landscape, Redemore/Redesmore has the meaning of
> name as a heath or moor next to some reeds. This patently does not
> describe a locality in/under cultivation. True the identifiaction
> depends upon one document however at least it is one which is
> demonstrably earlier than the battle.

[snip]
>

> Bill: The presence/absence of crops is of little significnace,
ridge
> & furrow is a 3D phenomenon within the topography. It exists as a
> corrugated surface to the landscape. The presence or otherwise of
> crops is minor when compared to the actual surface. Trampling by
> cavalry is hardly an option these things are wave like undulations
> 220yds long by 11yds wide with an inverted S plan and a rise up the
> positive relief to the ridge. I have seen examples that a have
relief
> 6" to 1 foot today and which presumably were higher in the past.
>

Could you explain the ridge and furrow topography to me? It's not a
style of farming that I, an American, am familiar with. I know what
furrows are in our style of farming, but they are transitory and are
replowed every growing season, though they almost always follow the
same pattern topographically to avoid erosion and to take advantage
of the natural runoff pattern of rain.

The furrows I have seen in this country are often quite deep -- 8, 10
12 inches depending on the crop to be planted and the nature of the
soil -- and the ridges between are about equally high. Crossing such
a field, especially in late summer with the soil baked hard, perhaps
topped with dried stalks or sharp ends of cut-off stems, could
certainly be a problem for a charging army. But that is modern
farming...aside from being done by a tractor, it is accomplished with
a moldboard plowshare to turn the soil over mounted with a coulter, a
vertical knife, to cut the soil ahead of the plow. The moldboard
plow and coulter came into use through necessity in the Great Plains
when farmers were trying to break the virgin prairie grass. All the
drawings of plowing in the Middle Ages that I have seen have shown a
scratch plow with a straight plowshare and no coulter, which would
have produced a much shallower furrow. Were the same furrows plowed
over and over, not being leveled between crops, gradually digging
them ever deeper, to produce the ridge and furrow landscape you
mention?

Also, the difficulty of traversing culivated land would depend on
what crops were in the field and at what grwing stage. Do we know
what might have been growing there in August 1485? I don't know the
growing seasons of that area nor what crops were cultivated. A field
from which grain had been already harvested would be a quite
different proposition from one still in root vegetables.

Another thought is the climate and the weather. What the climate of
that area like 500 years ago, and what the weathr had been, not just
in the weeks or days before the battle, but in the previous year or
two, could be very important. I would imagine that more battles of
history have been won or lost through the influence of the weather
than by battlefield tactics.

Katy

But what you say about ridge and furrow farming reminds me of
tgerracing of hillsides or rice paddies, which are permanent or at
least in place for long periods.

Just wanted to pop out of lurkdom to say how much I appreciated &
enjoyed your discussion - thanks Marie & Bill:)

thanks

Jacqui

> > > Merevale Abbey: 100marks (1 mark = 13/4d IIRC?)
> > >
> > > Athertsone: £20 plus £4 13/- 4d
> > > Witherley: £13
> > > Mancetter: £5 19/-
> > > Fenny Drayton: £20
> > > Atterton: £8 10/-
> > >
> > > Basically Witherley gets less than Fenny Drayton? But Jones has
> the
> > > Tudor army moving up on Richards troops through Witherly
> township!
> > > The data does NOT show that the battle occurred where Jones has
> > > interrpeted it. It is more consistent with the interpretation
of
> > > extensive foraging around Atherstone.
> >
> > For listers who have forgotten and don't have a map to hand, the
> > places listed in the compensation grant form a ring around
Michael
> > Jones' proposed site. If this was compensation for foraging
before
> > the battlesite was reached, then why are there no other grants
for
> > places damaged en route?
>
>
> Bill: Again we come to the fragmentray nature of the written
record.
> We know about the grants because they were collated in a book on
> materials concerning the reign of Henry VII. To date no others have
> come to light it is true but the absence of evidence is not
evidence
> of absence.
>
>
> The only one is for Merevale, and that
> > clearly describes the money as paying for damage caused "by our
> > people coming toward our late field". The 5 villages grant, on
the
> > contrary, is for damage caused "at our late victorious field".
> Also,
> > if for foraging en route, would the villages compensated have
been
> > more along a line than in a square?
>
>
> Bill: Look at the road pattern and it is possible to justify the
> grants in terms of movement along the Roman Road, Fenn
Lane/Atterton
> Lane. It is also possible to justify it in the context foraging
> forward from Atherstone on the 20th and back from Whitemoor on the
> 21st. Not evidence but an laternative view of "at our late
victorious
> field".

Another couple of questioins on this:

a) Do I assume from the above that Henry's men foraged only on the
north side of the road? Why? Were they all left-handers? (sorry for
ridiculing unscholarly approach - blame the remains of the Xmas
spirit)

b) Since you deny that the Athrstone related to crops damaged during
the battle, etc grant Are you proposing that NO crop damage was
caused by the battle itself (since there is not other compensation
grant for such)? Perhaps you are, since you want uncultivated area
for a cavalry charge, but since the battlefield peaople are now
talking in terms of up to 20,000 men, and everyone had to have their
crops, I'd take some persuading. Remember, I do not accept that the
surviving grant is a fluke survival.

Regarding Katy's post, yes, very good points. I had meant to add that
harvesting time would depend on crop, and a greater variety of crops
would have been grown in a small area then than now. I believe.

I should also like answer to Katy's question on the plough and
furrow. The permanancy, and ever-increasing depth, of the furrows is
of concern. If they were only equal to, or even smaller than, the
moddern furrows, then any post-harvest grazing would surely do for
them if the land were not too baked.

And I come back again to your reliance on Witherly for the plough-and-
furrow evidence, although on your own evidence this townland was a
poor runner in the 'battle' compensation grant, and therefore
possibly a small player in the fighting (please don't tell me I have
to accept Jones' battle plan in order to interpret the grant this
way). I return to the Sheepy placenames as evidence of a history of
sheep pasturing in the area Jones proposes for Richard's encampment.

Incidentally, since we have in the extant account of Crowland a
figure (ie the distance between Richard's encampment and Leicester)
which is demonstrably incorrect [I have no difficulty in
reinterpreting docs. when it is clear they must be incorrect not
because they differ from tradition but because they do not square
with verifiable facts], I thought today of the likeliest way it had
gone wrong. One would be through Crowland's ignorance, which seemed
unlikely given that 8 miles is awfully near to Leicester, and far
from Merevale (a place of whch a canon lawyer such as the CC must
have been aware). The other likely way is dropping or transposing a
word or figure from the number. Rendering 18 as 8 wouldn't be at all
unusual from my experience of documents of this period (easy whether
written in words in Latin or as Roman numerals). So where, I
wondered, does 18 miles bring us. Just checked on Autoroute. Answer:
Sheepy Magna.

By all,

Marie