(no subject)

William Barber wrote:

"...I think he knew, when he charged down the hill, that there was no way he could walk away form Bosworth. He was advised to escape, but he would have a hard time hiding. Best try an all-or-nothing venture...."

Fayre rose wrote in a recent posting (sorry, I didn't keep it), about how we need to be very careful about trying to provide solutions that involve the use of information not available to the people alive at the time of these events and I wonder if considering Richard's actions at Bosworth "suicidal" or whatever, simply occurs because we know he lost the battle?

I had always understood that Richard's battle plan at Bosworth was going as he wished, UNTIL Northumberland betrayed him.
Norfolk's troops had worn down Oxford's mercenaries and when Richard charged down into the battle, the accession of his troops enabled the Yorkists to come within a few minutes of defeating the Lancastrians. What tipped the scales against Richard was Stanley's attack. And I propose that THAT attack had been planned for by Richard - as long as Richard had troops to counter Stanley, Stanley would remain out of the fighting.

From my readings about the battle of Bosworth, I always got the impression that Richard's forces were superior (if only slightly) to Tudor's/Oxford's. The actions of the two Stanleys were the only variables. Tudor (or Oxford) positioned his mercenaries in a defensive posture protected by a woods on one side and a marsh/swamp on the other. The swamp prevented one Stanley (Thomas?) from providing any help to the Lancastrians, while Richard's remaining troops on Ambion Hill served as a checkmate to any interference by the other Stanley. It was only when Richard, personally, led his troops into battle, that Stanley attacked.

Northumberland's troops, still on the top of Ambion Hill, should also have provided a checkmate against Stanley's entering the battle. They didn't. Northumberland should have attacked Stanley once Stanley had started his charge. He didn't. The obvious conclusion is that Stanley KNEW that Northumberland wouldn't attack. Northumberland betrayed Richard.

I have also read (in Williamson's book, I believe), that Richard was advised NOT to fight at Bosworth, but rather to fall back towards, I believe, Leicester and join up with more royal troops that were assembling there. However, after looking at the opposing forces (and not knowing of Northumberland's treason), Richard decided he had enough troops and would settle the matter there and then.

Anyway, I would like to say that I find this group very challenging mentally (that's a good thing!) and hope this is of interest, And does anyone have the exact title of Hick's book about Bosworth? I would like to have the library get it for me. Thank you in advance.

Doug

Didn't mean to imply he was being suicidal. I think he might have been
trying to be valiant. I think he had a very strong sense of the
chivalric. If he succeeded, his victory would have been 'glorious'. And
his personal valour at Bosworth was noted, even by his enemies.

I think that you are correct about the battle going to Richard's plan
until the death of Norfolk, but the Stanleys and Northumberland may have
had two plans. If Norfolk smashed Oxford's line, and fought through to
Henry, the Stanleys and Northumberland might well side for Richard. If
Norfolk fell, they stood a good chance of destroying Richard. I think
that these gentlemen had their bets well hedged, and my sense is that
they had all been in communication.

Was Northumberland a traitor, and if so, was Richard suspicious of
Northumberland? I know that there is split opinion about the
relationship between between Richard and Northumberland, but I think the
relationship was likely ambivalent at best. The two had crossed swords,
figuratively speaking, on a number of occasions over the fifteen year
period in which Richard was consolidating his northern power base.
Although I am conjecturing, I think that when Richard decided to charge,
he felt that he was surrounded by enemies, including Northumberland.
There is contemporary speculation that Northumberland was assassinated,
not because he was trying to collect taxes, but because he betrayed Richard.

I believe Richard knew that the the charge was a great risk. He was
certainly advised to escape and fight another day, but he was determined
to live or die a king.

Doug Stamate wrote:

>
> William Barber wrote:
>
> "...I think he knew, when he charged down the hill, that there was no
> way he could walk away form Bosworth. He was advised to escape, but he
> would have a hard time hiding. Best try an all-or-nothing venture...."
>
> Fayre rose wrote in a recent posting (sorry, I didn't keep it), about
> how we need to be very careful about trying to provide solutions that
> involve the use of information not available to the people alive at
> the time of these events and I wonder if considering Richard's actions
> at Bosworth "suicidal" or whatever, simply occurs because we know he
> lost the battle?
>
> I had always understood that Richard's battle plan at Bosworth was
> going as he wished, UNTIL Northumberland betrayed him.
> Norfolk's troops had worn down Oxford's mercenaries and when Richard
> charged down into the battle, the accession of his troops enabled the
> Yorkists to come within a few minutes of defeating the Lancastrians.
> What tipped the scales against Richard was Stanley's attack. And I
> propose that THAT attack had been planned for by Richard - as long as
> Richard had troops to counter Stanley, Stanley would remain out of
> the fighting.
>
> >From my readings about the battle of Bosworth, I always got the
> impression that Richard's forces were superior (if only slightly) to
> Tudor's/Oxford's. The actions of the two Stanleys were the only
> variables. Tudor (or Oxford) positioned his mercenaries in a defensive
> posture protected by a woods on one side and a marsh/swamp on the
> other. The swamp prevented one Stanley (Thomas?) from providing any
> help to the Lancastrians, while Richard's remaining troops on Ambion
> Hill served as a checkmate to any interference by the other Stanley.
> It was only when Richard, personally, led his troops into battle, that
> Stanley attacked.
>
> Northumberland's troops, still on the top of Ambion Hill, should also
> have provided a checkmate against Stanley's entering the battle. They
> didn't. Northumberland should have attacked Stanley once Stanley had
> started his charge. He didn't. The obvious conclusion is that Stanley
> KNEW that Northumberland wouldn't attack. Northumberland betrayed Richard.
>
> I have also read (in Williamson's book, I believe), that Richard was
> advised NOT to fight at Bosworth, but rather to fall back towards, I
> believe, Leicester and join up with more royal troops that were
> assembling there. However, after looking at the opposing forces (and
> not knowing of Northumberland's treason), Richard decided he had
> enough troops and would settle the matter there and then.
>
> Anyway, I would like to say that I find this group very challenging
> mentally (that's a good thing!) and hope this is of interest, And does
> anyone have the exact title of Hick's book about Bosworth? I would
> like to have the library get it for me. Thank you in advance.
>
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>
>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>
> United kingdom vacation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

On 18 Feb 2006, at 13:41, Doug Stamate wrote:

> I had always understood that Richard's battle plan at Bosworth was
> going as he wished, UNTIL Northumberland betrayed him.
> Norfolk's troops had worn down Oxford's mercenaries and when
> Richard charged down into the battle, the accession of his troops
> enabled the Yorkists to come within a few minutes of defeating the
> Lancastrians. What tipped the scales against Richard was Stanley's
> attack. And I propose that THAT attack had been planned for by
> Richard - as long as Richard had troops to counter Stanley,
> Stanley would remain out of the fighting

On the whole Doug I'd agree with what you sat, except we do not know
if Northumberland did betray Richard, or was prevented from entering
the fight by the marsh, or never received orders to move in. In fact
I feel Percy was left where he was as a check on Stanley, without
which Richard wouldn't have risked charging across in front of his
position. Either that or Richard was giving him a chance to return to
the fold by doing nothing, or coming in to support him. It has often
made me think that he was genuinely surprised by Stanley's
intervention, which of course may have been pushed on him by his
Welsh contingent, the majority of his troops, rather than by his own
feelings or inclination.
Still doesn't stop me hating the man! And his troops. All of them!
Paul

--- Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
wrote:


> Still doesn't stop me hating the man! And his
> troops. All of them!
> Paul
>

Now I understand -- your attitude to me is hereditary
(*grin*). My folks were from that neck of the woods
and if they were at Bosworth at all, they were in
Northumberland's merry band.

Northumberland was imprisoned after Bosworth, and the old attainder
law was used to guarantee his "good behaviour".
So if he was a traitor, it was on the day rather than by pre-
arrangement with the Tudors.
Or perhaps he was just a coward.
He was certainly a rival for Richard in earlier days, when Edward IV
forced them to sign an agreement not to poach each other's
retainers. Richard was very much the Heir of the Nevilles at this
time, and as such was also the traditional rival of the Percys.
However the Earl had a vested interest in the survival of Richard's
regime; he had been granted a large chunk of Buckingham's estates
(Holderness), and the enthronement of Richard removed the new King
from the north where Percy was now undisputedly the principle Lord.


--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Still doesn't stop me hating the man! And his
> > troops. All of them!
> > Paul
> >
>
> Now I understand -- your attitude to me is hereditary
> (*grin*). My folks were from that neck of the woods
> and if they were at Bosworth at all, they were in
> Northumberland's merry band.
>

On 20 Feb 2006, at 18:24, theblackprussian wrote:

>
> He was certainly a rival for Richard in earlier days, when Edward IV
> forced them to sign an agreement not to poach each other's
> retainers. Richard was very much the Heir of the Nevilles at this
> time, and as such was also the traditional rival of the Percys.
> However the Earl had a vested interest in the survival of Richard's
> regime; he had been granted a large chunk of Buckingham's estates
> (Holderness), and the enthronement of Richard removed the new King
> from the north where Percy was now undisputedly the principle Lord.

Excellent points, particularly the northern rivalry. Percy had no
guarantee the unknown Tudor would allow him any more freedom of
influence than Richard had.
Paul


> --- In , Laura Blanchard
> <lblanchard@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Still doesn't stop me hating the man! And his
>>> troops. All of them!
>>> Paul
>>>
>>
>> Now I understand -- your attitude to me is hereditary
>> (*grin*). My folks were from that neck of the woods
>> and if they were at Bosworth at all, they were in
>> Northumberland's merry band.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ummm!
I think no comment the best thing to say about the "attitude"! :-)
Paul

On 20 Feb 2006, at 17:16, Laura Blanchard wrote:

>
>
> --- Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Still doesn't stop me hating the man! And his
>> troops. All of them!
>> Paul
>>
>
> Now I understand -- your attitude to me is hereditary
> (*grin*). My folks were from that neck of the woods
> and if they were at Bosworth at all, they were in
> Northumberland's merry band.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>