WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT BOSWORTH FIELD?

Margaret Gurowitz

Contrary to the vivid descriptions by Paul Murray Kendall and other modern writers, Bosworth was one of the worst-documented medieval battles, lacking even a single surviving eyewitness account. The resulting confusion about who actually fought in the battle, what actually happened, and where it took place has led to a variety of interpretations.

First, who fought in Richard III's army? One of the main sources available to us, The Ballad of Bosworth Field, provides a general idea of who was present at the battle. Charles Ross, citing the writer of the ballad as well informed, says Richard had a high turnout of nobles (Ross, p. 235). The ballad's author listed the names of 90 supporters of Richard at the battle -- 23 of whom were nobles, and the rest gentry (Ross, p. 236). Colin Richmond, however, quotes the same ballad as showing that hardly anyone fought for Richard. Richmond estimated that only six peers turned out for Richard, several for Henry, and the rest stayed home (Richmond, in Hammond, p. 173). Richmond points out that many of those present at the battle did not fight, and many of Richard's northerners may have been in the Earl of Northumberland's inactive ranks. In his opinion, "[w]hat, therefore, principally happened at Bosworth was the desertion of king Richard." (ibid). A. J. Pollard, on the other hand, thinks Richard had the support but lost the battle because he charged Henry Tudor's ranks too soon (Pollard, p. 172).

Did the Earl of Northumberland really betray Richard? As the story goes, Northumberland -- perhaps motivated by jealousy stemming from Richard's northern power and popularity -- failed to muster loyal troops and waited on the sidelines during the battle. Four years after Bosworth, the earl was murdered during a tax revolt, killed by northerners who "'bore a deadly malice against him for the disappointing of King Richard at Bosworth Field.'" (Pollard, p. 171) But was Northumberland's inaction deliberate or accidental? Charles Ross raises the intriguing possibility that Northumberland was unable to engage Henry Tudor's troops due to the terrain (Ross, pp. 221-223). Thus, Richard III may have charged Henry Tudor's position before Northumberland was ready to help. Henry VII's treatment of the earl after the battle certainly does not suggest any special favors or gratitude: Northumberland, along with the earls of Westmoreland and Surrey, was taken into custody and kept in prison for several months, being released only under strict conditions of good behavior (Pollard, p. 172). This is in marked contrast to the lavish treatment given to Lord Stanley for his betrayal of Richard.

If all of this controversy were not enough, it is possible that the Battle of Bosworth was not even fought at Bosworth. Dadlington, a town about one and a half miles to the south, is a strong candidate for the actual battle site. The earliest sources call the battle's location "Redemore," which is derived from an Old English phrase meaning "reedy marshland" (Ricardian No. 96, p. 352), and a document from 1209--now lost--refers to Redemore as being in the fields of Dadlington (ibid). Furthermore, the greatest number of human skeletons, arrowheads, and pieces of weapons and armor from the battle have been dug up in the area of Dadlington/Stoke Golding rather than Ambien [or Ambion -- not even the spelling of the name of this site is undisputed] Hill, the traditional site of the struggle. In 1511, the Chapel of St. James in Dadlington petitioned for a chantry foundation, since the bodies of the men who died in the conflict were buried there. According to William Burton, a local 17th century historian, the battle was christened "Bosworth" after the most notable town in its vicinity (ibid.), much in the same way the Battle of Agincourt got its name from a nearby castle. This issue still divides traditionalists (those who think the battle was fought at Ambien Hill) and revisionists (the Dadlington crew). Some historians have accepted a compromise scenario in which the battle starts out at Ambien Hill and moves into Dadlington when the Yorkists are routed (ibid, pp. 353-4). [Ed. Note: See also The Battle of Bosworth: The Continuing Fight.]

As the above summary shows, a deeper look at the Battle of Bosworth, which we Ricardians commemorate every year, calls into question many of the traditions about Richard III's last fight. Upon re-examination of the battle, we realize how much we still do not know about this last crucial event in Richard III's life. Bosworth, like many of the Ricardian subjects we probably take for granted, bears further examination.

(Finally, of course, there is that tradition in Leicester that Richard III's bones were not thrown into the River Soar after Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries, but were moved and reburied somewhere in the town...) [Ed. note: for other traditions, see excerpt from William Hutton's eighteenth century account, The Battle of Bosworth Field.]

• Harris, O.D., "'...even here in Bosworth Field'; a Disputed Site of Battle," The Ricardian, Vol. VII, No. 92, March 1986.
• Phillips, M.J., "The Battle of Bosworth: Further Reflections On the Battlefield Site," The Ricardian, Vol. VII, No. 96, March 1987.
• Pollard, A.J., Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. St. Martin's Press, New York, 1991.
• Richmond, Colin, "1485 And All That, or what was going on at the Battle of Bosworth," in Richard III: Loyalty, Lordship and Law, ed. by P.W. Hammond, Richard III and Yorkist History Trust, London, 1986.
• Ross, Charles, Richard III, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1981.