Following King Richard’s defeat at Bosworth Field accounts of the battle spread throughout the land as survivors of the participating armies returned to their homelands. These stories were muddled and naturally enough varied according to individual perspectives of the battle. To avoid any confusion the Lancastrian victor Henry Tudor, now King Henry VII, issued an official communique the day after the battle and kept Richard’s corpse on display at Leicester for several days so that there was no doubt he was dead:
“. . . that Richard duke of Gloucester, late called King Richard, was slain at a place called Sandeford, within the shire of Leicester, and brought dead off the field unto the town of Leicester, and there was laid openly, that every man might see and look upon him . . .”
An Act of Attainder issued by Henry’s parliament in November 1485 names “Richard, late duke of Gloucester, calling and naming himself, by usurpation, King Richard the Third” and his nobles who assembled a great host “traitorously intending the destruction of the king’s royal person” and refers to a mighty battle fought with guns, bows, arrows, spears, ‘glaives’, and axes, in a field in Leicestershire. Henry claimed his reign commenced the day before the battle, 21 August, therefore anyone rising against him as monarch would be declared an act of treason.
The mayor and aldermen of York issued a memorandum of a council meeting held the day after the battle that stated that King Richard was murdered “through great treason of the duke of Norfolk and many others that turned against him” at the field of Redemore.
However, considering the significance placed on the battle in English history very little was written in the way of military accounts of the conflict by contemporary authors or during the reign of Henry VII. The accounts of the battle, other than recording the outcome, provide little detail of the tactics used in the field of combat or the location which has made an accurate reconstruction difficult.
The Second Continuation of the Crowland Chronicle, probably the most contemporary source, probably written the year after the event, possibly by John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln, who was keeper of the privy seal for Edward IV and chancellor under Richard III. The Second Continuation records events leading up to the battle, if Russell was the author being a member of the King’s Council he would be providing a first hand account, and certainly did not approve of Richard III’s usurpation but praises his courageous fighting at Bosworth. However, he was not an eye-witness to the battle.
It seems the omens were not good on the day of the battle for the King. The Crowland chronicler states that Richard had a bad night before the battle, experiencing visions of demons. There were no chaplains available at day-break to celebrate mass and no one had prepared breakfast to raise the King’s spirits.
The chronicler says that Richard and his army rode out from Leicester and that Tudor, earl of Richmond, and his forces were encamped by the abbey of Merevale near Atherstone, about eight miles away, without providing detail to where the forces came together:
“A most fierce battle thus began between the two sides. The earl of Richmond with his men proceeded directly against King Richard. For his part, the earl of Oxford, the next in rank in the army and a most valiant soldier, drew up of his forces, consisting of a large body of French and English troops, opposite the wing in which the duke of Norfolk had taken up his position. In the place where the earl of Northumberland was posted, with a large company of reasonably good men, no engagement could be discerned, and no battle blows given or received. In the end a glorious victory was given by heaven to the earl of Richmond, now sole king, along with a most precious crown, which King Richard had previously worn on his head. For in the thick of the fight, and not in the act of flight. King Richard fell in the field, struck by many mortal wounds, as a bold and most valiant prince.”
The Crowland account of the battle fought near Merevale concludes with King Richard’s body being found among the slain. “Many other insults were heaped on it, and, not very humanely, a halter was thrown round the neck, and it was carried to Leicester.”
Another early account of the battle was written as a memorandum on English affairs by Diego de Valera which he prepared for the Spanish monarchs in early in 1486. This included an eye-witness account of the battle taken from Juan de Salazar, a Spanish soldier of fortune who had actually fought on the Royalist side. Historians have generally not placed great importance de Salazar’s recollection of the battle claiming it as rather confused and muddled. Valera tells us that Henry Tudor “crossed as far as a town called Coventry, near which King Richard stood in the field.”
In his ‘Historia Johannis Rossi Warwicensis de Regibus Anglie’ (History of the Kings of England), John Rous gives a brief account of the battle: “Landing at Milford Haven in Wales on the Feast of the transfiguration with a relatively small band, Henry gained many followers on the road. When finally he met King Richard and his great army on the eighth day of the feast of the Assumption A.D. 1485, on the border of Warwickshire and Leicestershire, he slew him in the field of battle.”
Two other early accounts of the battle are by Continental writers which is not surprising since Henry’s invasion was a French backed expedition. The Burgundian historian Jean Molinet wrote his account of the battle of Bosworth around 1490 but was not published until around 1504 when it was included with his ‘Chroniques’. He appears to be well informed and his account of Bosworth thought to be based on the first hand accounts provided of French troops returning home after the battle. He provides an authentic report on the death of King Richard.
Molinet does not give a specific location for the battle, however, he notes that to avoid Richard’s artillery fire the French soldiers in Tudor’s army attacked the flank rather than the front line of the vanguard which contained many archers under command of John Howard, duke of Norfolk with his son Thomas, earl of Surrey. The attack to the flank put the King’s vanguard to flight which according to Molinet was then picked off by Lord Stanley. He continues that Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland, commanding Richard’s rearguard should have charged the French, but the earl did nothing except to flee and abandon King Richard, as had many others on the Royalist side. Molinet says that the battle came to an end when the king’s horse became stuck in a marsh then a Welshmen came after him and struck him dead with a halberd. Another took his body and put it on a horse and carried it, hair hanging, as one would bear a sheep.
 |
| Serpentine cannon |
Phillippe de Commines (or Commynes) wrote his Memoirs during the 1490’s. Commines was based at the French court and one of King Louis XI of France’s most trusted advisors. He had met Henry Tudor, and his account shows bias toward the Lancastrian cause. He places much emphasis on the support of the Stanley brothers but nothing on the actual combat and fails to provide a location for the battle.
Both of these French writers were working on larger chronicles which were not to be completed for another decade or so, however it considered that their accounts of the battle of Bosworth were written before 1490.
Fabian's Chronicle, c.1500-13, only records a few sentences from the landing of Henry Tudor, his growing number of supporters and the rapid mobilisation of the King’s army. Fabian states that the armies meet at ‘a village in Leicestershire named Bosworth’ and implies that Richard’s fate was sealed by the large number of his army that turned against him in the field.
The Great Chronicle of London offers rather more, recording that the battle took place near a village called Bosworth near Leicester, adding that Sir William Stanley had come into possession of King Richard’s helmet with the crown upon it. He then crowned Henry as King of England. The account ends describing the treatment of Richard’s body after the battle, being trussed naked over a horse and taken to Leicester.
The Italian Polydore Vergil, offers the fullest account of the battle, accordingly it is often used by historians for reconstructions of Bosworth. Employed by Cardinal Adriano Castelli, a papal tax collector, he was sent to England in 1502 as sub-collector and wrote his account of the battle of Bosworth in his Historiae Anglicae between 1503 and 1513.
Vergil claims his account is truthful, and being quite detailed is probably based on eyewitness accounts. Although it is said to have been written at the request of Henry VII, Vergil had no allegiance to either side and his account appears unbiased although he does stress Richard’s unpopularity. However, later Tudor chroniclers such as Edward Hall (1548) and Raphael Holinshed (1577-1587) drew heavily from it, frequently paraphrasing Vergil’s account. Shakespeare would later use both Hall’s and Holinshed’s Chronicles to write The Tragedy of Richard the Third.
Vergil recalls Tudor’s journey into Wales after landing at Milford Haven and King Richard’s preparations leading up the battle. He describes a meeting between the Tudor and the Stanley brothers at Atherstone, at which he considers they drew up a common strategy. Meanwhile Richard has moved the royal army out from Leicester and camped near Bosworth. As with the Crowland Chronicle, Vergil records that during the night the king suffered terrible visions, which she considered were due to the king’s guilty conscience. Vergil’s account is the fullest description of the battle, thus it has become the standard narrative of Bosworth for historians and therefore worth repeating. Note the strategic importance of a marsh which seems to have influenced the battle strategy of the earl of Oxford:
'King Richard … arrayed his battle-line, extended at such a wonderful length, and composed of footmen and horsemen packed together in such a way that the mass of armed men struck terror in the hearts of the distant onlookers. In the front he placed the archers, like a most strong bulwark, appointing as their leader John, duke of Norfolk. To the rear of this long battle-line followed the king himself, with a select force of soldiers.
‘Meanwhile . . . early in the morning [Henry Tudor] commanded his soldiery to set to arms, and at the same time sent to Thomas Stanley, who now approached the place of the fight, midway between the two armies, to come in with his forces, so that the men could be put in formation. He answered that Henry should set his own men in line, while he would be at hand with his army in proper array.
'Henry drew up a simple battle-line on account of the fewness of his men. In front of the line he placed archers, putting the earl of Oxford in command; to defend it on the right wing he positioned Gilbert Talbot, and on the left wing in truth he placed John Savage. He himself, relying on the aid of Thomas Stanley, followed with one company of horsemen and a few foot-soldiers. For all in all the number of soldiers was scarcely 5,000, not counting the Stanleyites of whom about 3,000 were in the battle under the leadership of William Stanley. The king’s forces were at least twice as many.
'There was a marsh between them, which Henry deliberately left on his right, to serve his men as a defensive wall. In doing this he simultaneously put the sun behind him. The king, as soon as he saw the enemy advance past the marsh, ordered his men to charge. Suddenly raising a great shout they attacked first with arrows, and their opponents, in no wise holding back from the fight, returned the fire fiercely. When it came to close quarters, however, the dealing was done with swords.
'the earl of Oxford, afraid that in the fighting his men would be surrounded by the multitude, gave out the order through the ranks that no soldier should go more than ten feet from the standards. When in response to the command all the men massed together and drew back a little from the fray, their opponents, suspecting a trick, took fright and broke off from fighting for a while. In truth many, who wished the king damned rather than saved, were not reluctant to do so, and for that reason fought less stoutly. Then the earl of Oxford in the one part, with tightly grouped units, attacked the enemy afresh, and the others in the other part pressing together in wedge formation renewed the battle.
'When Richard learnt, first from spies, that Henry was some way off with a few armed men. . . and then, as the latter drew nearer, recognised him more certainly from his standards. Inflamed with anger, he spurred his horse, and rode against him from the other side, beyond the battle-line. Henry saw Richard come upon him, and since all hope of safety lay in arms, he eagerly offered himself for the contest. In the first charge Richard killed several men; toppled Henry’s standard, along with the standard-bearer William Brandon; contended with John Cheney, a man of surpassing bravery, who stood in his way, and thrust him to the ground with great force; and made a path for himself through the press of steel.
'Then, William Stanley came in support with 3,000 men.. Indeed it was at this point that, with the rest of his men taking to their heels, Richard was slain fighting in the thickest of the press.
'Meanwhile the earl of Oxford, after a brief struggle, likewise quickly put to flight the remainder of the troops who fought in the front line, a great number of whom were killed in the rout. Yet many more, who supported Richard out of fear and not of their own will, purposely held off from the battle, and departed unharmed, as men who desired not the safety but the destruction of the prince whom they detested.
'About 1,000 men were slain, including from the nobility John duke of Norfolk, Walter Lord Ferrers, Robert Brackenbury, Richard Radcliffe and several others. Two days after at Leicester, William Catesby, lawyer, with a few associates, was executed. Among those that took to their heels, Francis Lord Lovell, Humphrey Stafford, with Thomas his brother, and many companions, fled into the sanctuary of St. John, near Colchester.’
Vergil notes King Richard’s troops were fighting feebly, sluggishly, some secretly deserting him, he was not unaware that the people hated him. Richard went into the battle wearing the royal crown over his helmet which made him an obvious target when he made his last desperate charge directly toward Henry. He also states that Richard could have saved himself if he had fled the battlefield but he seemed determine to either defeat Henry or die as king. Vergil concludes his account of the battle with Thomas Stanley crowning Henry.
Michael Bennett considers Polydore Vergil the last historian who can be regarded as a primary source for the events of 1485, a genuine attempt by the Italian to provide a historical account of the battle rather than a Chronicle entry.
The Stanley Ballads
Poetic accounts of the battle of Bosworth are viewed with suspicion by historians and even considered fictitious by some. A collection of three poems known as ‘The Stanley Ballads’ are thought to have been composed shortly after the battle although they are not found in manuscripts until much later. It is fair to say that these ballads contain details not found elsewhere but also information collaborated by other sources suggesting they were taken from an oral tradition of the battle. The ballads are considered likely to have been composed by someone, possibly an eyewitness to the battle, with close connections to the Stanley family such as Humphrey Brereton, as the brothers Thomas, Lord Stanley, and Sir William Stanley feature as the central characters.
The earliest of these ballads is 'The Rose of England' which is thought to have been composed shortly after the battle in the late 15th century, although it is only found in a mid- 17th century manuscript. In this account Henry Tudor is described as ‘The Rose’ who wins the crown of England from the ‘white boar’ Richard III, with the support of the Stanley brothers and Sir Rhys ap Thomas among others.
 |
| Elizabeth of York |
‘The Song of Lady Bessy’ is said to have been written during the reign of Henry VII (1485–1509) with his wife Elizabeth of York the lady of the title. Elizabeth appeals to Lord Stanley to help her avoid marriage to her uncle Richard III. She claims she would rather kill herself than marry the murderer of her brothers (Edward and Richard, The Princes in the Tower). The Stanley brothers agree to support Henry Tudor, the earl of Richmond, on his return to England. Henry makes an oath to marry Elizabeth when he takes the throne. The ballad describes the plotting against Richard in the months leading up to the battle.
The ballad provides a gory description of the death of Richard III stating his attackers beat his brains out and never left him until he was dead. His battered body was carried to Leicester, where Elizabeth chastises it for the murder of her brothers; “How like you the killing of my brethren dear? Welcome, gentle uncle, home”.
‘The Ballad of Bosworth Field’ provides the fullest poetic recollections of the battle, much of the detail is considered to be authentic. Said to have been written within living memory of the battle yet the earliest surviving copy is found in a mid-17th century manuscript.
The ballad recalls how Lord Stanley provides the services of four of his best knights, Sir Robert Tunstall, Sir John Savage, Sir Hugh Persall and Sir Humphrey Stanley, to supplement Henry’s forces. The Stanleys withdrew to a mountain where they looked over the plain where the battle took place. On seeing the Stanley banner King Richard orders the execution of Lord Strange, the son of Lord Stanley who he held as hostage. However, the execution is delayed when the fighting commences. The ballad records Richard’s refusal to flee when the battle is lost and ends with the crowning of Henry on a hill. They then ride to Leicester and display the late King’s naked body for all to see.
The Location of the Battle
In his ‘Life of Henry VII’ (Vita Henrici Septimi), the French Augustinian friar, Bernard André, also known as Andreas, left a large blank in place of where his description of the battle of Bosworth should have been.
André followed Henry to England and would later tutor the king’s eldest son and heir Prince Arthur for five years. André wrote that he had heard accounts of the battle but as he had not witnessed the battle himself, presumably due to his blindness, he would not provide the date, the location or the order of battle and left the page blank at that point.
On reading the accounts above of contemporary and near contemporary source it can feel as though we still draw a blank on much of the battle, not least the location, just like André. As we have seen above in his proclamation, Henry VII said the battle was fought at Sandeford, the council of York referred to the field of Redemore, the Crowland account says the battle was fought near Merevale, John Rous tells us it was on the border of Warwickshire and Leicestershire, Valera tells us that it was somewhere near Coventry.
A generation after the event the village of Bosworth was the accepted location. The manuscript edition of Vergil’s Anglia Historia states the battle was fought at a place near Leicester ‘Bosworth’. The manuscript of the Great Chronicle of London claimed the battle happened in the fields at a village called Bosworth. The name Bosworth first occurred in print in Fabian’s Chronicles. Fabian, thought to also be the author of the Great Chronicle, recorded the battle taking place near a village in Leicestershire named Bosworth.
Later sources following the 16th century chroniclers Hollinshed and Hall, who had largely borrowed from Vergil yet corrupted the Italian’s account, established the site of the battle on Ambion Hill, close to the village of Sutton Cheney in Leicestershire. Indeed, the first mention of Ambion does not appear until Hollinshed’s Chronicle of 1577, in which he claimed King Richard pitched his army on a hill called ‘Anne Beame’. Antiquarians went on to identify ‘Richard’s Welll’ nearby and early Chroniclers such as Saxton identified ‘Richard’s Field’ on maps. Leicestershire County Council established a visitor centre and battle trail that grew up around the hill and this has been the accepted location of the battle until relatively recently.
On examining a massive archive on material relating to the battle of Bosworth Peter Foss determined that Ambion Hill had been the site of Richard’s camp and not the battle site. Foss discovered an edition of Fabian’s Chronicle in the National Library of Scotland where a 16th century hand has added a note in the margin correcting the name of the battle to ‘Redesmore heath’ as recorded by the council of York the very day after the battle. Evidently, Redemore was the name that contemporaries recognised as the battle site. But where was Redemore?
On reassessing the documentation Foss argued that the battle site was a flat, formerly marshy area over a mile to the south-west, around Dadlington. However, the County Council insisted their visitor centre was in the correct location.
To resolve the situation the Battlefields Trust carried out a major archaeological project surveying the site over a four year period using field-walking, metal detecting and soil-sampling. The team leader Glenn Foard announced in 2010 that the actual site of the battle was nearly 2 miles from Ambion Hill, at a point close to the line of the old Roman road known as Fenn Lanes where the four parishes of Dadlington, Stoke Golding, Shenton and Upton come together, slightly further west than Foss had argued.
The area of marsh, found in contemporary accounts as indicated by the name ‘Redemore’, identified by Foss as the location of the battle had dried up centuries before the battle. Using pollen analysis of the peat and Carbon-14 dating Foard identified another area of marsh that was extant in the medieval period on the next stream along Fenn Lanes, where the bulk of the archaeology was found. Was this Henry’s ‘Sandeford’?
 |
| The Bosworth Collection |
The most significant finds were of cannonballs and lead shot, plus a silver boar emblem, that convinced Foard that he had identified the site of the battle. The 33 (possibly 34) projectiles ranging from 20mm to 97mm diameter unearthed across Fenn Lanes is the largest number ever found on a medieval battlefield.
Apart from The Act of Attainder issued by Henry’s parliament in November 1485 which states Richard’s army used guns among their weaponry, the only other authority on the battle that mentions artillery is Molinet who notes that to avoid Richard’s artillery fire Tudor’s army attacked the flank of Richard’s vanguard.
The apparently unreliable Stanley ballads also mention the artillery used at Bosworth; ‘The Song of Lady Bessy’ references the fierce guns and ‘The Ballad of Bosworth Field’ claims that Richard had 7 score Serpentines chained together with a similar number of Bombards and harquebusiers, soldiers equipped with a portable type of long gun.
 |
| The Bosworth Boar |
The silver boar emblem, barely an inch across, was likely worn by a member of Richard’s close retinue, perhaps a member of his personal bodyguard, and has been associated with the King’s last charge, reported as indicating ‘the exact spot where Richard died’.
Works Consulted:
Michael Bennett, The Battle of Bosworth, Sutton, 1993.
David Cohen, Battles of the Wars of the Roses, Pen & Sword, 2022.
Glenn Foard and Anne Curry Bosworth 1485: A Battlefield Rediscovered, Oxbow, 2022
Peter Foss, The Field of Redemore: Battle of Bosworth, 1485, Kairos Press, 1998.
Peter Hammond, Richard II and the Bosworth Campaign, Pen & Sword, 2013.
Mike Ingram, Bosworth 1485: A Battle of Steel, The History Press, 2022.
Michael Jones, Bosworth: Psychology of a Battle, John Murray publishers, 2014.
A L Rowse, Bosworth Field and the Wars of The Roses, Wordsworth, 1998.
Chris Skidmore, Bosworth: The Birth of the Tudors, Phoenix, 2014.
* * *
