Talk:Battle of Bosworth Field

From old article

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles

---

Merged in main item (see history) except for:

"Thus the five Yorkist peers, the earl of Essex and lords Audley, Dinham, Dudley and Ferriers are not named as being present at any engagement in 1469-71. They did enter London in triumph with Edward IV on 21 May 1471 but they could have joined him only after the fighting was done.

"That they were caught up in the politics of these years is shown by their removal from all commissions during the redemption. Their is therefore a strong presumption that they were known to be favourable towards Edward IV." (p70. The wars of the Roses. AJ Pollard.)

---

Originally from an article on the lord Dudley.(by Faedra)

Stan 17:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Jasper Tudor

Did Jasper Tudor fight in the Battle of Bosworth Field? "There is no contemporary record that Jasper Tudor, earl of Pembroke, fought at Bosworth... " (The Tudor Nobility. pg 50) Does anyone have counter-evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zirk (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

Trimmer

Um, what's a "trimmer"? See "The Campaign and its Politics": "The two notorious trimmers in 1469–71 were the young John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury, and the older more experienced Lord Stanley...". Thanks. Her Pegship 19:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

In sailing trimming is to adjust the sails so that they receive the prevailing wind properly; so this often affected the direction of the ship. A trimmer is, by extension, a person who stands outside a discussion, debate, battle or war until it becomes clear which side will win and then joins the winning side. In other words they wait for, and react to, a prevailing wind.Saga City 06:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Beauty! "Vacillator" is not as picturesque but certainly clearer. Thanks. Her Pegship 21:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Killed in Battle

Doesn't Richard I's death count towards dying in a battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.135.92 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a list of the men killed in the Battle of Bosworth 22 August 1485?

I have a 16th great grandfather who I have just learned was killed that day. The information does not include which side he was on and his name is not in any of the lists I have found on the internet.

Several on the surnames listed are also listed as surnames of Bradshaw wives, I am not sure if these surnames are connected to my line. The surnames are on both sides in the Battle.

His name is Ralph Bradshaw, grandson of Roger De Bradshawe and Margaret De Mesnil. He is also a descendent of John Bradshaw, Title: Sir; Saxon Knight of ” The family lineally derived from Sir John Bradshaw, of Bradshaw, a Saxon living at the time of the Conquest, who was reinvested in his estate by the Norman. He married the daughter and sole heir of Sir Robert Remington, knight of Remington and left a son and heir, Sir Robert Bradshaw.”

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

B. Shackel —Preceding unsigned comment added by BShackel (talk • contribs) 23:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Blackadder

Does the fact that this battle was the setting for the first Blackadder episode note merit a mention on this page? I'm happy for it not to be on there, but I'd say it should be there. --JimmyTheWig 08:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

IMHO it should be included -- but in a section clearly headed Trivia.Saga City 11:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

That's what I did here [1]. --JimmyTheWig 15:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It belongs there despite the purist who deleted it. I moved it and the Shakespeare reference to a new "Popular culture" section. --Dhartung | Talk 17:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Image

This article needs some images. How does one go about doing that? Can I source images from other websites? ~~T. Servaia~~ June 24th 2006

I have some images from the actual field, taken by myself, but I have some doubts about the usefulness of these images. They're just pictures of hills and the like. Bunceboy November 5th 2006

Clarification

The article says "Richard of York was the third and last English king to die in battle – Harold Godwinson at Hastings, 1066, killed by the Normans, was the first. Richard III was the second." This doesn't make sense. Who was the second king killed in battle ? 136.153.2.2 07:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If Harold counts, then so must other Saxon kings; were none of them killed in battle? I can't think of any others - Richard I died of an infected wound, but he didn't die in battle. Cyclopaedic 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether the fact that Richard the Third was the last English king to die in battle should be mentioned in the first paragraph of this article. Vorbee (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Killed in Battle II

The phraseology I always heard (admittedly from a Ricardian) was that Richard was the last English king to hazard his throne in the line of battle. The argument was that Charles sent generals but didn't fight. James (II) ran away; and after that no monarch bothered. Simon Cursitor —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:00, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Title

Isn't the title tautologous? Surely "field" in this context means "battlefield"? It should either be the "Battle of Bosworth" or Bosworth Field. cf Stoke Field or Lose-coat field, of the "field of Agincourt". Cyclopaedic 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a battle that took place on a field outside of Bosworth (actually closer to other villages). That's just what it's called. --cfp 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it's 11 years since I posted this but it's still wrong. Field in this sense is the ancient word for a battle. It's either Bosworth Field or the Battle of Bosworth. Oxford English Dictionary Online, "1.8 archaic A battle. ‘many a bloody field was to be fought’. More example sentences ‘Rupert made himself conspicuous during our Civil War in many a bloody field.’ ‘All these were slaughtered in savage fields for the faith and fell beside the standard of the Cross, breathing loyalty to God and man in their last agonies.’ Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Death of Richard III

Before my edit the account of Richard's death reads

Richard III was killed by the poleaxe of the brave Welsh warlord Rhys ap Thomas, a very powerful Lord from South Wales, after making his famous "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" cry upon being dismounted

and cites Bennett as the source. However, Bennett does not say any such thing, and I know of no suggestion that the famous cry is anything other than Shakespeare. Bennett refers to Shakespeare having "access to a tradition that his horse was taken from under him, and he cried out for a replacement." Bennett says there is no account in English of the mnner of his death, Bennett does not mention ap Thomas, but says the probability is he was hacked to death by ordinary Welsh pikemen. Cyclopaedic (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought he was known to have died shouting "Treason! Treason! Treason!" Valetude (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Heads up on rewrite (2009)

I am going to rewrite this article in a few days (or weeks perhaps). It would be similar to how Battle of Barnet is written, and again the ultimate aim is to get this article to be featured. Photos and pictures would be added in the process as well. Jappalang (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done: first draft is up; likely to send it to reviews soon. Some things to explain:

• Stanley as a third force: their allegiance was to none (though Lord Stanley was supposed to be under Richard). It seems fair and easier to split them off as a separate force with their own agenda.

I agree. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Referring to Henry Tudor as Richmond: as explained in the footnotes, the Lancastrians never acknowledged the absorbtion of Richmond into the crown. Hence, we have the saying that he is self-syled "Earl of Richmond". Alternative is to constantly refer to him as Tudor (I am avoiding the call of him as "Henry" until he is mentioned to be king).

My books (Bennett, Ross, Gillingham) all refer to him consistently as "Henry Tudor", abbreviating that more or less frequently to "Henry", so that is the style I think we should use. "Tudor" seems both anachronistic and ambiguous, given that there were other Tudors around.

Is it right to say self-styled, though? Unless his father was attainted, his title would automatically pass to his son. The fact that the Herberts used the title would not remove the legitimate Tudor earl. It was not unknown for there to be competing holders of a title.Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have to look it up (and back it up) later, but the issue is that Herbert gained the title by taking over Pembroke castle and its lands after Edmund died. The Yorkists, in power, recognised his claim. After Herbert died, the lands and its titles passed to Clarence, then later on to Richard. When Richard became king, Richmond becomes part of the king's estates (and hence an Earl of Richmond would require recreation). As the Lancastrians refuse to acknowledge the passings of the titles, Henry kept his title and his followers acknowledge it (self-styled?).

As for "Henry" to "Richmond", I would not mind using "Henry" (it would just involve replacing "Richmond"s) if the acknowledgment is to use his royal name whenever he is mentioned regardless of the time frame. Jappalang (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done: changed "Richmond"s to "Henry"s; even Mackie and Chrimes stated him as such. Jappalang (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Foss' version as the battle. The history texts are mostly published before 1985, thus their authors had little chance to evaluate Foss' findings. However, it seems fair to note that government bodies are respecting Foss' findings and have acknowledged Williams' version as flawed. Hence, this article goes with Foss' version.

That is it for the moment. Comments and criticisms are welcomed. Jappalang (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• In the lead the battle is dated 22 August 1485, and Henry's landing on the Welsh coast as 1 October 1485. Ning-ning (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  Oops, it should be 1 August. Fixed. Thank you! Jappalang (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Saracens??

"Norfolk was a military veteran, having fought in the Battle of Towton in 1461 and against the Saracens as Hastings' deputy at Calais in 1471.[46]"

I have not read the book cited in [46], but this has to be a typo, or a metaphorical usage in [46]. Surely there cannot have been Saracens at Calais in 1471.

68flapjack (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

May have been Saracen pirates, and Norfolk may have been involved in naval action against them (just a guess). Ning-ning (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, it was Earl Rivers who decided to abandon his post as Calais lieutenant to fight the Saracens. Thank you for pointing out the incredulous information. Jappalang (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review

I have not read this very carefully—I primarily looked for common MOS pitfalls, and scanned the sourcing.

• I'm a bit befuddled by the Bibliography subsections "Reports" and "Online sources". The Foard source listed under Reports is cited using {{cite journal}}, yet appears to be a standalone report, not published via a journal—and is available online, yet is not listed in the Online sources section. Then, under Online sources, we have an item called "English Heritage Battlefield Report"—something that calls itself a report, yet isn't listed as such here. The other item in Online sources, "The Bosworth Campaign" from Battlefields Trust, confuses me because it doesn't seem to be specifically cited in a footnote—yet there are three short-form cites to other Battlefields Trust pages, which are not listed under the Bibliography.
• Why is "Bibliography" a top-level section? The combination of top level (or more specifically, not being a subsection of References) plus the word 'bibliography' (often used as a section header for books by or about the subject, regardless of whether they were used as sources) leaves the purpose of the section ambiguous.
• "The other sources were written by foreigners; Vergil, Jean Molinet, and Diego de Valera." - a semicolon is not right here; indeed, only parentheses would actually

Overall, this is in great shape. The short-form cites needed only a few tweaks for some missing spaces. Logical quotation was almost consistent and only took a couple fixes. I found no abused hyphens, endashes or emdashes—that might be a record :) Maralia (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved Foard's report to Online section. As for "The Bosworth Campaign", it is used as the "main page", similar to how a book is listed as the main material under bibiliography but individual pages and sections (in this case, sub-webpages) are referred to in short footnotes. I have replaced the semicolon after foreigners with an emdash, though I wonder if a colon would be a better idea... Bilibography is a top-level section as following the suggestion by an editor in an FAC for a previous article of mine. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Map inaccuracies

I hate to carp, given that someone has obviously put much effort into them, but in both battlefield maps, the troops on Richard's left wing are marked "Northampton". Nobody called or titles "Northampton" appears anywhere in the text (except in someone's alt. text to the maps), and it is stated that Richard's left or rear battle was commanded by the Earl of Northumberland. HLGallon (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. I failed to notice that error. It is now corrected. Jappalang (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry's march: to London?

I am particularly perplexed by the insistence that nowhere in the text was it stated that Henry VII's intended target was London. In the last two paragraphs of the Prelude section, we have "Henry did not move directly towards London. ... The royal army proceeded westwards to intercept Henry's march on London." I do not know how much more explicit we can make it that Henry took an indirect approach towards the English capital. These statements are sourced to Ross's Richard III and Gravett's Bosworth 1485.

Quote pp. 210–211 of Ross:

"Why did he take this much longer and more circuitous route through central Wales, rather than moving directly east from Milford Haven along the south coast of Wales to enter England at Tewkesbury, and then drive east again over the Cotswold Hills to London, the magnet, and the most important prize of all fifteenth-century invaders? It may have been that by going north he hoped to make contact with the main centres of Stanley power in north-east Wales, Cheshire and Lancashire, at least according to Polydore Vergil. [...] A more likely explanation is a testimony to the efficiency of Richard's defensive arrangements, and to the loyalty of the families of Herbert and Vaughan, [...] To enter attempt a direct advance east from Milford was to enter hostile territory, and, indeed, almost as soon as Henry left Milford Haven, there were rumours that Sir Walter Herbert was approaching from Carmathen to attack him with a large force, ..."

Quote p. 45 of Gravett:

Richard presumably marched towards Leicester forest down the Roman road to Watling Street, in order to block Henry's route to London."

Reliable sources are given for these statements. The lede is a summarised version of the article, which states Henry's goal was London. So what is the issue? Jappalang (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that the article doesn't state that Henry's goal was London. There is an uncited throwaway sentence "Henry did not move directly towards London". Without a bit of filling, this is ambiguous. It can be taken to mean that Henry intended to go to London but indirectly, or that his enemies expected him to go there but he did not oblige. The lede is being much more specific than the body of the article. With respect to the sources you quote, Gravett is indulging in speculation (hence "presumably"). Ross is on more certain ground when he refers to Henry's need to avoid Richard's supporters in South Wales (Herbert et al.), but merely postulates reasons why Henry didn't march to London; the passage does not offer proof London was his goal. No source I have makes any definite statement of Henry's intended destination, or of London; his entire zig-zag route of march was designed simply to reach and join with successive supporters (ap Thomas, Talbot and the Stanleys). At Atherstone, he met Stanley, and conferred "in what sort to arraign battle with King Richard, whom they heard could not be far off." Rowse, p.217, quote from Polydore Vergil. Once he reached the Midlands, where Richard's army was known to be, a fight with Richard was necessary before any other considerations. The lede is being more definite than it has a right to be, given the lack of proof in the body of the article. HLGallon (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition to last; Rowse agrees that the day before battle, Richard "moved out of Nottingham south to Leicester, to intercept Henry..." No mention is made of Henry's direction, but Shrewsbury to Atherstone and Market Bosworth is east towards Leicester, not south to London. HLGallon (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ross's questioning is certain on Henry's goal. In effect, he is saying, "Why did you walk around the sidelines of the pitch ("longer and more circuitous route") rather than move directly from goal to goal?" He is certainly not saying that Henry decided to meander through Wales without a target in mind. Jappalang (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine. What is the quote as to what Henrys' goal actually was, and the original source (Vergil, Croyland etc) ? So far as I read, Henry's target was simply to reach and gather his known supporters, who happened to be in West Wales and the Marches. I maintain that the article, if anything, states that Henry wasn't moving to London and the lede has no right to say so. Without a definite primary source that secondary sources use to bolster their arguments, any assertion that Henry was marching on London is assumption, not established fact. HLGallon (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

From p. 44 of Chrimes's Henry VII,

With the arrival of Rhy's arrival Henry could continue the march into England with less apprehension, and reached Shrewsbury on 17 August. In the meantime he had sent secret messages to his mother Margaret, and Lord Stanley and his brother Sir Gilbert Talbot, and others, intimating his intension to cross the Severn, penetrate into Shropshire, and, if possible, advance towards London.

The same fact, as repeated by Michael Van Cleave Alexander, on p. 26 of The First of the Tudors,

After passing through Aberystwyth and Macynlleth, the pretender arrived on 15 August at Shrewsbury, which refused to admit him ofr a day. ... Yet the Stanleys were notorious for hedging their bets: in 1459 Lord Stanley had almost been impeached for his failure to support the Lancastrians at Blore Heath. In an effort to persuade the Stanleys to commit themselves, Henry addressed several anxious letters to his mother and her husband in which he divulged his plan to cross the Severn and march with all possible speed towards London. Although the Stanleys were, as usual, determined to be on the winning side, whichever that might be, Sir William arrived for a private talk with Henry after he reached Stafford on 17 August.

Thus, the primary sources are Henry's letters to his mother and Lord Stanley. Jappalang (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

AH! I'll allow these certainly. These facts and sources ought to incorporated in the article. (It is possible that this plan of Henry's only occurred to him after he reached Shrewsbury and needed to impress the dithering Stanley. In any case, a dash for London was probably impossible by the time he conferred with Stanley at Atherstone, as Richard was known to be close by. However I am indulging in speculation myself here.) HLGallon (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick addition, using Chrimes. Indeed it would be impossibile to make a dash for London by the time of Atherstone (unless he wants to be ridden down from the rear by Richard's men), Richard had moved quickly to intercept Henry and his men. Jappalang (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Site moves again

The BBC [2] has accurate information on the actual site of the battle. Please update accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.24.212 (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Foard now reckons the site to be 2 miles south-west of the visitor centre, following the conclusions of the latest research. Ning-ning (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This indeed seems quite conclusive. According to an article in The Guardian, a "£1m three-year survey for the Battlefields Trust" found "22 primitive pistol bullets and cannonballs, alongside soil surveys and data from metal detection over 2.7 square miles". This was two miles away from the previously accepted location at Ambion Hill. The article is now entirely outdated, maps and all, which is quite disconcerting for an FA.

I don't want to take the article to FAR, but it needs to be changed to incorporate these new findings. The maps should probably be removed, and reinserted when more accurate findings are published, which will happen next year. The text should be altered to incorporate the new findings of course. It's important that an FA doesn't present misinformation. Lampman (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We also need to tread with some caution. So far, this is little more than a press release; we need to give it coverage, but we shouldn't assume it is correct until reliable sources say so. The BBC Radio 4 news headlines placed the battle in the English Civil War, so we can't be sure how much scrutinty has been applied. Cyclopaedic (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am with Cyclopaedic on this. While the Guardian is reporting in a definitive tone, the BBC is more cautious in its approach. A more definitive announcement in the academic/scholarly circle (via publishing of a reliable book or presentation of a paper to the circle) would be better. The migration of the battlefield 2 miles southwest of the hill presents other issues that would have further repercussions: if Northumberland was not "hindered" by terrain (marsh or ridge), then why did he not fight? Why did Richard fight far away from his artillery base (if it was established on the hill)? We cannot develop our ideas (WP:OR), we need scholars, academics and experts to publish their interpretations of this finding. Once they do that, we can reshape the article accordingly. Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) It appears what's been found is 19 items of artillery shot, most made of stone covered in lead, between 23 mm and 65 mm diameter, with one ball at 93 mm and weighing 7.2 kilos. These appear to have been fired from 6 to 12 artillery pieces in two positions. 3 items of handgun shot. A number of fragments of swords, bridles and spurs. A provisional identification of the marsh was rejected when it was found that it had dried up in Roman times, but a second marsh has now been found which appears to correspond with the required damp spot. The archaeologists' ambitions for this data not only include a shifting of the battlefield to a completely new location, but an elevation of its technical significance. What's odd are these shot covered in lead. A catalogue of most of the stone shot found around Ambion (probably about a dozen, including one found on top of the hill by the Warden) doesn't mention one covered in lead. Report's supposed to be published next year- interpretation of the finds probably about 5-10 years. Ning-ning (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are not in a rush, so we can wait for the report and the interpretations (Wikipedia does not give the latest news). The concepts of reliable sources and no original research still hold here. Someone would likely cover the story behind the lead-covered shots then. Jappalang (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we change the entire article based on a press release. All I'm saying is that we should not present as historical facts information that has now been clearly outdated. That would be spreading misinformation. We should probably create a provisional version of the article until scholarly reports are released next year. Lampman (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As pointed above, the movement of the battlefield would result in studies on how the battle actually took place. Without those studies, we cannot write on how the battle was fought in light of the new location. What we have now is how it was fought as accepted by the academic/scholarly/popular circles, and we have stated in the article that new developments cast the old location in doubt. The accounts of the sources used are verifiable. From WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Rest assured, when those reports/books/papers (reliable ones that is) are published, the new findings/interpretations will be taken into account. Jappalang (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your reading of WP:V. Are you saying that as long as something has been printed in an academic source, at any point in history, it doesn't matter if it's been falsified later? This is not how it works, WP:RS clarifies: "...some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research..." The article now makes unambiguous statements such as: "The Yorkist army, numbering about 10,000 men, deployed on the hilltop[89][90] along the ridgeline from west to east." This is no longer "accepted by the academic/scholarly/popular circles". WP:RS is not a problem; we have an official press release by Dr. Glenn Foard – probably the leading expert on the subject – which has not been corrupted by any ignorant journalist. His research has been supported by a panel of experts on various fields, such as Professor Anne Curry. The press release says, in very clear language: "The combined evidence proves that the battle was fought in the area between the villages of Dadlington, Shenton, Upton and Stoke Golding – in a location not previously suggested.". Note the use of the word "proves".

You're misrepresenting my case by implying I want to engage in deep analysis of such subjects as Northumberland's movements and the lead content of the ammunition. These were others' suggestions, not mine; I think they're only distractions at this point and should wait until further academic analysis presents itself. All I'm saying is that Wikipedia cannot present obvious falsehoods as facts. I can understand you're reluctant to make significant changes to an article you've put so much work into, but surely one of Wikipedia's most important obligations is not to spread misinformation? Lampman (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that until Foard's report/results has been vetted and interpreted by other scholars/academics, much of the article still remains true and reliable. They are in accordance with the interpretations of the sources. We are not in a rush to strike out/edit all/most that is in the current article until we receive studies on what impact the relocation has, especially when the article already states that the battle's commonly-believed location is in doubt and that Foard's work has brought about a new location. Jappalang (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The information on the new discoveries is relocated to an inferior position, while the Ambion Hill version – which was never more than one of several competing theories, and has now been proven wrong – is presented as historical fact. The findings have indeed been "vetted and interpreted by other scholars/academics"; in addition to Foard and his team, those involved in the study include, but are not limited to:

• Professor Anne Curry, Professor of Medieval History, University of Southampton
• Dr Mark Page, Research Fellow, University of Leicester
• Dr Janet Dickinson, Lecturer in the Department of History, Durham University
• Professor Barry Cox, Head of the Biology Department at King's College, University of London

This is about as authoritative as historical findings come. Earlier publications must be considered outdated, however scholarly they were at the time, since they were based on incomplete data. Whatever impact the new discoveries may have on future studies is irrelevant, that will have to be incorporated as they emerge. What must be done now is, at the very least, to make it clear at the top of the "Engagement" section that the following narrative is an outdated version of events, and is not supported by recent scholarship. Lampman (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made a change that should be acceptable to everyone. It preserves almost entirely the old narrative of the battle while making clear that it's...well, wrong. Lampman (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a mistaken view.

1. Foard is a primary source (he leads the survey).
2. Foard's findings have yet to be vetted by external parties not connected to the survey.
3. Curry, Page, Dickinson, and Cox are part of Foard's team.[3][4] They are not independent peers. Simply put, they have a stake in this endeavour (see WP:PRIMARY).
4. This is not yet "proof" (the ones who said it "proved" a new location are Foard and his team). Until the findings are vetted by external parties, they are simply the opinions of Foard and his team.
5. This is akin to a medical research's public announcement that they found a cure to some disease or a pair of professors who made a press release to have discovered cold fusion. Until an independent review of their findings is performed, their conclusions are not conclusive, so as to speak.

This is a repeat of 1990 again (Daniel Williams vs. Peter Foss - Foss's paper was presented to universities and peer-reviewed journals[5] before gaining recognition in later publications and other bodies). We just have to wait for a review or the academic body to confirm and interpret Foard's findings. English Heritage perhaps copped out by opting to mark an area as the battle ground (mayhaps soon they will incorporate this new discovery into their area or pinpoint it there), perhaps (in my opinion) reflecting the uncertainty of the chaotic flow of battles. As it is, it is Foard and his party who claim that the finding of mediaeval artillery and the study of soil samples (which are facts) point to their location (an opinion) as the spot where most of the fighting took place.

Sub points:

• Foard's findings does not make the formation of Richard's army on Ambion Hill an inaccuracy (yet). Matter of fact, Foard did not say such a thing either. Richard could have camped and formed his army on Ambion Hill and moved southwest two miles or so to engage Henry. By making a broad assumption that moving the battle southwest disproves the arrangement of 10,000 men on Ambion Hill, we are treading into our own conclusions. This shows the danger of readily accepting a press release without further considerations.
• Times article - note the tone. The newspaper follows the BBC in that they point out Foard as the claimant.

Frankly, this insertion disrupts the flow of the text (i.e. a sudden break in the reading experience). Use of "recently" is also an imprecision frowned on for FAs (is it still "recently" two years later). The point of the Prelude-Engagement is to present the established history as interpreted by the historians/scholars. As pointed out above, Foard's findings are not yet "officially accepted/approved". When they are, much of the article will then be changed. Who knows what differences the established bodies/academics might have with Foard's findings (e.g. might not the found shots have overshot the main engagement, or are they truly of the correct timeframe, see Ning-Ning's comments above)? Again, I repeat that we have mentioned Foard's findings,[6] as appropriate for the time being.

At any rate, I have extended a request to WP:MILHIST for additional comments.[7] If we are to make big changes to the article with respect to the news announcement, I think it would be better to suggest the change here and work it to FA quality before integrating it into the article. Jappalang (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jappalang (talk · contribs) here. Just because Foard has done all of this doesn't mean he isn't wrong; heck, for all we know, he could have planted the evidence himself! (I highly doubt that he did, but you never know.) We also need to consider the forthcoming opinions of others on the findings before changing the article dramatically; the status quo findings reign until a new claim is definitively proven. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I said above that we needed to proceed with some caution, but I think we have swung back too far. We should not accept the announcement as completely authoritative, but on the other hand we should not ignore it or exclude it. It seems to have been widely accepted, and no-one has so far challenged it. We need to wait for more authoritative sources before we accept it as incontrovertible, but the article just looks silly if it ignores this evidence. I was OK with the amendment as an interim measure (with the possible exception of "recently") but I think a complete re-write is required giving appropriate balance to the sources, including the recent announcement. Lots of people will be reading the article to learn about the location issue following the headline news coverage it received. Wikipedia is devalued if it ignores well-known information.Cyclopaedic (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The announcement has been sufficiently widely publicised that I htink it has to be incorporated into the article in someway. Equally it should be made clear taht it hasn't yet achieved academic consensus. David Underdown (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there is an obligation to users of Wikipedia to note this significant suggestion. While it is too early for a major rewrite, we are seeing an announcement of finding of a major archaeological survey, carried out by a team of experts whose views would carry weight in the international academic community, not a a self-published tome by an eccentric amateur. It will be some time before a definitive re-evaluation of the battle on the alternative site is possible. In the meantime, in non-academic circles, the news will fade and users in the UK and worldwide will be turning to this article for an encyclopedic description of the battle. It will fail them if it does not refer prominently to this new information, even if it only advises readers to use the article with more than usual critical caution. Monstrelet (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

At very least we need to indicate that previous theories are now contested, and I think we should have some interim edits. Made a start by deleting an unnecessary definitive statement about Ambion Hill in the lead, and adding a mention about the new research (which needs sourcing). As for Henry's previous attempt "floundering"... Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well-known information or not, it is not Wikipedia's policy to accord something that has not gained significant weight (by volume of reliable third-party sources) per WP:UNDUE. The recent edits portrays the event more than it is due and in a manner that is not encylopaedic but more of journalism (see WP:RECENTISM). For example, would someone kindly please explain why we (re-)insert the following paragraph at the end of the article:

"On 28 October 2009 Dr Glen Foard, of the Battlefields Trust, announced that his research team had definitively located the site of the battle, some two miles to the south and west of Ambion Hill. He said that the archaeological evidence was conclusive, and included 22 balls from various calibres of handgun and artillery.[180] His team's conclusions have yet to be peer reviewed."

when Foard's work has already been detailed in the opening paragraph of the last sub-section:

"Glenn Foard, Doctor of Landscape Archaeology and leader of the surveys,[167] said their collected soil samples and findings of mediaeval artillery suggested that the actual battle took place two miles southwest of Ambion Hill, contrary to the popular belief that it was fought near the foot of the hill.[168]"

The insert suffers from the repetition of Foard's credentials and role, as well as the recentism tone; who cares what date the announcement was made, it would be the period of their work, and the final acceptance of their work that would matter in years to come. Furthermore, ignoring the typos, the insert breaks the flow of the sub-section, and the citation, aside from being a double-mention of one used earlier, is inconsistent with the others. It was brought up that the announcement has to be mentioned for FA quality to be mentained, but such inserts are contrary to the FA criteria 1(a), 2(b) and 2(c): prose, structure, and citation style (WP:WIAFA). Writing FAs are not simply inserting stand-alone sections of text as I had mentioned before, which is why I requested an effort to work together on the talk pages before integrating them into the article. If no reasonable explanation can be given for the insert, I will be bold in removing it. There is no point for it when we already have a more detailed statement that opens the section of the battlefield's location. As for the Engagement sections, the following statement can be inserted before "As Henry's army advanced past the marsh at the southwestern foot of the hill ...".

"In their interpretations of old text, historians placed areas near the foot of Ambion Hill as likely regions where the two armies clashed, and thought up possible scenarios of the engagement. In their recreations of the battle, Henry started by moving his army towards Ambion Hill where Richard and his men stood."

This statement can be sourced to Ross, Chrimes, and Gravett (in fact, any reliable source on Bosworth). It serves to further explicitly state that the location given in that section is based on scholarly research. If that is acceptable, we can work it in. Jappalang (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you read the prescriptions on undue weight and recentism too strictly. To apply the "ten year rule", is it likely that this new finding will still be significant in ten years time? Yes, because it will launch a fresh round of re-evaluation. If it is confirmed by later work, it will need all the set interpretations to be rewritten or consigned to historical interest. Attention should therefore be drawn to this, as a start to the revision process, which cannot result in a major revision until such time that we have solid academic publication. So I would recommend that we be bold and begin the process, rather than timid and live with possibly misleading content. Monstrelet (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Cyclopaedic (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not doubting the significance of the work (there is a difference between an "announcement" and the "actual work"), I am questioning the manner in which the current insert is presenting it (like a newspaper piece instead of an encyclopaedic entry). As I have pointed out above, please explain why the same information should be repeated twice with that insert (and in a manner that violates the criterion for FAs).

Scholars and historians cannot dispute or argue the results of the survey until the report has been published (which it has not), which explains the lack of opinions on Foard's findings (since all current locations are based on theories, of which there are several). It is not that they are accepting it; they lack details on the survey to make queries or investigation. Jappalang (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You say the same information is repeated twice, but it isn't clear to me that the earlier piece is talking about the same research, rather than earlier surveys by Dr Foard - the citations attribute this information to books from 2004, 2008 and 2009.

It seems to me that the minimum we can do is explain what Dr Foard has said - the fact that he said it is incontrovertible (and cited). To go beyond taht we nave to draw inferences about the accuracy of what he says, which is where we get into difficulty. The date when he said it is important because (1) we need to show that all the other theories were propounded before these results were announced and (2) it explains why there is as yet no peer review. We do have to exercise some judgement in editing, and if a new theory comes from respected sources and appears to have credibility, I don't think we should be continuing to present older theories unchallenged, or perhaps even at all. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read those sources for 2008 and 2009 and tell me if they are "books" (in fact, pay attention to the 2009 sources, and notice what I mean about "double-mention of one used earlier"). The insertion of the press release into the Reference section is also wrong.[8] References are only mentioned if they are used in the article. Links not used as sources in the article are to be in the External Link section if they qualify under the criteria (WP:EL): i.e. a reliable source that provide more information than what is covered by the article and other sources. This press release does not qualify as either (the newspaper sources cover all that is mentioned in the press release).

The Battlefield Trust dig was going on for years; it does not become significant for just one announcement. This "I don't think we should be continuing to present older theories unchallenged, or perhaps even at all" is totally wrong. It is not for us to claim that the announcement debunks all the theories; it is for independent scholars and historians to publish what they think of the theories in light of the discovery, we just report what they say. Jappalang (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (post-edited 16:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Mea Culpa on the press release. It was however refered to in the discussion above, but not cited. As it is the primary source of the information, perhaps it should be used as the reference in the text in the article, rather than press coverage derived from it? I presume others put various different versions here to demonstrate that the announcement was taken seriously by reputable news sources? However, I am glad that we are talking about the how, rather than the if, of presenting this information. Monstrelet (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

From the very start, it was never about excluding the information but how to integrate it properly into a Featured Article. The press release is a primary source, and as mentioned reliable secondary sources have covered it; the release is unnecessary. As it is, I have boldy enacted what I mentioned above.[9] Jappalang (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with that in general. I do think the Battlefield section should have aanother mention of the Foard survey at the end - the section is effectively a chronological description of the location theories, but it doesn't end with Foard. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Authority of current version

I didn't want to take this up at first, but there were issues about the authority of the current version even before the recent discoveries. The version presented as the current historical consensus is really no such thing. The authorities used for the battle are partly very old; Mackie (1952), Rowse (1966), Chrimes (1972) and Ross (1974). Chrimes and Ross both died in 1986, so the 1997 and 1999 versions of their books were reprints, not revisions by the authors. The same is the case with Mackie, who died five years before the 1983 version of his book was printed. Furthermore, writers like Mackie, Chrimes, Ross and Horrox are primarily political, and not military historians. For this reason they had to rely heavily on even older works, in the case of Chrimes and Ross, Gairdner's article "The Battle of Bosworth" from 1896 and Hutton's book The Battle of Bosworth Field from 1788! Horrox, meanwhile, barely mentions military matters at all, and when she does relies primarily on Bennett's The Battle of Bosworth from 1985, which – strangely – is not even mentioned in the article. Gravett takes more of a military angle, but he does not have the same academic credentials as the other (he does not have a Ph.D., and is not attached to any academic institution.) Rowse 1966 book is perhaps the least reliable; he published around a hundred books on various subjects, but was primarily an Elizabethan historian.

In any case, there was never any consensus on the battle even when these works were written, much less by the time this article was made. Chrimes writes: "Many attempts have been made to reconstruct in detail what exactly happened at the battle of Bosworth, but mostly in vain." (p. 46) Likewise Ross: "There have been almost as many different accounts of the battle of Bosworth as there have been historians." (p. 216) The official battlefield site presents both Danny Williams' 1974 Ambion Hill theory, Peter Foss' 1985 Redesmore theory and Michael K. Jones' 2002 Atterton theory. While the pre-1985 authorities naturally lay closer to Williams' account (see map in Ross, p. 219), the article reflects Foss' theory, which was also the official battlefield site up until recently. Thus we see that the article does not even agree with the authorities that have been claimed here to support it!

As I have said repeatedly, this is not the time to rewrite the article with speculations about how the battle might have taken place. What concerns me is the fact that the article currently presents one version of the event as definitive, while it was always highly disputed, and is now almost certainly wrong. This fact needs to be prominently featured in the article, not buried away in a inferior section, otherwise it clearly fails 1c of the Featured article criteria. (PS. Certain changes have been made since I started writing this, but though this points in the right direction, it is far from enough.) Lampman (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't share Lampman's knowledge of the sources, but this has bothered me too: none of the books I have ever read has contained such detailed and apparently definitive account of the battle. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The flow of events is almost unanimous among the sources; the flow is "definitive" as far as presented history is concerned, it is the location of the clash (and inevitably the fall of Richard) that is disputed. The latest changes have made it clear the presented engagement and maps are based on historical interpretations, so I do not see any issues over it as marking it as the "definitive" one, but rather "this is the sequence of events as presented by historians". Chrimes/Ross/historians are talking about how the battle started, was fought, and ended, interpreting the sequence from the sources and around a location suggested by them. Chrimes and Ross are still regarded as authoritive sources on the history of the period, despite their age. Please feel free (a greatly encouraged endeavour) to read up the sources used and point out if there are such substantial deviations that the events presented in Engagement are not "definitive".

I am again failing to see where the disputes over the location of the battlefield have not been adequately discussed or how it is in an "inferior section"; given its weight, it occupies its own substantial section (of about six paragraphs of text), which is not the smallest in the article either. The prominent Battlefield section presents the situation and the disputed location of the fight in a clear summarised manner as appropriate for an article on the Battle as a whole (going into greater details of the disputed location is more appropriate for the article suggested by Ning-Ning below). Furthermore, the vagueries of the sources have been talked of in Legacy.

Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia is not dedicated to presenting the "truth", but the majority view (and other minor but significant ones) that is verifiable by various reliable sources. While the Merevale site has been presented by Bosworth Heritage Centre, it has been summarily dismissed or ignored by most scholars and historians (if there is dispute on that, please show the reliable secondary sources that have been advocating or discussing in detail Jones's theory). Per NPOV and WP:FRINGE, we are not obliged to present it with as much weight as Foss's and Williams's versions (both of which have been covered by various reliable secondary sources). As I mentioned below in the section for a possible new article, an elaboration of Jones's proposal is more suitable there.

If you have ideas on how to improve the article with accordance to the policies/guidelines, put them (the rough draft so as to speak) up here where we can discuss and work on them to be FA-level, and then integrate it. Jappalang (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There are definitely discrepancies between the article and the authorities it claims for support. For one thing, Ross and others (see e.g. Alfred Burne's Battlefields of England, p. 290) place William Stanley north of the battlefield before the engagement, not south as stated here. More importantly, the battle is placed the the south-west of the hill in the article, towards the marshy terrain, rather than directly to the west, where the cited authorities have it. I'm not saying this is wrong, I'm simply saying the article can claim no authoritative consensus on the matter, and certainly not based on the sources used.

All of this is moot though, and irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make, which is that it must be made clear in a prominent place that the former orthodoxy is outdated. It is true that historical paradigm shifts normally come about through lengthy academic discourse, but that is because historical consensus – particularly in the field of medieval history – is so rarely affected by the discovery of new empirical evidence. The old consensus was not based on empirical evidence, but was simply speculation based on unreliable accounts, and must therefore take an inferior position to the new finds. To suppress these new finds as WP:FRINGE is tantamount to saying that the finding of a new exoplanet can not be reported in the relevant article until there's several years' worth of scholarly discourse to support it.

I have previously made it clear what I consider a suitable solution for the moment: the current version can stand more or less in its current form, as long as it is made clear from the outset that it has been outdated by recent findings. Then, when the new findings are published in full, can a large-scale revision of the article take place. Lampman (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate, I have stated the Engagement is "definitive" on the portrayal of the sequence of events. I have pointed out the locations of events are disputed, but they make no import on the sequence. The latest change also state that the sequence is based on interpretations of history, and the disputes of location are addressed in a section of its own. Furthermore, all these are done to abide with FA quality, rather than hapzard insertions to present the "truth" and to follow the latest events.

"It has been outdated by recent findings" is wrong. A press release with minimal information does not invalidate the sequence of events presented, especially since no one (including the surveyors themselves) has interpreted the results for what effect they have on the events as they occur during the Battle of Bosworth Field. What the press release states is a possible change of location of the main clash; what this change has for the sequence of events, nobody knows, and it is not for us to say that it does. Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But the "Engagement" section, and the accompanying map, makes a very clear statement on the location of the battle: at the foot of Ambion Hill. This is the only location mentioned, and that makes it authoritative; weasel words like "vague" or "interpretation" doesn't change that. Meanwhile the press release is entirely unambiguous as to the battle taking place "in a location not previously suggested", yet this receives no mention in the section at all. This seems to me a matter of suppressing information central to an up-to-date understanding of the topic, for the purpose of maintaining the article in its present state. Lampman (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How does "historians placed areas near the foot of Ambion Hill as likely regions where the two armies clashed" make this a definitive assertion, and how is it in "weasel words" when we specifically state who are behind these ideas and further details are provided in a section dedicated to them? The locations stated in Engagement are where historians have located the battle, according to the sources we have now. Until larger numbers of historians and scholars start talking about a location away from the foot of Ambion Hill, that is what reliable sources have presented.

This project aims to be an encylopaedia, not a newspaper. A press release does not nullify years of belief until the new location is taken up in the academic and social circles. The focus of information on reliable sources is not "suppressing information central to an up-to-date understanding of the topic"; it simply is how Wikipedia operates (, especially since the results of the findings have not yet been vetted in any form by the scholarly or historical circles. Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."

The new findings are simply the team's opinions until others have vouched for them, using it in their interpretations. So far, everyone who are accepting the new location is associated with the dig. Those who are not simply state that the findings present a new possibility and could further understanding of the subject and other studies. "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution." Jappalang (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Foard Survey

The report by Foard is expected to be released in February 2010, or at least the location of the site where the items were found will be revealed. There are three parts to this survey; examination of the soils and the geography to reconstruct the old landscape, examination of the historical documents for placenames and fieldnames, and the fieldwork with the metal detectors. There doesn't seem to be at the moment one complete source for all the information that's "leaked" out to the press. The whole area's a flat plain between small hills; it may be that the discovery of the "site" will turn out in the end to be less important than the discovery of the ammunition. Seems to me that a separate article would be a good solution, with lower standards :) than this FA. Ning-ning (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea. The title could be Location of the Battle of Bosworth Field, Locating the Battle of Bosworth Field, or such. There was much I did not put in this article because the subject is about the battle and a summary style is to be used for such.

A dedicated article about the location of the battle can go into further details.

• How the early sources (Vergil, Warksworth, etc) were vague, contradictory, or disclosing nothing about the location.
• William Hutton's theories and explorations that influenced later historians
• Alfred Burne's own interpretation, along with Ross, Chrimes and others
• Daniel Williams's location
• the challenges by Foss (and Jone's Merevale..., then there is also Wright's theory of the battle at southeast of the hill)
• finally, the work of Foard's team

There are several secondary sources that deal with evaluating these theories, so such an article would not lack either notability or verifiability (as oft stated, Foard's team is covered by English Heritage for their early results, no secondary sources have covered their final since the report has yet to be released). Jappalang (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As for reactions on the locating of the battle... we have sources that talk of how it was not a big deal until Francis Bacon and gang made it prominent, but later faded again. The recent newspaper articles have also some comments by the public on why it might not be a big deal at all. Jappalang (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Placed a photo on my user page of the terrain. Ning-ning (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Foard's report is now released, in the current (May/June) issue of British Archaeology. As a start, I have added the co-ordinates within the relevant section. Ambion Hill now seems out of the running, but its co-ordinates are still at the head of the article. I hesitate to replace these or make further changes—the current reference scheme would have to be changed to include journals—without a review from regular contributors here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Although published, I would advise caution: it is still a primary source (Foard's the author), and not reviewed or used as a source for secondary studies yet, especially since Featured Articles are to use scholarly articles over primary sources/news articles (as explained by the FAC delegate). It can still be useful to flesh out a bit on his findings, but under restrictions as mentioned earlier still. By the way, can you point out on which page number did Foard state the co-ordinates? We would need to cite the source for that, and I am pretty familiar with the various cite templates and article structure enough to insert it in. Judging from British Archaeology's archives, those who are not their subscribers can access an online copy (mayhaps summarised) in about 2 months time; but it might save time to have the page number as of the moment. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

At the moment the grid reference attaches only to Foard's location, without making any more general claim for the battle site, and I'm very happy to let it rest at that for the present, as you suggest. I've taken advantage of the "Routine calculations" exception to the NOR rule to overlay the national grid reference (translated by the software to global co-ordinates) for "Fen Hole" onto the plan on page 29. The ref would be: Foard, Glenn (April 2010). "Discovering Bosworth". British Archaeology (112). York, England: Council for British Archaeology: 29. ISSN 1357-4442. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Birthplace of Henry VII

User:Jorwar would like to include a sentence indicating that Henry was born in Pembroke. Unfortunately repeated attempts to include this info are being reverted-partly because no reference has been provided. Jorwar's latest edit summary refers to the page for Henry VII, where his birthplace is mentioned in the info box only- without a reference. Ning-ning (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems fairly trivial, it needs referencing, not so much to show taht the birthplace is correct, but to show that historians consider the landing place a deliberate choice due to that connection. David Underdown (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that Henry was born in pembroke caste in 1457? All history books I've read on the subject concur. That Pembrokeshire was chosen for his landing in 1485 is at least an interesting fact for the reader and possible one for discussion. (Nowhere in the article is his place of birth mentioned.) He spent the first 14 years of his life in the region so probably knew it and its people quite well. (Jorwar (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC))

Agree with David that this is too trivial piece of information; historians have not connected or emphasize such a connection between Milford Haven and Pembroke, and it is not for us to take up such a cause either. Basically, such an idea fails WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Jappalang (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

How political! Had he born in London, I'm sure his birthplace wouldn't be "trivial". The fact is (as Jorwar says above) Harry Tudor spent the first 14 years of his life in the region... Professor David Williams agrees with this, and also reveals that Henry had been brought up by a Welsh nurse, the wife of Philip ap Howel of Caerfyrddin, 'who may, indeed, have taught him to speak Welsh, and of who he had so pleasant a memory that he granted her a pension when he came to the throne.' Trivial? Not at all. This article has avoided any referance to the fact that Henry Tudor regarded himself as a Welshman. After ascending the throne he sent a commission into Wales to inquire into and publish his Welsh descent... that he was descended from the Welsh princely line. His grandfather was Owain Tudur of Penmynydd. There is no mention either of what the poets wrote at that time: Guto'r Glyn mentions that Richard was killed by Rhys ap Thomas. This is primary evidence and needs to be included. Even contemporary English poets (see: Ballad of the Lady Bessy and The Rose of England) mention the strength of Sir Rhys' army:

Sir Rhys ap Thomas, a Knight of Wales certain,

Eight thousand spears brought he...

Sir Rhys ap Thomas draws Wales with him,

A worthy sight it was to see

How the Welsh rose wholly with him,

And stogged them to Shrewsburye.

Trivial? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as has been oft said to you: Show a reliable secondary analysis that specifically and explicitly state such a connection. Your own analysis is not for inclusion. Jappalang (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Details

The thrust of this article as previously stated is a general overview without going too much into details. Thus, mentions of the name of Richard's steed and a list of names of his knights might be excessive, hence this reversion. The fates of Catesby, Ratcliffe, and Lovell might be summarised in Post-battle (not Engagement where the "battle is still ongoing" and that they are not mentioned in significance before this battle) due to their positions as Richard's cohorts (the cat, the rat, and the dog under the hog), but even then I am not too certain of their notability. The rest, however, do not seem to be of significance to this battle. Jappalang (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Background

The section "Background" contains material that could better be placed in the entries on the Duke of Gloucester / Richard III and on Henry Tudor / Heny VII. Some of the material seems to be based uncritically on Tudor propaganda, e.g. there is no certainty about what happened to the Princes in the Tower. ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.C. Rigg (talk • contribs) 15:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The article never stated Richard did the deed. It only said what the popular opinion over the matter was; so this point is pretty much moot. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This point is NOT pretty much moot. The impression given of Richard III on this page is taking the Tudor propaganda as fact: "seized the throne", insinuation that he killed the princes... For this article to be factual, it needs to be noted that this story only comes from those who overthrew the reigning king. He may or may not have been involved in declaring the princes to be illegitimate, but this uncertainty must be stated. Guy.shrimpton (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources of evidence about the battle

The fairly contemporary sources could better be treated separately rather than in a section "Legacy". Not mentioned are the compensations by Henry VII to Merevale, Atherstone, Mancetter, Witherley, Atterton and Fenny Drayton. John D. Austin (Merevale and Atherstone: 1485; recent Bosworth discoveries, Friends of Atherstone Heritage, 2004, p.2-6) reconstructs the movements of Henry on the basis of this contemporary evidence. His reconstruction is close to that of M.K. Jones (Bosworth: 1485; psychology of a battle, Tempus, 2002) but relies also on detailed knowledge of the local area. Neither of these sources is discussed in the present Wikipedia article. There are now two physical items of evidence: firstly Dadlington Church and graves, presumably mainly from Henry;s army; secondly the finds in an area south of Upton from the recent archaeological survey.

Another source of evidence is local place-names, past and present. Redemore, on grounds of analous Leicestershire place-names, probably means 'Road Moor' rather than 'Reed Moor'. According to J. Nichols (The history and antiquities of the County of Leicestershire, 1811), Henry marched to battle along the Redway, which was the prehistoric road from Edgehill through Coventry to Derby, passing through Fenny Drayton to Atterton and Sibson. This means that the munition residues found could be from Henry's army.

On names too, King Richard's Hole (originally probably Halgh, meaning lowland by a river) at the confluence of the Sence with the Anker at the Mythe in Sheepy parish is evidence that Richard spent his last night with his ally Sir Humphrey Stafford at Mythe Hall,then a considerable fortress, reckoning on facing Henry across the River Anker. Henry probably moved along the Redway to Atterton and Upton during the previous night, so that Richard was facing into the morning sun, as pointed out by Jones and Austin.

The local evidence is against most identifications of Sandeford, where Richard was killed. The only sandy ford on the slow-flowing River Saint or Tweed is where the river crosses Upton Ridge, namely Miles Ford south of Wellsborough Hill, which is probably the 'mountaine full high' to which Sir William Stanley removed according to Bosworth Feilde ballad. Even allowing for any exaggeration in the ballad, the 'dale' or 'plaine' can only be that nearer the confluences of the Saint, the Sence and the Anker. In that area, Richard, on arrival from Leicester, would be in sight of both Wellsborough Hill and Merevale Abbey. Christopher Rigg —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.C. Rigg (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based (reliant) on sources widely accepted as reliable and accurate (please read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV). It is not our cause to propogate sources that are not widely known or accepted. I am not an academic, but the article has used the common versions of the battle out there and is mostly reliant on the sources that have been vetted academically (Ross and Chrimes) . The sources presented above in this section are not to my knowledge widely known or recognised. Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Citing the lede with the BBC newspiece

Again and again, I have to wonder if people really read the whole instead of jumping in on recentism. The BBC newspiece (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/8523386.stm) is already a source in the article and need not be formatted as a new source. What the heck is "Walker, Bob (28 October 2009). "New Battle over Bosworth's Site". BBC Radio 5 Live (United Kingdom: BBC). Retrieved 29 October 2009." under Online sources?! Would anyone bother to check through the article before constantly re-inserting the same darn thing under another different format? Featured articles require consistency in its cites and certainly not to spam out the same source many times differently (WP:WIAFA). Information in the lede also do not need to be cited if it is already sourced in the main body (unless it is extremely controversial or is a quote per WP:LEDE); the lede is a summary after all. Furthermore, as stated in previous sections, until academic circles or an authorative body (such as English Heritage) affirm Foard's finding, we go with what is official; i.e. the Heritage's designation of a wide swath of land (centralised co-ordinates) as possible areas of the battle. Jappalang (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wonder no longer as I myself did NOT read every source cited nor all of the text. I read to where I interjected a new found link on the BBC webpage. All who make a mistake in such a manner are innocently trying to add to the article so forgiveness should be applied or as Wiki states, something to the effect of, Give the person the benefit of doubt. Besides, no harm done and it is best to be inclusive rather than exclusive with such important finds. I don't know anything about "Walter". I do not wish to say anymore so please let it go.  – Brother Officer^Talk 04:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As one of the people who added the link, I have to say, if that link is anywhere in the article then it must be very well hidden as I couldn't find it, also prior to yesterdays edits there had not been a edit for 9 days, and that was a revert for Vandalism. So please show where it has been cited as a source. Also you seem to be trying to own this article. But that could just be my cynical mind at work. --SimonD (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That a new site for a battle had probably been found was announced some months ago, it is already mentioned in the article, and you'll find previous discussion on this page too. What's been announced over the past few days is the precise location, previously kept secret while work was being completed to protect the site from nighthawks. What's still no entirely clear is whether these findings have been accepted within the wider academic community, and if peer-reviewed publication has occurred. As this is a featured article, the general feeling has been that we don't necessarily want to take these new announcements as gospel without that level of proof. David Underdown (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to offer an apology first: I jumped the gun so as to speak thinking the BBC link (8523386.stm) was the same as the one used in the article (Walker, 8329251.stm); it was not. Nevertheless, my point still stands. The information presented in the two articles are practically the same; the second is just the media's "re-announcement" of the Trusts's findings so as to speak. If necessary, we can replace the older newspaper sources with the new, but the end result is the same.

Using charges of WP:OWN here is totally off the mark. This is a Featured Article; hence, WP:WIAFA should be abided (while still operating under the project's policies and guidelines) instead of treating the article as a dump of information (the lede is also a summary, not intended to offer new information or sources not found in the main body text). Furthermore, as pointed out, WP:RECENTISM should not overbear the aim to provide encylopaedic content.

This project is not a news site (we have Wikinews for that). For articles of academic nature, they are supposed to be built on academic sources. Primary sources are frowned on; the point is: just because someone says so, does not make it so. For academic subjects on Wikipedia, until claims are formally accepted, they are to be judged and used with care. In this case, until the English Heritage (which I think is the official authority in United Kingdom for historical sites) or the wider academic circle judged it so, Foard's findings are still unofficial. Jappalang (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Battlefield location found?

Have any historians commented on this?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7032790.ece

Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. It is very likely that as Foard's findings are recent, it will take some time for the academic society to digest and come up with their opinions of them. If I am not wrong, Foard has yet to submit his findings to a university body (he and his team are probably busy at the moment compiling and editing such an item). Very likely, there will be changes in the official interpretations of the battle, but it is not for us to think up such ideas but to report the published papers of others. Jappalang (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's too bad. I've read a lot of books about the War of the Roses, although I haven't done so in years. I saw Times Online article and was reminded about how little is known of the battle and was hoping historians and archeologists had something "official" to declare. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang, you are swiming against the tide. This entry needs a better coverage and details of the new findings on the location on the battle, whether or not it hasn't been published in, or approved of by some academic source deemed appropiate by yourself. It may only be a news item at the moment (covered by the BBC, Guardian, Times etc.) but I have not heard or seen any experts contradicting the new evidence or denying it's authority. Wikipedia is indeed not a news wiki, but the main appeal of it to myself is it's ability to (relatively) quickly incorporate new thinking and evidence. If I wanted something truly authorative under your rules (which may or may not be Wikipedia's too), what would be the point of me visiting a reactive/adaptable/vibrant online source when i really should be refering to a published paper or a book e.g. a proper Encyclopedia! Michael 11:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.18.64 (talk)

I have already pointed out the relevant policies and guidelines above. In particular, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As borne out by the various policies and guidelines pointed out here and above sections, it is not an indiscriminate amalgation of "new thinking and evidence". Neither should it predict that a news item would become something more (WP:CRYSTAL). The sourcing for academic subjects on this project should rely on academic sources. In particular, the rules are stricter for this article because it is a Featured Article, and thus should comply with the FA criteria ("Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources") to maintain its status. Since Wikipedia is a work in progress, we can certainly wait for those academic discourses to have a high quality article rather than trying to piecemeal something out of fragmented reports. As it is, the article already mentions Foard's work and that is enough for now. If you are here for "a reactive/adaptable/vibrant online source" instead of an "Encyclopedia!", then you are in the wrong place (or have misunderstood the project's purpose). Jappalang (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What about keeping everyone happy to a point, not disrupting the flow or quality of this article, but producing the seperate article suggested on Foard's work etc as per topic 17 above (which seems to have been overlooked since early November), as the anticipated early February announcement has now been made, is indeed more exciting about the roundshot and metal finds than the specific location issue, and the conference included several historians as experts to discuss it. As per http://www.leics.gov.uk/pressrelease.htm?id=187332 and http://www.leics.gov.uk/pressrelease.htm?id=187332 and http://www.bosworthbattlefield.com/battle/archaeology/battlefield_found.htm Genealogy Jo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC).

This is rather late, but I was looking at how the discussion of the location has proceeded and is still unresolved 5 years later. I cant help thinking it is a false argument to argue that BECAUSE something is a feature article, and thus the best on wikipedia, it should be allowed to perpetuate an error for longer than an ordinary article. It is absolutely not to the benefit of an article that it ignores difficult editorial decisions. The right course is always to explain a problem of sources disagreement where one exists. An editorial decision has to weigh not just the number of supporters of each camp, but the magnitude of the problem, and having a different location and thus quite a lot of potentially false description is a pretty big problem. Sandpiper (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Grammar

Removed 'penultimate,' which means second-from-last, not 'biggest,' as it was apparently used in the article. The Battle of Bosworth field was the last battle of the Wars of the Roses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.32.120 (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a substantial body of opinion that the Battle of Stoke in 1487 was the last pitched battle of the Wars. I'm sure that "penultimate" was used in this sense. Whichever was meant, the removal of the word made the opening sentence ungrammatical. HLGallon (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

'penultimate' could be replaced with 'ultimate'. Either that or the Battle of Stoke should be mentioned as the ultimate battle. At the moment the text looks wrong.

anonymous newbie

Who killed the Princes?

Some reference should be made to the works of recent scholars who point out that there were reports of sightings of the princes in the Tower after Henry Tudor came to the throne and that since the princes had been declared illegitimate they were more of a threat to Henry than they would have been to Richard. After all, if they were illegitimate, so was their sister, Elizabeth of York, and Henry would not gain anything by marrying her, but if she was legitimate, so were they and Edward of York would be the true king of England, not Henry Tudor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.152.174 (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Battle of Bosworth Field, not an exploration of the Princes in the Tower; the background for the battle presents a summarised view of the story behind the princes. For such theories, please look to the article mentioned. Jappalang (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"penultimate battle" ?

"penultimate battle"? What was the final battle then? Penultimate means second to the end, not the end. Unless there was another battle, maybe this should be called the 'final battle'. (posted by an anonymous newbie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.218.20 (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

See Battle of Stoke Field (and that one was new to me, too). --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I recommend a visit to the battlefield at East Stoke- more evocative than Bosworth; the Red Gully is accessible and the site of the battle visible from the (soon to be) old A46. Ning-ning (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Passing through Wales

I integrated the supplied ref from this addition into the article's reference system and moved it all from the lede to "Prelude". If it's significant enough there could still be a shorter mention, without Dr Thomas's quotes, in the lede.

Does the direct quote from the source contravene WP:NPS, or is it within the guideline?

--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. This is what your above referance says: In Wikipedia articles, quotes of any original texts being discussed should be relevant to the discussion (or illustrative of style) and should be kept to an appropriate length. There is, therefore, no problem with the quote. The Welsh role in Henry's victory was very significant; the article needs this quote to reflect that. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: not enough caffeine in my last. The link I gave refers to primary sources: I should have been looking at WP:RS#Quotations for secondary sources, where this is allowed, subject to WP:NFC#Text. Apologies again: I offer only the time stamp of the edit as mitigation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am reverting the changes. It contradicts what is written in the Prelude section, and what more recent accounts by Ross and Elton say. Principally (with regards to what these two have said), the suggestion of an overwhelming Welsh support and that Henry purposely touted his bloodline is fringe. Jappalang (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

How dare you revert my additions without explaining why. It is not Dr. Ceinwen Thomas who said that he (Harry) had come "'to free this our Principality of Wales of such miserable servitude as they have long piteously stood in'" but Henry himself!!! Your comment that I suggested that there "Henry (had) purposely touted his bloodline is fringe" is incredible. No where have I said that. I would in fact agree totally with what Dr. John Davies has said in that modern Penguin Classic (p. 210) The History of Wales that "Henry didn't relate to the Welsh, but the Welsh certainly did relate to the Tudors". To say that I had said that "Henry purposely touted his bloodline..." is incorrect. To say that a historian is correct because it is a "more recent account" is also rubbish; absolute rubbish! You are politically biased. Now, please stick with the facts, rather than throw words like a bully on the school playground. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. I read "Henry (had) purposely touted his bloodline" from "Henry Tudor, who championed the Welsh (and the Lancastrian) cause". In so far as fringe, as far as I can tell, there is only one source that relates Ceinwen Thomas's opinion to the Battle of Bosworth.[10] Compare that with the amount of references that cite Chrimes; Welshmen certainly did not "flocked to his side" as Henry traveled to Bosworth. Neither did Wales get what it would deserve (independence) if it was "a national war of liberation"; nor was such an opinion propagated in mainstream academia. Simply put, Thomas's opinion is not accepted by scholars, thus fringe, whereas Chrimes's biography of Henry VII is considered an authoritative study of the king. Wikipedia is not for promoting opinions that are mostly unknown or unaccepted. Jappalang (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Fringe! I would call Chrimes and Kendall fringe. They don't acknowledge primary evidence from Wales. Not once do they mention the importance of the poetry of Lewys Mon, Hywel Rheinallt, Dafydd Llwyd, Tudur Aled, Lewis Glyn Cothi, Dafydd Nanmor etc in the context of Henry Tudor. And that, Sir, is unbalanced, as is this article. It is not only Ceinwen Thomas who writes about the importance of the Welsh in the Battle:

• Proffessor David Williams writing in History Today (1954) The vaticinatory verses of no less than thirty-five bards writing at this time have been preserved for us. They spoke of the young prince beyond the sea in terms of Arthur, who would rise to rescue the Welsh from saxon thraldom... (page 82).
• Professor W. Garmon Jones also wrote (Welsh nationalism and Henry Tudor, page 24 - 25): The appeal of henry Tudor to his countrymen was twofold; it was an appeal based on kindred, to the chieftains of the land, and it was an appeal to the senses of nationalism... Henry had every reason to put his trust in his fellow countrymen. The ground had been prepared for his coming by the vigorous propaganda of the bards. Yet, all the author says about the Welsh bards in his book Richard the Third is his referance to 'the thrumming of the bards!!! What a derogatory term!
• Dr. Pierce Roberts, the eminent medieval scholar , has expressed the view that No one can ever attempt to write an account of the history of the Wars of the Roses that approaches a complete survey, without first saturating himself in the works of the Welsh poets. This Wikipedia article doesn't event mention them!
• J. Roland Phillips writes in the opening chapter of The Civil War in Wales and the Marches (Volume 1, page 5), The bards, indeed, as a body were highly obnoxious to the English; for they had exercised a most powerful influance in fanning the flame of insurrection. By the aid of Welsh swords the Battle of Bosworth was won.
• The erudite historian A. H. Williams wrote: Public opinion in Wales, as expressed by the bards, the most vocal section of the community, regarded the whole struggle not as a faction fight between one branch of the royal house and another, but as a national struggle for Welsh independance... Guto'r Glyn, for example, cared not which side one, provided a welshman wore the crown of Britain.
• Professor A. O. H. Jarman wrote in The Routes of Henry Tudor and Rhys ap Thomas through Wales to the Battle of Bosworth (Arch. Camb. 1937, Volume XCII page79: Henry Tudor's victory at Bosworth Field in 1485 was believed in Wales to be the fullfilment of prophecies which the bards had uttered through many generations of war and conquest... the long-awaited liberator of his people. The penal laws of Henry IV had, in the fifteenth century, deprived Welshmen of the common rights of citizens... throughout the whole of Welsh history the fifteenth century is the most bitterly anti-English. By 1485, indeed, the Welsh were in no mood to be satisfied with the mere restoration of their civic rights. At long last the 'day of wrath' had arrived, the hour of vengeance for the sufferings of dire years of tyranny and suppression. And it is preciely this aspect of the Wars of the Roses that has been ignored by English historians, including yourself.
• In 1972, Hugh Thomas wrote in A History of Wales 1485 - 1660 (Published by the University Press, Wales) There can be little doubt that the support which Henry received from Wales was a major factor in his winning the throne, or that Henry appreciated this. On his coinage it was the dragon of wales which shared with Beaufort greyhound the privilege of supporting his crown. Victory had been won - a Welshman did rule in london, and Henry was at pains to assert his Welsh origins. Geneoligists were employed to trace or fabricate his descent from the great figures of the past of Wales...

You cannot expect to attain, still less transmit, a complete and balanced view, if you chose to ignore important primary sources, just because they have been written in Welsh or in Wales.

• Professor William Rees one of Wales' most eminent historians wrote in his Volume An Historic Atlas of Wales (1959): There is an element of romance in the rise of the Tudors of Penmynydd, who were to lay claim to the English throne... The success of Henry was, in part, bound up with the support he obtained from the Welsh... It was this great wave of national sentiment in Wales which was to carry Henry to victory at Bosworth.

And there is more, much more... Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Chrimes, Kendall? Ross, a most preeminent scholar on the Wars, shares the same view. Geoffrey Randolph Elton, noted expert on the Tudors, also supported the notion that Henry VII had no notion to champion Wales when he announced the march on Bosworth. There is no doubt Henry had Welsh support but it was far from overwhelming, which is reflected in the article. Henry promised nothing on a national level for the Welsh, neither did he advanced many Welsh causes to significance after his enthronement. The touting by Welsh bards of Henry's "Welshness" was mostly of their own volition, the continual perpetuation of a dream of a Welsh prince riding to their rescue ever since Llywelyn was bested by Edward I. Eliciting and receiving support from a group does not mean one has to champion their cause. David Melding and Colin Pendrill agree with this view (that Henry never championed a Welsh cause and that most Welshmen treated his arrival with indifference and caution) as well. Wikipedia articles are supposed to rely on secondary and tertiary sources, not primary, and for Featured Articles, such sources should be high quality. Jappalang (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How so odd that your acceptable scholars are English. None are Welsh. None of the above to my knowledge have looked at the primary evidence, therefore, they should be discounted. The other alternative is to mention in the article that there is school of thought, namely that which is and has been held by Welsh scholars, who have looked at both Welsh and English primary evidence. But then, as WC said, History is written by the victors and I take it that you, Sir, are also English? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Far as I understand the argument, some Welsh poems burble on about Henry championing the Welsh. The argument about history being written by the victors is specious, since the "Welsh" Henry was the victor. Might as well argue that some French poetry should be included, because of the significant French contribution. Ning-ning (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(To Llywelyn2000) Au contraire, as stated, they did examine primary sources (examining the ballads, army figures, levies, pre- and post-battle letters) and as stated found that the general Welsh populace at that time did not fully support Henry before Bosworth and that he did not champion a Welsh cause. However odd it may be, their findings are the accepted view worldwide among scholars (as illustrated again by the cites to material by Chrimes and the others). Please read carefully their writings. Melding is not even English. He is Welsh. "History is written by the victors": well, Henry did win, so he wrote the histories of Tudor England, did he not? So there would be a Welsh view in the chronicles then. As for me, my nationality is plainly stated on my user page. My aim here is to write, in accordance with policies and guidelines, quality articles that interest me. Promoting a niche viewpoint and claiming it is of some weight to challenge or overturn a scholastic view accepted worldwide simply falls foul of those rules. Jappalang (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My arguments remain unanswered by you. I state that Chrimes and Kendall "don't acknowledge primary evidence from Wales. Not once do they mention the importance of the poetry of Lewys Mon, Hywel Rheinallt, Dafydd Llwyd, Tudur Aled, Lewis Glyn Cothi, Dafydd Nanmor etc in the context of Henry Tudor." I have read both these English historians to some depth in the last 6 months, yet nowhere can I find evidence that they have read the important documents written by these Welsh poets. And please, do not ever call their work "ballads"! This shows your ignorance. These were some of Europe's finest poets, all were aritocrats, NONE were "babling bards". Now, WHERE do they discuss this wealth of poetry, together with the messages conveyed within? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My forthcoming edit

please do not act hastily in deleting things you havent read. PMK indeed wrote this, and i am in the process of finding the page # in the biography. you could move it anywhere, but why delete variable info? appalling seeing many allison weir references, btw. 70.15.169.17 (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

typed it under legacy section. ill add the page reference when i can find it. good day. 70.15.169.17 (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggest the WP:SANDBOX until it's ready. I did try to identify your reference in Paul Murray Kendall's Richard the Third (ISBN 0393007855) to add it, but I couldn't find it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

might be in another book ive mistaken for the bio. took you 43 mins to peruse a book of over 500 pages. yr fast my friend, yr fast. 70.15.169.17 (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

i think you just believe the statement to be partisan and as such, violate the supossed "neutrality" of the article. to have a "featured article" based plurally on allison weir quotes and information sickens me. there must be some retarded hierarchy i am not aware of. 70.15.169.17 (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean I wasted my 43 minutes trying to fix your edit, because it was the wrong book? Best I pay more attention to "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds…material" in future. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

sorry yr highness, excuse my grave error in a page full of blatant and latent inadequacies. cheers. funny, on another page i tried to add a KG post-nominal to an individual and i was told, full stop, that it was anachronistic to do so for people in the middle ages. this, i found out, to be true. still, there are countless individuals that retain the letters in their titles. do me a favor and fix those, almighty god of internet information. moonrake you to hell, i will. hahaha. bond, dave bond. 70.15.169.17 (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

also, in this same article, some time ago I added the true commander of the Lancasters-John de Vere, and was refused justification as to why it had been removed. tudor was a hack and never led an army in person. i see he was the leader of the army, but not the vanguard commander. the article even states such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.169.17 (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the thread starter's issues. They do not seem to tally with the article's contents.

1. This article does not reference any works by Alison Weir.
2. What the thread starter was trying to insert is already in the article (see third paragraph of Legacy).
3. The thread starter misattributed the comment about Richard's swan-song. It is not said by Kendall. It is by Michael Bennet.

I believe this entire thread and the provocative attitude displayed in it need not be started if the article and sources were actually read instead. Jappalang (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

800 MOUNTED MEN?

you are familiar with me by this point, but my points are being ignored by the registered members, whose allegiances i am questionable of. it is said by numerous authors that he only charged tudor with his household knights and their squires. rolls from the time state he had anywhere from 20-25 household knights and their customary squires. most sources point to the number being no more than 100 that took with him in death's shadow. he is said to have excused common soldiers and only summoned his bodyguard because of the obvious danger. i know the records are scarce, but 800 is an absolutely proposterous number. please fix. 70.15.169.17 (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

“Numerous authors”: it would be helpful if you could name them, and the books where they say that he ordered no more than 100 into “death’s shadow”. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

im sure yr tired of hearing my mention kendall (mostly because most modern readers somehow view his material as being outdated), but he states this. it is mentioned universally that he led his household knights into a fatal charge. can a man have 800 household knights and squires. this wasnt nero or any image-obsessed ruler of antiquity, this was a simple man who inherited the throne under extraordinary circumstances. 70.15.169.17 (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say tired of your references to Kendall, but the last time proved to be something of a wild goose chase: you sent me to the wrong book! Can you be more specific this time?--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I know not where the numbers of "20-25" knights and "no more than 100" come from, and Kendall's Richard the Third (1956) does not seem to have this sort of figures. I do notice that Ross later wrote his own thoughts about the figures given by others, so I put it down. Hopefully, that will satisfy this issue (and the IP editor will take Moonraker's comments to heart and be more discerning with personal thoughts and more careful with attribution of facts to sources). Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

i like what you did there, sir. very journalistic and broad, but it asks the common man to question such a number. i am using the average number a later middle ages monarch would have in his retinue, 20-25 in peacetime. during wartime it was different and the number swell as numbers were added (mainly HYW). anyways, thanks for appending it. as for the quotation in kendall: look on page 441 "at the head of less than a hundred men, the King of England, his golden crown flashing on his helmet, was charging the mass of the enemy reserve." this is the 1983 renewal copyright, i believe. i am american, perhaps you have a british version? to further elaborate, this version has the famous portrait of richard slightly altered, with a panorama of lads and ladies behind him. you do a grave disservice to people if you allow material not to be checked. misinformation is killing this generation just as much as devolution of language and culture. ill be damned if i cannot elocute the truth to mongrels.70.15.169.17 (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I missed that as I was scanning for figures ("more than 100" per quote). As for your "20–25", that is original research and would be against policy to include in the article. It would have been better if the details (p. 441, Kendall, Richard the Third) were supplied in the first place (the altercation would not have happened in that case). If one is to criticize an article, then it is a matter of basic courtesy and form to supply accurate information (basis) on what is wrong; that did not happen the first time (as evidenced in the above thread). It does not help to continue pushing an attitude that causes conflict and again without specific details. There is a history here (and thus it would not be surprising if that person's opinions are treated with caution and doubts); if one wishes others to ignore or forget about that, then the person has to improve the manner they are editing here. Jappalang (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Background

I just deleted the following sentence: "Except for those in the north, the people of England firmly believed that Richard, the "tyrant",[citing Lander p 327] had murdered his nephews.[citing Ross p 104]" Ross doesn't actually say that; in fact, he implies the exact opposite, that only in "the southern and western counties of England" did these rumors sway large numbers of people, and that "the rest of the country seems to have been untroubled by such sentiments." Other historians make clear that even for years after Bosworth there was no consensus ("firmly believed" or otherwise) on the fate of the princes, and in fact Perkin Warbeck spent several years successfully claiming to be Richard of Shrewsbury.DCB4W (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This contribution by IP removed from article Note * - this point is disputable. Jasper Tudor was an experienced soldier, and the various Lancastrian enclaves in Brittany and France were reported at the time as armed camps; so it is difficult to believe that Henry - as a young nobleman - did not get military training aimed at fitting him to be a Commander in-the-field. Furthermore, we know from French sources that in early-1485 Henry led a combined force of his Lancastrians and French troops loaned by the Regent of France, - Princess Anne de Beaujeu,- to raise the siege of Hammes Castle near Calais, after the garrison had declared for him, and Richard III had ordered the Constable Of Calais to invest the castle and return the garrison to it's proper Allegiance. Directly after that incident,in return for the loan of those French forces which had been on their way back from Flanders, the French Regent prevailed upon Henry to lead his Lancastrians in support of some other military operations of her own. Therefore, looking at the timeline, one should consider in the light of the marked foregoing statement,that Henry had spent 14 years living in an armed encampment which was in a constant state of high alert against fears of kidnap and-or assassination, - being trained almost-daily in the arts of war, and had already led his Lancastrians into combat himself on at least two deployments, even before the Battle of Bosworth. Added to these facts, consideration should be given to his activities during the first 12 years of his Reign, during which contemporary commentators note him as an accomplished Jouster, archer, and huntsman with the boar spear; besides leading an invasion of France in person, in support of Brittany in 1492; and leading his forces to put down the armed Risings for Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. In my opinion, it is therefore unsafe to assume that Henry was lacking in military training and military ability."

Coats of Arms

I haven't removed them yet but the Coats of Arms shown for the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Surrey as leaders of the Yorkists are incorrect. They are the Howard arms but show the Flodden agumentation awarded to Surrey (then 2nd Duke of Norfolk) after the Battle of Flodden. Since this was almost 30 years after Bosworth the relevent arms should be the Howard arms without the augmentation. In addition, Surrey's arms should have a mark of difference e.g. a label of three points since othrwise he would be carrying the same arms as his father which is contrary to the laws of heraldry. Jwasanders (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the system of differencing arms was not formalised with the marks of cadency until the Tudor period at the earliest: see eg http://www.theheraldrysociety.com/articles/marshalling_and_cadency/differencing_in_england_scotland_and_france.htm. Many illustrations backdate later rules to earlier periods. Eldest sons commonly bore their father's arms undifferenced (and still do). Cyclopaedic (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Background Section

The Background section contains this sentence:

The Beauforts were originally bastards, but Henry IV legitimised them on the condition that their descendants were not eligible to inherit the throne

My understanding is that Richard II legitimized them and that Henry IV confirmed that but added that they were not eligible for the throne. Is that sentence mistaken? Could it be written clearer? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Location

Is there any doubt left about the location of the battle? It seems to me that the exact spot has been proven. I'll go ahead and add that in sometime in the near future unless there are strong objections. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Glenn Foard study needs a much more thorough write up. I don't have access to his 2013 book, which I gather does its best to be definitive, but still has to admit that all conclusions as to the 'exact spot' involve considerable speculation. What I do have is a manuscript copy of a Critical Review of Foard's book, by Peter Foss. I will try to find out where and when that is published. Foss calls into considerable question Foard's identification of 'the core of the battle' at the southern tip of Upton parish. This is based very heavily on the distribution of finds of field artillery shot. But uncertainties remain over how it came to be fired onto that area, how much it is that that was a favourable place for survival in situ, and how much sampling error is involved (68% of the metal detectoring work was over the 1km sq declared to be the 'core area').

Both the maps in the 'Prelude' and 'Engagement' sections are well adrift of what Foard, Foss or the visitor centre would suggest, and indeed, by comparison to that scenario the differences are slight. I would be wary of basing too much on newspaper reports of the investigation. If I can get a proper citation for the Foss article, I can add some of his key points here. (As I was involved in publishing 'The Field of Redemore', I will leave it to others to decide to what degree to take note of them). I am guessing that the main battle description should aim for a single 'best current guess' scenario, and that the various theories should be retained, at least in summary, later in the article, to explain why the visitor centre is where it is, what the antiquarians described, how the recent investigation came about, etc. RobinLeicester (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have read "The Field of Redemore" and it seems to me to be pretty accurate with regards to location. Perhaps I used the wrong word (i.e., "exact"). I think what I meant to say is that the general location given by Foss/Foard is much closer to reality than previous estimates. As for Foard's book, I too don' have access to it yet ($60.00 is kind of steep--I'm waiting for the price to go down.) At any rate, I agree completely with your last two sentences above. Thanks for the input. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The article still seems to give far too little emphasis on the latest research and too much to the old theories now largely discredited. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with that. I came here because I just saw a Time Team program discussing the newly suggested battlefield. Firstly, this is a popular archaeology program on UK national TV, with essentially endless repeats on minor channels, which is reasonably well regarded, so it is undeniable that the new proposed location has had a lot of publicity. In effect, they have added their weight to the idea by making the program. The impression I did get, however, is that unlike some other battles, they mentioned another from the war of the roses which apparently has been very well researched and located on the basis of considerable finds, there is a serious lack of information where this one really took place. The evidence for the new site consisted of some 36 cannonballs researchers had located in an area 2 miles away from the previous site, plus some general detritus of war including the very rare silver badge mentioned in the article. I would suggest that this is by no means an overwhelming amount of evidence, but it seems to be more than has been found for the previous location. Fair enough, this is not a settled matter even if consensus seems to be swinging its way. The problem about location is mentioned well enough in the introduction.

The difficulty is that the article then later gets on to descriptions of the battle based upon old assumptions. It can be argued that it is fair to include these, which frankly seem to be more a dramatised account than based on actual eye witness information, because they have been accepted over time, but it is not acceptable to allow them to be reported unchallenged. There are a couple of maps in the article, and I am left with no idea which version they show, but the strong suspicion it is not in accord with the new location. It is not clear at all where these fictional accounts are sourced from. I don't generally approve of naming sources in the text, but in this case, the article needs to make it quite clear which version of events this is, and why and by whom it has been questioned. I appreciate it may be difficult to research, but there must be an enormous problem to what extent the description of battle is based upon the topography of the previously supposed site, and thus details have been made up to fit just that site, even where there is some historical source. It looks as though the recent research was conducted exactly because of the lack of existing definitive evidence.

It really isn't good enough for a feature article about a defining battle in British history not to explain this problem about the location. It is not clear that what is presented here is very probably a fictional account of the battle. I don't have any reason to doubt the political stuff, events leading to or consequences, but the historical evidence for the actual location and events seems pretty meagre and this must be made clearer than it is now. Otherwise the article is being seriously misleading. It does not deserve to be a FA with these problems.Sandpiper (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think RobinLeicester gave the most reasonable assessment of this. Despite the desire of some contributors for certainty over the matter of location, doubts inevitably remain. It is perhaps best to present the various theories in an even handed manner. John2o2o2o (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Location of battle

According to The Guardian in March 2015:

The first stop is Fenn Lane, at the working farm where scatters of artillery shot and bits of broken horse harness and weaponry finally identified the marshy ground where the last Plantagenet king lost his horse, his helmet and then his life in the last hour of the battle of Bosworth...

Looks pretty conclusive to me, they don't say "might have" or anything. They sound pretty sure and they're probably not in the habit of making flat-out statements like that if they don't have pretty good reason. If this is true, it's not service to the reader to indicate that the location is not known. Herostratus (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian newspaper and it's journalists are not authorities on matters relating to history and archaeology. John2o2o2o (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Correct name of battle?

The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "field" in this context is: "The ground on which a battle is fought; a battlefield." Amongst many others (incuding Shakespeare) it quotes the Old English poem The Battle of Maldon: Wearð her on felda folc totwæmed, scyldburh tobrocen. and John Gower's Middle English Confessio Amantis: Thei setten day, thei chosen field, The knihtes coevered under Schield Togedre come at time set. It seems clear that the correct name for the battle is therefore either "the Battle of Bosworth" or "Bosworth Field". Calling it "the Battle of Bosworth Field" is tautological and incorrect, albeit widely used. Fillthemill (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)fillthemill

Not sure if it helps, but there is an interesting paper on this here.--SabreBD (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Most modern historians call it "the Battle of Bosworth" or simply "Bosworth"; some (influenced by Shakespeare) call it "Bosworth Field". Nobody seriously calls it the "Battle of Bosworth Field". Article title should be changed. GrindtXX (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't care one way or another about the title, but you should never change the content before changing the title just because it's 'easy' to do so. Also, we don't change titles because they are 'incorrect'. We follow WP:COMMONNAME. BTW, this discussion should include the Battle of Stoke Field. Paul B (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair points. My contention is that, because of the tautology, the common name is either "Battle of Bosworth" or "Bosworth Field", and not "Battle of Bosworth Field". I am not so sure about "Battle of Stoke Field", which I think is found slightly more often, though "Battle of Stoke" is also a common name: however, I have posted a note on the Stoke talk page encouraging a single discussion here. After five days, nobody has so far attempted to defend "Battle of Bosworth Field". I will leave things another week, but if nobody steps in I will treat the change(s) as uncontroversial and move one or both articles. GrindtXX (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to see that the Battle of Flodden is correctly titled, even though it too is sometimes incorrectly called the Battle of Flodden Field - Battle of Flodden Field redirects, as could presumably be done with Bosworth and Stoke. Fillthemill (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)fillthemill

Moving this article would be a controversial move, so use the WP:RM process and present you evidence based on reliable sources (UCRN), per Paul Barlow. -- PBS (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the naive impression that "controversial" meant that at least two mutually contradictory opinions had been expressed. Clearly I was mistaken. GrindtXX (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have raised this point here before so i support the renaming. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Henry and Pikeman

I have read several accounts that Henry hid himself among his pikemen and his welsh body guards during Richard's charge. Some of the French mercenaries involved in the battle say that Henry refused to engage in combat personally. According to the same source, Lancastrian soldiers in close proximity to the King heard him refuse an offer to flee when Stanley's men closed in, proclaiming to his men he will fight to the death. I think this is worthy of mention in the article if there are no objections. Dapi89 (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see any objection if you have reliable sources to support the claims.--SabreBD (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Goes without saying, I'll add it. Dapi89 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Number of ships

The article states that 30 ships brought Henry and the others to Milford Haven. The Wikipedia article for George Bissipat gives the number of seven. I've been told the Wikipedia article corresponds to a history of the French navy, but I've never seen such a history. Based on the type of ships, however, it is quite possible that each ship carried 400-500 men, which would make seven ships quite possible. (For some reason, the page won't allow the Wikipedia page for George Bissipat to be linked, but you can find it by googling George Bissipat.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Bosworth Field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160818145049/http://www.hwa.uk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EB-23.pdf to http://www.hwa.uk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EB-23.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Opening statement

I am not sure that the opening statement "The Battle of Bosworth Field (or Battle of Bosworth) was the last significant battle of the Wars of the Roses" is entirely fair. Though Bosworth was indeed the last battle to result in a change of ruling house, it was not clear at the time this was the case (especially as the Tudors had revived the Lancastrain claim after the defeat and death of all the notable Lancastrians in 1471), and there were later attempts to restore a Yorkist to the throne, which involved some fighting. While the majority of these were arguably not serious threats, the Battle of Stoke Field two years later is significant. The article on the battle notes that "Though it is often portrayed as almost a footnote to the major battles between York and Lancaster, it may have been slightly larger than Bosworth, with much heavier casualties". The battle represented a serious threat to the Tudor dynasty as the Yorkists were supposedly fighting to restore Edward of Warwick, a direct male line descendant of Richard of York. While the "Edward" they had was an impostor, he had been crowned Edward VI in Ireland and if the battle had been won the real Edward, whom Henry VII viewed as a serious threat, could have been put on the throne if not killed. Alternately, John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln who died fighting at Stoke Field, had been named heir by Richard and had a strong claim to the crown (and arguably was the only serious adult male Yorkist claimant still alive). The elimination of the false Warwick and the death of Lincoln and the deaths or disappearance of other leading Yorkists, notably Francis Lovell, 1st Viscount Lovell arguably marked the point of no return for the Yorkists. So in terms of outcome and loss of life Stoke Field was significant, making it difficult to justify saying that "was the last significant" battle in the conflict. Dunarc (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Deaths and funerals of British royalty

Can this be added to Category:Deaths and funerals of British royalty? Darrelljon (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)