Site of the Battle of Bosworth Field found

Archaeologists have found the site of the Battle of Bosworth Field where King Richard III died, having been defeated by Henry Tudor (later King Henry VII):

www.dailymail.co.uk...

It saw the death of Richard III, ushered in the Tudor dynasty and gave Shakespeare one of his best known quotations.
Now, 500 years after one of the most important clashes in British history, archaeologists have finally found the location of the Battle of Bosworth Field - two miles away from where historians thought it was.
The discovery follows an extraordinary piece of detective work in which experts combed three square miles of fields with metal detectors, took dozens of soil samples and scoured the historical records for clues.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6b897d0931c.jpg[/atsimg]

Here are a silver coin and a cannon ball found at the site:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e30e51af75e6.jpg[/atsimg]

And here is a map:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/991d7bbc0187.jpg[/atsimg]

All the above information and pictures are from the Daily Mail's article. For further reading on King Richard, here is a link to the Richard III Society's website:

www.richardiii.net...

And here's King Richard:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bae02f7db305.jpeg[/atsimg]



[edit on 28-10-2009 by berenike]

Oh no King Richard looks just like me and they killed him?

Ah, ah, ah, who do I sue?

On a more pleasant note battles especially ones where armies actually faced each other could cover a pretty wide swath of terrain as lines break and reform, individual units and entire groups fall back or surge forward to reform, dress their lines and go at it again.

Not to mention mounted cavalry units working around main bodies to try to flank enemy positions, salients, bulges and other things that happen when those no good murdering Tudors killed me...

sniff, sniif,

Who do I sue? England is rightfully mine, mine I say!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I've always had a soft spot for King Richard - he's been treated very badly. Good luck with the suing

A few years ago they traced some of his (or his family's) descendants who are now living in Australia. You can actually see the resemblance.

You'll note I didn't post a picture of Henry Tudor

[edit on 28-10-2009 by berenike]

reply to post by berenike


Actually he is my spitting image friend. Remarkable, it looks like a portrait of me!

My ancestory is English, I won't mention the names but George Harrison of the Beatles bought the Castle and they still have a famous regatta every year.

They have been finding a lot of things recently with those metal detectors over there in London, did you read or hear about the man who found the largest cache of midevil gold and silver ever found recently?



[edit on 28/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by berenike


Poor Richard.
A beer, a beer, my kingdom for a beer.

The true king of England......
King Mike the First.
www.theage.com.au...

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


The Medieval gold & silver hoard did ring a bell, so I did a quick Google search. There are some nice pictures here:

www.guardian.co.uk...

reply to post by zazzafrazz


Thanks, Zazz.

I had no idea of the man's name, so I'd never have found that. A pity really that he doesn't press his claim to the throne. What larks

Originally posted by berenike
reply to post by zazzafrazz

 

Thanks, Zazz.

I had no idea of the man's name, so I'd never have found that. A pity really that he doesn't press his claim to the throne. What larks

Clearly this portrait establishes my ligitimate claim to the throne. England is mine I say. I must raise an army at once! Dasher, Blitzen, Donner, Rudoplh come hither we ride for England! Knights, Squires, Pages, men at arms prepare for battle.

Oh shoot, Monk is on, never mind.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Oh shoot, Monk is on, never mind.

Well! That attitude won't win you the throne.

If you're not careful we'll have King Mike instead of King Proto I.

Come Donner, come Blitzen - a reindeer! Our kingdom for a reindeer!

Umm... this thread isn't quite working out the way I thought it would. I never thought I'd be revolting by the end of the evening

Here is another article on the find:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Dr Glen Foard, from the Battlefields Trust, who has led the search, said: "For me the most important thing about the discoveries at Bosworth is that it opens the door for archaeology to explore the origins of firepower.

I'm really showing up my ignorance here, but it was a surprise to me that they had handguns at the battle.



[edit on 28-10-2009 by berenike]

reply to post by berenike


Sorry it's not a sexy provocative doom and gloom thread that has ATS abuzz my friend. It's pretty sad great threads like this where people could actually learn something from History don't always get much attention.

I appreciate you posting it, and flagged it and starred all your posts to be supportive.

Try not to let the lax turnout dissapoint you friend.

Henry actually was a very serious gunsmith himself by the way. He had his engineers work long and hard on pistols, cannons and other implements of war that used the recently discovered gunpowder. Once they learned to make salt peter the sulfur was easy enough to come by as was flint in England.

England had been hotly contested since the time of Caesar and Henry aimed to keep it and was very serious about developing the new technology. He did a lot to advance the craft.



[edit on 28/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Brilliant work. This would be my dream job being a huge fan of history of wars. I'm actually thinking about studying archeology enough to get into this kind of work. Great article.

This site lists the combatants and gives a brief history of events and the 'major players' in the Wars of the Roses. There is a great description of the battle:


www.tudorplace.com.ar...


Small quote from the article:

Richard killed Tudor's standard bearer, William Brandon, and a giant of a man named Sir John Cheyney. When Richard was only a few feet away from Tudor, Stanley's army moved, surrounding and killing Richard and the men of his Household. As he swung his battle-axe, he was known to have shouted "Treason - Treason - Treason" as he was slain. Northumberland and his army remained waiting on the sidelines and never engaged in battle to assist Richard. The Stanleys committed their men to Henry’s cause, and so, Henry was victorious.

Whatever else has been said of him (most of it negative propaganda by later Tudor "historians") no one can accuse Richard III of cowardice. He fought bravely to the end, and was eventually killed on the field, deserted by his friends and allies. Tradition say that after Richard III was "most piteously slain" and the Battle of Bosworth Field thus concluded, that Richard's crown was found where it had fallen -- beneath a hawthorne bush near the small well-spring known as King Richard's Well, marked by a shoulder-high piece of stonework that partially shields the well. The crown allegedly found there was presented to Henry Tudor, on whose head it was placed.

This is an article from the Richard III Society refuting the myths that made Richard out to be a villain:

home.cogeco.ca...

It's occurred to me that as much as Richard being villainised to make Henry VII more palatable, possibly it was in the interests of Henry's wife, Elizabeth of York, to have her uncle remembered in such a way.

Reading the article above it appears that her father, Edward IV, was behind a lot of the acts that Richard gets the blame for. Plus, Elizabeth's legitimacy had been questioned.

Proto I'm really happy with the way this thread is going, it's been much more fun than I could have expected. It's been good to have a discussion with people who are interested in the subject and bring more knowledge and enthusiasm to it.

You, Zazz and PsykoOps have encouraged me to go digging around for more info to flesh it out a bit more.

And how could I have guessed when I started this thread that I'd end up supporting a pretender to the throne with the help of Santa's reindeer

(You're in luck, apparently since the Duke of Clarence was executed for treason he gave up all the rights of his descendants to claim the throne. So the way is clear for you).

It's probably obvious that I am not any sort of historian, but I've had an interest in 'history' since my first lessons at school. Occasionally I find an article in the newspapers that I think might be of interest here, so I post it and hope for the best.


I found this site with info and pictures of medieval cannons and hand guns:

www.themcs.org...

Here is a German hand gun from 1400. I'm guessing that the guns used at the Battle of Bosworth Fields wouldn't have been too dissimilar:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/01aab787e225.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 29-10-2009 by berenike]

Here is Edward IV, the brother of Richard III. Although doubts were raised about Edward's paternity. His own mother said he was illegitimate when he married Elizabeth Woodville, of whom she did not approve.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a8ef34c1790e.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is Michael Hastings, the Australian descendant of George, the Duke of Clarence, a full brother of Richard III:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0e603fe8b16e.jpg[/atsimg]

And here is Richard III

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c915f1f04805.jpg[/atsimg]

As I understand it, this portrait of Richard was painted sometime after his death and was based on older portraits. I believe the portrait of Richard that I posted earlier is older than this one. I have chosen this picture because Richard is facing the right way to make a comparison with Michael Hastings.

I think the resemblance I mentioned earlier is quite marked, especially around the nose and eyes. And allowing for the fact that Michael Hastings is older and weightier.

Here is Cecily Neville, Duchess of York. The mother of Edward, George and Richard:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f71d9266e08.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 29-10-2009 by berenike]

Here is an update on the original article:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Dug out of the ground after more than 500 years, this perfectly preserved tiny silver badge has finally pinpointed the exact site of the battle which decided the Wars of the Roses.
The 1.5in decoration proved to archaeologists where the Battle of Bosworth had actually taken place and it was in a field a mile from where historians have always believed it happened.
The most famous battle of the War of the Roses was fought on August 22, 1485, and famously saw the death of Richard III.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c1f0c2053d2.jpg[/atsimg]



"It is in this field, where the treeline is, where Richard III is believed to have been killed in battle. The 1.5in boar badge was found there. The king's personal emblem is believed to have been given to one of his knights before their final stand" D. Mail

But today experts revealed the exact location is a field behind Fenn Lane Farm which belongs to an arable farmer.
The new location was revealed after archaeologists discovered a hoard of medieval weapons in the field, including the silver white boar badge believed to have been carried by one of Richard's trusted knights.
Evidence such as cannon balls - now the largest collection of that date in Europe - and pieces of armour have been used to confirm the site.
A 16th-century historian recorded that Richard was 'killed fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies'.
Furthermore that he died fighting to the last, not calling out 'A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse', as Shakespeare claimed, but, in the words of a near-contemporary chronicler: 'Treachery, treachery, treachery.'
University lecturer Carl Dawson discovered the badge next to a medieval marsh which experts say was the exact location Richard was dragged from his horse and killed.
Researchers also found 22 lead shots fired by hand-held guns and from the largest cannon used during the battle.
But it was the silver white boar badge - an emblem of Richard III - which proved to be the key in pin-pointing the battlefield.
Measuring just 1.5in the badge would almost certainly have been worn by the king's knights during his last stand.
Archaeologist Dr Glenn Foard, who led the search for the battlefield, said: 'If we were looking for any artefact at all and if there's any location we might want to find that artefact, then it's the white boar badge of Richard III next to the marsh.
'This is almost certainly from a knight in Richard's retinue, who rode with him to his death on that last charge.'
The Battle of Bosworth Visitor Centre, which is a mile away from Fenn Lane Farm, will remain where it is but will lead vistors on a new trail to the battlefield.

There are maps and more information in the article, which I haven't quoted in full.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by berenike]

Curious. If it were so close to the originally thought place then how do they recon the fighting was done in this place? Maybe it was the camp of Richard or the place where some retrieted to.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Here's a link to the BBC reporting of the event. It includes a video which gives a little more information:

news.bbc.co.uk...


I followed one of the links on the BBC site and found this:

www.bosworthbattlefield.com...

Battlefields Trust archaeologist, Dr Glenn Foard, said:

"Using the new techniques of battlefield archaeology we have recovered evidence which proves exactly where the iconic English battle was fought. The site, never before suggested as the battlefield, straddles the Roman road known as the Fenn Lane, near Fenn lane farm. It is three kilometres south-west of Ambion Hill and a kilometre west of the site suggested by Peter Foss.

"The crucial archaeological evidence came from our systematic metal detecting survey. There may be relatively few finds from the battle, each of which has taken the team dozens of hours to locate, but several of the objects are amazing. The most important by far is the silver-gilt boar, which was Richard III’s own badge, given in large numbers to his supporters. But this one is special, because it is silver-gilt. It was almost certainly worn by a knight in King Richard’s own retinue who rode with the King to his death in his last desperate cavalry charge. It was found right next to the site of a small medieval marsh - and the King was killed when his horse became stuck in a mire.

"Other objects discovered as part of the survey include silver coins of Charles the Bold of Burgundy, a silver-gilt badge found close to where we believe the Duke of Norfolk was killed, and the largest collection of round shot ever found on a medieval battlefield in Europe. These artillery rounds, which range in size from 30mm - 94mm have redefined the importance of artillery at Bosworth and open a new, archaeological avenue of research into the origins of firepower on the battlefields of Europe."

[edit on 20-2-2010 by berenike]

"A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!"

Great stuff !!

reply to post by berenike


Yeah but that still doesn't explain why they think it was fought there. There's about a million different reasons why some of the stuff could've been there. That boar for example. If it was knights he could've been wounded badly and taken to that location for treatment or retrieted. I still see nothing that would indicate actual fighting. Those cannon balls too, if that was the place they had their artillery stationed would explain that etc. All very interesting but I get the feeling they're jumping into conclusions in their haste to rewrite history.

I take your point, I wondered about it myself. My feeling would be that the condition of the artifacts found would give the clues.

Cannonballs, for instance, would probably be in a different condition after they had been fired. If not, the condition of the ground they were found in. I imagine that there would be indentations where the balls landed.

Then, if there were no cooking pots around and you found only other weapons you could surmise that the shots had been fired on fighting men rather than the camp.

Plus the proximity of the marsh and Richard was reported to have been slain near a marsh.

Honestly, I think I'd be inclined at this point to trust the new findings. They seem to have done a thorough job.

I live in the country and it's easy to see for miles out here. One could imagine a battlefield full of two opposing factions and their divisions spread over a good mile or two.

Pinpointing the actual spots where the fighting took place shouldn't be too difficult. I think the evidence of the coins and the boar badge suggests bodies being hastily removed, or robbed, with only the smaller items (or those less valuable) escaping the attention of looters or rescuers.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I can't better the articles I quoted. I hope anyone reading this thread follows the links instead of stopping at my surmisings

WTF?

The conspiracy here is what?

And what "ancient and lost civilisation" are we talking about?