cloudflycat - Tumblr blog

cloudflycat · 3 years ago

Text

Journey to Bosworth, conclusion. Why did Richard III lose?

Before starting, I have to say that this is my personal opinion. For me, this is why the last Plantagenet king falled. As you will see, I do not consider that it was the most probable outcome, far from it.

At Bosworth, Richard III lost while he had more men, more support and was an experienced commander with experienced lieutenants

Many argued that he lost because he was sold out by the magnates. After all, Northumberland and Lord Stanley didn't move to help him, and Sir William Stanley 'betrayed' him.

This explanation is helpful but reductive and simplistic. Betrayal was very common in the War of the Roses. Richard III had witnessed it all his life. In 1459, while Richard was seven years old, his father fled to Ireland because one of his lieutenants had defected to Henry VI. He saw his father's castle in Ludlow be stormed out by Lancastrians. Richard III also saw his closest ally, the duke of Buckingham, turn on him for little reason in 1483. He was used to it. Stanley and Northumberland's defection was utterly predictable Richard III knew that Northumberland intentionally brought as little troops as he could and Richard put so little faith toward lord Stanley that he took hostage his heir (a maneuver which did work at buying his neutrality).

As for Sir William Stanley's decisive defection, it wasn't even a surprise. Richard III branded him a traitor a few weeks before. He acted accordingly. Nor did Richard III lacked information about his enemies. Henry Tudor was openly his rival since the beginning of his reign. His chief commander, John de Vere, was known from Richard. He fought against him at Barnet, stole his lands, and tried to have him executed in 1484. He also knew that the french disliked him as well as he disliked them. Their investment in the Tudor cause is hardly surprising.

To sum it up: there was little asymmetry of information between Richard III and his rivals. Richard knew his friends, knew who wasn't reliable, and knew his enemies. True, he didn't know some key information such as where would Henry Tudor would land, just as some minor defections came out as a bitter surprise. Seeing Rhys ap Thomas defect to the Tudors after he pensioned him 10 marks a year was an unwelcome surprise, but hardly a fatal one.

Few contemporaries thought that Henry Tudor would actually win (partly because they didn't know the intentions of some key magnates). There are many examples of that. In 1484, Queen Elizabeth Woodville accepted to quit her sanctuary and made peace with her (alleged) brother-in-law in exchange for a correct treatment of her daughters. She did hand some of her daughters to him. Her brother Richard Woodville did make his peace with Richard III, and her son the Marquess of Dorset also attempted to run from France to make his personal peace before being stopped by the Tudors. Pierre Landais tried to sold-out Henry Tudor to Richard III in 1484, showing how little faith he had in a Tudor victory. After Henry landed and marched from Wales toward England, the city of Swhresbury obstinately refused to let him pass, fearing Richard's wrath (and possible lawlessness). Only Sir William Stanley's intervention would convince them.

In no way Henry Tudor had massive support. From his landing to the battle of Bosworth, defections to his side were few. Rhys ap Thomas, Sir John Savage, Sir Gilbert Talbot, and lesser noteworthy welsh were all local figures. Compared to the 1483 rebellion (ill-named Buckingham's rebellion) in which three different areas revolted with some major rebellious figures such as the duke of Buckingham, Sir Thomas Saint-Leger, and the Wydevilles, the defections during the invasion look marginal. Especially when one considers that Henry Tudor landed in Wales because he thought he had support there, and conversely Richard III had little.

Henry Tudor had little chance of winning. He tried because no compromise was possible with Richard III, who showed often his ruthlessness. Most of the surviving rebels in 1483 had joined Henry in exile and pressed him to act. Their lands were already forfeited and distributed to Richard's supporters, and only Richard's death could vindicate and restore their wealth completely. As Henry Tudor knew in the Britton court, foreign support to English pretenders was erratic and highly conjunctural at best. The Brittons supported him in 1483, and a court faction attempted to sell him out the very next year. So, when France proposed limited financial and military support during the summer of 1485, he couldn't hesitate. It was his best shot.

Richard III on the reverse had real reasons to quiet himself and be confident in his victory. Why he most certainly wasn't might be due to private reasons. His wife and son died during his brief reign. This might have awakened a sense of insecurity. At its core, Richard might have felt insecure about his legitimacy. He had parliamentary approval of his regal title with Titus Regulus, he had been sacred and anointed but was he legitimate? The allegation of bastardy toward his nephews was based on oral claims, which was weak evidence at best.

The best proof of his legitimacy, and that God approved his reign was a battle. A winning battle would re-assert his reputation as a martial ruler, and more importantly, showed that God favored his claim in an ordeal by combat. In a martial, zealously religious society, a battle would be the final seal of his legitimacy, just as his brother, who reasserted his claim during numerous victorious battles. This was a fitting narrative for him. He was one of the best English military commanders alive, with an undeniably good military record. He could surely win against a nobody with no military experience. His spiteful royal denunciation of Henry Tudor in 1484 might be evidence that Richard III viewed the Tudor challenge as highly personal. Henry itself was the threat, more than those that supported him or were propping him up. During Buckingham's rebellion, Richard III didn't fight despite rushing to the south where the rebels were. The Howards and Sir Humphrey Stafford put down the rebellion without him. And Henry Tudor could flee. So Richard III had a practical and a theological/theoretical reason to force combat between his and the Tudor. Reasserting and confirming his legitimacy was one, and making sure that Henry Tudor would cause no more trouble was the other.

A decay in mental health is also possible from Richard III. He was a man who was highly confident in his skills and his worth. However, the atmosphere of betrayal and the loss of his family in the last few years did pull a tool on him. His legendary 'bad dream' on the eve of Bosworth was the most remarkable example of that. So when the rebel army did come in England, Richard III rushed toward them. He had reinforcement still coming on the day of the battle. York men were on their way and more forces certainly were coming from elsewhere. Time was on his side. He rushed toward the enemy perhaps because, in a spike of paranoia, he didn't want more defections and more betrayal, or because he wanted to put an end to it. What if the rebels fled at the sight of his numerically larger army, like his father at Ludlow? He didn't want that, he didn't want to endure a decade-long pretender like Edward IV would endure with Henry VI or Henry Tudor with 'Richard' (Perkin Warbeck)

When Northumberland refused to support Howard against Oxford, it didn't matter for Richard III. He knew Northumberland's opportunism. Catesby proposed to retreat like his father at Ludlow, like his brother when key magnates turned on him in 1470. He refused. Richard III simply couldn't admit his defeat on the battlefield, even as a temporary setback. His desire for legitimacy, his pride forbid it. He told so to Diego de Valera, the Spanish Ambassador, who reported it to his masters about the battle: "Now when Salazar, your little vassal, who was there in King Richard's service, saw the treason of the king's people, he went up to him and said: 'Sire, take steps to put your person in safety without expecting to have the victory in today's battle, owing to the manifest treason in your following.' But the King replied: 'Salazar, God forbid I yield one step. This day I will die as King or win'. "

At the battle, he wanted personal physical contact. He wanted to perform the deed of a knight, personally slain the Tudor dragon. He was a proud man of action, and couldn't let Howard once again defeat the core of the rebels while he was on the fence. Hence his fateful charge. This decision, more than any other, was fatal.

Richard III wanted Bosworth, Richard III made Bosworth. He accepted every odds. He accepted the disloyalty of Northumberland instead of assuming its consequences and retreat to reorganize. He ignored Sir William Stanley on his rear when he charged because he wanted to stick to his narrative. He was supremely confident in his skills and his capacity to slain Henry Tudor before Stanley could destroy him. And he was too insecure and proud to run. Run would be admitting his illegitimacy.

In other words, Richard III never admitted retreat as an option. Richard III also desperately wanted personal challenges. It is no coincidence that the last Plantagenet was both the last English king to die in battle and the only one to do so since the dawn of the Norman era.

When Richard III, in his last instants, shout 'treason' it was partly because Sir William Stanley's betrayal was relatively fresh in his mind, and to him, it was an English subject killing their king. It might have also been a way to cope. He was losing, he couldn't perform his martial ability in a winning way. Putting his failure on betrayal and a rigged battle was simply a way to cope

In conclusion, Richard III consciously and unconsciously shut down options that didn't fit his preferred narrative. This dysfunctional decision-making was partly created from his personal identity and value, and partly due to his society's views. This makes us understand why he chooses options that didn't favor his self-preservation and why he didn't retreat or acted differently. And it destroyed him.

13 notes · View notes

cloudflycat · 3 years ago

Text

Journey to Bosworth: A Nation of Fence-Sitters

(RIP Richard III)

Some people have a hard time figuring out why thousands of Englishmen died for the right of some guy to take or keep the English throne, while there was little difference in their way of governing or their political program. Don't worry: many English didn't care at the time those events happened.

To be fair, the first phase of the War of the Roses (1455-1461) was incredibly divisive for England. Almost all of the English Peerage would fight at Towton. Of course, many fought because they had 'private' interest to do so (rivalry with someone on the other side, willingness to monopolize royal favors by fighting on the right side, familial/feudal solidarity, etc...).

However, many factors contributed to make the first phase of the civil war an extremely violent and polarizing one. Rampant insecurity, the accumulation of private feuds and the return of thousands of unemployed soldiers from France were aggrievating factors. King Henry VI was a factor of discord by himself. His inept and ineffective rule was replaced in 1453 by a half-made king who was even more unfit to rule. On the reverse, loyalty toward his dynasty and his reputation for piety, generosity and pacifist gave him the alliegances and a core of hard-line subjects who would followed him to the bitter end.

On the reverse, the House of York with its promesses of reform, sound government and financial solvency brought them supports. London and counties of the South-East, sensitive toward those issues, would gladly bring support toward duke Richard and his heirs.

In 1471, Edward IV definitely triumphed over his rivals. His reign until 1483 would see a broad pacification of the realm, an end of the most violent private feuds and the restoration of order and financial solvency. Yorkist Parlements were broadly less critical of the king and his councilors than those of Henry VI ever were.

When Richard III usurped the crown in 1483, it was the ruin of some court factions and nobles but it simply didn't impact the country. The fall of the Wydevilles was a good action for many, and the execution of the duke of Buckingham seemed to brought little regrets, even amongst the ranks of his own tenants and retainers.

Opponents of Richard III were, roughly speaking, the household servants of Edward IV (and V) and the gentry connected to the Wydevilles in the South-East and the South-West, accompanied with some remnants of the old Lancastrian faction. They weren't the expression of a significant social group or the champions of a decisive political issue (other than dynastical).

On the reverse, Richard III wasn't popular. His ascension was followed by a trail of blood, including the possibility that he killed his own nephews. His usurpation, confirmed by Parlement, did taint the prestige of the Crown and the death of his son and wife was seen as divine justice. While committed toward resolving the wrongdoing of the reign of his brother Edward IV, this appeal didn't bring for him the support he hoped simply because his reputation was disastrous. The last Plantagenet was forced to come back to his Northern affinity and to govern the realm with them, adding further unpopularity toward him. Richard III wasn't a bad ruler, but the conditions of his avent determined him so much that he couldn't bolster support. When Henry Tudor landed in Wales, his support was slim. In the peerage, he had the support of the Earls of Oxford and his uncles the Earl of Pembroke and lord Wells. The first two were exiled for more than a decade, and didn't bring any force. He had to leave behind the Marquess of Dorset because he wasn't reliable. To bolster his forces, he had to rely on smaller, local figures such as Rhys ap Thomas or Sir Gilbert Talbot, who brought little troops.

Richard III wasn't really supported by the country when his fateful hour came. He had the support of nine peers, and out of them, seven had received significant endowments from him. The new Earl of Westmoreland didn't came to his help, nor his brother-in-law the Duke of Suffolk or the Earl of Arundel, despite both having blood links toward his designated heir, the Earl of Lincoln. Still, he had the committed support of his old affinity and the loyalty of his inner circle. Stricly speaking Richard III had more support than his rival, but certainly less than a legitimate king would have. It is also possible that he thought he didn't needed more.

The battle of Bosworth was primarily created by dynastic drama. In other term: it was a conflict inside the ruling elite. It didn't concerned the peers less close to the central government as well as the sheer majority of the country, Although there was some moralistic undertones with the potential murder of the princes in the Tower. Nonentheless, people might have expected Richard III to win. He was a seasoned battle-commander, with superior forces against a nobody. Some simply didn't bother to help him, even when they had interest at the continuation of his rule (Suffolk's absence his a good example). No doubt the outcome of Bosworth surprised many, but concerned little people.

4 notes · View notes

cloudflycat · 3 years ago

Text

Journey to Bosworth: Lord Thomas Stanley and Sir William Stanley, the successful fence-sitter and the unknown Kingmaker.

In Richard III from Shakespeare, Sir William is simply absent from the play, and it's his brother, lord Stanley who helps the Earl of Richmond to win the day. While portraying Sir William, The White Queen makes him a mere follower of his elder brother, a cunning and cautious man. Nowadays, the Stanleys broadly have the reputation of opportunists, making sure that their family would be on the winning side. As it will show, this is half-accurate.

Indeed, there are two Stanleys at Bosworth field. Two magnates with different means, careers, and objectives. Their respective fortune is linked but not commutable. Lord Thomas Stanley is the famous one. In 1459, he began his long career by succeeding his father as king of Mann and Lord Stanley. His father had made his fortune by serving the overly generous Lancastrian King Henry VI. Many lands that he had in Lancashire and Cheshire and the castle of Mold and Hawarden were due to the generosity of the pious king. The kingdom of Mann was a grant made by the first Lancastrian king. However, the court didn't extend the generational trust they held to the Stanleys to Lord Thomas. His father's offices from the duchy of Lancaster weren't given to him. It's possible that Lord Stanley had become untrustworthy because of his marriage to the sister of the Earl of Warwick, a Yorkist supporter. Through this marriage, Thomas Stanley was cousin to the House of York. Lord Stanley's guile became well known. While the Yorkist destroyed a Lancastrian army at Blore Heath, Stanley sat idle, happy to only send encouragement to his father-in-law, the Earl of Salisbury. He wasn't attainted (convinced of treason) at the 'Parlement of the Devils' following the Yorkist's exile. Stanley did nothing to help their usurpation and only fought remnants of Lancastrian forces during the 1460s when Edward IV seemed to have secured his throne. In 1470, he would join his brother-in-law in its attempt to restore Henry VI only to let him be beaten and killed at the battle of Barnet. His unwillingness to stop Edward IV's invasion gave him a pardon and a place at court. During the 1470s up to 1483, lord Stanley was a normal attendant at the Yorkist court, as Stewart of the king's household. He participated in the 1475 expedition in France as well as the war against Scotland. In 1472, he married Margaret Beaufort, the mother of the future Henry VII. Up to 1483, everything points out to an opportunist, who was willing to help his favored side but ultimately preferred his self-preservation.

Sir William was a different figure altogether. He was a constant supporters of the House of York since 1459, owing him an attainder. His loyalties toward Edward IV were infallible, as he followed him in exile twice and captured Margaret of Anjou after Tewkesbury. For his loyal service, he obtained a place at the prince of Wales' council, giving him access and the ear of the future Edward V. His martial abilities, his estates in North Wales and Cheshire made him a natural fit to be the prince of Wales' servant. During the 1483 succession crisis, lord Stanley was put under house arrest while his brother was probably not in London. They seemingly supported Richard III during Buckingham's rebellion and were endowed mainly for it. Sir William became chief justiciar of North Wales, and Lord Stanley received substantial endowments. The two brothers and Lord Stanley's son would receive Holt castle and lands worth 1,000 marks in their sphere of lordship in Lancashire and Cheshire. Most of those estates were taken from fallen rebels. This generous king also made lord Stanley his constable (with £100 in yearly fee).

However, much of those endowments were pure calculus from Richard III. He badly needed the support of the Stanleys. As magnates in charge since 1459, their incumbency made them one of the most powerful private forces in the realm. Other magnates, Richard III included, wasn't that ancient. As sir William was paramount in northern Wales, Richard III also needed him to secure a periphery with little support.

Whatever hopes Richard had, he quickly became disillusioned. When Lord Stanley asked for permission to join his estates, Richard III took his son hostage for his good behavior. He might have supported lord Stanley's rival in Lancashire, the Harringtons, for their feud regarding an inheritance. Sir William himself was not a permanent part of the court and didn't have a son.

When Henry Tudor landed in south Wales, the Stanleys made promises but didn't openly commit during his march in Wales. Lord Stanley's son, Lord Strange, would try to escape Richard III's claws but failed. He confessed that his father, Thomas, would stay loyal, but his uncle William would betray. Richard III believed him as he proclaimed Sir William a traitor alongside other rebels. He would also use lord Strange's life to force lord Stanley to join him, in vain. Much has been said of Bosworth field, and many people misunderstand the battle. It's normal, as Bosworth was one of the most ill-documented battles in the War of the Roses, best seen in the difficulties of finding the actual battlefield.

However, many try to portray Lord Stanley as the Kingmaker he wasn't. Lord Stanley, as the Earl of Northumberland, simply didn't commit his forces. At the very best, he helped his brother logistically and attacked the defeated Ricardian troops after the death of their king. In his biography of Richard III, Paul Murray Kendall attributed the survival of his son Lord Strange to Richard's magnanimous nature as Lord Stanley committed to Henry Tudor on the battlefield. His survival is due to a more straightforward explanation: as in 1459 at Blore Heath, lord Stanley didn't commit his troops. Paralyzed at the idea of losing his heir and unwilling to sustain such a sacrifice to an exile he didn't know, he sat idle and stayed neutral. It was coherent with his previous actions and his nature as a cautious man.

Sir William Stanley was the true Kingmaker of the day. Loyal to Edward IV, servant of Edward V, he avenged him at Bosworth by committing his personal forces to Henry Tudor. By attacking Richard III's troops while they attacked those of Henry Tudor, he won the day. He already had given some men to the Tudors before the battle and committed himself during the fateful day.

Lord Stanley was endowed with the earldom of Derby and various lands after Bosworth. It was more because he permitted his brother's actions and because Henry VII needed his support than for his actual commitment that Henry VII endowed him. Sir William was given central offices, as he was appointed Lord Chamberlain and Chamberlain of the Exchequer. Sir William Stanley was a mere knight, but it wasn't reflective of his true position. He was the most powerful knight of the realm, with more income than an earl.

Sir William Stanley thought that he put the legitimate ruler on the throne, as Elizabeth of York was the logical successor of Edward V. However, in 1491, a man pretended he was Edward V's missing brother. This potential Richard IV Would intrigue the Yorkist loyalist that was Sir William Stanley. He began to plot in his favor and assemble money and supporters for the true heir of the House of York. His plot was aborted in 1495, as Henry VII arrested him and other plotters. As he was sent to his execution, his brother lord Stanley wouldn't try to save or avenge him, favoring as always his self-preservation. And Henry VII knew it.

13 notes · View notes