Site of Battle of Bosworth found

[Agelastus]

Which part of "die in battle" don't you understand? He could have died from Edangerian flatulence for all I care. He was still in battle.

Actually, assuming I am remembering the circumstances correctly, I don't think it could be called that (wasn't he in a siege trench checking the progress of his cannon at battering down the walls of a Norwegian fortress when he was shot from behind?) There wasn't an actual field battle or assault being fought at the time, but rather a siege.

[The Brain]

Which part of "die in battle" don't you understand? He could have died from Edangerian flatulence for all I care. He was still in battle.

Actually, assuming I am remembering the circumstances correctly, I don't think it could be called that (wasn't he in a siege trench checking the progress of his cannon at battering down the walls of a Norwegian fortress when he was shot from behind?) There wasn't an actual field battle or assault being fought at the time, but rather a siege.

There was combat and people were dying. If you don't feel like calling it battle then good for you.

And if we are serious for a moment whether he was killed by a Swedish bullet or not is far from settled.

[Agelastus]

There was combat and people were dying. If you don't feel like calling it battle then good for you.

And if we are serious for a moment whether he was killed by a Swedish bullet or not is far from settled.

Most people distinguish between sieges and battles.

And I've seen the picture of his head. It does complicate matters when he's been blasted in the side of the head, rather than front or back, doesn't it?

The English language consensus that I remember from University was that he was shot by his own side; what does Swedish academia say?

[grumbler]

And if we are serious for a moment whether he was killed by a Swedish bullet or not is far from settled.

Really?  I was just giving you shit.   Not that you didn't know that.

[Jaron]

I think it is settled. Based upon the side of his face of the entry wound, and his placement on the battle line, it was impossible for the bullet to come from the fortress.

[The Brain]

There was combat and people were dying. If you don't feel like calling it battle then good for you.

And if we are serious for a moment whether he was killed by a Swedish bullet or not is far from settled.

And I've seen the picture of his head. It does complicate matters when he's been blasted in the side of the head, rather than front or back, doesn't it?

The English language consensus that I remember from University was that he was shot by his own side; what does Swedish academia say?

The majority view in academic circles the past hundred years has been that he was probably killed by a Norwegian missile, with the murder theorists a very vocal and not insignificant minority. There is to my knowledge no hard evidence for murder. Several witnesses remember the sound of the missile hitting his head but no one mentions hearing the shot being fired, which considering that you're gonna be pretty close if you're gonna aim at and hit a guy in the head at night with an early 18th century firearm makes murder seem unlikely.

[The Brain]

And if we are serious for a moment whether he was killed by a Swedish bullet or not is far from settled.

Really?  I was just giving you shit.   Not that you didn't know that.

Real shit can't be given. It must be taken.

[The Brain]

As you can see the facts clearly support my theory:

[Jaron]

Definitely a bullet, you're right.

[The Brain]

Definitely a bullet, you're right.

In the early years after his death a popular murder theory was actually that he had been stabbed. IIRC that's why they opened his grave the first time (out of four so far) in 1746.

[Jaron]

Wasn't there a confession?

[Agelastus]

Wasn't there a confession?

Not that I can recall, but as I said, I last really looked at this a few years ago.

[The Brain]

Wasn't there a confession?

At least one. Allegedly a French fellow called Sicre (who had been present at the siege) confessed while delirious with fever a few years later in Stockholm. Voltaire mentions this and also that he (Voltaire) was certain that he was innocent after talking to him.

[Jaron]

There was just one man in the Swedish Army who possessed the necessary expertise for the assumed scenario. This man was Major-general Baron Carl Cronstedt (1672-1750), Chief of the Artillery and inventor of a number of improvements in the field of armament18. He was probably one of Europe’s foremost experts on ballistics. He would have realized the advantages of a jacketed bullet, and he would have known the amount of powder needed to make a short range shot hit like a long-range enemy shot. He probably knew rather exactly how much kinetic energy it took for a certain bullet to penetrate a human head and thus to kill the victim infallibly without blowing the head into pieces. If anybody in the Army could arrange an assassination disguised as an enemy shot, it was certainly Baron Cronstedt.

                 But is it possible that one of King Charles’s generals who had served his King loyally throughout the war should suddenly decide to murder his superior, the Lord’s Anointed? In the case of Cronstedt, it is. Voting for the conviction of Goertz in January 1719, Cronstedt focussed on "the deleterious Norwegian war"19. Apparently he was one of those who wanted to terminate the campaign and realized that it required the death of the King. Besides, it was not the first time that Cronstedt took a definite position on the war policy. When a Swedish army under Field-marshal Count Magnus Stenbock in 1713 was surrounded and besieged by the enemy, Cronstedt proposed that Stenbock capitulate despite the fact that the latter had strength and resources enough to hold out for several months20.

                 Furthermore, this same Baron Cronstedt is the subject of a rumor about regicide confession that has come down to our time in five versions of independent origin21. These versions became public in 1768, 1772, 1776, 1847, and 1862 respectively. According to three of the versions Cronstedt confessed, a short time before his death in 1750 that he had shot King Charles. The 1768 version has it that Cronstedt admitted that he had charged the musket intended for the regicide. The shot would then have been fired by a certain Magnus Stierneroos (1685-1762, then a "Corporal of the Bodyguard", eventually promoted to General). The 1862 version says that Cronstedt loaned the gun to Stierneroos, who fired the lethal shot. Four of these traditions were passed on within separate families before they became public. The fifth version was picked up by the German Professor A.F. Büsching, who did not mention his source when he published the story in 177622. In the Büsching version the repentant regicide is called "a certain von Cr."

[Sophie Scholl]

  The day England lost one of it's finest.