[Tim]Archaeologists announced today that they have located not just the site of the Battle of Bosworth, but the spot where – on 22 August 1485 – Richard III became the last English king to die in battle when he was cut down by Tudor swords.
Nearby Henry Tudor was crowned Henry VII, with the crown which had tumbled from the dying Richard's head.
The crucial evidence, including badges of the supporters of both kings, sword mounts, coins and 28 cannonballs, was found in fields straddling Fen Lane in the Leicestershire parish of Upton, where no historian had looked before.
The haul adds up to more than the total found on all other medieval battle sites in Europe.
"It took us five years to locate it, but there it is, there is the battle of Bosworth," said Glenn Foard, the internationally renowned expert who led the hunt, looking over the landscape of low snow-covered hills, where on a hot summer day more than 500 years ago the course of English history changed.
The site was located by archaeologists using metal detectors across hundreds of acres, and poring over the evidence of medieval place names to match them to accounts of the battle. Their finds suggest a sprawling fight, with the two armies facing one another in straggling lines almost a kilometre in length.
Frank Baldwin, the chair of the Battlefields Trust charity, said: "This is a discovery as important to us as Schliemann discovering Troy." The military historian Professor Richard Holmes, who two years ago rode Henry's route from Wales to the battlefield in full Tudor costume, said: "This is certainly the most important discovery about Bosworth in my lifetime."
Farmer Alf Oliver was astonished at the discovery in his fields straddling Fen Lane, outside all the parishes which have vied for centuries to claim the honour and three kilometres south-west of the visitor centre on Albion Hill. Fen Lane was once a Roman road linking Leicester and Atherstone, the towns from which Richard and Henry approached the battle.
One of the crucial finds, the largest of the cannonballs nicknamed "the holy grapefruit" by the archaeologists, was found just behind one of Oliver's barns. Another key discovery was a silver boar no bigger than a thumbnail, battered but still snarling in rage after 500 years. It was found on the edge of a field still called Fen Hole, which in medieval times was a marsh that played a crucial role in the battle, protecting the flank of Henry Tudor's much smaller army. The marsh was drained centuries ago, but Oliver said it still gets boggy in very wet summers.
After a charge in which Richard came within almost a sword's reach of Henry, he lost his horse in the marsh, a moment immortalised in the despairing cry Shakespeare bestowed upon him: "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"
"The fact that this little boar is Richard's personal emblem, and made in silver gilt, means that it can only have been given to one of the closest members of his retinue. The man who wore this would have fought and died at Richard's side," Foard said.
"If you were to ask me what was the one find I would dream of making, which would really nail the site, it would be Richard's boar emblem on the edge of a marsh."
Other finds include a gold ring twisted like a pretzel, and an inch of gilded sword mount from a weapon of such high status that it can only have belonged to one of the aristocrats who led the battle forces.
The search was launched as part of a Heritage Lottery funded revamp of the visitor centre, which is left with the consolation that it may well have been part of Richard's camp on the eve of the battle, and part of the rout as his troops were forced into desperate retreat by Henry's triumphant men.
Foard believes a more likely site now for the battlefield coronation is Crown Hill, a hillock near the newly identified site, which was renamed soon after the battle.
Local historian John Austin brought the team a further gift: he owns the domain title battleofbosworth.com, and today he presented it to them to mark the occasion.[/Tim]
More importantly, and as elusive, a life sign from Gups. :hug:
The Boz is pleased.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fouinsider.com%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Farticle%2F1227288065.jpg&hash=c03f36cb42e1433d8a6952471ccb53121e25c843)
QuoteOther finds include a gold ring twisted like a pretzel
I have a pretzel twisted like a gold ring. :smarty:
Didnt Timmay post something similar a couple of months ago?... :huh:
Is this where they discovered knowing was half the battle?
Quote22 August 1485 – Richard III became the last English king to die in battle
Lame. 30 November 1718 FTW.
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 04:50:00 PM
Quote22 August 1485 – Richard III became the last English king to die in battle
Lame. 30 November 1718 FTW.
Doesn't count if you are shot by your own troops. :contract:
(And don't give me that "no Swedish soldier has ever been able to hit anything he aimed at" crap - there has been at least one).
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2010, 04:55:14 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 04:50:00 PM
Quote22 August 1485 – Richard III became the last English king to die in battle
Lame. 30 November 1718 FTW.
Doesn't count if you are shot by your own troops. :contract:
(And don't give me that "no Swedish soldier has ever been able to hit anything he aimed at" crap - there has been at least one).
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.
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 04:57:51 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2010, 04:55:14 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 04:50:00 PM
Quote22 August 1485 – Richard III became the last English king to die in battle
Lame. 30 November 1718 FTW.
Doesn't count if you are shot by your own troops. :contract:
(And don't give me that "no Swedish soldier has ever been able to hit anything he aimed at" crap - there has been at least one).
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.
What part of "Doesn't count if you are shot by your own troops" didn't
you understand? "Doesn't count" means doesn't count, battle or not.
Besides which, the Swedish word you are translating as "battle" is really better translated into English as "rout."
And routing away from Norwegians, to boot! No wonder his troops offed him.
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2010, 05:06:29 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 04:57:51 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2010, 04:55:14 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 04:50:00 PM
Quote22 August 1485 – Richard III became the last English king to die in battle
Lame. 30 November 1718 FTW.
Doesn't count if you are shot by your own troops. :contract:
(And don't give me that "no Swedish soldier has ever been able to hit anything he aimed at" crap - there has been at least one).
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.
What part of "Doesn't count if you are shot by your own troops" didn't you understand? "Doesn't count" means doesn't count, battle or not.
Besides which, the Swedish word you are translating as "battle" is really better translated into English as "rout."
And routing away from Norwegians, to boot! No wonder his troops offed him.
Take your alt-hist elsewhere, Tim. :mad:
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 05:07:24 PM
Take your alt-hist elsewhere, Tim. :mad:
Yeah, Tim! What he said! :mad:
Charles XII was a pedo.
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 04:57:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 19, 2010, 06:40:29 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 04:57:51 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 07:26:35 PM
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?
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 07:26:35 PM
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. :P
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 19, 2010, 07:33:55 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 07:26:35 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2010, 07:34:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 07:26:35 PM
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. :P
Real shit can't be given. It must be taken.
As you can see the facts clearly support my theory:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2FK12a.jpg&hash=10d42225ce32d57cb9641db35d931fdb8d24314a)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2Fkarl_XII_kranium.jpg&hash=6a617b96d5469a4df8173757aabeec355d356ccf)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2F4e1aa652.jpg&hash=22213c702539214482fb46d09c0480ef1c3b4e1a)
Definitely a bullet, you're right.
Quote from: Jaron on February 19, 2010, 08:10:01 PM
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.
Wasn't there a confession?
Quote from: Jaron on February 19, 2010, 08:16:18 PM
Wasn't there a confession?
Not that I can recall, but as I said, I last really looked at this a few years ago.
Quote from: Jaron on February 19, 2010, 08:16:18 PM
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.
Quote
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."
:cry: The day England lost one of it's finest.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on February 19, 2010, 08:43:37 PM
:cry: The day England lost one of it's finest.
Start your own thread.
True enough. For a brief glimmering moment you weren't limited to one sentence semi-witty retorts. I fucked up by interrupting that. Now we return you to your regularly scheduled Brain postings. Sorry everyone. :(
:huh: There is nothing witty about retards.
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 09:06:33 PM
:huh: There is nothing witty about retards.
Fuck you, retards give us endless hours of mirth.
Quote from: PDH on February 19, 2010, 09:18:15 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2010, 09:06:33 PM
:huh: There is nothing witty about retards.
Fuck you, retards give us endless hours of mirth.
So hostile. :cry:
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on February 19, 2010, 09:05:29 PM
True enough. For a brief glimmering moment you weren't limited to one sentence semi-witty retorts. I fucked up by interrupting that. Now we return you to your regularly scheduled Brain postings. Sorry everyone. :(
I love Brain's retorts. Everyone knows better than to take any of his postings over six words seriously.
Ya want a real hoot, just search for a Brain post in which "grumbler" appears as more than a quote source. Howlers, those are!