Talk:Battle of Bosworth Field

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

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).

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)

Bias of some of these sources

This article cites material that can be considered "Pro-Ricardian" and not a fair interpretation of the battle as it related to both sides of the conflict. For example, the source "The Search for Richard III" is co-written by a prominent member of the Richard III Society and the person spearheaded the campaign to find his body. I don't believe anyone who is involved in a society devoted to a historical figure can provide an objective look at the battle that resulted in his humiliation and death.

This passage in particular is not something that is agreed upon by most historians, but is rhetoric used by Pro-Ricardian circles to denigrate Henry VII as a coward (115):

"French mercenaries in Henry's retinue related how the attack had caught them off guard and that Henry sought protection by dismounting and concealing himself among them to present less of a target. Henry made no attempt to engage in combat himself." 165.1.43.250 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)