The Sources
The earliest writers deserve more attention, although none of them gives a full account of what happened. Within a day of the battle, two accounts appeared.
A Tudor proclamation announced victory and listed the dead, some in error. York city records announced regret over events and branded Norfolk a traitor. Then in late 1485, king and council published a list of those attainted. After these official papers, chroniclers and historians began to add detail. The "Historic Notes of a Londoner" from 1485-6 noted that the battle took place and that Percy and young Howard were in prison. Croyland, writing in 1486, added much detail and the flavor of the times. Also in 1486, a Spanish diplomat, de Valera, documented the battle for the Spanish royalty. Several foreign writers - Molinet, Commynes and Lindsay - offered an outsider's view. Then Vergil, about 1513, the ultimate insider, gave the official Tudor version. These early writers are the authorities for this article. There are expected biases; Tudor writers praise this second coming of Tudor in almost reverential tones.7 The French extol the French victory while English writers ignore such nonsense. Ricardians lament the entire day. It is difficult to determine if the lone or consensus opinion is correct, should either be. Andre's reticence deserves some sympathy, if not much. He sat there among the victors, but left us nothing. The royal nerves must indeed have been sensitive.
The York City Records, written by the mayor and aldermen, are pro-Ricardian in nature. The York troops did not fight at Bosworth, but a messenger brought back news of the defeat the next day. The record states that the battle was fought at Redemore Plain on 22 August, and it sadly relates the death of Richard. It names John Howard, duke of Norfolk, as the major traitor among others. At a later point, someone has corrected the copy, but the information on Howard remains as stated. York also wrote to Percy, earl of Northumberland, asking him for advice on how the city should respond. They apparently did not know that he was Tudor's prisoner, nor that some would soon accuse him of not fighting at all for Richard.
The most confusing of the accounts was written by Diego de Valera, who is relating the words of Juan de Salazar. In this article it will be quoted as Salazar's report. The problem is that the words were relayed by business travelers orally, and there seems to be much muddling. For example, Richard had 100,000 soldiers, Lord Tamorlant turned on Richard at the last moment, the crown that Richard wore was worth 120,000 crowns, the battle was fought near Coventry and Salazar did his best to get Richard to flee. He also reports the display of Richard's body at Leicester, but not naked as others say. Perhaps in deference to Queen Isabella, he placed a black rag of poor quality across Richard's loins.
Croyland is not Richard's admirer and so faults him on every occasion. He ridicules Richard for sending Viscount Lovell to a port called Milford, near Southampton, in response to a prophesy that Tudor would land at a port with such a name, when clearly Milford Haven was meant. He also derides Richard's early stay at Nottingham as a wasteful expenditure of stores and money.
Croyland states that Richard's army was the largest ever assembled on one side in England, which is reflected in some of the numbers given by other authors. Yet this cannot be true if the count were taken late, after the desertions of Rhys ap Thomas, Sir Gilbert Talbot, the Stanleys, Sir John Savage, many of Brackenbury's men, and of the mysterious 'Lord Tamorlant'. At the moment of battle Richard could not have had numerical superiority.
Croyland is an excellent source; he gives the impression that he was perched on a hill top, taking notes. Still, he makes mistakes. He calls it the Battle of Merevale, which can only mean that he was unfamiliar with the region and fell back on the name of the last religious house visited. He also states that Tudor landed at Milford Haven on the first; Vergil disagrees, and Richard sent out letters giving the date as the seventh. Even Tudor disagrees; upon landing he knighted several people, and the date given is the seventh.
Vergil wrote Angelica Historia in about 1513 and this history was commissioned by Tudor, which should make all wary of the result. Vergil was an Italian cleric who completed twenty six volumes of English history. In 1574, he was accused of destroying many records so that data contained in them could never be used to discredit him. No one knows, but many wonder at the scarcity of information for the period.
Vergil states that on the day of the battle Richard displayed his entire camp of footmen and horsemen, and that it terrified the rebels to see it. Tudor then asked Lord Stanley to line up with him, but was rebuffed. Tudor placed his van under Oxford and added mounted wings on either side under Savage and Talbot. Tudor took a rear position, lightly guarded.
Vergil introduced the marsh that troubles so many. He says that Tudor marched around it, sun at his back, and used it to protect his right flank. As soon as the rebels passed the marsh, Richard showered them with arrows and closed for hand to hand combat.. Oxford held and Richard's army paused, then the battle resumed. At this point, Vergil says that Richard personally charged Tudor, hoping to kill him and end the fight. Tudor, Vergil relates, personally fought back courageously, just long enough for Sir William Stanley to make up his mind and to attack and kill Richard while the royal army fled. Richard's body was unceremoniously trussed over a horse and hauled to Leicester, where it was put on display for two days.
Jean Molinet was a Burgundian historian attached to the French court. His Chroniques de Jean Molinet (1474 - 1506) offers a French view of what happened. It was written about 1490. It is weak in spots, such as when counting the vast number of troops supposedly involved, but it also offers unique information.. He notes that Chandée, the French commander, camped a league apart from Oxford, and had decided upon a flank attack on Norfolk, leaving the frontal assault up to Oxford.8 He credits this maneuver with the capture and defeat of Norfolk.9 He states that Percy should have attacked the French, but because he had a prior agreement with Tudor, he did nothing. He concurs that Richard fought fiercely but that, alone at the end, he tried to escape on horseback, that his horse could not get through the marsh and that Welsh soldiers killed him. After this, Lord Stanley's troops pursued the fleeing royalists and killed about three hundred.
The emphasis on Chandée is not misplaced. He was knighted at Milford Haven upon landing, and made earl of Bath shortly after the battle. Tudor was not a generous man, and the fact that he gave a Breton/French commander an earldom is most unusual. Chandée may have commanded 3,000 to 4,000 men, and while Commynes depreciates them as jail trash, it is more likely that the Marshall of France gave him the best that they had.
Philippe de Commynes was of Burgundian/French background and wrote extensively about Louis XI but little about Bosworth. His Memoirs de Philippe Commynes was written about 1490. In it, he states that Lord Stanley brought Tudor 26,000 troops, which is about four times what other writers estimate. Also, while Sir William did fight, there is a serious question as to whether Lord Stanley joined in anything but cheer leading.
Robert Lindsay, writing in the 1570's, is a Scottish source. The Historic Chronicles of Scotland emphasizes the role of Scottish archers in the battle, and says that Brackenbury and Lord Stanley, commanding the van, turned on the king and attacked him. Lindsay brings an unbelievable number of troops to the battle. It is also difficult to believe that Lord Stanley was in Richard's van, but the inclusion of Brackenbury there does offer credence to Salazar's version of 'Lord Tamorlant' and York's thought that 'Norfolk' revolted. An earlier historian, John Major, who was from the Hedington area, also believes that Scotland contributed 1,000 archers to Tudor, under the command of John Haddington.
Two much later sources are also used. John Hutton published his version of Bosworth in 1788. He spent days traversing the fields and talking to the residents, and then altered the history of Bosworth. He firmly put Richard up on Ambion Hill, dried up Vergil's marsh, and put Tudor in England in 1484/5, subverting lords and courting Miss Herbert. He also is an authority on casualties, noting that in the thirteen battles of the wars that 105,176 men died.
Sir George Buck is also a later writer with firm ideas. He states that the battle was at Redmore Heath, and that many fled from Richard's side. He accuses Northumberland of standing aside and Stanley of bringing troops to Tudor. When Richard was told that he should flee, being deserted, Buck reports that he said he would engage in personal battle with Tudor. He put on his crown to show all who was king, and rode to the front. Tudor approached but lost his nerve, so Richard went after him and was killed by other soldiers. Only then did a general battle start and Tudor's force, being larger, won.