Battle of Towton, the birth of modern warfare and the killing of 1% of the population

The Battle of Towton was one of the bloodiest battle to ever take place on English soil, with nearly 1% of the English population of the time killed during the battle. New finds on the site has produced the earliest evidence of the use of guns on the battle field.

The Battle of Towton took place on a snowy 29 March 1461 on high ground between the villages of Towton and Saxton in Yorkshire (about 12 miles (19 km) southwest of York and about 2 miles (3.2 km) south of Tadcaster).

The battle was one of the key battles of the Wars of the Roses. This civil war was fought between the Houses of York and Lancaster for control of the English throne. The result of battle was a decisive victory for the Yorkists. The Lancastrian army suffered heavy losses and was broken on the field of battle.

Towton was the largest battle ever fought in Britain with massive loss of life. It is estimated that between 50,000 and 80,000 soldiers fought in the battle, including 28 lords, which was nearly half of the nobles in England at that time, the majority of these were siding with the Lancastrian side.

One of the most commonly quoted figures for the order of battle is 42,000 for the Lancastrians and 36,000 for the Yorkists. While this is all based on various guesses by a variety of experts the one thing they all agree on is the Lancastrians started the battle with the larger force.

The battle resulted in massive loses on both sides and is regarded as the bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil. However what occurred at Towton on the day of the battle has been something of a mystery.

Actually, I wholeheartedly agree with that. Henry VII had one of his ruthless henchmen murder the little princes after they and their sisters had been relegitimized; the original act of Parliament which had delegitimized them and made Richard III the monarch was gathered up in (almost) all its copies and destroyed by Henry VII’s order. One or two copies managed to survive, to be rediscovered in the 20th c (if memory serves).

The reason the three kids were relegitimized was so Henry VII could marry a sister and have some sort of legalistic claim to the throne. But that meant the two brothers were then the rightful line, the elder being rightful king. So they had to be gotten rid of. Later, when his hired killer got on Henry’s wrong side (that happened a lot to Tudor employees) he signed a phony confession claiming that he had killed the princes but at the order of Richard III.

During some renovation work three hundred years ago, skeletons were found on the grounds of the Tower of London (often said to have been found under a stairway), they looked about right, and they were interred as the remains of the lost princes. In the early 20th c forensic examiners were given a look-see at the remains and determined that the dead had been too old to have died during the reign of Richard III. :’) It’s not now known who they were (say the defenders of the Tudors) or even what their age was, but further study using today’s techniques haven’t been permitted. Y’know, ‘cause these aren’t just anyone’s bones. ;’)

Richard III was betrayed during his final battle — a noble and his household who were supposedly loyal to him had been bought off by Henry; they pulled him from his horse without warning, and murdered him on the field. Whatever the accomplishments of the Tudor dynasty, it can’t be denied that each generation was hideously violent. The only ruler who didn’t manifest that way was Edward VI (Edward so-called the V was the elder of the two missing princes) and he didn’t live long enough to get there, imho.

http://www.castles.me.uk/princes-in-the-tower.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titulus_Regius
http://www.suite101.com/content/elizabeth-woodville-and-the-titulus-regius-a248353

“The only ruler who didn’t manifest that way was Edward VI (Edward so-called the V was the elder of the two missing princes) and he didn’t live long enough to get there, imho.”

I agree totally.

The Tudors were from evil seed, the offspring of a Welsh Gigolo, Owen Tudor.

I remember reading somewhere that there was picture of Richard III showing him with a hunchback and later analysis indicates the picture was ALTERED after the original painting by ADDING the hunchback.

I remember reading about that betrayal at Bosworth. I think the parties involved werer barons from the North of England.

Richard III was a warrior - a real fighter who engaged in battle with armor and hand weapons on horseback - NOT the activity of someone with a physical handicap. This is contrasted with the evil and weak body of Henry VII.

Something more than Richard III died at Bosworth Field. While the Plantagents could be cruel, NO ONE can deny that they were brave fighters and courageous warrior kings who fought in combat and not hidden behind their generals and troops. They really were story book kings unlike the depraved and weakened degenerates who succeeded them.

Thanks for those links. I will check them out.

The Plantagenets interested me since I read “Kings and Things”, and Costain’s series “The Cpnquering Family”, “The Magnificent Century” “The Three Edwards” and “The Last Plantagents” as a child.

See:

http://www.richardiii.net/

The painting generally thought to be the portrait of Richard III is (if memory serves) just someone’s guess of who it supposed to portray — it wouldn’t have been displayed anywhere at court, anymore than those of the former wives of Hank 8.

But anyway, I’m not a royalist, and all of them are lucky I don’t have a time machine. Actually, my first stop would be in the 7th century, shhh, don’t tell anybody...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.