King Richard III's Final Moments Were Quick & Brutal

Yahoo! News ^ | September 17, 2014 | Stephanie Pappas

[Scoutmaster]

Richard III's last moments were likely quick but terrifying, according to a new study of the death wounds of the last king of England to die in battle.

The last king of the Plantagenet dynasty faced his death at the Battle of Bosworth Field on Aug. 22, 1485, only two years after ascending the throne. The battle was the deciding clash in the long-running Wars of the Roses, and ended with the establishment of Henry Tudor as the new English monarch. But Richard III's last moments were the stuff of legend alone, as the king's body was lost until September 2012, when archaeologists excavated it from under a parking lot in Leicester, England. Now, a very delayed postmortem examination reveals that of nearly a dozen wounds on Richard's body, only two were likely candidates for the fatal blow. Both were delivered to the back of the head.

[Scoutmaster]

Also from the article:

Richard III was almost certainly brought down by more than one man — and more than one weapon. A knife or dagger likely left a 0.4-inch-long (10 millimeters) linear wound on his right lower jaw; he also had a penetrating dagger wound to his right cheek. A keyhole-shaped injury to the top of his head was almost certainly caused by a rondel dagger, a needlelike blade often used in the late Middle Ages. That wound would have caused both internal and external bleeding, but would not have been immediately fatal.

The deathblows likely came from a sword or a bill or halberd, which were bladed weapons on poles often used on the battlefield. At the base of Richard III's skull, researchers found two wounds, one 2.4 by 2.2 inches (60 by 55 mm) and one 1.21 by 0.67 inches (32 by 17 mm). This wound was in line with another, about 4 inches (105 mm) away on the internal wall of the skull, as well as in line with damage to the top vertebrae. In other words, it appears that the blade entered the head, sliced through the brain and hit the opposite side of the skull.

More also at King Richard III killed by blows to skull

[Scoutmaster]

The mandatory excerpting doesn’t do the article justice. If you’re interested, click by all means.

[Steely Tom]

I hope they didn’t make him wear underwear on his head.

[blackdog]

We often discuss the fuzzy hat rule of battle in the time period of the 1500’s thru WWI. That being that the soldiers in fuzzy big hats are not to be killed. That goes for both sides.

[JRandomFreeper]

it appears that the blade entered the head, sliced through the brain and hit the opposite side of the skull.

That'll do it.

/johnny

[NFHale]

Self Ping for later read.

Thanks for posting this, Scoutmaster.

[moose07]

Nothing but a mild concussion, just a scratch.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Probably more lies have been put out about Richard III than any other monarch.

Up there with Sen. Joe McCarthy in the way he has been unfairly trashed in the history books.

[mware]

Looks like they went all medieval on Richard.

[Jim from C-Town]

Had he won, Henry Tudor would have been trashed.

[gr8eman]

I would add Winston Churchill to that list...and Ronald Reagan!

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Henry VIII-—now there was the real bloody villain among the British monarchs. I don’t think anyone come close to matching the carnage he was responsible for.

[FredZarguna]

You pretty much lose protection of the fuzzy hat rule when you murder the legitimate heir and usurp the throne. And if that hasn't lost it for you, the fact that the guy on the other side is trying to establish a new dynasty completely clinches it.

The Tudors ruthlessly disposed of a lot of fuzzy hats after Bosworth Field.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Churchill usually is treated pretty favorably in history.

The only one I know who doesn’t admire him is the clusterfoxtrot who currently occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

As for RR-—as with Margaret Thatcher-—there are both admirers and detractors in the history books.

[sportutegrl]

History is written by the victors.

[The Sons of Liberty]

King Richard III's Final Moments Were Quick & Brutal

In recent years, some have tried to "Rehabilitate" the legacy of Richard III, claiming he was not responsible for the deaths of the 'Princes in the Tower'. Perhaps not, but he certainly benefited the most by their deaths and had to be aware, and probably orchestrated the murders. Therefore, he got what tyrants deserve, and ultimately get.

[gr8eman]

This on the myth that Churchill let Coventry be bombed so as not to give away intelligence operations!

Colville was not the first to reveal the truth. Former private secretary, John Martin, who had been with Churchill in London on the fateful night, awaiting the bombers that never came, recalled the facts in The Times on 28 August 1976, when the charge was first circulating. A quarter century later, Christopher Hitchens in The Atlantic wrote that no Churchill defender has ever challenged the story. Historians Norman Longmate, Ronald Levin, Harry Hensley, and David Stafford are just four historians who as early as 1979 explicitly dismissed the Coventry story for the nonsense it is.

[blackdog]

Much of what I have read explains that the deaths of the governing or command of the armies class usually dies at the hands of their own in disgrace. It sure does motivate the people in charge to do their best.(Of course that was long ago)

[Scoutmaster]

Yep. I hate it when that happens.

[freedomlover]