Having taken the upper ground on top of the hill, Richard wanted Henry to attack him from the gentler Northern slope rather than from the steep right or left flank. This would give him the advantage of the enemy having to walk uphill, tiring them, but it was not too steep so that running down the slope would be a hazard. From my visit the site, I can confirm that there is a definite difference between the gradients.
But as we can discover from the writings of Jean de Molinet, Oxford, Henry’s lieutenant, did not take this option, where the artillery was pointing, but rather he resolved to “mass their troops against the flank rather than the front”. From the site, I clearly saw that Henry’s standard was adjacent to a marsh (see picture left). He lined up before the Duke of Norfolk and his troops, meaning that King Richard and the Earl of Northumberland are excluded from the action. Vergil tells us that there was a marsh to the right of Oxford, which he used so “that it might serve his men instead of a fortress”, because it would prevent Richard and Northumberland from attacking them from their right flank. From my visit to the site, I would say that this would have indeed been a good tactic; the natural obstacle of the marsh meant that there would be more troops focus on avoiding attack in other directions.
Oxford ordered his troops to condense tightly along this west flank, and they proceeded, invisible to Richard’s forces. From my visit to the site, I can confirm that it would have been impossible for Richard to see this line. Polydore Vergil writes: “Oxford… commanded in every rank that no soldiers should go above ten foot from their standards”. This protected the forces from both cannon and archer fire of Norfolk, and it meant that Norfolk would have to go down a potentially hazardous slope to attack.
But despite being vulnerable, Norfolk did indeed invoke an attack on Henry’s armies down the steep slope. Within one hour, he himself was dead, and his army had been fended off. The armies were at a stalemate. But there was, in fact, another extremely large force, hereto unmentioned, involved in the Battle of Bosworth: Lord Thomas and Sir William Stanley. Both the Ricardian and the Tudor side would expect the Stanleys to help their side; William Stanley was married to Henry Tudor’s mother, Margaret Beaufort, and the relationship between the King and his subjects meant that the Stanleys would be expected to ally with the King. But the Stanleys refused to announce to either side where their alliances lay. The Stanleys, according to Polydore Vergil, were camped “in the mid way betwixt the two battles”, so it was unclear as to which side they would be fighting on. We can see this from To ensure their support, Richard ordered the kidnap of Lord Stanley’s eldest son, Lord Strange. The king then sent a message to Lord Stanley threatening to execute Lord Strange unless he immediately sent his troops to join the king in battle. It is reported that Lord Stanley simply replied, “Sire, I have other sons”. Fortunately, the message for the execution did not meet its recipient; the Croyland Chronicle suggests that those delivering the message, “seeing that the issue was doubtful in the extreme… delayed the performance of this cruel order”. We have seen previously that some of Richard’s followers were revolting; this shows us further evidence that Richard’s troops were not completely behind him. Henry was also apparently surprised by the lack of Stanley support; Polydore Vergil seems to suggest that Henry Tudor had previously made a plan with the Stanleys, but they did not act on this plan. When Henry sends the message to Thomas Stanley asking for assistance in the battle, they did “contrary to that was looked for… Henry were no little vexed, and began to be somewhat appalled”.
After a while of this stalemate, Henry decided to go, with a small force of men, to talk to the Stanleys. Richard took this as a chance to break the stalemate; Polydore Vergil tells us that “all inflamed with ire, he strick his horse with the spurs, and runneth out of th’one side without the vanguards”. Polydore Vergil writes: “King Richard understood, first by expials where Henry was afar off with a small force of soldiers about him; then after drawing nearer he knew it perfectly, by evident signs and tokens that it was Henry… runneth out of th’ one side without the vanwards against him”. I can confirm this from the site; from the top of Ambion Hill, it is possible to see the whole of the countryside, and thus Henry’s standard would be easy to spot from Richard’s vanguard, and thus could see Henry’s rallying of the Stanleys. Seeing this move, Richard thought that Henry had made a fatal error, and was certain of victory. And certainly, the ensuing fight was indeed bloody and to some extent victorious to the Ricardian side. Vergil tells us that he came so close to Henry that he even killed Henry’s own standard bearer. Triumph seemed sure on the side of the King. But then, “as lo William Stanley with three thousand men came to the rescue”. 3000 of the Stanleys’ troops attacked Richard’s cavalry charge from their right flank.
With these extra forces, Richard was defeated. Most sources agree on the fact that Richard fought bravely to the last. Even John Rous, an English historian strongly in favour of Henry, tells us “that he bore himself like a gallant knight and… honourably defended himself to his last breath”. This agrees with many other sources available; Jean De Molinet writes, “The king bore himself valiantly… and found himself alone on the field”. It is reported by Jean de Molinet that Richard’s horse became stuck in a bog from which it could not escape On my visit to the site, I saw the memorial made for Richard on the supposed spot where the King was killed; there is no bog there, but there is a small river which runs nearby. Perhaps this river would have been larger, at the time of the battle, and had flooded the area which I visited. Thus I believe that Jean de Molinet in his writing that Richard’s “horse leapt into a marsh from which it could not retrieve itself”, was accurate, as it conforms to the site. Then it is said that Richard was slain by “a Welshman”, who then “took his body and put it before him on his horse and carried it, hair hanging as one would bear a sheep”.
After the battle, the Earl of Northumberland was accused of being a traitor to King Richard. The pro-Henry historian, Jean de Molinet, wrote that he “ought to have charged the French but did nothing except to flee”. I do not believe that this is entirely fair – upon visiting the site, I believe that there was no reasonable way that Northumberland could have got involved which would have been tactically viable; his battle line was located far away from where all of the action took place. The Croyland Chronicle reports that despite having many troops under Northumberland, “there was no opposition made, as not a blow was given or received during the battle”, which seems to agree with my view. But Richard’s last words were, according to John Rous, “Treason! Treason! Treason!”; this was taken to be referring to Northumberland and he was indeed later murdered by Yorkists.
According to Vergil, Richard’s body was brought, dangling naked from a horse, “to th’abbey of monks Franciscans at Leicester… and there was buried two days after without any pomp or solemn funeral”. According to tradition, one of the Stanley discovered the crown of Richard under a gorse bush, and placed it on Henry’s head. It is unclear as to “Thomas Stanley… set anon King Richard’s crown…apon his h ad.” Contrastingly, the Great Chronicle of London states: “Sir William Stanley… came straight to King Henry and set it [the crown] apon his head. Thus, although we do not know which, we can be fairly sure that a Stanley family member crowned Henry. And thus, Henry Tudor became Henry the Seventh, King of England, and began the Tudor dynasty.
