Battle description of Mortimer's Cross

[Alan]

I'm just getting into the BB battle descriptions now. One or two don't match up entirely with the books I have and I have a lot and I do mean a LOT!! It's the internet so it's hard to put this across in the positive and helpful way I intend, nobody likes a "know all", especially one who hasn't been on the forum long so I'll apologise in advance if I offend anyone but the Mortimer's Cross battle description just looks wrong.

It was the Lancastrian left that initially charged and pushed back the Yorkist right at Mortimers Cross.

The BB description has the Lancastrian right winning against the Yorkist left, regrouping, trying an outflanking move and losing to the already defeated Yorkist left! There wasn't two separate fights in that part of the battlefield as far as I'm aware. Read on in the BB description a little more and the author has the Lancastrian left regrouping. From what? They haven't done anything yet.

What appears to have happened in 1461 is Lancastrian LEFT beats Yorkist RIGHT. The centres come to blows with the Yorkists coming out on top. Seeing this the victorious Lancastrian LEFT sits down to await developments. Finally the Lancastrian RIGHT tries an outflanking move, bungles it by exposing their own flank and gets routed by the Yorkist LEFT. At that point the Lancastrian army runs away.

Like I said I'm not trying to be "clever", I'm just trying to be helpful. Hope you don't mind.

[martin goddard]

Alan, some of the battles have been updated by historical research and some battles have always been contentious.

Many, if not most of the battles were poorly written up at the time. Often by  men who were not actually at the battle.
You may find that a lot of the books you have are now outdated?

As an example, the Bosworth accounts have all been outdated by Glenn Foard's work.
Are you using any Bosworth  book previous to 2013?
If so, they are a bit rubbish in terms of historical accuracy. I know it is a shame when some books are outdated, but that is the vague nature of the Wars of the Roses.


Mortimer's Cross is another battle which more recently has undergone some re-evaluation too.
It used to be thought that the army fought with its back to the river. 
It is now believed (caveat-see my notes above) that the river was on the flank NOT the rear.
Which version are you using Alan?

Have you also read the Graham Evans books on Edgcote and similar?

What were your thoughts on the Evans and Foard books Alan?


martin

[Alan]

Hi Martin

Having been there (there's a really grim pub nearby which my late wife was not too impressed with, she couldn't get out of there fast enough) I'm inclined to believe the Terry Wise version of the battle which is pretty much what I quoted above. I have never read a version where the Yorkist left is defeated and comes back to fight again and win. You pays your money and takes your choice but it seems fairly evident that one wing of the Lancastrian army won, the other wing tried a flanking move and lost. Which wing won and which wing lost is admittedly debatable. I'm not sure the Tudors though would put Butler, a man with a reputation for running away and his hirelings in the vanguard. More likely they would be in the rear Ward which is the left. One can't help but wonder if the reason they stopped fighting was that Butler had taken to his heels again.

Bosworth is a tricky one. Yes the Ambion Hill theory is totally out of date now but the current authors do seem quite difficult to pin down about who deployed where. I've seen theories and indeed wargame displays that have Henry and indeed the Stanleys in various positions. My own view on that and it is a personal view only is that Oxford faces off against Norfolk, Henry sits just behind Oxford with his bodyguard, good King Richard is in the Yorkist centre with his cavalry reserve and to his left is Northumberland who cannot get into battle because of the marsh in front of him. The Stanleys sit on the left flank of the King's army.

I looked at the Graham Evans book but I must admit I didn't buy it because if I'm being frank it seemed quite expensive for what it was. That was on the Lance and Longbow stall at the York show if I recall correctly. I'm a member of the York club. I wish I'd bought it now as Edgecote is a fascinating battle. I believe Graham does participation and re fight games of Edgecote, I've seen what I think is his blog and it does look very interesting.

You're right research always has the possibility of changing the way we view certain battles. We can't be too dogmatic about things that happened 500 years ago, then again at some point we have to say the X, Y or Z is probably what happened on the balance of probabilities otherwise we would never end up re fighting anything.

Of course it's not for me to tell anyone what to read but I've always found the Andrew Boardman books on First St Albans and Towton to be good sources. The Osprey books on Towton and Tewkesbury are pretty good, the Bosworth Osprey is out of date now due to the new research. Paul Murray Kendall's book on Warwick has stood the test of time as has his book about Richard III if you disregard the bit about Bosworth. As he passed away in 1973 he could not possibly have known about the updated location. David Santiuste's Edward IV and the Wars of the Roses is worth a look and Nathen Amin's The House of Beaufort has filled in a gap as there seems to have been very little written before now about the Dukes of Somerset other than they usually turned up and lost. They've always been "cardboard characters" previously.

I've really enjoyed reading the rules. People here have clarified one or two queries for me which I'm very grateful for. Can't wait to try them. I have big armies of Yorkists and Lancastrians in 28mm all ready to go when this wretched lockdown finishes. As I said when I joined I'm an old Peter Pig hand. I've been playing Bayonet and Ideology for over a decade now. Between us at the York club we can do any faction of the Spanish Civil War. I have Anarchists and Falange, all 15mm Peter Pig of course. Viva la Republica!!

Regards
Alan

[martin goddard]

Thanks for the input Alan.

martin

[John Watson]

Hi Alan,
Mortimer Cross is supposed to be a difficult battle to interpret from the sources due to the lack of those sources. I grew up believing that the battle was fought north to south, only to read that, no, it was fought east to west. I can't remember when or who came up with that one, but no sooner had I absorbed that version it changed back to north to south.
What is making a huge difference these days is the advent of battlefield archaeology. It is this, more than anything, that has allowed for the reinterpretation of some of the WOTR battles. Bosworth and Towton are the best known of them. I don't know if Mortimers Cross has benefitted from this yet.
I am guessing from your comments that we have both read many of the same books on the Wars. I have found over the years that the historical reliability of them varies considerably. It is not always easy to identify which are original research or ground breaking histories and which are merely trotting out long held beliefs without questioning their origins. Even some of the best of them, like Andrew's Towton, have been eclipsed by later research.
On the subject of Edgcote I really would recommend reading Graham's book. Yes it is short, but it is so well put together that it should be used as a model for others on how to put ones case. There is no waffle in it to pad it out.
Finally, while I like to read history to find what happened when and how etc, I have to say that what happened in a battle, who killed who or which wing did what, has never really mattered that much. What is important is always the outcome. After all history is written by the winners. It is left to us poor souls to try to unravel the truth from the propaganda many centuries later.
John

[martin goddard]

Thanks John.  Nice input.
martin

[Antioch (Bob)]

One of the great challenges of gaming on our side if the world....(aside from ordering & receiving) is to get accurate information on periods & battles we want to game...or have been gaming. The advent if the internet & email has helped....but there are still so many holes.

The recent posts about The battle of Bosworth...and how information has allowed it to be reinterpreted...  i followed up on comments & looked up Dr GlennFoard & saw a short video....only to see a whole special Time Team did on Bosworth with him.  So i watched & realized how dramatic that work has shaped what we now know & indeed how much it might still change. I can't believe what they had (by then) dug up...and clearly how much more since.   

Battlefield archeology is a fascinating research approach that I am sure will shed light on many areas & events for years to come.

Bob

[John Watson]

For an accessible entry into battlefield archaeology the BBC programmes "Two Men In A Trench" by Tony Pollard and Neil Oliver are worth a look. Over two series there were 10 shows (I think). There are also books on the series.
John

[Alan]

For an accessible entry into battlefield archaeology the BBC programmes "Two Men In A Trench" by Tony Pollard and Neil Oliver are worth a look. Over two series there were 10 shows (I think). There are also books on the series.
John

Yes that was good, I remember that. Certainly a lot better than the current offering from Channel 5; Britain's Lost Battlefields which seemed to spend more time on what the Anglo Saxons ate during a lull in the fighting at Hastings than on the actual battle itself. I've recorded the latest one on Bosworth, let's see if that's any better.

Speaking of "accessible entry" I was mulling over what book to recommend to anyone looking to get into the period. I'd go for the Osprey book by Terry Wise "The Wars of the Roses". It barely covers Stoke Field and its description of Bosworth is of course out of date now but other than that it gives a good overview of all the major battles with clear maps and an easy to read commentary that explains what was going on and why the armies were there. It also has a section that covers livery colours and badges though I will admit the Lance and Longbow Society booklets are more accurate. It's an easy read that will enable someone to get to grips with the basics of the period without getting a headache. Sure, it doesn't explain things like why is the Duke of Somerset killed three times? (He isn't of course, it's the father killed at first St Albans, his heir killed after Hexham and a younger brother who then took the title killed at Tewkesbury) but  I think most wargamers would realise that and not worry too much about who inherits from who and instead focus on the battles and which Lord used which livery and which badge.