Polydore Vergil provides a valuable account of the Battle of Bosworth including the reasons why Henry Tudor won. As well as this, the issues Henry Tudor faced as he tried to secure his throne afterwards can be drawn reliably from the source. Also, although Vergil wasn’t in England during the time of the Battle of Bosworth, he did research the topic carefully so his account may be taken as being factually correct. However, it is important to remember that the nature of the source may be a pro-Tudor propaganda as Vergil was appointed by Henry Tudor to write about his reign. Because of this, the source may not be taken at face value. Vergil makes it clear that one of the reasons Henry Tudor won the Battle of Bosworth, 1485 was because of his …show more content…
good field tactics. Vergil claims that Henry ‘drew up a simple battle-line on account of the fewness of his men’. He then again highlights the central role he played in the success of the battle by stating ‘Henry deliberately left [the marsh] on his right side, to serve…as a defensive wall’.
This also resulted in the sun being put behind him. This exemplifies that Henry’s own military skills helped him significantly in winning the battle of Bosworth as it indicates that he was able to quickly and effectively arrange his men on the battlefield – implying that he was a strong and strategic leader. This idea is supported by the fact, Henry Tudor had a much smaller army of ‘scarcely 5000’ men in comparison to Richard III who had a greater number of men fighting for his cause. This is because, regardless of him having the smaller army, from the source, we can see that Henry only lost ‘a hundred soldiers’ in battle whilst Richard lost ‘about 1,000 men’. This supports Vergil’s claim as it implies that Henry was able to make better use of his men and the land available which in turn put him at an advantage. However, the reliability of the source is questionable …show more content…
because Vergil seems to be presenting Henry as a well-experienced fighter as he suggests that Henry was very much in control and was consciously making these decisions which helped him win the battle. This may make the source less reliable as we know that Henry, during the Battle of Bosworth, was an inexperienced fighter who was very much reliant on the Earl of Oxford to command. Also, we know that Henry Tudor did not actually participate himself. This indicates that the source may have been written to present Henry Tudor as a trained fighter in order to scare other people from attempting to claim the throne using the same method he did. Vergil’s account is also valuable as it gives us a good understanding of the uncertainty of the loyalty of the nobility.
Vergil states that ‘many [of the nobility] wished the king damned’ and were ‘support[ing] Richard out of fear, not their own will’. This indicates that one of the reasons Henry won the Battle of Bosworth was because there was a lack of support for Richard as the source seems to be suggesting that the people who fought alongside him had no genuine care for his ‘safety’, and as a result ‘fought less stoutly’. The use of ‘damned’ stresses the level of the King’s unpopularity because it, in Christian belief, means condemned by God to suffer eternal punishment in hell. This indicates that people seem to have wanted Richard to suffer, perhaps due to his unlawful way to seize the throne (through the murdering of the two princes in the tower). Whilst, Henry Tudor had the support of a wider group of people including the Southerners and the Yorkist - particularly the Woodvilles - as well as the support he gathered on his march down to London. This suggests that Henry Tudor may have won the Battle of Bosworth because he had a greater support from the people. However, the unpopularity of Richard III may have been over-exaggerated as Vergil was writing in a form of propaganda to justify Henry Tudor’s seizure to the throne, therefore reducing the value of the source. From Vergil’s claim that after Richard had been killed, ‘all the men [who had been captives] threw down
their weapons, and freely submitted themselves to Henry’s obedience.’ we can infer that the nobility’s loyalty may have been a problem Henry Tudor might have faced because the line draws attention to the fact they had no problem changing their allegiance to support the winning side. This is because these people were fighting against Henry up until the King’s death. In addition, this suggests that would have been a problem as it meant that the nobility were not driven by loyalty but by self-interest. For example, Elizabeth Woodville approved of the marriage of Henry Tudor and her daughter, Elizabeth of York in order to reassert her family’s claim to the throne. The Stanleys’ refusal to publicly declare which side they were supporting reflects this as well as it was believed that they were planning on choosing the winning side. Overall, the fickle nature of the nobility would have been a problem for Henry in his attempts to secure the throne as many of them may have only been favouring Henry as they saw him as a last hope to remove the King from power – following the failure of the October rebellion led by the Duke of Buckingham. This indicates that there was no guarantee that they would keep on supporting Henry after Bosworth.
...The foreign support that Henry received was pivotal in starting Henry Tudor’s second attempt at invading England as otherwise he would never have been able to land and gather troops and support from domestic sources. However, once in England the support that Henry gained from welsh and English nobles and Barons meant that he was able to face Richard and defeat him at the Battle of Bosworth. Whilst support is vastly important in explaining Richard’s defeat, other factors such as Richard’s mistakes like policies that drained the Treasury (e.g. the war against Scotland) are to blame. This particular mistake prevented Richard from being able to stop Tudor from crossing the channel, and so it was left up to nobles Richard believed to be loyal to resist the invasion, this belief also backfired when Rhys ap Thomas joined Henry when he was promised the Lieutenancy of Wales.
The eventual breakdown of severing relations between Charles I and Parliament gave way to a brutal and bloody English Civil War. However, the extent that Parliament was to blame for the collapse of cooperation between them and ultimately war, was arguably only to a moderate extent. This is because Parliament merely acted in defiance of King Charles I’s harsh personal rule, by implementing controlling legislation, attacking his ruthless advisors and encouraging public opinion against him. These actions however only proceeded Charles I’s personal abuse of his power, which first and foremost exacerbated public opinion against his rule. This was worsened
The claim that Thomas Cromwell carried out a revolution in Tudor government was generated by the historian Elton, the success of Cromwell as minister in his aims of sovereignty, Parliament and bureaucracy under King Henry VIII. Elton’s claims are met with many sceptic opponents such as Starkey and Guy, criticising that Cromwell’s work up to 1540 was anything but revolution, it was a mere pragmatic approach to fulfilling the king’s wishes which led to his escalation of power and a lucky set of consequential changes in government. The criticisms seem plausible when taking into consideration that Cromwell’s reformations within the Tudor government were not permanent, his work was quickly undone after his death. The work of Cromwell in government was hardly a revolutionary movement as it failed to deeply imprint itself upon England but it is undeniable that he made significant changes to England at the peak of his professional career.
He had fought battles and won every one of them. What’s more fascinating about Beowulf 's physical strength is that some of the battles he
Beowulf had many characteristics which helped him to succeed in battle. Beowulf was known as the strongest man alive. His strength allowed him to succeed in battle. If wasn’t for his pure strength, he would not have been able to defeat Grendel because his weapons wouldn’t work. By fighting Grendel without weapons, he opened himself up to greater praise. Beowulf’s strength could not be seen as a disadvantage, while the results of his strength could. Beowulf’s strength allowed him power in battle, but it also made him vain. While his cockiness allowed him to be sure of himself in battle, some of his peers found it to be a character flaw. Unferth saw Beowulf as cocky and vain. So, while his cockiness was a flaw in the eyes of others, Beowulf saw it as a self promise and used it to his advantage.
He eventually was weakening the nations funding in huge amounts. Richard had made large mistakes in his previous years, including when he offered the Duke of Brittany a whole legion of British Archers in return for Henry as a prisoner. This event backfired when Henry fled to France after hearing of the plot, he then revealed this offer to the King of France, which enraged him, as the British were cooperating with the Bretons. The King of France gave Henry huge support, including financial backing, and military backing so that he could overthrow Richard III. It is certain that lacking this support Henry Tudors attempted revolt would have been suppressed.
After our study of many accounts of the English Civil War and Charles I’s trial and execution, it is clear that discovering historical truth and writing a satisfying history are two very separate, difficult tasks, and that finding among many accounts a single “best” story is complex, if not impossible. In order to compare the job each historian did in explaining what’s important about this conflict, the following criteria can be helpful for identifying a satisfying history.
William was better prepared for battle than Harold was. Although the numbers in their armies evenly matched, William’s army was made of heavily armed and well trained soldiers such as archers and knights, where as Harold’s troops were mainly untrained farmers. In the Bayeux Tapestry, it shows William’s army getting ready, embarking huge ships full of wood and supplies such as wine, weapons, and horses....
In the epic poem of Beowulf, written by an unknown monk in about 725 AD, the Anglo-Saxon virtue of comitatus is displayed as a slowly dying aspect of life. Comitatus is the basic idea that everyone protects the king at all costs even if it means a warrior giving up his own life, and if a king is killed, the warriors must avenge the death of the king or they can no longer serve as warriors for the next king. This value of comitatus is displayed mostly through the three battles that Beowulf encounters during the epic poem. An analysis of the three battles is important because Beowulf’s choice of weapons, behavior of the Thanes, and preparation for and attitude toward battle all emphasize the death of the Anglo-Saxon virtue of comitatus.
Why Henry Tudor was Successful in Usurping the English Throne in 1485 Henry Tudor had a very weak claim to the English throne. Yet in 1485, after defeating Richard ΙΙΙ at the Battle of Bosworth, he was pronounced King. Henry's claim came from his mother, Margaret Beaufort's side, as her great grand-father, John of Gaunt, was a son of Edward ΙΙΙ. However, at the time the legitimacy of Gaunt's descendants was dubious as it was accused that Catherine Swynford was in fact his mistress condemning their child and Henry's grandfather as illegitimate. Although during Richard ΙΙ reign their son, John Beaufort, was legitimised but did not become king due to a later act of Parliament.
Not only did Beowulf defeat Grendel, but he did it without any weapons. Gods power was instilled in Beowulf, to defeat evil with his bare hands. Beowulf showed a great amount of faith in God no matter what problems or evil he faced, and God rewarded him with victory, great legacy, and
In this essay, I will uncover the countless insights that can be learned about the characters in Beowulf, as well as the society as a whole, based on the weapons the characters choose to use in battle. During the Anglo-Saxon time, roughly between 400 and 1066, swords were considered the most precious weapon someone could own. Although it is not certain who wrote Beowulf, and when, many people believe it was composed in the middle to end of the Anglo-Saxon period. Analyzing the different weapons, and significance of each, in Beowulf, and comparing them to the weaponry at the time, provides the readers with a great deal of insight into the society during this period. The use of weapons in Beowulf not only provides the readers with insight into
King Henry VIII was one of the most powerful rulers in the fifteenth century, who had a very captivating life many people are not aware of. Most people know Henry VIII as a berserk king with too many wives, but there is more to Henry VIII than that. Many few people know about his life and what he truly contributed to our world. Henry VIII was an almighty leader in England who won’t soon be forgotten.
Henry IV is a play that concerns itself with political power and kingship in English history. References to kingship are prevalent throughout the play, especially in the depiction of the characters. Although most of the characters in this play could teach us about kingship, I would like to focus my attention to Prince Henry. I think that this character helps us to best understand what kingship meant at this particular time in history.
This is a prime example of Richard using his authority by way of rulings and pronouncements rather than action, even to the point of disallowing an action. Bolingbroke, on the other hand, is quite ready to do battle no matter what the consequences. Moments before Richard puts a stop to the proceedings, Bolingbroke says, ". . . let no noble eye profane a tear / For me, if I be gorged with Mowbray's spear" (1.3.58-59). Here is a man who is resolved in his intent.